Pesachim 20b — the Talmud in English

The Torah therefore says: “Everything that is within it

within the earthenware vessel] —

shall become impure,” and it is juxtaposed to it,

to say: What thing found within it shall become impure? —

“Of every food

that may be eaten.”

And therefore we expound it thus: Only

food

found inside an earthenware vessel in which there is a dead creeping creature

renders impure [

becomes impure]

through the airspace of the earthenware vessel.

But no vessel

of metal or wood found inside an earthenware vessel

renders impure through the airspace of the earthenware vessel

when there is a dead creeping creature in the airspace of the earthenware vessel.

It follows that although the earthenware vessel itself becomes impure from the creeping creature found in its airspace, we do not say concerning it, “It is as though it were filled with impurity,” so that the creeping creature would be considered as touching everything inside it. And therefore the other vessels inside it do not become impure.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yose said: This is not the measure. And Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that they burn [pure and impure teruma] this separately and that separately. Over what did they disagree? — Over suspended teruma and impure teruma. For Rabbi Eliezer says: Let this be burned separately and that separately! And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Let both be burned together.

Rav Hisda raised a contradiction

between the teruma of leaven on

Passover and

the teruma of leaven on

Passover.

And he resolves

it.

And this is how he raised the difficulty:

Who said that Rabbi Yehoshua

said that suspended and impure teruma

are burned together?

And he raises a contradiction:

Rabbi Meir said: From their words we learned that impure teruma is burned together with pure teruma on the eve of Passover.

And

Rabbi Yose

said to him:

The matter under discussion is not similar to the proof.

When our Sages testified [

Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the priests, and Rabbi Akiva],

what did they testify about?

If they testified about meat that became impure through a derivative of impurity, that it is burned together with meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity,

then we are not concerned that by this he adds impurity to its impurity. For in any event, meat

this is impure and

meat

this is impure.

If they testified about oil that was disqualified through

contact with

a one-day immersion person, that it is lit in a lamp that became impure through one rendered impure by a corpse,

although by this they add to the oil a new status of impurity [from now on it is fit to render others impure], this is because in any event, oil

this is disqualified and

oil

this is impure.

And therefore we do not care that through the lamp this oil will become impure so as to render others impure.

We too agree concerning teruma that became impure through a derivative of a derivative of

impurity,

that is burned together with teruma that became impure through a primary source of impurity

[which is only third-degree impurity],

although impurity is added to it by its becoming second-degree impurity,

because in any event it is disqualified.

But how shall we burn

pure teruma, or

even suspended teruma [

teruma of uncertain impurity],

with

the

impure teruma?

For is it not possible that

Elijah will come and declare them pure

for cases of uncertainty. And it will be found that it is pure teruma, and it is forbidden to render it impure.

And although we are in the sixth hour on the eve of Passover, and in any event the teruma is going to destruction, it is forbidden to render it impure.

In any event, it teaches that Rabbi Yose prohibited rendering even suspended teruma impure on the eve of Passover.

Whereas in the Mishna Rabbi Yose says that specifically pure teruma is not burned with impure teruma. But concerning suspended and impure teruma, Rabbi Yehoshua permitted them to be burned together.

And Rav Hisda resolves

it

thus:

The statement

in the Mishna is Rabbi Shimon

and

it was said according to Rabbi Yehoshua

that way.

But

the statement

in the beraita is Rabbi Yose

and

he said it according to Rabbi Yehoshua

that way.

As it was taught: On the fourteenth

of Nisan

that occurs on Shabbat, everything is removed [

the leaven]

before Shabbat. And impure, suspended, and pure terumot are burned

together —

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Meir follows his own position, that since the teruma is going to destruction, it is permitted to render it impure.

Rabbi Yose says:

The

pure teruma is burned separately, and

the

suspended separately, and

the

impure separately.

And although all of them will ultimately be destroyed, it is forbidden to render them impure. And even suspended teruma is not burned with impure teruma, lest it be pure. And likewise it is not burned with pure teruma, lest it be impure and render the pure teruma impure.

Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree concerning pure and impure teruma, that they are not burned

together.

And likewise they did not disagree

concerning

the

suspended teruma

and concerning the pure, that they are burned

together. Since definite impurity has not been established concerning the suspended teruma, it does not appear that he is rendering the pure teruma impure with it deliberately.

Over what did they disagree?

Concerning

the teruma

that is suspended and the impure.

For Rabbi Eliezer says: Let this be burned

separately

and that

separately

by itself,

lest it be pure.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Let

both be burned together.

Since it is suspended, you are not warned concerning its preservation.

It follows that Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree according to Rabbi Yehoshua’s position whether there is a warning concerning preserving suspended teruma from impurity or not.

And the Mishna is Rabbi Shimon according to Rabbi Yehoshua. And the beraita is Rabbi Yose according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

And we raise a difficulty:

But the Mishna,

which teaches: “Over what did they disagree? Over the suspended and the impure, for Rabbi Yehoshua says that both are burned together”—was stated according to

Rabbi Yose,

and not Rabbi Shimon said it. And Rabbi Yose does not hold this way.

And we answer:

This is what Rabbi Yose says to Rabbi Meir:

It is not necessary for me, for certainly both are not burned together. Rather,

even according to the position of

Rabbi

Shimon and according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who is more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer, they too should not be burned together.

большую снисходительность, чем рабби Элиэзер, всё равно нельзя сжигать их вместе».

For

when

Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient,

with

teruma

that is suspended and impure

he is lenient.

But concerning pure and impure he was not lenient,

and according to everyone they are not burned together.

Rabbi Yose bar Hanina raised a contradiction

from what we learned concerning

teruma

in general,

with

what we learned in the Mishna concerning the teruma of leaven on

Passover.

And he resolves

it.

And this is how he raised the difficulty: Is it so that

Rabbi Yehoshua said

that suspended and impure teruma are burned on Passover

together [

as Rabbi Yose said in his name]?

And he raises a contradiction: A barrel of teruma in which a doubt of impurity arose—

Rabbi Eliezer says: If it was placed in an exposed place [

a place of abandonment],

he should place it in a concealed place. And if it was uncovered, he should cover it.

For even concerning suspended teruma, you are warned to preserve it from impurity, because it is written, “the charge of My teruma,” and we read, “My terumot,” in the plural. And there is authority for the reading. Thus, two are implied: one pure and one suspended.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: If it was placed in a concealed place,

it is permitted for him to

place it in an exposed place.

And if it was covered,

it is permitted for him to

uncover it.

Although he thereby causes it to become impure on its own, this is because he holds that there is authority for the tradition. And it is written, “the charge of My teruma,” in the singular. Only pure teruma is implied, whose preservation you are warned about, but not suspended teruma.

And it implies that even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, specifically to render it impure through

causation, there is no [

permission]. But to render it impure

by hand, he did not

permit even concerning suspended teruma. And how did Rabbi Yose say in the Mishna in his name that it is permitted to burn the impure with the suspended on Passover? For he is rendering it impure by hand.

And he resolves

it:

This

is what Rabbi Yose said in the Mishna—not according to his own position, but he said it according to the position of

Rabbi Shimon according to Rabbi Yehoshua,

who permits rendering the suspended impure even by hand.

And

this

that was taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua, that it is permitted to render it impure specifically through causation and not by hand, is according to

Rabbi Yose according to Rabbi Yehoshua

.

And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yose had already disagreed concerning Rabbi Yehoshua’s position, as brought in the beraita above.

Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction

from what we learned concerning a barrel of

teruma

in which a doubt of impurity arose,

with teruma

in what we learned concerning a barrel of teruma that broke.

And he resolves

it.

And this is how he raised the difficulty: Is it so that

Rabbi Yehoshua said

that it is permitted to render suspended teruma impure only through causation, as implied by the preceding beraita, from which we inferred:

“Causation, yes,

but

by hand, no”?!

And he raises a contradiction: A barrel

of wine

of

pure

teruma that broke in the upper winepress [

the place where grapes are trodden],

and

in the pit that is

beneath it

there are

impure non-sacred produce,

and the teruma wine is about to fall into them and become impure through them—

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that if

he

can save from it [

from the teruma barrel]

a quarter-log

of wine

in purity—

he should save it!

For if he has only an impure vessel at hand, it is forbidden for him to receive in it the teruma wine spilling from the barrel, since by doing so he renders it impure.

Rather, if he has enough time to bring a pure vessel and save at least a quarter-log of wine in purity, he is obligated to do so. And although meanwhile the remaining wine will fall into the impure non-sacred produce and mix with it and prohibit even it from drinking [according to the law of a mixture of non-sacred produce and teruma, which is forbidden to non-kohanim even when it is pure; and in this case it is forbidden even to kohanim, since the teruma will become impure through the impure non-sacred produce; and a kohen who eats impure teruma transgresses a positive commandment].

Nevertheless, if he can save a quarter-log of wine in purity, he should do so even at the cost of the loss of the impure non-sacred produce.

And if not,

but by the time he searches for a pure vessel all the wine will fall into the non-sacred produce and become impure through it—

Rabbi Eliezer says: Let the

entire pure teruma descend into the pit

and become impure

on its own,

but he should not render it impure by hand.

Although in any event the teruma will ultimately become impure, it is forbidden to render it impure by hand.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says:

It is even permitted for him to

render it impure by hand.

And this does not constitute a violation of “the charge of My teruma,” since in any event it will ultimately become impure because of the impure non-sacred produce in the pit. It follows that he holds that concerning all teruma that is destined for destruction, you are not warned concerning its impurity. And suspended teruma too is destined for destruction. This is difficult according to what is implied by the preceding beraita concerning suspended teruma, that Rabbi Yehoshua permitted rendering it impure only through causation and not by hand.

And Rabbi Elazar resolves

it:

That case is different

in the case of the barrel that broke,

for there is a loss

of the

non-sacred wine

in the pit. But where there is no loss, it is forbidden to render it impure by hand, even though it is destined for destruction.

Rava challenged him:

But

in the Mishna too there is a loss of wood.

For if you obligate him to burn the pure teruma separately and the impure separately, he will have to make two bonfires and increase the amount of wood. And why did Rabbi Yehoshua prohibit burning them together?

Abaye said to him: They were concerned about a substantial loss

like the loss of the non-sacred wine in the pit,

but

for

a minor loss

of increasing the wood

they were not concerned.

And we prove it:

And from where do you say that

specifically

they were concerned about a substantial loss,

but

they were not concerned about a minor loss?

From

that

which

was taught: A barrel of pure teruma oil

that

broke in the upper winepress, and in the lower one [

in the pit beneath it] there are

impure non-sacred produce—

Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if he can save from it a quarter-log in purity—

he should save it.

And if not, according to everyone it should descend into the pit and render the oil there impure,

but

he should not receive the teruma in an impure vessel and

render it impure by his hand!

It follows that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes concerning oil that although it will ultimately become impure, it is forbidden to render it impure by hand, even at the cost of the loss of the non-sacred oil, because this is not a substantial loss.

And we consider it:

What is different about oil

that it is considered a minor loss? Is it not because

it

although through the mixture the non-sacred oil is prohibited for eating, nevertheless

is fit to be used for lighting

with it?

If so, why, concerning wine, is it considered a substantial loss? For

wine

of non-sacred produce

also,

although it will be prohibited for eating, it is still

fit

for

sprinkling [

for it was customary to sprinkle wine on vessels, so that it would impart its pleasant aroma to them], and it follows that there is no substantial loss in rendering it impure. And why did Rabbi Yehoshua permit rendering it impure?

And should you say

to answer:

Sprinkling is not a matter

and is not considered a use, and therefore if the non-sacred produce mixes with the teruma, there will be a substantial loss—this cannot be said.

For Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: One drinks from

wine whose price is

a log for a sela, and one sprinkles from

wine whose price is

a log for two

sela. For if a person has inexpensive wine and fine wine, it is preferable for him to drink the inexpensive wine and sprinkle the fine wine.

It follows that sprinkling is more valuable than drinking. And if so, even if the non-sacred wine mixes with the impure teruma, there is no substantial loss, because it is still fit for sprinkling.

And we answer: Wine is fit for sprinkling only when it is old, when its aroma is fragrant. But here we are dealing

with

wine that is

new.

And since it is not fit for sprinkling, there is a substantial loss if it becomes prohibited for eating.

And we ask again: But

it is fit

to keep it and

age it,

until it becomes fit for sprinkling. And why is it considered a substantial loss?

And we answer: After it mixes with the impure teruma, it will be forbidden to age it, because it is forbidden to keep impure teruma, since

it may lead to a mishap.

For we are concerned lest he come to drink from it.

And we ask again: If so, why is it permitted to keep impure oil for the purpose of lighting it?

But

with oil too

there is concern

lest

he eat it and

it lead to a mishap.

And we answer: With oil we are not concerned about a mishap, because

since

he uses it for lighting,

he places it [

puts it]

in a repulsive vessel,

and it is no longer fit for eating.

And we ask again: If so,

wine

of impure teruma

too

should be kept by

placing it in a repulsive vessel, which disqualifies it for eating, and again it will not lead to a mishap.

place it in a repulsive vessel?!

And we answer: Since

he needs it for sprinkling, would he

place it

in a repulsive vessel?!

For he needs its pleasant aroma, and if he places it in a repulsive vessel, its aroma will be spoiled.

And

the Gemara says that the concern of

the mishap itself

is

a dispute of tannaim

that is taught.

As it was taught: A barrel of teruma wine that became impure—

Beit Shammai say: Let the bundle be poured out [

as a bundle]! That is, let it all be poured out at once, and he should not sprinkle from it little by little, even on that same day, because we are concerned lest he drink from it.

And Beit Hillel say: Let it be used for sprinkling,

for we are not concerned about a mishap.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yose, said: I shall decide

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

If it became impure

in the field,

Some say that Rabbi Yishmael said as follows:

let the bundle be poured out.

For in the field he has nothing upon which to sprinkle. And he should not bring it into his house, because we are concerned that meanwhile he may drink from it.

And if it became impure

in the house, let it be used for sprinkling.

For he can immediately sprinkle from it, and for such a short time we are not concerned about a mishap.

Some say,

this is what Rabbi Yishmael said:

With

new

wine

that is not yet fit for sprinkling,

let it be poured out

as a bundle [all at once], and he should not keep it until it ages, because we are concerned about a mishap for such a long time.

But

with

a barrel of wine that is

old,

which is already fit for sprinkling,

let it be used for sprinkling.

And even if it became impure in the field, he should bring it into his house, because for such a short time we are not concerned about a mishap. And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yose, lived in a later generation than Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.