Pesachim 75b — the Talmud in English

Upon the place of the pouring of the ashes [

the place where the ashes of the outer altar are poured ]

“it shall be burned”.

And if so, let us derive from it all burnings that come because of fire?!

They say

the scholars of the academy taught it:

that

“it shall be burned”

is needed for that which was taught:

“It shall be burned” teaches:

a.

It shall be burned

upon the place of the pouring of the ashes, and

even though there are no ashes there,

so that you should not say: The Merciful One was particular about the ashes, to burn it upon the place where they used to take out the ashes of the outer altar, and if the ashes were removed from there, he should not burn it there. Therefore it teaches us “it shall be burned”: in any event [Rashi].

b.

It shall be burned even though

already

the fire was kindled [

the fire caught ]

on most of it

of the bull, to teach you: this is not sufficient; rather, they must attend to it to burn it until its burning is completed.

And since we needed the additional meaning of “it shall be burned” to learn other matters from it, we no longer have an additional expression of burning written after “with fire,” from which to learn all burnings that come because of fire.

Ravina said

to resolve in another manner the question that the Gemara raised above against Rabbi—that it is implied from his words that coals are included within fire—from the beraita that teaches: “Burns of fire: I have only one who was burned by fire; one burned by a coal, by hot ashes, by hot lime, etc.—from where? The verse says, ‘burning’ ‘burning,’” thus, without an additional derivation, a coal is not included within fire:

This beraita is corrupt, and it did not come to include a coal by means of an additional derivation!

Rather,

join and teach [

teach the coal together with fire and not with the others ], and this is how it is taught:

“Burns of fire.

“Burns caused by fire.

I have only one who was burned by fire and by a coal

for it too is included within fire, but

one burned by hot ashes, by hot lime, by hot gypsum, and by every thing that comes because of fire, to include water heated by fire—from where?

The verse says: ‘burning’ ‘burning’—it included.”

It follows, according to the corrected version, that the coal does not need an additional derivation; rather, it was included on its own within burns of fire, because a coal too is included within fire, and this is in accordance with Rabbi.

Rava raised

another question against Rabbi’s words, who said that coals are included within fire:

Did [

is it so that ]

Rabbi say, coals are called “fire”? And we raise a contradiction from:

It is written concerning the High Priest on the Day of Atonement: “And he shall take a full pan of fiery coals from upon the altar [the outer altar], from before the Lord, and the full handfuls of fine incense spices, and he shall bring it from within the curtain [to the Holy of Holies].”

And the beraita explains why both “coals” and “fire” are stated:

If only

“coals”

had been stated, one might have thought that he should bring coals

that are dim [

extinguished ], but not glowing [burning], because glowing coals are not called merely coals, but fire.

The verse therefore says: Coals of

“fire.”

And

if

“fire”

alone had been stated,

one might have thought that he should bring

a

flame

and not coals, even glowing ones, because they are not called merely fire.

The verse therefore says

“coals.”

How is this to be understood? He brings from the glowing ones, [

the beraita was explained according to the hava amina in the Gemara ].

And the Gemara first explains the beraita, and according to the Gemara’s explanation it follows that this beraita presents a difficulty against Rabbi:

And

behold,

this itself is difficult [

the beraita is internally difficult ]! For in the first part of the beraita

you said:

If

“coals”

and not “fire” had been stated,

one might have thought

he should bring

dim

and not glowing ones;

apparently,

the beraita holds that the coals that are

glowing

are not called coals, and therefore I might have said that he should not bring glowing ones. If so, it necessarily follows that the glowing ones

“are fire”

they are.

But

say in the latter part: If

only

“fire” had been written,

one might have thought he should bring a

flame

and not glowing coals;

the verse therefore says

“coals,” apparently even glowing ones are not

“fire”

they are, and therefore it is necessary to learn them from what the Torah said, “coals.”

And if so, the first part contradicts the latter part?!

And Rav Sheshet said

to explain,

thus it teaches:

If “coals” and not “fire” had been stated,

one might have thought

he should bring

both dim and glowing ones [

whichever he wished he should bring ], because both of them are called “coals”;

the verse therefore says

“fire.”

That is to say: The verse says “coals of fire,” and you learn that he cannot bring dim ones, because the dim ones are called “coals,” but they are not called “coals of fire”; only the glowing coals are so called.

And

if

“fire”

alone had been stated,

one might have thought

he should bring a

flame,

which is called merely “fire,” and not glowing coals, because they are called “coals” or “coals of fire,” and not merely “fire”;

the verse therefore says: “coals.”

That is to say, “coals of fire,” and this expression includes only the glowing coals.

And since this is so, there is no contradiction between the first part and the latter part, because the glowing coals are not called “fire,” but coals, as is implied by the latter part; and even in the first part it does not teach that they are not called coals. In any event, if only “coals” had been stated, I would have declared even the glowing ones permitted, because they too are coals.

And now we raise the difficulty against Rabbi:

In any event, we have two proofs that the

coals are not called

“fire,” and it is not in accordance with Rabbi:

a. If you should say that the coals are called “fire,” then even if “coals” had been stated and “fire” had not been stated, I would not declare the glowing coals permitted, because they are “fire” and not coals.

b. If you should say that the coals are called “fire,” then even if “fire” had been stated and “coals” had not been stated, I would not say that he should bring specifically a flame and not glowing coals, because the coals too are “fire.”

And if so,

this verse presents a difficulty

against Rabbi?!

He said

in response,

Abaye: Resolve

the beraita

thus [

interpret the beraita in this manner ]:

If only

“coals”

had been stated,

one might have thought

he should bring coals

that are dim and not glowing, because the glowing ones are fire and not coals [and this is Rabbi’s view];

the verse therefore says

“fire,”

and glowing coals were included. Thus the first proof not in accordance with Rabbi has been rejected.

If

only

“fire”

had been stated,

one might have thought: If he wishes

to bring a

flame

without a coal,

he shall bring; if he wishes

to bring a

glowing coal,

he shall bring, because both this and that are called “fire” [and this is Rabbi’s view];

the verse therefore says

“coals,”

that is to say, “coals of fire,” and a flame is not called “coals of fire”;

how is this to be understood? He brings from the glowing ones;

and the second proof not in accordance with Rabbi has been rejected.

He said

Rabba,

astonished [

“Rava” is the version in Masoret HaShas, because it is impossible that Rabba, who was Abaye’s teacher, would be astonished at Abaye’s words ]:

How is it possible to interpret the words of the beraita as saying:

If he wishes a coal, he shall bring; if he wishes a flame

without a coal,

he shall bring?!

But

a flame without a coal—how can you find such a thing [

how can a flame without a coal be conceived ]?

Certainly,

for example, when he coated a vessel with oil [

smeared the vessel with oil ]

and kindled fire in it [

kindled the fire in it ] from the outer altar!

But

why do I need that verse to exclude it

, since we know on logical grounds that it must be excluded, and there is no need to learn it from the verse?!

For

now, if before a flesh-and-blood king they do not do this

to bring before him a flame that produces smoke—

before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, is it not all the more so

that it is improper to do so? If so, the verse did not need to write “coals” in order to exclude bringing a flame in this manner?!

lights fire in it ] from the outer altar!

Rather, Rava said

to resolve the difficulties against Rabbi from the beraita:

Resolve it thus [

interpret the beraita in this manner ]:

If only

“coals”

alone had been stated,

one might have thought

he should bring dim and not glowing ones [

as Abaye interpreted it ];

the verse therefore says: “fire.”

If

only

“fire”

alone had been stated,

one might have thought

that if he wished,

he should bring half a coal and half a flame,

that is, a coal whose flame is upon it, because both a coal and a flame are called “fire,” and he might even bring a coal and a flame together.

Lest you say: But it is improper to do so, because it produces smoke, and even before a flesh-and-blood king they do not do so, and all the more so before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

In any event, I would say: He should not bring it in this manner into the Holy of Holies; rather, if at the time of taking it from upon the outer altar he wishes to take it as a coal and a flame together, he may take it, and

when he enters [

until he enters ]

(inside [

within, into the Holy of Holies ]

it will all be a coal,

because the flame will go out during this time.

The verse therefore says: “And he shall take”

a full pan

of “fiery coals”

from upon the altar,

to teach you:

a. Its law is with fiery coals and not with a flame.

b.

From the time of taking

from upon the altar,

they must be coals, as the verse said, “And he shall take—coals.”

And since “dim” coals were mentioned here in the sugya, the Gemara explains how the wording is to be understood.

a panful of

It was raised before them: Are the coals

“umamot”

or

“omemot”?

Rabbi Yitzhak said

to prove that “omemot” is the precise wording:

For thus we find concerning Hiram, king of Tyre [Rashi; and see Rashash, who was astonished at this], for the verse said concerning his beauty and the beauty of his appearance:

Cedars did not

“darken him” in the garden of God. That is to say: Even when you compare the beauty of his appearance with beautiful cedars, Hiram’s beauty would not be diminished.

We have therefore learned that the expression for dimness is called “immun,” and even dim coals, whose fire has been diminished, are called “omemot” coals and not “umamot.”

Mishna:

a. One who eats from the Paschal offering that is not “roasted by fire” as prescribed, even though it is not cooked at all, transgresses “You shall not eat from it except roasted by fire.”

Even if he roasted the entire Paschal offering, but some part of it, or even its gravy, is not “roasted by fire,” he transgresses if he eats them.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said

to prove that “omemot” is the precise form:

b. The Paschal offering, or part of it, that was cooked or roasted not by means of fire: there is a positive commandment to burn it like other disqualified sacred offerings [Rashi in our Mishna].

“Cedars did not

c. A Paschal offering that was roasted by means of the pottery of an oven is not “roasted by fire,” for we learned above on page 75a that roasting by the heat of a swept oven is not considered roasting by fire. Roasting by means of the pottery of an oven is likewise like roasting in a swept oven, and since it is not roasted by fire, it is forbidden to eat.

Therefore:

a.

If

the Paschal offering

touched

the

pottery of an oven and was roasted there from its heat, and they removed it from there immediately, before it spread throughout the entire offering [Meiri], the place of contact is forbidden to eat, since it was roasted from the heat of the oven, which is not “roasted by fire”; therefore:

“he shall peel” its place,

he removes at the place of contact “the thickness of a peel.” b.

If some of the gravy

of the Paschal offering

dripped onto the pottery

of the hot oven [this is how the Gemara explains it according to Samuel, whose view is the established one], and it was cooked there, and the gravy became forbidden to eat,

and

the gravy then returned

to it

and

was absorbed into the Paschal offering.

It is not sufficient for him to remove “the thickness of a peel” from the Paschal offering; rather,

“he shall remove”

its place, that is, “the measure of removal,” and this is a substantial removal in depth. It is not sufficient for him to remove “the thickness of a peel,” since fat is absorbed deeply within it [Rashi and Tosafot; and the Raavad wrote that he must remove to the thickness of a finger].

onto the clay

of the hot oven [this is how the Gemara explains the Mishna according to Shmuel, whose view is the accepted halakha], and it was cooked there, the gravy is forbidden to eat.

c.

If some of the gravy

of the Paschal offering

dripped onto the flour

that was hot [this is how the Gemara explains it according to Samuel, whose view is the established one], and it was cooked there from the heat of the flour.

This one

shall take a handful from its place

of the gravy from the flour; that is, he removes the place of the flour where the gravy fell, in depth, together with a little of what surrounds it [Meiri].

And he shall burn the handful according to the law of disqualified sacred offerings, which are burned [Rashi].

If he

anointed the entire Paschal offering [Meiri] with teruma oil

that is permitted only to kohanim:

from the Paschal offering

onto the semolina

If

the Paschal offering belonged to a

group of kohanim:

they

may eat, since they are permitted to eat teruma.

And if

the Paschal offering

belonged to

a group of

Israelites, this is the law of the Paschal offering: If the meat of the Paschal offering

is still alive, and is not roasted—meaning that he anointed it while the meat was still raw, and he remembered before roasting it—

it

shall be washed

with water, and its oil shall be removed, because since he has not yet roasted it, the oil was not absorbed into the Paschal offering, and, like another cold prohibition that touched another cold object, washing is sufficient [Meiri].

And if

the Paschal offering

is already roasted, whether he anointed it when it was hot or when it was already cold [Tosafot; and see the note].

It

shall be peeled [

he shall remove the thickness of a peel ]

the

outer

meat, he shall peel all of it with its outer peel [Meiri].

is still

Since the Paschal offering becomes soft through the roasting, it absorbs [Tosafot], and therefore even when it is cold, washing is not sufficient for it, and it requires peeling.

And the Gemara will explain: Why, even when the roasted offering was hot, is peeling sufficient for it, and does it not require the measure of removal?! This is unlike what we say concerning gravy absorbed in a hot Paschal offering, that it requires the measure of removal, since fat is absorbed deeply within it.

then

he shall rinse

the Paschal offering with water and remove its oil. Since he has not yet roasted it, the oil has not been absorbed into the Paschal offering, and as with any cold prohibited substance that touched another cold substance, rinsing is sufficient [Meiri].

But if

it is

already roasted,

the Paschal offering—whether he smeared it when it was hot or when it was already cold [Tosafot; see the note]—

then

he shall peel [

remove a layer sufficient to peel away ]

the

outer

meat

in its entirety, removing the outer layer [Meiri].

Since the Paschal offering becomes soft through roasting, it absorbs [Tosafot]. Therefore, even when it is cold, rinsing is not sufficient, and it requires peeling. The Gemara will explain why, even when the roasted offering was hot, peeling is sufficient and removing a substantial layer is not required, whereas when gravy is absorbed into a hot Paschal offering, we say that a substantial layer must be removed, because fat is absorbed deeply into it.

If

he smeared it

for Pesach

with oil of second tithe

that is permitted to an Israelite in Jerusalem.

This

shall not turn it into money for the members of the group

, that is, that the owner of the oil says to the other members of the group: “Behold, the portion that reaches me in this Pesach that we are eating is worth one dinar, and I must pay you one dinar; and behold, my oil, worth one dinar, has entered, and it is found that I have paid for my portion” [according to the Meiri].

And the reason: because repayment of his debt is considered a sale [Meiri], and

there is no

(redeeming

selling

, Rashi]

second tithe in Jerusalem

, even in order to eat it with the sanctity of second tithe.

Gemara:

It was stated:

Meat that fell into milk, or a prohibited thing and a permitted thing [whether dry or moist] that fell one into the other, or one upon the other [Meiri], this is their law:

a. If

hot fell into hot, everyone agrees

this is

forbidden

, even if they separated them from one another and rinsed the dry item, because they absorb from one another.