Support (Abaye, for himself - Beraisa): R. Yochanan ben Zakai used to sit in the shade of the Heichal [even though it is forbidden to benefit from it] and expound all day long.

He cannot avoid benefit (no other shaded place would fit all the Talmidim), and intends to benefit, yet it is permitted!

Rejection (Rava): The walls of the Heichal are for the sake of its inside (Tosfos - Hana'ah from the outside is not the normal way to benefit from it - we learn Me'ilah from Terumah, it applies only to normal benefit; R. Chananel - there is no Kedushah to its shade).

Version #1 - Support (Rava, for himself - Mishnah): There were openings in the roof of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, when it was necessary to make repairs they would lower workers in boxes [closed on three sides] so the workers should not benefit from seeing more of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim than necessary.

He cannot avoid benefit, and intends to benefit, and it is forbidden!

Objection: This cannot be - R. Shimon ben Pazi taught that Me'ilah does not apply to sound, sights or smells!

Conclusion: You must say that this was a mere stringency regarding the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.

Version #2 - Support (Rava, for himself - R. Shimon ben Pazi): Me'ilah does not apply to sound, sights or smells. (Even though this is not a Beraisa (see Rashash), Rava brings a support from it because earlier Chachamim taught it and no one argues with it.)

Inference: Me'ilah does not apply, but it is forbidden.

Suggestion: This applies to Kohanim serving inside the Heichal - they cannot avoid benefit, and intend to benefit, and it is forbidden!

Rejection: No, it applies to people outside - they could avoid benefit.

(R. Shimon ben Pazi): Me'ilah does not apply to sound, sights or smells.

Question: Me'ilah does apply to smells!

(Beraisa): If one prepares Ketores [according to the formula used in the Mikdash] to practice [making it for the Tzibur] or in order to give it to the Tzibur, he is exempt. (Chasdei David, beginning of third Perek of Makos - there is an argument in the Yerushalmi whether or not Chulin Ketores given to the Tzibur is Kosher - it is permitted to make [Chulin] Ketores with this intent only according to the opinion that is Machshir.)

If he made it in order to smell it, he is liable;

If he smelled it, he is exempt [from Kares], but he was Mo'el (transgressed Me'ilah).

Answer (Rav Papa): Me'ilah does not apply to sound and sights, for they are intangible;

Me'ilah does not apply to the smell [of Ketores] after the cloud has risen, for the Mitzvah was completed [it is no longer needed for Hekdesh].

Inference: This implies that Me'ilah never applies to something after its Mitzvah was completed.

Question: Me'ilah applies to Terumas ha'Deshen (taking ashes off the Mizbe'ach) after the Mitzvah is completed!

(Beraisa): "V'Samo" - the ashes must be placed down, gently (Rambam - in a place shielded from wind and pigs), in order that they will not be scattered;

"V'Samo" - [they must be placed and left there,] one may not benefit from them.

Answer #1: Terumas ha'Deshen and Bigdei Kehunah are Shenei Kesuvim (two verses teaching the same thing, i.e. there is Me'ilah after the Mitzvah was done), they do not teach about other laws:

(Beraisa): "V'Hinicham Sham" requires putting the linen garments [used by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur] into Genizah (they may not be used again).

Question: This is like Chachamim, who obligate Genizah;

R. Dosa argues - he says that "V'Hinicham Sham" forbids a Kohen Gadol to use them on another Yom Kipur, but a regular Kohen may use them - how can we answer for him?

Answer #2: Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah (a calf beheaded when a murdered corpse is found) are Shenei Kesuvim.

Question: According to the opinion that Shenei Kesuvim teach about other cases, how can we answer?

Answer #3: Regarding each, a verse teaches not to learn to other cases:

It says "Ha'Arufah" and "V'Samo" (but elsewhere, there is no Me'ilah after the Mitzvah).

Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): If a calf was brought into Revakah (a team of yoked animals) and threshed [this is not considered that the owner worked with it -] it is not disqualified [from being used for Parah Adumah or Eglah Arufah - see note 16 in Appendix];

If it was brought in so it will nurse and thresh, it is disqualified.

Here he cannot avoid bringing it in [to nurse], and he intends [for it to work], and it is disqualified!

Answer: Since it says "Asher Lo Uvad Bah" [regarding Eglah Arufah; we learn to Parah Adumah], it is disqualified if it worked in any case.

Question: If so, also in the Reisha it should be disqualified!

Answer: The Reisha is like the following:

(Mishnah): If a bird rested on a Parah Adumah, it is not disqualified; if a male mated with it, it is disqualified.

Question: Why is this?

Answer: This is like Rav Papa's teaching.

(Rav Papa): Had the Torah written 'Uvad [Bah]' [normally, i.e. with a Vov, connoting work was done with it], and we would pronounce it 'Uvad', we would disqualify Eglah Arufah even if it worked by itself;

Had it written 'Avad' [without a Vov], and we would pronounce it 'Avad', this would connote that [it is Pasul only if] one worked with it;

Rather, the Torah wrote "Avad" and there is a tradition to pronounce it "Uvad" - we disqualify it if Uvad (it worked) similar to Avad (one worked with it), i.e. he is pleased that it worked.

Question (Beraisa): [If one is watching a found garment until the owner will claim it,] he may not spread it for his needs on a bed or peg; he does so for its sake;

If guests came, he may not do this for his needs and its sake together.

Answer: There is different, for [if he spreads it] it will be ruined, either on account of Ayin ha'Ra, or lest it will be stolen.

Question (Mishnah): One who sells garments [with Sha'atnez] may sell normally [he wears it to display it], as long as he does not intend that it will protect him from the sun or rain [or cold, and it is possible that he would be protected without the Sha'atnez, i.e. he also wears other garments at the time].

Tzenu'im [who are careful to avoid suspicion] hang such garments on a stick in back of them.

It is possible to avoid benefit, like Tzenu'im, nevertheless it is permitted if he does not intend to benefit!

According to Version #1, Rava is refuted.

(Mishnah): One may not use (burn) it to heat an oven;

(Beraisa #1): If an oven was heated with peels of Orlah or straw of Kil'ai ha'Kerem:

If it is a new oven (this is the first time it was heated, which solidifies it - since this was done through an Isur,) it must be destroyed;

If it is an old oven, one must let it cool down [before baking in it].

Rebbi says, if one baked in it while it was still hot, the bread is forbidden [it was improved by Isur];

Chachamim permit it.

If one cooked food on top of coals, all permit it (the Isur has changed form; the coals are permitted).

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): Whether the oven was new or old, one lets it cool down.

Resolution #1: [The first Tana] of Beraisa #1 is Rebbi (just like he considers the bread to be improved by Isur, the same applies to an oven); Beraisa #2 is Chachamim.

Objection: Granted, Rebbi holds that Yesh Shevach Etzim b'Pas (we say that the bread was improved by the [forbidden] wood, and similarly regarding an oven) - but do we find that he forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem (a result of Isur and Heter, e.g. something baked in a 'forbidden' oven using permitted wood? One may use the oven if Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is permitted!)

Resolution #2: Beraisa #1 is R. Eliezer; Beraisa #2 is Chachamim.

Question: Where do we find that R. Eliezer forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem?

Answer #1 (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If Se'or of Chulin and of Terumah fell into a dough; and there was not enough of either one to ferment it, and together they fermented it, the dough is like the last one that fell in (if it was Terumah, it must be eaten by Kohanim in Taharah);

Chachamim say, no matter which fell in last, it is forbidden [like Terumah] only if there was enough [Se'or of] Terumah itself to ferment it [but not enough Chulin to ferment it - Tosfos].

(Abaye): R. Eliezer permits [when the Chulin fell in last] only if the Terumah was removed before the Chulin fell in; if not, it is forbidden [on account of Zeh v'Zeh Gorem].