Commentary for Pesachim 1:11

The night of the 14th of Nisan - the Rav Bartenura wrote that the Hebrew word 'ohr' chosen here to begin the Mishna of Pesachim is a pleasant, euphemistic word that means night or darkness. Rambam wrote that this was done so that Pesachim would not begin with an absence, darkness being the absence of light. HaRav Zerachiya haLevi and the Ran wrote that this was done based on the verse in Tehillim 119:39, "The beginning of your word gives light."

אור לארבעה עשר – the night of its morrow will be the fourteenth [of Nisan], and the Tanna [of our Mishnah] calls night, “light” in the manner that we call a blind person “capable of eye-sight,” and he took/used the more appropriate expression.

Introduction As do several tractates, Pesahim begins chronologically with the events that lead up to the beginning of Pesah namely checking the house to make sure there is no chametz on the night before Pesah. As many of you know, this is still a custom today. Even though most Jews have thoroughly checked their homes for chametz and removed (or put it away to be sold no one sold their chametz in mishnaic and talmudic times) they still ritually check the home with a candle, or perhaps a flashlight, and remove any chametz found on the search.

בודקין את החמץ – there are those who explain the reason of searching [for the Hametz/leavened products] in order that he not transgress “lest any [leaven] be found” (see Exodus 13:7: “[Throughout the seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten; no leavened bread shall be found with you,] and no leaven shall be [seen, literally] found/ולא יראה לך [in all your territory,) and “lest it (i.e., leaven) be seen” (see Exodus 12:19 – “שבעת ימים שאר לא ימצא בבתיכם” /”No leaven shall be found in your houses for seven days…”) if there would be leavened products in his home during Passover. And even though mere nullification is sufficient, we are suspicious lest he find a white and delicate bread (i.e., a roll) and he will reconsider his nullification and think about it to eat it and violate [the Biblical injunction of] “lest it be seen with you, lest it be found with you” (see Exodus 13:7 and Exodus 12:19 above). Therefore, we search for the leavened products in order that he may remove it from the world. And there are those who say that the reason for searching [for Hametz] is a decree lest he find leavened products in his house during Passover and would eat them, since he is not accustomed to abstain from them all the rest of the days of the year.

On the evening of the fourteenth [of Nissan] they search they house for chametz by the light of a lamp. The house is to be thoroughly searched for chametz the evening before the fourteenth of Nissan, the day on which the chametz must be destroyed. In rabbinic times, a lamp was considered the most effective means by which to search the corners of the house, the nooks and crannies, the cracks and crevices to discover hidden chametz. Their houses were obviously less lit than ours and they had fewer windows. Candlelight would, at least according to the Mishnan, have been most effective. Furthermore, at night most people are home from work and can participate in searching for the chametz. Finally, we would do well to remember that people kept far less food in their homes and generally had far simpler material lives than we do now. It may just be that they didn’t even need to begin cleaning at all until the evening before Pesah. Ahh, the good old days!

לאור הנר – In the Gemara ( Talmud Pesahim 2a), it derives that the search for Hametz must be by the light of a candle, since it is written here (Exodus 12:12: "שאר לא ימצא" / “no leaven shall be found” and it is written there (Genesis 44:12): “וימצא הגביע [באמתחת בנימן] / “and the goblet turned up in Benjamin’s bag,” Just as “something found” which is said there, is through searching, as it says, ‘And [the goblet] turned up,” so too, “something found” which is mentioned here, is through searching, and searching is done by a candle, as it is written (Proverbs 20:17)– "נר ה' נשמת אדם"/”The life-breath of man is the lamp (literally, “candle”) of God [revealing the innermost parts].” And they established, that the search is at night, since at night all the people are found in their homes, and the light of a candle is nicer for a search than during the day, for a lamp at noon – what good is it? But however, if he did not search [for Hametz] on the night of the fourteenth [of Nisan] and he searched on the fourteenth in the morning, he has to search also by the light of a candle.

Every place into which chametz is not brought does not require searching, There is no need to check places into which chametz is never or almost never brought.

ולמה אמרו – further on in our Mishnah

So why did they rule: two rows of the wine cellar [must be searched]? [This is actually] a place into which chametz might be taken. The mishnah raises a difficulty with the previous statement. There is an older mishnah according to which two rows of the wine cellar must be searched. We would think that the wine cellar is a place into which chametz is not brought and therefore there is no need for it to be searched. The mishnah answers that this older mishnah refers to a cellar into which chametz actually is brought.

שתי שורות – of wine jugs that are arranged this one on top of that in the wine store-room/cellar one must search between them, for after we said [in the Mishnah], “every place where we don’t bring in Hametz, there is no need for a search,” why did they require of us to search there? And we respond: They did not say [that we do not have to search] other than in a store-room/cellar where we bring in leavened products/Hametz, like a store-room/cellar from which he supplies wine for his table and the sometimes when the servant stands to pour it and his bread is in his hand , and when the wine is finished, he enters into the store-room/cellar to bring wine.

Bet Shammai say: two rows over the front of the whole cellar; But Bet Hillel say: the two outer rows, which are the uppermost. In the final section of the mishnah, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how much of the wine cellar must be searched. There are two interpretations to this debate in the Talmud. According to the first interpretation, Bet Shammai says that they search the entire first row, from ceiling to floor and the row behind it. Both these rows are checked from wall to wall. According to the second interpretation, the two rows are perpendicular to each other the top row and the row next to the entrance. The sages also debate the interpretation of Bet Hillel. Some explain that according to Bet Hillel they check the top two rows, whereas others hold that they check the top row and the one behind it.

שתי שורות על פני [כל] המרתף – It is way of those who store wine to arrange the wine jugs row by row until they fill all the floor of the store-room/cellar and you go pack and place wine jug on top of wine jug, so that lower rows will be like the upper rows up until the ceiling beam. And the two rows that the School of Shammai mentioned is the outermost row from the ground until the top of the beam, and goes back and searches [for Hametz] the uppermost wine jugs over the length and width of the store-room/cellar, and as a result, the two rows are like the Greek GAM/gamma, one row is standing up and the other row is lying down.

שתי שורות החיצונות – The highest row nearest the ceiling beam which looks out at the face of the opening which is lower than it. And those [jugs] which are inside [of this] do not require searching at all, and from the outermost [jugs] he does not search but only the two uppermost ones alone.

אין חוששין – when he searched his home in this corner and came to check the other corner, we should not suspect lest in the midst of my coming to this [corner], a mole dragged [hametz] from the checked place and I have to go back and re-check it, for if you come to fear for this, then behold, you also [have to check] from this courtyard to [the other] courtyard, one can say that I checked prior to my fellow and after my searching the mole brought Hametz from my fellow’s courtyard to my courtyard, and there is no end [to this].

Introduction This mishnah continues yesterday’s mishnah in which we learned that they need not check places into which chametz is not brought.

They need not fear that a weasel may have dragged [chametz] from one room to another or from one place to another, for if so, [they must also fear] from courtyard to courtyard and from town to town, and there would be no end to the matter. There are two basic explanations to this mishnah. Some explain that once a room has been searched for chametz, they need not recheck the room lest a weasel dragged chametz into it after it had been searched. [In my house, my 1 ½ year old son is our little weasel, dragging chametz all over the place. Since I know he does this and I see him do it, I do check.] The Rambam explains that they need not check a room into which chametz is not brought, lest a weasel brought chametz into there. If we were to have such fears, they would never end and there would be no meaning to the statement in yesterday’s mishnah that we need not check a place into which chametz is not brought. Alternatively, even once a room had been checked, it would have to be constantly rechecked lest a weasel had dragged chametz into there.

בודקים אור ארבעה עשר ובארבעה עשר שחרית – This is how it should be understood: In one of these three periods alone, we search [for Hametz], but after these three periods, if he did not [conduct a] search, he does not have to do go back and [conduct a] search.

Introduction This mishnah continues to prescribe when the house must be searched for chametz.

בתוך המועד – At the sixth hour which is the appointed time for removal [of the Hametz].

Rabbi Judah says: they search on the evening of the fourteenth and in the morning of the fourteenth, and at the time of destroying. According to the simple interpretation of Rabbi Judah’s opinion, he seems to require that the house be searched three times, once in the evening (as we learned in mishnah one), once in the morning and once at “the time of destroying”. The “time of destroying” is the fifth hour of the 14th of Nissan (in the evening Pesah will begin), at which time all chametz must be destroyed. However, in the Talmud there is an explanation that according to Rabbi Judah one need check only once either in the evening, in the morning or at the time of destroying. If one has not searched by this time, Rabbi Judah says another search should not be done later, lest he comes to find the chametz and eat it. In other words, it is safer not to know about the chametz at all then to find it.

לאחר המועד – until it gets dark. And there are those who explain [the phrase] "בתוך המועד"/the appointed time [as] in the midst of Passover; and [the phrase] "לאחר המועד"/after the appointed time [as] after Passover [entirely], in order that he would not mix/combine for himself Hametz/leavened products that over which Passover had passed (i.e., which had been in the house during Passover) [from which] it is prohibited to derive benefit with permitted Hametz which was made after Passover. And Rabbi Yehuda holds after the removal [of the Hametz], that is after the time of prohibition of Hametz, he should not do a search at all perhaps he will come to eat from it. And the Rabbis say that he should do a search after the time of its prohibition, and we should not be concerned that perhaps he would come to eat from it since his whole essence is moving back and forth to burn it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

But the sages say: if he did not search in the evening of the fourteenth he must search on the fourteenth; if he did not search in [the morning of] the fourteenth, he must search during the festival; if he did not search during the festival, he must search after the festival. The sages hold that it is preferable to search in the evening as we learned in the first mishnah above. However, if he did not search in the evening then he may search later, even during the festival itself. Ultimately, if he has not searched the house during Pesah itself, he must search afterwards since it is forbidden for a Jew to derive any benefit from any chametz that a Jew owned during Pesah. He must search lest there is some chametz that was in his possession during Pesah in order to prevent him from using this chametz after Pesah.

And what he leaves over he must put away in a hidden place, so that he should not need searching after it. If he finds chametz during his search, he should put it away discreetly until he burns it the following morning. Were he to leave it out and then later notice that some of it was missing, he would have to perform another search.

ושורפין בתחלת שש – And even though that the entire sixth hour, according to the Torah is permissible [to burn the Hametz], the Rabbis decreed on it, lest they err and think about the seventh [hour] that it is the sixth [hour]. But [regarding] the fifth hour, they would not err to say [about] the seventh hour that is the fifth [hour], and it is permitted.

Introduction After having discussed the search for chametz, the Mishnah begins to discuss burning the chametz, the most common and preferred way of destroying it. All of the sages agree that from the seventh hour and onwards (daylight was divided into twelve hours, so the seventh hour is roughly speaking 1 PM, but would change depending on latitude and time of year) it is forbidden to eat or possess chametz. This is derived from Exodus 12:15 which says that one must destroy the chametz “on the first day” the first day is interpreted to be the 14th of Nissan, the day on which the Pesah lamb is sacrificed. Chametz is forbidden from the beginning of the seventh hour of that day because it is at this time that the Pesah sacrifice may be brought, and Exodus 34:25 (“You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened”) is interpreted as prohibiting the offering of the Pesah sacrifice while one is in possession of chametz. In our mishnah Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir dispute how much earlier than the seventh hour one must cease from eating chametz. They both agree, however, that the chametz is burned at the beginning of the sixth hour.

תולין כל חמש – and he doesn’t eat [Hametz], as a decree because on a cloudy day, that they would err and think about the seventh [hour] is the fifth [hour]. But however, he doesn’t have to burn it, and can feed it to his cattle. But [during] the sixth [hour], even deriving benefit is prohibit from the Rabbis, as a decree because of the seventh hour. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: one may eat [chametz] the whole of the five [hours] and must burn [it] at the beginning of the sixth. According to Rabbi Meir, through the fifth hour one may continue to eat chametz. So if daylight began at we call 6 AM and the daylight hours were equal to the hours of darkness, then one could eat chametz until 11 AM. At the beginning of the sixth hour they must begin to burn the chametz, since from the seventh hour and onwards it is prohibited from the Torah to eat it. Rabbi Meir gives a one hour cushion in order to prevent people from erring and accidentally eating chametz after the Torah has already prohibited it. The cushion is necessary because it is difficult to determine precisely when the sun has completed its rising and has begun to set.

Rabbi Judah says: one may eat the whole of the four [hours], suspend it the whole of the fifth, and must burn it at the beginning of the sixth. Rabbi Judah provides an even larger cushion between the time when it is prohibited to eat chametz and the time when this prohibition becomes toraitic. Although the prohibition is only toraitic from the seventh hour and onwards, he says that after four hours it is forbidden to eat chametz. Rabbi Judah agrees with Rabbi Meir that the chametz need not be burned until the sixth hour. During the fifth hour it is “suspended” meaning it is neither eaten nor burned. One may still derive benefit from the chametz at this time; for instance one may feed it to animals. According to the Talmud the extra hour of cushion was because it was difficult to determine the precise time on a cloudy day (and in Israel there are still clouds during Pesah).

שתי חלות – of leaven.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the time when chametz is burned.

של תודה פסולות – which were invalidated for use by being kept overnight, since because there loaves of thanksgiving [offerings] on the thirteenth of Nisan, for everyone who had a thanksgiving offering to bring brought it on the thirteenth, they were invalidated for use by being kept overnight for the morning of the fourteenth. The thanksgiving loaves were forty Hallot, ten of them were leavened. And the thanksgiving offering were eaten day and night, and if they would bring them on the fourteenth, the ones of Hametz would not be eaten other than until the sixth hour, for it is forbidden to bring a sacrifice on the day when the time for their being eaten would be reduced, for one does not wittingly cause bring holy things (i.e., sacred meat) to a place where the unfit things are burnt (see Mishnah Zevahim, Chapter 8, Mishnah 3). Therefore, whomever had to bring a thanksgiving sacrifice would bring it on the thirteenth, but would not be able to bring it on the fourteenth and all the more so during Passover, for they would be invalidated for use by being kept overnight on the fourteenth day since for they would not be eaten so much, and because of this, invalidated ones were given there, for since they were not fit, no one would give them to invalidate them by their hands.

Rabbi Judah further said: two unfit loaves of thanksgiving used to lie on the roof of the [Temple] portico: as long as they lay [there] all the people would eat [chametz]. When one was removed, they would keep it in suspense, neither eating nor burning [it]. When both were removed, all the people began to burn [their chametz]. Rabbi Judah relates that in the Temple they made a sign which would let the people know until what time they could eat the chametz. They would put their two loaves of bread which were used in the thanksgiving offering (see Leviticus 7:13). They would use only loaves which were unfit for use (for instance, the time in which they could be eaten had passed), because they wouldn’t take fit loaves and leave them there to intentionally render them inedible. The rest is simple: the loaves were left there until the beginning of the fourth hour, the time until which Rabbi Judah holds one can eat chametz. When one was removed at the beginning of the fifth hour, they would cease eating their chametz, but not yet burn it. When the second was removed, they would begin to burn their chametz at the beginning of the sixth hour.

שמונחות – there until the time of getting rid of [the leavened products] they would be burned.

Rabban Gamaliel says: non-sacred chametz may be eaten the whole of the four [hours] and terumah the whole of the five [hours] and they burn [them] at the beginning of the sixth [hour]. Rabban Gamaliel presents an opinion which lies somewhere between that of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah from the previous mishnah. Rabban Gamaliel agrees with Rabbi Judah that non-sacred chametz, i.e. chametz which was not terumah, can only be eaten through the fourth hour. However, he holds that terumah may be eaten through the end of the fifth hour. This is to try to prevent as much as possible the need to burn terumah, which according to halakhah should not be burnt unnecessarily. Rabban Gamaliel agrees that they burn all of the chametz in the sixth hour.

על גג האצטבא – that was on the Temple Mount, in order that they should see them there as a sign.

אחת מהן – at the beginning of the fifth hour, an agent of the Jewish court would come and take one and all the people would recognize that the time of the fifth hour had arrived and would hold them in suspense.

ותרומת כל חמש – for it is forbidden to lose holy meat by one’s hands all the while that one can eat them.

ושורפין בתחילת שש – for now it is certain that most people erred between the sixth and the seventh hour. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Gamaliel.

מימיהם של כהנים לא נמנעו – because it was necessary to teach the conclusion (the next Mishnah, Mishnah 7), “from their opinions,” we learned that we burn the pure priest’s due with the impure [he used the phrase] here.

Introduction This mishnah deals with burning impure sacrificial meat of a low degree of impurity with impure sacrificial meat of a higher degree of impurity, a potential problem since it causes the less impure meat to become more impure. The mishnah is brought here because of the mishnah which follows it, which deals with burning unclean chametz with clean chametz.

מלשרוף את הבשר שנטמא בולד הטומאה – the offspring of an offspring is stated, that is to say, the meat which is third [level of impurity] which was defiled with something of second-level impurity, which is the offspring of an offspring, they did not prevent from burning it with the meat that was defiled by something of a direct cause of Levitical uncleanness, which is first level of impurity. And when this meat that was at first third-level of impurity comes in contact with this meat that was defiled by something of a direct cause of Levitical uncleanness, it goes back to become second-degree [of impurity/uncleanness], for it came in contact with first-degree and became second [degree] and it is found that they added to it a degree of impurity upon its [initial] impurity , for that which was initially third-degree and is now second-degree. And even though they could not prevent from burning it with something that is is more severe than it, for since, even this which is the lesser for burning stands, they did not suspect if they would make it more impure than it already was. And even though that one does not consume something that defiles food from the Torah, as it states regarding the defiling of food (Deuteronomy 14:8,14): “it is impure [for you].” It is impure, but it does defile [other foods] that are like it. Nevertheless, the Rabbis decreed that it would be food that does defile other food.

Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests said: during all of the days of the priests they never refrained from burning [sacrificial] meat which had been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness with meat which had been defiled by a father of uncleanness, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness. Rabbi Hanina, a rabbi who served in the Temple, testifies that the priests did not refrain from burning meat which had become unclean with other meat that had become unclean, even if the levels of uncleanness were different. When what is called a “father of uncleanness” (av hatuma) comes into contact with something that is receptive to impurity it renders it impure in the first degree; something impure in the first degree renders that which it comes into contact with impure in the second degree, and so on (up to four degrees). Everything besides the “father of uncleanness” is called an “offspring of uncleanness”. Meat which has come into contact with an “offspring” is at most impure in the second degree, since the “offspring can be no higher than a first degree. This meat is nevertheless rendered ineffective as a sacrifice. Rabbi Hanina teaches that they would burn this type of meat with meat that had come into contact with a “father of impurity”, even though this meat was of first degree uncleanness and hence it would add to the uncleanness of the other meat by making it of second degree uncleanness. Since both pieces of meat were impure in any case, they did not refrain from burning them together.

השמן – of priest’s due.

Rabbi Akiva added and said: during [all] the days of the priests they did not refrain from lighting oil which had been rendered unclean by a tevul yom in a lamp which had been made unclean by one who had contracted corpse impurity, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness. Rabbi Akiva adds that the same halakhah is also true with regard to oil. A “tevul yom” is someone who was impure, immersed in a mikveh but because the sun has not set, thereby ending the day, he is still impure. Until the sun sets he is considered to be of second degree impurity. If he comes into contact with oil that is terumah he renders it of third degree impurity. Rabbi Akiva teaches that this oil may be put into a lamp that is of first degree impurity, because it (the lamp) had been in contact with someone who had contracted corpse impurity (the corpse is the “granddaddy of all uncleanness, and one who comes into contact with a corpse is a “father of uncleanness). The lamp renders the oil of second degree impurity, bumping it up one level.

שנפסל בטבול יום – which is third-level of impurity, for a person who has ritually bathed but must wait for sunset to be perfectly clean (Leviticus 22:7), defiles the priest’s due from the Torah and makes it third-level of impurity forever, and there is not difference between food or liquids.

בנר שנטמא בטמא מת – this metallic candle, and all utensils outside of an earthenware vessel which came in contact with the defilement of the dead become like it, if it is a principal level of impurity, it is a principal level of impurity, if first-level of defilement, it is a first-level of defilement, as it is written (Numbers 19:16): “[And in the open, anyone who touches a person] who was killed [or who died naturally, or human bone, or a grave, shall be impure seven days].” And they (i.e., the Rabbis) expound upon “who was killed” he is like someone who was slain, for the sword that came in contact with the dead became one of the original causes of Levitical uncleanness like the dead person himself, and when it (i.e., the sword) came In contact with the person defiled by the dead who is a principal cause of Levitical uncleanness, the sword also became a principal form of Levitical uncleanness and the same law applies to all utensils except for an earthenware vessel. It is found, therefore, that the metallic candle that came in contact with someone defiled by contact with the dead became one of the principal forms of Levitical uncleanness, and now Rabbi Akiva added to the words of Rabbi Hananiah the Assistant Priest, for Rabbi Hananiah did not permit other than to restore something that had been third-level uncleanness to something second-level uncleanness. But Rabbi Akiva permitted to restore something third-level of uncleanness to first-level, for the oil that had been defiled by contact with a person who has ritually bathed but must wait for sunset to be perfectly clean, who is third-degree level of impurity, when he kindles it (i.e., the oil) with the candle that had been defiled through contact with the dead, the candle itself becomes a primary form of Levitical uncleanness as we have stated. It is found that the third-level of Levitical impurity becomes first, and even though they did not prevent it, for since there is the title of impurity upon it, we do not suspect him and it is permissible to add with ones hands.

מדבריהם למדנו – whether [speaking of] Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosi, both hold that meat that had been defiled by the offspring of a Levitical uncleanness , as Rabbi Hananiah had stated, we are speaking about meat that had become defiled by liquids which had been defiled with a utensil that had been defiled by contact with an unclean reptile, and Rabbi Meir holds that defilement by liquids that defile other things is not from the Torah, for liquids do not defile other things, even food-stuffs, other than according to the Rabbis, and because of this, we state from the words of Rabbi Hananiah who said that we burn meat that had been defiled [through contact] by liquids, is that it is impure according to the Rabbis, but from the Torah, it is perfectly pure, with the meat that had been defiled [by contact] with the primary form of impurity which is impure according to the Torah.

Introduction In today’s mishnah Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose argue over whether we may draw an analogy between the cases in the previous mishnah (burning together meats and oils of differing degrees of impurity) and the case of burning together clean and unclean terumah chametz on the eve of Pesah.

למדנו ששורפין תרומה טהורה עם הטמאה – when the sixth hour [on the 14th of Nisan] arrived, which is prohibited according to the Rabbis, just like we burn meat that had been defiled with liquids which is completely pure, from the Torah, with meat that had been defiled by [contact with] meat that had been defiled by [contact with] the primary form of Levitical uncleanness which is impure according to the Torah.

Rabbi Meir said: from their words we learn that we may burn clean terumah together with unclean terumah on Pesah. Rabbi Meir draws an analogy between the cases presented in yesterday’s mishnah and the case of burning impure terumah chametz with pure terumah chametz before Pesah. The analogy is that in both cases it is permitted to increase levels of impurity in the process of burning something in order to get rid of it.

אמר לו רבי יוסי אינה הוא המדה – Rabbi Yosi according to his reasoning holds that the impurity of liquids can defile other things according to the Torah, and meat that was defiled by liquids is impure according to the Torah. Therefore, he said that it is not the correct conclusion to draw, which means to say that one cannot learn this from their conclusions; for if you had permitted to burn something impure that had been defiled with a lighter form of impurity with something impure that had been defiled by a graver form of impurity, you would permit to burn the pure with the impure. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi , that we don’t burn pure priest’s due with that which is impure on Passover, and that impure liquids defile other things is not from the Torah but rather, according to the Rabbis, like Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yose said: that is not a [proper] analogy. Rabbi Yose says that this is poor analogy. In the cases in yesterday’s mishnah the meat or oil was already impure and the only issue was increasing its level of impurity. In the case of pure and impure terumah chametz we are talking about something pure. Therefore, they must burn both separately.

ומודים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע – Rabbi Yosi had stated it that even though Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree regarding the burning of priest’s due, in this, they agree that we burn this by itself and that by itself.

And Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that each is burnt separately. Concerning what do they disagree? In respect of doubtful [terumah] and unclean [terumah]: Rabbi Eliezer says: each is burnt separately But Rabbi Joshua rules: both together. Rabbi Yose continues to point out that both Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer agree that impure and pure terumah are not burnt together. And if the two of them agree, then Rabbi Meir’s conclusion must be wrong. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagreed only concerning the burning of doubtfully impure terumah with pure terumah. Rabbi Eliezer is strict and rules that both must still be burnt separately, whereas Rabbi Joshua rules that since one is only doubtfully impure it may be burned with terumah that is certainly impure.

על התלויה ועל הטמאה – Rabbi Eliezer holds that we are warned on the guarding of something that is held in suspense, as it is written (Numbers 18:8): “[The LORD spoke further to Aaron: I hereby give you] charge of My gifts, [all the sacred donations of the Israelites…”]. The Biblical verse speaks of two priest’s dues – one that is priest’s due held in suspense and the other is pure priest’s due.

ורבי יהושע אומר שתיהן כאחת – Since it is held in suspense, you are not warned on its being guarded, and on that which is held in suspense and that which is pure, they didn’t dispute that we burn them, for since it was not presumed to be impure, it did not appear as that which is defiled by the hands.