פסחים טו

פסחים טו

וּמַאי ״מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם״ — מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים.

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

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: מַתְנִיתִין בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמַאי ״מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם״, מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

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’im in this mishna, but rather: From the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua cited elsewhere.

הֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? אִילֵּימָא הָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דִּתְנַן: חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד לָהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה מוּנַּחַת בִּמְקוֹם הַתּוּרְפָּה, יַנִּיחֶנָּה בְּמָקוֹם הַמּוּצְנָע, וְאִם הָיְתָה מְגוּלָּה — יְכַסֶּנָּה.

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.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה מוּנַּחַת בְּמָקוֹם הַמּוּצְנָע — יַנִּיחֶנָּה בִּמְקוֹם הַתּוּרְפָּה, וְאִם הָיְתָה מְכוּסָּה — יְגַלֶּנָּה.

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.

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם — גְּרָמָא בְּעָלְמָא. הָכָא — בְּיָדַיִם!

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.

אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דִּתְנַן: חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בַּגַּת הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, וְתַחְתּוֹנָה חוּלִּין טְמֵאִין,

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.

מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית בְּטׇהֳרָה — יַצִּיל. וְאִם לָאו, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: תֵּרֵד וְתִטָּמֵא, וְאַל יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אַף יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד.

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.

אִי הָכִי, הַאי ״מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם״, ״מִדְּבָרָיו״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

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’s opinion at all. Instead, Rabbi Meir should have said: From his statement, as he learns his ruling solely from the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִמַּחְלוֹקְתָּן שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לָמַדְנוּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי: דְּקָתָנֵי ״מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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’s statement.

וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, מַתְנִיתִין בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וּמַאי ״מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם״ — מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

And likewise, Rav Naḥman 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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין הַנָּדוֹן דּוֹמֶה לִרְאָיָה, שֶׁכְּשֶׁהֵעִידוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ, עַל מָה הֵעִידוּ — אִם עַל הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בִּוְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתוֹ עִם הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה, זֶה טָמֵא וְזֶה טָמֵא.

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman 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 Ḥanina, 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.

אִם עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁמַּדְלִיקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּנֵר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בִּטְמֵא מֵת, זֶה פָּסוּל וְזֶה טָמֵא. אַף אָנוּ מוֹדִים בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת בִּוְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה, שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ עִם הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה.

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.

אֲבָל הֵיאַךְ נִשְׂרֹף הַתְּלוּיָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה? שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וִיטַהֲרֶנָּה!

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?

הַפִּיגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נִשְׂרָפִין כְּאַחַת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נִשְׂרָפִין כְּאַחַת.

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.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קָאָמַר, אַמַּאי מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִדְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ, דְּהוּא סָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִדְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קָאָמֵינָא,

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 Ḥanina the deputy High Priest? Rav Naḥman said to him: Rabbi Yosei did not have Rabbi Meir’s reasoning in mind, as he did not understand Rabbi Meir’s reasoning. As Rabbi Yosei maintains that Rabbi Meir is saying to him proof from the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest, and Rabbi Meir said to him: I am stating my proof from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה, דְּהָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁשּׂוֹרֵף זוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ.

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.

וְאַמַּאי אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה? מִדָּה וּמִדָּה הִיא!

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?

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיכָּא הֶפְסֵד חוּלִּין.

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’t each teruma be burned independently?

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יִרְמְיָה: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי אִיכָּא הֶפְסֵד דְּעֵצִים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: לְהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה — חָשְׁשׁוּ, לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט — לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשֵׁשׁ, אֲבָל בְּשֶׁבַע — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שׂוֹרְפִין.

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: נֵימָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַתְנִיתִין בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן, וּמַאי ״מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם״ — מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Let us say that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s statement: From their statements? He meant from the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַתְנִיתִין בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן, וּמַאי ״מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם״ — מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים. וּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֵׁשׁ, אֲבָל בְּשֶׁבַע — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שׂוֹרְפִין.

Rabbi Asi said to him: Yes, Rabbi Yoḥanan indeed interprets the mishna in this manner. It was also stated explicitly that this is the case, as Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥanina 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.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַפִּיגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נִשְׂרָפִין כְּאַחַת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נִשְׂרָפִין כְּאַחַת.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the end of the baraita supports Rabbi Yoḥanan’s 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.

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם: דְּאִית לְהוּ טוּמְאָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן: הַפִּיגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם.

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’s hands impure by rabbinic decree.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַפַּת שֶׁעִיפְּשָׁה וְנִפְסְלָה מִלֶּאֱכוֹל לְאָדָם, וְהַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְאׇכְלָהּ — מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין בִּכְבֵיצָה, וְנִשְׂרֶפֶת עִם הַטְּמֵאָה בַּפֶּסַח.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rabbi Yoḥanan’s 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’s 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.

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּעַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

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.

אִי הָכִי מַאי מוֹדֶה? הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּמֵיקֵל, כִּי מֵיקֵל — בִּתְלוּיָה וּטְמֵאָה, אֲבָל בִּטְהוֹרָה וּטְמֵאָה — לָא.

The Gemara asks: If so, that Rabbi Meir’s proof is based on the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina 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.

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה? מִדָּה וּמִדָּה הִיא!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that Rabbi Meir’s proof is based on the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina 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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הָכָא בְּבָשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ, וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ.

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.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים דְּרַבָּנַן.

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.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. דְּתַנְיָא:

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 Ḥanina 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: