Talmud sobre Pessachim 1:11

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..