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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 18, 2020 | 讙壮 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!

Pesachim 27

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rivkah Blutstein and Judah Bellin in honor of their mother and mother-in-law, Marcy Goldstein. “Your daily learning inspires both us to continue learning Daf Yomi as well. Sharing our first joint siyum together was a joy and we hope to share more siyumim together in the future! Happy Birthday!” And by Asher Rosen in honor of his wife鈥檚 birthday Yafit Fishbach.”Yafit’s daily daf learning brings much light and knowledge into our home. May god bless her with the strength and willingness to keep at it one day at a time.” And by Sheindel Shapiro in memory of her father,聽 Reuven ben Tevye z”l, Rubin Bressler on his 30th yahrzeit this Chanukah. May his neshama have an aliyah.

The gemara discusses a contradiction between two braitot – does one need to break an oven that was formed by a fire using wood that is forbidden to benefit from? The one who forbids use of the oven must hold that when two factors – one permitted and one forbidden – are used to create something, it is forbidden. Who is that? It must be Rabbi Eliezer and the gemara proceeds to find where it is clear from something Rabbi Eliezer holds that this is true. There is a debate between Abaye and others about whether a pot created by forbidden wood would be the same law as an oven or not? Shmuel taught the braita with the opinions of Rebbi and the rabbis holding opposite positions regarding bread baked from forbidden wood. Is it that he had a different version or did he switch them on purpose so people would now make a mistake about the law. Do the ends justify the means – as he “lied” in order to protect the law. According to the braita, if one baked the bread on the colas, all would permit the bread – what stage of the coals is this referring to – fiery red or dim? The gemara discusses each possibility. Rami bar Hama asked Rav Chisda if the same laws would apply for bread baked by wood that was sanctified. Why would there be a difference? Why would it not become unsanctified as soon as it was misused, meila? According to Rabbi Yehuda, chametz must be burned. The rabbis disagree. From where does Rabbi Yehuda try to prove it and how do the rabbis respond to his proofs?

注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗住讜专 讗诇诪讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专


until there is enough of the prohibited leaven to cause the dough to become leavened bread. And Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer taught that when the permitted leaven fell in last, the mixture is permitted only when he first removed the prohibited leaven before the permitted leaven fell into the dough and made it rise. However, if he did not first remove the prohibited leaven, the dough is prohibited even if the permitted leaven fell in last. Apparently, when both this and that cause the dough to become leavened bread, it is prohibited.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讗讘讬讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讘诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚砖专讬


The Gemara rejects this statement: And from where is it apparent that the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is in accordance with Abaye鈥檚 explanation? Perhaps the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is due to the following, which Rabbi Eliezer said explicitly: I follow the final element. And it is no different if he first removed the prohibited item and it is no different if he did not first remove the prohibited item. However, if they both fell in at once it should be permitted, because where both this and that cause the dough to become leavened bread Rabbi Eliezer rules that the mixture is permitted.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚注爪讬 讗砖讬专讛 讚转谞谉 谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 注爪讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 讛住讬拽 讘讛谉 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讞讚砖 讬讜转抓 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉


Rather, the reference is to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to wood from an asheira. As we learned in a mishna: If one took wood from an asheira, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. With regard to one who lit an oven with the wood, if it was a new oven, it must be broken. If it was an old oven, it may be cooled.


讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 谞转注专讘讛 讘讗讞专讜转 讜讗讞专讜转 讘讗讞专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 (讗诪专) 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛


If one baked bread with asheira wood as the fuel, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. If this bread was mixed together with other bread, and that other bread was mixed with other bread, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of this bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: He casts the benefit into the Dead Sea [Yam HaMela岣]. In other words, one is not required to destroy the entire mixture when the prohibited bread is mixed with a large quantity of other bread. Instead one should designate money equal in value to the value of the original wood from the asheira, and he should destroy this money to offset the benefit he derived from the prohibited wood. The first tanna said to him: Idolatry cannot be monetarily redeemed. Once the bread becomes prohibited, it cannot be redeemed by having its value cast into the Dead Sea. Apparently, the opinion of both Sages, including Rabbi Eliezer, is that when both this permitted object and that prohibited object cause a change to another item, the latter item is prohibited.


讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讛 讘砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讗诪讗谉 转专诪讬讬讛 讜注讜讚 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专 讘讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer and the first tanna are stringent in this matter with regard to idolatry, whose prohibition is stringent. However, with regard to other prohibitions in the Torah, which are less stringent, did you hear him express this opinion? The Gemara responds to this question: Rather, if it is so that Rabbi Eliezer does not hold the same opinion with regard to other prohibitions, to whom will you attribute this baraita? If it is not Rabbi Eliezer who says this, then who is it? And furthermore, wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: And, similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would prohibit these types of mixtures with regard to all prohibitions in the Torah.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬砖 砖讘讞 注爪讬诐 讘驻转 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 拽注专讜转 讜讻讜住讜转 讜爪诇讜讞讬讜转 讗住讬专讬


Abaye said: If you say, based on the previously stated opinions, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that when both this and that cause, it is prohibited, then the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as both state that it is prohibited for this same reason. And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that when both this and that cause, it is permitted, and here, where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that it is prohibited, it is because there is improvement from the wood in the bread itself, then in that case, deriving benefit from any of these earthenware bowls, cups, and flasks that were made in such an oven should also be prohibited, since the improvement from the wood is in them as well. If one were to use such utensils he would be deriving benefit from a prohibited item.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘转谞讜专 讜拽讚讬专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讗住讜专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 砖专讬


When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages disagree is in a case where an oven and a pot were formed using prohibited wood. According to the one who says that when both this and that cause it is prohibited, it is prohibited to derive benefit from these as well, since the prohibited item was a contributing factor in the initial formation of the object. However, according to the one who says that when both this and that cause, it is permitted, it is permitted to derive benefit from them. This is because one derives benefit from the prohibited oven and pot only once they have been subsequently heated by permitted wood. Therefore, the influence on the pot of the prohibited item is only one component in the preparation of this food.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 拽讚讬专讛 讗住讜专讛 讚讛讗 拽讘诇讛 讘讬砖讜诇讗 诪拽诪讬 讚谞讬转谉 注爪讬诐 讚讛讬转讬专讗


Some say that even according to the one who says that when both this and that cause, it is permitted, the pot made through the use of prohibited wood is prohibited, since it holds the food inside it before the permitted wood is placed in the oven. Therefore, one derives benefit from the prohibited vessel itself without any contribution from a permitted source.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 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 讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛驻转 诪讜转专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬


Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to an oven that one lit with peels of orla fruit, or with straw of grain that was planted in a prohibited mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard, if it is a new oven, it must be shattered. If it is an old oven, it may be cooled. If one baked bread in it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The bread is permitted, and the Rabbis say: The bread is prohibited. The Gemara challenges: Wasn鈥檛 the reverse taught in the baraita? The Gemara answers: Shmuel teaches the reverse, that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who permits one to derive benefit from this bread even in the previously mentioned baraita.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 讜讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 讜住讘专 讗转谞讬讬讛 讗讬驻讻讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬拽讜诐 专讘谞谉 诇讗讬住讜专讗:


And if you wish, say: Shmuel accepts the original text of the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who prohibits deriving benefit from the bread. And generally, Shmuel holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi over his individual colleague who disagrees; however, the halakha does not follow him over several of his colleagues who disagree. And in this particular case, the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi even over his colleagues. And Shmuel holds: I will reverse the two sides presented here, in order to establish the Rabbis鈥 opinion as a prohibition. Therefore, the conclusion will be to rule that it is prohibited, in accordance with the majority opinion. Although in Shmuel鈥檚 version the attributions of the opinions are technically inaccurate, the benefit is that when people see that the Rabbis rule that it is prohibited in this case, they will be inclined to accept their majority opinion, which is the correct halakha.


讘讬砖诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛驻转 诪讜转专转: (讗诪专) 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙讞诇讬诐 注讜诪诪讜转 讗讘诇 讙讞诇讬诐 诇讜讞砖讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讞诇讬诐 诇讜讞砖讜转 谞诪讬 诪讜转专讬谉


It was taught as part of the previously stated halakha that if one cooked the bread over coals produced from an asheira, everyone agrees that the bread is permitted. The Gemara records a dispute: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said one opinion, and Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said another opinion. One of them said: They taught this leniency only when one cooks with dim coals, whose heat is merely a remnant of the earlier lighting; however, when one cooks with glowing coals, the bread is prohibited. And one of them said: Even when the coals are glowing, the bread is also permitted.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜讞砖讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬砖 砖讘讞 注爪讬诐 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜讞砖讜转 诪讜转专讜转 驻转 讚讗住专 讚讬砖 砖讘讞 注爪讬诐 讘驻转 诇专讘讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻砖讗讘讜拽讛 讻谞讙讚讜


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that baking with glowing coals renders the bread prohibited, this is because there is improvement from the prohibited wood in the bread. However, according to the one who said that even when baking with glowing coals the bread is permitted, since they are no longer considered to be wood, where do you find the case where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems bread to be prohibited because there is improvement from the prohibited wood in it? Why should there be a difference between glowing coals and actual burning wood? Rav Pappa said: The case is when a flame is directly opposite the bread. When he cooks the bread directly in front of the wood, it is improved directly by the wood. When the coals are merely glowing, there is no direct benefit from the wood.


诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 砖专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻砖讗讘讜拽讛 讻谞讙讚讜 讗诇讗 注爪讬诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘砖专砖讬驻讗


The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permit one to eat this bread even when the flame is opposite it? But if this is the case, where do you find the case where it is prohibited according to the Rabbis to derive benefit from wood? Rav Ami bar 岣ma said: It is found in the case of a stool made from the wood. Although they hold that it is permitted to derive indirect benefit from the wood, even the Rabbis agree that one may not derive benefit from a stool that is made from the wood itself.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 转谞讜专 砖讛住讬拽讜 讘注爪讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗驻讛 讘讜 讛驻转 诇专讘谞谉 讚砖专讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇注专诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 注专诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇


Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: With regard to an oven that one kindled with consecrated wood and baked bread in it, according to the Rabbis, who permitted the bread in the first case where it was baked with orla wood, what is the halakha? He said to him: The bread is prohibited. He responded: What is the difference between this bread and bread baked with orla peels? Rava said: How can these cases be compared? Orla is nullified in a mixture of one part in two hundred; it is possible that less than this amount of orla was absorbed by the bread. However, consecrated wood is not nullified even in a mixture of one part in one thousand. Therefore, even when there is only a miniscule amount of the consecrated matter in the bread it is still prohibited.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讛诇讗 诪注诇 讛诪住讬拽 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注诇 讛诪住讬拽 谞驻拽讜 诇讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉


Rather, Rava said: If it was difficult for Rami bar 岣ma, this is what he found difficult: Didn鈥檛 the kindler of the fire transgress the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as anyone who unwittingly uses consecrated property for a non-sacred use violates this prohibition? And any case where the kindler of an oven misuses consecrated property by doing so, the wood is transferred to non-sacred status. The wood loses its sanctity when misused, and the one who misused it must donate other wood to the Temple in its place. In that case, the wood used to heat the oven is non-sacred wood and the bread should be permitted.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘注爪讬 砖诇诪讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讛拽讚砖 讘砖讜讙讙 诪转讞诇诇 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谞讜 诪转讞诇诇


Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with wood which had been set aside for purchasing peace-offerings. This wood, while sanctified, has a lesser status of sanctity and does not become fully consecrated until the blood of the offering has been sprinkled. And this dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: If one unwittingly misused consecrated property, it becomes desecrated and loses its elevated status. However, if one used the object intentionally, it is not desecrated and remains consecrated. Since the act here is intentional, the consecrated wood does not lose its status.


讘诪讝讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪注讬诇讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖诇诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪注讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉


The Gemara explains: What is the reason that when one intentionally uses this object it does not lose its status? Since it is not subject to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property, as one is liable to bring an offering only for unwitting misuse of consecrated property, it is not transferred to non-sacred status. The same halakha applies to the wood set aside for peace-offerings as well. Since at that stage it is not subject to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property, as that applies only after the animal鈥檚 blood has been sprinkled, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even if one unwittingly uses this wood, it is not transferred to non-sacred status; rather, it remains prohibited.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注诇 讛诪住讬拽 谞驻拽讬 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讗驻专谉 诪讜转专 讞讜抓 诪注爪讬 讗砖讬专讛 讜讗驻专 讛拽讚砖 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专


The Gemara asks: And anywhere the kindler of an oven transgresses the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property by using consecrated wood, is it transferred to non-sacred status? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to all prohibited items that must be burned, their ashes are permitted after the burning, except for wood from an asheira? And consecrated ash is prohibited forever. Therefore, it is possible that when one kindles an oven with this consecrated wood, although he misuses consecrated property, the ash remains prohibited.


讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛 讘注爪讬 讛拽讚砖 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖 讚谞诪注讜诇 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讗诪专 讘讗讜转谉 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖诪讜 讘谞讞转 讜砖诪讜 讻讜诇讜 讜砖诪讜 砖诇讗 讬驻讝专:


Rami bar 岣ma said: That baraita is discussing a case where a fire began on its own among consecrated wood and there is no one who misused consecrated property. Since this is the case, even the ash that is left from this wood remains consecrated property and one may not benefit from it. Rav Shemaya said: This baraita is dealing with those types of consecrated ash that require burial, such as the ash removed from the altar. As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall take up the ash from where the fire has consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put it beside the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:3). The phrase 鈥淎nd he shall put it鈥 indicates that he must do so gently; 鈥渁nd he shall put it鈥 also indicates that he must place all of it; 鈥渁nd he shall put it鈥 also indicates that he may not scatter the ashes. Apparently, even after the offering has been burned it remains sacred, and one may not derive benefit from it. However, when it was burned it was not subject to misuse of consecrated property, as its burning is a necessary step in the process of sacrificing the offerings.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 砖专讬驻讛 讜讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谉 讜诪讛 谞讜转专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪抓 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛


It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal of leavened bread is to be accomplished only through burning. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: The removal of leavened bread is to be accomplished only through burning. And a logical derivation leads to this conclusion: Just as that which is left over from an offering after the time period in which it may be eaten, which is not subject to the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, requires burning, so too, with regard to leavened bread, which is more stringent as it is subject to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, all the more so is it not clear that it requires burning?


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻诇 讚讬谉 砖讗转讛 讚谉 转讞诇转讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜住讜驻讜 诇讛拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 诇讗 诪爪讗 注爪讬诐 诇砖讜专驻讜 讬讛讗 讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 转砖讘讬转讜 砖讗讜专 诪讘转讬讻诐 讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬转讜


The Rabbis said to him: Any logical derivation that you derive whose initial teaching is stringent but whose subsequent consequences are lenient is not a valid logical derivation. According to Rabbi Yehuda, if one did not find wood to burn his leavened bread, must he sit idly and not remove it? And the Torah said: 鈥淵ou shall remove leaven from your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:15), indicating that this must be done in any manner which you can remove it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 logical derivation leads to a leniency.


讞讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚谞讜 讚讬谉 讗讞专 谞讜转专 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讞诪抓 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讛 谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讞诪抓 讘砖专讬驻讛


Then Rabbi Yehuda presented a different logical derivation based on the principle of: What do we find with regard to, rather than on an a fortiori inference (Rashash). It is prohibited to eat the leftover of offerings and it is prohibited to eat leavened bread. Based on this similarity, one can conclude that just as the leftover of offerings requires burning, so too, leavened bread requires burning.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讘讬诇讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛驻专砖 谞讜转专 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜讞诪抓 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 诪讛 谞讜转专 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讞诪抓 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛


They said to him: The case of an animal carcass can prove that eating the leftover of offerings is not a factor in determining whether or not leavened bread requires burning, as eating an animal carcass is prohibited and it does not require burning. Therefore, there is no clear connection between the prohibition to eat a particular object and a requirement to burn it. He said to them: There is a difference between these cases, as it is explicitly stated that one may benefit from an animal corpse. Therefore, the following comparison can be made: It is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from the leftover of sacrificial meat, and it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from leavened bread. Just as the leftover of sacrificial meat requires burning, so too, leavened bread requires burning.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛驻专砖 谞讜转专 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讞诪抓 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 诪讛 谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讞诪抓 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讞诇讘讜 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛


The Rabbis said to him: The case of an ox that is stoned can prove that this is not a clear factor, as it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from such an ox and it does not require burning. He said to them: There is a difference between leavened bread and an ox that is stoned, as there is an additional factor that is not relevant to the ox. It is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from the leftover of sacrificial meat, and one who does so is punished with karet. And it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from leavened bread, and one who does so is punished with karet. Just as the leftover of sacrificial meat requires burning, so too, leavened bread requires burning. They said to him: If so, the fats of an ox that is stoned can prove that this too is an insignificant factor, as it is prohibited to eat the fats and derive benefit from them, and one who eats them is punished with karet, and they do not require burning.


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!

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...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 27: Extreme Burn

Intermingling of that wish is permitted with that which is forbidden - in complex ways. For example, baking bread with...

Pesachim 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 27

注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗住讜专 讗诇诪讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专


until there is enough of the prohibited leaven to cause the dough to become leavened bread. And Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer taught that when the permitted leaven fell in last, the mixture is permitted only when he first removed the prohibited leaven before the permitted leaven fell into the dough and made it rise. However, if he did not first remove the prohibited leaven, the dough is prohibited even if the permitted leaven fell in last. Apparently, when both this and that cause the dough to become leavened bread, it is prohibited.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讗讘讬讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讘诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚砖专讬


The Gemara rejects this statement: And from where is it apparent that the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is in accordance with Abaye鈥檚 explanation? Perhaps the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is due to the following, which Rabbi Eliezer said explicitly: I follow the final element. And it is no different if he first removed the prohibited item and it is no different if he did not first remove the prohibited item. However, if they both fell in at once it should be permitted, because where both this and that cause the dough to become leavened bread Rabbi Eliezer rules that the mixture is permitted.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚注爪讬 讗砖讬专讛 讚转谞谉 谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 注爪讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 讛住讬拽 讘讛谉 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讞讚砖 讬讜转抓 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉


Rather, the reference is to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to wood from an asheira. As we learned in a mishna: If one took wood from an asheira, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. With regard to one who lit an oven with the wood, if it was a new oven, it must be broken. If it was an old oven, it may be cooled.


讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 谞转注专讘讛 讘讗讞专讜转 讜讗讞专讜转 讘讗讞专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 (讗诪专) 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛


If one baked bread with asheira wood as the fuel, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. If this bread was mixed together with other bread, and that other bread was mixed with other bread, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of this bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: He casts the benefit into the Dead Sea [Yam HaMela岣]. In other words, one is not required to destroy the entire mixture when the prohibited bread is mixed with a large quantity of other bread. Instead one should designate money equal in value to the value of the original wood from the asheira, and he should destroy this money to offset the benefit he derived from the prohibited wood. The first tanna said to him: Idolatry cannot be monetarily redeemed. Once the bread becomes prohibited, it cannot be redeemed by having its value cast into the Dead Sea. Apparently, the opinion of both Sages, including Rabbi Eliezer, is that when both this permitted object and that prohibited object cause a change to another item, the latter item is prohibited.


讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讛 讘砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讗诪讗谉 转专诪讬讬讛 讜注讜讚 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专 讘讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer and the first tanna are stringent in this matter with regard to idolatry, whose prohibition is stringent. However, with regard to other prohibitions in the Torah, which are less stringent, did you hear him express this opinion? The Gemara responds to this question: Rather, if it is so that Rabbi Eliezer does not hold the same opinion with regard to other prohibitions, to whom will you attribute this baraita? If it is not Rabbi Eliezer who says this, then who is it? And furthermore, wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: And, similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would prohibit these types of mixtures with regard to all prohibitions in the Torah.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬砖 砖讘讞 注爪讬诐 讘驻转 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 拽注专讜转 讜讻讜住讜转 讜爪诇讜讞讬讜转 讗住讬专讬


Abaye said: If you say, based on the previously stated opinions, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that when both this and that cause, it is prohibited, then the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as both state that it is prohibited for this same reason. And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that when both this and that cause, it is permitted, and here, where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that it is prohibited, it is because there is improvement from the wood in the bread itself, then in that case, deriving benefit from any of these earthenware bowls, cups, and flasks that were made in such an oven should also be prohibited, since the improvement from the wood is in them as well. If one were to use such utensils he would be deriving benefit from a prohibited item.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘转谞讜专 讜拽讚讬专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讗住讜专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 砖专讬


When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages disagree is in a case where an oven and a pot were formed using prohibited wood. According to the one who says that when both this and that cause it is prohibited, it is prohibited to derive benefit from these as well, since the prohibited item was a contributing factor in the initial formation of the object. However, according to the one who says that when both this and that cause, it is permitted, it is permitted to derive benefit from them. This is because one derives benefit from the prohibited oven and pot only once they have been subsequently heated by permitted wood. Therefore, the influence on the pot of the prohibited item is only one component in the preparation of this food.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 拽讚讬专讛 讗住讜专讛 讚讛讗 拽讘诇讛 讘讬砖讜诇讗 诪拽诪讬 讚谞讬转谉 注爪讬诐 讚讛讬转讬专讗


Some say that even according to the one who says that when both this and that cause, it is permitted, the pot made through the use of prohibited wood is prohibited, since it holds the food inside it before the permitted wood is placed in the oven. Therefore, one derives benefit from the prohibited vessel itself without any contribution from a permitted source.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 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 讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛驻转 诪讜转专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬


Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to an oven that one lit with peels of orla fruit, or with straw of grain that was planted in a prohibited mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard, if it is a new oven, it must be shattered. If it is an old oven, it may be cooled. If one baked bread in it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The bread is permitted, and the Rabbis say: The bread is prohibited. The Gemara challenges: Wasn鈥檛 the reverse taught in the baraita? The Gemara answers: Shmuel teaches the reverse, that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who permits one to derive benefit from this bread even in the previously mentioned baraita.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 讜讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 讜住讘专 讗转谞讬讬讛 讗讬驻讻讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬拽讜诐 专讘谞谉 诇讗讬住讜专讗:


And if you wish, say: Shmuel accepts the original text of the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who prohibits deriving benefit from the bread. And generally, Shmuel holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi over his individual colleague who disagrees; however, the halakha does not follow him over several of his colleagues who disagree. And in this particular case, the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi even over his colleagues. And Shmuel holds: I will reverse the two sides presented here, in order to establish the Rabbis鈥 opinion as a prohibition. Therefore, the conclusion will be to rule that it is prohibited, in accordance with the majority opinion. Although in Shmuel鈥檚 version the attributions of the opinions are technically inaccurate, the benefit is that when people see that the Rabbis rule that it is prohibited in this case, they will be inclined to accept their majority opinion, which is the correct halakha.


讘讬砖诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛驻转 诪讜转专转: (讗诪专) 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙讞诇讬诐 注讜诪诪讜转 讗讘诇 讙讞诇讬诐 诇讜讞砖讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讞诇讬诐 诇讜讞砖讜转 谞诪讬 诪讜转专讬谉


It was taught as part of the previously stated halakha that if one cooked the bread over coals produced from an asheira, everyone agrees that the bread is permitted. The Gemara records a dispute: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said one opinion, and Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said another opinion. One of them said: They taught this leniency only when one cooks with dim coals, whose heat is merely a remnant of the earlier lighting; however, when one cooks with glowing coals, the bread is prohibited. And one of them said: Even when the coals are glowing, the bread is also permitted.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜讞砖讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬砖 砖讘讞 注爪讬诐 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜讞砖讜转 诪讜转专讜转 驻转 讚讗住专 讚讬砖 砖讘讞 注爪讬诐 讘驻转 诇专讘讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻砖讗讘讜拽讛 讻谞讙讚讜


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that baking with glowing coals renders the bread prohibited, this is because there is improvement from the prohibited wood in the bread. However, according to the one who said that even when baking with glowing coals the bread is permitted, since they are no longer considered to be wood, where do you find the case where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems bread to be prohibited because there is improvement from the prohibited wood in it? Why should there be a difference between glowing coals and actual burning wood? Rav Pappa said: The case is when a flame is directly opposite the bread. When he cooks the bread directly in front of the wood, it is improved directly by the wood. When the coals are merely glowing, there is no direct benefit from the wood.


诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 砖专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻砖讗讘讜拽讛 讻谞讙讚讜 讗诇讗 注爪讬诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘砖专砖讬驻讗


The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permit one to eat this bread even when the flame is opposite it? But if this is the case, where do you find the case where it is prohibited according to the Rabbis to derive benefit from wood? Rav Ami bar 岣ma said: It is found in the case of a stool made from the wood. Although they hold that it is permitted to derive indirect benefit from the wood, even the Rabbis agree that one may not derive benefit from a stool that is made from the wood itself.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 转谞讜专 砖讛住讬拽讜 讘注爪讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗驻讛 讘讜 讛驻转 诇专讘谞谉 讚砖专讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇注专诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 注专诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇


Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: With regard to an oven that one kindled with consecrated wood and baked bread in it, according to the Rabbis, who permitted the bread in the first case where it was baked with orla wood, what is the halakha? He said to him: The bread is prohibited. He responded: What is the difference between this bread and bread baked with orla peels? Rava said: How can these cases be compared? Orla is nullified in a mixture of one part in two hundred; it is possible that less than this amount of orla was absorbed by the bread. However, consecrated wood is not nullified even in a mixture of one part in one thousand. Therefore, even when there is only a miniscule amount of the consecrated matter in the bread it is still prohibited.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讛诇讗 诪注诇 讛诪住讬拽 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注诇 讛诪住讬拽 谞驻拽讜 诇讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉


Rather, Rava said: If it was difficult for Rami bar 岣ma, this is what he found difficult: Didn鈥檛 the kindler of the fire transgress the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as anyone who unwittingly uses consecrated property for a non-sacred use violates this prohibition? And any case where the kindler of an oven misuses consecrated property by doing so, the wood is transferred to non-sacred status. The wood loses its sanctity when misused, and the one who misused it must donate other wood to the Temple in its place. In that case, the wood used to heat the oven is non-sacred wood and the bread should be permitted.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘注爪讬 砖诇诪讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讛拽讚砖 讘砖讜讙讙 诪转讞诇诇 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谞讜 诪转讞诇诇


Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with wood which had been set aside for purchasing peace-offerings. This wood, while sanctified, has a lesser status of sanctity and does not become fully consecrated until the blood of the offering has been sprinkled. And this dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: If one unwittingly misused consecrated property, it becomes desecrated and loses its elevated status. However, if one used the object intentionally, it is not desecrated and remains consecrated. Since the act here is intentional, the consecrated wood does not lose its status.


讘诪讝讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪注讬诇讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖诇诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪注讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉


The Gemara explains: What is the reason that when one intentionally uses this object it does not lose its status? Since it is not subject to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property, as one is liable to bring an offering only for unwitting misuse of consecrated property, it is not transferred to non-sacred status. The same halakha applies to the wood set aside for peace-offerings as well. Since at that stage it is not subject to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property, as that applies only after the animal鈥檚 blood has been sprinkled, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even if one unwittingly uses this wood, it is not transferred to non-sacred status; rather, it remains prohibited.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注诇 讛诪住讬拽 谞驻拽讬 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讗驻专谉 诪讜转专 讞讜抓 诪注爪讬 讗砖讬专讛 讜讗驻专 讛拽讚砖 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专


The Gemara asks: And anywhere the kindler of an oven transgresses the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property by using consecrated wood, is it transferred to non-sacred status? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to all prohibited items that must be burned, their ashes are permitted after the burning, except for wood from an asheira? And consecrated ash is prohibited forever. Therefore, it is possible that when one kindles an oven with this consecrated wood, although he misuses consecrated property, the ash remains prohibited.


讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛 讘注爪讬 讛拽讚砖 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬谞砖 讚谞诪注讜诇 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讗诪专 讘讗讜转谉 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖诪讜 讘谞讞转 讜砖诪讜 讻讜诇讜 讜砖诪讜 砖诇讗 讬驻讝专:


Rami bar 岣ma said: That baraita is discussing a case where a fire began on its own among consecrated wood and there is no one who misused consecrated property. Since this is the case, even the ash that is left from this wood remains consecrated property and one may not benefit from it. Rav Shemaya said: This baraita is dealing with those types of consecrated ash that require burial, such as the ash removed from the altar. As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall take up the ash from where the fire has consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put it beside the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:3). The phrase 鈥淎nd he shall put it鈥 indicates that he must do so gently; 鈥渁nd he shall put it鈥 also indicates that he must place all of it; 鈥渁nd he shall put it鈥 also indicates that he may not scatter the ashes. Apparently, even after the offering has been burned it remains sacred, and one may not derive benefit from it. However, when it was burned it was not subject to misuse of consecrated property, as its burning is a necessary step in the process of sacrificing the offerings.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 砖专讬驻讛 讜讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谉 讜诪讛 谞讜转专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪抓 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛


It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal of leavened bread is to be accomplished only through burning. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: The removal of leavened bread is to be accomplished only through burning. And a logical derivation leads to this conclusion: Just as that which is left over from an offering after the time period in which it may be eaten, which is not subject to the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, requires burning, so too, with regard to leavened bread, which is more stringent as it is subject to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, all the more so is it not clear that it requires burning?


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻诇 讚讬谉 砖讗转讛 讚谉 转讞诇转讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜住讜驻讜 诇讛拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 诇讗 诪爪讗 注爪讬诐 诇砖讜专驻讜 讬讛讗 讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 转砖讘讬转讜 砖讗讜专 诪讘转讬讻诐 讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬转讜


The Rabbis said to him: Any logical derivation that you derive whose initial teaching is stringent but whose subsequent consequences are lenient is not a valid logical derivation. According to Rabbi Yehuda, if one did not find wood to burn his leavened bread, must he sit idly and not remove it? And the Torah said: 鈥淵ou shall remove leaven from your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:15), indicating that this must be done in any manner which you can remove it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 logical derivation leads to a leniency.


讞讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚谞讜 讚讬谉 讗讞专 谞讜转专 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讞诪抓 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讛 谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讞诪抓 讘砖专讬驻讛


Then Rabbi Yehuda presented a different logical derivation based on the principle of: What do we find with regard to, rather than on an a fortiori inference (Rashash). It is prohibited to eat the leftover of offerings and it is prohibited to eat leavened bread. Based on this similarity, one can conclude that just as the leftover of offerings requires burning, so too, leavened bread requires burning.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讘讬诇讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛驻专砖 谞讜转专 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜讞诪抓 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 诪讛 谞讜转专 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讞诪抓 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛


They said to him: The case of an animal carcass can prove that eating the leftover of offerings is not a factor in determining whether or not leavened bread requires burning, as eating an animal carcass is prohibited and it does not require burning. Therefore, there is no clear connection between the prohibition to eat a particular object and a requirement to burn it. He said to them: There is a difference between these cases, as it is explicitly stated that one may benefit from an animal corpse. Therefore, the following comparison can be made: It is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from the leftover of sacrificial meat, and it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from leavened bread. Just as the leftover of sacrificial meat requires burning, so too, leavened bread requires burning.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛驻专砖 谞讜转专 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讞诪抓 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 诪讛 谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讞诪抓 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讞诇讘讜 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘讛谞讗讛 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 砖专讬驻讛


The Rabbis said to him: The case of an ox that is stoned can prove that this is not a clear factor, as it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from such an ox and it does not require burning. He said to them: There is a difference between leavened bread and an ox that is stoned, as there is an additional factor that is not relevant to the ox. It is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from the leftover of sacrificial meat, and one who does so is punished with karet. And it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from leavened bread, and one who does so is punished with karet. Just as the leftover of sacrificial meat requires burning, so too, leavened bread requires burning. They said to him: If so, the fats of an ox that is stoned can prove that this too is an insignificant factor, as it is prohibited to eat the fats and derive benefit from them, and one who eats them is punished with karet, and they do not require burning.


Scroll To Top