Bava Kamma

Raba pointed out a contradiction. We have learnt: 'A garment which was dyed with the shells [of the fruits] of 'Orlah has to be destroyed by fire,' thus proving that colour is a distinct item; but a contradiction could be pointed out: 'If a quarter [of a log]  of [the] blood [of a dead person] has been absorbed in the floor of a house, [all in] the house  would become defiled,  or as others say, '[all in] the house would not be defiled'; these two statements, however, do not differ, as the former refers to utensils which were there at the beginning,  whereas the latter refers to the utensils which were brought there subsequently [after the blood was already absorbed 'in the ground].  'If the blood was absorbed in a garment, we have to see: if on the garment being washed a quarter [of a log] of blood would come out of it,  it would cause defilement,  but if not, it would not cause defilement'!  — Said R. Kahana: The ruling stated in this Mishnah is one of concessions made in respect of quarters [of a log], applicable in the case of blood of one weltering in his blood who defiles by [mere] Rabbinic enactment. Raba again pointed out a contradiction: We have learnt: '[Among] the species of dyes, the aftergrowths of woad and madder are subject to the law of the sabbatical year,  and so also is any value received for them subject to the law of the sabbatical year; they are subject to the law of removal  and any value received for them is similarly subject to the law of removal,'  thus proving that wood is subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year; but a contradiction could be pointed out: 'leaves of reeds and leaves of vines which have been heaped up for the purpose of making them into a hiding place upon a field, if they were gathered to be eaten would be subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year but if they were gathered for firewood they would not be subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year'!  — But he himself answered: Scripture stated: 'for food',  implying that the law applies only to produce from which a benefit is derived at the time of its consumption,  so that the wood for fuel is excluded as the benefit derived from it  is after its consumption. But is there not the wood of the pine tree [used for torches] from which a benefit is derived at the time of its consumption? — Raba said: