Reference for Pesachim 30:18

ור' יוסי לטעמיה דאמר טומאת משקין לטמא אחרים דאוריי' דתניא

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹¹</span> - There it is different, because they possess uncleanness by Rabbinical law. For we learned: Piggul and nothar defile the hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rabbinically. v. infra 120a.');">¹²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was once fit for human food, it can be defiled as food unless it becomes unfit even for a dog.');">¹³</span> and it may be burnt together with an unclean [loaf] on Passover?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁴</span> - [No]: there it is different because it is merely dust.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is unfit because of its mouldiness, it is worse than unclean, having no intrinsic value whatsoever.');">¹⁵</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Meir learns from R. Hanina.');">¹⁶</span> what does [THEY] ADMIT mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">¹⁷</span> - 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],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the two cases cited supra 15a.');">¹⁸</span> but not in the case of clean and unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which R. Meir deals.');">¹⁹</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Again, that R. Meir learns from R. Hanina.');">²⁰</span> why is it not a true analogy? Surely it is a perfect analogy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²¹</span> - Said R'Jeremiah: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">²²</span> 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 i Scriptural.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²³</span> For it was taught:

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow