Pesachim

unless it1 contains sufficient to induce fermentation,2 Now Abaye said: They learned this3 only where he anticipated and removed the forbidden matter; but if he did not anticipate and remove the forbidden matter, it is forbidden:4 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;5 but [if they fell in] simultaneously, then indeed it may be permitted?6 — 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,7 they are all forbidden for use. R. Eliezer said: Let him carry the benefit [derived thence]8 to the Dead Sea.9 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?10 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.11 But should you say. The product of two causes is permitted,12 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. flasks13 are forbidden.14 They differ only in respect of an oven and a pot.15 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. 16 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!17 — 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. 18 ‘If he baked it upon the coals all agree that the bread is permitted’.19 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 live20 coals are forbidden;21 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.22 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?23 — Said R. Papa: When the flame is opposite it.24 imparts its taste to the dough when it makes it leaven. — Se'or’ of terumah is designated forbidden matter, since it is forbidden to a lay Israelite. immediately the hullin fell in, and before the dough was leavened. Though the terumah must have helped slightly in the leavening, yet since it is no longer there when the dough really becomes leaven, it is disregarded. But if the terumah was left there, the dough becomes forbidden even if the hullin fell in last. proves that he holds that the product of two causes is forbidden (v. p. 122, n. 3). ascribed. Hence it must be assumed that R. Eliezer draws no distinction between idolatry — and other interdicts. nutshells of ‘orlah’, so he also forbids the new oven that is fired by same, because he holds that the product of two causes is forbidden. Hence the whole Baraitha states Rabbi's ruling, his view being identical with R. Eliezer's. Consequently the problem which he proceeds to state does not arise. direct benefit from forbidden matter. this was made possible solely by the forbidden fuel. (Rashi).