Mesorat%20hashas for Pesachim 53:2

וממאי דטעמא דר' אליעזר כאביי דילמא טעמא דר' אליעזר משום דאחר אחרון אני בא לא שנא קדם וסילק את האיסור לא שנא לא קדם וסילק את האיסור אבל בבת אחת ה"נ דשרי

only where he anticipated and removed the forbidden matter; but if he did not anticipate and remove the forbidden matter, it is forbidden:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer holds that if the hullin fell in last, the dough is permitted. This is only if he removed the terumah immediately the hullin fell in, and before the dough was leavened. Though the terumah must have helped slightly in the leavening, yet since it is no longer there when the dough really becomes leaven, it is disregarded. But if the terumah was left there, the dough becomes forbidden even if the hullin fell in last.');">⁴</span> this proves that the product of two causes is forbidden. Yet how do you know that R'Eliezer's reason is as Abaye [states it]: perhaps R'Eliezer's reason is because I follow the last, there being difference whether he anticipated and removed the forbidden matter or he did not anticipate and remove the forbidden matter;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason being that he');">⁵</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Pesachim 53:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.