Parallel
פסחים 27
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
unless it contains sufficient to induce fermentation, Now Abaye said: They learned this only where he anticipated and removed the forbidden matter; but if he did not anticipate and remove the forbidden matter, it is forbidden: this proves that the product of two causes is forbidden. Yet how do you know that R. Eliezer's reason is as Abaye [states it]: perhaps R. Eliezer's reason is because I follow the last, there being no difference whether he anticipated and removed the forbidden matter or he did not anticipate and remove the forbidden matter; but [if they fell in] simultaneously, then indeed it may be permitted? — Rather it is R. Eliezer’[s ruling] on the wood of the asherah [which is alluded to]. For we learned: If he took wood from it [sc. the asherah], benefit thereof is forbidden. If he fired an oven with it, if new, it must be destroyed; if old, it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread in it, benefit thereof is forbidden; if it [the bread] became mixed up with others, and [these] others [again] with others, they are all forbidden for use. R. Eliezer said: Let him carry the benefit [derived thence] to the Dead Sea. Said they to him: You cannot redeem an idol. Granted that you hear R. Eliezer [to rule thus] in the case of idolatry, whose interdict is [very] severe; do you know him [to rule likewise] in respect of other interdicts of the Torah? — Then if so, to whom will you ascribe it? Moreover, it was explicitly taught: And thus did R. Eliezer declare it forbidden in the case of all interdicts in the Torah. Abaye said: Should you say’ that the product of two causes is forbidden, then Rabbi is identical [in view] with R. Eliezer. But should you say. The product of two causes is permitted, while here [Rabbi forbids the bread] because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread, then plates, goblets, and regards that which completes the leavening having produced the whole of it. flasks are forbidden. They differ only in respect of an oven and a pot. On the view [that] the product of two causes is forbidden, these are forbidden; on the view [that] the product of two causes is permitted, these are permitted. Others state: Even on the view [that] the product of two causes is permitted, the pot is forbidden, for it receives the stew before the permitted fuel is placed. R. Joseph said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: If an oven was fired [heated] with shells of ‘orlah’ or with stubble of kil'ayim of the vineyard, if new, it must be demolished; if old, it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread in it, — Rabbi said: The bread is permitted; but the Sages maintain: The bread is forbidden. But the reverse was taught! — Samuel learned it the reverse. Alternatively, in general Samuel holds [that] the halachah is as Rabbi as against his, but not as against his colleagues, but here [he holds], even against his colleagues, and so he reasoned, I will recite it reversed, in order that the Rabbis may stand [as ruling] stringently. ‘If he baked it upon the coals all agree that the bread is permitted’. Rab Judah in Samuel's name, and R. Hiyya b. Ashi in R. Johanan's name [differ therein]: one says. They learned [this] only of dying coals, but live coals are forbidden; while the other maintains, Even live coals too are permitted. As for the view that live [coals] are forbidden, it is well, [the reason being] because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread. But on the view that even live [coals] are permitted, then how is the bread which is forbidden because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread conceivable according to Rabbi? — Said R. Papa: When the flame is opposite it.24
—
Whence it follows that the Rabbis who disagree with him permit it even when the flame is opposite it; then how is forbidden fuel conceivable according to the Rabbis? — Said R. Ammi b. Hama: In the case of a stool. Rami b. Hama asked R. Hisda: If an oven was heated with wood of hekdesh and bread is baked therein, what [is the law] according to the Rabbis who permit in the first case? — The bread is forbidden, he replied. And what is the difference between this and ‘orlah’? — Said Raba: How compare! ‘Orlah is annulled in two hundred [times its own quantity]; hekdesh is not annulled even in one thousand [times its quantity]. But said Raba, If there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty: Surely he who fires [the oven] commits trespass, and wherever he who fires [the oven] commits trespass, it [the fuel] passes out to hullin? — Said R. Papa: We treat here of wood of peace-offerings, and in accordance with R. Judah, who maintained: Hekdesh, if [misappropriated for secular use] unwittingly, becomes hullin; if deliberately, it does not become hullin. Now what is the reason that if deliberately it does not [become hullin]? Since it does not involve a trespass-offering, it does not pass out to hullin; so peace-offerings too, since it [the misappropriation of this type of sacrifice] does not involve a trespass-offering, it does not pass out to hullin. Yet whenever he that fires [the oven] commits trespass, it [the fuel] passes out to hullin? But it was taught: [In the case of] all which are burnt, their ashes are permitted [for use], except the wood of an asherah, while the ashes of hekdesh are forbidden for ever? — Said Rami b. Hama: E.g., if a fire fell of its own accord on wood of hekdesh, so that there is no man to be liable for trespass. R. Shemaiah said: It refers to those [ashes] which must be hidden, for it was taught: And he shall put them [the ashes] gently; and he shall put them — the whole thereof; and he shall put them [means] that he must not scatter them. R. JUDAH SAID: THERE IS NO REMOVAL etc. It was taught, R. Judah said: There is no removal of leaven save by burning, and logic impels this: if nothar, which is not subject to ‘there shall not be seen’ and ‘there shall not be found’, requires burning, then leaven, which is subject to ‘there shall not be seen’ and ‘there shall not be found’, how much the more does it require burning! Said they to him: Every argument that you argue [which] in the first place is stringent yet in the end leads to leniency is not a [valid] argument: [for] if he did not find wood for burning, shall he sit and do nothing, whereas the Torah ordered, Ye shall put away leaven out of your houses, [which means] with anything wherewith you can put it away? R. Judah argued again [with] another argument. Nothar is forbidden for eating and leaven is forbidden for eating: just as nothar [is disposed of] by burning, so is leaven [destroyed] by burning. Said they to him, Let nebelah prove [it] for it is forbidden for eating yet does not require burning. Said he to them, There is a difference: nothar is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and leaven is forbidden for eating and for [all] use: just as nothar requires burning, so does leaven require burning. Let the ox that is stoned prove it, they replied: it is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, yet it does not require burning. Said he to them, There is a difference: Nothar is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and he [who eats it] is punished with kareth, and leaven is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and he is punished with kareth: just as nothar [must be destroyed] by burning, so is leaven [destroyed] by burning. Said they to him, Let the heleb of the ox that is stoned prove it, which is forbidden for eating, for [all] use, and involves the penalty of kareth, yet it does not require burning.
—