Pesachim

Wherever its disqualification is in itself, it must be burnt immediately; [if it is] in the blood1 or in its owner,2 [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. Abbuha3 who maintained: Even piggul4 requires disfigurement.5 He [R. Johanan] raised an objection to him: If the flesh became unclean or disqualified, or if it passed without the curtains,6 R. Eliezer said: He [the priest] must sprinkle [the blood];7 R. Joshua said: He must not sprinkle [the blood].8 Yet R. Joshua admits that if he does sprinkle [it], [the sacrifice] is accepted.9 Now, what does ‘disqualified’ mean? Is it not through mental neglect?10 Now, it is well if you say that it is a disqualification of uncleanness, then it is conceivable that the headplate makes it accepted.11 But if you say that it is an intrinsic disqualification why is it accepted?12 What does ‘disqualified’ mean? It was disqualified by a tebul yom.13 If so, it is identical with ‘unclean?’ There are two kinds of uncleanness. 14 When Rabin went up,15 he reported this teaching16 with reference to the terumah plants before R. Jeremiah, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of dark ness17 they engage in dark [obscure] discussions.18 Have you not heard this [dictum] of R. Simeon b. Lakish in R. Oshaia's name: If the water of the Festival was defiled19 and he made level contact and then sanctified it, it is clean; if he sanctified it and then made level contact, it is unclean.20 Now consider: this is ‘sowing’;21 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;22 so here too sowing has no effect upon terumah.23 R. Dimi sat and reported this teaching.24 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;25 or perhaps for verbal [sanctification]26 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,27 they are clean;28 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!29 — Said R. Joseph: You speak of grapes! We treat here of grapes of terumah,30 their verbal sanctification is being tantamount to the sanctification of a vessel. 31 But those that require a vessel [for sanctification,32 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?33 — 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.34 Raba said: We too learned [thus]:35 And he shall put thereto running [living] water in a vessel:36 [this teaches] that its running must be [directly] into a vessel.37 ‘And he shall put’ — this proves that it is detached, but surely this is attached! 38 Passover may be eaten only by those registered for it. Abbuha, who was a disciple of Rab.] without the enclosures of the Temple Court. This refers to sacrifices of the higher sanctity (v. p. 108, n. 2), whose flesh might not be eaten without these enclosures. an illegitimate intention, e.g., if the officiating priest expressed his intention to eat the flesh outside the boundaries or after the time allotted for its eating, for then the blood too is disqualified and can certainly not be sprinkled. supra 16b. Nevertheless R. Joshua rules that the blood must not be sprinkled at the outset, for he holds that the acceptability conferred by the headplate is only if it was sprinkled, but it may not be sprinkled in the first place in reliance on the headplate. in their dwellings on their (the Parsees’) festivals. used for libations each day which was drawn the previous evening with great ceremony and joy. Here the reference is to the water for the Sabbath libation; fresh water could not be brought on the Sabbath, and therefore this water had to be made clean. water in the vessel is level with and just touches the water of the mikweh. This is called hashshakah (lit. ‘kissing’) and the unclean water thereby becomes one with the mikweh, which of course is clean. The water libation was sanctified by formal dedication, or by being poured into a sacred service vessel. produce becomes clean if it is resown in the earth. required in the case of hekdesh. terumah. degree, it being a general rule that whatever disqualifies terumah, i.e., eatables unclean in the second degree, defiles liquids in the first degree (supra 14b). But when they are unclean in the third degree they cannot defile liquids. Hence if he first trod them, even in great quantity, they remain clean. But if he first sanctified them, the expressed juice is unclean, because the Rabbis set a higher standard for terumah. poured over into this. which does not form part of a stream but has been detached and collected in a vessel, whence it is poured into a second vessel containing the ashes. But when the Mishnah states that the running must be direct into the vessel, it insists on attached water, i.e., water forming part of the stream. This must be because the Rabbis set a higher standard. Tosaf.: ‘and he shall put’ implies that the water is regarded as detached water, which can be defiled, though actually it is running water, as stated, and consequently this proves that by Scriptural law sacred water cannot be made clean by ‘levelling’ (v. p. 158, n. 4). for levelling only renders it as attached water, whereas we see here that even when attached it is regarded as detached. And just as Scripture thus sets a higher standard for sacred water, so did the Rabbis set a higher standard for terumah. — Maharsha observes (on Rashi's explanation) that he does not see how this proves that the Rabbis set a higher standard even when they were verbally sanctified.