Talmud for Pesachim 1:2

¹⁸⁵Most of this Halakhah is from Pesaḥim 1:7; a parallel treatment is in Babli Pesaḥim 14a–21a. In the Mishnah, R. Ḥanina the Second of the Cohanim (who had to substitute when the High Priest was disabled) and R. Aqiba, who both had seen the Temple, report that the Cohanim never refrained from burning meat impure in a secondary way together with meat of original impurity, or oil becoming unusable by tertiary impurity together with impure oil of primary impurity, even though a momentary increase in impurity was inevitable. The late Tanna R. Meïr wants to infer that on Passover eve, when all leavened matter must be burned, one may burn leavened pure and impure heave together. His contemporary R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) objects and notes that both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua require that these heaves be burned separately. Their disagreement is that R. Eliezer requires suspended and impure heaves to be burned separately but R. Joshua permits them to be burned together. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora¹⁸⁶The amphora of Mishnah 7, where R. Joshua only permits to put it in danger’s way but not directly to make it impure, gives R. Yose’s interpretation of the position of R. Joshua. following Rebbi Yose, the second¹⁸⁷The amphoras of Mishnaiot 8–10, where R. Joshua permits causing impurity if this helps a good cause. following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you teach. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose; therefore, following Rebbi Meïr one burns¹⁸⁸One burns pure and impure heave together on the 14th of Nisan. The position of R. Simeon has to be proven since he does not appear in the Mishnah. and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose¹⁸⁹Even though singly their opinions would be disregarded when in opposition to R. Yose. and one should burn. In addition, we see that the rabbis, in cases which come before them, say, go and consider it suspended. We find that Rebbi Simeon says one burns, as we have stated¹⁹⁰Mishnah Pesaḥim 1:7, speaking of pure and impure heave. If this is the teaching of R. Simeon, he must hold that they disagree for suspended and impure heave and, therefore, these can be burned together since practice always follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer. But then suspended heave should be treated as impure, against Mishnah 7.: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that one burns each one separately.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon taught that¹⁹¹Tosephta Pesaḥim 1:5, quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 20b. The Tosephta is Babylonian, unknown to the Yerushalmi.. And if you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension¹⁹²Since most anonymous Mishnaiot are R. Meir’s formulation, Mishnah Tahorot 4:5, which directs burning only for six narrowly defined kinds of suspended heave, excludes most kinds of suspended heave from being treated as impure. Accordingly, R. Simeon’s is an isolated opinion, rather than practice to be followed., have we not stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time¹⁹³Tosephta Pesaḥim 3:9. Since on the Sabbath, heave may not be burned, it must be fed to animals to be disposed of..” Rebbi Zeïra said before Rebbi Mana¹⁹⁴R. Mana I, student of Rabbis Yannai, Joḥanan, and Assi., explain it if it is suspended because he intends to ask about it. He said to him, so said my teacher Rebbi Assi: All suspended [heave] we are dealing with here is suspended [heave] about which he has no intention of asking¹⁹⁵In this case, the heave can never be used again and may be treated as impure for practical purposes.. But if he intends to ask about it, it has to be treated as pure. As we have stated¹⁹⁶A different formulation is in Tosephta 7:18: “I am keeping it; until I ask about the situation, it is im pure.” That formulation does not necessarily conflict with the one here. If the heave is left unusable for an indefinite period, chances are it will become impure. But if the question to a rabbinic authority is asked within a foreseeable time, there is no reason to declare the suspended heave impure.: “If he said, it is pure or impure, then it is impure. But if he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about the situation, it is pure.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then you cannot infer anything¹⁹⁷Since there is no time to burn anything, the opinion of the Sages must be followed even by their opponents. This does not prove anything about the position of R. Meïr if the heave was already suspended in the morning..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon²¹⁶Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2, quoted in the next paragraph. While a firstling calf or lamb has to be treated as a sacrifice, R. Simeon permits any surgical operation if the health of the animal requires it, even if it is clear that by the operation the animal will become unfit as a sacrifice. both said the same thing²¹⁷R. Joshua permits to bring impurity to heave in order to save some part in purity; R. Simeon permits to make a blemish on a firstling calf in order to save its life.. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other²¹⁸R. Joshua permits to bring impurity to heave in order to save food. In the case of Bekhorot, the Mishnah states that one may not slaughter the firstling because of the man-induced blemish; the animal cannot become food for anybody. Therefore, it is not necessary that R. Joshua agree with R. Simeon. On the other hand, R. Simeon holds that pure and impure heave cannot be burned together; it is forbidden to make heave impure even if it must be burned (Note 190). Therefore, R. Simeon cannot be shown to agree with R. Joshua in Terumot.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state¹⁹⁰Mishnah Pesaḥim 1:7, speaking of pure and impure heave. If this is the teaching of R. Simeon, he must hold that they disagree for suspended and impure heave and, therefore, these can be burned together since practice always follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer. But then suspended heave should be treated as impure, against Mishnah 7.: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.¹⁹¹Tosephta Pesaḥim 1:5, quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 20b. The Tosephta is Babylonian, unknown to the Yerushalmi.” Could one not burn the two together²¹⁹Since the pure heave also must be destroyed by biblical decree.? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it²²⁰By biblical decree, leavened matter is permitted on the 14th of Nisan until the time of the slaughter of the Passover lamb, which is shortly after noon (Note 210). However, by rabbinic decree no leavened matter may be eaten two hours before noontime and all leavened matter must be eliminated at least one hour before noon. Therefore, at the time of burning, the heave would still be good heave according to biblical law for another hour and could not be considered as being lost automatically.. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah²²¹Heave must be eaten in purity, which can be guaranteed only if the heave is guarded at all times or at least kept at a place locked away from possible impurities (cf. Šeqalim 7:2, fol. 50c; Babli Pesaḥim 34a). Since on the 14th of Nisan, leavened heave cannot be eaten after 10 a.m. local time, there is no need to watch it any longer and, by being released from supervision, it should become invalid immediately even by biblical standards.? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah²²²As just shown, the lack of attention makes everything impure for practical purposes., coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah²²³In the next paragraph, R. Simeon’s interpretation of the biblical text is given.! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]²²⁴Therefore, the argument of Note 221 is inapplicable in our situation.. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals²²⁵If one starts the fire to burn the heave, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we deal with the moment before the fire is started.? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua²²⁶The positions of R. Joshua in Pesaḥim 1:7 and Terumot 8:8–10 do not necessarily coincide, as explained by R. Ilaï.! He said to him, these are Tannaïm²²⁷It is impossible to fully reconstruct the original position of R. Joshua since the only knowledge we have of his statements is through the interpretations of the students of R. Aqiba.. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua²⁰³This shows that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim. “There” means Terumot, where potentially an entire harvest may be lost in the winepress. “Here” means Pesaḥim, where the question is only whether different kinds of leavened matter may be burned together or have to be burned separately..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse¹⁶⁷The second verse is Ex. 23:18, where it says לֹא־תִזְבַּח, the first is Ex..34:25. Babli 64a. says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one¹⁶⁸This is formulated as if the second verse referred to the intermediate days of the holiday. to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted¹⁶⁹Ex. 23:18 is general, referring to sacrifices eaten by its owners in general, while Ex..34:25 explicitly mentions the Pesaḥ and therefore restricts its meaning.. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”¹⁷⁰Chapter 2:2 Note 90., and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words¹⁷¹Chapter 1:4, Notes 109–110.. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth¹⁷²Ex..34:25 must refer to the 14th of Nisan; the anonymous majority is justified in rejecting R. Simeon’s position.