Pesachim 76b — the Talmud in English

Rav said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

fat kosher meat that he roasted

in one oven

with lean carcass meat,

even if each of them was on a separate spit and they were far from one another, the kosher meat is

forbidden.

That is to say: it is not necessary to say that if the carcass meat was fat, and the kosher meat was lean, the kosher meat is forbidden, because the fat meat emits an odor, and it enters the meat that is with it inside the oven and forbids it.

Rather, even if the carcass meat was lean and did not emit an odor, the kosher meat is nevertheless forbidden if it itself was fat.

And

for what reason?

Because

they fatten one another

[they fatten each other]: The odor emerging from the fat meat enters the lean meat and fattens it, and then an odor emerges from the lean meat toward the fat meat and forbids it.

And Rav’s reason is because he holds: odor is significant.

And Levi said: even lean kosher meat that he roasted with

fat carcass meat,

it is

permitted,

because the odor emerging from the carcass and entering the kosher meat does not forbid it.

And

for what reason?

Because

it is merely odor, and odor is not significant.

Levi carried out a practical ruling in the house of the Exilarch

[Levi issued a practical ruling in the house of the Exilarch]

with

lean

and another thing

[pig] fat, “which they roasted in an oven, and the matter came before Levi and he permitted it” [Rashi], because odor is not significant. (60)

He raised an objection

to Levi, who holds that odor is not significant:

From that which was taught

One may not roast two Paschal offerings

of two groups

together, because of the mixture,

as it explains and proceeds.

Is it not

because of “the mixture,” that is:

a mixture of tastes,

where the taste of the Paschal offering of this group enters the Paschal offering of the other group, and it turns out that the taste of the Paschal offering of one group is eaten by another group, which is forbidden, for the Paschal offering may be eaten only by those registered for it?

We have therefore learned that that taste, which is nothing but mere odor, is significant, and it is forbidden to feed it to those not registered for it,

and this is difficult for Levi?!

And we reject this:

No,

not as you said, to explain “mixture” as a mixture of tastes! Rather, this is why it is forbidden:

because of a mixture of bodies

[the body of the Paschal offering and not its taste], because one must be concerned lest the Paschal offerings become mixed up and they exchange them, giving the Paschal offering of this group to the other group, and they will not fulfill the mitzva of the Paschal offering; furthermore, it will turn out that the Paschal offering is eaten by those not registered for it.

And we support our interpretation:

This too is reasonably inferred, from the fact that it teaches

in the

latter clause

of the beraita: One may not roast two Paschal offerings

“even a kid and a lamb.”

And

if you grant

that we explain

because of

a mixture of

bodies, this is why it teaches

a novelty in the beraita, that

even a kid and a lamb

are forbidden, for although it is a remote concern that they will come to exchange them, since the species are different, nevertheless it is forbidden, lest they not pay attention to the fact that each group took a species that does not belong to it.

But if you say

that we explain

because of a mixture of tastes,

it is difficult: What novelty is there in the matter that it is forbidden to place even a kid and a lamb in the oven?!

For

what difference is there between a kid and a lamb, and a kid and a kid,

if we forbid them because of the absorption of tastes?!

Rather, perforce, the reason of the beraita is: because of a mixture of bodies.

And since we have supported our interpretation, we return and challenge Rav:

Rather, what is it? Perforce,

since it teaches “even a kid and a lamb,”

it is forbidden because of a mixture of bodies, but a mixture of tastes is permitted!

And if so,

let us say that it is a refutation of Rav

who holds that odor is significant, for according to him, it should be forbidden even because of a mixture of tastes?! Tosafot were astonished: What is the difficulty? That which it forbids because of a mixture of bodies applies where both are lean, so that there is no mixture of tastes; and they did not resolve it. See what Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote in the discussion there, section 11.

And it is not only that we forbid roasting in the manner of two pots, in the case of a kid and a kid, because of a mixture of bodies, but even a kid and a lamb are likewise forbidden, for even with two species there is a prohibition because of a mixture of bodies, as explained. Rav Mari said: This dispute between Rav and Levi, whether odor is significant or not, is like the dispute of the tannaim who already disagreed about it, for we learned: One who removes hot bread from the oven and places it upon the mouth of a barrel of teruma wine: Rabbi Meir forbids the bread to be eaten by non-kohanim, because the odor of the wine enters the bread when it is hot. And Rabbi Yehuda permits, as it explains and proceeds to explain his reason. And Rabbi Yose permits with bread of wheat, and forbids with bread of barley, because barley absorbs the odor of the wine, but wheat does not. Is it not as we said, that it is a dispute of tannaim who disagree whether odor is significant: One master, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: odor is not significant, and therefore it is permitted. And the other master, that is, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose, holds: odor is significant, but they disagree concerning bread of wheat, whether the odor of the wine is absorbed into the bread. And we conclude: According to Levi, who holds that odor is not significant, it is certainly a dispute of tannaim, who disagreed with his position, for Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose disagree with him; and if there is a tanna who holds like him, then Rabbi Yehuda alone is the one who holds like him. But according to Rav, is it possible to say that it is a dispute of tannaim? Is it necessarily the case that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rav and holds that odor is not significant? Rav could say to you: In reality, everyone agrees that odor is significant. For is it not the case that it was not stated concerning that Mishna that the tannaim disagreed only about whether the odor of the wine enters the bread or not?! And as it was stated: Rabba bar bar Chana said in the name of Resh Lakish: With hot bread— whether of wheat or of barley— and an open barrel, everyone agrees that it is forbidden, because the odor of the wine enters the bread, and according to everyone odor is significant. With cold bread and a sealed barrel [closed with a cover], everyone agrees that it is permitted, even with barley bread, because the odor of the wine does not emerge from a closed barrel according to everyone when the bread is not hot and absorbing. They disagreed the tannaim only: A. With hot bread and a sealed barrel. B. With cold bread and an open barrel. And the foundation of their dispute is whether the odor of the wine enters the bread in this situation: Rabbi Meir forbids all bread, Rabbi Yehuda permits all bread because it does not absorb, and Rabbi Yose distinguishes between wheat bread and barley bread, because it is the nature of barley to absorb. And since this is so, wherever the odor of the wine enters teruma, the bread is forbidden according to everyone, so everyone agrees concerning carcass meat and kosher meat that the kosher meat is forbidden, in accordance with Rav. For this— carcass meat and kosher meat that they roasted together in one oven— also, is like hot bread and an open barrel— where the odor enters the bread according to everyone. Rabbi

answered

Jeremiah: Here,

in the beraita in which they said “even a kid and a lamb” [Rashi]—

with what are we dealing? For example, they roasted them

in one oven

in two pots,

and in any such case the odor of one Paschal offering does not enter the other, and therefore their prohibition is only because of a mixture of bodies, as he explains the words of the beraita and proceeds.

And before the Gemara explains the beraita according to this answer, it raises an objection against it:

But is it possible that

“in two pots” enters your mind

to explain the beraita?! Do they roast a Paschal offering in a pot? [Rashi]

Rather, say:

They roasted them in one oven

in the manner of two pots,

that they roasted them on two spits in one oven, but they made a large mound of coals or ashes between them, and the odor does not enter from one Paschal offering into the other.

And this is what it says

in the beraita:

One may not roast two Paschal offerings together because of

the

mixture;

and it explains:

What is the mixture?

That is

a mixture of tastes.

And even if

they roasted them

in the manner of two pots,

so that you cannot forbid them for this reason,

for

there is

no mixture of tastes,

nevertheless it is

forbidden because of a mixture of bodies.

And

it is not only that we forbid roasting in the manner of two pots, in the case of a kid and a kid, because of a mixture of bodies, but

even a kid and a lamb

are likewise forbidden, for even with two species there is a prohibition because of a mixture of bodies, as explained.

Rav Mari said:

This dispute between Rav and Levi, whether odor is significant or not,

is like the dispute of the tannaim

who already disagreed about it:

For we learned:

One who removes hot bread

from the oven

and places it upon the mouth of a barrel of teruma wine:

Rabbi Meir forbids

the bread to be eaten by non-ko hanim, because the odor of the wine enters the bread when it is hot.

And Rabbi Yehuda permits,

as it explains and proceeds to explain his reason.

And Rabbi Yose permits with

bread

of wheat, and forbids with

bread

of barley, because barley absorbs

the odor of the wine, but wheat does not.

Is it not

as we said, that

it is a dispute of tannaim

who disagree whether odor is significant:

One master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds: odor is not significant,

and therefore it is permitted.

And the other master,

that is, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose,

holds: odor is significant,

but they disagree concerning bread of wheat, whether the odor of the wine is absorbed into the bread.

And we conclude:

According to Levi,

who holds that odor is not significant,

it is certainly a dispute of tannaim

who disagreed with his position, for Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose disagree with him; and if there is a tanna who holds like him, then Rabbi Yehuda alone is the one who holds like him.

But

according to Rav,

is it possible to

say that it is a dispute of tannaim?

Is it necessarily the case that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rav and holds that odor is not significant?

Rav could say to you:

In reality,

everyone

agrees that

odor is significant.

For is it not the case that

it was not stated concerning that

Mishna that the tannaim disagreed only about whether the odor of the wine enters the bread or not?!

And as it was stated:

Rabba bar bar Chana said in the name of Resh Lakish:

With hot bread—

whether of wheat or of barley—

and an open barrel, everyone agrees that it is forbidden,

because the odor of the wine enters the bread, and according to everyone odor is significant.

With cold bread and a sealed barrel

[closed with a cover],

everyone agrees that it is permitted,

even with barley bread, because the odor of the wine does not emerge from a closed barrel according to everyone when the bread is not hot and absorbing.

They disagreed

the tannaim

only:

A.

With hot bread and a sealed barrel.

B. With

cold bread and an open barrel.

And the foundation of their dispute is whether the odor of the wine enters the bread in this situation: Rabbi Meir forbids all bread, Rabbi Yehuda permits all bread because it does not absorb, and Rabbi Yose distinguishes between wheat bread and barley bread, because it is the nature of barley to absorb.

And since this is so, wherever the odor of the wine enters teruma, the bread is forbidden according to everyone, so everyone agrees concerning carcass meat and kosher meat that the kosher meat is forbidden, in accordance with Rav.

For

this—

carcass meat and kosher meat that they roasted together in one oven—

also, is like hot bread and an open barrel—

where the odor enters the bread according to everyone—

is comparable,

because with carcass meat and kosher meat, the odor certainly enters from the carcass into the kosher meat when they are roasted together in one oven, and if so, according to everyone: it is forbidden.

Tanna Rav Kahana, son of Rav Hinnana the Elder:

Bread that was baked together with a roast

of meat

in an oven is forbidden to eat with kutah

which contains milk, since the bread absorbed an odor from the meat.

That fish

[fish]

that was roasted together with meat

[roasted with meat in an oven], and

Rava of Parzikya forbade eating it with kutah

[Rava forbade eating this fish with kutah that contains milk], because of the odor of the meat that was absorbed by the fish.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even

to eat that fish that was roasted together with the meat

with salt

[with salt],

is also forbidden

once the fish absorbed the odor of the meat,

because it is difficult

[dangerous] to eat meat and fish together

with regard to odor

[see note ]

and another matter

leprosy.

Mishna:

Individual offerings, or even communal offerings for which no fixed time has been established for their offering, do not come in impurity.

Therefore: If the priests were impure, they do not sprinkle its blood and they do not burn its sacrificial portions; and it goes without saying that the impure [priests or owners] are forbidden to eat it.

If the blood of these offerings was impure, it is not sprinkled; if their sacrificial portions were impure, they are not burned upon the altar; and it goes without saying that if the meat was impure, it is not eaten.

If the blood of the offerings was pure and the priests were pure, but the meat and the sacrificial portions were all impure, the tannaim disputed whether the blood is sprinkled upon the altar, as will be explained in the sugya before us.

But if the owners were impure, they send their offerings and offer them [according to Rashi and other Rishonim], except for the Paschal offering and the festival peace-offering.

B. Communal offerings, or even individual offerings for which a fixed time has been established for their offering, come in impurity.

And when we say everywhere that impurity is deferred or permitted “in the community,” the matter does not depend on the community at all, but rather on offerings for which a fixed time has been established, even if they are individual offerings; rather, because most communal offerings have a fixed time, they attributed the matter to the community [the later authorities].

Therefore: If the priests were impure, they sprinkle its blood and burn its sacrificial portions, but they do not eat it; some say that they do not eat it in impurity, and some say that it is not eaten even in purity, as will be explained in the Mishna.

If the blood of these offerings was impure, it is sprinkled upon the altar; if their sacrificial portions were impure, it will be explained in the sugya before us whether they burn them upon the altar; if the meat was impure, it is not eaten; if the meat and the sacrificial portions were all impure, it will be explained in the sugya before us whether they sprinkle its blood.

C. The Paschal offering has special laws, some stringencies and some leniencies:

For the Paschal offering is not offered in the impurity of the owners, whereas the other offerings are offered in the impurity of the owners.

Although the Paschal offering is an offering for which a fixed time has been established, it does not have the permission that exists with the other offerings to come in impurity, and impurity was permitted in it only when the majority of the community was impure.

But with regard to eating, it is more lenient than the other offerings, as will be explained in the Mishna before us. Introduction].

Five matters

that are communal offerings intended to be eaten,

come

they

in impurity, and

nevertheless

are not eaten in impurity,

since their principal purpose is not eating, but the rectification of another matter, as will be explained [Meiri].

The words of the Mishna that we learned, “they are not eaten in impurity,” may be explained in two ways:

A. To teach you that although impurity is deferred with regard to sprinkling and offering, it is not deferred with regard to eating in bodily impurity [of the priests or owners] or in the impurity of the meat.

B. Moreover, our Mishna comes to introduce a novelty, and to teach you that an offering whose impurity was deferred and whose blood was sprinkled in impurity: only the sprinkling of its blood and the burning of its sacrificial portions were permitted in it, but eating the offering—even if the meat was pure, and even for pure priests—was not permitted in it, since its blood was sprinkled in impurity [and the sugya before us will be explained in this manner, since this is what is demonstrated by Rashi’s method in Zevachim 99b, as the later authorities wrote; see note ].

And these are they:

A. The meal-offering of

the Omer

which comes on the sixteenth of Nisan from barley, a tenth-measure of fine barley flour, and a handful is taken and burned, while the remainder is eaten by the priests like the remnants of all meal-offerings; and its principal purpose is not eating, for the principal purpose of bringing the Omer is to permit new grain to ordinary people, and therefore it is not eaten in impurity [Meiri].

B.

The two loaves

which come on Shavuot together with the sacrifices of the communal peace-offering, a tenth-measure of fine wheat flour in each of them, and they are eaten, one by the High Priest and the other divided among all the watches; and their principal purpose is not eating, but permitting meal-offerings to be brought from the new grain [Meiri].

C.

And the showbread

on every Shabbat, twelve loaves, each one two tenths of an ephah, and they remove the old bread and divide it between the outgoing watch and the incoming watch together with the High Priest, and they eat it on that day; and its principal purpose is not eating, but establishing the table with honor and beauty, and it remains there for the amount of time in which it can be properly eaten, namely seven days [Meiri].

D.

And the sacrifices of the communal peace-offering,

which are the two Shavuot lambs that come as peace-offerings, and their sacrificial portions are burned, while the meat is eaten by the priests [and there are no communal peace-offerings other than these; whereas the other communal offerings are burnt-offerings or sin-offerings]; and their principal purpose is not eating, but permitting the two loaves to the priests [Meiri].

E.

And the goats of the New Moons

which come as sin-offerings [for the additional offering], and are eaten by the priests; and their principal purpose is not eating, but atoning for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things [Meiri] Whereas concerning the other communal offerings, although they come in impurity, it is not applicable to say of them that they are not eaten in impurity, since they are not eaten at all, even when they come in purity, for some of them are burnt-offerings, all of which are entirely burned for the sake of God, and some of them are inner sin-offerings, whose meat is entirely burned.

But

the Paschal offering that comes in impurity,

it

is eaten in impurity

even by impure people.

And the reason that the Paschal offering differs from the other offerings in being eaten in impurity is: Since

the commandment did not come

to offer the Paschal offering

from the outset except for eating,

as the verse says in the passage concerning the Paschal offering, “according to his eating,” and since this is the principal purpose of the Paschal offering, certainly when the verse came to permit bringing it in impurity, it was in order to permit it for eating that the Torah permitted it.

And see further in the Tzelach in the Gemara, which is cited below in the note (73). Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Five matters come in impurity and are not eaten in impurity:

And we explain:

“Five”

to exclude what?

That is to say: For what purpose did the Mishna mention the number of the offerings that come in impurity and are not eaten in impurity? The tanna should have taught as follows: Communal offerings come in impurity and are not eaten in impurity.

And we explain: The number comes

to exclude the festival-offering of

the fifteenth

of Nisan, and likewise all the other festival-offerings, to teach you that the festival-offering does not defer impurity.

And it is a novelty,

for it might have entered your mind to say: Since it is a communal offering,

for although each and every individual is obligated in the festival-offering, nevertheless, since it “comes in an assembly” [it comes with an assembly of companions on the festival], it is called a communal offering,

and an appointed time is fixed for it

[its time is fixed], if so:

it should defer

the

impurity.

Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna, that it does not defer impurity.

And the reason is:

Since it has

the festival-offering

compensation throughout all seven

days for one who did not offer his festival-offering at its fixed time, and in any event this offering

does not defer Shabbat,

since its time is not fixed [Meiri; see note ],

and since it does not defer Shabbat, it does not defer

either

impurity.

And we raise an objection:

And let it also teach

in our Mishna:

The goats

of the sin-offering that come for the additional offering of

the festivals,

for these too come in impurity and are not eaten in impurity, since their principal purpose is not eating?!

And we answer:

This

has already

been taught to him

in our Mishna,

the sacrifices of the communal peace-offering,

to teach you that even kinds of blood-offerings [whose blood is sprinkled upon the altar] are not eaten in impurity; and consequently you learn that the goats of the festivals, too, are not eaten in impurity.

And we challenge our answer:

If so, the goats of the New Moons

which are kinds of blood-offerings

should likewise not be taught

in the Mishna,

for it has already taught

already

the sacrifices of the communal peace-offering?!

, they say:

the yeshiva students will answer:,