Pesachim

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?1 — Said R. Ammi b. Hama: In the case of a stool.2 Rami b. Hama asked R. Hisda: If an oven was heated with wood of hekdesh3 and bread is baked therein, what [is the law] according to the Rabbis who permit in the first case?4 — 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].5 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?6 — Said R. Papa: We treat here of wood of peace-offerings,7 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,8 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,9 their ashes are permitted [for use], except the wood of an asherah, while the ashes of hekdesh are forbidden for ever?10 — 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.11 R. Shemaiah said: It12 refers to those [ashes] which must be hidden,13 for it was taught: And he shall put them [the ashes]14 gently; and he shall put them — the whole thereof; and he shall put them [means] that he must not scatter them.15 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,16 [which means] with anything wherewith you can put it away? R. Judah argued again [with] another argument.17 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]18 for it is forbidden for eating yet does not require burning. Said he to them, There is a difference:19 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 stoned20 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. existence. it is annulled, and the whole is permitted. But hekdesh in similar circumstances is never annulled: thus its interdict is obviously more stringent. withdrawn it from sacred ownership. Thus by this very act he converts it into hullin, and therefore the bread should be regarded as having been baked with ordinary fuel, hence permitted. This principle holds good of all hekdesh save animals dedicated for sacrifices and the service utensils in the Temple. money, peace-offerings belong to the category of ‘sacrifices of lower sanctity’, and do not involve a trespass-offering; nevertheless they are forbidden for secular use. the result.