(a)Resh Lakish rejects the Gemara's previous suggestion. He prefers to establish Rebbi Chanina Sgan 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. According to Resh Lakish, to whom does 'mi'Divreihem' refer?
(b)Considering that this Mishnah appears in the first chapter of Pesachim, what is the disadvantage of learning this way?
(a)According to Resh Lakish, who establishes Rebbi Chanina Sgan 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 Vlad 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 Sgan ha'Kohanim and Rebbi Akiva is doing here in Pesachim.
(a)How does Rebbi Eliezer explain the Pasuk in Korach "es Mishmeres Terumosai", and what does he learn from it?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehoshua say about this? How does he interpret the Pasuk "es Mishmeres Terumosai"?
(c)Seeing as Rebbi Yehoshua is actually permitting one to increase Tum'ah in a case when the Terumah has to be burnt anyway, why can this not be the case of Rebbi Yehoshua to which Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah is referring?
(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 l'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)A barrel of Terumah wine broke in the upper wine-press (where the grapes are placed), and the wine is now starting to spill into Tamei Chulin wine lying in the lower wine-press. What do Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua agree that one should do, if possible - even though that will cause him a loss?
(b)If only Tamei vessels are available, Rebbi Eliezer rules that one must simply allow the wine to spill into the lower wine-press, and allow the wine there to become Meduma. What can one do with Meduma wine which is Tamei?
(c)What does Rebbi Yehoshua say in this case?
(d)From which of the above statements does Rebbi Meir derive his opinion in our Mishnah (that it is permitted to burn Terumah Tehorah together with Terumah Temei'ah on Pesach)?
(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)Rebbi Yosi queried Rebbi Meir as follows: According to Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim, both the Shelishi and the Rishon are Tamei so how can Rebbi Meir derive from there a concession to burn Tahor Chametz together with Tamei Chametz (as we asked above at the end of 14b)? Is it not clear from here that Rebbi Meir learnt his Din from Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim, and not from Rebbi Yehoshua (So how can Resh Lakish cite Rebbi Yehoshua as Rebbi Meir's source)?
(b)On what grounds does Rebbi Yosi disagree with Rebbi Meir, even after he discovers that Rebbi Meir bases his opinion on that of Rebbi Yehoshua? Why should Rebbi Yehoshua permit saving the wine in Tamei vessels, but not burning the Tahor Chametz Terumah together with the Tamei?
(c)And what will Rebbi Yosi say to the fact that, in our Mishnah too, it will now mean using two lots of wood, one to burn the Terumah Tehorah, and the other, to burn the Terumah Temei'ah? Does that not constitute a loss?
(a)When Rebbi Yosi queried Rebbi Meir from Rebbi Chanina Sgan 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 Yosi 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.
(a)Rav Asi quoting Rebbi Yochanan, establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi specifically in the sixth hour; in the seventh, even Rebbi Yosi will agree that one may burn Terumah Tehorah together with Terumah Temei'ah. Why is that?
(b)Assuming that, in the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Meir learns his Din from Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim (and this is the Gemara's conclusion), how will we have to establish Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim?
(c)According to this explanation, why did Rebbi Meir not learn his Din from Rebbi Yehoshua?
(d)Even according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Gemara did contend with the possibility that Rebbi Meir learnt his Din from Rebbi Yehoshua. What would be the difference whether he learns it from Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim or from Rebbi Yehoshua?
(a)The reason that even Rebbi Yosi 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 mid'Oraysa, it is no different than being Tamei.
(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'mi'Divreihem' of Rebbi Meir refers to Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim, who is talking about an Av ha'Tum'ah d'Oraysa, and a Vlad d'Rabanan; and Rebbi Meir is referring to burning the two sets of Terumah in the sixth hour, when the Chametz is only Asur mid'Rabanan (and that is when Rebbi Yosi disagrees with him, but not in the seventh, as Rebbi Yochanan says).
(c)Since Rebbi Meir's reason is because the Isur is only d'Rabanan, 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 d'Rabanan on the Chametz; whereas, if his source was Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim, it will only be permitted to burn them in the sixth c hour, once the Isur d'Rabanan has taken effect.
(a)Is there a proof for Rebbi Yochanan (that Rebbi Yosi agrees in the seventh hour) from the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yosi quotes Beis Hillel, who permits burning Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah together, because they all carry an Isur d'Oraysa - even though they are not Tamei?
(a)There is no proof for Rebbi Yochanan (that Rebbi Yosi agrees in the seventh hour) from the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yosi quotes Beis Hillel, who permits burning Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah together, because they all carry an Isur d'Oraysa, even though they are not Tamei - because although Pigul, Nosar and Tamei are not Tamei d'Oraysa, they are Tamei d'Rabanan, and maybe that is why Rebbi Yosi agrees; whereas Chametz in the seventh hour is not Tamei at all (only Asur), so maybe Rebbi Yosi forbids burning them together even then.
(a)Is bread that has gone moldy still subject to Tum'as Ochlin?
(b)Who must be the author of the Beraisa which permits burning it together with Tamei bread on Pesach, and why?
(c)Why did the Gemara presume this to be a proof for Rebbi Yochanan (that Rebbi Yosi agrees in the seventh hour)?
(d)Why is this in fact, not a proof?
(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 Yosi, 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)Since, according to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Meir's source is Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim, why does the Tana in our Mishnah continue 'u'Modeh Rebbi Eliezer v'Rebbi Yehoshua' ... ?
(b)But how can we say that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees by Teluyah and Temei'ah, seeing as, even there, he only permits Gerama, but not actually being Metamei the Teluyah with one's hands?
(a)What Rebbi Yosi means to say (when he says 'u'Modeh Rebbi Eliezer v'Rebbi Yehoshua') is that, although Rebbi Meir derives his Din from Rebbi Chanina Sgan 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 derives his Din from Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim, what is now the problem with Rebbi Yosi's statement 'Einah Hi ha'Midah'?
(b)Rebbi Yirmeyahu resolves this problem by saying 'Hacha b'Besar she'Nitme'u b'Mashkin Askinan; v'Azda Rebbi Meir l'Ta'amei, v'Rebbi Yosi l'Ta'amei'. What does he mean by that?
(c)If we take Rebbi Yirmeyahu literally, one will be burning a Sheni l'Tum'ah together with a Rishon, in which case, we will not be adding Tum'ah at all. How then, will we have to interpret his words?
(a)Since Rebbi Meir learns from Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim (who permits increasing Tum'ah d'Oraysa on to Tum'ah d'Rabanan, as we explained above) that one may burn Terumah which is Chametz in the sixth hour (when it is Asur mid'Rabanan) together with Tum'ah d'Oraysa, why does Rebbi Yosi reject Rebbi Meir's derivation?
(b)Rebbi Yirmeyahu establishes the Vlad 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 mid'Rabanan, this is similar to burning Chametz of Terumah in the sixth hour together with Terumah of Chametz which is Tamei mi'd'Oraysa. Rebbi Yosi 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 d'Rabanan (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 Yirmeyahu speaks about burning flesh that became Tamei through a Vlad Tum'ah, he is referring to the Vlad that Rav Yehudah already described above as a Vlad Vlad, in which case, the flesh will have been a Shelishi l'Tum'ah, and by burning it together with flesh that became Tamei through an Av, it will have become a Sheni.
(a)Since food renders other food Tamei only mid'Rabanan, burning the two pieces of flesh together will only render the Shelishi, a Sheni d'Rabanan (which is how Ravina, in the previous explanation, learnt). What is the problem with that, according to Rebbi Yirmeyahu?
(b)How will Rebbi Yirmeyahu deal with this? How will he have to hold with regard to Kodshim being Metamei Kodshim?
(c)Rebbi Meir interprets Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim to mean that one may turn a Sheni d'Rabanan into a Sheni d'Oraysa, which is why he derives from there the concession of making a Sheni d'Rabanan, a Sheni d'Oraysa. How does Rebbi Yosi interpret Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim?
(a)If by burning the two pieces of flesh together, one only renders the Shelishi a Sheni mid'Rabanan, then one has not really added anything at all - because the piece, which became Tamei through liquid, is already a Sheni mid'Rabanan, since liquid is always a Rishon mid'Rabanan.
(b)Rebbi Yirmeyahu will have to hold like those who say that Kodshim make what they touch like themselves. Consequently, our Mishnah speaks when a Sheni d'Rabanan touched a Sheni d'Oraysa, making it a Sheni mid'Oraysa (and the Chidush of Rebbi Meir is that it is permitted to do this).
(c)According to Rebbi Yosi, Rebbi Chanina Sgan ha'Kohanim permits burning a Sheni d'Rabanan, 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 mid'Rabanan) together with Terumah that is Tamei d'Oraysa.