Zevachim 95b — the Talmud in English

And if you would say that he absorbs them

into

them

in urine

together with the seven substances, and passes them all as one,

and passes all the substances over the blood at once together with the urine,

but we learned: If he passed them

the substances

not in their order,

not in the order in which they are listed in the Mishna, one after the other, for that is the order of passing them,

or if he passed all seven at once,

all seven substances at once,

he has done nothing.

If so, it is impossible to explain that he absorbed urine into them and passed them over the blood together.

And if you would say that he absorbs them together with one of the substances,

that he absorbed the urine into only one of the substances,

but we learned that he must rub three times,

he must rub the stain three times

with each one

of the substances separately,

we learned.

And we answer:

Rather, he absorbs them

the urine

into tasteless saliva,

which is the first substance: the saliva of one who tasted nothing throughout the entire night, the saliva that comes out of his mouth in the morning before he eats and speaks, is tasteless saliva,

as Reish Lakish said: Tasteless saliva must be with each and every one

of the substances.

It follows that he does not introduce the urine by itself; rather, it is absorbed into tasteless saliva.

Mishna:

This Mishna teaches which things require rinsing and washing.

Whether one cooked in it

whether a vessel in which sacrificial meat was cooked,

or whether one poured boiling liquid into it,

whether a vessel into which one poured hot sacrificial stew,

whether sacrificial meat of the highest degree of sanctity,

whether meat of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, such as a sin-offering or guilt-offering,

or whether sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity,

such as a peace-offering,

require rinsing and washing,

if they were copper vessels.

Rabbi Shimon says: Sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity does not require rinsing and washing.

However, Rabbi Shimon agrees that scalding with boiling water is required, since the taste absorbed in the vessel becomes notar, and if it is not scalded, it will emit the forbidden taste of notar into the permitted food that one will cook in it. Rabbi Shimon diminishes only the law of rinsing and washing.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated: “And the earthenware vessel

in which it is cooked

shall be broken.”

This applies only when one cooked in it,

then it shall be broken. But

if one poured

boiling liquid into it, from where

do we know that in this case as well it shall be broken?

The verse therefore says: “In which it is, it shall be broken.”

Since Scripture juxtaposed “it shall be broken” to “in it,” and did not write, “If it is cooked in an earthenware vessel, it shall be broken,” we expound that if it was absorbed “in it,” in any event it shall be broken. The primary reason for the mitzva is the absorption of sacrificial meat; therefore there is no difference between cooking and pouring, since both cause absorption.

We raise an objection:

If he suspended it

a spit of a sin-offering in order to roast it

in the air of an oven,

and it was cooked in it, but nothing was absorbed into it,

what

is the law? Is the oven required to be broken or not?

Should we say that

with regard to cooking

that it contains,

it is absorption that the Merciful One took care about.

But cooking without absorption does not require breaking.

Or perhaps, with regard to cooking

without absorption,

the Torah also took care about it and requires breaking.

And we answer:

Rava said: Come and hear

from our Mishna:

Whether one cooked in it or whether one poured boiling liquid into it.

Here, the Torah took care about only one of them, since in the case of pouring into it there is absorption but no cooking. Nevertheless, it requires rinsing and washing. The same applies to cooking without absorption: it also requires it.

And we reject this:

Absorption without cooking is not what we are asking about.

Since the absorbed matter becomes notar, and the Torah testified concerning an earthenware vessel that what is absorbed does not leave its walls ever, it requires breaking.

What we are asking about is cooking without absorption: what

is the law? Does it require breaking or not?

Come and hear: For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: The oven of the Temple was made of metal.

And we thought to say that only spits of sin-offerings were roasted in it, and in order that it not be required to be broken, they made it of metal; for if they roasted in an earthenware oven, it would require breaking.

And if it enters your mind that cooking without absorption is permitted, let us make

the Temple

oven

of earthenware. Since it does not absorb through the spit, the earthenware oven would not become subject to breaking. Why, then, did they not make the Temple oven of earthenware? Rather, necessarily, cooking without absorption also requires breaking.

And we reject this:

Since there are leftovers of

meal-offerings

whose baking is in the oven

of the Temple,

and there is cooking and absorption

from the oil of the meal-offering, therefore

we make it of metal.

But one cannot infer from here that cooking without absorption requires breaking.

And we say:

That oven in which they spread a coating,

a kind of frying made from bread, in which they smear the oven with tail-fat [sheep fat] and bake the bread after smearing the oven, and the fat gives taste to the bread,

Rabbah bar Ahilai prohibited eating bread from it forever,

and even if they heated the oven afterward, this does not render the oven fit,

even with salt,

and it is forbidden to eat the bread even with salt,

lest one come to eat it with kutah,

a dairy food.

And we challenge this:

We learned in a beraita: One may not knead dough with milk. And if he kneaded it, the entire loaf is forbidden because of habituation to transgression,

for we fear that perhaps he will eat the bread with meat.

Similarly, one may not spread

smear

the oven with tail-fat, and if he spread it, the entire loaf is forbidden until he heats

the oven.

But if he heated the oven, it is permitted to bake in the oven.

It is proven that heating is effective to render an oven fit, and this is difficult for Rabbah, who said that it is forever forbidden to bake bread in the oven, and heating does not render it fit.

And we conclude:

Refutation

of Rabbah bar Ahilai—a refutation, and his words are overturned.

And we challenge this:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But since Rabbah bar Ahilai has been refuted,

since his words have been overturned,

why did Rav say: Pots

earthenware pots of leaven

on Passover must be broken?!

They have a remedy: heat them so that they become white-hot, since heating is effective for an earthenware vessel.

And we answer:

He said to him: Rav establishes that

the one

of metal.

But one of earthenware—the Torah testified concerning it that what is absorbed does not leave its walls ever, and even heating is ineffective.

And we further answer:

And if you wish, say

that Rav establishes the beraita

with an earthenware oven. And this

is an oven for which heating is effective, since

they heated it from the inside.

But

that,

which Rav said heating is ineffective, refers to pots, which

they heated from the outside.

Therefore they have no remedy other than breaking.

And we refute this:

Let them heat them from the inside,

and this would render the pots fit?

And we answer:

He takes pity on them, lest they break.

He will fear heating them properly until they become white-hot, since he will be concerned that perhaps they will break, for their normal manner is to heat them from the outside and not from the inside.

Therefore, this kuvya,

a vessel made of hollow roof tiles, like a pot-support, and sometimes smeared and used to bake bread,

its heating is from the outside,

and therefore

it is forbidden

to use it. Heating is ineffective for it, since it is heated from the outside.