Pesachim 30

הפיגול והנותר והטמא בית שמאי אומרים אין נשרפין כאחת וב"ה אומרים נשרפין כאחת

As to piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'abomination'. The flesh of a sacrifice which the priest offered with the express intention of consuming it after the permitted time.');">¹</span>

ואי סלקא דעתך ר"מ מדברי רבי יהושע קאמר אמאי מהדר ליה ר' יוסי מדר' חנינא סגן הכהנים א"ל רב נחמן רבי יוסי לאו אדעתיה דהוא סבר ר"מ מדרבי חנינא סגן הכהנים קא"ל וא"ל אנא מדר' יהושע קאמינ'

nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Left over', flesh not consumed within the permitted period.');">²</span>

וא"ל ואפילו לרבי יהושע נמי אינה היא המדה דהא מודה ר"א ורבי יהושע ששורף זו בפני עצמה וזו בפני עצמה

and unclean [sacrificial flesh].

ואמאי אינה היא המדה מדה ומדה היא

- Beth Shammai maintain: They must not be burnt together;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the first two, though forbidden, are not unclean Biblically, and when they are burnt together they become defiled.');">³</span>

שאני התם דאיכא הפסד חולין

while Beth Hillel rule: They may be burnt together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This last portion of the Baraitha dealing with piggul, etc., is irrelevant, and is quoted merely in order to complete the Baraitha.');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב ירמיה מתניתין נמי איכא הפסד דעצים א"ל ההוא סבא להפסד מרובה חששו להפסד מועט לא חששו

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.

א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בשש אבל בשבע דברי הכל שורפין

Yet why is this not a [true] analogy.

א"ל רבי זירא לר' אסי נימא קסבר רבי יוחנן מתני' באב הטומאה דאורייתא וולד הטומאה דרבנן ומאי מדבריהם מדברי רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים

Surely it is a perfect analogy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the wine in the cask is quite clean, yet since it is fated to be lost we may deliberately defile it.');">⁵</span>

א"ל אין איתמר נמי אמר רבי יוחנן מתניתין באב הטומאה דאורייתא וולד הטומאה דרבנן ומאי מדבריהם מדברי רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים ומחלוקת בשש אבל בשבע דברי הכל שורפין

- There it is different, because there is a loss of hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the terumah is not deliberately defiled and allowed to flow into the lower part of the vat, v. Supra p. 67. n. 2.');">⁶</span>

לימא מסייע ליה הפיגול והנותר והטמא ב"ש אומרים אין נשרפין כאחת וב"ה אומרים נשרפין כאחת

To this R'Jeremiah demurred: [Surely] in our Mishnah too there is the loss of wood?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fuel, if two fires must be made instead of one.');">⁷</span>

שאני התם דאית להו טומאה מדרבנן דתנן הפיגול והנותר מטמאין את הידים

- Said a certain old man to him: They cared about a substantial loss, but they did not care about a slight loss.

לימא מסייע ליה הפת שעיפשה ונפסלה מלאכול לאדם והכלב יכול לאכלה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין בכביצה ונשרפת עם הטמאה בפסח

R'Assi said in R'Johanan's name: The controversy is [only] in respect of the sixth [hour], but in the seventh all agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even R. Jose.');">⁸</span>

שאני התם דעפרא בעלמא הוא

that we burn them [together].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are then Scripturally forbidden, even the clean terumah is certainly the same as unclean.');">⁹</span>

אי הכי מאי מודה הכי קא"ל ר' יוסי לר"מ אפי' לר' יהושע דמיקל כי מיקל בתלויה וטמאה אבל בטהורה וטמאה לא

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי אמאי אינה היא המדה מדה ומדה היא

- Yes, he replied.

א"ר ירמיה הכא בבשר שנטמא במשקין שנטמאו מחמת שרץ ואזדא ר"מ לטעמיה ורבי יוסי לטעמיה

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?

ר"מ לטעמיה דאמר טומאת משקין לטמא אחרים דרבנן

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.

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: