אין הכרעת שלישית מכרעת
The decision of the third opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, is not considered a decision in this case, as the other two Sages do not raise the issue of a stumbling block at all.
אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מחלוקת שנפלה לפחות ממאה סאה חולין טמאין
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to a barrel of teruma that broke in an upper press and was flowing down into the lower press applies only to a case where one se’a of teruma fell into less than one hundred se’a of impure, non-sacred wine in the lower press.
אבל נפלה למאה חולין טמאין דברי הכל תרד ותטמא ואל יטמאנה ביד
However, if the teruma wine fell into one hundred se’a of ritually impure, non-sacred produce, everyone agrees that the wine should be allowed to descend and become ritually impure by itself, and one should not actively render it impure with his hand. The reason is that if teruma falls into non-sacred produce one hundred times greater in quantity than itself, the teruma is nullified by the non-sacred produce, and therefore, it would be permitted for a non-priest to eat it. Although it becomes ritually impure, the legal status of the nullified teruma is that of non-sacred produce.
תניא נמי הכי חבית שנשברה בגת העליונה ותחתיה מאה חולין טמאין מודה רבי אליעזר לרבי יהושע שאם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה יציל ואם לאו תרד ותטמא ואל יטמאנה ביד
The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper winepress, and in the lower press there is one hundred times that amount of ritually impure, non-sacred wine, Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke and keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, he should rescue it. And if not, one should let the teruma wine descend and become impure on its own, but he should not actively render it impure with his hand.
האי מודה רבי אליעזר לרבי יהושע מודה רבי יהושע לרבי אליעזר מיבעי ליה אמר רבא איפוך
After citing proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, from this source, the Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita itself. This expression: Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua, is puzzling, as Rabbi Eliezer ruled that one may never directly render the barrel impure. The baraita should say the opposite: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabbi Eliezer, as it is Rabbi Yehoshua who concedes that one may not render impure the barrel of teruma in the upper vat. Rava said: Reverse the names, so that it is Rabbi Yehoshua who concedes to Rabbi Eliezer.
רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר לעולם לא תיפוך הכא במאי עסקינן בכלי שתוכו טהור וגבו טמא מהו דתימא ניגזור דילמא נגע גבו בתרומה קא משמע לן:
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Actually, do not reverse the names. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are referring to a case where it is possible to collect the wine only in a vessel whose interior is ritually pure and whose exterior is impure by rabbinic law, having become impure through contact with impure liquids. Lest you say that we should issue a decree that one may not rescue even a quarter-log, lest the vessel’s exterior touch the teruma and render it impure, the baraita teaches us that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that despite that concern, it is permitted to rescue a quarter-log of pure teruma.
הדרן עלך אור לארבעה עשר
מתני׳ כל שעה שמותר לאכול מאכיל לבהמה לחיה ולעופות ומוכר לגוי ומותר בהנאתו עבר זמנו אסור בהנאתו ולא יסיק בו תנור וכירים רבי יהודה אומר אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה וחכמים אומרים אף מפרר וזורה לרוח או מטיל לים:
MISHNA: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also feed it to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds; and one may sell it to a gentile; and it is permitted to derive benefit from it. After its time passes, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, and one may not even light an oven or a stove with leavened bread. With regard to the manner of removal of leavened bread, Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal of leavened bread is to be accomplished only through burning. And the Rabbis say: Burning is not required, as one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or cast it into the sea.
גמ׳ כל שעה שמותר לאכול מאכיל הא כל שעה שאינו מותר לאכול אינו מאכיל לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה דאי רבי יהודה הא איכא חמש דאינו אוכל ומאכיל דתנן רבי מאיר אומר אוכלין כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש רבי יהודה אומר אוכלין כל ארבע ותולין כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש
GEMARA: The Gemara reads the mishna precisely: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may feed it to his animals. However, apparently, for the entire time that it is not permitted to eat leavened bread, one may not feed his animals. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, isn’t there the fifth hour, when one may not eat leavened bread but one may feed it to his animals? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leavened bread on the morning of the fourteenth day of Nisan for the entire fifth hour, and he burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat it for the entire fourth hour, he suspends his consumption of it for the entire fifth hour, and he burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. Apparently, there is an hour in which it is prohibited to eat leavened bread, but it is permitted to feed it to one’s animals.
ואלא מאי רבי מאיר היא האי כל שעה שמותר לאכול מאכיל כל שעה שאוכל מאכיל מיבעי ליה
The Gemara asks: Rather, what can be said? This mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir. If so, this statement: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread one may feed, is imprecise. It should have said: For the entire time that one eats leavened bread he may feed. As it stands, there is no parallel between the phrase: It is permitted to eat, and the phrase: One may feed. Therefore, it appears that the mishna is referring to two different people or cases.
אמר רבה בר עולא מתניתין רבן גמליאל היא דתנן רבן גמליאל אומר חולין נאכלין כל ארבע תרומה כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש והכי קאמר כל שעה שמותר לאכול כהן בתרומה ישראל מאכיל חולין לבהמה לחיה ולעופות
Rabba bar Ulla said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: Non-sacred leavened bread may be eaten on the fourteenth of Nisan during the entire fourth hour, leavened bread that is teruma may be eaten during the entire fifth hour, and one burns the leavened bread at the beginning of the sixth hour. And this is what the mishna is saying: For the entire time that it is permitted for a priest to partake of teruma, although an Israelite may not eat leavened bread at that time, an Israelite may feed non-sacred food to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds.
למה לי למיתנא בהמה למה לי למיתנא חיה צריכא דאי תנא בהמה דאי משיירא חזי לה אבל חיה דאי משיירא קמצנעא לה אימא לא
The Gemara continues to read the mishna precisely. The mishna states that one may feed his leavened bread to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach about the case of domesticated animals, and why do I need it to teach about non-domesticated animals as well? The halakha should be the same for both cases. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach us both cases, as had it taught only about domesticated animals, one would have said that it is permitted feed them because if the animal leaves over some leavened bread one will see what is left over and dispose of it. However, with regard to a non-domesticated animal, if it leaves over any of the leavened bread, it hides it to save for later. Therefore, one could say that it is not permitted to feed it so close to the time when leavened bread is prohibited.
ואי תנא חיה משום דאי משיירא מיהת מצנעא אבל בהמה זימנין דמשיירא ולא מסיק אדעתיה וקאי עליה בבל יראה ובבל ימצא אימא לא צריכא
And had it taught only the case of a non-domesticated animal, one might say that it is permitted to feed leavened bread to such an animal because if it leaves over any food in any case it will hide it, and the owner will not violate the prohibition: It shall not be seen. However, with regard to a domesticated animal, sometimes it leaves over food, and it does not enter his mind that the animal will do so. And in that case both prohibitions: It shall not be seen and it shall not be found, would apply to him. Consequently, one could say that it would not be permitted for him to feed a domesticated animal. Therefore, it was necessary to teach both cases.
עופות למה לי איידי דתנא בהמה וחיה תנא נמי עופות:
The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to mention birds as well? The Gemara answers: There is no inherent need to mention birds; however, since the mishna taught the cases of domesticated animals and non-domesticated animals, it also taught the case of birds, as these are normally grouped together.
ומוכרו לגוי: פשיטא לאפוקי מהאי תנא דתניא בית שמאי אומרים לא ימכור אדם חמצו לגוי אלא אם כן יודע בו שיכלה קודם פסח ובית הלל אומרים כל שעה שמותר לאכול מותר למכור
It was stated in the mishna that whenever it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also sell it to a gentile. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as the mishna already taught that one may benefit from it? The Gemara answers: This is stated to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his leavened bread to a gentile unless he knows that the leavened bread will be consumed before Passover. According to Beit Shammai, a person retains some responsibility for his leavened bread even when it is no longer in his possession. And Beit Hillel say: For the entire time that it is permitted for a Jew to eat leavened bread, it is also permitted for him to sell it to a gentile. The Jew ceases to be responsible for leavened bread sold to a gentile from the moment it is sold.