פסחים 34 — parallel

34:1

It refers to boiled [grains]. so that they are repulsive; so here too it refers to boiled [grains]. which are repulsive. And where was R. Ashi's [explanation] stated? In reference to what R. Abin son of R. Aha said in R. Isaac's name: Abba Saul was the baker in Rabbi's house, and they used to heat him hot water with wheat of defiled terumah, wherewith to knead dough in purity. But why? Let us fear lest he come to a stumbling-block through it? — Said R. Ashi: It refers to boiled [grains], which are repulsive. Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanania b. Abin studied Terumoth at Rabbah's academy. Rabbah b. Mattenah met them [and] asked them, What have you discussed in Terumoth, at the Master's academy? — Said they to him, But what is your difficulty? He replied. We learned: Plants of terumah which were defiled, and he [their owner] replanted them, are clean in that they do not defile [other eatables], but they are forbidden to be eaten [as terumah]. But since they are clean in that they do not defile, why are they forbidden to be eaten? — Said they to him, Thus did Rabbah say: What is meant by ‘forbidden’? They are forbidden to lay Israelites. Now what does he inform us? That that which grows of terumah is [itself] terumah! [But] we have [already] learned it [elsewhere]: That which grows of terumah is terumah? And should you answer: It refers to the second growth, and what does he inform us? [That this law holds good] in respect of that whose seed is not destroyed? But surely we learned this too: [In the case of] tebel, that which grows out of it is permitted in a species whose seed is destroyed but in the case of a species whose seed is not destroyed, even its second growth is forbidden for eating! — They were silent. Said they to him, Have you heard anything about this? Thus did R. Shesheth say, he answered, what does ‘forbidden’ mean? They are forbidden to priests, since they became unfit [for eating] through [his] mental neglect. That is correct on the view that mental neglect is an intrinsic disqualification, then it is well. But on the view that mental neglect is a disqualification of defilement, what can be said? For it was stated, [As to] mental neglect: R. Johanan said, It is a disqualification of defilement; while R. Simeon b. Lakish said, It is an intrinsic disqualification. ‘R. Johanan said, It is a disqualification of defilement’, for if Elijah should come and declare it clean, we heed him. ‘R. Simeon b. Lakish said, It is an intrinsic disqualification’, for if Elijah should come and declare it clean, we do not heed him. R. Johanan raised an objection to R. Simeon b. Lakish: R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: There was a small passage between the stairway and the altar at the west of the stairway, whither they used to throw disqualified bird sin-offerings until [the flesh] became disfigured and then they passed out to the place of burning. Now it is well if you say that [mental neglect] is a disqualification of uncleanness: therefore it requires disfigurement, lest Elijah may come and declare it clean. But if you say that it is an intrinsic disqualification, what is the need of disfigurement? Surely it was taught, This is the general rule:

—

34:2

Wherever its disqualification is in itself, it must be burnt immediately; [if it is] in the blood or in its owner, [the flesh] must become disfigured and [then] it goes out to the place of burning.he must think of it. The terumah, having once become defiled, however, the priest would dismiss it from his mind, as he would abandon the hope of using it. Said he to him: This tanna is a tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha who maintained: Even piggul requires disfigurement. He [R. Johanan] raised an objection to him: If the flesh became unclean or disqualified, or if it passed without the curtains, R. Eliezer said: He [the priest] must sprinkle [the blood]; R. Joshua said: He must not sprinkle [the blood]. Yet R. Joshua admits that if he does sprinkle [it], [the sacrifice] is accepted. Now, what does ‘disqualified’ mean? Is it not through mental neglect? Now, it is well if you say that it is a disqualification of uncleanness, then it is conceivable that the headplate makes it accepted. But if you say that it is an intrinsic disqualification why is it accepted? What does ‘disqualified’ mean? It was disqualified by a tebul yom. If so, it is identical with ‘unclean?’ There are two kinds of uncleanness. When Rabin went up, he reported this teaching with reference to the terumah plants before R. Jeremiah, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of dark ness they engage in dark [obscure] discussions. Have you not heard this [dictum] of R. Simeon b. Lakish in R. Oshaia's name: If the water of the Festival was defiled and he made level contact and then sanctified it, it is clean; if he sanctified it and then made level contact, it is unclean. Now consider: this is ‘sowing’; what does it matter whether he made level contact and then sanctified it or he sanctified it and then made level contact? This proves that ‘sowing’ has no effect upon hekdesh; so here too sowing has no effect upon terumah. R. Dimi sat and reported this teaching. Said Abaye to him, Does he R. Oshaia mean [that] he sanctified it in a vessel, but if [merely] verbally the Rabbis did not set a higher standard; or perhaps for verbal [sanctification] too the Rabbis set a higher standard? — I have not heard this, he replied, [but] I have heard something similar to it. For R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: If grapes were defiled and he trod them and then sanctified them, they are clean; if he sanctified them and then trod them, they are unclean. Now grapes are [a case of] verbal sanctification, yet even so the Rabbis set a higher standard! — Said R. Joseph: You speak of grapes! We treat here of grapes of terumah, their verbal sanctification is being tantamount to the sanctification of a vessel. But those that require a vessel [for sanctification, where they are sanctified] verbally [maybe] the Rabbis did not set a higher standard. ‘If he trod them’ — [does that mean] even in great quantity? But did R. Johanan say thus? Surely R. Johanan said: if grapes are defiled, he may tread them out less than an egg in quantity at a time? — If you wish I can say that here too [it means] less than an egg at a time. Alternatively, I can answer: There the case is that they [the grapes] had come into contact with a first degree [of uncleanness], so that they [the grapes] are a second. But here they come into contact with a second degree, so that they are a third. Raba said: We too learned [thus]: And he shall put thereto running [living] water in a vessel: [this teaches] that its running must be [directly] into a vessel. ‘And he shall put’ — this proves that it is detached, but surely this is attached! 38

—