Pesachim 1:7 - 2:1

מדבריהם למדנו – whether [speaking of] Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosi, both hold that meat that had been defiled by the offspring of a Levitical uncleanness , as Rabbi Hananiah had stated, we are speaking about meat that had become defiled by liquids which had been defiled with a utensil that had been defiled by contact with an unclean reptile, and Rabbi Meir holds that defilement by liquids that defile other things is not from the Torah, for liquids do not defile other things, even food-stuffs, other than according to the Rabbis, and because of this, we state from the words of Rabbi Hananiah who said that we burn meat that had been defiled [through contact] by liquids, is that it is impure according to the Rabbis, but from the Torah, it is perfectly pure, with the meat that had been defiled [by contact] with the primary form of impurity which is impure according to the Torah.

למדנו ששורפין תרומה טהורה עם הטמאה – when the sixth hour [on the 14th of Nisan] arrived, which is prohibited according to the Rabbis, just like we burn meat that had been defiled with liquids which is completely pure, from the Torah, with meat that had been defiled by [contact with] meat that had been defiled by [contact with] the primary form of Levitical uncleanness which is impure according to the Torah.

אמר לו רבי יוסי אינה הוא המדה – Rabbi Yosi according to his reasoning holds that the impurity of liquids can defile other things according to the Torah, and meat that was defiled by liquids is impure according to the Torah. Therefore, he said that it is not the correct conclusion to draw, which means to say that one cannot learn this from their conclusions; for if you had permitted to burn something impure that had been defiled with a lighter form of impurity with something impure that had been defiled by a graver form of impurity, you would permit to burn the pure with the impure. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi , that we don’t burn pure priest’s due with that which is impure on Passover, and that impure liquids defile other things is not from the Torah but rather, according to the Rabbis, like Rabbi Meir.

ומודים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע – Rabbi Yosi had stated it that even though Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree regarding the burning of priest’s due, in this, they agree that we burn this by itself and that by itself.

על התלויה ועל הטמאה – Rabbi Eliezer holds that we are warned on the guarding of something that is held in suspense, as it is written (Numbers 18:8): “[The LORD spoke further to Aaron: I hereby give you] charge of My gifts, [all the sacred donations of the Israelites…”]. The Biblical verse speaks of two priest’s dues – one that is priest’s due held in suspense and the other is pure priest’s due.

ורבי יהושע אומר שתיהן כאחת – Since it is held in suspense, you are not warned on its being guarded, and on that which is held in suspense and that which is pure, they didn’t dispute that we burn them, for since it was not presumed to be impure, it did not appear as that which is defiled by the hands.

כל שעה שמותר לאכול – since it (i.e., the Mishnah) does not say, “every hour that he eats, he may feed,” and took it with these two linguistic forms, implies that it is referring to two people. And this is how it should be understood: Every hour that the Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah/priest’s due, an Israelite may feed non-sacred food to his cattle. And our Mishnah is according to Rabban Gamaliel, for Rabban Gamaliel states that non-sacred food is eaten all of the [first] four hours [of the day before Passover], and Terumah is eaten all of the fifth hour (see Chapter 1, Mishnah 5). But the Halakha is not according to him, but whether [speaking] of Terumah or non-sacred food, we eat them all the [first] four hours, and hold them in suspense throughout the fifth hour and burn them at the beginning of the sixth [hour].

מאכיל לבהמה ולחיה ולעופות – And it is necessary [to state all three]. For had the Mishnah [only] taught “cattle,” I might think that cattle [only] which leaves food out, it is [clearly] visible and we must certainly remove it [out of existence], but beasts like marten, a cat or mole/weasel which has the practice of hiding it, I might say not. And if the Mishnah [only] taught “beasts,” I might say that a beast if it leaves something over, it hides it and does not violate “that it be seen,” I would say that it is fine, but cattle that sometimes leaves something and it is not our intention to remove it and transgresses, “that it should be seen,” I might say not, this comes to inform us [that the logic we have presumed is incorrect]. And “fowl” – for since the Mishnah teaches “cattle” and “beasts,” it also teaches “fowl.”

ומוכרו לנכרי – to exclude [the position] of the School of Shammai which states that a person should not sell his heaven to a non-Jew other than if knows that it will be finished prior to Passover, for they hold that I am commanded to remove it from the world and not that it would [continue] to exist.

ומותר בהנאתו – with the benefit of its ashes, such as if he parched/roasted it with fire prior to the time of its being prohibited, it is permitted to derive benefit from its ashes even after the time of its being prohibited.

עבר זמנו – when the sixth hour arrives, even though that its prohibition is not other than through the words of the Scribes, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, as is it was from the prohibitions of benefit of the Torah [itself]. And if he betrothed a woman with it (i.e., Hametz), we are not troubled by his Kiddushin/betrothal, for even with a leavened substance that is unfit for food , such as grain upon which drippings from the roof had fallen (see Talmud Pesahim 39b), and similar things to it, for on Passover itself, the prohibition is only from the words of the Scribes, for if he betrothed a woman on the fourteenth [of Nisan] once the sixth hour arrived, we are not troubled by his betrothal.

ולא יסיק בו תנור וכירים – it is necessary for Rabbi Yehuda, for he said, that there is no removal of Hametz other than by burning, for you might have thought that together with when burning it , he derives benefit from it. It comes to teach us that this is not the case, and even in the manner of removal, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it when the time comes for its being prohibited.

ר"י אומר אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה – which he derived from the [concept of] portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time and bound to be burnt, which are forbidden to derive benefit from and are punishable with extirpation the same as [possession of[ Hametz [during Passover], and its command is through burning and not in any other way. But the Rabbis do not derive from “Notar”/portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time and bound to be burnt, for the fat the ox that is stoned proves it, for it is prohibited to eat or derive benefit from it and it is punishable by extirpation and does not require burning.