Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8

משנה: אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה בַפֶּסַח. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּידָּה. מוֹדִין רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. וְעַל מַה נֶחֱלָקוּ עַל הַתְּלוּיָה וְעַל הַטְּמֵאָה שֶׁרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר תִּישָּרֵף זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאֶחָת׃ MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr said, from their words we learned that one burns pure heave together with impure on Pesaḥ²⁰⁰The 14^th of Nisan where pure leavened heave becomes rabbinically forbidden as food at the start of the sixth hour and must be disposed of before its possession becomes biblically (for the majority) or rabbinically (for R. Meïr) forbidden at noontime.. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is not the implication²⁰¹R. Ḥananiah and R. Aqiba stated their positions only about (biblically or rabbinically) impure food, not about pure heave which becomes forbidden for an unrelated reason.. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately. Where did they disagree? On the suspended²⁰²Heave whose status of purity is in doubt, which cannot be used either as pure or impure (Terumot 8:7" href="/Mishnah_Terumot.8.7">Mishnah Terumot 8:7, Note 180). and impure ones, where Rebbi Eliezer says each one should be burned separately while Rebbi Joshua said, both together.

הלכה: מַהוּ בַפֶּסַח. בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּמִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַה בָא רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ לְכָאן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּנָּיִין אִינּוּן. רִבִּי יָסָי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמַה טְהוֹרָה וּטְמֵיאָה. HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth²⁰³In biblical Hebrew “Pesaḥ” denotes the 14^th of Nisan, the day of the Pesaḥ sacrifice Leviticus.23.5">(Lev. 23:5, Deuteronomy.28.16">Deut. 28:16). In popular language “Pesaḥ” denotes the festival of unleavened bread, the 15^th–21^st. The Mishnah uses the biblical expression.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words²⁰⁴Explaining what R. Meïr in the Mishnah is referring to. of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable²⁰⁵S. Liebermann here endorses the opinion of earlier commentators who want to emend the text and switch the names of RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish, since otherwise how could the latter ask where RR. Eliezer and Joshua enter the discussion? But it seems that with the two classical commentaries one may explain the text as it stands. According to R. Joḥanan, R. Meïr refers to Pesachim 1:6:2-8:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.6.2-8.4">Mishnah 7. Since RR. Eliezer and Joshua are mentioned only in the argument of R. Yose, the statement quoted at the end of Pesachim 1:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.8.1">Mishnah 8 cannot be the one to which R. Meïr refers; it must be Mishnah Terumot8:7, quoted later in the Halakhah, which on the face of it deals with an unrelated subject, whether it is better to keep heave from becoming certainly impure or see to it that it be usable in conformity with the rules (Notes 216 ff.).. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim²⁰⁶There are Tannaim who state Pesachim 1:6:2-8:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.6.2-8.4">Mishnah 7 in the name of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]²⁰⁷If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted..

רִבִּי יָסָי מַקְשֵׁי. לָמָּה רִבִּי יֹסִי אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ הַמִּידָּה. רִבִּי יָסָי דוּ שָׁמַע דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וּמִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְהוּא שָׁמַע דְּבַר קַפָּרָא אָמַר. אַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. ווְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וְלֹא שָׁמַע דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְהוּא מַקְשֵׁי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמּוּתָּר לִשׂרוֹף אִיסּוּר (דִּבְרֵיהֶם) [תּוֹרָה] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת (דִּבְרֵיהֶן) [תּוֹרָה] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. כָּךְ יְהֵא מוּתָּר לִשׂרוֹף אִיסּוּר (תּוֹרָה) [דִּבְרֵיהֶן] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת (תּוֹרָה) [דִּבְרֵיהֶן] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא שַׁנְייָה הִיא אִיסּוּר שַׁנְייָה הִיא טוּמְאָה. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמַה טְהוֹרָה וּטְמֵיאָה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא חָלַקְתָּ לָנוּ בֵּין אִיסּוּר תּוֹרָה לְטוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. כָּךְ לֹא תַחֲלוֹק לָנוּ בֵין אִיסּוּר דִּבְרֵיהֶן לְטוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת דִּבְרֵיהֶן עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא בֵין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲתַא רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא מִן צוֹר וְאָמַר מִן שְׁמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְאָֽמְרִית. יֵאוּת. תַּמָּן טוּמְאַת (דִּבְרֵיהֶם) [תּוֹרָה] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. בְּרַם הָכָא פְּסוּל תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. בְּגִין כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּידָה. וְקַשְׁיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַל דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהָדָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּידָה. סָבַר בַּר קַפָּרָא כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְקַשְׁיָא דְּבַר קַפָּרָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהָדָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לָמַדְנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר מַחְמִיר בְּדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אָן אַשְׁכְּחָן דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר מַחְמִיר בְּדִבְרֵיהֶן כְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָה. כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הָרוֹאָה כֶתֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם זוֹב [דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין בַּכְּתָמִים מִשּׁוּם זוֹב׃] Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words¹⁶⁶This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Pesachim.15">Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5..” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah¹⁶⁷In his opinion, biblically pure food, even if it may no longer be eaten or sacrificed, may not be destroyed..” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]²⁰⁷If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted.. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah²⁰⁸Since the statement of R. Joḥanan about the 16^th implies that it does not apply on the 14th, it is inconsistent with the statement of Bar Qappara. R. Yasa concluded that R. Joḥanan must disagree with Bar Qappara without having heard his statement. Then the correct text is the scribe’s (in parentheses), not the corrector’s the the printed texts’ [in brackets] since for R. Joḥanan Mishnah 7 refers to biblical impurities.. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I²⁰⁹R. Yasa. said, it is correct. There¹⁹¹“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here¹⁹²R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah. biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication²¹⁰In addition to the reason given in Pesachim 1:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.8.1">Note 201, if R. Joḥanan’s statement about the 16^th is correct, R. Yose will not accept R. Meïr’s treatment of rabbinic and biblical impurity as equivalent.. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr²¹¹Since R. Joḥanan is an Amora and R. Meïr a Tanna, the statement rather should be that R. Joḥanan’s position is inconsistent with R. Meïr’s.; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose²¹²Bar Qappara allows burning of rabbinically impure sacrificial meat with biblically impure even though momentarily the rabbinically impure will become biblically impure. In Mishnah Terumot 8:7, discussed in the next paragraph, R. Joshua prescribes making possibly rabbinically impure heave biblically impure. Since the first generation R. Joshua is an overriding authority, it is difficult to see how the third generation R. Yose could disagree. based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent²¹³For R. Meïr the disputes between Bar Qappara and R. Joḥanan and R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish are irrelevant. Even if R. Ḥananiah speaks only about biblical impurities, it makes no difference for R. Meïr who applies all biblical stringencies to rabbinic prohibitions. since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there²¹⁴Mishnah Niddah 6:13.: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux²¹⁵In biblical rules (which are difficult for rabbinic women to follow, cf. Niddah 4:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Niddah.4.1.1">Niddah Chapter 4, Note 3) there is a big difference between menstrual discharges (Leviticus.19.15-24">Lev. 19:15–24) and non-menstrual flux (Leviticus.19.25-30">Lev. 19:25–30). In rabbinic theory, there are 11 days after the end of a menstrual period in which no discharges are menstrual. If a woman discovers a stain on an undergarment, it is rabbinically considered evidence of a discharge. Since this is a purely rabbinic rule, she is “out of order” in that the 11 day rule cannot be applied. In addition, if the undergarment was worn for three days and the stain is large enough to possibly be the result of three discharges, for R. Meïr all rules spelled out in Leviticus.19.28-30">vv. 19:28–30 do apply even though there is no biblical impurity.].”

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. חָבִית שֶׁלִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד סְפֵק טוּמְאָה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. אִם הָֽיְתָה מוּנַּחַת בִּמְקוֹם תּוּרְפָּה יַנִּיחֶינָּה בְּמָקוֹם מּוּצְנָע. וְאִם הָֽיְתָה מְגוּלָּה יְכַסֶּנָּה. רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ אוֹמֵר אִם הָֽיְתָה מוּנַּחַת בְּמָקוֹם הַמּוּצְנָע יַנִּיחֶינָּה בִּמְקוֹם תּוּרְפָּה. וְאִם הָֽיְתָה מְכוּסָּה יְגַלֶּנָּה. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַל יְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּבָר׃ There²¹⁶Mishnah Terumot 8:7. The text from here to the end of the Chapter is from Terumot 8:8–9 (Notes 180–235,ת); it cannot be understood without Pesachim 1:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.8.1">Mishnaiot 8:8–9 which are not reproduced here., we have stated: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose, Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua says, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel says, he should not change anything²¹⁷If it were certainly impure, heave wine could be used to settle dust on dirt floors, heave oil or grain as fuel. If there only is a doubt, the heave is called “suspended”. It cannot be used as impure since it might be pure, nor as pure since it might be impure. R. Eliezer holds that one has to treat this heave according to all rules of holiness. R. Joshua holds that one has to make sure that the heave be used somehow. Since it never will be usable as pure heave, one has to make sure it will be usable impure (Bekhorot 33b" href="/Rashi_on_Bekhorot.33b">Rashi in Bekhorot 33b)..

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן תְּלוּיָה אָסוּר לְשׂוֹרְפָהּ. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, from the opinion of all three of them: It is forbidden to burn suspended [heave]²¹⁸Since neither of them proposes burning the heave as an alternative..

חֲבֵרַייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הַשְּׁנִייָה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. חֲבֵרַיָּא אָֽמְרִין. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֵית רִבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה בָהּ. חָבִית הַשְּׁנִייָה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְלֵית רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֶה בָהּ. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חֲמוּן מַה אַתּוּן אָֽמְרִין. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר שׂוֹרְפִין וּכְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שׂוֹרְפִין. וְיִרָבּוּ רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְיִשְׂרוֹף. וְעוֹד [שְׁמָעִינָן] מִן הָדָא. מִן מַה דַאֲנָן חַמְייָן רַבָּנִין עוֹבְדָא אֲתִי קוֹמֵיהוֹן וְאִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. אֵיזִיל תְּלִי. הֵן אַשְׁכַּחְנָן דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. שׂוֹרְפִין. הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנָייָא. אִין תֵּימַר לֵית לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר תְּלוּיָה. וְהָא תַנֵּי. תְּרוּמַה תְלוּיָה טְהוֹרָה שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. דִּבָרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. בִּזְמַנָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי עֶזְרָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. תִּיפְתָּר בִּתְלוּיָה שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַשְׁאִיל עָלֶיהָ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְכֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כָּל־מַה דַאֲנָן קַייָמִין הָכָא בִּתְלוּיָה שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַשְׁאִיל עָלֶיהָ. אֲבָל בִּתְלוּיָה שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְהַשְׁאִיל עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. תְּרוּמָה תְלוּיָה שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ. טְהוֹרָה הִיא. הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. אִם אָמַר. הֲרֵי אֲנִי מַנִּיחָהּ עַל מְנָת לְהַשְׁאִיל עָלֶיהָ. הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. מָיִי כַּדּוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנּוֹלַד לָהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה עִם דִּימְדּוּמֵי חַמָּה. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora²¹⁹Mishnah Terumot 8:7 is consistent with the position of R. Yose in Pesachim 1:8:2-13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.8.2-13">Pesaḥim 1:8. Since R. Joshua only permits to put suspended heave in a situation where there is great probability that it accidentally will become impure but does not allow actively to make it impure, it follows that he will not allow pure heave to be made impure in the process of burning, as prescribed by R. Meïr. following Rebbi Yose, the second²²⁰The amphora which is the topic of Mishnah Terumot 8:10. If there is a choice of either making heave impure or letting it go to waste, R. Joshua permits to make it impure. This parallels the position of R. Meïr in Pesachim 1:8:2-13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.8.2-13">Pesaḥim 1:8, who permits making heave impure in the process of required destruction. Since that Mishnah is not quoted here, it is clear that the origin of the text is in Terumot. 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 are saying. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose²²¹Even though R. Yose (ben Halafta) is a greater authority than either R. Meïr or R. Simeon, they together should be a majority to determine practice. and one should burn. In addition, we understand from the following: we see the rabbis, if a case comes before them, they say, go and suspend²²²In the last generation of Amoraim practice still followed R. Yose.. Where do we find that Rebbi Simeon says, one burns? It is what we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this²²³Tosefta 1:5. While this does not prove that R. Simeon agrees with the position of R. Meïr about sancta, it establishes that he agrees with him about heave. The translation follows the spelling in Terumot, שנייה.. If you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension²²⁴But treats heave of doubtful status as impure., have we not stated²²⁵Tosephta 3:10, about leavened heave to be disposed of if the 14^th of Nisan is a Sabbath.: “Suspended (pure)²²⁶With the text in a later paragraph and in Terumot one has to read: “or impure”. heave is burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time²²⁷The 14^th of Nisan..” Rebbi Ezra²²⁸This reading, R. Ezra (fifth generation) sitting before R. Mana II, is preferable to that of Terumot, R. Zeˋira (third generation) before R. Mana I (early second generation). said before Rebbi Mana, explain it that it is suspended because he does not intend to ask about it. He said to him, so also said Rebbi Yose²²⁹Fifth generation, the teacher of R. Mana II.: All we are occupied with here is with suspended [heave] about which he does not intend to ask²³⁰Since designating any produce as heave is a dedication, it has the status of a vow and as such is subject to annulment by an ordained rabbi or a court. If the vow is annulled, the original produce reverts to profane status where secondary impurity is excluded; in most cases this means that it will automatically revert to purity. Then heave must be given from some other produce of the same harvest. Since all problems arising for suspended heave can be easily resolved by asking for annulment, it is clear that the Mishnah must assume that this way out is not chosen.; but suspended [heave] about which he intends to ask is pure. It was stated thus²³¹A related text is Tosephta Terumot7:18.: “Suspended heave about which they said, is it pure? It is impure. If he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about it, it is pure.” What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then one cannot infer anything²³²Since 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 already was suspended in the morning.
A different treatment in the Pesachim.20b">Babli, 20b..

וְאַתּוּן אָֽמְרִין. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֵית רִבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה בָהּ. וְהָתַנֵּי. בַּמֶּה דָבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּבוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת. אֲבָל בְּבוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲפִילוּ כָּל־ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְטַמְּאוֹת. וְאִין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הִיא בוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת וְהִיא בוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת. אֲפִילוּ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְטַמּוֹת. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּידָּה. לֵית בַּר נַשׁ אָמַר. אֵינָהּ הִיא מִכְּלָל דּוּ מוֹדֶה עַל קַדְמִייָתָא. מָיִי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תַּמָּן כְּדֵי לָחוּס עַל נִכְסֵיהֶן שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. אֲפִילוּ הָכָא אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָמוֹן. שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִשְׂרוֹף עֵצִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְזוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. לְהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה חָשׁוּ. לְהֶפְסֵד מְמוּעָט לֹא חָֽשְׁשׁוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. תִּיפְתָּר כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וּמִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. And you²³³Continuation of the attack of R. Yose the Amora against the statement of the colleagues. are saying, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Meïr will not agree²³⁴While this R. Yose’s argument in both texts it is clear from the following that the discussion is about the second of their statements, that R. Yose cannot agree with the ruling of Mishnah Terumot 8:8 and 8:10 about a barrel of pure heave wine which is breaking on top of a container of impure wine.? But did we not state:²³⁵“Lifting” is explained in Terumot Chapter 5. If heave falls into a container of profane produce of the same kind as the heave and the volume of the profane matter is less than 101 times that of the heave, the entire matter is forbidden to non-Cohanim. But if it is at least that amount, a volume equal to that of the heave which was lost can be lifted from the mixture and declared as replacement heave. Then the particles of the original heave in the mixture revert to profane status and become permitted to lay persons.
Mishnaiot Terumot 8:8,10: “If an amphora broke in the upper part of a wine press whose lower part was impure, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if one can save a quartarius from it, he shall save that in purity.… Rebbi Joshua said, this is not a case for which I have been warned not to make it impure …” When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure. And if it follows Rebbi Meïr, whether it is a vat which contains enough to lift it or a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure?²³⁶Since R. Meïr permits to bring impurity to anything that later automatically would become impure. Pesachim.21a">Babli 21a. In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication,” nobody says “this is not” unless he agrees with the premise. How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in order to care for the property of Jews²³⁷Negaim 12:5" href="/Mishnah_Negaim.12.5">Mishnah Negaˋim 12:5. Pesachim.20b">Babli 20b.; here what do you have? Does the Jew not lose money even here? For he needs to burn wood separately²³⁸This text is corrupt. The correct version is in Terumot: For he needs wood to burn each lot separately. and this separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana²³⁹In Terumot: R. Yose ben R. Abun said., explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥanina the executive officer of the Cohanim; and one cannot infer anything²⁴⁰There is no inference to be drawn from the Mishnah in Pesaḥim which according to R. Meïr speaks about impurity and disqualification and in Terumot dealing with impurity and purity. R. Yose’s second objection to the colleagues is not proven..

רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי אִילָא תְּרֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהַשְּׁנִייָה בֵּין כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בֵין כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי עֶזְרָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי נֵימַר וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שׂוֹרֵף תְּלוּיָה בְּכָל־מָקוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אָֽזְלִית לְקַיְסָרִין וּשְׁמָעִית רִבִּי זְרִיקָן בְּשֵׁם זְעוּרָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר שׂוֹרֵף תְּלוּיָה בְּכָל־מָקוֹם. וְאָֽמְרִית לֵיהּ. אֲפִילוּ כְגוֹן הַהִיא שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְאָמַר לִי. אִין. אֲנָא פָתַר לָהּ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת מָדוֹר גּוֹיִם. מַה בְיָדָךְ. תַּנֵּי. מָדוֹר גּוֹיִם תּוֹלִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵירִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. שׂוֹרְפִין. רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. רִבִּי מֵאִיר שׂוֹרֵף תְּלוּיָה בִּשְׁאַר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. וְהָא תַנֵּי כֵן. תְּרוּמָה תְלוּיָה טְמֵיאָה שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. בִּזְמַנָּהּ. וְיִשְׂרוֹף בְּשַׁחֲרִית. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנִּתְעַצֵּל וְלֹא שָׂרַף. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנֵּי טְמֵיאָה. לֹא מִשֶּׁנִּתְעַצֵּל וְלֹא שָׂרַף. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי אַחֲוָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנּוֹלַד לָהּ טוּמְאָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana²²⁸This reading, R. Ezra (fifth generation) sitting before R. Mana II, is preferable to that of Terumot, R. Zeˋira (third generation) before R. Mana I (early second generation).: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose²⁴¹In Terumot the names Yose and Meïr are systematically switched. For the interpretation there is no difference since, as stated in the next sentence, the two rabbis agree in this matter. Nevertheless it seems that the text in Terumot is more reliable since the remainder of the discussion concentrates on determining R. Meïr’s position., we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah²⁴²If we hold that the rule which states that doubts in cases of biblical commandments have to be decided restrictively is itself biblical, then suspended heave would have to be considered impure by biblical standards and immediately used as fuel.? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling²⁴³Since Gentiles are suspected of burying their stillbirths in the dirt floors of their houses, their dwellings in the Holy Land are considered possibly impure by “tent impurity” (Kilayim 6:2:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.6.2.2">Kilaim Chapter 6 Note 25). Practice disregards the opinion of R. Simeon who denied the possibility of “tent impurity” for Gentiles., what do you have in your hand? It was stated²⁴⁴Tosephta Ahilut18:7.: “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and]²⁴⁵Added from the text in Terumot, necessary by the context. impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time²²⁷The 14^th of Nisan..” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure”²⁴⁶Since impure heave is used as fuel, there is no reason why it should not be used to burn leavened matter in the morning. Since in most years Passover Eve is not a Sabbath and one is obligated to burn in the morning, if Friday is the 13^th of Nisan the rule is that in this case also one burns in the morning.. Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ שְׁנֵיהֶן אָֽמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דִּבְכוֹרוֹת וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ דִּתְרוּמוֹת לֹא דֵין מוֹדֶה לְדֵין וְלֹא דֵין מוֹדֶה לְדֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מִסְתַבְּרָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. [אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּתֵימַר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. אֲבָל הֵיאַךְ נִשְׂרַף תְּלוּיָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה.] מוֹדֶה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. וְיִשְׂרוֹף שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאַחַת. טְהוֹרָה הִיא דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁגָּזַרְתָּה עָלֶיהָ שְׂרֵיפָה. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם לֹא נִפְסְלָה בְהֵיסַח הַדַּעַת. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֶסִּיעַ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲחוּזַת דָּם כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תּוֹרָה. חָבִית הַשְּׁנִייָה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר תּוֹרָה. אֵינָהּ כֵּן. אֶלָּא מְשַׁמְּרָהּ הוּא שֶׁלֹּא תִגַּע בְּטַהֲרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת. הָתִיב רִבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה כְתוֹבָה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָֽיְתָה נְתוּנָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַגְּחָלִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לִכְשֶׁיִּתְּנֶנָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא לְרִבִּי שַׁמַּי. אַתּוּן אָֽמְרִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ לֵית הוּא רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּנָּיִין אִינּוּן. תַּמָּן רִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. בְּרַם הָכָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua²⁴⁷The order appearing in the text of Terumot, R. Joshua (first generation), R. Simeon (third generation) is preferable. both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot²⁴⁸Bekhorot 5:2" href="/Mishnah_Bekhorot.5.2">Mishnah 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 disqualified as sacrifice. and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua²⁴⁹Talmudic style requires the addition found in Terumot: “But R. Joshua will not agree with R. Simeon”. R. Joshua (Terumot8:8–10) permits to cause impurity to heave in order to save food; R. Simeon permits to make a blemish on a firstling in order to save its life. But the Mishnah in Bekhorot states that a firstling with this intentionally induced blemish may not be slaughtered; it cannot become food for anybody. Therefore it is not necessary to conclude that R. Joshua agrees with R. Simeon. Bekhorot.33b">Babli Bekhorot 33b.. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]²⁵⁰This sentence is neither in the Mishnah nor in Terumot; the question is correct as objection of R. Eliezer to R. Joshua.? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua²⁵¹While the Mishnah states, “R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree”, the formulation here is more to the point. that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention²⁵²Heave 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 (Pesachim.34a">Babli 34a, Šeqalim 7:2). Since on the 14^th of Nisan heave cannot be eaten after 10 a.m., there is no need to watch it any longer and, by being released from supervision, it should become disqualified immediately even by biblical standards.? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so²⁵³Even if disqualified for other reasons, it still has to be watched; the prior objection is baseless.; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals²⁵⁴If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.. He told him, after it was put there²⁵⁴If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁵The positions of R. Joshua in Pesachim 1:7:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.7.2-4">Pesaḥim1:7 and Terumot 8:8–10 do not necessarily coincide.. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁶It is impossible to fully reconstruct the original position of R. Joshua since the only knowledge we have of his statements is through the interpretation of third generation Amoraim..

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַבְּכוֹר שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ דָם. אֲפִילּוּ מֵת אֵין מַקִּיזִין לוֹ אֶת הַדָּם. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. יַקִּיז וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ מוּם. אִם עָשָׂה בוֹ מוּם הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. יַקִּיז אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בוֹ מוּם׃ There, we have stated²⁵⁷Bekhorot 5:2" href="/Mishnah_Bekhorot.5.2">Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2 [Sifra Emor Parashah 7(10)]. Since a firstling is a sacrifice by birth, it has to be treated according to the rules of sacrifices. The only difference is that a dedicated sacrifice which develops a blemish must be redeemed to become profane whereas a firstling in the hands of a Cohen which develops a blemish automatically becomes profane and may be eaten by everybody and in impurity. Therefore, Cohanim are suspected to induce blemishes on the firstlings in their possession.: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled, only he should not intend to cause a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it may not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.”

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה כְרַבָּן גַּמָלִיאֵל. וּדְרַבָּנִין כְּרִבִּי אֶלִיעֶזֶר. וּדְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. יַקִּיז אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִתָכַּוֵּין לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מוּם. וְאַתְיָא כְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ אַחֵרַייָא. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תִּיפְתָּר בְּקֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בְּאֲחֵרָיוּתָן כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁸The opinions stated in Mishnah Terumot 8:7 (“the first amphora.”) The Bekhorot.35b">Babli Bekhorot 35b identifies the position of the Sages with that of R. Joshua (i. e., the operative opinion in Bekhorot with that in Terumot) while the Yerushalmi implies that practice should follow R. Simeon.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “He should bleed it even if he intends to make a blemish.” This parallels another opinion of Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁹His opinion about the “second amphora” where he permits to induce impurity on most of the heave in order to save a small portion in purity.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain about sancta for which he is liable following Rebbi Simeon²⁶⁰This sentence is missing in Terumot. The verse is formulated for all sacrifices which develop a blemish; it is more reasonable to apply it to the vast majority of dedicated sacrifices which have to be redeemed rather than to firstlings for which change to semi-profane status is automatic.
If somebody dedicates a specific animal and it later develops a blemish, there is no sacrifice. But if he vows “a sacrifice” and then dedicates a particular animal which later develops a blemish, he has to redeem the animal by an unblemished replacement..

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. לֹ֖א תֹּֽאכְלֶנּ֑וּ עַל־הָאָ֥רֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּ֭וּ כַּמָּֽיִם׃ לֹא הִיתַּרְתִּי לָךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ אֶלָּא בִשְׁפִיכָה. הָתִיב רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי אַחֲוָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְהָֽכְתִיב אַף בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין כֵּן. לֹ֖א תֹּֽאכְלֶנּ֑וּ עַל־הָאָ֥רֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּ֭וּ כַּמָּֽיִם׃ אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא. לְהַכְשִׁיר אִיתְאֲמָרַת. מַה הַמַּיִם מַכְשִׁירִין אַף הַדָּם יְהֵא מַכְשִׁיר. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: You shall not eat it, on the earth you shall you shall spill it like water²⁶¹Deuteronomy.12.24">Deut. 12:24.. I did permit you its blood only for spilling. Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, is not about disqualified sancta written so, you shall not eat it, on the earth you shall spill it like water²⁶²One would have expected R. Jehudah to use Deuteronomy.15.23">Deut. 15:23, speaking of the firstling: Only its blood you shall not eat, spill it onto the ground like water. The verse used gives the rules for animals which develop blemishes after being dedicated. This also includes firstlings.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it was said for preparation²⁶³Produce in the ground is impervious to impurity. It remains so after harvesting as long as it stays completely dry. Blood is one of the fluids that prepare dry food to accept impurity (cf. Demay Chapter 2, Notes 136,141). Since the rules for preparation are spelled out for water (Leviticus.11.38">Lev. 11:38), other fluids have this property of water only if there is a biblical verse which compares them to water. Sifry Deut. #71.. Just as the water prepares, so the blood shall prepare.

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד הֵן דּוֹרְשִׁין. תָּמִ֤ים יִֽהְיֶה֙ לְרָצ֔וֹן כָּל־מ֖וּם לֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶה־בּֽוֹ׃ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא לְרָצוֹן אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁאי לִיתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם. [וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ לְרָצוֹן אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִיתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם.] וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֲפִילוּ כוּלּוֹ מוּמִין אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁאי לִיתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, both of them explain the same verse²⁶⁴Leviticus.22.21">Lev. 22:21.: Perfect it²⁶⁵Any animal sacrifice.shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it. Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish²⁶⁶As Rashi explains in Bekhorot.35b">Bekhorot 35b, the Sages hold that R. Simeon would be justified if the verse read “no blemish shall be on it.” But the involved language, any blemish, forbids the imposition of a new blemish on existing blemishes..