Pesachim — Daf 15b

הפיגול והנותר והטמא בית שמאי אומרים אין נשרפין כאחת וב"ה אומרים נשרפין כאחת

ואי סלקא דעתך ר"מ מדברי רבי יהושע קאמר אמאי מהדר ליה ר' יוסי מדר' חנינא סגן הכהנים א"ל רב נחמן רבי יוסי לאו אדעתיה דהוא סבר ר"מ מדרבי חנינא סגן הכהנים קא"ל וא"ל אנא מדר' יהושע קאמינ'

וא"ל ואפילו לרבי יהושע נמי אינה היא המדה דהא מודה ר"א ורבי יהושע ששורף זו בפני עצמה וזו בפני עצמה

ואמאי אינה היא המדה מדה ומדה היא

שאני התם דאיכא הפסד חולין

מתקיף לה רב ירמיה מתניתין נמי איכא הפסד דעצים א"ל ההוא סבא להפסד מרובה חששו להפסד מועט לא חששו

א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בשש אבל בשבע דברי הכל שורפין

א"ל רבי זירא לר' אסי נימא קסבר רבי יוחנן מתני' באב הטומאה דאורייתא וולד הטומאה דרבנן ומאי מדבריהם מדברי רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים

א"ל אין איתמר נמי אמר רבי יוחנן מתניתין באב הטומאה דאורייתא וולד הטומאה דרבנן ומאי מדבריהם מדברי רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים ומחלוקת בשש אבל בשבע דברי הכל שורפין

לימא מסייע ליה הפיגול והנותר והטמא ב"ש אומרים אין נשרפין כאחת וב"ה אומרים נשרפין כאחת

שאני התם דאית להו טומאה מדרבנן דתנן הפיגול והנותר מטמאין את הידים

לימא מסייע ליה הפת שעיפשה ונפסלה מלאכול לאדם והכלב יכול לאכלה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין בכביצה ונשרפת עם הטמאה בפסח

שאני התם דעפרא בעלמא הוא

אי הכי מאי מודה הכי קא"ל ר' יוסי לר"מ אפי' לר' יהושע דמיקל כי מיקל בתלויה וטמאה אבל בטהורה וטמאה לא

אי הכי אמאי אינה היא המדה מדה ומדה היא

א"ר ירמיה הכא בבשר שנטמא במשקין שנטמאו מחמת שרץ ואזדא ר"מ לטעמיה ורבי יוסי לטעמיה

ר"מ לטעמיה דאמר טומאת משקין לטמא אחרים דרבנן

ור' יוסי לטעמיה דאמר טומאת משקין לטמא אחרים דאוריי' דתניא

As to piggul,1 nothar,2 and unclean [sacrificial flesh]. — Beth Shammai maintain: They must not be burnt together;3 while Beth Hillel rule: They may be burnt together.4 Now if you think that R. Meir argues from the words of R. Joshua, why does R. Jose answer him from [the view] of R. Hanina, the Segan of the Priests? — Said R. Nahman to him: R. Jose did not comprehend his [R. Meir's] reasoning, for he thought [that] R. Meir was arguing from R. Hanina, the Segan of the Priests, thereupon he said to him, I state [this law by deduction] from R. Joshua — But he answered him, Even on R. Joshua's [view] this is no true analogy, for R. Eliezer and R. Joshua admit that one must burn this separately and that separately. Yet why is this not a [true] analogy. Surely it is a perfect analogy?5 — There it is different, because there is a loss of hullin.6 To this R. Jeremiah demurred: [Surely] in our Mishnah too there is the loss of wood?7 — Said a certain old man to him: They cared about a substantial loss, but they did not care about a slight loss. R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: The controversy is [only] in respect of the sixth [hour], but in the seventh all agree8 that we burn them [together].9 R. Zera said to R. Assi: Shall we [then] say that R. Johanan holds that our Mishnah treats of a principal uncleanness according to Scripture and a derivative uncleanness by Rabbinical law, and that what ‘FROM THEIR WORDS’ means is from the words of R. Hanina, the Segan of the Priests?10 — Yes, he replied. It was stated likewise: R. Johanan said: our Mishnah refers to a principal uncleanness according to Scripture and a derivative uncleanness by Rabbinical law, and what does ‘FROM THEIR WORDS’ mean? From the words of R. Hanina, the Segan of the Priests; and the controversy is [only] in respect of the sixth [hour], but in the seventh all agree that we burn them together. Shall we say that we can support him: As to piggul, nothar and unclean sacrificial [flesh] — Beth Shammai maintain: They must not be burnt together; while Beth Hillel rule: they may be burnt together?11 — There it is different, because they possess uncleanness by Rabbinical law. For we learned: Piggul and nothar defile the hands.12 Shall we say that this supports him: If a loaf goes mouldy and is unfit for human consumption, yet a dog can eat it, it can be defiled with the uncleanness of eatables, if the size of an egg,13 and it may be burnt together with an unclean [loaf] on Passover?14 — [No]: there it is different because it is merely dust.15 If so,16 what does [THEY] ADMIT mean?17 — R. Jose says thus to R. Meir: Even according to R. Joshua. who is lenient, he is lenient only in connection with doubtful and unclean [terumah],18 but not in the case of clean and unclean.19 If so,20 why is it not a true analogy? Surely it is a perfect analogy?21 — Said R. Jeremiah: Here22 we treat of flesh which was defiled by a liquid which was defiled through a creeping thing. and R. Meir is consistent with his view, while R. Jose is consistent with his view: R. Meir [is consistent] with his view, for he maintains, The uncleanness of liquids in respect of defiling others is [only] Rabbinical; while R. Jose [is consistent] with his view, for he maintains: The uncleanness of liquids in respect of defiling others is Scriptural. 23 For it was taught: the permitted time. defiled. Baraitha. the sixth hour, the terumah of leaven is then only Rabbinically forbidden, and may be burnt with unclean terumah which is Scripturally forbidden. This seems to be R. Han's interpretation. Rashi and Tosaf. on the basis of another reading explain it rather differently. Hillel (v. supra and notes). Thus since piggul and nothar are Scripturally forbidden, they may be burnt together with unclean flesh, though they are thereby contaminated; and the same applies to clean terumah of leaven in the seventh hour. even if the loaf is fresh. This proves that R. Jose agrees where it is quite unfit for human consumption, and the same applies to clean terumah of leaven in the seventh hour. with them at all? according to R. Jose between what is unclean and what is forbidden for any other reason (since he maintains that in the seventh hour R. Jose agrees that they may be burnt together because both are then Scripturally forbidden) and the same principle should apply equally to R. Meir. unclean, and by analogy the same applies to terumah. But in R. Jose's view this flesh too was of uncleanness, and therefore it cannot be compared to terumah in the sixth hour, when it is only Rabbinically forbidden.