Pesachim 75a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

there

the vinegar that was weak from the outset; for that reason they scald with it, since

there is ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the sharpness of the fruit itself [the sap of the fruit’s taste still remains in it], and although it was weakened on its own and its taste deteriorated, it still extracts [or coagulates, according to the opinions that disagree with Rashi] blood, for its strength is still within it.

[that is, the sap of the fruit's flavor is still present in it]. Although it weakened on its own and its taste deteriorated, it still draws out [or causes to congeal, according to those who disagree with Rashi] blood, because its strength remains within it.

But

here,

with vinegar in which they scalded once, there is no longer

the sharpness of the fruit itself,

for the first meat has already absorbed it.

We learned in the Mishna:

The Paschal offering is not roasted

neither on a spit nor on a grill. Rabbi Tzadok said: It happened that Rabban Gamaliel said to Tavi, his slave: “Go and roast the Paschal offering for us on the grill.” And we raise the difficulty: It follows that the

incident

that the Mishna brought does not come to support what is stated in the Mishna, but rather

to contradict it.

For the Mishna prohibited roasting on the grill, whereas Rabban Gamaliel instructed that it be roasted on it; and the Mishnayot do not follow such a method?!

And we explain:

The Mishna is incomplete,

our Mishna,

and this is what it teaches:

And if it is a perforated grill

that is, one makes an iron frame around the fire, and places the spit—with one end on one side of the frame and its other end on the other side of the frame—above the fire. Thus the Paschal offering is suspended between the two sides of the frame and does not touch the hot iron at all.

It follows that it is

permitted

to roast the Paschal offering on it.

And Rabbi Tzadok said

to support this law:

It happened that Rabban Gamaliel said to Tavi, his slave: “Go and roast the Paschal offering for us on the grill

the

perforated one.

Rabbi’s opinion: the bread is forbidden to eat. This is because Rabbi holds that “there is benefit from the wood in the bread”—that is, the flame baking the bread emerges from the wood before it becomes ash, while it is still forbidden, and that wood is what improved the bread. Therefore, the bread itself is also forbidden.

A furnace that they heated with the shells of fruits of orla, which are prohibited for benefit, and they baked bread in the heated furnace, Rabbi and the Sages disagreed about it.

Rabbi’s opinion: the bread is prohibited for eating.

For according to Rabbi, “there is enhancement from wood in bread”; that is, the flame that bakes the bread comes from the wood before it becomes ash, while it is still prohibited, and it is this that enhanced the bread. Therefore, the bread itself is also prohibited.

The opinion of the Sages: the bread is permitted.

For according to the Sages, “there is no enhancement from wood in bread”; that is, the flame that bakes the bread comes from the wood only after it has burned and become ash, and the ashes of things prohibited for benefit are permitted (\24), [as the beraita brought above, on page 26b, and as explained there in Tosafot].

And in light of this:

Rav Hinana bar Idi asked Rav Ada bar Ahava:

A furnace that they heated with shells of orla, and

after they heated it,

raked

the coals out of it,

and baked bread in it

with the heat in the furnace, which was created by the wood of orla.

According to the one who prohibits—

when they did not rake the wood out of the furnace—

what

is its law when they did rake it out?

He said to him,

Rav Ada bar Ahava:

Even according to the one who prohibits when they did not rake it out of the furnace, he agrees that if they raked it out,

the bread is permitted,

since the baking is not done by the fire of the prohibited wood itself, but by the heat remaining in the furnace.

He said,

in astonishment,

to him,

Rav Hinana bar Idi to Rav Ada bar Ahava:

But Rav Hinana the Elder said in the name of Rabbi Asi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A furnace that they heated and raked out, and roasted the Paschal offering in it—

this is not

“roasted by fire.”

Because

it is stated

as an excess in the wording of the verse. It is written in the passage concerning the Paschal offering:

“roasted by fire,”

“roasted by fire,”

twice,

to teach you that it is called “roasted by fire” only if they did not rake the wood out of the furnace, and it is roasted by the heat of the fire now produced by the wood.

But if they raked it out of the furnace, and there is here only heat and not fire, they do not roast the Paschal offering in it, even though this heat comes from the fire that was produced.

We have therefore learned from Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

The reason is that the Merciful One revealed

“roasted by fire,”

“roasted by fire,”

twice; had the Merciful One not revealed it, I would have said

that even when the wood and the flame are not present in the furnace, nevertheless

“roasted by fire”

it is.

And if so, it is proven from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that the heat remaining in the furnace from the flame is like the fire itself.

And since that is so, just as if he had baked the bread with the prohibited wood itself, when the fire emerges from it, the bread would have been prohibited according to Rabbi, so too, even if he had already raked out the wood, we consider the heat remaining from it in the furnace as the fire of the wood itself, and the bread baked in it becomes prohibited.

He said,

in response,

to him,

Rav Ada bar Ahava: Indeed, it should be learned from here that logically we should consider the heat in the furnace as the fire itself!

But nevertheless,

the Merciful One revealed there,

with regard to the Paschal offering, that the heat in the furnace is not like the fire itself,

and

again

we derive from it,

by what is found in one case and inferred for another, for the entire Torah, that its law is not like the fire itself; therefore the bread is permitted.

And if you wish, say

that the matter should be rejected in another way: it was not because logically we should consider the heat in the furnace as the fire itself that Rabbi Yohanan needed to learn it from the excess!

Rather,

there,

in Rabbi Yohanan’s words stated concerning the Paschal offering,

the reason that the Torah wrote

“roasted by fire”

twice

is that it is prohibited to roast it in the heat of the furnace;

had the Torah not written

“roasted by fire”

twice,

in order to exclude it, it would have been permitted to roast it in the heat of the furnace—for a different reason:

For

I would have said:

Behold,

with regard to “fire”

the Merciful One is particular, and even if they raked it out,

the wood from the furnace,

also

“roasted by fire”

it is,

for if one places a garment in the heat of the furnace, it will burn and become charcoal; therefore the heat itself is a product of “fire.”

But here,

with regard to the wood of orla, we have no logical basis for including the heat of the furnace.

For although we say that there is “fire” there in the heat of the furnace, nevertheless this is not the “fire” of the wood, since they—the wood and its flame—have already gone.

And here,

the Merciful One is particular about the prohibited wood, and it is not here [it is already gone], and this is not the fire of the prohibited wood, but rather it is a new fire.

The Sages taught: One

The Sages taught: If he cut it

the Paschal offering—he made cuts in it in two or three places in order to hasten its roasting [and did not complete the cutting, and the entire Paschal offering was still one piece, Rashi],

and placed it upon glowing coals

[Likutei Halakhot]:

Rabbi says: I say that this

“roasted by fire”

it is,

even though he did not roast it directly on fire, but upon coals.

Rami

in astonishment

said to him, Rav Aḥadvuy bar Ami, to Rav Hisda:

Does

that is,

Rabbi say that coals,

too,

are “fire”

they are,

and the scriptural statement “roasted by fire” is fulfilled in the Paschal offering?!

And he raises an objection

from a beraita that can prove that coals are not considered “fire”: Introduction:

Two types of leprous afflictions are explained in the Torah, in the passage of Tazria, which develop on the skin of a person from the heat of the flesh [“for it becomes heated and a lesion grows in it” (Meiri)]:

a. Leprosy that comes upon the skin on account of a “boil.”

b. Leprosy that comes upon the skin on account of a “burn.”

The boil comes through heat by which the flesh becomes heated as a result of a blow or the like.

The burn comes on account of the heat of fire.

And all their laws are equal; Scripture distinguished them only to teach you that they are two separate afflictions.

The practical difference is this: If there was approximately half a grain-size measure of an affliction [the large affliction, the size of a grain, is the measure of an affliction] in a boil [which comes on account of a blow], and beside it another approximately half a grain-size measure of an affliction in a burn [which comes on account of fire], they do not combine to form the measure of an affliction, because they are two separate afflictions, and in each affliction by itself there is no measure.

For it was taught in a beraita: It is written in the passage concerning afflictions: “Or flesh, when there will be on its skin

a burn of fire

”—we have learned that a burn of “fire” is judged as a “burn,” and not as a “boil.”

I have only

that one burned by fire is judged as a “burn.”

One burned by a coal,

or one burned

by hot ashes [

hot ash], or

by hot lime [lime is quarried from limestone and fired and dried in a furnace of fire; afterward, when the stones come into contact with water, they boil the water], or

[a type of lime],

by hot gypsum [

it is a type of lime]

hot,

or by any substance that comes from fire.

been that the Torah included

And the Gemara explains parenthetically the words of the beraita:

“Any substance that comes from fire”—

to include the hot water of fire [

water heated upon the fire].

From where

that even one burned by them, in whom an affliction appears, has his affliction judged as a “burn” and not as a “boil”? [

The practical difference is this: If half the measure of an affliction from these were to combine with half the measure of an affliction of actual fire-burns, he would be judged as a leper.]

The verse states: “Burn”

“burn”—

it includes.

That is: the expression “burn” is stated several times in the passage of “burns of fire,” and it comes to teach you that even these, which come on account of fire but are not actual fire, if the skin is burned by them, the affliction appearing upon it is judged as a “burn.”

And on the strength of this beraita Rav Aḥadvuy expresses astonishment.

For we have learned from this beraita:

The reason

that even these are judged as a “burn” is because

the Merciful One included

“burn, burn.”

Had He not

been

included by the Merciful One

“burn, burn,”

a burn that comes from a “coal” would not have been judged as a “burn.”

And since the Torah said “burns of fire,” it is proven from here that

coals

are not fire.

And if so, this is difficult for Rabbi, who said concerning “roasted by fire”: it is permitted to roast the Paschal offering upon coals; yet we have learned from here that coals are not “fire”?!

He said,

in response,

to him,

Rav Hisda to Rav Aḥadvuy:

A wood coal

truly

does not require a verse to include it,

for this coal is included in “fire,” as Rabbi said.

Rather,

when the verse was required to include a “coal,”

as the beraita teaches, it was

for a metal coal [

metal that was heated in fire and became like a coal, Zevah Todah; see Sefat Emet],

and metal coals

indeed

are not

“fire”

they are.

And we still express astonishment concerning the beraita, which required a special inclusion to include a coal—even if it comes only to include a metal coal:

But concerning the daughter of a priest

who committed adultery,

for it is written

“she shall be burned by fire,” and

even so

Rav Mattana said: They would make a lead wick for her [

they would melt lead and throw it into her mouth].

It follows that even a metal coal, or lead, that was heated in fire is considered like “fire,” and the scriptural statement “she shall be burned by fire” is fulfilled?! And we answer:

It is different there,

with regard to the daughter of a priest. That is, in truth, you do not judge a metal coal as fire; rather, with regard to the daughter of a priest also there is an excess in the verse in order to include a metal coal and lead heated in fire.

For

behold,

it is written: “She shall be burned by fire,”

and it should have said “by fire” and stopped [Rashi; and Tosafot explained that it should have said, “she shall die by fire”].

Rather, for this reason it is written

“she shall be burned,”

in order

to include all burnings that come from fire.

But in truth, a metal coal is not included in “fire”; therefore Scripture needed to include it both with regard to a burn and with regard to the burning of the daughter of a priest.

And we raise the difficulty:

And

behold,

all the more so, fire itself

can fulfill the burning of the daughter of a priest, since “fire” is the principal matter of the verse!

And if so, why would they burn her by means of a lead wick?

And let us surround her,

the daughter of the priest, with

bundles of branches [

tree branches], and kindle the fire with them,

and burn her [

burn her] with them. And we answer: It is impossible to burn her by means of actual fire, because

it is derived [

learned by a gzera shava] from the expression

“burning”

stated concerning the daughter of a priest, as it is written: by fire she shall be “burned,” from the expression

“burning, concerning the sons of Aaron,”

“And you shall love your fellow as yourself,”

as the Torah said in the passage of Shemini: “And the sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire-pan and put fire in them and placed incense upon it, and fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died.”

“And your brothers, the entire house of Israel, shall bewail the burning that the Lord burned” [Rashi, Sanhedrin].

And we learn:

Just as there,

concerning the sons of Aaron,

the burning of the soul

took place,

and

the

body remained

and was not burned; for this is what the Sages received as a tradition: something like two threads of fire entered their nostrils.

So too here,

with regard to the burning of the daughter of a priest, one does not burn the body by means of fire; rather, she is to be put to death by

the burning

of the

soul

alone,

and

the

body

itself

remains.

Therefore, they would put the daughter of a priest to death with a lead wick, and not with actual burning by surrounding her with branches.

And we still express astonishment: Why specifically a lead wick?

Let us make her

the daughter of the priest die by means of

the hot water of fire [

water cooked upon the fire], since it too does not burn the body, and there is here only the burning of the soul?! And we answer: It is impossible to burn her by means of the hot water of fire, and

because of

that

which

was taught to us by

Rav Nahman!

For Rav Nahman said: The verse states

“And you shall love your fellow as yourself,”

teaching us:

Choose for him a pleasant death,

whereas killing by means of hot water of fire is not a pleasant death, since it does not hasten her death sufficiently and she consequently suffers [Meiri].

And we raise the difficulty:

And since there is

that which

Rav Nahman

said, “Choose for him a pleasant death,” then the

gzera shava

above, which teaches that she should not be burned by fire—

why do I need it?!

After all, we know this in any event: she cannot be burned by fire, since this is not a pleasant death?!

They said

the members of the academy answered: We require both teachings—“And you shall love your fellow as yourself,” and the gzera shava from the sons of Aaron—in order to learn that she should not be burned by roasting in fire; for on the basis of the law of “And you shall love your fellow as yourself” alone,

if not

that the

gzera shava

were joined to it as well, we would not know not to burn her with actual fire.

For

I would have said: The burning of the soul while the body remains—

is not burning!

Therefore, had the gzera shava also not been stated, we would have forced ourselves to say:

If it is because of

that

of Rav Nahman,

that one must fulfill “And you shall love your fellow as yourself”—we would not abolish the burning of the body, which alone is the burning stated in the Torah; rather,

we would increase for her many bundles of branches [

we would place many bundles of branches in the burning]

so that she would die quickly,

so that she would die quickly and not suffer much, in order to fulfill “And you shall love your fellow as yourself.”

And therefore the gzera shava of [unclear: the source ends with the letter dalet] is also needed.

It teaches us

that even the burning of the soul while the body remains intact is burning!

And since we have learned from the gzera shava that you may burn her either by means of the burning of the body or by means of the burning of the soul alone, you may once again learn by the force of the ruling of Rav Naḥman, that we require “You shall love your fellow as yourself,” that you must burn her specifically by means of burning with a wick of lead, since through this “You shall love your fellow as yourself” is fulfilled more than by roasting in fire, even when she is burned quickly [this has been explained according to Rashi’s commentary here and in Sanhedrin 52a]. And now the Gemara returns to what we said: that Scripture added “she shall be burned” concerning the burning of a priest’s daughter in order to include other burnings that are not actual fire, and we challenge this:

But rather,

since in the end you include even other burnings, then the statement that Scripture said

“in fire”

she shall be burned,

why do I need it?

Let Scripture say only “she shall be burned,” and that would be sufficient?!

And we explain: Scripture said “in fire” to teach you that she may be burned only by a product of fire,

to exclude

her burning by pouring into her mouth

lead from its source,

that is: lead that they extract from the ground, and it is boiling at the time of its extraction; and one may not put her to death with it, but only with lead heated by fire.

And still

said

Rabbi Yirmeya

to Rabbi Zeira, in objection:

Is it so that

wherever it is written “in fire”

“she shall be burned,”

we say that the addition “she shall be burned”

is to include all burnings that come by means of fire,

as we say concerning a priest’s daughter?!

But concerning the bulls that are burned,

the inner bulls, whose flesh is not eaten but is burned outside Jerusalem, such as the bull of the anointed priest and the bull for the unwitting communal ruling,

where it is written

“and he shall burn it upon wood in fire,”

behold, Scripture said “in fire” and also said “and he shall burn,” and we should have included all burnings that come by means of fire.

And

if we ourselves

were taught

in a beraita:

“In fire”

and not in hot lime, and

likewise

not in hot gypsum,

behold, we do not expound the inclusion of “and he shall burn” to include all burnings that come by means of fire?!

He said

in reply

to him,

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Yirmeya:

How can these be compared [are the verses alike]?!

[Are the verses comparable?!]:

There,

concerning a priest’s daughter,

it is written

first

“in fire,” and afterward

it is written

“she shall be burned,”

and therefore we expound the inclusion of “she shall be burned”

to include all burnings that come by means of fire.

But

here,

concerning the bulls that are burned, behold,

it is written: “and he shall burn it upon wood in fire.”

Scripture said “and he shall burn” first, and

finally

“fire,” to teach [us]:

to teach us:

fire, yes

[indeed, one burns with it],

something else, no.

And we ask: But

There

concerning the bulls that are burned,

it is also written that the burning is mentioned afterward, as it is written

in that same verse: