Pesachim 76a — the Talmud in English

b. If

cold fell into cold

and he separated them and rinsed the dry item,

everyone agrees:

it is

permitted,

for the permitted item does not absorb from the prohibited item when cold.

c. If

hot fell into cold,

where the upper one was hot and the lower one cold, or

cold into hot,

Rav and Shmuel disagreed concerning them:

Rav said: The upper one prevails

[the upper one overcomes], meaning: the upper one heats the lower one when the upper one is hot, and cools the lower one when the upper one is cold.

Therefore:

Hot that fell into cold: both of them are hot and they absorb from one another, and it is prohibited.

But cold that fell into hot: they do not absorb from one another, and it is permitted, after he separates them and rinses the dry item.

And Shmuel said: The lower one prevails,

the lower one is what heats or cools the upper one.

Therefore: hot into cold: it is permitted.

Cold into hot: it is prohibited.

And we raise an objection from our Mishna against Shmuel, who holds, “The lower one prevails”:

We learned: If some of its gravy dripped

of the Paschal offering

onto the earthenware and returned to it,

it

must remove its place.

And

it entered the mind

of the students of the yeshiva who raised the objection from here that our Mishna is speaking when the hot gravy of the Paschal offering fell onto

cold earthenware,

as he proceeds to explain the Mishna.

The Gemara’s objection below is explained according to the words of Tosafot.

And now it is difficult:

Granted, according to Rav, who said: The upper one prevails; for this reason it must remove its place.

Since

the

gravy

has gone

[the upper hot gravy goes away], and falls onto the lower earthenware, overcomes it, and

boils the earthenware

[it heats the earthenware].

And

again

the earthenware returns and boils the gravy,

the earthenware—which became hot from the gravy—returns and boils the gravy.

And

therefore it must remove its place:

For

when

the

gravy

—which was boiled because of another substance—

returns to the Paschal offering

[when the gravy returned and fell onto the Paschal offering],

it has already

roasted

the gravy of the

Paschal offering,

for the gravy of the Paschal offering has already been roasted

because of the heat of the earthenware

[because of the heat of the earthenware]!

And

if so: when the gravy returns to the Paschal offering and is absorbed into it, it must remove its place, for

the Merciful One said

“roasted by fire”

and not roasted because of another substance,

such as gravy that became hot from the earthenware.

But according to Shmuel, who said: The lower one prevails,

our Mishna is difficult:

For the

earthenware,

the lower one,

since it is cold,

on the contrary:

it cools the gravy

[it cools the gravy].

And if so: when the gravy returns and falls onto the Paschal offering,

why must it remove its place,

when even the gravy itself is permitted [Tosafot according to Rashi’s view]?!

And we answer:

as

there,

as Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Shmuel,

to resolve a similar difficulty from the latter clause of the Mishna, “Some of its gravy dripped onto the flour” [below in the Gemara]: our Mishna is speaking

of boiling flour!

Here too

it can be resolved concerning our difficulty: our Mishna is speaking

of boiling earthenware,

and for this reason it must remove its place.

For the gravy became hot from the heat of the earthenware and became roasted because of another substance, and once it was absorbed into the Paschal offering, it must remove its place.

We further raise an objection from our Mishna against Shmuel [and this is the difficulty already mentioned]:

We learned: If some of its gravy fell

of the Paschal offering

onto the flour,

it

must remove a portion of its place.

It entered our mind that this is with cold flour,

and now it is difficult:

Granted, according to Rav, who said: The upper one prevails; for this reason he must remove a portion of its place

and burn it.

And because

it

indeed

boils it—

the upper hot gravy

the flour that surrounds it

[which is found around the gravy],

and

again

the flour returns and heats it

[the flour returns and heats the gravy],

and gravy is roasted because of the heat of the flour

[the gravy is roasted from the heat of the flour].

Therefore he must remove a portion of its place and burn it, for the gravy in the flour is prohibited, since

the Merciful One said, “roasted by fire, and not roasted because of another substance”,

such as gravy that became hot from the flour.

But according to Shmuel, who said: The lower one prevails,

our Mishna is difficult:

For the

flour, since it is cold,

on the contrary:

it cools it

the gravy [it cools the gravy] and the gravy is not prohibited [Tosafot according to Rashi’s view].

And if so,

why do I need him to remove a portion of its place—

meaning, that he should remove the flour and burn it—when he can eat it?!

He said

in response,

Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Shmuel:

our Mishna is

with boiling flour.

Therefore he must remove the flour and burn it: for the boiling flour heats the gravy that fell into it and prohibits the gravy as “roasted because of another substance.”

We further raise an objection from our Mishna against Shmuel:

We learned: If he smeared it

the Paschal offering

with teruma oil, if it is a company of priests, they may eat it; if it is a company of Israelites: if it is raw, he must rinse it; if it is roasted, he must peel the exterior.

Granted, according to Rav, who said: The upper one prevails, for this reason it is sufficient for it—

even when the roasted offering was hot—

with a peel

[for this reason a peel is sufficient for it].

And

because the upper one

[the upper oil] is

cold,

and cools the lower Paschal offering, there is no heat here that would cause the oil to be absorbed into the Paschal offering to the extent of removal.

It would have been sufficient for him to rinse it, but nevertheless he must remove from it to the extent of a peel, for it is no less than a cold roasted offering, which requires a peel, since it is roasted and dry, and it is impossible that the oil should not enter it slightly.

But according to Shmuel, who said: The lower one prevails,

our Mishna is difficult: for

since it is hot,

the lower Paschal offering, and it heats the upper oil, then

it absorbs

the oil into the Paschal offering, as in the case of hot into hot.

And if so,

why is a peel sufficient for it,

when removal is required, since the fat is absorbed into the Paschal offering extensively [as above in the Mishna concerning gravy]?

And since “to the extent of removal” is required, then automatically, in this Paschal offering that was entirely poured over with oil,

it becomes prohibited

the Paschal offering

entirely,

for “the whole of it is included within the extent of removal” [explained according to the Meiri in the Mishna, s.v. “and they rolled”]?!

And we answer:

smeared is different, for it is only a small amount

[they smear it with only a small amount], and the Sages assessed that it absorbs only to the extent of a peel [Meiri].

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel

that the lower one prevails:

Hot into hot is prohibited; and likewise cold that was placed into hot is prohibited,

for the lower one prevails, and it is like hot into hot.

Hot into cold,

which does not become hot from the upper one,

and cold into cold, he rinses

and it is permitted.

We have thus explicitly learned that the lower one prevails, in accordance with Shmuel.

And we wonder concerning the beraita: How does it teach

hot into cold, he rinses?!

For

since it is hot,

the upper one,

until he cools it

the lower one cools the upper one [until the lower one cools the upper one],

it is impossible that it does not absorb

the hot upper one

a little

[it is impossible that the hot upper one should not absorb a little from the lower one].

And since this is so,

at least a peel should be required

[let us require a peel from it]?!

Rather, say

[this is how you should read it in the beraita]:

hot into cold, he peels; cold into cold, he rinses.

It was also taught

likewise

another [beraita]

in accordance with Shmuel:

hot meat that fell into hot milk, and likewise

meat

cold that fell into

milk

hot, is prohibited,

for the lower one prevails.

Hot into cold,

for the lower one prevails,

and

likewise

cold into cold, he rinses.

And we wonder concerning this beraita, just as we wondered concerning the earlier beraita: Is it really that

hot into cold, he rinses?!

For

since it is hot,

the upper meat,

until it cools it

the lower milk cools the upper meat,

it is impossible

that it does not absorb

the meat

a little

[a little from the milk], and if so,

at least a peel should be required?!

Rather, say: hot into cold, he peels; cold into cold, he rinses.

The Master said:

[meat]

cold into

[milk]

cold, he rinses:

Rav Huna said: They taught this only when he did not salt

the meat,

but if he salted it,

the meat,

it is prohibited.

And because of that

which Shmuel said:

a.

Salted is like boiling

—and it absorbs.

b.

Pickled is like cooked,

if a prohibited item and a permitted item were pickled together in vinegar for the measure that, if they were placed upon the fire, it would boil and begin to cook, then the whole of it is prohibited. (54)

Rava said: This that Shmuel said: Salted

is like boiling, he said it only when

it was salted so much that

it cannot be eaten because of its salt,

meaning: its taste was spoiled because of its salting [and it is not necessary that no person be able to eat it because of its salt, Rashi].

But

if it

can be eaten

because it

can be eaten because of its salt, it did not

Shmuel say that it is like boiling.

That fledgling

[a small fledgling]

that fell into a vessel of kamkha

[that fell into a vessel of koteah] containing milk, and both of them were cold, except that the koteah was salted and could be eaten because of its salt,

Rav Hinnana son of Rava of Pashrunya

permitted it

to be rinsed

[the name of a place] with mere rinsing, “even though the koteah was salted” [the wording of Rashi, Hullin 112a].

Rava said: Who is wise enough to permit a matter like this, if not Rav Hinnana son of Rava

of Pashrunya

[and who else is wise enough to know how to permit such a matter like Rav Hinnana]

for he is a great man

[for he is a great man], and he permitted it through his wisdom.

And Rav Hinnana’s reason is that

he could say to you: When Shmuel said, “Salted is like boiling,”

it is

when it cannot be eaten because of its salt,

but

this one can be eaten because of its salt,

and therefore its law is not like boiling.

And these words

that the fledgling is permitted apply when it was

raw, but if roasted, it requires a peel,

[see above in the note] 55.

And we said

that when it is roasted a peel is sufficient for it [Rashi],

only

with a fledgling

that has no fissures

[cracks, Meiri; and in the Rav Hai: something like hollows].

But if it has fissures

in the roasted fledgling, a peel is no longer sufficient for it, because it absorbs through the openings, and all of it is

prohibited

[Rashi, Hullin 112a].

And if the fledgling is seasoned

the fledgling

with spices

[spices], then all of it is

prohibited

[the Rav Hai and the Beit Yosef].

And because the spice that was cooked with it softens it and makes it easy to absorb, and when it fell into the koteah it was eager to absorb, and it absorbed [Rashi, Hullin; and the Rav Hai wrote: because through the sharpness of the spice it absorbed], [see note] .