Pesachim 53

עד שיהא בו כדי להחמיץ ואמר אביי לא שנו אלא שקדם וסילק את האיסור אבל לא קדם וסילק את האיסור אסור אלמא זה וזה גורם אסור

unless it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The se'or' of terumah, v. Tosaf.');">¹</span> contains sufficient to induce fermentation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If forbidden matter falls into permitted, it does not render it forbidden unless it imparts its taste to it. The se'or' imparts its taste to the dough when it makes it leaven. - Se'or' of terumah is designated forbidden matter, since it is forbidden to a lay Israelite.');">²</span> Now Abaye said: They learned this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Eliezer's view.');">³</span>

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>

אלא ר' אליעזר דעצי אשירה דתנן נטל הימנה עצים אסורין בהנאה הסיק בהן את התנור חדש יותץ ישן יוצן

but [if they fell in] simultaneously, then indeed it may be permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because R. Eliezer permits the product of two causes.');">⁶</span> - Rather it is R'Eliezer'[s ruling] on the wood of the asherah [which is alluded to]. For we learned: If he took wood from it [sc. the asherah], benefit thereof is forbidden.

אפה בו את הפת אסורין בהנאה נתערבה באחרות ואחרות באחרות כולן אסורין בהנאה רבי אליעזר אומר יוליך הנאה לים המלח (אמר) לו אין פדיון לע"ז

If he fired an oven with it, if new, it must be destroyed; if o it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread in it, benefit thereof is forbidden; if it [the bread] became mixe up with others, and [these] others [again] with others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And (these) others' etc. is absent in the Mishnah in A.Z. 49b, and R. Tam deletes it here too.');">⁷</span> they are all forbidden for use.

אימור דשמעת ליה לר' אליעזר בע"ז דחמיר איסורה בשאר איסורין שבתורה מי שמעת ליה אלא אם כן אמאן תרמייה ועוד הא תניא בהדיא וכן היה ר' אליעזר אוסר בכל איסורין שבתורה

R'Eliezer said: Let hi carry the benefit [derived thence]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the value of the wood.');">⁸</span> to the Dead Sea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But R. Eliezer admits that if the benefit is not thrown into the Dead Sea, the new oven must be destroyed, which proves that he holds that the product of two causes is forbidden (v. p. 122, n. 3) .');">⁹</span> Said they to him: You cannot redeem an idol.

אמר אביי אם תמצא לומר זה וזה גורם אסור רבי היינו ר' אליעזר ואם תמצי לומר זה וזה גורם מותר והכא משום דיש שבח עצים בפת הוא הני קערות וכוסות וצלוחיות אסירי

Granted that you hear R'Eliezer [to rule thus] in the case of idolatry, whose interdict is [very] severe; do you know him [to rule likewise] in respect of other interdicts of the Torah? - Then if so, to whom will you ascribe it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'upon whom will you cast it?' This is the answer: there is none other to whom the Baraitha supra ');">¹⁰</span> Moreover, it was explicitly taught: And thus did R'Eliezer declare it forbidden in the case of all interdicts i the Torah. Abaye said: Should you say' that the product of two causes is forbidden, then Rabbi is identical [in view] with R'Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,if the Baraitha supra ');">¹¹</span>

כי פליגי בתנור וקדירה למ"ד זה וזה גורם אסור אסור למאן דאמר זה וזה גורם מותר שרי

But should you say. The product of two causes is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the first clause stating that a new oven must be destroyed cannot agree with Rabbi, but only with R. Eliezer.');">¹²</span> while here [Rabbi forbids the bread] because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread, then plates, goblets, and

איכא דאמרי אפי' למ"ד זה וזה גורם מותר קדירה אסורה דהא קבלה בישולא מקמי דניתן עצים דהיתירא

regards that which completes the leavening having produced the whole of it. flasks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of earthenware, which received their final hardening in a kiln heated by forbidden fuel.');">¹³</span> are forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On all views. For they have been made fit for use and will be used without any further improvements, and there is direct benefit from forbidden matter.');">¹⁴</span>

א"ר יוסף א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל תנור שהסיקו בקליפי ערלה או בקשין של כלאי הכרם חדש יותץ ישן יוצן אפה בו את הפת רבי אומר הפת מותרת וחכמים אומרים הפת אסורה והתניא איפכא שמואל איפכא תני

They differ only in respect of an oven and a pot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both of which must be heated again before food is cooked or baked in them.');">¹⁵</span> On the view [that] the product of two causes is forbidden, these are forbidden; on the view [that] the product of two causes is permitted, these are permitted. Others state: Even on the view [that] the product of two causes is permitted, the pot is forbidden, for it receives the stew before the permitted fuel is placed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The food for stewing is placed in the pot before the heat is applied to it. The mere placing is regarded as benefit, and this was made possible solely by the forbidden fuel.');">¹⁶</span>

ואב"א בעלמא קסבר שמואל הלכה כרבי מחבירו ולא מחביריו ובהא אפי' מחביריו וסבר אתנייה איפכא כי היכי דניקום רבנן לאיסורא:

R'Joseph said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: If an oven was fired [heated] with shells of 'orlah' or with stubble of kil'ayim of the vineyard, if new, it must be demolished; if old, it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread in it, - Rabbi said: The bread is permitted; but the Sages maintain: The bread is forbidden. But the reverse was taught!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 26b.');">¹⁷</span>

בישלה על גבי גחלים דברי הכל הפת מותרת: (אמר) רב יהודה אמר שמואל ור' חייא בר אשי א"ר יוחנן חד אמר לא שנו אלא גחלים עוממות אבל גחלים לוחשות אסורין וחד אמר אפילו גחלים לוחשות נמי מותרין

- Samuel learned it the reverse. Alternatively, in general Samuel holds [that] the halachah is as Rabbi as against his, but not as against his colleagues, but here [he holds], even against hi colleagues, and so he reasoned, I will recite it reversed, in order that the Rabbis may stand [as ruling] stringently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so that people might accept the stringent ruling.');">¹⁸</span> 'If he baked it upon the coals all agree that the bread is permitted'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 26b.');">¹⁹</span>

בשלמא למ"ד לוחשות אסורין משום דיש שבח עצים בפת אלא למ"ד אפילו לוחשות מותרות פת דאסר דיש שבח עצים בפת לרבי היכי משכחת ליה א"ר פפא כשאבוקה כנגדו

Rab Judah in Samuel's name, and R'Hiyya B'Ashi in R'Johanan's name [differ therein]: one says. They learned [this] only of dying coals, but live<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whispering'. When the coals are burning brightly they seem to be moving and whispering to each other (Rashi) .');">²⁰</span> coals are forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the bread is forbidden in Rabbi's view.');">²¹</span> while the other maintains, Even live coals too are permitted. As for the view that live [coals] are forbidden, it is well, [the reason being] because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the fuel is regarded as still in existence and directly baking the bread.');">²²</span> But on the view that even live [coals] are permitted, then how is the bread which is forbidden because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread conceivable according to Rabbi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For obviously the bread does not bake until the fuel burns up, and by then it is a mass of coals.');">²³</span> - Said R'Papa: When the flame is opposite it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Directly opposite the bread through the oven mouth.');">²⁴</span>