Parallel
פסחים 26
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Raba says thus: R. Judah rules that the unintentional is the same as the intentional only in the direction of stringency, but he did not rule that the intentional is the same as the unintentional where it is in the direction of leniency. Abaye said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: It was related of R. Johanan b. Zakkai that he was sitting in the shadow of the Temple and teaching all day. Now here it was impossible [not to lecture], and he intended [to benefit from the shade], and it is permitted? But Raba said: The Temple was different, because it was made for its inside. Raba said: Whence do I know it? Because we learned: There were passage ways opening in the upper chamber to the Holy of Holies, through which the artisans were lowered in boxes, so that they might not feast their eyes on the Holy of Holies. Now here it was impossible [to avoid going there], and he [the workman] intended [to gaze at the Holy of Holies], and it was forbidden. But is that logical? Surely R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass? Rather, they set up a higher standard for the Holy of Holies. Others state, Raba said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught, R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass. [Thus] they merely do not involve trespass, but there is an interdict. Is that not for those who stand inside [the Temple], so that it is impossible [to avoid it], while there is, an intention [to enjoy], and it is forbidden? — No: it refers to those standing outside. [It was stated in] the text, ‘R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass.’ But, does not smell involve trespass? Surely it was taught: He who compounds incense in order to learn [the art thereof] or to give it over to the community is exempt; [if] in order to smell it, he is liable; while he who smells it is exempt, but that he commits trespass! Rather, said R. Papa: Sound and sight do not involve trespass, because they are intangible; and smell, after its smoke column has ascended, does not involve trespass, since its religious service has been performed. Shall we say that wherever the religious service has been performed no trespass is involved? But what of the separation of the ashes, though its religious service has been performed, yet it involves trespass, for it is written; and he shall put them [the ashes] beside the altar, [which means] that he [the priest] must not scatter nor use [them]? — Because [the references to] the separation of the ashes and the priestly garments are two verses written with the same purpose, and the teaching of two such verses does not illumine [other cases]. ‘The separation of the ashes’: that which we have stated. ‘The priestly garments,’ as it is written, and he shall leave them there: this teaches that they must be hidden. That is well on the view of the Rabbis who say, This teaches that they must be hidden. But according to R. Dosa who disagrees with them and maintains: But they are fit for an ordinary priest, while what does ‘and he shall leave them there’ mean? that he [the High Priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement, what can be said? — Because the separation of ashes and the beheaded heifer are two verses with the same teaching, and such two verses do not illumine [other cases]. That is well according to him who maintains, They do not illumine [other cases]; but on the view that they do illumine, what can be said? — Two limitations are written: it is written, ‘and he shall put them [the ashes]’; and it is written, [over the heifer] whose neck was broken [etc.]. Come and hear: If he took it [the heifer] into the team and it [accidentally] did some threshing, it is fit; [but if it was] in order that it should suck and thresh, it is unfit. Now here it is impossible [to do otherwise], and he intends [to benefit], and he [the Tanna] teaches that it is unfit! — There it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘which hath not been wrought with,’ [implying] in all cases. If so, even in the first clause too [the same applies]?
—
— This can only be compared to the following: If a bird rested upon it [the red heifer], it remains fit; but if it copulated with a male, it is unfit. What is the reason? — Said R. Papa: If it were written ‘’abad’ and we read it ‘abad’, [I would say, it becomes unfit] only if he himself wrought with it. While if ‘’ubad’ were written and we read it ‘’ubad,’ [it would imply] even if it were of itself. Since however, it is written ‘’abad’’ [active], whilst read ‘’ubad’’ [passive]. ‘it was wrought with’ must be similar to ‘he wrought [with it]’: just as ‘he wrought [with it]’ must mean that he approved of it, so also ‘it was wrought with’ refers only to what he approved. Come and hear: He may not spread it [viz.,] a lost [raiment] upon a couch or a frame for his needs, but he may spread it out upon a couch or a frame in its own interests. If he was visited by guests, he may not spread it over a bed or a frame, whether in its interests or his own! — There it is different, because he may the yoke’ (v. ). Though this heifer had threshed, it remains fit, because it had been taken into the team to feed, not to thresh. [thereby] destroy it, either through an evil eye or through thieves. Come and hear: Clothes merchants sell in their normal fashion, providing that they do not intend [to gain protection] from the sun in hot weather or from the rain when it is raining; but the strictly religious sling them on a staff behind their back. Now here, though it is possible to do as the strictly religious, yet when he has no intention [of benefiting], it is permitted; this is a refutation of him who learns Raba's first version? This is [indeed] a refutation. AND ONE MAY NOT FIRE etc. Our Rabbis taught: If an oven was fired with the shells of ‘orlah’ or with the stubble of kil'ayim of the vineyard, if new, it must be demolished; if old, it must be allowed to cool. If a loaf was baked in it, — Rabbi said: The loaf is forbidden; but the Sages maintain: The loaf is permitted. If he baked it upon the coals, all agree that it is permitted. But it was taught: Whether new or old, it must be allowed to cool? — There is no difficulty: one agrees with Rabbi, the other with the Rabbis. Granted that you know Rabbi [to rule thus] because the benefit of the fuel lies in the loaf; do you know him [to maintain this ruling] where two things produce [the result]? — Rather, [reply thus:] There is no difficulty: one is according to R. Eliezer, the other according to the Rabbis. Which [ruling of] R. Eliezer [is alluded to]? Shall we say. R. Eliezer[‘s ruling] On se'or’? For we learned: If se'or of hullin and [se'or’] of terumah fall into dough, and neither is sufficient to make [it] leaven, but they combined and made [it] leaven, — R. Eliezer said: I regard the last; but the Sages maintain: whether the forbidden matter falls in first or the forbidden matter falls in last,it never renders it forbidden
—