Pesachim 27b — the Talmud in English

And we raised a difficulty:

By implication, the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi

Rabbi,

permit it even when the flame is opposite it!

Because they hold that the flame does not come from the wood while it is still present, but from that which has already been burned and whose prohibition has lapsed [Tosafot].

And if so,

but the prohibited wood

which is forbidden for benefit,

according to the Rabbis, where can one find it?

For the benefit of kindling is always permitted.

Rav Ami bar Hama said:

One finds it

in a sharshifa [chair]! For if he prepared a chair or a footstool for himself from wood that is forbidden for benefit, that chair is forbidden for sitting. For he benefits from the wood while it is still present.

[a chair]! If one fashioned a chair or a footstool from wood that is forbidden for benefit, that chair is forbidden to sit on. For he benefits from the wood while it still exists.

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda: A furnace that he kindled with consecrated wood, and baked in it

with this kindling

the bread,

what is its law?

According to Rabbi, the bread is certainly forbidden, for there is benefit of consecrated wood in the bread. But

according to the Rabbis, who permit in the first case [in the case of the peelings of orla] the bread, and do not hold that “there is benefit of wood in the bread,”

[bread baked with the peels of orla], and do not accept the principle “there is benefit from wood in the bread,”

what

is the law with consecrated wood?

He said to him,

Rav Hisda: Even according to the Rabbis,

the bread is forbidden.

And the law of consecrated property is more stringent than that of other things forbidden for benefit. And Rami bar Hama raised an objection against him:

And what is the difference between

bread

this

that was baked with consecrated wood,

and

bread that was baked with wood of

orla?

Rava said: How can these matters be compared!

Surely consecrated property is certainly more stringent. For

orla is nullified in

a mixture of

two hundred

parts of permitted substance against it. But

consecrated property, even in one thousand

parts of ordinary property against it,

is not nullified.

Rather, Rava said: If Rami bar Hama found difficulty

with Rav Hisda’s words, who forbade the bread,

this is what should have been difficult

to him:

But did not the one who kindled derive benefit

from the consecrated wood, and become liable for the obligations of misuse from the moment he took it in order to kindle with it?

And wherever the one who kindled misused it, the wood leaves

the domain of consecrated property

for ordinary use.

And as we learned in the Mishna: There is no misuse after misuse except with a sacrificial animal and a Temple utensil alone. For every consecrated object that is not sanctified with bodily sanctity, but only with sanctity of value, the first person who misuses it has taken it out into ordinary use, and afterward there is no misuse of it.

And since the wood left the domain of consecrated property immediately when the one who kindled misused it, how could it subsequently render forbidden the bread that was baked with it?

Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with the wood of peace-offerings.

He designated the wood with sanctity of value, in order to bring peace-offerings from its value. And there is no law of misuse with peace-offerings, because they are lesser sanctities, and we do not call them “the holy things of the Lord.” Nevertheless, there is certainly a prohibition of benefit in them. And such is also the law of wood designated with the sanctity of the value of peace-offerings: there is a prohibition in it, but there is no law of misuse in it.

And Rav Hisda resolved for him that the wood is not redeemed through the kindling, because he did not misuse it.

And this is according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Consecrated property, through

an act of

unintentional misuse,

it

is redeemed.

But

through

an act of

intentional misuse it is not redeemed!

In the case of intentional misuse, what is the reason it is not

redeemed? —

Since it is not subject to misuse —

for there is no sacrifice liability for intentional misuse, but only for unintentional misuse. Therefore

it does not leave for ordinary use

through intentional misuse.

And accordingly, one who misuses the sanctity of

peace-offerings also —

since they are not subject to misuse

[for we do not call them “the holy things of the

Lord”],

they do not leave for ordinary use

when one misuses them.

And we object:

But

is it the case that wherever the one who kindled misused it, the wood leaves

for ordinary use

?

But it was taught: Every

thing forbidden for benefit

that is burned, its ash is permitted

for benefit,

except for the wood of an asheira!

And we derive this from what is written concerning idolatry: “Nothing from the condemned thing shall cling to your hand.”

And the ash of consecrated property is forever forbidden. [ [A0136]Only with consecrated property is it forbidden forever. But the wood of an asheira, if a gentile burned it, is permitted, because a gentile can nullify the idolatry] .

It is specifically in the case of consecrated property that it remains forbidden forever. But wood from an idolatrous tree becomes permitted if a gentile burns it, because a gentile can annul the idolatry. ]

And if it is as you say, that through misuse it leaves for ordinary use, then the wood was redeemed from the moment they took it to burn it; so why is its ash forbidden?

Rami bar Hama said:

What are we dealing with here?

For example,

they did not misuse it, but rather

a fire fell on its own upon the consecrated wood, so that there was no person who could misuse

it.

Rav Shemaya said:

What are we dealing with here?

With those

[with that ash]

that require concealment!

And that is the ash of the removal of the ashes. For there was no misuse in its burning; rather, it was burned upon the altar as prescribed.

And it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, as

it was taught:

It is written concerning the ashes: “And he shall place it beside the altar.”

And we expound:

“And he shall place it” —

gently.

“And he shall place it” —

all of it.

“And he shall place it” —

that he should not scatter

it, but should place it in a heap. “And he shall place it” — that he should not derive benefit from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal

of leaven is only by burning!

It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda said: The removal of leaven is only by burning.

And the inference dictates

this. It is a kal va-chomer from the leftover flesh of sacrificial offerings.

And with regard to leftover flesh, which is not subject to “you shall not see”

or

“you shall not be found” ,

“you shall not find” ,

and nevertheless it is

required to be burned —

as it is written: “And what remains of the flesh of the sacrifice, on the third day shall be burned in fire” —

leaven, which is subject to “you shall not see”

and “you shall not be found,” surely it is

it

required to be burned!

They said to him,

the Sages:

Every law

of a kal va-chomer

that you derive at its beginning to be stringent

with regard to the stringent matter, and to impose upon it another stringency,

but its end

of this law

is to be lenient, is not a valid inference.

And here too, if you require him specifically to burn it, the ultimate result is a leniency.

For the stringency that you add to it ultimately causes leniency concerning it.

And here too, if you require him specifically to burn it, its end is that he comes to a leniency.

For

if he did not find wood

to burn it,

he will sit idle,

and will not remove it by another means.

But were it not for the kal va-chomer, the mitzva of its removal would not be nullified. For

the Torah said: “You shall eliminate leaven from your houses”.

This implies: You shall burn it

by anything through which you are able to eliminate it!

And if he has no wood, he should remove it by crumbling it and scattering it to the wind, and the like. [

And although we said above [12b] that even according to Rabbi Yehuda, at the time of its removal its elimination is by anything, it nevertheless leads to a leniency. For example, in the case of one who wishes to leave on a caravan within thirty days before Passover, when the obligation of removal has already taken effect upon him. If he has no wood, according to the Rabbis he should eliminate his leaven by anything, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda he will sit idle and not remove it ].

Rabbi Yehuda recanted

because of this answer,

and

did not derive this law through a kal va-chomer. Rather,

he derived it through another law

of a binyan av [“what do we find”]. And since it is not a kal va-chomer, it does not matter to us that its end is to be lenient. For it is a scriptural decree. And we must compare leaven to leftover sacrificial flesh both with regard to leniency and with regard to stringency.

And this is how he argued: After all,

leftover sacrificial meat is forbidden to eat, and

so too

hametz is forbidden to eat. Just as leftover sacrificial meat must be burned, so too hametz must be burned!

They said to him

: The Sages

said: An animal carcass proves otherwise,

for even

though

it is

forbidden to eat, it does not require burning

. And hametz likewise does not require burning.

Rabbi Judah said to them

:

There is a distinction

between an animal carcass and leftover sacrificial meat and hametz.

For

leftover sacrificial meat is forbidden both for eating and for benefit, and

so too

hametz is forbidden both for eating and for benefit

. Therefore, we can properly derive its law from leftover sacrificial meat:

Just as leftover sacrificial meat must be burned, so too hametz must be burned

.

That is not the case with an animal carcass, which is forbidden only for eating, but is permitted for benefit.

The Sages said to him

:

A condemned ox that is stoned proves otherwise,

for even

though

it is

forbidden both for eating and for benefit, it does not require burning

. Let us say the same regarding hametz.

He said to them: There is a distinction

between hametz and leftover sacrificial meat on the one hand, and a condemned ox that is stoned on the other.

For

leftover sacrificial meat is forbidden for benefit and for eating, and one who eats it is liable to karet, excision by Heaven,

for eating it.

And

so too

hametz is forbidden both for eating and for benefit, and one who eats it is liable to karet, excision by Heaven,

for eating it. Therefore, we derive one from the other:

Just as

we find with

leftover sacrificial meat

that it is

burned, so too hametz

is

burned.

That is not the case with a condemned ox that is stoned, since one who eats it is not liable to karet, excision by Heaven.

The Sages said to him

:

The forbidden fat of a condemned ox that is stoned proves otherwise, since

it is

forbidden both for eating and for benefit

[because of the prohibition against a condemned ox that is stoned],

and

one is even

liable to karet, excision by Heaven,

for eating it [because of the prohibition against forbidden fat].

And

nevertheless, it

does not

он

require burning

. Let us likewise say this regarding hametz.