Pesachim 54

Chapter 54

א מכלל דרבנן דפליגי עליה שרו אפי' כשאבוקה כנגדו אלא עצים דאיסורא לרבנן היכי משכחת להו א"ר אמי בר חמא בשרשיפא
1 Whence it follows that the Rabbis who disagree with him permit it even when the flame is opposite it; then how is forbidden fuel conceivable according to the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when do they prohibit benefit from forbidden fuel?');"><sup>1</sup></span> - Said R'Ammi B'Hama: In the case of a stool.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made of forbidden wood. One must not sit upon it, because he thereby benefits from the wood while it is yet fully in existence.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא תנור שהסיקו בעצי הקדש ואפה בו הפת לרבנן דשרו בקמייתא מאי א"ל הפת אסורה ומה בין זו לערלה אמר רבא הכי השתא ערלה בטילה במאתים הקדש אפילו באלף לא בטיל
2 Rami B'Hama asked R'Hisda: If an oven was heated with wood of hekdesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>3</sup></span> and bread is baked therein, what [is the law] according to the Rabbis who permit in the first case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. where it is heated with 'orlah or kil'ayim.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אלא אמר רבא אי קשיא ליה הא קשיא והלא מעל המסיק וכל היכא דמעל המסיק נפקו להו לחולין
3 - The bread is forbidden, he replied. And what is the difference between this and 'orlah'? - Said Raba: How compare! 'Orlah is annulled in two hundred [times its own quantity]; hekdesh is not annulled even in one thousand [times its quantity].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If 'orlah is accidentally mixed with two hundred times its own quantity of permitted produce and cannot be removed, it is annulled, and the whole is permitted. But hekdesh in similar circumstances is never annulled: thus its interdict is obviously more stringent.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד אמר רב פפא הכא בעצי שלמים עסקינן ואליבא דר' יהוד' דאמר הקדש בשוגג מתחלל במזיד אינו מתחלל
4 But said Raba, If there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty: Surely he who fires [the oven] commits trespass, an wherever he who fires [the oven] commits trespass, it [the fuel] passes out to hullin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one misappropriates hekdesh for secular use, he commits trespass and is liable to an offering for having withdrawn it from sacred ownership. Thus by this very act he converts it into hullin, and therefore the bread should be regarded as having been baked with ordinary fuel, hence permitted. This principle holds good of all hekdesh save animals dedicated for sacrifices and the service utensils in the Temple.');"><sup>6</sup></span> - Said R'Papa: We treat here of wood of peace-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., wood dedicated for peace-offerings, which means that it is to be sold and peace-offerings bought with the money, peace-offerings belong to the category of 'sacrifices of lower sanctity', and do not involve a trespass-offering; nevertheless they are forbidden for secular use.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה במזיד מאי טעמא לא כיון דלאו בר מעילה הוא לא נפיק לחולין שלמים נמי כיון דלאו בר מעילה נינהו לא נפקא לחולין
5 and in accordance with R'Judah, who maintained: Hekdesh, if [misappropriated for secular use] unwittingly, becomes hullin; if deliberately, it does not become hullin. Now what is the reason that if deliberately it does not [become hullin]?
ו וכל היכא דמעל המסיק נפקי לחולין והא תניא כל הנשרפין אפרן מותר חוץ מעצי אשירה ואפר הקדש לעולם אסור
6 Since it does not involve a trespass-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrifices were brought only for unwitting transgressions.');"><sup>8</sup></span> it does not pass out to hullin; so peace-offerings too, since it [the misappropriation of th type of sacrifice] does not involve a trespass-offering, it does not pass out to hullin.
ז אמר רמי בר חמא כגון שנפלה דליקה מאיליה בעצי הקדש דליכא אינש דנמעול רב שמעי' אמר באותן שטעונין גניזה דתניא (ויקרא ו, ג) ושמו בנחת ושמו כולו ושמו שלא יפזר:
7 Yet whenever he that fires [the oven] commits trespass, it [the fuel] passes out to hullin? But it was taugh [In the case of] all which are burnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., leaven on Passover, unclean terumah, 'orlah and kil'ayim of the vineyard. Tem. 33b.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ח ר' יהודה אומר אין ביעור וכו': תניא א"ר יהודה אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה והדין נותן ומה נותר שאינו בבל יראה ובל ימצא טעון שריפה חמץ שישנו בבל יראה ובל ימצא לא כל שכן שטעון שריפה
8 their ashes are permitted [for use], except the wood of an asherah, while the ashes of hekdesh are forbidden for ever?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tem. 34a.');"><sup>10</sup></span> - Said Rami B'Hama: E.g. , if a fire fell of its own accord on wood of hekdesh, so that there is no man to be liable for trespass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only then are the ashes of hekdesh for ever forbidden.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ט אמרו לו כל דין שאתה דן תחלתו להחמיר וסופו להקל אינו דין לא מצא עצים לשורפו יהא יושב ובטל והתורה אמרה (שמות יב, טו) תשביתו שאור מבתיכם בכל דבר שאתה יכול להשביתו
9 R'Shemaiah said: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The teaching cited.');"><sup>12</sup></span> refers to those [ashes] which must be hidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the censerful of ashes hidden at the base of the altar, v. supra 26a. Only these are for ever forbidden.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
י חזר ר' יהודה ודנו דין אחר נותר אסור באכילה וחמץ אסור באכילה מה נותר בשריפה אף חמץ בשריפה
10 for it was taught: And he shall put them [the ashes]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 3.');"><sup>14</sup></span> gently; and he shall put them - the whole thereof; and he shall put them [means] that he must not scatter them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 26a.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יא אמרו לו נבילה תוכיח שאסורה באכילה ואינה טעונה שריפה אמר להן הפרש נותר אסור באכילה ובהנאה וחמץ אסור באכילה ובהנאה מה נותר טעון שריפה אף חמץ טעון שריפה
11 R'JUDAH SAID: THERE IS NO REMOVAL etc. It was taught, R'Judah said: There is no removal of leaven save by burning, and logic impels this: if nothar, which is not subject to 'there shall not be seen' and 'there shall not be found', requires burning, then leaven, which is subject to 'there shall not be seen' and 'there shall not be found', how much the more does it require burning! Said they to him: Every argument that you argue [which] in the first place is stringent yet in the end leads to leniency is not a [valid] argument: [for] he did not find wood for burning, shall he sit and do nothing, whereas the Torah ordered, Ye shall put away leaven out of your houses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex.XII, 15.');"><sup>16</sup></span> [which means] with anything wherewith you can put it away?
יב אמרו לו שור הנסקל יוכיח שאסור באכילה ובהנאה ואינו טעון שריפה אמר להן הפרש נותר אסור באכילה ובהנאה וענוש כרת וחמץ אסור באכילה ובהנאה וענוש כרת מה נותר בשריפה אף חמץ בשריפה אמרו לו חלבו של שור הנסקל יוכיח שאסור באכילה ובהנאה וענוש כרת ואין טעון שריפה
12 R'Judah argued again [with] another argument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not on the basis of an a minori argument, but a gezerah shawah, the conclusion of which is accepted irrespective of the result.');"><sup>17</sup></span> Nothar is forbidden for eating and leaven is forbidden for eating: just as nothar [is disposed of] by burning, so is leaven [destroyed] by burning. Said they to him, Let nebelah prove [it]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., refute the argument.');"><sup>18</sup></span> for it is forbidden for eating yet does not require burning. Said he to them, There is a difference:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between nebelah on the one hand and nothar and leaven on the other.');"><sup>19</sup></span> nothar is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and leaven is forbidden for eating and for [all] use: just as nothar requires burning, so does leaven require burning. Let the ox that is stoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 28.');"><sup>20</sup></span> prove it, they replied: i is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, yet it does not require burning. Said he to them, There is a difference: Nothar is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and he [who eats it] is punished with kareth, and leaven is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and he is punished with kareth: just as nothar [must be destroyed] by burning, so is leaven [destroyed] by burning. Said they to him, Let the heleb of the ox that is stoned prove it, which is forbidden for eating, for [all] use, and involves the penalty of kareth, yet it does n require burning.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter