Pesachim 34a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan permitted it only in a place where there is no concern of a mishap.

And

as Rav Ashi said

to reconcile it elsewhere, and they established it

with

produce

that had been boiled

[cooked].

And

when one throws it among the wood, it becomes

disgusting.

Here too,

Rabbi Yohanan permitted lighting with impure wheat of teruma only

with

wheat

that had been boiled and made disgusting.

For after it became impure, he should boil it. And afterward he should throw it among the wood. And since it is disgusting, he will not come to eat it.

And Rav Huna forbade even in this case leaving them there after they became impure; rather, he must immediately destroy them, because we are concerned that he may eat from them before boiling them, or at the time of boiling them.

And where was

this establishment

of Rav Ashi stated?

Regarding what Rabbi Avin bar Aha said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak:

Abba Shaul, a kneader

[of doughs]

was the kneader of the house of Rabbi. And they would heat hot water for him with the burning of

the

wheat of impure teruma,

in order

to knead with them

[with these hot waters] the

dough in purity.

For Rabbi would eat non-sacred food in purity. And he was not concerned lest the wheat touch the hot water and render it impure, since from the time that it was placed in the burning, the status of food was nullified from it, and it no longer renders others impure.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

But why

did they do this?

Let us be concerned lest

they eat from them, and

come through them to a mishap.

And

Rav Ashi said:

They did this only

with

wheat

that had been boiled and made disgusting.

For once it has been boiled, it becomes disgusting when placed among the wood.

Abaye bar Avin and Rav Hanania bar Avin studied

[the tractate of]

Terumot with

[in the presence of]

Rabba. Rava bar Mattana encountered them and said to them: What

innovation

did you say in

the tractate

Terumot, in the house of

[in the house of] a great man like

Rav

[Rabba]?

They said to him: And what difficulty do you have

in Terumot?

He said to them:

I have difficulty with this, that

we learned:

One who makes

seedlings

from vegetables of

that became impure teruma

[such as seedlings of cabbage and leeks],

and plants them,

those seedlings are

pure from rendering impure.

For through their becoming attached to the ground, the status of food was nullified from them, and their impurity departed.

But even after they were planted,

they are forbidden

to

eat.

And Rava bar Mattana understood that it is forbidden for a priest to eat them, because of the prohibition against eating impure teruma. And therefore he raised the following difficulty:

But once they have become pure

the seedlings

from rendering impure—

why are they forbidden

to

eat

by priests? For their impurity departed, and they are pure teruma.

They said to him: This is what Rabba said: What is the meaning of “forbidden”?—

They are forbidden

in eating

by non-priests!

For although they became pure from their impurity because of their attachment to the ground, nevertheless, the sanctity of teruma still remains in them.

And he asked them again: If so,

what does it teach us

the Mishna—does the law of

the growths of teruma

follow the law of

teruma,

and are they forbidden to non-priests?

But we have already

learned

this law in a Mishna, for we learned:

The growths of teruma

are

teruma!

And if you say

that it speaks of

the growths of growths,

what does it teach us?

And what does it teach us?—

That

with something whose seed does not perish,

even the growths of its growths are sanctified with the sanctity of teruma.

And this is, for example, when one plants several thin onions of teruma, each at some distance from the other. And they grow and expand, until they join and become one onion. And this addition is called “the growths of growths.” And the tanna teaches us that although the body of the onion remains intact, and these growths are not literally from the body of the onion, and they were never teruma, nevertheless the sanctity of teruma is upon them—

this cannot be said.

For

this

innovation

we have also already learned

in another Mishna.

For we learned:

Produce grown from untithed produce is permitted, with something whose seed perishes.

And even though it was spread out in the pile and its processing was completed, and the status of untithed produce had already taken effect upon it, if one again plants its seed and the seed perishes in the ground and produces other produce, the prohibition of untithed produce departs from it. And after it is harvested, it is permitted to eat it [as a temporary eating] without tithing, until it is spread out in the pile and becomes established again for tithing.

And what we learned, “the growths of teruma are like teruma,” is not from the Torah. For anything whose seed perishes is a new entity, and the teruma itself has already perished completely. Rather, the Sages imposed stringency upon them, forbidding them to non-priests, so that they would not cause the priests a loss [and it is from the decree of the eighteen matters]. And they imposed this stringency specifically with teruma, but not with untithed produce.

But

if one planted fruits of untithed produce

with something whose seed does not perish,

and the fruit still exists in the ground, except that it added and grew, not only are the growths forbidden, but

even the growths of

the

growths are forbidden in eating.

Even before their processing is completed.

Because the original prohibition of untithed produce still rests upon them. And “growths” means those leaves that he planted, except that they added and spread out. And “growths of growths” means new leaves that were added to the existing leaves.

It follows that the growths of growths of something whose seed does not perish are more stringent, for they are forbidden even with untithed produce, than the growths of something whose seed perishes, which are permitted with untithed produce. And all the more so teruma: if its growths are forbidden even with something whose seed perishes, certainly its growths of growths are forbidden with something whose seed does not perish. And again it is difficult: why was it necessary to teach that seedlings of teruma are forbidden in eating to non-priests?

They fell silent

Abaye and Rav Hanania, and they did not answer Rava bar Mattana.

They said to him: Did

you hear anything about

a resolution of

this

difficulty?

He said to them: This is what Rav Sheshet said:

That which is taught, “Seedlings of teruma that became impure and were planted are forbidden to eat,” does not mean that they are forbidden to non-priests, for we have already learned this, as stated.

Rather,

what is the meaning of “forbidden”?—

They are forbidden

even

to priests!

And although they became pure, and there is no reason to forbid them because of impure teruma, nevertheless, they are forbidden

since they became disqualified through lack of attention.

For it is written concerning teruma, “the safeguard of My terumot.” And one must safeguard the teruma and not remove one’s attention from it.

And once the terumot became impure, he removes his attention from them and does not safeguard them. And although the prohibition of impurity lapses when he plants them, they are forbidden because of lack of attention.

And we raise an objection:

This works according to the one who says,

“Lack of attention is a disqualification of the object,”

well!

For because of the elevated status of sacred things and teruma, this disqualification was innovated in them, and it is not because of concern for impurity.

But according to the one who says,

“Lack of attention is a disqualification of impurity,”

for once he removes his attention from sacred things, we are concerned lest impurity touched them without his knowledge—

what is there to say?!

For the seedlings became pure even from certain impurity that was upon them, through being planted in the ground. And again there is nothing to be concerned about.

For it was stated: Lack of attention

with teruma and sacred things—

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is a disqualification of impurity.

And although it was not known that they became impure, since he did not safeguard them, we are concerned that impurity touched them.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is a disqualification of the object.

And it is not because of a trace of impurity; rather, it is an independent disqualification.

And the practical difference between them is that according to

Rabbi Yohanan, who says,

“It is a disqualification of impurity,”

it follows

that if Elijah should come

and testify that it did not become impure

and purify it, we heed him.

And the teruma returns to its fitness, for in such a case there is again no concern of impurity.

And according to

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

who

said,

“It is a disqualification of the object,”

it follows

that

even

if Elijah should come and purify it, we do not heed him!

For even if every doubt of impurity were removed, it would still be disqualified.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

It was taught: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: A small hollow

[an empty space]

was

in the pavement of the courtyard,

between

the

ramp and the altar.

And it was

to the west of the

the

ramp,

so that it would be close to the place where the bird sin-offering was performed, which was at the southwestern corner. For

to

that

place

[that hollow]

they would throw

the

disqualified bird sin-offerings,

until

their form would pass

through overnight exposure [after a night passes over them, their appearance changes]. And afterward they would

go out to the place of burning,

because it is forbidden to burn them before their form passes, on account of the dishonor of sacred things.

And since it teaches that they require the passing of their form, it necessarily does not speak of bird sin-offerings that were disqualified through a disqualification of the object. For sacred things disqualified through a disqualification of the object, such as impurity, pigul, or notar, are burned immediately and do not require the passing of their form. Rather, it certainly speaks of sin-offerings disqualified through lack of attention.

And Rabbi Yohanan concluded his difficulty:

Granted, if you say “

lack of attention

is a disqualification of impurity,”

that is why it is not burned immediately, for there is no certain impurity in it, but only a concern of impurity. And

for this reason it requires the passing of its form,

in order to disqualify it through overnight exposure. For if not,

perhaps Elijah will come and purify it,

and it will turn out that he burned it for nothing. And there is dishonor of sacred things in this.

But if you say “

lack of attention

is a disqualification of the object

it is,”

why do I need the passing of its form?

Let them be burned immediately.