Pesachim 75b (עה:) — the Talmud in English

“At the ash heap” [

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

“it shall be burned”.

If so, let us derive from it all burnings that result from fire?!

They said:

the students of the yeshiva taught

that

“it shall be burned”

is needed for that which was taught: “

“It shall be burned” teaches:

a.

It shall be burned

at the place of the ash heap, and

even if there are no ashes there,

so that you should not say: The Merciful One was particular about the ashes, to burn it at the place where the ashes of the outer altar were taken out; and if the ashes have been removed from there, one should not burn it there. Therefore, it teaches us: “It shall be burned” in any event, Rashi].

b.

It shall be burned even though

the fire has already

taken hold [

the fire has caught ]

of most

of the bull, to teach you that this is not sufficient; rather, one must continue to tend to it and burn it until its burning is complete.

And since we require the additional implication of “it shall be burned” to derive other matters from it, we no longer have an additional implication in the word “burning” written after “with fire,” from which to derive all burnings that result from fire.

Ravina said

to resolve in another manner the question that the Gemara raised above against Rabbi, indicating from his statement that coals are included within the category of fire, from the beraita that teaches: “Burns caused by fire—I have derived only one who was burned by fire; one who was burned by a coal, by hot ashes, by hot lime, and so on—from where do I derive it? The verse states: ‘Burn’ and ‘burn,’” which indicates that without an additional derivation a coal is not included within fire:

This beraita is corrupted, and it did not come to include a coal through an additional derivation!

Rather,

join and teach [

teach the coal together with fire, and not together with the others ],

and this is how it should be taught:

“Burns caused by fire.

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

which is likewise included within fire. But

one who was burned by hot ashes, by hot lime, by hot gypsum, and by anything that results from fire—including water heated by fire—from where

do I derive it? The verse states: ‘Burn’ and ‘burn’; it includes them.”

It follows, according to the corrected version, that a coal does not require an additional derivation; rather, it is included automatically within “burns caused by fire,” because a coal too is included within fire, and this is in accordance with Rabbi.

Rava raised

another question against Rabbi’s statement that coals are included within fire:

Is it [

is it indeed ]

that Rabbi said that coals are called fire? And we raise a contradiction:

It is written with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And he shall take a censer full of fiery coals from upon the altar [the outer altar] before the Lord, and his handsful of finely ground incense of spices, and bring it inside the curtain [into 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

dim coals [

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

The verse therefore states:

coals

“of fire.”

And

if

only

“fire”

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

a flame

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

The verse therefore states

“coals.”

How so? He brings glowing coals, [

the beraita has been explained according to the Gemara’s initial assumption ].

The Gemara first explains the beraita, and according to the Gemara’s explanation it emerges that this beraita presents a difficulty for Rabbi:

And

indeed,

this itself is difficult [

the beraita is internally contradictory ]! For in the first clause of the beraita

you said:

If

“coals”

and not “fire” had been stated,

one might have thought that he should bring

he should bring

dim coals

and not glowing coals.

Apparently,

the beraita holds that glowing

coals

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

are

“fire.”

But

say in the latter clause: If

only

“fire”

had been written, one might have thought that he should bring

a flame

and not glowing coals.

The verse therefore states

“coals”; apparently, even glowing coals are not

“fire”

and therefore they must be derived from what the Torah stated: “coals.”

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

If so, the first clause contradicts the latter clause?!

And Rav Sheshet said

to explain:

This is what it teaches:

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

one might have thought that he should bring

both dim and glowing ones [

both dim and glowing coals [

whichever he wished, he should bring ], because both are called “coals.”

The verse therefore states

“fire.”

That is, the verse states “fiery coals,” and you learn that he may not bring dim coals, because dim coals are called “coals,” but they are not called “fiery coals”; only glowing coals are so called.

And

if

“fire”

alone

had been stated,

one might have thought that he should bring

a

a flame

which is called simply “fire,” and not glowing coals, because they are called “coals” or “fiery coals,” but not simply “fire.”

The verse therefore states: “coals.”

That is, “fiery coals,” and this expression includes only glowing coals.

And since this is so, there is no contradiction between the first clause and the latter clause, because glowing coals are not called “fire,” but coals, as is implied by the latter clause. And the first clause likewise did not state that they are not called coals. In fact, if only “coals” had been stated, I would deem even glowing coals valid, because they too are coals.

And now we raise a difficulty against Rabbi:

In any event,

we have two proofs that

coals are not called

“fire,”

contrary to Rabbi:

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

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

And if so,

there is a difficulty from this verse

against

Rabbi?!

He said

in response:

Abaye, explain

the beraita

thus [

interpret the beraita as follows ]:

If

“coals”

alone had been stated,

one might have thought that he should bring coals

faintly glowing

that are dim and not glowing, because glowing coals are fire and not coals [and this is Rabbi’s opinion].

“fire”

The verse therefore states

“fire,”

and glowing coals are thereby included. Thus the first proof contrary to Rabbi has been rejected.

If

“fire”

alone had been stated,

one might have thought: If he wishes

he may bring

to bring a

a flame

without a coal; if he wishes

he may bring

to bring a

a glowing coal

and

he may bring it, because both this and that are called “fire” [and this is Rabbi’s opinion].

astonished [

The verse therefore states

“coals,”

that is, “fiery coals,” and a flame is not called fiery coals.

How so? He brings glowing coals;

and thus the second proof contrary to Rabbi has been rejected.

He said

in astonishment,

Rabba [

“Rava”

is the version in Mesoret HaShas, because it is impossible that Rabba, who was Abaye’s teacher, should have expressed astonishment at Abaye’s words ]:

How can the beraita be interpreted as saying:

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

without a coal,

he may bring it?!

But

how can you find a flame without a coal [

how can a flame without a coal be conceived ]?

Certainly,

for example, one coats a vessel with oil [

smears a vessel with oil ]

and kindles a fire in it [

kindles the fire in it ] from the outer altar!

But

why do I need a verse to exclude that?

We know by reasoning that it must be excluded, and there is no need to derive this from the verse?!

For

now, if before a mortal king one does 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 inappropriate to do so? If so, the verse did not need to state “coals” in order to exclude bringing a flame in this manner?!

Rather, Rava said

to resolve the difficulties against Rabbi from the beraita:

Explain it thus [

interpret the beraita as follows ]:

If

“coals”

alone had been stated,

one might have thought that he should bring

faintly glowing coals

dim and not glowing coals [

as Abaye explained it ].

The verse therefore states: “fire.”

If

“fire”

alone had been stated,

one might have thought

that, if he wished, he may bring half a coal and half a flame

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

half a coal and half a flame—that is, a coal with its flame upon it—because both a coal and a flame are called “fire,” and he could even bring a coal and a flame together.

The verse therefore says: “And he shall take”

Perhaps you will say: It is inappropriate to do so, because it produces smoke, and even before a mortal king one does not do so, all the more so before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

Nevertheless, I might have said that he should not bring it in this manner into the Holy of Holies, but if, at the time he takes it from the outer altar, he wishes to take a coal and a flame together, he may do so, and

when he enters

until he enters

(inside

inside

—into the Holy of Holies ],

the whole of it will be a coal

because the flame will have been extinguished during that time.

The verse therefore states: “And he shall take”

a full censer of

“fiery coals”

“from upon the altar,”

to teach you:

a. Its requirement is fiery coals, and not a flame.

b.

From the time of taking

from the altar,

they must already be coals,

as the verse says: “And he shall take—coals.” And since dim coals were mentioned here in the discussion, the Gemara explains the exact wording.

They raised a dilemma: Are coals

“umamot”

or

“omemot”?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said

to prove that “omemot” is the correct wording:

For we find this expression with Hiram, king of Tyre [Rashi; see Rashash, who questioned this], concerning his beauty and the splendor of his appearance. The verse states:

“Cedars did not

‘dim’ him

in the garden of God.”

That is: Even when his beauty was compared with beautiful cedars, Hiram’s beauty would not be diminished.

We learn from this that the expression for dimness is called “imum”; and coals whose fire has dimmed are called “omemot,” and not “umamot.”

Mishna:

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

Even if he roasted the entire Paschal offering, but part of it, or even its gravy, was not “roasted by fire,” he violates the prohibition if he eats it.

b. The Paschal offering, or part of it, that was cooked or roasted other than by fire is subject to a positive commandment to burn it, like other disqualified consecrated offerings [Rashi in our Mishna].

c. A Paschal offering roasted from the clay of an oven is not “roasted by fire,” for we learned above on folio 75a that roasting in the heat of a swept-out oven is not considered roasting by fire; and roasting in the clay of an oven is like roasting in a swept-out oven. Since it is not roasted by fire, it is forbidden to eat.

Therefore:

a. If

the Paschal offering touched

the meat

the clay of the oven

and was roasted there from its heat, and they removed it immediately, before the effect spread through all of it [Meiri], the place of contact is forbidden to eat, since it was roasted from the heat of an oven, which is not “roasted by fire”;

therefore:

“He shall peel”

“its place,”

removing from the place of contact “the thickness of a peel.”

b. If

some of the gravy

of the Paschal offering

dripped onto the clay

of the hot oven [this is how the Gemara explains it according to Shmuel, whose ruling we follow], and was cooked there, and the gravy became forbidden to eat,

and

then

the gravy returned

to the offering

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,” removing a substantial thickness. Removing only “the thickness of a peel” is insufficient, since fat is absorbed deeply into it [Rashi and Tosafot; and Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro wrote that he must remove the thickness of a finger].

c. If

some of the gravy

of the Paschal offering

dripped onto the semolina

that was hot [this is how the Gemara explains it according to Shmuel, whose ruling we follow], and was cooked there from the heat of the semolina,

he

shall scoop out its place

from the semolina, that is, he shall remove the place in the flour where the gravy fell, down to a depth, together with some of the surrounding area [Meiri].

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

he smeared

the entire Paschal offering [Meiri]

with teruma oil,

which is permitted only to priests:

If

the Paschal offering belonged to

a group of priests:

they

may eat

it, 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

raw

and has not been roasted, meaning that he smeared it while the meat was still raw and remembered before he roasted it,

he

shall rinse it

in water and remove its oil, because since he has not yet roasted it, the oil has not been absorbed into the Paschal offering; as with another cold prohibition that touched cold food, rinsing is sufficient [Meiri].

And if

it is already

roasted,

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

he

shall peel [

remove the thickness of a peel ]

the

outer

surface

of the meat, peeling away its entire outer layer [Meiri].

Since the Paschal offering becomes soft through roasting, it absorbs [Tosafot]. Therefore, even when it is cold, rinsing is insufficient, and peeling is required. The Gemara will explain: Why, even when the roasted offering was hot, is peeling sufficient, and is it not necessary to remove the measure of removal? This is unlike the gravy absorbed into the hot Paschal offering, for which the measure of removal is required, since fat is absorbed deeply into it.

If he

smeared it

for Passover

with second-tithe oil

which is permitted to an Israelite in Jerusalem.

This means that

he may not convert its value into money for the members of the group:

that is, the owner of the oil says to the other members of the group: “The portion that comes to me of this Paschal offering that we are eating is worth one dinar, and I must pay you one dinar; and here, my oil worth one dinar has entered the group, and it turns out that I have paid for my portion” [based on the Meiri].

The reason is that repayment of a debt is regarded as a sale [Meiri], and

one may not

(redeem ) [or

sell

Rashi]

second tithe in Jerusalem

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

Gemara:

It was stated:

With regard to meat that fell into milk, or a forbidden substance and a permitted substance [whether dry or liquid] that fell one into the other, or one upon the other [Meiri], their law is as follows:

a. If

hot fell into hot, everyone agrees:

it is

forbidden,

even if they were separated from one another and the dry substance was rinsed, because each absorbs from the other.