Pesachim 14 – Fiery Combinations

שתי פרות היו חורשות בהר המשחה כל זמן ששתיהן חורשות כל העם אוכלין ניטלת אחת מהן תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין ניטלו שתיהן התחילו כל העם שורפין:

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.

מתני׳ רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר מימיהם של כהנים לא נמנעו מלשרוף את הבשר שנטמא בוולד הטומאה עם הבשר שנטמא באב הטומאה אף על פי שמוסיפין טומאה על טומאתו

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 Ḥanina 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.

הוסיף רבי עקיבא ואמר מימיהם של כהנים לא נמנעו מלהדליק את השמן שנפסל בטבול יום בנר שנטמא בטמא מת אף על פי שמוסיפין טומאה על טומאתו

Rabbi Akiva added to the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina 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.

אמר רבי מאיר מדבריהם למדנו ששורפין תרומה טהורה עם הטמאה בפסח אמר רבי יוסי אינה היא המדה

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.

ומודים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ששורפין זו לעצמה וזו לעצמה על מה נחלקו על התלויה ועל הטמאה שרבי אליעזר אומר תשרף זו לעצמה וזו לעצמה ורבי יהושע אומר שתיהן כאחת:

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.

גמ׳ מכדי בשר שנטמא בוולד הטומאה מאי הוי שני כי שריף ליה בהדי בשר שנטמא באב הטומאה מאי הוי שני

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna’s 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.

שני ושני הוא מאי מוסיף לו טומאה על טומאתו איכא

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.

אמר רב יהודה הכא בוולד וולד עסקינן דהוי ליה שלישי וקסבר שלישי מותר לעשותו שני

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 Ḥanina 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.

והא אין אוכל מטמא אוכל דתניא יכול יהא אוכל מטמא אוכל תלמוד לומר וכי יתן מים על זרע ונפל מנבלתם עליו טמא הוא הוא טמא ואין עושה כיוצא בו טמא

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t 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: “And if water is placed upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it is impure” (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.

הניחא לאביי דאמר לא שנו אלא בחולין אבל בתרומה וקדשים עושה כיוצא בו

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.

ולרב אדא בר אהבה משמיה דרבא נמי דאמר לא שנו אלא חולין ותרומה אבל בקדשים עושה כיוצא בהן שפיר

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.

אלא לרבינא משמיה דרבא דאמר מקרא מלא דיבר הכתוב לא שנא חולין לא שנא תרומה לא שנא קדשים אינו עושה כיוצא בו מאי איכא למימר

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?

הכא במאי עסקינן דאיכא משקין בהדי בשר דקא מיטמא מחמת משקין

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.

אי הכי האי עם הבשר שנטמא באב הטומאה עם הבשר ומשקין מיבעי ליה אלא נהי דאין אוכל מטמא אוכל מדאורייתא מדרבנן מיהו מטמא:

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.

הוסיף רבי עקיבא מימיהן של כהנים לא נמנעו מלהדליק כו׳: מכדי שמן שנפסל בטבול יום מאי הוי שלישי וכי מדליק ליה בנר שנטמא בטמא מת מאי הוי שני

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.

מאי קא משמע לן שלישי מותר לעשותו שני היינו הך אמר רב יהודה הכא בנר של מתכת עסקינן דרחמנא אמר

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 Ḥanina 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:

בחלל חרב חרב הרי הוא כחלל והויא ליה אב הטומאה וקסבר שלישי מותר לעשותו ראשון

“And 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” (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.

ומאי דוחקיה דרב יהודה לאוקמיה בנר של מתכת נוקמיה בנר של חרס

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.

ומאי הוסיף דאילו התם טמא וטמא ואילו הכא פסול וטמא

And if so, what does Rabbi Akiva’s statement add? The Gemara answers: Whereas there, in Rabbi Ḥanina’s 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’s 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’s statement is that a disqualified item is burned together with an impure item even though it is thereby rendered impure.

אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני נר שנטמא בטמא מת ניתני שנטמא בשרץ

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.

אלא איזהו דבר שחלוקה טומאתו בין טומאת מת לשרץ הוי אומר זה מתכת

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.

אמר רבא שמע מינה קסבר רבי עקיבא טומאת משקין לטמא אחרים דאורייתא דאי סלקא דעתך דרבנן מכדי האי נר מאי קא מהניא להאי שמן אי לאיפסולי גופיה הא פסיל וקאי

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’im 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.

ממאי דילמא לטמא אחרים מדרבנן אי מדרבנן מאי איריא באב הטומאה אפילו בראשון ושני נמי תחלה הוי

The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you know that this is Rabbi Akiva’s 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.

דתנן כל הפוסל את התרומה מטמא משקין להיות תחלה חוץ מטבול יום

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.

אלא שמע מינה דאורייתא היא:

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.

אמר רבי מאיר מדבריהם למדנו וכו׳: מדבריהם דמאן אילימא מדברי רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים מי דמי התם טמא וטמא הכא טהור וטמא

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 Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, is Rabbi Meir’s statement comparable to that case? There, Rabbi Ḥanina 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.

ואלא מדברי רבי עקיבא מי דמי התם פסול וטמא הכא טהור וטמא

But rather, Rabbi Meir’s 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.

נימא קסבר רבי מאיר מתניתין באב הטומאה דאורייתא וולד הטומאה דרבנן דמדאורייתא טהור מעליא

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’s 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.