Commentary for Avodah Zarah 98:4
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וצריכא דאי אשמעינן קמייתא בהא קאמר ר' אליעזר משום דבעידנא דקא גמרה פת קלי לה איסורא אבל כרכור דאיתיה לאיסורא בעיניה אימא מודי לרבנן
GEMARA. It was necessary [to mention both cases]; because if he had informed us of only the first [we might have thought] that R. Eliezer spoke of this case only because at the time when the loaf is finished [baking] the prohibited material had been burned; but in the case of the shuttle, since the prohibited objected remains, I might have said that he agrees with the rabbis.
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
If the only case in the mishnah was that of the baking bread with the asherah wood, I might have thought that in that case R. Eliezer was lenient because by the time the loaf was cooked the wood had been burned in the oven. Since the prohibited substance is destroyed, there is room to be lenient and he can destroy the amount of value equivalent to that loaf and the other loaves are permitted. But with the shuttle that was taken from the tree, when the clothes are done the shuttle remains. So we might have thought that in that case he agrees with the rabbis, there is nothing that can be done besides destroy all of the clothes (a large loss). Therefore, the mishnah had to teach us the case of the clothing.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy