Pesachim 68

Chapter 68

א כל שפסולו בגופו ישרף מיד בדם ובבעלים תעובר צורתן ויוצאין לבית השריפה א"ל האי תנא תנא דבי רבה בר אבוה הוא דאמר אפילו פיגול טעון עיבור צורה
1 Wherever its disqualification is in itself, it must be burnt immediately; [if it is] in the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the blood was spilled before it could be sprinkled.');"><sup>1</sup></span> or in its owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. if he became unclean before the Passover could be eaten and there were no others available to eat it, as the Passover may be eaten only by those registered for it.');"><sup>2</sup></span> [the flesh] must become disfigured and [then] it goes out to the place of burning. -
ב איתיביה נטמא או שנפסל הבשר או שיצא חוץ לקלעים רבי אליעזר אומר יזרוק רבי יהושע אומר לא יזרוק ומודה רבי יהושע שאם זרק הורצה
2 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'Abbuha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [R. Hananel seems to omit 'is a ... who'. R. Simeon b. Lakish could certainly not refer to the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha, who was a disciple of Rab.]');"><sup>3</sup></span> who maintained: Even piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. There the flesh itself is certainly disqualified.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג מאי נפסל לאו בהיסח הדעת אי אמרת בשלמא פסולי טומאה הוי היינו דמשכחת לה דמרצי ציץ אלא אי אמרת פסול הגוף הוי אמאי הורצה (ציץ)
3 requires disfigurement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 73b.');"><sup>5</sup></span> He [R'Johanan] raised an objection to him: If the flesh became unclean or disqualified, or if it passed without the curtains,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The partitions of the Temple corresponding to those of the Tabernacle (Jast.) . Thus 'without the curtains' means 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.');"><sup>6</sup></span> R'Eliezer said: He [the priest] must sprinkle [the blood];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds that the blood must be sprinkled even when there is no flesh.');"><sup>7</sup></span> R'Joshua said: He must not sprinkle [the blood].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds that the blood is dependent on the flesh.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ד מאי נפסל נפסל בטבול יום אי הכי היינו טמא תרי גווני טמא
4 Yet R'Joshua admits that if he does sprinkle [it], [the sacrifice] is accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a technical term denoting that the sacrifice fulfils its purpose.');"><sup>9</sup></span> Now, what does 'disqualified' mean? Is it not through mental neglect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there is no other disqualification, since defilement is stated separately. It cannot mean a disqualification through 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.');"><sup>10</sup></span> Now, it is well if you say that it is a disqualification of uncleanness, then it is conceivable that the headplate makes it accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The headplate worn by the High Priest makes atonement in such a case, even if the flesh is definitely unclean; v. 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.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ה כי סליק רבין אמרה לשמעתיה קמיה דר' ירמיה ואמר בבלאי טפשאי משום דיתבי בארעא דחשוכא אמריתון שמעתתא דמחשכו לא שמיע לכו הא דרבי שמעון בן לקיש משמיה דר' אושעיא
5 But if you say that it is an intrinsic disqualification why is it accepted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the headplate cannot make atonement for such a disqualification.');"><sup>12</sup></span> What does 'disqualified' mean? It was disqualified by a tebul yom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. His touch disqualifies it, as he is not really clean until evening falls.');"><sup>13</sup></span> If so, it is identical with 'unclean? ' There are two kinds of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah supra ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ו מי החג שנטמאו השיקן ואחר כך הקדישן טהורין הקדישן ואח"כ השיקן טמאים
6 When Rabin went up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Babylonia to Palestine.');"><sup>15</sup></span> he reported this teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of R. Shesheth.');"><sup>16</sup></span> with reference to the terumah plants before R'Jeremiah, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of dark ness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Babylonia is possibly so called on account of the Parsees (fire-worshippers) . who forbade the Jews to have any light in their dwellings on their (the Parsees') festivals.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ז מכדי זריעה נינהו מה לי השיקן ואח"כ הקדישן מה לי הקדישן ואחר כך השיקן אלמא אין זריעה להקדש הכא נמי אין זריעה לתרומה
7 they engage in dark [obscure] discussions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.. they discuss laws without knowing their true meanings.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Have you not heard this [dictum] of R'Simeon B'Lakish in R'Oshaia's name: If the water of the Festival was defiled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Festival' without a further determination always means the Feast of Tabernacles. The 'water of the Festival' is that 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.');"><sup>19</sup></span> and he made level contact and then sanctified it, it i clean; if he sanctified it and then made level contact, it is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unclean water can be purified by placing it in a vessel and immersing the vessel in a mikweh (ritual bath) until the 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.');"><sup>20</sup></span> Now consider: this is 'sowing';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The process of levelling is regarded as 'sowing', as though the water were sown in the mikweh, just as unclean produce becomes clean if it is resown in the earth.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ח יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי הקדישן בכלי קאמר אבל בפה לא עבוד רבנן מעלה או דילמא בפה נמי עבוד רבנן מעלה
8 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is no sowing for hekdesh' - to make it clean. The reason is because a higher standard of purity is required in the case of hekdesh.');"><sup>22</sup></span> so here too sowing has no effect upon terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the plants remain unclean in so far that they are forbidden to be eaten.');"><sup>23</sup></span> R'Dimi sat and reported this teaching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of. R. Oshaia.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ט אמר ליה זו לא שמעתי כיוצא בה שמעתי דאמר ר' אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן ענבים שנטמאו דרכן ואח"כ הקדישן טהורים הקדישן ואח"כ דרכן טמאין והא ענבים דקדושת פה נינהו ואפילו הכי עבוד רבנן מעלה
9 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by formal dedication, v. n. 4.');"><sup>25</sup></span> or perhaps for verbal [sanctification]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in such a case levelling is considered effective.');"><sup>26</sup></span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For its wine to be used for libations.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
י אמר רב יוסף ענבים קאמרת הכא בענבים של תרומה עסקינן דקדושת פה דידהו כקדושת כלי דמיא אבל הני דבעי כלי בפה לא עבוד רבנן מעלה
10 they are clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 33b, where R. Johanan holds that the expressed juice of unclean grapes is clean.');"><sup>28</sup></span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In declaring the expressed juice unclean, whereas it would be clean if it were not sanctified.');"><sup>29</sup></span> - Said R'Joseph: You speak of grapes! We treat here of grapes of terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sanctification referred to is not as previously assumed (cf. p. 158. n. 11) for libations but for purposes of terumah.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יא דרכן ואפילו טובא ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן ענבים שנטמאו דורכן פחות פחות מכביצה
11 their verbal sanctification is being tantamount to the sanctification of a vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since terumah can only be verbally sanctified, there being no sacred vessels to sanctify them.');"><sup>31</sup></span> But those that require a vessel [for sanctification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as wine for libations.');"><sup>32</sup></span> 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?
יב איבעית אימא הכא נמי פחות פחות מכביצה ואבע"א התם דנגעו להו בראשון דהוו להו אינהו שני הכא דנגעו בשני דהוו להו שלישי
12 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 33f notes.');"><sup>33</sup></span> - 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 that they [the grapes] had come into contact with a first degree [of uncleanness], so that they [the grapes] are a second.
יג אמר רבא אף אנן נמי תנינא (במדבר יט, יז) ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלי שתהא חיותן בכלי ונתן אלמא תלושין נינהו והא מחוברין נינהו
13 But here they come into contact with a second degree, so that they are a third.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 14a, p. 62, n. 2. When the grapes are unclean in the second degree they render the juice unclean in the first 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.');"><sup>34</sup></span> Raba said: We too learned [thus]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the Rabbis set a higher standard for sacred objects, even when they were verbally sanctified.');"><sup>35</sup></span> And he shall put thereto running [living] water in a vessel:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 17.');"><sup>36</sup></span> [this teaches] that its running must be [directly] into a vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which it is sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer, but it must not be collected in another vessel and then poured over into this.');"><sup>37</sup></span> 'And he shall put' - this proves that it is detached, but surely this is attached!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage is rather difficult. Rashi: 'And he shall put' implies that Scripture refers to detached water, i.e., water 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');"><sup>38</sup></span>