Study Pesachim folio 27B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מכלל דרבנן דפליגי עליה — שרו אפילו כשאבוקה כנגדו, אלא עצים דאיסורא לרבנן היכי משכחת להו? אמר רב אמי בר חמא: בשרשיפא.
The Talmud asks: Does this prove by inference that the Rabbis who disagree with R' 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.
בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא: תנור שהסיקו בעצי הקדש, ואפה בו הפת, לרבנן דשרו בקמייתא, מאי? אמר ליה: הפת אסורה. ומה בין זו לערלה?! אמר רבא: הכי השתא?! ערלה בטילה במאתים, הקדש אפילו באלף לא בטיל.
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 200; 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 1,000. Therefore, even when there is only a miniscule amount of the consecrated matter in the bread it is still prohibited.
אלא אמר רבא: אי קשיא ליה — הא קשיא: והלא מעל המסיק, וכל היכא דמעל המסיק נפקו להו לחולין!
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.