## Pesachim Daf 26b

###### Pesachim 26b:1
[Pesachim 26b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:1)

הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְהָא: שָׁכַן עָלֶיהָ עוֹף — כְּשֵׁירָה, עָלָה עָלֶיהָ זָכָר — פְּסוּלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers. **This** case **is comparable only to that** other case: If **a bird landed on** the red heifer **it** remains **valid,** since this is not considered to be like bearing a yoke. If **a male** animal **mounted it** to mate with it, **it is unfit** and may not be used for the ritual. The same applies in this case: When the owner moves the heifer into a pen and it threshes, since the owner is uninterested in this action, it is like the case of the bird and the heifer remains valid. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the difference between the case where a bird lands on it and where a male animal attempts to mate with it?


###### Pesachim 26b:2
[Pesachim 26b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:2)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי כְּתִיב ״עָבַד״ וְקָרֵינַן ״עָבַד״ — עַד דְּעָבֵיד בָּהּ אִיהוּ. אִי כְּתִיב ״עוּבַּד״ וְקָרֵינַן ״עוּבַּד״ — אֲפִילּוּ מִמֵּילָא נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that the verse says: “And the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which has not been used for work, and which has not drawn in the yoke” (Deuteronomy 21:3). **If it were written: “He worked [*avad*],” and we read: “He worked [*avad*],”** this word choice would indicate that the heifer could still be used **until he,** the owner of the heifer himself, **used it** willingly for labor. **If it were written: “It was worked [*ubbad*],” and we read: “It was worked [*ubbad*],”** it would indicate that **even** if it performed labor **on its own it is also** prohibited to use it, since some form of labor had been done with it.


###### Pesachim 26b:3
[Pesachim 26b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:3)

הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״עָבַד״ וְקָרֵינַן ״עוּבַּד״ — עוּבַּד דּוּמְיָא דְּעָבַד. מָה עָבַד דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ, אַף עוּבַּד דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Now that it is written: “He worked [*avad*],” but we read** this word as: **“It was worked [*ubbad*],”** both meanings are intended: It is prohibited if **it is worked in a similar** manner to the way **he works.** In other words, **just as** the owner **works** the animal in a way **that is beneficial to him, so too,** the animal becomes prohibited only when **it is worked** in a way **that causes him to** derive **benefit** from this labor. Therefore, it still may be used if a bird lands on it, because the owner does not derive benefit from this in any way. However, if a male bull mates with this heifer it is rendered unfit, since the owner generally has an interest in this occurring.


###### Pesachim 26b:4
[Pesachim 26b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֲבֵידָה, לֹא יִשְׁטָחֶנָּה לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מַגּוֹד לְצוֹרְכּוֹ, אֲבָל שׁוֹטְחָהּ לְצוֹרְכָּהּ עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה וְעַל גַּבֵּי מַגּוֹד. נִזְדַּמְּנוּ לוֹ אוֹרְחִין, לֹא יִשְׁטָחֶנָּה לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מַגּוֹד, בֵּין לְצוֹרְכָּהּ בֵּין לְצוֹרְכּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an additional proof. **Come** and **hear** from that which is taught: If one finds **a lost item, he** may **not spread it out over a bed or over a frame for his** own **purposes,** since this is deriving benefit from an object that does not belong to him. **However, he** may **spread it out over a bed or a frame for its** own **sake** if it requires airing. **If guests happen** to come **to him, he may not spread it out, neither for its sake nor for his** own **purpose.** Apparently, the benefit is unavoidable and intended, as there is no other way for him to care for the lost object, and he benefits from having his guests see the item; nonetheless, it is still prohibited. This seems to prove that Rava’s opinion is correct.


###### Pesachim 26b:5
[Pesachim 26b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:5)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּקָלֵי לַהּ, אִי מִשּׁוּם עֵינָא בִּישָׁא, אִי מִשּׁוּם גַּנָּבֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **It is different there, as** he risks **damaging it, either due to the evil eye** that he casts upon it **or due to the thieves** who will now know that this valuable item is in his possession and will attempt to steal it. It is not prohibited because of the benefit; rather, it is prohibited due to the concern that he may damage the item.


###### Pesachim 26b:6
[Pesachim 26b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מוֹכְרֵי כְסוּת מוֹכְרִין כְּדַרְכָּן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּין בַּחַמָּה מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה, וּבַגְּשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. וְהַצְּנוּעִין מַפְשִׁילִין לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם בְּמַקֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers a final proof. **Come** and **hear** a proof based on the following mishna: **Clothing merchants** who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may **sell them as they normally would** to gentiles. A merchant may place the garments he is selling on his shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, **provided he does not intend** to benefit from the garments **in the sun** as protection **from the sun, or in the rain** as protection **from the rain. However, the modest** people, those who are meticulous in their performance of mitzvot, **suspend** the wool and linen garments **on a stick behind them.**


###### Pesachim 26b:7
[Pesachim 26b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:7)

וְהָא הָכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְמֶעְבַּד כִּצְנוּעִין, וְכִי לָא מְכַוֵּין — שְׁרֵי. תְּיוּבְתָּא לְמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא דְּרָבָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And here, isn’t it** a case where **it is possible** for all clothing merchants **to act like the modest** people and not derive benefit from the mixture of wool and linen? Nonetheless, the mishna states that **when one does not intend** to benefit from the prohibited item, **it is permitted** to do so. This presents **a conclusive refutation to he who taught the first version** of **Rava’s** statement. According to this version, one is prohibited from deriving benefit when it is possible to avoid doing so and he does not intend to derive benefit. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Pesachim 26b:8
[Pesachim 26b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:8)

וְלֹא יַסִּיק בּוֹ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עׇרְלָה אוֹ בְּקַשִּׁין שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, חָדָשׁ — יוּתַּץ, יָשָׁן — יוּצַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the mishna that **one may not** even **light** the oven **with** leavened bread. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **an oven that one lit with the peels of *orla*** fruit, **or with straw** of grain that was planted in a prohibited mixture **of diverse kinds in a vineyard,** if it was a **new** oven, and by lighting it he hardened the oven and made it stronger for use in the future, then **it** must **be shattered.** Since prohibited items were used in the process of forming the oven, one may not derive benefit from the use of the prohibited items. However, if it was an **old** oven, **it** may **be cooled,** and it is prohibited to use the oven only while it is still hot.


###### Pesachim 26b:9
[Pesachim 26b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:9)

אָפָה בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַפַּת מוּתֶּרֶת. בִּישְּׁלָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **one** who **baked bread in** the oven while it was heated or strengthened by the prohibited items, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: It is prohibited** to eat or derive benefit from **the bread,** since prohibited items were involved in the process of preparation. **And the Rabbis say: It is permitted** to eat and derive benefit from **the bread.** If **he cooked** the bread **over the coals** that remained from prohibited wood, **everyone agrees** that **it is permitted.**


###### Pesachim 26b:10
[Pesachim 26b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:10)

וְהָא תַּנְיָא: בֵּין חָדָשׁ וּבֵין יָשָׁן יוּצַן! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — רַבִּי, וְהָא — רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks. **Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Whether** it was **an old** oven **or a new** oven **it** may **be cooled;** there is never a need to shatter the oven? The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. This** *baraita*, which states that one is required to shatter the oven, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And that** *baraita*, which states that it is sufficient to let the oven cool, is in accordance with the opinion of the **Rabbis.** Since the prohibited objects merely strengthen the oven, the Rabbis hold that it is enough to let the oven cool. By cooling the oven one no longer derives benefit from the prohibited items used to light it, and there is no need to shatter the oven.


###### Pesachim 26b:11
[Pesachim 26b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:11)

אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מִשּׁוּם דְּיֵשׁ שֶׁבַח עֵצִים בַּפַּת. זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא — רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this answer: **Say** that **you heard that Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi prohibits one from deriving benefit from bread baked using the prohibited objects as kindling **because there is improvement from the wood** used to light the oven **in the bread,** and therefore, it is prohibited. However, in a different case, namely, when **both this and that cause it,** i.e., both permitted and prohibited items contribute to the result, such as when one subsequently bakes in this oven and benefit is derived both from the prohibited wood that strengthened the oven and from permitted wood that is used in subsequent baking, **did you hear him** say that it is prohibited as well? **Rather,** reject this explanation and say: This is **not difficult. This** stringent *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who says that in a case where both this and that cause it, it is prohibited. And **that** lenient *baraita* is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** who disagree with regard to that principle.


###### Pesachim 26b:12
[Pesachim 26b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/26b:12)

הֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דִּשְׂאוֹר, דִּתְנַן: שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ עִיסָּה, וְאֵין בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ וְאֵין בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ, וְנִצְטָרְפוּ וְחִמְּצוּ — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן אֲנִי בָּא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל אִיסּוּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה, וּבֵין שֶׁנָּפַל אִיסּוּר לְבַסּוֹף — לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Which** statement of **Rabbi Eliezer** serves as the basis for this explanation? **If you say** that it is the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer** with regard to **leaven, as we learned** in a mishna: In a case where **non-sacred leaven and** leaven of ***teruma* fell into** non-sacred **dough, and neither one** alone **is** potent **enough to cause** the dough **to become leavened bread,** and **they** were **joined** together **and caused** the dough **to become leavened bread,** there is a dispute as to whether this dough is considered to be *teruma* or non-sacred bread. **Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final** element that fell into the dough. If the *teruma* fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. **And the Rabbis say: Whether the prohibited item,** i.e., the *teruma*, **fell** in **first or the prohibited item fell** in **last, it never** renders the dough **prohibited**