פסחים 14 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Two cows used to plough on the Mount of Anointing: as long as both were ploughing. all the people ate; when one was removed, they kept [the leaven] in suspense, neither eating nor burning [it]; when both were removed, all the people began burning [their leaven]. MISHNAH. R. HANINA. THE SEGAN OF THE PRIESTS, SAID: DURING THE DAYS OF THE PRIESTS THEY NEVER REFRAINED FROM BURNING [SACRIFICIAL] FLESH WHICH HAD BEEN DEFILED BY A DERIVATIVE UNCLEANNESS WITH FLESH WHICH HAD BEEN DEFILED BY A PRINCIPAL UNCLEANNESS, THOUGH UNCLEANNESS IS ADDED TO ITS UNCLEANNESS. R. AKIBA ADDED AND SAID: DURING [ALL] THE DAYS OF THE PRIESTS THEY DID NOT REFRAIN FROM LIGHTING OIL WHICH HAD BEEN RENDERED UNFIT BY A TEBUL YOM IN A LAMP WHICH HAD BEEN MADE UNCLEAN BY THAT WHICH [OR, ONE WHO] IS UNCLEAN THROUGH A CORPSE, THOUGH UNCLEANNESS IS ADDED TO THEIR UNCLEANNESS. SAID R. MEIR: FROM THEIR WORDS WE LEARN THAT WE MAY BURN CLEAN TERUMAH TOGETHER WITH UNCLEAN TERUMAH ON PASSOVER. R. JOSE SAID: THAT IS NOT AN ANALOGY. AND R. ELIEZER AND R. JOSHUA ADMIT THAT EACH IS BURNT SEPARATELY; WHERE DO THEY DIFFER? IN RESPECT OF DOUBTFUL [TERUMAH] AND UNCLEAN [TERUMAH]. R. ELIEZER RULING, EACH MUST BE BURNT SEPARATELY, WHILE R. JOSHUA RULES, BOTH TOGETHER. GEMARA. Consider: Flesh which was defiled by a derivative uncleanness, what is it? A second degree. When it is burnt together with flesh which was defiled by a principal defilement, what is it? A second degree: [thus] it was a second degree [before] and [is] a second degree [now], then what adding of uncleanness to its uncleanness is there?-Said Rab Judah: We treat here of the derivative of a derivative, so that it is a third degree, and he holds that a third may be raised to a second. But food cannot defile food, for it was taught: You might think that food should defile food, therefore it is stated, But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcase fall thereon, it is unclean: it is unclean, but it does not render that which is similar thereto unclean? Now it is well according to Abaye who maintained: They learned this only of hullin, but in the case of terumah and sacred food they can render what is similar thereto [unclean]. And also according to R. Adda b. Ahabah in Raba's name, who maintained: They learned this only of hullin and terumah, but in the case of sacred food it does not render its like [unclean ], it is correct. But according to Rabina in Raba's name, who said: The Writ states an unqualified law, there is no difference whether it is hullin, terumah, or sacred food, it cannot render its like [unclean], what is there to be said? — We treat here of a case where there is liquid together with the flesh, so that it is defiled on account of the liquid. If so, [instead of] this [phrase] ‘TOGETHER WITH FLESH WHICH HAD BEEN DEFILED WITH A PRINCIPAL UNCLEANNESS, he should state, TOGETHER WITH FLESH and liquid’ [etc.]? Rather, [reply] granted that food cannot defile food by Scriptural law, by Rabbinical law it can nevertheless defile [it]. R. AKIBA ADDED AND SAID: DURING [ALL] THE DAYS OF THE PRIESTS THEY DID NOT REFRAIN FROM LIGHTING, etc. Consider: When oil is rendered unfit through [contact with] a tebul yom, what is it? A third degree [of defilement]; and when it is lit in a lamp which was defiled by that which [or, one who] was defiled through a corpse, what does it become? A second degree. [Thus] what he does inform us is that a third degree may be raised to a second; then it is the identical [teaching]? Said Rab Judah: We treat here of a metal lamp, for the Divine Law said,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:I.e.. the Mount of Olives.
^ᵇnote:Chief of the priests and deputy High-Priest, v. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 97. n. 1.
^ᶜnote:The following degrees of defilement are distinguished: (i) The super principal (lit. , ‘father of fathers’ of) defilement, which is that borne by a corpse; (ii) principal (lit. , ‘the father of’) defilement, which is that of a human being or a utensil ‘defiled by a corpse; (iii) derivative (lit., ‘offspring of’) defilement, borne by a human being, utensil or food which is contaminated by a principal defilement — this is also known as the first degree or ‘beginning’ of defilement; (iv) the second degree of defilement, which is that of food contaminated by a principal defilement. In hullin there is nothing further, and if hullin comes into contact with something unclean in the second degree it remains clean. Terumah, however, is liable to (v) a third degree, but no further. Sacred food, i.e., the flesh of sacrifices, is liable to (vi) a fourth degree of defilement. Third degree terumah and fourth degree sacred flesh are called ‘unfit’ but not unclean, because they cannot communicate uncleanness to their own kind, i.e., to terumah and sacred flesh respectively.
^ᵈnote:of terumah.
^ᵉnote:V. n. 2.
^ᶠnote:V. Glos.
^ᵍnote:In all these cases something of a lower degree of uncleanness comes into contact with something else of a higher degree of uncleanness when they are burnt together, and their own uncleanness is increased, as explained in the Gemara.
^ʰnote:I.e., on the eve of Passover, when leaven must be burnt. R. Meir reasons that since a higher degree of uncleanness may be imposed upon terumah and sacred flesh when they must be burnt in any case, the same holds good for leaven, even if one is not unclean at all.
^ⁱnote:You cannot deduce one from the other.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘in suspense’.
^ᵏnote:For the latter is a first degree and its contact renders this flesh a second degree.
^ˡnote:The flesh which is defiled thereby.
^ᵐnote:Lev. XI, 38.
^ⁿnote:Then what increase of uncleanness can there be in the Mishnah?
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘a full verse’.
^ᵖnote:When the flesh was defiled there was water upon it, which is still there when it is burnt with the flesh defiled in a lower degree. The uncleanness of the latter is raised through contact with the water.
^ᵠnote:Thus the Mishnah likewise treats of a Rabbinically enhanced defilement.
^ʳnote:The lamp being unclean in the first degree.
^ˢnote:of R. Hanina.

²[And whosoever . . . toucheth] one that is slain by the sword, [which intimates], the sword is as the slain; hence it is a principal defilement, and he [R. Akiba] thus holds that a third may be raised to a first. Yet what compels Rab Judah to relate it to a metal lamp? Let him relate it to an earthen lamp, and [as to the question], what does he [R. Akiba] add? [We can reply]. For whereas there [in the first clause] it was unclean and is [now] unclean, here it was unfit and is [now] unclean? — Said Raba, Our Mishnah presents a difficulty to him: Why does it particularly state, A LAMP WHICH HAD BEEN MADE UNCLEAN BY THAT WHICH WAS UNCLEAN THROUGH A CORPSE? Let it state, which had been defiled by a sherez! Now what thing is there whose uncleanness is differentiated between the uncleanness of a corpse and [that of] a sherez? Say, that is metal. Raba said: This proves that R. Akiba holds, The uncleanness of liquids in respect of defiling others is Scriptural; for if you should think that it is Rabbinical [only], then consider: how does this lamp affect the oil? If by rendering that itself unfit, surely it is already unfit? Whence [does this follow]: perhaps [it affected it by enabling it] to defile others by Rabbinical law? — If by Rabbinical law [only], why particularly [state when it was defiled] by a principal uncleanness? Even if [it was defiled] by a first or second degree it is still a first. For we learned: Whatever renders terumah unfit defiles liquids, making them a first, except a tebul yom? Hence this must prove that it is Scriptural. SAID R. MEIR: FROM THEIR WORDS WE LEARN etc. From whose words? Shall we say, from the words of R. Hanina, the Segan of the Priests, — are they alike? There it is unclean and unclean, whereas here it is clean and unclean. Again, if from the words of R. Akiba, — are they then alike? There it is unfit and unclean, whereas here it is clean and unclean? Must we [then] say that R. Meir holds [that] our Mishnah treats of a principal uncleanness according to Scripture and a derivative uncleanness by Rabbinical law, which by Scriptural law is completely clean;^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ

^ᵗnote:Num. XIX, 16.
^ᵘnote:In its degree of defilement. For otherwise, why specify how the person was slain? This is then understood as a general law that any metal vessel or utensil which becomes defiled through a corpse, whether at first hand or not, bears the same degree of defilement as that which contaminates it.
^ᵛnote:For the oil, by contact with the lamp, is raised from a third to a first.
^ʷnote:V. p. 62, n. 2. The flesh, even in a third degree, being sacred, was definitely unclean, since there can be a fourth degree. But the oil of terumah was only unfit, without power to contaminate, whereas now by being raised to a second degree it becomes unclean. Thus this statement goes beyond R. Hanina's. — The reference must be to oil of terumah. For though there was also sacred oil, viz. ‘the oil used in meal-offerings, and there a third degree is unclean in that it defiles by contact, nevertheless when unclean it cannot be used for lighting but must be burnt, like all other sacrifices which had been, invalidated for any reason, so that by burning it together with the derivative of uncleanness and rendering it thereby second, he does not increase the power of defilement.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘a creeping thing’. This too is a principal defilement, just like a man defiled by a corpse. Rashi omits ‘by a sherez’, the question being, what need is there for the Mishnah to define at all the source of principal defilement from which the lamp became contaminated.
^ʸnote:The rule that a metal vessel bears the same degree of defilement as that which contaminated it applies only to corpse defilement.
^ᶻnote:And what does it matter whether it is of the third degree or of the first? Hence we must assume that it can now contaminate even by Scriptural law, which it could not do before.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which power it previously lacked.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit. ‘beginning’ — another designation for a first degree.
^ᵃᶜnote:‘What renders terumah unfit’ is anything which is unclean in the second degree. By Rabbinical law this in turn defiles liquids and actually inflicts a higher degree of uncleanness than that borne by itself, rendering them unclean in the first degree. Thus if R. Akiba were treating of Rabbinically enhanced contamination, it would be unnecessary to speak of the lamp, which bears a principal degree of uncleanness, but of anything which bears even a second degree of uncleanness.
^ᵃᵈnote:Since R. Meir derives his law from the preceding statements.
^ᵃᵉnote:E.g.. if a utensil was defiled by a liquid and in its turn defiled flesh. The second defilement is only Rabbinical, for by Scriptural law liquid cannot defile a utensil.