R. Meir a dit: D'après leurs paroles, nous avons appris que la terumah pure (de hamets) est brûlée avec la terumah impure à Pessa'h. [R. Meir et R. Yossi soutiennent que la chair qui est devenue impure par v'lad hatumah, dont parle R. Chanina, est la chair qui est devenue impure par des liquides qui est devenue impure par un récipient qui était devenu impur par un sheretz. R. Meir soutient que l'impureté des liquides pour rendre les autres impurs n'est pas la loi de la Torah—les liquides rendant les autres, et même les aliments impurs, étant un acte rabbinique. Par conséquent, il dit que d'après les paroles de R. Chanina, qui dit que nous brûlons la chair qui est devenue impure à cause des liquides, qui est impure par l'ordonnance rabbinique, étant absolument pur par la loi de la Torah, nous avons appris que la terumah propre est brûlée avec l'impur terumah à Pessa'h [quand la sixième heure arrive, quand elle est interdite par l'ordonnance rabbinique, tout comme nous brûlons la chair qui est devenue impure par les liquides (qui est absolument pure par la loi de la Torah) avec la chair qui est devenue impure par une est impur par la loi de la Torah.] R. Yossi lui dit: Ce n'est pas une comparaison correcte. [R. Yossi est cohérent avec son point de vue selon lequel l'impureté des liquides pour rendre les autres impurs est la loi de la Torah, de sorte que la chair qui est devenue impure à cause des liquides est impure par la loi de la Torah. Par conséquent, il dit: "Ce n'est pas une comparaison correcte." C'est-à-dire que vous ne pouvez pas déduire de leurs paroles que s'il est permis de brûler une impureté à un degré moindre avec une impureté plus élevée, il devrait être autorisé à brûler ce qui est pur (selon la loi de la Torah) avec ce qui est impur. Et la halakha est conforme à R. Yossi, cette terumah pure n'est pas brûlée avec une terumah impure à Pessa'h. Et l'impureté des liquides pour rendre les autres impurs n'est pas la loi de la Torah, mais une ordonnance rabbinique, selon R. Meir.] Et R. Eliezer et R. Yehoshua conviennent que chacun doit être brûlé par lui-même. [R. Yossi dit ceci—que même si R. Eliezer et R. Yehoshua diffèrent quant à la combustion de la terumah, ils conviennent que chacun est brûlé par lui-même.] En quoi diffèrent-ils? En ce qui concerne le douteux (peut-être propre-peut-être impur) et le (certainement) impur. R. Eliezer dit: Chacun doit être brûlé par lui-même. [R. Eliezer soutient que l'on est exhorté à garder les douteux (contre l'impureté), étant écrit (Nombres 18: 8): "la garde de mon terumoth"—La Torah parle de deux terumoth: l'un, douteux; un, propre.] R. Yehoshua dit: Ils sont tous les deux brûlés ensemble. [Puisque son statut est douteux, vous n'êtes pas exhorté à le garder. Et ils ne diffèrent pas sur le fait de brûler ensemble le douteux et le pur, car comme ce n'est pas définitivement impur, on ne donne pas l'impression qu'il rend la terumah propre impure.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Pesachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Pesachim
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.
