Pesachim 67

Chapter 67

א בשליקתא ומאיסתא הכא נמי בשליקתא ומאיסתא והיכא איתמר דרב אשי אהא דאמר רבי אבין בר רב אחא א"ר יצחק אבא שאול גבל של בית רבי היה והיו מחמין לו חמין בחיטין של תרומה טמאה ללוש בהן עיסה בטהרה אמאי ניחוש דילמא אתי בהו לידי תקלה א"ר אשי בשליקתא ומאיסתא
1 It refers to boiled [grains]. so that they are repulsive; so here too it refers to boiled [grains]. which are repulsive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When thrown among the wood.');"><sup>1</sup></span> And where was R'Ashi's [explanation] stated?
ב אביי בר אבין ורב חנניא בר אבין תנו תרומות בי רבה פגע בהו רבא בר מתנה אמר להו מאי אמריתו בתרומות דבי מר אמרו ליה ומאי קשיא לך אמר להו תנן שתילי תרומות שנטמאו ושתלן טהורים מלטמא ואסורין מלאכול (בתרומה) וכי מאחר דטהורין מלטמא אמאי אסורין מלאכול
2 In reference to what R'Abin son of R'Aha said in R'Isaac's name: Abba Saul was the baker<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mixer' (of dough) .');"><sup>2</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the unclean wheat is kept for that purpose, as above.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג אמרו ליה הכי אמר רבה מאי אסורין אסורין לזרים ומאי קמ"ל גידולי תרומה תרומה תנינא גידולי תרומה תרומה
3 - Said R'Ashi: It refers to boiled [grains], which are repulsive. Abaye B'Abin and R'Hanania B'Abin studied Terumoth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tractate on the laws of Terumah.');"><sup>4</sup></span> 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?
ד וכי תימא גידולי גידולין ומאי קמ"ל בדבר שאין זרעו כלה הא נמי תנינא הטבל גידוליו מותרין בדבר שזרעו כלה אבל בדבר שאין זרעו כלה אפי' גידולי גידולין אסורין באכילה אישתיקו
4 He replied. We learned: Plants of terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. cabbages and leeks which were separated as terumah.');"><sup>5</sup></span> which were defiled, and he [their owner] replanted them, are clean in that they do not defile [other eatables],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the planting in the ground removes their uncleanness.');"><sup>6</sup></span> but they are forbidden to be eaten [as terumah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה א"ל מידי שמיע לך בהא אמר להו הכי אמר רב ששת מאי אסורין אסורין לכהנים הואיל ואיפסילו להו בהיסח הדעת
5 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of a species whose original seed rots away in the earth.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו הניחא למ"ד היסח הדעת פסול הגוף הוי שפיר אלא למ"ד היסח הדעת פסול טומאה הוי מאי איכא למימר
6 And should you answer: It refers to the second growth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is growth of what is grown'.');"><sup>9</sup></span> and what does he inform us? [That this law holds good] in respect of that whose seed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the original stock.');"><sup>10</sup></span> is not destroyed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז דאתמר היסח הדעת רבי יוחנן אמר פסול טומאה הוי ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר פסול הגוף הוי
7 But surely we learned this too: [In the case of] tebel, that which grows out of it i permitted in a species whose seed is destroyed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>12</sup></span> but in the case of a species whose seed is not destroyed, even its second growth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in n. 7.');"><sup>13</sup></span> is forbidden for eating!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it retains the same status as that of its parent stock. The same logically applies to terumah that is sown.');"><sup>14</sup></span> - They were silent.
ח רבי יוחנן אמר פסול טומאה הוי שאם יבא אליהו ויטהרנה שומעין לו רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר פסול הגוף הוי שאם יבא אליהו ויטהרנה אין שומעין לו
8 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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');"><sup>15</sup></span> That is correct on the view that mental neglect is an intrinsic disqualification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sacred food, even if proved not to have been defiled, becomes unfit thereby, because this neglect is in itself a disqualification.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ט איתיביה רבי יוחנן לרשב"ל ר' ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר לול קטן היה בין כבש למזבח במערבו של כבש ששם היו זורקין פסולי חטאת העוף ותעובר צורתן ויוצאין לבית השריפה אי אמרת בשלמא פסול טומאה הוי משום הכי בעי עיבור צורה שמא יבא אליהו ויטהרנה אלא אי אמרת פסול הגוף למה לי עיבור צורה והתנן זה הכלל
9 then it is well. But on the view that mental neglect is a disqualification of defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>17</sup></span> what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it has now been established that even when it is certainly unclean it regains its cleanliness when replanted.');"><sup>18</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This question remains unanswered, v. R. Hananel.]');"><sup>19</sup></span> R'Johanan said, It is a disqualification of defilement', for if Elijah should come and declare it clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Elijah was regarded as the future resolver of all doubts; cf. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 6, n. 2.');"><sup>20</sup></span> we heed him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring the terumah fit to be eaten.');"><sup>21</sup></span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by being kept overnight and thus becoming nothar (v. Glos.)');"><sup>22</sup></span> and then they passed out to the place of burning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the offerings disqualified through mental neglect.');"><sup>23</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it should not have been burnt. But when it is disfigured it must be burnt in any case.');"><sup>24</sup></span> But if you say that it is an intrinsic disqualification, what is the need of disfigurement? Surely it w taught, This is the general rule:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter