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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 6, 2020 | 讻壮 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 dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Pesachim 15

Today’s daf is dedicated by Rabbi Joel and Shulamith Cohen for a refuah shelema for Emmy Hoffer, Chana Tema bat Chaya.
After the gemara brings two ways to explain Rabbi Meir, Reish Lakish brings a different answer. He holds that Rabbi Meir was referring to Rabbi Yehoshua – that from him we learn that one can burn teruma chametz with impure teruma. The gemara tries to figure out from which statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is this derived. First they suggest from a debate regarding a case of doubt – if an impure person touched teruma. If the teruma in doubt was hidden, Rabbi Yehoshua allows it to be uncovered and unprotected. But the gemara rejects the comparison as to leave something unprotected is not the same as directly causing it to become impure (by burning with impure teruma). The gemara then brings a different opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua who permits taking teruma from a broken barrel that is about to spill into impure chulin and place it into an impure vessel, thereby taking something about to be ruined and permitting one to directly make it impure. Likewise, chametz on erev Pesach is about to be destroyed and therefore one can burn it with impure teruma. The gemara raises a question on Reish Lakish from a braita where it seems clear that Rabbi Meir derived it from Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim, however the gemara explains that it was Rabbi Yosi who misunderstood Rabbi Meir at first. thinking he was learning it from Rabbi Chanina but Rabbi Meir himself did not say that. According to Reish Lakish, why did Rabbi Yosi not agree with Rabbi Meir? Rabbi Yochanan understood that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi only disagreed in the 6th hour but in the 7th hour, they both agreed that one can burn pure teruma with impure teruma. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Asi derive from here that Rabbi Yochanan held that Rabbi Meir derived his opinion from Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim. How? The gemara brings two sources to prove Rabbi Yochanan but both are rejected. The gemara also tries to explain the continuation of the mishna according to Rabbi Yochanan, what is the connection to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yosi?

讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐

And what did Rabbi Meir mean when he said: From their statements? He meant: From the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 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 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

Reish Lakish said another explanation of the mishna in the name of bar Kappara: The case in the mishna is one involving a primary source of ritual impurity by Torah law and a secondary source of impurity by Torah law. And what did Rabbi Meir mean by the phrase: From their statements? He was not referring to the tanna鈥檌m in this mishna, but rather: From the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua cited elsewhere.

讛讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转谞谉 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讛 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讜谞讞转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专驻讛 讬谞讬讞谞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诪讜爪谞注 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讬讻住谞讛

The Gemara asks: To which statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is Rabbi Meir referring? If you say he is referring to this statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a barrel of teruma produce with regard to which uncertainty developed with regard to its impurity, and which therefore may not be eaten, Rabbi Eliezer says that one must nevertheless safeguard the teruma from ritual impurity. Therefore, he maintains: If the barrel was resting in a vulnerable place, where it may come into contact with impurity, one should place it in a concealed place, and if it was exposed, he should cover it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讜谞讞转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诪讜爪谞注 讬谞讬讞谞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专驻讛 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讻讜住讛 讬讙诇谞讛

Rabbi Yehoshua says: That is not necessary. Rather, even if it was placed in a concealed place, he may place it in a vulnerable place if he chooses. And if it was covered, he may expose it, as he need no longer safeguard this teruma from impurity. According to Rabbi Yehoshua, as teruma whose impurity status is uncertain, may be used only for lighting a fire, there is no requirement to prevent it from contact with ritual impurity. The same reasoning applies to pure leaven: One is not required to safeguard it from impurity in the process of its removal.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讘讬讚讬诐

The Gemara rejects the comparison: Is this dispute with regard to the placement of doubtfully impure teruma comparable to the case of burning ritually pure and impure items together? There, Rabbi Yehoshua permits mere passive causation of impurity; however, he does not permit one to actively render teruma whose impurity status is uncertain, impure. Here, however, in the statement of Rabbi Meir, he actively renders leavened teruma impure with his hands.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转谞谉 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讙转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜转讞转讜谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉

Rather, Rabbi Meir did not infer his opinion from that statement; instead, he inferred it from this other statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper area of a winepress, where grapes are pressed, and there is impure, non-sacred wine in the lower area of the press, where the wine flows from the upper area, the following dilemma arises: If the teruma wine flows into the non-sacred wine, the teruma will be rendered ritually impure. The result will be significant financial loss, as the legal status of all the wine in the lower press will be that of impure teruma, which is prohibited even for priests to drink.

诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘讟讛专讛 讬爪讬诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转专讚 讜转讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚

In that case, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke by receiving the teruma wine in a vessel before it becomes impure, and thereby keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, he should rescue it. And if one cannot receive the wine in a pure vessel, as only impure vessels are available, such that if he uses them to receive the wine or to seal the upper press he will render the teruma impure, Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma wine should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, but one should not actively render it impure with his hand. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even render it impure with his hand. Since it will become impure on its own regardless of his actions, there is no objection to rendering the teruma impure preemptively in order to prevent greater financial loss. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, it is permitted to render an item impure if it will be lost in any case.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that Rabbi Meir is referring to the above dispute, this expression: From their statements, is imprecise, as his ruling is not based on Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion at all. Instead, Rabbi Meir should have said: From his statement, as he learns his ruling solely from the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪诪讞诇讜拽转谉 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇诪讚谞讜 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying: We learned this ruling from the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. Since the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this is a substantive source. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as the continuation of the mishna teaches: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede. This indicates that Rabbi Meir is referring to their opinions. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct interpretation of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 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 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

And likewise, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The case in the mishna is one involving a primary source of ritual impurity by Torah law and a secondary source of impurity by Torah law. And what is the meaning of the phrase: From their statements? It means from the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the dispute cited above.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讛谞讚讜谉 讚讜诪讛 诇专讗讬讛 砖讻砖讛注讬讚讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 注诇 诪讛 讛注讬讚讜 讗诐 注诇 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诐 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讝讛 讟诪讗 讜讝讛 讟诪讗

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the Tosefta that elaborates on the mishna. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Meir: The inferred conclusion of burning pure and impure leaven together is not similar to the case from which you cited proof. When the Sages testified, about what did they testify? If your source is the testimony of Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, he testified about the meat that became ritually impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity, saying that one may burn it together with the meat that became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity. In that case, this meat is impure and that meat is similarly impure.

讗诐 注诇 讛砖诪谉 砖谞驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘谞专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 讝讛 驻住讜诇 讜讝讛 讟诪讗 讗祝 讗谞讜 诪讜讚讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讘讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诐 讛转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛

If your source is the testimony of Rabbi Akiva, he testified about teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day, saying that one may kindle it 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. That is a case where this oil is disqualified and that lamp is impure. We also concede with regard to teruma that became impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity that one may burn it with teruma that became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity.

讗讘诇 讛讬讗讱 谞砖专祝 讛转诇讜讬讛 注诐 讛讟诪讗讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛

However, how will we burn teruma in abeyance, whose impurity status is uncertain, together with ritually impure teruma? Perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come and establish prophetically that the teruma is not ritually impure, and he will render it ritually pure. The legal status of teruma in abeyance is uncertain. How can one actively render it impure when it might ultimately be determined that it is pure?

讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 讜讛讟诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞砖专驻讬谉 讻讗讞转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞砖专驻讬谉 讻讗讞转

The Tosefta continues: Piggul is an offering disqualified by the improper intention during the performance of the four sacrificial rites to sacrifice it or eat it after its appropriate time; and notar is the flesh of a sacrifice that is left over beyond its allotted time. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on both, and both, as well as sacrificial meat deemed ritually impure by Torah law, may not be eaten and must be burned. Beit Shammai say: They may not be burned together, as in doing so the piggul and notar, which are impure by rabbinic law, will come into contact with meat impure by Torah law, adding impurity to their impurity. And Beit Hillel say: They may be burned together.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽讗诪专 讗诪讗讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讛讜讗 住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara returns to the issue under discussion: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Meir is saying that he derives his opinion from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, why does Rabbi Yosei respond to him from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest? Rav Na岣an said to him: Rabbi Yosei did not have Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning in mind, as he did not understand Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning. As Rabbi Yosei maintains that Rabbi Meir is saying to him proof from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest, and Rabbi Meir said to him: I am stating my proof from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讛诪讚讛 讚讛讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖砖讜专祝 讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛

And Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Meir in response: And even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, that is not the inference from which the halakha of burning pure and impure leavened teruma together can be learned, as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede that one should burn this meat by itself and that meat by itself, as stated in the mishna. From an analysis of the mishna and the Tosefta, it is possible to reconstruct the original dispute.

讜讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讛诪讚讛 诪讚讛 讜诪讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the above statement: But why does Rabbi Yosei say: That is not the inference from which it can be learned? On the contrary, it is a perfectly legitimate inference. In both cases the dispute is the same: Is one permitted to actively render an object impure preemptively if it will ultimately be destroyed regardless?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara rejects this contention: The case there, of the broken barrel in the upper press, where according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is permitted to actively render the teruma impure, is different, as in that case there is the potential loss of non-sacred produce. If one does not render the teruma in the upper press impure by receiving it in impure vessels, it will flow down and render the impure, non-sacred wine in the lower press impure teruma. However, in the case of leaven, no loss will be incurred. Why, then, shouldn鈥檛 each teruma be burned independently?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 讚注爪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诇讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讞砖砖讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 诇讗 讞砖砖讜

Rav Yirmeya strongly objects to this claim: In the mishna, too, there is the loss of wood, as one requires additional wood to kindle a second fire and burn the impure teruma separately. A certain Elder said to him: With regard to this and similar issues, the Sages were concerned about a great loss; however, they were not concerned about the minimal loss of several pieces of wood.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖砖 讗讘诇 讘砖讘注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖讜专驻讬谉

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei refers to the sixth hour, when leaven is prohibited by rabbinic decree. However, in the seventh hour, when leaven is prohibited by Torah law, everyone agrees that one may burn ritually pure leavened teruma together with impure leavened teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Let us say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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. And what is the meaning of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement: From their statements? He meant from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest, as explained above. The dispute refers to a rabbinic prohibition, e.g., a secondary source of impurity or the obligation to burn leaven during the sixth hour. In a case where the leaven is not yet prohibited by rabbinic law, e.g., in the fourth or fifth hour, even Rabbi Meir agrees that one may not burn ritually pure and impure teruma together.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖砖 讗讘诇 讘砖讘注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖讜专驻讬谉

Rabbi Asi said to him: Yes, Rabbi Yo岣nan indeed interprets the mishna in this manner. It was also stated explicitly that this is the case, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: 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. And what is the meaning of: From their statements? It means from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest. And the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei is with regard to the sixth hour, when leaven is prohibited by rabbinic law. However, everyone agrees that in the seventh hour one may burn them together, as both pieces of leavened teruma are prohibited by Torah law.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 讜讛讟诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞砖专驻讬谉 讻讗讞转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞砖专驻讬谉 讻讗讞转

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the end of the baraita supports Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 assertion that even Rabbi Yosei agrees that it is permitted to burn together two objects prohibited by Torah law. As the baraita states with regard to piggul, notar, and ritually impure sacrificial meat that Beit Shammai say: They may not be burned together, and Beit Hillel say: They may be burned together. All of these items are prohibited by Torah law, and Rabbi Yosei would agree that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐

The Gemara rejects this contention: It is different there, as piggul and notar are ritually impure by rabbinic law, and therefore Rabbi Yosei would agree that they may be burned together in that case. That is not true in the case of leaven in the seventh hour, which is not impure even by rabbinic law, although it is prohibited by Torah law. As we learned in a mishna: Piggul and notar, leftover sacrificial flesh, render one鈥檚 hands impure by rabbinic decree.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛驻转 砖注讬驻砖讛 讜谞驻住诇讛 诪诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗讚诐 讜讛讻诇讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讻诇讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讻讘讬爪讛 讜谞砖专驻转 注诐 讛讟诪讗讛 讘驻住讞

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: With regard to bread that became moldy and is no longer fit for a person to eat, but a dog can still eat it, this bread can become impure with the ritual impurity of food if it is the size of an egg-bulk, as it is still classified as food. If it is pure leavened teruma, it is burned with impure teruma on Passover eve. Since the moldy bread is no longer edible, it is not necessary to refrain from burning it together with impure items. Apparently, this is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion, as Rabbi Meir maintains that pure and impure teruma are burned together even if neither is moldy. Since Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of moldy bread, the same should apply to leavened teruma after the seventh hour, which is prohibited by Torah law.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this contention: It is different there, in the case of moldy bread, as it is for all intents and purposes mere dust, and its legal status is no longer that of food.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诪讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诪讬拽诇 讻讬 诪讬拽诇 讘转诇讜讬讛 讜讟诪讗讛 讗讘诇 讘讟讛讜专讛 讜讟诪讗讛 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If so, that Rabbi Meir鈥檚 proof is based on the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest, why does the mishna mention that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua? The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to Rabbi Meir: Even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who rules leniently in this case, when he rules leniently it is with regard to burning teruma in abeyance together with impure teruma; however, with regard to burning pure teruma and impure teruma together, no, he does not permit doing so.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讛诪讚讛 诪讚讛 讜诪讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that Rabbi Meir鈥檚 proof is based on the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest, why did Rabbi Yosei say: That is not the inference from which it can be learned? On the contrary, it is a perfectly legitimate inference. According to Rabbi Meir, pure teruma is prohibited during the sixth hour by rabbinic law. Just as Rabbi 岣nina holds that one may actively transmit impurity to an object that is impure by rabbinic law by burning it together with an object that is impure by Torah law, so too, according to Rabbi Meir one may transmit impurity to an item prohibited by rabbinic law by burning it together with an item that is impure by Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 砖谞讟诪讗讜 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Here, the mishna is referring to meat that became ritually impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity by means of liquids that became impure due to contact with a creeping animal and thereby assumed second-degree ritual impurity. And Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning, and Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning with regard to this issue, as he said: The ritual impurity of liquids with regard to transmitting impurity to other objects is by rabbinic law. The meat that became impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity is in fact entirely pure by Torah law. Therefore, he learns from the mishna that it is permitted to burn pure and impure items together.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 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 讚转谞讬讗

And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: The ritual impurity of liquids with regard to transmitting impurity to other objects is by Torah law. Accordingly, the meat that Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest referred to in the mishna was impure by Torah law. Therefore, this case cannot serve as a precedent for the claim that it is permitted to burn pure and impure teruma together on Passover eve. As it was taught in a baraita:

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 dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 16: Liquid Pure

Impurity, now in the context of liquid. All of which, in the slaughtering part of the Beit HaMikdash, were pure....
alon shvut women

From Them

Today we attempt to understand Rebbi Meir's opinion in the mishna - that he learned from them. Who is them?...

Pesachim 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 15

讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐

And what did Rabbi Meir mean when he said: From their statements? He meant: From the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 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 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

Reish Lakish said another explanation of the mishna in the name of bar Kappara: The case in the mishna is one involving a primary source of ritual impurity by Torah law and a secondary source of impurity by Torah law. And what did Rabbi Meir mean by the phrase: From their statements? He was not referring to the tanna鈥檌m in this mishna, but rather: From the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua cited elsewhere.

讛讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转谞谉 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讛 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讜谞讞转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专驻讛 讬谞讬讞谞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诪讜爪谞注 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讬讻住谞讛

The Gemara asks: To which statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is Rabbi Meir referring? If you say he is referring to this statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a barrel of teruma produce with regard to which uncertainty developed with regard to its impurity, and which therefore may not be eaten, Rabbi Eliezer says that one must nevertheless safeguard the teruma from ritual impurity. Therefore, he maintains: If the barrel was resting in a vulnerable place, where it may come into contact with impurity, one should place it in a concealed place, and if it was exposed, he should cover it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讜谞讞转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诪讜爪谞注 讬谞讬讞谞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专驻讛 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讻讜住讛 讬讙诇谞讛

Rabbi Yehoshua says: That is not necessary. Rather, even if it was placed in a concealed place, he may place it in a vulnerable place if he chooses. And if it was covered, he may expose it, as he need no longer safeguard this teruma from impurity. According to Rabbi Yehoshua, as teruma whose impurity status is uncertain, may be used only for lighting a fire, there is no requirement to prevent it from contact with ritual impurity. The same reasoning applies to pure leaven: One is not required to safeguard it from impurity in the process of its removal.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讘讬讚讬诐

The Gemara rejects the comparison: Is this dispute with regard to the placement of doubtfully impure teruma comparable to the case of burning ritually pure and impure items together? There, Rabbi Yehoshua permits mere passive causation of impurity; however, he does not permit one to actively render teruma whose impurity status is uncertain, impure. Here, however, in the statement of Rabbi Meir, he actively renders leavened teruma impure with his hands.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转谞谉 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讙转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜转讞转讜谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉

Rather, Rabbi Meir did not infer his opinion from that statement; instead, he inferred it from this other statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper area of a winepress, where grapes are pressed, and there is impure, non-sacred wine in the lower area of the press, where the wine flows from the upper area, the following dilemma arises: If the teruma wine flows into the non-sacred wine, the teruma will be rendered ritually impure. The result will be significant financial loss, as the legal status of all the wine in the lower press will be that of impure teruma, which is prohibited even for priests to drink.

诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘讟讛专讛 讬爪讬诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转专讚 讜转讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚

In that case, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke by receiving the teruma wine in a vessel before it becomes impure, and thereby keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, he should rescue it. And if one cannot receive the wine in a pure vessel, as only impure vessels are available, such that if he uses them to receive the wine or to seal the upper press he will render the teruma impure, Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma wine should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, but one should not actively render it impure with his hand. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even render it impure with his hand. Since it will become impure on its own regardless of his actions, there is no objection to rendering the teruma impure preemptively in order to prevent greater financial loss. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, it is permitted to render an item impure if it will be lost in any case.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that Rabbi Meir is referring to the above dispute, this expression: From their statements, is imprecise, as his ruling is not based on Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion at all. Instead, Rabbi Meir should have said: From his statement, as he learns his ruling solely from the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪诪讞诇讜拽转谉 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇诪讚谞讜 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying: We learned this ruling from the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. Since the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this is a substantive source. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as the continuation of the mishna teaches: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede. This indicates that Rabbi Meir is referring to their opinions. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct interpretation of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 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 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

And likewise, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The case in the mishna is one involving a primary source of ritual impurity by Torah law and a secondary source of impurity by Torah law. And what is the meaning of the phrase: From their statements? It means from the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the dispute cited above.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讛谞讚讜谉 讚讜诪讛 诇专讗讬讛 砖讻砖讛注讬讚讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 注诇 诪讛 讛注讬讚讜 讗诐 注诇 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诐 讛讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讝讛 讟诪讗 讜讝讛 讟诪讗

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the Tosefta that elaborates on the mishna. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Meir: The inferred conclusion of burning pure and impure leaven together is not similar to the case from which you cited proof. When the Sages testified, about what did they testify? If your source is the testimony of Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, he testified about the meat that became ritually impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity, saying that one may burn it together with the meat that became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity. In that case, this meat is impure and that meat is similarly impure.

讗诐 注诇 讛砖诪谉 砖谞驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘谞专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 讝讛 驻住讜诇 讜讝讛 讟诪讗 讗祝 讗谞讜 诪讜讚讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讘讜讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诐 讛转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛

If your source is the testimony of Rabbi Akiva, he testified about teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day, saying that one may kindle it 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. That is a case where this oil is disqualified and that lamp is impure. We also concede with regard to teruma that became impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity that one may burn it with teruma that became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity.

讗讘诇 讛讬讗讱 谞砖专祝 讛转诇讜讬讛 注诐 讛讟诪讗讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛

However, how will we burn teruma in abeyance, whose impurity status is uncertain, together with ritually impure teruma? Perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come and establish prophetically that the teruma is not ritually impure, and he will render it ritually pure. The legal status of teruma in abeyance is uncertain. How can one actively render it impure when it might ultimately be determined that it is pure?

讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 讜讛讟诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞砖专驻讬谉 讻讗讞转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞砖专驻讬谉 讻讗讞转

The Tosefta continues: Piggul is an offering disqualified by the improper intention during the performance of the four sacrificial rites to sacrifice it or eat it after its appropriate time; and notar is the flesh of a sacrifice that is left over beyond its allotted time. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on both, and both, as well as sacrificial meat deemed ritually impure by Torah law, may not be eaten and must be burned. Beit Shammai say: They may not be burned together, as in doing so the piggul and notar, which are impure by rabbinic law, will come into contact with meat impure by Torah law, adding impurity to their impurity. And Beit Hillel say: They may be burned together.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽讗诪专 讗诪讗讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讛讜讗 住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara returns to the issue under discussion: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Meir is saying that he derives his opinion from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, why does Rabbi Yosei respond to him from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest? Rav Na岣an said to him: Rabbi Yosei did not have Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning in mind, as he did not understand Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning. As Rabbi Yosei maintains that Rabbi Meir is saying to him proof from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest, and Rabbi Meir said to him: I am stating my proof from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讛诪讚讛 讚讛讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖砖讜专祝 讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛

And Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Meir in response: And even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, that is not the inference from which the halakha of burning pure and impure leavened teruma together can be learned, as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede that one should burn this meat by itself and that meat by itself, as stated in the mishna. From an analysis of the mishna and the Tosefta, it is possible to reconstruct the original dispute.

讜讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讛诪讚讛 诪讚讛 讜诪讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the above statement: But why does Rabbi Yosei say: That is not the inference from which it can be learned? On the contrary, it is a perfectly legitimate inference. In both cases the dispute is the same: Is one permitted to actively render an object impure preemptively if it will ultimately be destroyed regardless?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara rejects this contention: The case there, of the broken barrel in the upper press, where according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is permitted to actively render the teruma impure, is different, as in that case there is the potential loss of non-sacred produce. If one does not render the teruma in the upper press impure by receiving it in impure vessels, it will flow down and render the impure, non-sacred wine in the lower press impure teruma. However, in the case of leaven, no loss will be incurred. Why, then, shouldn鈥檛 each teruma be burned independently?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 讚注爪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诇讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讞砖砖讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 诇讗 讞砖砖讜

Rav Yirmeya strongly objects to this claim: In the mishna, too, there is the loss of wood, as one requires additional wood to kindle a second fire and burn the impure teruma separately. A certain Elder said to him: With regard to this and similar issues, the Sages were concerned about a great loss; however, they were not concerned about the minimal loss of several pieces of wood.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖砖 讗讘诇 讘砖讘注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖讜专驻讬谉

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei refers to the sixth hour, when leaven is prohibited by rabbinic decree. However, in the seventh hour, when leaven is prohibited by Torah law, everyone agrees that one may burn ritually pure leavened teruma together with impure leavened teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Let us say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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. And what is the meaning of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement: From their statements? He meant from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest, as explained above. The dispute refers to a rabbinic prohibition, e.g., a secondary source of impurity or the obligation to burn leaven during the sixth hour. In a case where the leaven is not yet prohibited by rabbinic law, e.g., in the fourth or fifth hour, even Rabbi Meir agrees that one may not burn ritually pure and impure teruma together.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖砖 讗讘诇 讘砖讘注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖讜专驻讬谉

Rabbi Asi said to him: Yes, Rabbi Yo岣nan indeed interprets the mishna in this manner. It was also stated explicitly that this is the case, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: 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. And what is the meaning of: From their statements? It means from the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest. And the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei is with regard to the sixth hour, when leaven is prohibited by rabbinic law. However, everyone agrees that in the seventh hour one may burn them together, as both pieces of leavened teruma are prohibited by Torah law.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 讜讛讟诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞砖专驻讬谉 讻讗讞转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞砖专驻讬谉 讻讗讞转

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the end of the baraita supports Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 assertion that even Rabbi Yosei agrees that it is permitted to burn together two objects prohibited by Torah law. As the baraita states with regard to piggul, notar, and ritually impure sacrificial meat that Beit Shammai say: They may not be burned together, and Beit Hillel say: They may be burned together. All of these items are prohibited by Torah law, and Rabbi Yosei would agree that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐

The Gemara rejects this contention: It is different there, as piggul and notar are ritually impure by rabbinic law, and therefore Rabbi Yosei would agree that they may be burned together in that case. That is not true in the case of leaven in the seventh hour, which is not impure even by rabbinic law, although it is prohibited by Torah law. As we learned in a mishna: Piggul and notar, leftover sacrificial flesh, render one鈥檚 hands impure by rabbinic decree.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛驻转 砖注讬驻砖讛 讜谞驻住诇讛 诪诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗讚诐 讜讛讻诇讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讻诇讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讻讘讬爪讛 讜谞砖专驻转 注诐 讛讟诪讗讛 讘驻住讞

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: With regard to bread that became moldy and is no longer fit for a person to eat, but a dog can still eat it, this bread can become impure with the ritual impurity of food if it is the size of an egg-bulk, as it is still classified as food. If it is pure leavened teruma, it is burned with impure teruma on Passover eve. Since the moldy bread is no longer edible, it is not necessary to refrain from burning it together with impure items. Apparently, this is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion, as Rabbi Meir maintains that pure and impure teruma are burned together even if neither is moldy. Since Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of moldy bread, the same should apply to leavened teruma after the seventh hour, which is prohibited by Torah law.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this contention: It is different there, in the case of moldy bread, as it is for all intents and purposes mere dust, and its legal status is no longer that of food.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诪讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诪讬拽诇 讻讬 诪讬拽诇 讘转诇讜讬讛 讜讟诪讗讛 讗讘诇 讘讟讛讜专讛 讜讟诪讗讛 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If so, that Rabbi Meir鈥檚 proof is based on the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest, why does the mishna mention that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua? The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to Rabbi Meir: Even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who rules leniently in this case, when he rules leniently it is with regard to burning teruma in abeyance together with impure teruma; however, with regard to burning pure teruma and impure teruma together, no, he does not permit doing so.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讛诪讚讛 诪讚讛 讜诪讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that Rabbi Meir鈥檚 proof is based on the statement of Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest, why did Rabbi Yosei say: That is not the inference from which it can be learned? On the contrary, it is a perfectly legitimate inference. According to Rabbi Meir, pure teruma is prohibited during the sixth hour by rabbinic law. Just as Rabbi 岣nina holds that one may actively transmit impurity to an object that is impure by rabbinic law by burning it together with an object that is impure by Torah law, so too, according to Rabbi Meir one may transmit impurity to an item prohibited by rabbinic law by burning it together with an item that is impure by Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 砖谞讟诪讗讜 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Here, the mishna is referring to meat that became ritually impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity by means of liquids that became impure due to contact with a creeping animal and thereby assumed second-degree ritual impurity. And Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning, and Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning with regard to this issue, as he said: The ritual impurity of liquids with regard to transmitting impurity to other objects is by rabbinic law. The meat that became impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity is in fact entirely pure by Torah law. Therefore, he learns from the mishna that it is permitted to burn pure and impure items together.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 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 讚转谞讬讗

And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: The ritual impurity of liquids with regard to transmitting impurity to other objects is by Torah law. Accordingly, the meat that Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest referred to in the mishna was impure by Torah law. Therefore, this case cannot serve as a precedent for the claim that it is permitted to burn pure and impure teruma together on Passover eve. As it was taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top