Talmud for Pesachim 1:7

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה בְּפֶסַח. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה. וּמוֹדִים רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. עַל מַה נֶּחֱלְקוּ, עַל הַתְּלוּיָה וְעַל הַטְּמֵאָה, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תִּשָּׂרֵף זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאֶחָת:

R. Meir said: From their words we learned that clean terumah (of chametz) is burned together with unclean terumah on Pesach. [Both R. Meir and R. Yossi hold that flesh which became unclean through v'lad hatumah, of which R. Chanina speaks, is flesh that became unclean through liquids which became unclean through a vessel which had become unclean through a sheretz. R. Meir holds that the uncleanliness of liquids to make others unclean is not Torah law — liquids making others, and even foods unclean, being a rabbinic enactment. Therefore, he says that from the words of R. Chanina, who says that we burn flesh that has become unclean through liquids, which is unclean by rabbinic ordinance, being absolutely clean by Torah law, we learned that clean terumah is burned together with unclean terumah on Pesach [when the sixth hour arrives, when it is forbidden by rabbinic ordinance, just as we burn flesh that became unclean through liquids (which is absolutely clean by Torah law) together with flesh that became unclean through an av hatumah, and which is unclean by Torah law.] R. Yossi said to him: This is not a correct comparison. [R. Yossi is consistent with his view that the uncleanliness of liquids to make others unclean is Torah law, so that flesh which became unclean through liquids is unclean by Torah law. Therefore, he says: "This is not a correct comparison." That is, you cannot derive from their words that if it is permitted to burn lesser-degree uncleanliness together with greater-degree uncleanliness it should be permitted to burn what is clean (by Torah law) with what is unclean. And the halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi, that clean terumah is not burned together with unclean terumah on Pesach. And the uncleanliness of liquids to render others unclean is not Torah law, but rabbinic ordinance, as per R. Meir.] And R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua concur that each is to be burned by itself. [R. Yossi says this — that even though R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua differ as to the burning of terumah, they concur that each is burned by itself.] Where do they differ? In respect to the doubtful (possibly clean-possibly unclean) and the (definitely) unclean. R. Eliezer says: Each is to be burned by itself. [R. Eliezer holds that one is exhorted to guard the doubtful (against uncleanliness), it being written (Numbers 18:8): "the guarding of my terumoth" — The Torah speaks of two terumoth: one, doubtful; one, clean.] R. Yehoshua says: They are both burned together. [Since its status is doubtful, you are not exhorted to guard it. And they do not differ on the burning of the doubtful and the clean together, for since it is not definitely unclean, the impression is not given that he is making clean terumah unclean.]

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot

You say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Meїr will not agree¹⁹⁸While this is the text of R. Yose’s second argument in both mss. and the early prints, it is clear from the following that the discussion is about the second part of the statement of the colleagues, “the second amphora following Rebbi Meїr, and Rebbi Yose will not agree.” The discussion centers on Mishnaiot 8–9, where everybody agrees that in order to save some pure heave one may actively bring impurity on the remainder.. But did we not state: “When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure.¹⁹⁹This is the text both here and in Pesaḥim but it is difficult to explain. The Babli (Pesaḥim 21a) reads: “An amphora which broke in the upper part of the wine press while the lower part contains a hundred times as much impure (wine), Rebbi Eliezer admits to Rebbi Joshua that if he can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity; otherwise, let it descend and he should not make it impure with his hands.” The Mishnah does not explain what is in the lower part of the winepress. If there is enough profane wine to let one lift heave according to the rules of Chapter 5, not much is lost since the wine remains usable. But if heave cannot be lifted because the profane is not more than 100 times the heave all becomes forbidden and, at most, can be used as ointment or to sprinkle on a dirt floor to eliminate dust. This represents a considerable monetary loss.” And if it follows Rebbi Meїr, whether it contains enough to lift it or does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure²⁰⁰Since R. Meїr permits to bring impurity to anything that later automatically would become impure.? In addition, from what we have stated²⁰¹In Mishnah Pesaḥim 1:7 (Note 184) the discussion between R. Meїr and R. Yose is formulated not as a clash of traditions but of logical arguments, with R. Yose disputing R. Meїr’s inference but not his premise. The problem, as pointed out in the Babli, is that it is not clear whether the basis of the argument is the common statement of R. Ḥanina, the Second of the Cohanim, and R. Aqiba in the Mishnah there, or the partial agreement of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua in the Mishnah here. For the moment, we assume that R. Meїr and R. Yose refer to R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication.” A person says “this is not the implication” only if he agrees with the premise. How is that? There, the Torah cares about the money of the Jews²⁰²Mishnah Nega‘im 12:5. The difference between large and small losses is also noted in Babli Pesaḥim20b., here what can you say²⁰³This shows that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim. “There” means Terumot, where potentially an entire harvest may be lost in the winepress. “Here” means Pesaḥim, where the question is only whether different kinds of leavened matter may be burned together or have to be burned separately.? Does he not here also cayse him to lose money since he needs fire wood to burn each lot separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah, the Second of the Cohanim²⁰⁴Cf. Note 184. In their cases, no monetary loss is incurred and nothing can be inferred for our case..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse