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.');"><sup>11</sup></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.');"><sup>12</sup></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.');"><sup>13</sup></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.');"><sup>14</sup></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.');"><sup>15</sup></span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Meir learns from R. Hanina.');"><sup>16</sup></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?');"><sup>17</sup></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.');"><sup>18</sup></span> but not in the case of clean and unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which R. Meir deals.');"><sup>19</sup></span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Again, that R. Meir learns from R. Hanina.');"><sup>20</sup></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.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - Said R'Jeremiah: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');"><sup>22</sup></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.');"><sup>23</sup></span> For it was taught:
Tosefta Pesachim
Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, two disqualified loaves of thanksgiving offering (see Lev. 7:12-14) were placed on top of the Temple portico. As long as they were placed [on top of the portico], everyone could eat unconsecrated food [containing leaven]. When one was removed, everyone (i.e., the Kohanim) could eat Terumah [containing leaven]. When both were taken away, they burned this one and that one (i.e., unconsecrated food and Terumah). They burned uncertain Terumah (i.e., Terumah whose purity status is uncertain), impure [Terumah], and pure [Terumah] all together, the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say, uncertain [Terumah was burned] by itself, and pure [Terumah] by itself, and impure [Terumah] by itself. Said Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree about the pure or about the impure [Terumah], whether we burn this one by itself and that one by itself. About what did they disagree? About uncertain [Terumah] and about impure [Terumah], for Rabbi Eliezer says, this one is burned by itself and that one is burned by itself, and Rabbi Yehoshua says, both [are burned] together. Said Rabbi Yosei, the conclusion does not follow from the proof. [What is the proof?] Meat that was rendered impure by a secondary source of impurity [and then made contact] with meat that was rendered impure by a primary source of impurity, both of them are impure, only that this one is possesses a higher degree of impurity, and that one possesses a lower degree of impurity. And so too with oil that became disqualified [through contact with] a tevul yom (i.e., one who has immersed himself but remains impure until sunset) or [by contact] with a candlestick that was rendered impure through death-impurity -- both of them are impure, only that this one is possesses a higher degree of impurity, and that one possesses a lower degree of impurity. And I say that Terumah that became impure through a secondary source of impurity is burned along with Terumah that became impure through a primary source of impurity, even though we are adding impurity onto impurity. And [with respect to] uncertain [Terumah] and impure [Terumah], I say that if the uncertain is burned along with the impure, its impurity is removed from it. Beit Shammai say, we do not burn pure meat with impure meat, but Beit Hilel permit it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosefta Terumot
Terumah may be used for eating or for drinking or for anointing (alt., "rubbing"). One may [only] eat what is normally used for eating. One may [only] drink what is normally used for drinking. And one may [only] anoint with what is normally used for anointing. How does one "eat what is normally used for eating" (i.e., what does this rule exclude)? We do not require him to eat k'novot (=קנובות, the cut-off portions of vegetables trimmed in the garden, see Jastrow), nor moldy bread, nor a cooked dish that has spoiled (lit., "lost its shape"). Rabbi Chananiah, the Deputy High Priest, says, that which has become pasul (ritually disqualified) from being eaten by a person, but is still fit for a dog to eat, may [still] impart the impurity of food-impurity, and we must burn it in its place. How does one "drink what is normally used for drinking"? We do not require him to swallow anigron (=אֶנִּיגָרוֹן, a sauce of oil and garum to which wine is sometimes added, see Jastrow) or achsigaron (אָכְסִיגָרוֹן not סניגרון, a sauce of vinegar and garum, see Jastrow, and see GR"A here), or to drink wine with its dregs. One who is concerned about the pain in his teeth may not sip [terumah] vinegar through them (cf. Shab. 14:4) and spit it out, but he may sip and swallow it. And he may dip [his food into vinegar] in his customary way and need not be concerned. One who is concerned about a throat ache should not gargle with oil, but he may place a lot of oil inside anigron and swallow it (i.e., the resulting mixture). How does one "anoint with what is normally used for anointing"? One may rub oil on top of his wound. One who is concerned about a headache and anyone who developed a scab, may rub oil [on it]. But one may not rub wine or vinegar [on it], since oil is normally used for rubbing, [and] wine and vinegar are not normally used for rubbing.
