## Pesachim Daf 27a

###### Pesachim 27a:1
[Pesachim 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:1)

עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁקָּדַם וְסִילֵּק אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אֲבָל לֹא קָדַם וְסִילֵּק אֶת הָאִיסּוּר — אָסוּר, אַלְמָא זֶה וְזֶה גּוֹרֵם אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**until there is enough** of the prohibited leaven **to cause** the dough **to become leavened bread. And Abaye said:** Rabbi Eliezer **taught** that when the permitted leaven fell in last, the mixture is permitted **only** when **he first removed the prohibited** leaven before the permitted leaven fell into the dough and made it rise. **However, if he did not first remove the prohibited leaven,** the dough **is prohibited** even if the permitted leaven fell in last. **Apparently,** when **both this and that cause** the dough to become leavened bread, **it is prohibited.**


###### Pesachim 27a:2
[Pesachim 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:2)

וּמִמַּאי דְּטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּאַבָּיֵי? דִּילְמָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם דְּאַחַר אַחֲרוֹן אֲנִי בָּא — לָא שְׁנָא קָדַם וְסִילֵּק אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, לָא שְׁנָא לֹא קָדַם וְסִילֵּק אֶת הָאִיסּוּר. אֲבָל בְּבַת אַחַת, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּשְׁרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this statement: And **from where** is it apparent **that the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s** opinion **is in accordance with Abaye’s** explanation? **Perhaps the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s** opinion **is due to** the following, which Rabbi Eliezer said explicitly: **I follow the final** element. **And it is no different** if **he first removed the prohibited item and it is no different** if **he did not first remove the prohibited item. However,** if they both fell in **at once it should be permitted,** because where both this and that cause the dough to become leavened bread Rabbi Eliezer rules that the mixture is permitted.


###### Pesachim 27a:3
[Pesachim 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:3)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דַּעֲצֵי אֲשֵׁירָה, דִּתְנַן: נָטַל הֵימֶנָּה עֵצִים — אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה. הִסִּיק בָּהֶן אֶת הַתַּנּוּר, חָדָשׁ — יוּתַּץ, יָשָׁן — יוּצַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the reference is to the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer** with regard to **wood from an *asheira*. As we learned** in a mishna: If **one took wood from** an *asheira*, **it is prohibited to** derive **benefit from it.** With regard to **one** who **lit an oven with** the wood, if it was a **new** oven, **it** must **be broken.** If it was an **old** oven, **it** may **be cooled.**


###### Pesachim 27a:4
[Pesachim 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:4)

אָפָה בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת — אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה. נִתְעָרְבָה בְּאַחֲרוֹת וַאֲחֵרוֹת בַּאֲחֵרוֹת — כּוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יוֹלִיךְ הֲנָאָה לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. (אָמַר) לוֹ: אֵין פִּדְיוֹן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one baked bread** with *asheira* wood as the fuel, **it is prohibited to** derive **benefit from it.** If this bread **was mixed together with other** bread, **and** that **other** bread **was mixed with other** bread, **it is prohibited to derive benefit from all** of this bread. **Rabbi Eliezer says: He casts the benefit into the Dead Sea [*Yam HaMelaḥ*].** In other words, one is not required to destroy the entire mixture when the prohibited bread is mixed with a large quantity of other bread. Instead one should designate money equal in value to the value of the original wood from the *asheira*, and he should destroy this money to offset the benefit he derived from the prohibited wood. The first *tanna* **said to him: Idolatry cannot be** monetarily **redeemed.** Once the bread becomes prohibited, it cannot be redeemed by having its value cast into the Dead Sea. Apparently, the opinion of both Sages, including Rabbi Eliezer, is that when both this permitted object and that prohibited object cause a change to another item, the latter item is prohibited.


###### Pesachim 27a:5
[Pesachim 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:5)

אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — דַּחֲמִיר אִיסּוּרַהּ, בִּשְׁאָר אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן, אַמַּאן תִּרְמְיַיהּ? וְעוֹד, הָא תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹסֵר בְּכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer** and the first *tanna* are stringent in this matter **with regard to idolatry, whose prohibition is stringent.** However, **with regard to other prohibitions in the Torah,** which are less stringent, **did you hear him** express this opinion? The Gemara responds to this question: **Rather, if** it is **so** that Rabbi Eliezer does not hold the same opinion with regard to other prohibitions, **to whom will you attribute** this *baraita*? If it is not Rabbi Eliezer who says this, then who is it? **And furthermore, wasn’t** it **taught explicitly** in a *baraita*: **And, similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would prohibit** these types of mixtures **with regard to all prohibitions in the Torah.**


###### Pesachim 27a:6
[Pesachim 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר ״זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם אָסוּר״ — רַבִּי הַיְינוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר ״זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם מוּתָּר״, וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם דְּיֵשׁ שֶׁבַח עֵצִים בְּפַת הוּא — הָנֵי קְעָרוֹת וְכוֹסוֹת וּצְלוֹחִיּוֹת אֲסִירִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: If you say,** based on the previously stated opinions, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that when **both this and that cause, it is prohibited,** then the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **is** identical to the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** as both state that it is prohibited for this same reason. **And if you say** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that when **both this and that cause, it is permitted, and here,** where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that it is prohibited, **it is because there is improvement from the wood in the bread** itself, then in that case, deriving benefit from any of **these** earthenware **bowls, cups, and flasks** that were made in such an oven should also **be prohibited,** since the improvement from the wood is in them as well. If one were to use such utensils he would be deriving benefit from a prohibited item.


###### Pesachim 27a:7
[Pesachim 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:7)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּתַנּוּר וּקְדֵירָה: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם אָסוּר״ — אָסוּר. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם מוּתָּר״ — שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages **disagree is** in a case **where an oven and a pot** were formed using prohibited wood. **According to the one who says** that when **both this and that cause it is prohibited, it is prohibited** to derive benefit from these as well, since the prohibited item was a contributing factor in the initial formation of the object. However, **according to the one who says** that when **both this and that cause, it is permitted, it is permitted** to derive benefit from them. This is because one derives benefit from the prohibited oven and pot only once they have been subsequently heated by permitted wood. Therefore, the influence on the pot of the prohibited item is only one component in the preparation of this food.


###### Pesachim 27a:8
[Pesachim 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:8)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם מוּתָּר״, קְדֵירָה — אֲסוּרָה, דְּהָא קַבְּלָה בִּישּׁוּלָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּנִיתֵּן עֵצִים דְּהֶיתֵּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that **even according to the one who says** that when **both this and that cause, it is permitted, the pot** made through the use of prohibited wood **is prohibited, since it holds the food** inside it **before the permitted wood is placed** in the oven. Therefore, one derives benefit from the prohibited vessel itself without any contribution from a permitted source.


###### Pesachim 27a:9
[Pesachim 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:9)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עׇרְלָה, אוֹ בְּקַשִּׁין שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, חָדָשׁ — יוּתַּץ, יָשָׁן — יוּצַן. אָפָה בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הַפַּת מוּתֶּרֶת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה. וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא! שְׁמוּאֵל אִיפְּכָא תָּנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said** that **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to **an oven that one lit with peels of *orla*** fruit, **or with straw** of grain that was planted in a prohibited mixture of **diverse kinds in a vineyard,** if it is a **new** oven, **it** must **be shattered.** If it is an **old** oven, **it** may **be cooled.** If **one baked bread in it, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: The bread is permitted, and the Rabbis say: The bread is prohibited.** The Gemara challenges: **Wasn’t the reverse taught** in the *baraita*? The Gemara answers: **Shmuel teaches the reverse,** that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who permits one to derive benefit from this bread even in the previously mentioned *baraita*.


###### Pesachim 27a:10
[Pesachim 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:10)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּעָלְמָא קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְלֹא מֵחֲבֵירָיו, וּבְהָא — אֲפִילּוּ מֵחֲבֵירָיו. וְסָבַר אַתְנְיַיהּ אִיפְּכָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנֵיקוּם רַבָּנַן לְאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say:** Shmuel accepts the original text of the *baraita* that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who prohibits deriving benefit from the bread. And **generally, Shmuel holds** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **over his** individual **colleague** who disagrees; however, the *halakha* does **not** follow him **over** several of **his colleagues** who disagree. **And in this** particular case, the *halakha* follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **even over his colleagues. And** Shmuel **holds: I will reverse** the two sides presented here, **in order to establish the Rabbis’** opinion **as a prohibition.** Therefore, the conclusion will be to rule that it is prohibited, in accordance with the majority opinion. Although in Shmuel’s version the attributions of the opinions are technically inaccurate, the benefit is that when people see that the Rabbis rule that it is prohibited in this case, they will be inclined to accept their majority opinion, which is the correct *halakha*.


###### Pesachim 27a:11
[Pesachim 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:11)

בִּישְּׁלָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הַפַּת מוּתֶּרֶת. (אָמַר) רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, חַד אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא גֶּחָלִים עוֹמְמוֹת, אֲבָל גֶּחָלִים לוֹחֲשׁוֹת — אֲסוּרִין, וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ גֶּחָלִים לוֹחֲשׁוֹת נָמֵי מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught as part of the previously stated *halakha* that if **one cooked** the bread **over coals** produced from an *asheira*, **everyone agrees that the bread is permitted.** The Gemara records a dispute: **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said** one opinion, **and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** another opinion. **One** of them **said: They taught** this leniency **only** when one cooks with **dim coals,** whose heat is merely a remnant of the earlier lighting; **however,** when one cooks with **glowing coals,** the bread is **prohibited. And one** of them **said: Even** when **the coals are glowing,** the bread is **also permitted.**


###### Pesachim 27a:12
[Pesachim 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/27a:12)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לוֹחֲשׁוֹת אֲסוּרִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּיֵשׁ שֶׁבַח עֵצִים בַּפַּת. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲפִילּוּ לוֹחֲשׁוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, פַּת דְּאָסַר דְּיֵשׁ שֶׁבַח עֵצִים בַּפַּת לְרַבִּי הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּשֶׁאֲבוּקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to the one who said** that baking with **glowing** coals renders the bread **prohibited,** this is **because there is improvement from the** prohibited **wood in the bread. However, according to the one** who **said** that **even** when baking with **glowing** coals the bread is **permitted,** since they are no longer considered to be wood, **where do you find the case** where **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **deems bread to be prohibited because there is improvement from** the prohibited **wood in it?** Why should there be a difference between glowing coals and actual burning wood? **Rav Pappa said:** The case is **when a flame is** directly **opposite** the bread. When he cooks the bread directly in front of the wood, it is improved directly by the wood. When the coals are merely glowing, there is no direct benefit from the wood.