Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Resh Lakish, who establishes Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim by flesh which became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah d'Oraysa which is being burnt together with meat which became Tamei through a V'lad d'Oraysa - 'mi'Divreihem' of Rebbi Meir refers to Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua.

(b) The disadvantage of learning this way (besides the fact that it would be a lot more straightforward if 'mi'Divreihem' pertained to the Tana'im just mentioned) is - that now, it is not clear what the Machlokes between Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim and Rebbi Akiva is doing here in Pesachim.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer explain the Pasuk in Korach "es Mishmeres *Terumosai*" - (in the plural), to refer to both Terumah Tehorah and Terumah Teluyah, to teach us that even Terumah Teluyah also needs to be guarded.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua holds 'Yesh Eim le'Masores' (we go after the way the word is written - and not after the way it is pronounced), and since the Torah writes 'Teromosi' (without a 'Yud') we explain it in the singular i.e. only Terumah Tehorah is subject to guarding from Tum'ah, but not Terumah Teluyah.

(c) Nevertheless, this cannot be the case to which Rebbi Meir is referring - seeing as he refers to burning them together, thereby making the Terumah, Tamei, with his hands; whereas Rebbi Yehoshua permits at best, only to open the barrel, leaving it in a place where it might become Tamei, but not to actually be Metamei the Terumah with one's hands.

(a) If a barrel of Terumah wine broke in the upper wine-press, and the wine is now starting to spill into Tamei Chulin wine lying in the lower wine-press, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua agree that if it is possible to save even one Revi'is of wine in Tahor vessels, then he is obligated to do so - even if it means that the rest of the wine will spill into the Tamei Chulin wine below, and become a total loss.

(b) Meduma which is Tamei is useless, since it forbidden both to a Kohen and to a Yisrael (its only use might be Ziluf - sprinkling to settle the dust, and we shall see at the end of the Sugya why that is not possible here).

(c) According to Rebbi Yehoshua, if he does not have Tahor vessels, then he is even permitted to save the wine in Tamei vessels, rather than allow it to fall into the Tamei Chulin and render it useless.

(d) Rebbi Meir learns from Rebbi Yehoshua (who permits being Metamei the Tahor Terumah, since it is anyway going to become Tamei) that one is permitted to burn Tahor Terumah together with Tamei terumah, since it is going to become forbidden anyway.

(a) When Rebbi Yossi queried Rebbi Meir from Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim, he actually thought that Rebbi Meir derived his Din from him, says Resh Lakish, though in reality, his source is Rebbi Yehoshua.

(b) Rebbi Yossi justifies Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling that one may save the wine in Tamei vessels - because there it is in order to save the Chulin from becoming Meduma.

(c) Two lots of wood, instead of one, constitutes only a small loss, which Rebbi Yehoshua does not permit.

5)

(a) The reason that even Rebbi Yossi agrees in the seventh hour (that one may burn the Terumah Tehorah Chametz together with the Terumah Temei'ah), according to Rebbi Yochanan - is because since, in the seventh hour, Chametz is Asur mi'd'Oraysa, it is no different than being Tamei.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'mi'Divreihem' of Rebbi Meir refers to Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim, who is talking about an Av ha'Tum'ah d'Oraysa, and a V'lad de'Rabbanan; and Rebbi Meir is referring to burning the two sets of Terumah in the sixth hour, when the Chametz is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (and that is when Rebbi Yossi disagrees with him, but not in the seventh, as Rebbi Yochanan says).

(c) Since Rebbi Meir's reason is because the Isur is only de'Rabbanan, his source cannot be Rebbi Yehoshua, who permits being Metamei the Terumah because of the loss of the Chulin.

(d) If Rebbi Meir would learn his Din from Rebbi Yehoshua, burning the two together would be permitted even in the *fifth* or the *fourth* hour (in order to save the double fuel expenses) even though at that time, there is not even an Isur de'Rabbanan on the Chametz; whereas, if his source was Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim, it will only be permitted to burn them in the *sixth* hour, once the Isur de'Rabbanan has taken effect.

7)

(a) Bread that has gone moldy is still subject to Tum'as Ochlin, provided it is still fit for canine consumption (since it was once fit for humans to eat).

(b) The author of the Beraisa which permits burning it together with Tamei bread on Pesach must be Rebbi Yossi, because Rebbi Meir permits even bread that is not moldy, to be burnt together with Tamei bread on Pesach.

(c) The Gemara thought that we can equate the Din of bread that is physically inedible with bread that is Halachically inedible - i.e. in the seventh hour (a proof for Rebbi Yochanan).

(d) This is no proof, answers the Gemara - because here the bread is factually inedible, and does not have the status of bread, whereas bread in the seventh hour, may well be forbidden, but it still has the status of bread.

(a) What Rebbi Yossi means to say (when he says 'u'Modeh Rebbi Eliezer ve'Rebbi Yehoshua') is that, although Rebbi Meir derives his Din from Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim, his derivation cannot be correct, since, even Rebbi Yehoshua, who is lenient with regard to burning Terumah Teluyah and Terumah Temei'ah together, does not permit burning Terumah Tehorah together with Terumah Temei'ah.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehoshua does not differentiate between *causing* Tum'ah and being Metamei *with one's hands*. Consequently, although he permits causing a barrel of Teluyah wine to become Tamei, in reality, he permits even being Metamei it with his hands.

(a) Since Rebbi Meir learns from Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim (who permits increasing Tum'ah d'Oraysa on to Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, as we explained above) that one may burn Terumah which is Chametz in the sixth hour (when it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan) together with Tum'ah d'Oraysa, why does Rebbi Yossi reject Rebbi Meir's derivation?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes the V'lad which rendered the flesh in our Mishnah, Tamei, by flesh that become Tamei through liquid. According to Rebbi Meir, who holds that liquid is Metamei food mi'de'Rabbanan, this is similar to burning Chametz of Terumah in the sixth hour together with Terumah of Chametz which is Tamei mi'd'Oraysa. Rebbi Yossi disagrees, because, in his opinion, liquids are Metamei food mi'd'Oraysa, so that one is not adding a Tum'ah d'Oraysa on to a Tum'ah *de'Rabbanan* (but on to a Tum'ah *d'Oraysa*). In that case, we have no proof that one may burn burn Chametz of Terumah which is Tahor together with Chametz of Terumah which is Tamei, in the sixth hour. And that is what Rebbi Meir means by 'Einah Hi ha'Midah'.

(c) When Rebbi Yirmiyah speaks about burning flesh that became Tamei through a V'lad Tum'ah, he is referring to the V'lad that Rav Yehudah already described above as a V'lad V'lad, in which case, the flesh will have been a Shelishi le'Tum'ah, and by burning it together with flesh that became Tamei through an Av, it will have become a Sheni.

(a) If by burning the two pieces of flesh together, one only renders the Shelishi a Sheni mi'de'Rabbanan, then one has not really added anything at all - because the piece, which became Tamei through liquid, is already a Sheni mi'de'Rabbanan, since liquid is always a Rishon mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah will have to hold like those who say that Kodshim make what they touch like themselves. Consequently, our Mishnah speaks when a Sheni de'Rabbanan touched a Sheni d'Oraysa, making it a Sheni mi'd'Oraysa (and the Chidush of Rebbi Meir is that it is permitted to do this).

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim permits burning a Sheni de'Rabbanan, but which is also a Shelishi d'Oraysa (since it touched liquid that was a Sheni d'Oraysa) together with a Rishon d'Oraysa, to make it a Sheni d'Oraysa. There is no proof from here, he argues, that one is permitted to burn Chametz of Terumah that is Tahor (and forbidden *only* mi'de'Rabbanan) together with Terumah that is Tamei d'Oraysa.