פסחים 34:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:When thrown among the wood.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘mixer’ (of dough).
^ᶜnote:If the unclean wheat is kept for that purpose, as above.
^ᵈnote:The Tractate on the laws of Terumah.
^ᵉnote:E.g.. cabbages and leeks which were separated as terumah.
^ᶠnote:Because the planting in the ground removes their uncleanness.
^ᵍnote:Maharam deletes the bracketed passage. — It is now assumed that the prohibition refers to priests, and they may not be eaten because they are defiled terumah, v. Ter. IX, 7.
^ʰnote:Even in the case of a species whose original seed rots away in the earth.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘what is growth of what is grown’.
^ʲnote:I.e., the original stock.
^ᵏnote:E.g., an onion, the original stock of which remains when it is planted. Now its original leaves grow larger, and this is referred to as the growth. But in addition it sends out fresh shoots altogether, which never were terumah: these are referred to as the second growth, and we are informed that even these are terumah.
^ˡnote:E.g., if tebel of wheat is sown the crop is not tebel. Before produce becomes tebel one may make a light meal of it through he has not yet rendered the tithe and terumah; but nothing whatsoever may be eaten of it when it reaches the stage of tebel. Though that which grows from terumah remains terumah even if its seed is destroyed, that is merely a Rabbinical stringency, lest the priestly dues are thus evaded. But that which grows of tebel is not tebel but ordinary produce of which a light meal may be enjoyed until it becomes tebel, which happens when it is heaped up in a stack.
^ᵐnote:As explained in n. 7.
^ⁿnote:Because it retains the same status as that of its parent stock. The same logically applies to terumah that is sown.
^ᵒnote:And not because it is defiled terumah. The priest must always keep the terumah in mind; v. Num. XVIII, 8: behold, I have given thee the charge of mine heave offerings — ‘charge’ implies that
^ᵖnote:I.e., sacred food, even if proved not to have been defiled, becomes unfit thereby, because this neglect is in itself a disqualification.
^ᵠnote:I.e., it is not a disqualification in itself, but merely because while the priest was not thinking about it it might have become defiled.
^ʳnote:For it has now been established that even when it is certainly unclean it regains its cleanliness when replanted.
^ˢnote:[This question remains unanswered, v. R. Hananel.]
^ᵗnote:Elijah was regarded as the future resolver of all doubts; cf. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 6, n. 2.
^ᵘnote:Declaring the terumah fit to be eaten.
^ᵛnote:I.e., by being kept overnight and thus becoming nothar (v. Glos.)
^ʷnote:The reference is to the offerings disqualified through mental neglect.
^ˣnote:In which case it should not have been burnt. But when it is disfigured it must be burnt in any case.