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)
ANSWERS:
(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.