Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 17, 2020 | 讘壮 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Pesachim 26

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Jeremy Zucker in honor of his fantastic wife Wendy Proskin! Wendy loves learning with Hadran daily. And by Devorah Bader in honor of Cheri Kessner’s last day of radiation. Cheri, you have always encouraged your children and grandchildren to study Torah and have shown them how proud you are of them for their learning in numerous ways.

The gemara deals with the two different versions of Rava and Abaye’s debate regarding one who benefits from something that’s forbidden by being forced into it. Abaye and Rava bring sources to prove their opinion according to the second version. Each source is also explained by the opposing opinion. The gemara brings two proofs for Rava according to the second reading. However the gemara rejects each proof as it could be explained that it is a unique halacha for that particular case. Is one obligated in meila for benefiting from sight, smell or voice? The gemara distinguishes between sight and voice on the one hand and smell on the other. The gemara brings a question on Rava from the first reading using a mishna regarding shaatnez. The gemara brings a contradiction between two braitot regarding lighting a fire in a new oven with items that are forbidden to benefit from.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讻诪转讻讜讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讘诇 诪转讻讜讬谉 讻砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗


And Rava could have said to you: Rabbi Yehuda stated that one who lacks intent has the same legal status as one who has intent only with regard to a stringency. In other words, a lack of intent does not negate the fact that the prohibited act has been performed and one is liable. However, to say that one who has intent has the same legal status as one who lacks intent such that it leads to a leniency, no. There is no evidence that Rabbi Yehuda would agree that it would ever be permitted for one who has intent to derive benefit from an otherwise prohibited object, even if he could not avoid the situation.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘爪讬诇讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讜讚讜专砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜砖专讬


Abaye said: From where do I say my opinion? As it was taught in a baraita: They said about Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai that he would sit in the street adjacent to the Temple Mount in the shade of the Sanctuary and expound to a large number of people all day long. And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it was not possible to act differently, as there was no other place where so many people could congregate, and he certainly intended to derive benefit from the shade of the Sanctuary, and yet it was permitted? Apparently, when it is not possible to avoid the situation and one intends to derive benefit, it is permitted to do so.


讜专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讛讬讻诇 讚诇转讜讻讜 注砖讜讬


And Rava said in response: The Sanctuary is different, as it was constructed for its interior. It is prohibited to derive benefit only from the interior of the Sanctuary walls, because it was constructed for the use of its internal space; there is no prohibition at all to benefit from its shade when on the outside.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 (讚转谞讬讗) 诇讜诇讬谉 讛讬讜 驻转讜讞讬谉 讘注诇讬讬转 讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖讘讛谉 诪砖诇砖诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜诪谞讬诐 讘转讬讘讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讜谞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 诪讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讗住讜专


Rava said: From where do I say this? As it was taught in a baraita: There were openings in the loft of the Holy of Holies through which they would lower artisans in containers into the Holy of Holies, so that their eyes would not gaze upon the Holy of Holies itself when they were renovating it. And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it was not possible to act differently? It was necessary to renovate the Holy of Holies periodically, and it is impossible to do so without entering the chamber. And since it is plausible that the artisan will intend to enjoy the appearance of the Holy of Holies, it should be prohibited.


讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 拽讜诇 讜诪专讗讛 讜专讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐


The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand the baraita as a proof? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: The sound of the musical instruments in the Temple, and the sight and smell of the incense are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property? This is because the prohibition of deriving benefit from a consecrated object applies only to its tangible use. Rather, they established a higher standard of stringency with regard to the Holy of Holies and decreed that one may not even gaze upon it. Therefore, no principle can be derived from the case.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 拽讜诇 讜诪专讗讛 讜专讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 诪注讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗


Some say this statement differently. Rava said: From where do I say this? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: The sound of the musical instruments in the Temple and the sight and smell of the incense are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The implication is that there is no violation of the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property by Torah law in this case. However, there is a violation of the prohibition by rabbinic law.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗讜转谉 讛注讜诪讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讗住讜专 诇讗 诇讗讜转谉 讛注讜诪讚讬谉 讘讞讜抓


What, is it not referring to those standing inside the Sanctuary, for whom it is not possible that they will not hear these sounds or they will not observe the sight and smell of the incense? And in such a case, if they intend to derive benefit, it is prohibited. The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to those who are standing outside. Since they are not required to be there at that time, it is a case where it is possible to avoid the situation and one intends to derive benefit, which is prohibited according to all opinions.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 拽讜诇 讜诪专讗讛 讜专讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛诪驻讟诐 讗转 讛拽讟讜专转 诇讛转诇诪讚 讘讛 讗讜 诇诪讜住专讛 诇爪讬讘讜专 驻讟讜专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诪专讬讞 讘讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 砖诪注诇


Apropos this halakha, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: The sound of the musical instruments in the Temple and the sight and smell of the incense are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 smell subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who prepares the incense mixture in order to teach himself how to prepare it or to transfer it to the community is exempt from punishment. However, if one prepares it in order to smell it, he is liable to receive punishment, as it states in the Torah: 鈥淗e who makes it in order to smell it shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Exodus 30:38). And one who actually smells the incense mixture is exempt from the punishment of karet and from bringing a sin-offering; however, he has misused consecrated property. Apparently, the halakha of misuse of consecrated property applies to smelling.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽讜诇 讜诪专讗讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪诪砖 讜专讬讞 诇讗讞专 砖转注诇讛 转诪专讜转讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讬转 诪爪讜转讜


Rather, Rav Pappa said: Sound and sight are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, because they have no substance. And with regard to the smell of the spices themselves, the following distinction applies: The smell of the incense that is emitted when the spices are placed on the coals is subject to the prohibition, since this is the way the mitzva is performed; however, the smell that is emitted after the flame catches and the column of smoke rises is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, since its mitzva has already been performed.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞注砖讬转 诪爪讜转讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜讛专讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讚谞注砖讬转 诪爪讜转讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 砖诇讗 讬驻讝专 讜砖诪讜 砖诇讗 讬讛谞讛


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that in any case where its mitzva has already been performed, the object is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property? And the daily removal of ashes of the offerings from the altar occurs after its mitzva has been performed, and the ashes are subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:3). The Sages derive from the phrase: 鈥淎nd he shall put them鈥 that he may not scatter these ashes; rather, they should be placed gently. 鈥淎nd he shall put them鈥 also indicates that one may not derive benefit from these ashes.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉


The Gemara answers: This case does not prove a principle, because the halakhot of removal of ashes from the altar and of the priestly garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are two verses that come as one. The principle is that two verses that come as one do not teach a principle. In other words, if a halakha is stated twice, with regard to two individual cases in the Torah, the understanding is that this halakha applies only to those cases. Had this halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates that they are the exceptions rather than the rule.


转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛


The Gemara delineates the two cases: The halakha of the removal of ashes is that which we said. Where is this halakha stated with regard to the priestly garments? As it is written: 鈥淎nd Aharon shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall take off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the sacred place, and he shall leave them there鈥 (Leviticus 16:23). The phrase: 鈥淎nd he shall leave them鈥 teaches that they require burial. Although their use for the mitzva has been completed, it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 讗讘诇 专讗讜讬讬谉 讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜诪讗讬 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 砖诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛诐 讘讬讜诐 讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara comments: It works out well that there are two cases according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that this verse teaches that they require burial. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who disagrees with them and says: These priestly clothes may no longer be used by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, but they are fit for use by a common priest, since these garments are similar to those worn by common priests every day. And what is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd he shall leave them there鈥? This indicates that the High Priest may not use them on another Yom Kippur. According to this opinion, what can be said? According to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, there is only one verse that teaches about misuse of consecrated property with an item that has already been used for performing its mitzva. Therefore, it should be possible to derive a principle from the verse dealing with the removal of ashes.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉


The Gemara answers: A principle cannot be based on this verse, because removal of ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken, from which one may not derive benefit after the ceremony, are two verses that come as one. And two verses that come as one do not teach a principle.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛注专讜驻讛


The Gemara asks: It works out well according to the one who said that they do not teach a principle, i.e., according to the Rabbis. However, according to the one who said that they do teach a principle, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda in tractate Sanhedrin, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Two phrases indicating exclusions are written with regard to these halakhot, limiting this rule to them. With regard to the removal of ashes it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall put it.鈥 The word 鈥渋t鈥 limits the halakha to this particular circumstance. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken it is written: 鈥淭he heifer which had its neck broken鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:6). The word 鈥渢he鈥 indicates that this halakha applies only to this type of heifer and not to any other similar case.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇专讘拽讛 讜讚砖讛 讻砖讬专讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讬谞拽 讜转讚讜砖 驻住讜诇讛


After this tangential discussion of the laws of misuse of consecrated property, the Gemara returns to Abaye and Rava鈥檚 dispute about the status of unintended benefit, seeking to prove one side or the other. Come and hear a proof based on what was taught: If one brought the heifer whose neck is to be broken or the red heifer into a cow pen, and it threshes grain while walking with other cows, then it is valid. Under normal circumstances, had one used the heifer for work, it would be disqualified from use in its ceremony. However, in this case, the red heifer may still be burned, and the heifer is still fit to have its neck broken in the ritual. Apparently, the verses 鈥淯pon which a yoke has not been placed鈥 (Numbers 19:2) and 鈥淲hich has not been used for work鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3) still apply to it, because the owner did not intend for it to work. If he brought it in so that it may nurse from its mother and so it will thresh grain, then it is disqualified from use in these rituals.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it was not possible to act differently, as the heifer needs to nurse, and he intended that it thresh the grain? And it is teaching that the heifer is disqualified from use. This proves that when one intends to derive benefit, even if there is no other way to act, it is prohibited to derive benefit. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there, as it is written: 鈥淲hich has not been used for work鈥 in any case. Therefore, while the heifer is disqualified from use even if the situation was unavoidable, no general conclusion can be drawn from this case.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬


The Gemara challenges: If so, that this verse means that it has not performed any work at all, then it should apply even to the first clause. Even when it threshes the grain against the will of the owner, it has still done work and should be rendered disqualified.


讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讛讗 砖讻谉 注诇讬讛 注讜祝 讻砖讬专讛 注诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讻专 驻住讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara answers. This case is comparable only to that other case: If a bird landed on the red heifer it remains valid, since this is not considered to be like bearing a yoke. If a male animal mounted it to mate with it, it is unfit and may not be used for the ritual. The same applies in this case: When the owner moves the heifer into a pen and it threshes, since the owner is uninterested in this action, it is like the case of the bird and the heifer remains valid. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between the case where a bird lands on it and where a male animal attempts to mate with it?


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 讻转讬讘 注讘讚 讜拽专讬谞谉 注讘讚 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讘讛 讗讬讛讜 讗讬 讻转讬讘 注讜讘讚 讜拽专讬谞谉 注讜讘讚 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讬诇讗 谞诪讬


Rav Pappa said that the verse says: 鈥淎nd the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which has not been used for work, and which has not drawn in the yoke鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3). If it were written: 鈥淗e worked [avad],鈥 and we read: 鈥淗e worked [avad],鈥 this word choice would indicate that the heifer could still be used until he, the owner of the heifer himself, used it willingly for labor. If it were written: 鈥淚t was worked [ubbad],鈥 and we read: 鈥淚t was worked [ubbad],鈥 it would indicate that even if it performed labor on its own it is also prohibited to use it, since some form of labor had been done with it.


讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 注讘讚 讜拽专讬谞谉 注讜讘讚 注讜讘讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注讘讚 诪讛 注讘讚 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗祝 注讜讘讚 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛


Now that it is written: 鈥淗e worked [avad],鈥 but we read this word as: 鈥淚t was worked [ubbad],鈥 both meanings are intended: It is prohibited if it is worked in a similar manner to the way he works. In other words, just as the owner works the animal in a way that is beneficial to him, so too, the animal becomes prohibited only when it is worked in a way that causes him to derive benefit from this labor. Therefore, it still may be used if a bird lands on it, because the owner does not derive benefit from this in any way. However, if a male bull mates with this heifer it is rendered unfit, since the owner generally has an interest in this occurring.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讗 讬砖讟讞谞讛 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讟讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讙讜讚 诇爪讜专讻讜 讗讘诇 砖讜讟讞讛 诇爪讜专讻讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讟讛 讜注诇 讙讘讬 诪讙讜讚 谞讝讚诪谞讜 诇讜 讗讜专讞讬谉 诇讗 讬砖讟讞谞讛 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讟讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讙讜讚 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讻讛 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讻讜


The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear from that which is taught: If one finds a lost item, he may not spread it out over a bed or over a frame for his own purposes, since this is deriving benefit from an object that does not belong to him. However, he may spread it out over a bed or a frame for its own sake if it requires airing. If guests happen to come to him, he may not spread it out, neither for its sake nor for his own purpose. Apparently, the benefit is unavoidable and intended, as there is no other way for him to care for the lost object, and he benefits from having his guests see the item; nonetheless, it is still prohibited. This seems to prove that Rava鈥檚 opinion is correct.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽诇讬 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 注讬谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙谞讘讬


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: It is different there, as he risks damaging it, either due to the evil eye that he casts upon it or due to the thieves who will now know that this valuable item is in his possession and will attempt to steal it. It is not prohibited because of the benefit; rather, it is prohibited due to the concern that he may damage the item.


转讗 砖诪注 诪讜讻专讬 讻住讜转 诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛爪谞讜注讬谉 诪驻砖讬诇讬谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讛诐 讘诪拽诇


The Gemara offers a final proof. Come and hear a proof based on the following mishna: Clothing merchants who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may sell them as they normally would to gentiles. A merchant may place the garments he is selling on his shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, provided he does not intend to benefit from the garments in the sun as protection from the sun, or in the rain as protection from the rain. However, the modest people, those who are meticulous in their performance of mitzvot, suspend the wool and linen garments on a stick behind them.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇诪注讘讚 讻爪谞讜注讬谉 讜讻讬 诇讗 诪讻讜讬谉 砖专讬 转讬讜讘转讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讚专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗:


And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it is possible for all clothing merchants to act like the modest people and not derive benefit from the mixture of wool and linen? Nonetheless, the mishna states that when one does not intend to benefit from the prohibited item, it is permitted to do so. This presents a conclusive refutation to he who taught the first version of Rava鈥檚 statement. According to this version, one is prohibited from deriving benefit when it is possible to avoid doing so and he does not intend to derive benefit. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.


讜诇讗 讬住讬拽 讘讜 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转谞讜专 砖讛住讬拽讜 讘拽诇讬驻讬 注专诇讛 讗讜 讘拽砖讬谉 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讞讚砖 讬讜转抓 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉


It was taught in the mishna that one may not even light the oven with leavened bread. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an oven that one lit with the peels of orla fruit, or with straw of grain that was planted in a prohibited mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard, if it was a new oven, and by lighting it he hardened the oven and made it stronger for use in the future, then it must be shattered. Since prohibited items were used in the process of forming the oven, one may not derive benefit from the use of the prohibited items. However, if it was an old oven, it may be cooled, and it is prohibited to use the oven only while it is still hot.


讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛驻转 诪讜转专转 讘讬砖诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专


With regard to one who baked bread in the oven while it was heated or strengthened by the prohibited items, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is prohibited to eat or derive benefit from the bread, since prohibited items were involved in the process of preparation. And the Rabbis say: It is permitted to eat and derive benefit from the bread. If he cooked the bread over the coals that remained from prohibited wood, everyone agrees that it is permitted.


讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讬谉 讞讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Whether it was an old oven or a new oven it may be cooled; there is never a need to shatter the oven? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that one is required to shatter the oven, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And that baraita, which states that it is sufficient to let the oven cool, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Since the prohibited objects merely strengthen the oven, the Rabbis hold that it is enough to let the oven cool. By cooling the oven one no longer derives benefit from the prohibited items used to light it, and there is no need to shatter the oven.


讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬砖 砖讘讞 注爪讬诐 讘驻转 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉


The Gemara challenges this answer: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits one from deriving benefit from bread baked using the prohibited objects as kindling because there is improvement from the wood used to light the oven in the bread, and therefore, it is prohibited. However, in a different case, namely, when both this and that cause it, i.e., both permitted and prohibited items contribute to the result, such as when one subsequently bakes in this oven and benefit is derived both from the prohibited wood that strengthened the oven and from permitted wood that is used in subsequent baking, did you hear him say that it is prohibited as well? Rather, reject this explanation and say: This is not difficult. This stringent baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that in a case where both this and that cause it, it is prohibited. And that lenient baraita is in accordance with the Rabbis, who disagree with regard to that principle.


讛讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚砖讗讜专 讚转谞谉 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 注讬住讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜谞爪讟专驻讜 讜讞诪爪讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讘住讜祝 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专


The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Eliezer serves as the basis for this explanation? If you say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to leaven, as we learned in a mishna: In a case where non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma fell into non-sacred dough, and neither one alone is potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened bread, and they were joined together and caused the dough to become leavened bread, there is a dispute as to whether this dough is considered to be teruma or non-sacred bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element that fell into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the prohibited item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or the prohibited item fell in last, it never renders the dough prohibited


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 25-31 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn if the involuntary benefit from a forbidden item is permitted or forbidden, how we are...
诪住讻转 驻住讞讬诐

鈥楾wo Verses That Come As One鈥 and Halachic State Change by Zoe Lang

鈥楾wo Verses That Come As One鈥 and Halachic State Change The mishnah that opens the second chapter of Pesachim provides...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 26: In the Shadow of the Beit HaMikdash

Getting benefit from something, unintentionally. Abaye's example is a story of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai enjoying shade from the wall...

Pesachim 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 26

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讻诪转讻讜讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讘诇 诪转讻讜讬谉 讻砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗


And Rava could have said to you: Rabbi Yehuda stated that one who lacks intent has the same legal status as one who has intent only with regard to a stringency. In other words, a lack of intent does not negate the fact that the prohibited act has been performed and one is liable. However, to say that one who has intent has the same legal status as one who lacks intent such that it leads to a leniency, no. There is no evidence that Rabbi Yehuda would agree that it would ever be permitted for one who has intent to derive benefit from an otherwise prohibited object, even if he could not avoid the situation.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘爪讬诇讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讜讚讜专砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜砖专讬


Abaye said: From where do I say my opinion? As it was taught in a baraita: They said about Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai that he would sit in the street adjacent to the Temple Mount in the shade of the Sanctuary and expound to a large number of people all day long. And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it was not possible to act differently, as there was no other place where so many people could congregate, and he certainly intended to derive benefit from the shade of the Sanctuary, and yet it was permitted? Apparently, when it is not possible to avoid the situation and one intends to derive benefit, it is permitted to do so.


讜专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讛讬讻诇 讚诇转讜讻讜 注砖讜讬


And Rava said in response: The Sanctuary is different, as it was constructed for its interior. It is prohibited to derive benefit only from the interior of the Sanctuary walls, because it was constructed for the use of its internal space; there is no prohibition at all to benefit from its shade when on the outside.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 (讚转谞讬讗) 诇讜诇讬谉 讛讬讜 驻转讜讞讬谉 讘注诇讬讬转 讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖讘讛谉 诪砖诇砖诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜诪谞讬诐 讘转讬讘讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讜谞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 诪讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讗住讜专


Rava said: From where do I say this? As it was taught in a baraita: There were openings in the loft of the Holy of Holies through which they would lower artisans in containers into the Holy of Holies, so that their eyes would not gaze upon the Holy of Holies itself when they were renovating it. And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it was not possible to act differently? It was necessary to renovate the Holy of Holies periodically, and it is impossible to do so without entering the chamber. And since it is plausible that the artisan will intend to enjoy the appearance of the Holy of Holies, it should be prohibited.


讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 拽讜诇 讜诪专讗讛 讜专讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐


The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand the baraita as a proof? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: The sound of the musical instruments in the Temple, and the sight and smell of the incense are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property? This is because the prohibition of deriving benefit from a consecrated object applies only to its tangible use. Rather, they established a higher standard of stringency with regard to the Holy of Holies and decreed that one may not even gaze upon it. Therefore, no principle can be derived from the case.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 拽讜诇 讜诪专讗讛 讜专讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 诪注讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗


Some say this statement differently. Rava said: From where do I say this? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: The sound of the musical instruments in the Temple and the sight and smell of the incense are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The implication is that there is no violation of the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property by Torah law in this case. However, there is a violation of the prohibition by rabbinic law.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗讜转谉 讛注讜诪讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讗住讜专 诇讗 诇讗讜转谉 讛注讜诪讚讬谉 讘讞讜抓


What, is it not referring to those standing inside the Sanctuary, for whom it is not possible that they will not hear these sounds or they will not observe the sight and smell of the incense? And in such a case, if they intend to derive benefit, it is prohibited. The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to those who are standing outside. Since they are not required to be there at that time, it is a case where it is possible to avoid the situation and one intends to derive benefit, which is prohibited according to all opinions.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 拽讜诇 讜诪专讗讛 讜专讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛诪驻讟诐 讗转 讛拽讟讜专转 诇讛转诇诪讚 讘讛 讗讜 诇诪讜住专讛 诇爪讬讘讜专 驻讟讜专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诪专讬讞 讘讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 砖诪注诇


Apropos this halakha, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: The sound of the musical instruments in the Temple and the sight and smell of the incense are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 smell subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who prepares the incense mixture in order to teach himself how to prepare it or to transfer it to the community is exempt from punishment. However, if one prepares it in order to smell it, he is liable to receive punishment, as it states in the Torah: 鈥淗e who makes it in order to smell it shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Exodus 30:38). And one who actually smells the incense mixture is exempt from the punishment of karet and from bringing a sin-offering; however, he has misused consecrated property. Apparently, the halakha of misuse of consecrated property applies to smelling.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽讜诇 讜诪专讗讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪诪砖 讜专讬讞 诇讗讞专 砖转注诇讛 转诪专讜转讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讬转 诪爪讜转讜


Rather, Rav Pappa said: Sound and sight are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, because they have no substance. And with regard to the smell of the spices themselves, the following distinction applies: The smell of the incense that is emitted when the spices are placed on the coals is subject to the prohibition, since this is the way the mitzva is performed; however, the smell that is emitted after the flame catches and the column of smoke rises is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, since its mitzva has already been performed.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞注砖讬转 诪爪讜转讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜讛专讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讚谞注砖讬转 诪爪讜转讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 砖诇讗 讬驻讝专 讜砖诪讜 砖诇讗 讬讛谞讛


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that in any case where its mitzva has already been performed, the object is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property? And the daily removal of ashes of the offerings from the altar occurs after its mitzva has been performed, and the ashes are subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:3). The Sages derive from the phrase: 鈥淎nd he shall put them鈥 that he may not scatter these ashes; rather, they should be placed gently. 鈥淎nd he shall put them鈥 also indicates that one may not derive benefit from these ashes.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉


The Gemara answers: This case does not prove a principle, because the halakhot of removal of ashes from the altar and of the priestly garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are two verses that come as one. The principle is that two verses that come as one do not teach a principle. In other words, if a halakha is stated twice, with regard to two individual cases in the Torah, the understanding is that this halakha applies only to those cases. Had this halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates that they are the exceptions rather than the rule.


转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛


The Gemara delineates the two cases: The halakha of the removal of ashes is that which we said. Where is this halakha stated with regard to the priestly garments? As it is written: 鈥淎nd Aharon shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall take off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the sacred place, and he shall leave them there鈥 (Leviticus 16:23). The phrase: 鈥淎nd he shall leave them鈥 teaches that they require burial. Although their use for the mitzva has been completed, it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 讗讘诇 专讗讜讬讬谉 讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜诪讗讬 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 砖诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛诐 讘讬讜诐 讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara comments: It works out well that there are two cases according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that this verse teaches that they require burial. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who disagrees with them and says: These priestly clothes may no longer be used by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, but they are fit for use by a common priest, since these garments are similar to those worn by common priests every day. And what is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd he shall leave them there鈥? This indicates that the High Priest may not use them on another Yom Kippur. According to this opinion, what can be said? According to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, there is only one verse that teaches about misuse of consecrated property with an item that has already been used for performing its mitzva. Therefore, it should be possible to derive a principle from the verse dealing with the removal of ashes.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉


The Gemara answers: A principle cannot be based on this verse, because removal of ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken, from which one may not derive benefit after the ceremony, are two verses that come as one. And two verses that come as one do not teach a principle.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛注专讜驻讛


The Gemara asks: It works out well according to the one who said that they do not teach a principle, i.e., according to the Rabbis. However, according to the one who said that they do teach a principle, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda in tractate Sanhedrin, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Two phrases indicating exclusions are written with regard to these halakhot, limiting this rule to them. With regard to the removal of ashes it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall put it.鈥 The word 鈥渋t鈥 limits the halakha to this particular circumstance. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken it is written: 鈥淭he heifer which had its neck broken鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:6). The word 鈥渢he鈥 indicates that this halakha applies only to this type of heifer and not to any other similar case.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇专讘拽讛 讜讚砖讛 讻砖讬专讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讬谞拽 讜转讚讜砖 驻住讜诇讛


After this tangential discussion of the laws of misuse of consecrated property, the Gemara returns to Abaye and Rava鈥檚 dispute about the status of unintended benefit, seeking to prove one side or the other. Come and hear a proof based on what was taught: If one brought the heifer whose neck is to be broken or the red heifer into a cow pen, and it threshes grain while walking with other cows, then it is valid. Under normal circumstances, had one used the heifer for work, it would be disqualified from use in its ceremony. However, in this case, the red heifer may still be burned, and the heifer is still fit to have its neck broken in the ritual. Apparently, the verses 鈥淯pon which a yoke has not been placed鈥 (Numbers 19:2) and 鈥淲hich has not been used for work鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3) still apply to it, because the owner did not intend for it to work. If he brought it in so that it may nurse from its mother and so it will thresh grain, then it is disqualified from use in these rituals.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it was not possible to act differently, as the heifer needs to nurse, and he intended that it thresh the grain? And it is teaching that the heifer is disqualified from use. This proves that when one intends to derive benefit, even if there is no other way to act, it is prohibited to derive benefit. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there, as it is written: 鈥淲hich has not been used for work鈥 in any case. Therefore, while the heifer is disqualified from use even if the situation was unavoidable, no general conclusion can be drawn from this case.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬


The Gemara challenges: If so, that this verse means that it has not performed any work at all, then it should apply even to the first clause. Even when it threshes the grain against the will of the owner, it has still done work and should be rendered disqualified.


讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讛讗 砖讻谉 注诇讬讛 注讜祝 讻砖讬专讛 注诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讻专 驻住讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara answers. This case is comparable only to that other case: If a bird landed on the red heifer it remains valid, since this is not considered to be like bearing a yoke. If a male animal mounted it to mate with it, it is unfit and may not be used for the ritual. The same applies in this case: When the owner moves the heifer into a pen and it threshes, since the owner is uninterested in this action, it is like the case of the bird and the heifer remains valid. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between the case where a bird lands on it and where a male animal attempts to mate with it?


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 讻转讬讘 注讘讚 讜拽专讬谞谉 注讘讚 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讘讛 讗讬讛讜 讗讬 讻转讬讘 注讜讘讚 讜拽专讬谞谉 注讜讘讚 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讬诇讗 谞诪讬


Rav Pappa said that the verse says: 鈥淎nd the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which has not been used for work, and which has not drawn in the yoke鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3). If it were written: 鈥淗e worked [avad],鈥 and we read: 鈥淗e worked [avad],鈥 this word choice would indicate that the heifer could still be used until he, the owner of the heifer himself, used it willingly for labor. If it were written: 鈥淚t was worked [ubbad],鈥 and we read: 鈥淚t was worked [ubbad],鈥 it would indicate that even if it performed labor on its own it is also prohibited to use it, since some form of labor had been done with it.


讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 注讘讚 讜拽专讬谞谉 注讜讘讚 注讜讘讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注讘讚 诪讛 注讘讚 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗祝 注讜讘讚 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛


Now that it is written: 鈥淗e worked [avad],鈥 but we read this word as: 鈥淚t was worked [ubbad],鈥 both meanings are intended: It is prohibited if it is worked in a similar manner to the way he works. In other words, just as the owner works the animal in a way that is beneficial to him, so too, the animal becomes prohibited only when it is worked in a way that causes him to derive benefit from this labor. Therefore, it still may be used if a bird lands on it, because the owner does not derive benefit from this in any way. However, if a male bull mates with this heifer it is rendered unfit, since the owner generally has an interest in this occurring.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讗 讬砖讟讞谞讛 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讟讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讙讜讚 诇爪讜专讻讜 讗讘诇 砖讜讟讞讛 诇爪讜专讻讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讟讛 讜注诇 讙讘讬 诪讙讜讚 谞讝讚诪谞讜 诇讜 讗讜专讞讬谉 诇讗 讬砖讟讞谞讛 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讟讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讙讜讚 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讻讛 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讻讜


The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear from that which is taught: If one finds a lost item, he may not spread it out over a bed or over a frame for his own purposes, since this is deriving benefit from an object that does not belong to him. However, he may spread it out over a bed or a frame for its own sake if it requires airing. If guests happen to come to him, he may not spread it out, neither for its sake nor for his own purpose. Apparently, the benefit is unavoidable and intended, as there is no other way for him to care for the lost object, and he benefits from having his guests see the item; nonetheless, it is still prohibited. This seems to prove that Rava鈥檚 opinion is correct.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽诇讬 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 注讬谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙谞讘讬


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: It is different there, as he risks damaging it, either due to the evil eye that he casts upon it or due to the thieves who will now know that this valuable item is in his possession and will attempt to steal it. It is not prohibited because of the benefit; rather, it is prohibited due to the concern that he may damage the item.


转讗 砖诪注 诪讜讻专讬 讻住讜转 诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛爪谞讜注讬谉 诪驻砖讬诇讬谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讛诐 讘诪拽诇


The Gemara offers a final proof. Come and hear a proof based on the following mishna: Clothing merchants who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may sell them as they normally would to gentiles. A merchant may place the garments he is selling on his shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, provided he does not intend to benefit from the garments in the sun as protection from the sun, or in the rain as protection from the rain. However, the modest people, those who are meticulous in their performance of mitzvot, suspend the wool and linen garments on a stick behind them.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇诪注讘讚 讻爪谞讜注讬谉 讜讻讬 诇讗 诪讻讜讬谉 砖专讬 转讬讜讘转讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讚专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗:


And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it is possible for all clothing merchants to act like the modest people and not derive benefit from the mixture of wool and linen? Nonetheless, the mishna states that when one does not intend to benefit from the prohibited item, it is permitted to do so. This presents a conclusive refutation to he who taught the first version of Rava鈥檚 statement. According to this version, one is prohibited from deriving benefit when it is possible to avoid doing so and he does not intend to derive benefit. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.


讜诇讗 讬住讬拽 讘讜 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转谞讜专 砖讛住讬拽讜 讘拽诇讬驻讬 注专诇讛 讗讜 讘拽砖讬谉 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讞讚砖 讬讜转抓 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉


It was taught in the mishna that one may not even light the oven with leavened bread. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an oven that one lit with the peels of orla fruit, or with straw of grain that was planted in a prohibited mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard, if it was a new oven, and by lighting it he hardened the oven and made it stronger for use in the future, then it must be shattered. Since prohibited items were used in the process of forming the oven, one may not derive benefit from the use of the prohibited items. However, if it was an old oven, it may be cooled, and it is prohibited to use the oven only while it is still hot.


讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛驻转 诪讜转专转 讘讬砖诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专


With regard to one who baked bread in the oven while it was heated or strengthened by the prohibited items, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is prohibited to eat or derive benefit from the bread, since prohibited items were involved in the process of preparation. And the Rabbis say: It is permitted to eat and derive benefit from the bread. If he cooked the bread over the coals that remained from prohibited wood, everyone agrees that it is permitted.


讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讬谉 讞讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Whether it was an old oven or a new oven it may be cooled; there is never a need to shatter the oven? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that one is required to shatter the oven, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And that baraita, which states that it is sufficient to let the oven cool, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Since the prohibited objects merely strengthen the oven, the Rabbis hold that it is enough to let the oven cool. By cooling the oven one no longer derives benefit from the prohibited items used to light it, and there is no need to shatter the oven.


讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬砖 砖讘讞 注爪讬诐 讘驻转 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉


The Gemara challenges this answer: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits one from deriving benefit from bread baked using the prohibited objects as kindling because there is improvement from the wood used to light the oven in the bread, and therefore, it is prohibited. However, in a different case, namely, when both this and that cause it, i.e., both permitted and prohibited items contribute to the result, such as when one subsequently bakes in this oven and benefit is derived both from the prohibited wood that strengthened the oven and from permitted wood that is used in subsequent baking, did you hear him say that it is prohibited as well? Rather, reject this explanation and say: This is not difficult. This stringent baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that in a case where both this and that cause it, it is prohibited. And that lenient baraita is in accordance with the Rabbis, who disagree with regard to that principle.


讛讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚砖讗讜专 讚转谞谉 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 注讬住讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜谞爪讟专驻讜 讜讞诪爪讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讘住讜祝 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专


The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Eliezer serves as the basis for this explanation? If you say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to leaven, as we learned in a mishna: In a case where non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma fell into non-sacred dough, and neither one alone is potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened bread, and they were joined together and caused the dough to become leavened bread, there is a dispute as to whether this dough is considered to be teruma or non-sacred bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element that fell into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the prohibited item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or the prohibited item fell in last, it never renders the dough prohibited


Scroll To Top