(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 15


QUESTIONS: Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Elazar argue concerning what to do with a barrel of Terumah when it is not known whether or not the Terumah became Tamei (that is, it is "Terumah Teluyah"). Rebbi Yehoshua says that it may be put out in the open and left unprotected. Rebbi Elazar says that it must still be protected from Tum'ah.

The Gemara (15a) explains that the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua cannot be a source for Rebbi Meir's teaching in the Mishnah. Rebbi Meir states that when destroying Chametz before Pesach, Terumah Tehorah may be burned with Terumah Teme'ah. Rebbi Yehoshua does not permit actually destroying Terumah Tehorah; he merely permits letting it become Tamei indirectly by leaving it out in the open (through an act of "Gerama," indirect causality). Rebbi Meir, though, is permitting the actual destruction of Terumah Tehorah.

RASHI (15b, DH Hachi Ka'amar), however, gives a different explanation why the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua cannot be a source for Rebbi Meir's teaching. Rashi addresses the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, who disagrees with Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah and says that we are not allowed to burn Terumah Tehorah on Erev Pesach. Rebbi Yosi says that we cannot learn from Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling that Terumah Teluyah may be left out in the open that it is permissible to burn Terumah Teluyah or Terumah Tehorah on Erev Pesach, because in Rebbi Yehoshua's case, the Terumah Teluyah *might*, in actuality, have already been Tamei. Therefore one's act of "Gerama" might not have been making it Tamei. Here, though, the Terumah is definitely Tahor and one is actively making it Tamei.

(a) Why does Rashi not suggest here the very reasoning which the Gemara earlier gave? Rashi should have explained that Rebbi Yosi disagrees with Rebbi Meir because we only see from Rebbi Yehoshua that one may *indirectly* let Terumah become Tamei, but not that one may actively make it Tamei and destroy it. (BEIS MEIR)

(b) If Rashi is correct in asserting that there is another reason why we cannot compare burning Terumah Tehorah before Pesach with Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling that Terumah Teluyah may be left to become Tamei, why did the Gemara earlier (15a) not give that reason? (RASHASH)

(a) The Beis Meir explains Rebbi Yosi, in our Mishnah, expressed a different objection than the Gemara earlier to comparing Rebbi Yehoshua's case to our case. Rebbi Yosi objects not because there it is a "Gerama" and here it is a direct act. Rather, he specifies that there it is Terumah Teluyah that is being made Tamei, and here the Terumah is certainly Tehorah.

(b) The Gemara could not have challenged Rebbi Meir by saying that Rebbi Yehoshua only said his ruling with regard to Terumah Teluyah, because it is clear from the Mishnah itself that *Rebbi Yosi* is the only one who differentiated between Teluyah and Tehorah. Thus it can be inferred that Rebbi Meir held that that difference was insignificant, for he views Teluyah to be the same status as Tehorah (since Eliyahu might come and reveal to us that it is Tehorah, as the Gemara mentioned in a Beraisa, earlier). Therefore, when the Gemara discusses Rebbi Meir, the only objection to comparing Rebbi Yehoshua's Halachah to Rebbi Meir's case of burning Chametz on Erev Pesach is that Rebbi Yehoshua's case is a case of "Gerama" and Rebbi Meir's case is one of a direct act. When discussing Rebbi Yosi, though, the objection must be that there it is Teluyah and here it is Tehorah.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,