Pesachim 74a (עד.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

It is written in the passage concerning the Paschal offering: “And they shall eat the flesh on this night, roasted over fire, and matzot with bitter herbs shall they eat it. Do not eat from it raw, or cooked in water, but only roasted over fire. Its head with its legs and with its innards.”

We have therefore learned:

A. The Paschal offering must be roasted whole, as one unit.

B. The Paschal offering must be roasted, and not cooked in water or in any other liquid.

C. The roasting must be specifically by the fire itself, and not by something that became heated because of the fire. For the Torah said: “Roasted over fire,” indicating that it must be roasted by fire and not roasted by means of something else, as will be explained in the Gemara.

And therefore the Sages said:

How do they roast the Paschal offering:

They bring a spit

a branch that is pointed on one side and thick on the other side

of

pomegranate

wood

and not one of metal or of another type of wood, as the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And they thrust it

on its pointed end

into its mouth

of the Paschal offering

until

it reaches

its place of excretion,

beneath the fat tail.

At the time of roasting, he turns the Paschal offering so that the lamb’s mouth is downward and its place of excretion is upward, and hangs it above the fire [Rambam]. The Paschal offering is thus suspended on the spit, with its thick end below, and it does not slip off the spit during roasting [Tosafot].

And he cuts the legs [the feet] from the knee joint downward [Meiri], and removes its innards and washes them [Rashi in the Pentateuch and Meiri].

The tanna’im disagreed as to how he roasts the legs and the innards together with the Paschal offering, as the Torah says: “Its head with its legs and with its innards”:

And he places its legs and its innards inside it

of the Paschal offering, and roasts it,

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says:

If he places the legs and the innards inside the Paschal offering, then

this is a form of cooking!

That is, it appears similar to cooking, since the matter resembles placing them inside a pot to be cooked there [Meiri].

Rather,

the Paschal offering was roasted as follows:

They suspend

the legs and the innards are suspended at the time of roasting

outside it

of the Paschal offering; they thrust them onto the spit, above the lamb’s mouth. Thus, during roasting, when he turns the spit, they are positioned below the lamb’s mouth, since he turns the Paschal offering at the time of roasting with its mouth downward, as explained [Tosafot Yom Tov in his understanding of Rashi].

The Paschal offering may not be roasted:

A.

on a spit

of iron!

For part of the spit protrudes beyond the Paschal offering and becomes heated there by the fire. As a result, the entire spit becomes heated, and the Paschal offering is roasted within it by the heat of the spit and not by the fire itself; this is not “roasted over fire.”

B.

nor on a grill

a solid metal surface without perforations, which they place over the fire and put the Paschal offering upon.

For the Paschal offering is roasted by the heat of the grill and not by the fire itself.

Rabbi Tzadok said: It happened that Rabban Gamliel said to Tavi, his slave, “Go and roast the Paschal offering for us on the perforated grill,”

as the Gemara explains; there it will be explained further.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: How do they roast the Paschal offering? They bring a spit of pomegranate wood.

And we raise a question about it:

And let him bring

why should the one roasting it not bring a spit

of metal?!

And we explain: With regard to a metal spit,

since it is hot

in part of it,

the part protruding beyond the Paschal offering, it becomes

entirely hot,

including the part inside the Paschal offering,

and it roasts

the Paschal offering within it

because of

the heat of

the spit.

And

this roasting is not valid, for

the Merciful One said: “Roasted over fire,” and not roasted because of something else,

such as the heat of the spit.

We further ask:

And let him bring

a spit

of

palm

wood?!

And we explain:

Since it has

the palm branch

fibers

which by their natural formation are arranged in rows, according to Rashi; and the Meiri wrote that it has cracks.

When it becomes heated [Rambam in his commentary on the Mishna and Meiri],

it emits moisture

the spit releases moisture from between the rows, at the middle of the spit that is inside the Paschal offering.

And

if so:

the Paschal offering becomes

the Paschal offering

like cooked food,

since that moisture becomes heated and partially cooks it, whereas the Torah said “roasted,” and not cooked [Meiri].

We further ask:

And let him bring

a spit

of fig wood?!

And we explain: Because

since it is porous

it has a core inside, according to Rashi; and the Meiri wrote that the fibers in it are not so hard, but rather porous and soft.

It

emits

the spit

moisture

into the Paschal offering, and the Paschal offering thereby becomes like cooked food.

We further ask:

And let him bring

a spit

of oak

or

of carob, and

a spit

of sycamore?!

And we explain: Because

since they have knots

like knots running along the length of the branch, they must be cut off because they protrude and prevent the spit from entering the flesh [Meiri].

The spit

emits

the spit

moisture

at the place of the cut, and it thereby becomes like cooked food.

And we ask: But the spit

of pomegranate wood,

which we deemed fit for roasting the Paschal offering upon,

also has knots,

so what distinguishes it from a spit of oak or the like?!

And we answer: The branch of a pomegranate tree has

smooth

the

knots; its knots do not protrude and do not prevent the spit from entering the flesh, and it is unnecessary to cut them off [Meiri].

on it do not protrude and do not prevent the spit from entering the meat, so there is no need to cut them off [Meiri].

And if you wish, say: The statement in the Mishna that one brings a spit of pomegranate wood does not refer to every branch of a pomegranate tree, but rather

to

to a one-year-old branch

a branch from a one-year-old sapling of a pomegranate tree,

which has no knots

at all.

And we ask:

And

since you are concerned to take a branch that requires cutting, then even a branch of pomegranate should not be fit, for

there is its cut place,

it has the place where it was cut from the tree, and there it releases moisture, causing it to become like cooked food.

And we answer:

He brings the cut place outward

he places the cut place outside the body of the Paschal offering, so that the moisture released there does not enter the Paschal offering, and it does not become like cooked food.

The Gemara now explains that

the Mishna

which prohibited roasting the Paschal offering on a metal spit, because “when part of it is hot, it is all hot,” and when the outer part of the spit becomes heated, the part inside the Paschal offering also becomes heated, and it is roasted within it by the heat of the spit, as explained above:

It is consistent

not with Rabbi Yehuda.

Since according to Rabbi Yehuda, in our case we do not say, “When part of it is hot, it is all hot,” because since the spit is inside the Paschal offering, the Paschal offering protects it from becoming heated.

For

this is how

it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Just as a wooden spit

that is inside the Paschal offering

does not burn

from the heat of the fire beneath it, since the body of the Paschal offering protects it,

so a metal spit does not boil

the part of it inside the Paschal offering because of the heat of the spit outside the Paschal offering; rather, the body of the Paschal offering protects it.

They said to him,

the Sages:

This,

the metal spit,

when part of it is hot, it is all hot, whereas this,

the wooden spit,

when part of it is hot, it is not all hot.

That is, although the wood inside the Paschal offering does not burn, the part of the spit inside the Paschal offering does in fact become boiling hot. However, with a wooden spit, when part of it is hot, it is not all hot; therefore the body of the Paschal offering can protect it from burning because of the heat of the fire opposite it.

But with a metal spit, whose inner part becomes heated by the heat of the outer part of the spit, the body of the Paschal offering cannot protect it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he places its legs

and its innards inside it, the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: This is a form of cooking; rather, they suspend them outside it:

It was taught:

Just as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagreed as to how he roasts the legs and the innards, so Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Tarfon disagreed about this.

Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion is that he places the legs and the innards inside the Paschal offering, in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Therefore,

Rabbi Yishmael calls it

“tokh tokh,”

meaning that the sound of the boiling and cooking of the legs and innards is heard inside the Paschal offering, like the sound of something cooking in a pot, which produces a sound heard as “tokh tokh.” [This is explained according to our version and according to Rashi’s first interpretation; see the note for Rashi’s version and second explanation] Rashi’s version and second explanation.

Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion is that the legs and the innards are thrust onto the spit above the lamb’s mouth and head [before he turns them during roasting], and they appear like a hat on the head of the Paschal offering.

Therefore,

Rabbi Tarfon calls it

“a kid with a helmet,”

since “a copper helmet” is rendered, “a copper helmet.”

The Sages taught:

Introduction:

We learned above, in the chapter “The Place Where They Were Accustomed”: In a place where they were accustomed to eat roasted meat on the nights of Passover [nowadays], they eat it; in a place where they were accustomed not to eat it, they do not eat it.

The reason for the custom not to eat roasted meat on the night of Passover is that it appears as though one is eating a Paschal offering outside [Rashi].

The Sages prohibited eating roasted meat on the nights of Passover only when it is roasted whole in the manner that will be explained [based on Rashi].

What is a kid with a helmet that is prohibited to eat on the nights of Passover nowadays:

Any one that he roasted whole as one unit!

But

if one of its limbs was cut off,

or if

one of its limbs was boiled

cooked,

this is not a kid with a helmet.

The Gemara now sets aside the matter and says that this is what the beraita means: If one of its limbs was cut off, even if he roasted the kid together with the severed limb, it is not included in the prohibition of a kid with a helmet. Likewise, if one of its limbs was cut off and he did not roast it but cooked the kid, it is not a kid with a helmet, and it is permitted to eat it.

Therefore we ask: Why was it necessary to teach, “one of its limbs was boiled”?!

For

now, one could say: If one of its limbs was cut off

and he roasted it,

even though he roasted it together with it

even though he roasted that limb together with the kid,

you say: It is not

a kid with a helmet, and it is permitted to eat it.

If one of its limbs was cut off and he did not roast it together with the kid, but rather

boiled it,

and

is it necessary

for you to say that it is permitted to eat it?!

Said

the interpreter,

Rav Sheshet: The statement in the beraita, “one of its limbs was boiled,” does not refer to a limb that was cut off from the Paschal offering, since once it was cut off, it was already permitted by virtue of the cutting itself.

Rather, the beraita is speaking of

Rather, the beraita refers to a case

boiling

one of the limbs

while it is attached,

and the entire reason for the permission is that it was boiled and not roasted like the Paschal offering.

It is prohibited to eat meat that was cooked in a pot because of the blood in it, unless it was first salted with thorough salting.

If one wishes to eat the meat as roasted meat, he salts it with light salting, (8) and roasts it over the fire, for the fire draws out the blood in the meat.

Rabba said: This stuffed meat

lambs or chickens that are stuffed with meat between their flesh and their bones and roasted together

is permitted,

even if it was not initially salted with thorough salting, but only with the light salting used for roasted meat.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Abaye:

How is it permitted to eat it?

But

the roasting draws out the blood trapped in the meat with which they stuffed the lamb, and

it absorbs

through the heat of the roasting

the blood

that was emitted from the meat?!

Rabba said to him

to Abaye:

As it absorbs, so it emits,

just as that blood—which emerged from the meat placed inside the lamb—is absorbed into the lamb, so it is emitted from it through the roasting. Just as the heat of the fire draws out the blood that was in it, so it does not absorb blood from elsewhere.

And we explain:

Let us say that there is support for him

from our Mishna:

He places its legs and its entrails inside it

of the Pesach offering, and roasts them together.

But

what is the reason

that this is permitted, and we are not concerned that the Pesach offering will absorb—through the heat of the roasting—blood from the meat of the legs and the entrails that they placed inside it?

Is it not because we say: “As it absorbs, so it emits”,

for even the blood absorbed into the Pesach offering from the meat placed inside it is emitted from the offering? And this accords with Rabba, who permitted stuffed meat?!

They said

the scholars of the academy rejected this: From our Mishna it cannot be proven that roasting emits even blood absorbed into it from outside.

For the reason that we are not concerned about blood absorbed into the Pesach offering from the meat they placed inside it,

it is different there, since there is a hollow slaughtering site

which is hollow,