Pesachim 52

הא לא דמיא אלא להא שכן עליה עוף כשירה עלה עליה זכר פסולה מ"ט

- This can only be compared to the following: If a bird rested upon it [the red heifer], it remains fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not disqualified because it has been put to some use. The red heifer had to be one 'upon which never came yoke' (Num. XIX, 2) , i.e., it had not been put to service.');">¹</span> but if it copulated with a male, it is unfit. What is the reason? - Said R'Papa: If it were written ''abad'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Active: 'with which he (the owner) had (not) wrought'.');">²</span>

אמר רב פפא אי כתיב (דברים כא, ג) עבד וקרינן עבד עד דעביד בה איהו אי כתיב עובד וקרינן עובד אפילו ממילא נמי

and we read it 'abad', [I would say, it becomes unfit] only if he himself wrought with it. While if ''ubad'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Passive: 'was (not) wrought with'.');">³</span> were written and we read it ''ubad,' [it would imply] even if it were of itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if it were wrought with entirely without the owner's volition.');">⁴</span>

השתא דכתיב עבד וקרינן עובד עובד דומיא דעבד מה עבד דניחא ליה אף עובד דניחא ליה

Since however, it is written ''abad'' [active], whilst read ''ubad'' [passive].' it was wrought with' must be similar to 'he wrought [with it]':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though it may have been put to work without the knowledge of its master, it shall nevertheless be only such work as its master would have approved.');">⁵</span> just as 'he wrought [with it]' must mean that he approved of it, so also 'it was wrought with' refers only to what he approved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, if a bird rests on it, the master does not approve, since he does not benefit; but he does benefit from its copulation. Similarly, if he takes the heifer into the team and it accidentally threshes, he does not benefit thereby, as the team itself would have sufficed. Therefore it is not made unfit, unless that was his express purpose. - Though one passage refers to the beheaded heifer, while the other deals with the red heifer, it is deduced in Sot. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ש אבידה לא ישטחנה לא על גבי מטה ולא על גבי מגוד לצורכו אבל שוטחה לצורכה על גבי מטה ועל גבי מגוד נזדמנו לו אורחין לא ישטחנה לא על גבי מטה ולא על גבי מגוד בין לצורכה בין לצורכו

Come and hear: He may not spread it [viz. ,] a lost [raiment]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he has found, and awaiting the owner to come and claim it.');">⁷</span> upon a couch or a frame for his needs, but he may spread it out upon a couch or a frame in its own interests. If he was visited by guests, he may not spread it over a bed or a frame, whether in its interests or his own!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, though he must spread it out, yet since he intends to benefit himself, it is forbidden.');">⁸</span>

שאני התם דקלי לה אי משום עינא בישא אי משום גנבי

- There it is different, because he may the yoke' (v.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Active: 'with which he (the owner) had (not) wrought'.');">²</span> .)

ת"ש מוכרי כסות מוכרין כדרכן ובלבד שלא יתכוין בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים והצנועין מפשילין לאחוריהם במקל

Though this heifer had threshed, it remains fit, because it had been taken into the team to feed, not to thresh. [thereby] destroy it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'burn it'.');">⁹</span> either through an evil eye or through thieves.

והא הכא דאפשר למעבד כצנועין וכי לא מכוין שרי תיובתא למאן דמתני לישנא קמא דרבא תיובתא:

Come and hear: Clothes merchants sell in their normal fashion, providing that they do<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he does'. The singular taken in the distributive sense.');">¹⁰</span> not intend [to gain protection] from the sun in hot weather<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the sun'.');">¹¹</span> or from the rain when it is raining;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to garments containing the forbidden mixture of wool and linen (v. Deut. XXII, 11) , sold to heathens. Merchants slung their wares across their shoulders for display, and though it is like wearing them, and some protection is afforded thereby, it is permitted.');">¹²</span>

ולא יסיק בו וכו': ת"ר תנור שהסיקו בקליפי ערלה או בקשין של כלאי הכרם חדש יותץ ישן יוצן

but the strictly religious<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the modest'.');">¹³</span> sling them on a staff behind their back.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they do not actually lie upon them.');">¹⁴</span> Now here, though it is possible to do as the strictly religious, yet when he has no intention [of benefiting], it is permitted; this is a refutation of him who learns Raba's first version?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 25b.');">¹⁵</span>

אפה בו את הפת רבי אומר הפת אסורה וחכמים אומרים הפת מותרת בישלה על גבי גחלים דברי הכל מותר

This is [indeed] a refutation. AND ONE MAY NOT FIRE etc. Our Rabbis taught: If an oven was fired with the shells of 'orlah'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the shells of nuts of 'orlah'.');">¹⁶</span> or with the stubble of kil'ayim of the vineyard, if new, it must be demolished; if old, it must be allowed to cool.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'New' means that the oven has never been used yet. Before it is fit for use it must be burnt through so as to harden it, and if this was done with the shells of 'orlah', the oven must be demolished, since it was made fit with prohibited fuel. But if it had been used before, the only benefit is that it is now hot: hence that benefit must be forfeited by allowing the oven to cool without using its heat.');">¹⁷</span>

והא תניא בין חדש ובין ישן יוצן לא קשיא הא רבי והא רבנן

If a loaf was baked in it, - Rabbi said: The loaf is forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds that the benefit of the forbidden fuel is contained directly in the loaf.');">¹⁸</span> but the Sages maintain: The loaf is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their view the benefit of the forbidden fuel is not actually contained in the loaf, for the flame of the burning shells is not identical with the shells themselves. By the same reasoning they reject the ruling that if new, the oven must be destroyed, holding it sufficient that it should be allowed to cool.');">¹⁹</span> If he baked<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'boiled'.');">²⁰</span>

אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי משום דיש שבח עצים בפת זה וזה גורם מי שמעת ליה אלא לא קשיא הא ר' אליעזר הא רבנן

it upon the coals, all agree that it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the nutshells or stubble are burnt through and a mass of coals, they are regarded as already destroyed and not in existence. Consequently, if he bakes the bread upon them, the bread is not regarded as having benefited directly from them, and even Rabbi admits that it is permitted.');">²¹</span> But it was taught: Whether new or old, it must be allowed to cool? - There is no difficulty: one agrees with Rabbi, the other with the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 121, n. 11.');">²²</span> Granted that you know Rabbi [to rule thus] because the benefit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'improvement'.');">²³</span>

הי רבי אליעזר אילימא רבי אליעזר דשאור דתנן שאור של חולין ושל תרומה שנפלו לתוך עיסה ואין בזה כדי להחמיץ ואין בזה כדי להחמיץ ונצטרפו וחמצו רבי אליעזר אומר אחר אחרון אני בא וחכמים אומרים בין שנפל איסור לכתחלה ובין שנפל איסור לבסוף לעולם אינו אוסר

of the fuel lies in the loaf; do you know him [to maintain this ruling] where two things produce [the result]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when the new oven is fired, bread is not baked in it yet, and it will have to be fired a second time. Thus the bread that is baked will be the product of two things: the forbidden fuel and the permitted fuel. We do not find Rabbi holding that this too is forbidden, and if it is not, there is no need to demolish the oven.');">²⁴</span> - Rather, [reply thus:] There is no difficulty: one is according to R'Eliezer, the other according to the Rabbis. Which [ruling of] R'Eliezer [is alluded to]? Shall we say. R'Eliezer['s ruling] On se'or'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Se'or is leaven with which other dough is made leaven. Hamez is leavened bread.');">²⁵</span> For we learned: If se'or of hullin and [se'or'] of terumah fall into dough, and neither is sufficient to make [it] leaven, but they combined and made [it] leaven, - R'Eliezer said: I regard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'come after'.');">²⁶</span> the last;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The status of the dough is determined by which fell in last: if hullin, the dough is permitted to a lay Israelite; if terumah, it is forbidden.');">²⁷</span> but the Sages maintain: whether the forbidden matter falls in first or the forbidden matter falls in last,it never renders it forbidden