פסחים 15 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and what does FROM THEIR WORDS mean? From the words of R. Hanina, the Segan of the Priests? — Said Resh Lakish in Bar Kappara's name: our Mishnah treats of a principal uncleanness according to Scripture and a derivative uncleanness according to Scripture; and what does FROM THEIR WORDS mean? From the words of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. Which [teaching of] R. Joshua? Shall we say, the following [teaching of] R. Joshua? For we learned: In the case of a cask of terumah wherein a doubt of uncleanness is born, — R. Eliezer said: If it is lying in an exposed place it must be laid in a hidden place, and if it was uncovered, it must be covered. R. Joshua said: If it is lying in a hidden place, one may lay it in an exposed place, and if it is covered it may be uncovered! How compare: there it is mere indirect action, whereas here it is [defiling] with [one's own] hands? — Rather it is this [ruling of] R. Joshua. For we learned: If a cask of [wine of clean] terumah in the upper part is broken, while [in] the lower part there is unclean hullin. R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if a rebi'ith thereof can be saved in purity, one must save it. But if not, R. Eliezer ruled: Let it descend and be defiled, yet let him not defile it with [his own] hands: R. Joshua said: He may even defile it with his own hands. If so, [instead of] this [phrase] ‘FROM THEIR WORDS, he should state, ‘FROM his WORDS’? — This is what he means: From the controversy of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua we learn [etc.]’ — This may be proved too, because he states [further]: R. ELIEZER AND R. JOSHUA AGREE [etc.]. This proves it. And thus said R. Nahman in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name [too]: our Mishnah refers to a principal uncleanness according to Scripture and a derivative uncleanness according to Scripture, and what does FROM THEIR WORDS mean? From the words of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: R. Jose said [to R. Meir]: The conclusion is not similar to the premise. For when our Masters testified, about what did they testify? If about flesh which was defiled through a derivative uncleanness, that we burn it together with flesh which was defiled through a principal uncleanness, [then] this is unclean and that is unclean! If about oil which was rendered unfit by a tebul yom, that it is lit in a lamp which was defiled by one unclean through the dead, one is unfit and the other is unclean. So we too admit in the case of terumah which was defiled through a derivative uncleanness, that we may burn it together with terumah which was defiled by a principal uncleanness. But how can we burn that which is in suspense together with that which is unclean? Perhaps Elijah will come and declare it [the former] clean! 15^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:And the analogy is thus: just as Rabbinically unclean flesh may be burnt together with Scripturally unclean flesh, though the former is Scripturally clean, so may clean terumah be burnt together with unclean terumah during the sixth hour, though the former is then only Rabbinically forbidden, since by Scriptural law the interdict of leaven does not commence until the seventh hour, while the latter is already Scripturally forbidden for use on account of its defilement.
^ᵇnote:The other hypothesis being a forced one.
^ᶜnote:Thus R. Meir does not refer to the Mishnah at all but to the rulings of some other Sages. Strictly speaking therefore this Mishnah is irrelevant in its present position, but it is included because the subject of burning unclean together with clean is dealt with there.
^ᵈnote:E.g., if there is a doubt whether an unclean person touched it.
^ᵉnote:In spite of the doubt one must still protect it from certain defilement.
^ᶠnote:I.e. , since a doubt has arisen you are no longer bound to protect it and may even place it where the risk of contamination is greater than at present. Thus R. Joshua holds that since it is only fit for lighting one may cause it to become unclean, and this furnishes the basis for R. Meir's analogy.
^ᵍnote:And the contents thereof are running down into the lower part of the vat.
^ʰnote:A quarter of a log.
^ⁱnote:If the clean terumah runs into the hullin, it becomes unclean too, and then the mixture is forbidden to priest and lay Israelite alike, unless there is one hundred times as much hullin as terumah. In the present case only unclean vessels are ready to hand to catch the terumah, which would save the hullin below. Both agree that if there is time to go, procure clean vessels and save at least a rebi'ith of the terumah, this must be done, though in the meantime some terumah will descend and render all the hullin forbidden. But where there is no time to save even a rebi'ith, we have a controversy. R. Eliezer holds that even so it must be permitted to descend, though it will thereby be defiled in any case, rather than that we should deliberately defile it by catching it in unclean vessels. But R. Joshua maintains that since it will all be defiled in any case, we may defile it ourselves, in order to save the hullin below. R. Meir's ruling in the Mishnah is based on R. Joshua's.
^ʲnote:That R. Meir refers to R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.
^ᵏnote:This would be irrelevant if he had not already referred to them.
^ˡnote:R. Meir's.
^ᵐnote:Whereas R. Meir deals with unclean and clean.
^ⁿnote:V. Glos.
^ᵒnote:How then may we defile them with our hands by burning them together?

²As 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. 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? — There it is different, because there is a loss of hullin. To this R. Jeremiah demurred: [Surely] in our Mishnah too there is the loss of wood? — 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 agree that we burn them [together]. 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? — 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? — There it is different, because they possess uncleanness by Rabbinical law. For we learned: Piggul and nothar defile the hands. 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, and it may be burnt together with an unclean [loaf] on Passover? — [No]: there it is different because it is merely dust. If so, what does [THEY] ADMIT mean? — 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], but not in the case of clean and unclean. If so, why is it not a true analogy? Surely it is a perfect analogy? — Said R. Jeremiah: Here 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. For it was taught:^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘abomination’. The flesh of a sacrifice which the priest offered with the express intention of consuming it after the permitted time.
^ᵠnote:‘Left over’, flesh not consumed within the permitted period.
^ʳnote:Because the first two, though forbidden, are not unclean Biblically, and when they are burnt together they become defiled.
^ˢnote:This last portion of the Baraitha dealing with piggul, etc., is irrelevant, and is quoted merely in order to complete the Baraitha.
^ᵗnote:For the wine in the cask is quite clean, yet since it is fated to be lost we may deliberately defile it.
^ᵘnote:If the terumah is not deliberately defiled and allowed to flow into the lower part of the vat, v. Supra p. 67. n. 2.
^ᵛnote:For fuel, if two fires must be made instead of one.
^ʷnote:Even R. Jose.
^ˣnote:Since they are then Scripturally forbidden, even the clean terumah is certainly the same as unclean.
^ʸnote:Thus: just as that which is only Rabbinically unclean may be burnt together with what is Scripturally unclean, so in 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.
^ᶻnote:This teaching was cited by R. Jose in his argument with R. Meir, he apparently agreeing with the view of Beth 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.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., Rabbinically. v. infra 120a.
^ᵃᵇnote:Since it was once fit for human food, it can be defiled as food unless it becomes unfit even for a dog.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., even if it is terumah. Now this must certainly be R. Jose's view, for R. Meir permits them to be burnt together 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.
^ᵃᵈnote:When it is unfit because of its mouldiness, it is worse than unclean, having no intrinsic value whatsoever.
^ᵃᵉnote:That R. Meir learns from R. Hanina.
^ᵃᶠnote:Surely R. Jose's argument that R. Eliezer and R. Joshua admit etc., is irrelevant, seeing that R. Meir is not concerned with them at all?
^ᵃᵍnote:In the two cases cited supra 15a.
^ᵃʰnote:With which R. Meir deals.
^ᵃⁱnote:Again, that R. Meir learns from R. Hanina.
^ᵃʲnote:For in the sixth hour the leaven is Rabbinically forbidden, and on R. Johanan's view, there is no difference 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.
^ᵃᵏnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵃˡnote:Hence according to R. Meir this flesh is clean by Scriptural law, yet it is burnt together with flesh Scripturally 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.