Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 5, 2020 | 讬状讟 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Pesachim 14 – Fiery Combinations

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Shira Peleg in honor of Ariel Peleg. Congratulations on matching with one of your top choice hematology/medical oncology fellowship programs and thank you for introducing me to Hadran and encouraging me to learn鈥

The mishna brings statements of Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim and Rabbi Akiva that in the times of the Temple they would burn sanctified items that were impure with other impure items even if the levels of impurity were different and one would make the other a higher level of impurity. What is the difference between the cases that Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Akiva bring? Can food pass on impurity to other foods? Can one assume from Rabbi Akiva’s case that he holds that liquids pass on impurity to other items on a Torah level? Rabbi Meir derives from “their words” that chametz that was truma on erev Pesach can be burned with disqualified truma. From whose words does he derive this?

砖转讬 驻专讜转 讛讬讜 讞讜专砖讜转 讘讛专 讛诪砖讞讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖砖转讬讛谉 讞讜专砖讜转 讻诇 讛注诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讬讟诇转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 谞讬讟诇讜 砖转讬讛谉 讛转讞讬诇讜 讻诇 讛注诐 砖讜专驻讬谉:

Two cows would plow on the Mount of Olives on Passover eve. As long as both of them are plowing, the entire nation continues to eat leavened bread. When one of the cows is taken away, the people know that the time has come to place their leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn it. When both of them were taken away, the entire nation began burning their leaven.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜诪专 诪讬诪讬讛诐 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 诪诇砖专讜祝 讗转 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 注诐 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜

MISHNA: Apropos the removal of leaven on Passover eve, including the consecrated loaves of thanks-offerings and teruma, the mishna cites a related halakha. Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest says: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from burning meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of ritual impurity, i.e., an object that had come into contact with a primary source of impurity, together with meat that became ritually impure by contact with a primary source of impurity. They would do so even though they would thereby add a degree of impurity to the impurity of the first piece of meat, which was previously impure to a lesser degree.

讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 诪讬诪讬讛诐 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛砖诪谉 砖谞驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘谞专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜

Rabbi Akiva added to the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest and said: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day and who does not become completely purified until nightfall in a lamp that became ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. They did so even though they would thereby add impurity to the impurity of the oil. A person who immersed himself during that day assumes the status of second-degree ritual impurity. His contact renders the oil ritually impure with third-degree ritual impurity. The lamp with first-degree ritual impurity renders the oil ritually impure with second-degree impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 注诐 讛讟诪讗讛 讘驻住讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讛诪讚讛

Rabbi Meir said: From their statements we learned that one may burn ritually pure teruma with impure teruma when removing leaven on Passover eve. The rationale that applies to the two previous cases applies here as well. Since both items are being burned, one may disregard the fact that one item will assume a higher degree of ritual impurity in the process. Rabbi Yosei said: That is not the inference from which the halakha in the case of ritually pure and ritually impure teruma can be learned. In those first two cases, the two items are both ritually impure, albeit at different degrees of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir is referring to the combination of impure teruma with pure teruma, which would render pure teruma ritually impure.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 讝讜 诇注爪诪讛 讜讝讜 诇注爪诪讛 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛转诇讜讬讛 讜注诇 讛讟诪讗讛 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转砖专祝 讝讜 诇注爪诪讛 讜讝讜 诇注爪诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 砖转讬讛谉 讻讗讞转:

And in fact Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagree with regard to the burning of leavened teruma, nevertheless concede that one burns this ritually pure teruma by itself and that impure teruma by itself. With regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to whether one may burn teruma in abeyance, i.e., teruma whose purity is uncertain, and definitely impure teruma together, as Rabbi Eliezer says: This teruma in abeyance should be burned by itself, and that impure teruma should be burned by itself; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, both of them may be burned as one.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 砖谞讬 讻讬 砖专讬祝 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬 讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 砖谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna鈥檚 first statement: Now consider, what is the status of meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of impurity? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status. When one burns that meat together with meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, what is the status of that first piece of meat? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status. Meat that touches a primary source of impurity assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, which transmits second-degree impurity to other meat.

砖谞讬 讜砖谞讬 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara continues: Since when the first piece of meat is placed next to the meat that came into contact with a primary source it assumes second-degree impurity, this is a case where the meat is with second-degree status, and through contact with the primary source it would assume second-degree status. In what sense is there a case of adding impurity to its impurity here? There is no change in the status of the first piece of meat at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讘讜讜诇讚 讜讜诇讚 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讜拽住讘专 砖诇讬砖讬 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 砖谞讬

Rav Yehuda said: The above interpretation is incorrect, as here we are dealing with the secondary source of a secondary source of ritual impurity, i.e., meat that came in contact with second-degree ritual impurity. The statement in the mishna: That became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of ritual impurity, should not be understood as saying that it came into contact with meat with first-degree ritual impurity status, as in this case, the meat came into contact with meat with second-degree ritual impurity status and is impure with third-degree ritual impurity. And Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest maintains that it is permitted to render impure with second-degree impurity an object with third-degree ritual impurity by burning it with meat that came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity.

讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 讜谞驻诇 诪谞讘诇转诐 注诇讬讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 there a principle that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food, as it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that food transmits impurity to other food; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if water is placed upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it is impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). The Sages derived from this verse: It, the food exposed to the source of impurity, is impure, but it does not render similar foods impure. Apparently, food does not transmit impurity to other food.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜

This works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who said: They taught this principle that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food only with regard to non-sacred food; however, with regard to teruma and consecrated food, food transmits impurity to other foods it touches, and it renders the teruma or consecrated food similar to it in terms of impurity.

讜诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讜转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 砖驻讬专

And this is also the case according to the opinion stated by Rav Adda bar Ahava in the name of Rava, who said: They taught this principle, that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food, only with regard to non-sacred food and teruma; however, with regard to consecrated food, food transmits impurity to other foods it touches, and it renders the consecrated food similar to it in terms of impurity. According to this opinion, it works out well. As the mishna is dealing with a case of consecrated meat, impurity can be transmitted from one food item to another.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪拽专讗 诪诇讗 讚讬讘专 讛讻转讜讘 诇讗 砖谞讗 讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

However, this is not the case according to the opinion stated by Ravina in the name of Rava, who said: The Torah stated this principle in a categorical verse, without any exceptions, meaning it is no different with regard to non-sacred food, and it is no different with regard to teruma, and it is no different with regard to consecrated food, as in all of these cases one type of food does not render other food similar to it in terms of impurity. According to this opinion, what can be said in terms of understanding the statement in the mishna: Even though they thereby add impurity to its impurity?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讛讚讬 讘砖专 讚拽讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 诪砖拽讬谉

The Gemara answers in defense of this opinion: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where there are liquids with the meat when it comes into contact with the primary source of ritual impurity. Since the other piece of meat comes into contact with the liquid on that meat, it becomes impure due to contact with the liquid. Although food does not transmit impurity to food, liquid transmits impurity to food.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 注诐 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 注诐 讛讘砖专 讜诪砖拽讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 谞讛讬 讚讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讛讜 诪讟诪讗:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this phrase: With meat that became ritually impure by contact with a primary source of impurity, is imprecise. The tanna should have said: With meat and liquids, as the liquids are essential for the transmission of impurity. Rather, the Gemara explains: Although food does not transmit impurity to other food by Torah law, in any event, by rabbinic law, food transmits impurity to other food. The mishna is based on the rabbinic decree that food transmits impurity to other food.

讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬诪讬讛谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛讚诇讬拽 讻讜壮: 诪讻讚讬 砖诪谉 砖谞驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讜讻讬 诪讚诇讬拽 诇讬讛 讘谞专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 砖谞讬

It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva added: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day, in a lamp that was rendered ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: Now consider, what is the status of oil that was disqualified by one who immersed himself during that day? As one who immersed himself during that day assumes second-degree impurity, the oil that he touches assumes third-degree ritual impurity status. And when he lights it in a lamp that was rendered ritually impure through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, who has first-degree impurity status, what is the impurity status of the oil? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖诇讬砖讬 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 砖谞讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讘谞专 砖诇 诪转讻转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专

If so, what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us by this halakha? This statement apparently teaches us that with regard to an object that is ritually impure with third-degree impurity status, it is permitted to render it impure with second-degree impurity status. Yet this is the same halakha as that which was taught by Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest. What is novel about the halakha taught by Rabbi Akiva? Rav Yehuda said: Here, we are dealing with a metal lamp, which has a unique halakhic status. As the Merciful One states:

讘讞诇诇 讞专讘 讞专讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞诇诇 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜拽住讘专 砖诇讬砖讬 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 专讗砖讜谉

鈥淎nd whoever touches one who is slain with a sword in the open field, or one who dies on his own, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:16). The Sages derived from the phrase: One who is slain with a sword, that the legal status of a metal sword in terms of its degree of impurity is like that of one who is slain. Any metal vessel that becomes impure through contact with a corpse assumes the impurity status of a corpse, the ultimate primary source of ritual impurity. The same is true with regard to a metal vessel that came into contact with a person or vessel that became impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that case the metal vessel assumes the impurity status of that person or vessel, and therefore, this metal lamp is a primary source of impurity. And yet Rabbi Akiva maintains that it is permitted to render this oil, which is impure with third-degree impurity, impure with first-degree impurity through contact with the metal lamp.

讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞专 砖诇 诪转讻转 谞讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞专 砖诇 讞专住

The Gemara asks: And what impelled Rav Yehuda to establish the mishna as referring specifically to the case of a metal lamp? Let him establish it as referring specifically to the case of an earthenware lamp.

讜诪讗讬 讛讜住讬祝 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 驻住讜诇 讜讟诪讗

And if so, what does Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement add? The Gemara answers: Whereas there, in Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 testimony, he is referring to a case where one piece of ritually impure meat came into contact with another piece of impure meat, here, in Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 testimony, he is referring to a case where oil that is disqualified came into contact with a lamp with first-degree impurity status, rendering the oil impure. Oil with second-degree ritual impurity status disqualifies teruma, as teruma with third-degree ritual impurity status does not transmit ritual impurity to other teruma. In that case, the novelty in Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement is that a disqualified item is burned together with an impure item even though it is thereby rendered impure.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 谞专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 谞讬转谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讘砖专抓

Rava said: The mishna was difficult for Rav Yehuda: Why did the tanna specifically teach the case of a lamp that became ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse? Let it teach that the lamp became impure by contact with a creeping animal, which is a much more common primary source of impurity.

讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 诇砖专抓 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪转讻转

Rather, what is the substance with regard to which there is a distinction between its impurity when exposed to impurity imparted by a corpse and its impurity when exposed to impurity imparted by a creeping animal? You must say that the substance is metal. A metal vessel that comes into contact with a creeping animal assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, whereas if it comes into contact with a person or a vessel that came into contact with a corpse, it becomes a primary source of impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 谞专 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讛讗讬 砖诪谉 讗讬 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬 讙讜驻讬讛 讛讗 驻住讬诇 讜拽讗讬

Rava said: Learn from this statement that Rabbi Akiva holds: The ritual impurity of liquids with regard to transmitting impurity to other objects is by Torah law, contrary to those tanna鈥檌m who hold that liquids transmit impurity only by rabbinic decree. As, if it enters your mind that this type of impurity is by rabbinic law, now, this lamp, what effect does this lamp have on that oil? If it is to disqualify the oil itself, it is already disqualified from the outset. Rather, Rabbi Akiva evidently maintains that through contact with the lamp this oil becomes impure and transmits impurity to food by Torah law.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 谞诪讬 转讞诇讛 讛讜讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you know that this is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion? Perhaps Rabbi Akiva holds that through contact with the lamp, the oil will be able to transmit ritual impurity to other objects by rabbinic law. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If the oil confers impurity by rabbinic law, why does Rabbi Akiva refer particularly to a case where the oil became impure by contact with a primary source of impurity? If Rabbi Akiva sought to cite an example of rabbinic impurity, he could have cited even a case where the oil came into contact with an object with first-degree impurity status, or an item with second-degree impurity status. By rabbinic law, in those cases too, the oil is impure with first-degree ritual impurity and transmits impurity to food.

讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛驻讜住诇 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 转讞诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara cites the source for that halakha. As we learned in a mishna: Any item that disqualifies teruma, e.g., anything with second-degree ritual impurity status, transmits impurity to liquids, conferring upon them first-degree ritual impurity status. These liquids assume a higher degree of impurity than the item that rendered them impure. This rabbinic decree applies to anything with second-degree ritual impurity status except for one who was impure and immersed himself during that day and the sun has not yet set. If such a person touches liquids, he does not confer upon them first-degree impurity status. Instead, that case conforms to the standard process of transmission of ritual impurity, and he confers upon them third-degree ritual impurity status and invalidates them.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗:

The Gemara concludes: Rather, learn from the fact that Rabbi Akiva did not cite the example of oil that became impure through contact with an item with first or second-degree ritual impurity that Rabbi Akiva holds that the halakha that liquids transmit impurity to other items is by Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 讜讻讜壮: 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讜讟诪讗 讛讻讗 讟讛讜专 讜讟诪讗

It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Meir said: From their statements we learned that one may burn ritually pure teruma with impure teruma when removing leaven on Passover eve. The Gemara asks: From whose statements was this conclusion inferred? If you say that this conclusion is inferred from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement comparable to that case? There, Rabbi 岣nina said that one may burn one ritually impure item and another ritually impure item together, whereas here, Rabbi Meir is referring to burning pure and impure teruma together.

讜讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 驻住讜诇 讜讟诪讗 讛讻讗 讟讛讜专 讜讟诪讗

But rather, Rabbi Meir鈥檚 conclusion is inferred from the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Is it comparable to that case? There, Rabbi Akiva said that a disqualified item and an impure item may be burned together, whereas here, Rabbi Meir is referring to burning a pure item and an impure item together.

谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讟讛讜专 诪注诇讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Meir maintains that the mishna is referring to an object that is a primary source of impurity by Torah law and an object that is a secondary source of impurity by rabbinic law, which by Torah law is entirely pure. Since the teruma is pure by Torah law, the novelty of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement is that although by Torah law one of the foods is pure and the other is impure, due to the rabbinic decree of impurity, one may burn the two items together.

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 11-17 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn the laws of eating leavened bread on the 14th of Nisan, Erev Pesach....
Tuma and Tahara - and intoduction

Tuma & Tahara: an Introduction

General Introduction to Tuma/Tahara Tuma/Tahara is a chok 鈥 not related to hygiene or ability to use the object/person. Usually...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 14: Entering the World of Tumah and Taharah

The sugya of R. Hanina S'gan ha-Kohanim. Basic principles of tumah and taharah - purity/impurity. Who's Who: Hanina S'gan ha-Kohanim....

Pesachim 14 – Fiery Combinations

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 14 – Fiery Combinations

砖转讬 驻专讜转 讛讬讜 讞讜专砖讜转 讘讛专 讛诪砖讞讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖砖转讬讛谉 讞讜专砖讜转 讻诇 讛注诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讬讟诇转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 谞讬讟诇讜 砖转讬讛谉 讛转讞讬诇讜 讻诇 讛注诐 砖讜专驻讬谉:

Two cows would plow on the Mount of Olives on Passover eve. As long as both of them are plowing, the entire nation continues to eat leavened bread. When one of the cows is taken away, the people know that the time has come to place their leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn it. When both of them were taken away, the entire nation began burning their leaven.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜诪专 诪讬诪讬讛诐 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 诪诇砖专讜祝 讗转 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 注诐 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜

MISHNA: Apropos the removal of leaven on Passover eve, including the consecrated loaves of thanks-offerings and teruma, the mishna cites a related halakha. Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest says: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from burning meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of ritual impurity, i.e., an object that had come into contact with a primary source of impurity, together with meat that became ritually impure by contact with a primary source of impurity. They would do so even though they would thereby add a degree of impurity to the impurity of the first piece of meat, which was previously impure to a lesser degree.

讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 诪讬诪讬讛诐 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛砖诪谉 砖谞驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘谞专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜

Rabbi Akiva added to the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest and said: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day and who does not become completely purified until nightfall in a lamp that became ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. They did so even though they would thereby add impurity to the impurity of the oil. A person who immersed himself during that day assumes the status of second-degree ritual impurity. His contact renders the oil ritually impure with third-degree ritual impurity. The lamp with first-degree ritual impurity renders the oil ritually impure with second-degree impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 注诐 讛讟诪讗讛 讘驻住讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讛诪讚讛

Rabbi Meir said: From their statements we learned that one may burn ritually pure teruma with impure teruma when removing leaven on Passover eve. The rationale that applies to the two previous cases applies here as well. Since both items are being burned, one may disregard the fact that one item will assume a higher degree of ritual impurity in the process. Rabbi Yosei said: That is not the inference from which the halakha in the case of ritually pure and ritually impure teruma can be learned. In those first two cases, the two items are both ritually impure, albeit at different degrees of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir is referring to the combination of impure teruma with pure teruma, which would render pure teruma ritually impure.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 讝讜 诇注爪诪讛 讜讝讜 诇注爪诪讛 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛转诇讜讬讛 讜注诇 讛讟诪讗讛 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转砖专祝 讝讜 诇注爪诪讛 讜讝讜 诇注爪诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 砖转讬讛谉 讻讗讞转:

And in fact Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagree with regard to the burning of leavened teruma, nevertheless concede that one burns this ritually pure teruma by itself and that impure teruma by itself. With regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to whether one may burn teruma in abeyance, i.e., teruma whose purity is uncertain, and definitely impure teruma together, as Rabbi Eliezer says: This teruma in abeyance should be burned by itself, and that impure teruma should be burned by itself; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, both of them may be burned as one.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 砖谞讬 讻讬 砖专讬祝 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬 讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 砖谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna鈥檚 first statement: Now consider, what is the status of meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of impurity? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status. When one burns that meat together with meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, what is the status of that first piece of meat? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status. Meat that touches a primary source of impurity assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, which transmits second-degree impurity to other meat.

砖谞讬 讜砖谞讬 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara continues: Since when the first piece of meat is placed next to the meat that came into contact with a primary source it assumes second-degree impurity, this is a case where the meat is with second-degree status, and through contact with the primary source it would assume second-degree status. In what sense is there a case of adding impurity to its impurity here? There is no change in the status of the first piece of meat at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讘讜讜诇讚 讜讜诇讚 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讜拽住讘专 砖诇讬砖讬 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 砖谞讬

Rav Yehuda said: The above interpretation is incorrect, as here we are dealing with the secondary source of a secondary source of ritual impurity, i.e., meat that came in contact with second-degree ritual impurity. The statement in the mishna: That became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of ritual impurity, should not be understood as saying that it came into contact with meat with first-degree ritual impurity status, as in this case, the meat came into contact with meat with second-degree ritual impurity status and is impure with third-degree ritual impurity. And Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest maintains that it is permitted to render impure with second-degree impurity an object with third-degree ritual impurity by burning it with meat that came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity.

讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 讜谞驻诇 诪谞讘诇转诐 注诇讬讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 there a principle that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food, as it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that food transmits impurity to other food; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if water is placed upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it is impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). The Sages derived from this verse: It, the food exposed to the source of impurity, is impure, but it does not render similar foods impure. Apparently, food does not transmit impurity to other food.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜

This works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who said: They taught this principle that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food only with regard to non-sacred food; however, with regard to teruma and consecrated food, food transmits impurity to other foods it touches, and it renders the teruma or consecrated food similar to it in terms of impurity.

讜诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讜转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 砖驻讬专

And this is also the case according to the opinion stated by Rav Adda bar Ahava in the name of Rava, who said: They taught this principle, that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food, only with regard to non-sacred food and teruma; however, with regard to consecrated food, food transmits impurity to other foods it touches, and it renders the consecrated food similar to it in terms of impurity. According to this opinion, it works out well. As the mishna is dealing with a case of consecrated meat, impurity can be transmitted from one food item to another.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪拽专讗 诪诇讗 讚讬讘专 讛讻转讜讘 诇讗 砖谞讗 讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

However, this is not the case according to the opinion stated by Ravina in the name of Rava, who said: The Torah stated this principle in a categorical verse, without any exceptions, meaning it is no different with regard to non-sacred food, and it is no different with regard to teruma, and it is no different with regard to consecrated food, as in all of these cases one type of food does not render other food similar to it in terms of impurity. According to this opinion, what can be said in terms of understanding the statement in the mishna: Even though they thereby add impurity to its impurity?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讛讚讬 讘砖专 讚拽讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 诪砖拽讬谉

The Gemara answers in defense of this opinion: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where there are liquids with the meat when it comes into contact with the primary source of ritual impurity. Since the other piece of meat comes into contact with the liquid on that meat, it becomes impure due to contact with the liquid. Although food does not transmit impurity to food, liquid transmits impurity to food.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 注诐 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 注诐 讛讘砖专 讜诪砖拽讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 谞讛讬 讚讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讛讜 诪讟诪讗:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this phrase: With meat that became ritually impure by contact with a primary source of impurity, is imprecise. The tanna should have said: With meat and liquids, as the liquids are essential for the transmission of impurity. Rather, the Gemara explains: Although food does not transmit impurity to other food by Torah law, in any event, by rabbinic law, food transmits impurity to other food. The mishna is based on the rabbinic decree that food transmits impurity to other food.

讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬诪讬讛谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛讚诇讬拽 讻讜壮: 诪讻讚讬 砖诪谉 砖谞驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讜讻讬 诪讚诇讬拽 诇讬讛 讘谞专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 砖谞讬

It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva added: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day, in a lamp that was rendered ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: Now consider, what is the status of oil that was disqualified by one who immersed himself during that day? As one who immersed himself during that day assumes second-degree impurity, the oil that he touches assumes third-degree ritual impurity status. And when he lights it in a lamp that was rendered ritually impure through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, who has first-degree impurity status, what is the impurity status of the oil? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖诇讬砖讬 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 砖谞讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讘谞专 砖诇 诪转讻转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专

If so, what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us by this halakha? This statement apparently teaches us that with regard to an object that is ritually impure with third-degree impurity status, it is permitted to render it impure with second-degree impurity status. Yet this is the same halakha as that which was taught by Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest. What is novel about the halakha taught by Rabbi Akiva? Rav Yehuda said: Here, we are dealing with a metal lamp, which has a unique halakhic status. As the Merciful One states:

讘讞诇诇 讞专讘 讞专讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞诇诇 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜拽住讘专 砖诇讬砖讬 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 专讗砖讜谉

鈥淎nd whoever touches one who is slain with a sword in the open field, or one who dies on his own, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:16). The Sages derived from the phrase: One who is slain with a sword, that the legal status of a metal sword in terms of its degree of impurity is like that of one who is slain. Any metal vessel that becomes impure through contact with a corpse assumes the impurity status of a corpse, the ultimate primary source of ritual impurity. The same is true with regard to a metal vessel that came into contact with a person or vessel that became impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that case the metal vessel assumes the impurity status of that person or vessel, and therefore, this metal lamp is a primary source of impurity. And yet Rabbi Akiva maintains that it is permitted to render this oil, which is impure with third-degree impurity, impure with first-degree impurity through contact with the metal lamp.

讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞专 砖诇 诪转讻转 谞讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞专 砖诇 讞专住

The Gemara asks: And what impelled Rav Yehuda to establish the mishna as referring specifically to the case of a metal lamp? Let him establish it as referring specifically to the case of an earthenware lamp.

讜诪讗讬 讛讜住讬祝 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 驻住讜诇 讜讟诪讗

And if so, what does Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement add? The Gemara answers: Whereas there, in Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 testimony, he is referring to a case where one piece of ritually impure meat came into contact with another piece of impure meat, here, in Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 testimony, he is referring to a case where oil that is disqualified came into contact with a lamp with first-degree impurity status, rendering the oil impure. Oil with second-degree ritual impurity status disqualifies teruma, as teruma with third-degree ritual impurity status does not transmit ritual impurity to other teruma. In that case, the novelty in Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement is that a disqualified item is burned together with an impure item even though it is thereby rendered impure.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 谞专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 谞讬转谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讘砖专抓

Rava said: The mishna was difficult for Rav Yehuda: Why did the tanna specifically teach the case of a lamp that became ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse? Let it teach that the lamp became impure by contact with a creeping animal, which is a much more common primary source of impurity.

讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 诇砖专抓 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪转讻转

Rather, what is the substance with regard to which there is a distinction between its impurity when exposed to impurity imparted by a corpse and its impurity when exposed to impurity imparted by a creeping animal? You must say that the substance is metal. A metal vessel that comes into contact with a creeping animal assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, whereas if it comes into contact with a person or a vessel that came into contact with a corpse, it becomes a primary source of impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 谞专 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讛讗讬 砖诪谉 讗讬 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬 讙讜驻讬讛 讛讗 驻住讬诇 讜拽讗讬

Rava said: Learn from this statement that Rabbi Akiva holds: The ritual impurity of liquids with regard to transmitting impurity to other objects is by Torah law, contrary to those tanna鈥檌m who hold that liquids transmit impurity only by rabbinic decree. As, if it enters your mind that this type of impurity is by rabbinic law, now, this lamp, what effect does this lamp have on that oil? If it is to disqualify the oil itself, it is already disqualified from the outset. Rather, Rabbi Akiva evidently maintains that through contact with the lamp this oil becomes impure and transmits impurity to food by Torah law.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 谞诪讬 转讞诇讛 讛讜讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you know that this is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion? Perhaps Rabbi Akiva holds that through contact with the lamp, the oil will be able to transmit ritual impurity to other objects by rabbinic law. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If the oil confers impurity by rabbinic law, why does Rabbi Akiva refer particularly to a case where the oil became impure by contact with a primary source of impurity? If Rabbi Akiva sought to cite an example of rabbinic impurity, he could have cited even a case where the oil came into contact with an object with first-degree impurity status, or an item with second-degree impurity status. By rabbinic law, in those cases too, the oil is impure with first-degree ritual impurity and transmits impurity to food.

讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛驻讜住诇 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 转讞诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara cites the source for that halakha. As we learned in a mishna: Any item that disqualifies teruma, e.g., anything with second-degree ritual impurity status, transmits impurity to liquids, conferring upon them first-degree ritual impurity status. These liquids assume a higher degree of impurity than the item that rendered them impure. This rabbinic decree applies to anything with second-degree ritual impurity status except for one who was impure and immersed himself during that day and the sun has not yet set. If such a person touches liquids, he does not confer upon them first-degree impurity status. Instead, that case conforms to the standard process of transmission of ritual impurity, and he confers upon them third-degree ritual impurity status and invalidates them.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗:

The Gemara concludes: Rather, learn from the fact that Rabbi Akiva did not cite the example of oil that became impure through contact with an item with first or second-degree ritual impurity that Rabbi Akiva holds that the halakha that liquids transmit impurity to other items is by Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 讜讻讜壮: 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讜讟诪讗 讛讻讗 讟讛讜专 讜讟诪讗

It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Meir said: From their statements we learned that one may burn ritually pure teruma with impure teruma when removing leaven on Passover eve. The Gemara asks: From whose statements was this conclusion inferred? If you say that this conclusion is inferred from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement comparable to that case? There, Rabbi 岣nina said that one may burn one ritually impure item and another ritually impure item together, whereas here, Rabbi Meir is referring to burning pure and impure teruma together.

讜讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 驻住讜诇 讜讟诪讗 讛讻讗 讟讛讜专 讜讟诪讗

But rather, Rabbi Meir鈥檚 conclusion is inferred from the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Is it comparable to that case? There, Rabbi Akiva said that a disqualified item and an impure item may be burned together, whereas here, Rabbi Meir is referring to burning a pure item and an impure item together.

谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讟讛讜专 诪注诇讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Meir maintains that the mishna is referring to an object that is a primary source of impurity by Torah law and an object that is a secondary source of impurity by rabbinic law, which by Torah law is entirely pure. Since the teruma is pure by Torah law, the novelty of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement is that although by Torah law one of the foods is pure and the other is impure, due to the rabbinic decree of impurity, one may burn the two items together.

Scroll To Top