## Pesachim Daf 27b

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

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ — שָׁרוּ אֲפִילּוּ כְּשֶׁאֲבוּקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, אֶלָּא עֵצִים דְּאִיסּוּרָא לְרַבָּנַן הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לְהוּ? אָמַר רַב אַמֵּי בַּר חָמָא: בְּשַׁרְשִׁיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Does this prove **by inference that the Rabbis who disagree with** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **permit** one to eat this bread **even when the flame is opposite it? But** if this is the case, **where do you find the case** where **it is prohibited according to the Rabbis** to derive benefit from **wood? Rav Ami bar Ḥama said:** It is found **in** the case of **a stool** made from the wood. Although they hold that it is permitted to derive indirect benefit from the wood, even the Rabbis agree that one may not derive benefit from a stool that is made from the wood itself.


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

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ בַּעֲצֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאָפָה בּוֹ הַפַּת, לְרַבָּנַן דְּשָׁרוּ בְּקַמַּיְיתָא, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה. וּמָה בֵּין זוֹ לְעׇרְלָה?! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! עׇרְלָה בְּטֵילָה בְּמָאתַיִם, הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶלֶף לֹא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda:** With regard to **an oven that one kindled with consecrated wood and baked bread in it, according to the Rabbis, who permitted** the bread **in the first** case where it was baked with *orla* wood, **what is the *halakha*? He said to him: The bread is prohibited.** He responded: **What is the difference between this** bread **and** bread baked with ***orla*** peels? **Rava said: How can** these cases **be compared? *Orla* is nullified** in a mixture of one part in **two hundred;** it is possible that less than this amount of *orla* was absorbed by the bread. However, **consecrated** wood **is not nullified even in** a mixture of one part in **one thousand.** Therefore, even when there is only a miniscule amount of the consecrated matter in the bread it is still prohibited.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ — הָא קַשְׁיָא: וַהֲלֹא מָעַל הַמַּסִּיק, וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּמָעַל הַמַּסִּיק נָפְקוּ לְהוּ לְחוּלִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: If it was difficult for** Rami bar Ḥama, **this is** what he found **difficult: Didn’t the kindler** of the fire transgress the prohibition of **misuse** of **consecrated property,** as anyone who unwittingly uses consecrated property for a non-sacred use violates this prohibition? **And any** case **where the kindler** of an oven **misuses consecrated property** by doing so, the wood **is transferred to non-sacred** status. The wood loses its sanctity when misused, and the one who misused it must donate other wood to the Temple in its place. In that case, the wood used to heat the oven is non-sacred wood and the bread should be permitted.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בַּעֲצֵי שְׁלָמִים עָסְקִינַן, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוֹגֵג מִתְחַלֵּל, בְּמֵזִיד אֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with wood** which had been set aside **for** purchasing **peace-offerings.** This wood, while sanctified, has a lesser status of sanctity and does not become fully consecrated until the blood of the offering has been sprinkled. **And** this dilemma was raised **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who **said:** If one **unwittingly** misused **consecrated property, it becomes desecrated** and loses its elevated status. However, if one used the object **intentionally, it is not desecrated** and remains consecrated. Since the act here is intentional, the consecrated wood does not lose its status.


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

בְּמֵזִיד מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בַּר מְעִילָה — הוּא לָא נָפֵיק לְחוּלִּין. שְׁלָמִים נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בַּר מְעִילָה נִינְהוּ — לָא נָפְקָא לְחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** that when one **intentionally** uses this object it does **not** lose its status? **Since** it is **not subject to** the *halakha* of **misuse of consecrated property,** as one is liable to bring an offering only for unwitting misuse of consecrated property, **it is not transferred to non-sacred** status. The same *halakha* applies to the wood set aside for **peace-offerings as well. Since** at that stage **it is not subject to** the *halakha* of **misuse of consecrated property,** as that applies only after the animal’s blood has been sprinkled, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even if one unwittingly uses this wood, **it is not transferred to non-sacred** status; rather, it remains prohibited.


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

וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּמָעַל הַמַּסִּיק נָפְקִי לְחוּלִּין? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כׇּל הַנִּשְׂרָפִין — אֶפְרָן מוּתָּר, חוּץ מֵעֲצֵי אֲשֵׁירָה. וְאֵפֶר הֶקְדֵּשׁ — לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And anywhere the kindler** of an oven transgresses the prohibition of **misuse of consecrated property** by using consecrated wood, **is it transferred to non-sacred** status? **Wasn’t** it **taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **all** prohibited items **that must be burned, their ashes are permitted** after the burning, **except for wood from an *asheira*? And consecrated ash is prohibited forever.** Therefore, it is possible that when one kindles an oven with this consecrated wood, although he misuses consecrated property, the ash remains prohibited.


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

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלָה דְּלֵיקָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ בַּעֲצֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, דְּלֵיכָּא אִינָשׁ דְּנִמְעוֹל. רַב שְׁמַעְיָה אָמַר: בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשָׂמוֹ״ בְּנַחַת, ״וְשָׂמוֹ״ כּוּלּוֹ, ״וְשָׂמוֹ״ שֶׁלֹּא יְפַזֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said:** That *baraita* is discussing a case **where a fire began on its own among consecrated wood and there is no one who misused consecrated property.** Since this is the case, even the ash that is left from this wood remains consecrated property and one may not benefit from it. **Rav Shemaya said:** This *baraita* is dealing **with those** types of consecrated ash **that require burial,** such as the ash removed from the altar. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: “And he shall take up the ash from where the fire has consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put it beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). The phrase **“And he shall put it”** indicates that he must do so **gently; “and he shall put it”** also indicates that he must place **all of it; “and he shall put it”** also indicates **that he** may **not scatter** the ashes. Apparently, even after the offering has been burned it remains sacred, and one may not derive benefit from it. However, when it was burned it was not subject to misuse of consecrated property, as its burning is a necessary step in the process of sacrificing the offerings.


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין בִּיעוּר וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵין בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָּא שְׂרֵיפָה, וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: וּמָה נוֹתָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״ — טָעוּן שְׂרֵיפָה, חָמֵץ שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁטָּעוּן שְׂרֵיפָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal of leavened bread is** to be accomplished **only** through **burning. It was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda said: The removal of leavened bread is** to be accomplished **only through burning. And a logical derivation leads** to this conclusion: **Just as** that which is **left over** from an offering after the time period in which it may be eaten, **which is not subject to** the prohibitions: **It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, requires burning, so too,** with regard to **leavened bread,** which is more stringent **as it is subject to** the prohibitions of: **It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, all the more so** is it **not** clear **that it requires burning?**


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

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כׇּל דִּין שֶׁאַתָּה דָּן תְּחִלָּתוֹ לְהַחְמִיר וְסוֹפוֹ לְהָקֵל אֵינוֹ דִּין. לֹא מָצָא עֵצִים לְשׂוֹרְפוֹ יְהֵא יוֹשֵׁב וּבָטֵל? וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאוֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם״, בְּכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to him: Any logical derivation that you derive** whose **initial** teaching **is stringent but whose subsequent** consequences **are lenient is not** a valid **logical derivation.** According to Rabbi Yehuda, if one **did not find wood to burn** his leavened bread, must **he sit idly** and not remove it? **And the Torah said: “You shall remove leaven from your houses”** (Exodus 12:15), indicating that this must be done **in any manner which you can remove it.** Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda’s logical derivation leads to a leniency.


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

חָזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְדָנוֹ דִּין אַחֵר: נוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְחָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. מָה נוֹתָר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה — אַף חָמֵץ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Then Rabbi Yehuda presented a different logical derivation** based on the principle of: What do we find with regard to, rather than on an *a fortiori* inference (Rashash). **It is prohibited to eat the leftover** of offerings **and it is prohibited to eat leavened bread.** Based on this similarity, one can conclude that **just as the leftover** of offerings **requires burning, so too, leavened bread requires burning.**


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

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: נְבֵילָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה וְאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה שְׂרֵיפָה! אָמַר לָהֶן, הֶפְרֵשׁ: נוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָאָה, וְחָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָאָה. מָה נוֹתָר טָעוּן שְׂרֵיפָה — אַף חָמֵץ טָעוּן שְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said to him:** The case of **an animal carcass can prove** that eating the leftover of offerings is not a factor in determining whether or not leavened bread requires burning, **as eating** an animal carcass **is prohibited and it does not require burning.** Therefore, there is no clear connection between the prohibition to eat a particular object and a requirement to burn it. **He said to them:** There is a **difference** between these cases, as it is explicitly stated that one may benefit from an animal corpse. Therefore, the following comparison can be made: **It is prohibited to eat and** derive **benefit from the leftover** of sacrificial meat, **and it is prohibited to eat and** derive **benefit from leavened bread. Just as the leftover** of sacrificial meat **requires burning, so too, leavened bread requires burning.**


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

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָאָה — וְאֵינוֹ טָעוּן שְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן, הֶפְרֵשׁ: נוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָאָה וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְחָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָאָה וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, מָה נוֹתָר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה — אַף חָמֵץ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָאָה וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — וְאֵין טָעוּן שְׂרֵיפָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to him:** The case of **an ox that is stoned can prove** that this is not a clear factor, **as it is prohibited to eat and** derive **benefit** from such an ox **and it does not require burning. He said to them:** There is a **difference** between leavened bread and an ox that is stoned, as there is an additional factor that is not relevant to the ox. **It is prohibited to eat and** derive **benefit from the leftover** of sacrificial meat, and one who does so is **punished with *karet*. And it is prohibited to eat and** derive **benefit from leavened bread, and** one who does so is **punished with *karet*. Just as the leftover** of sacrificial meat requires **burning, so too, leavened bread** requires **burning. They said to him:** If so, **the fats of an ox that is stoned can prove** that this too is an insignificant factor, **as it is prohibited to eat** the fats and derive **benefit** from them, and one who eats them is **punished with *karet*, and they do not require burning.**