Zevachim 95b (צה:) — the Talmud in English

And if you say that he absorbs them

into

them

the urine

together with the seven agents, and applies all of them as one,

applying all the agents to the blood at once together with the urine,

but we learned: If he applied them

the agents

out of order,

not in the order in which they are listed in the Mishna, one after another, which is the order in which they must be applied,

or if he applied all seven at once,

all seven agents together,

he has done nothing.

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

And if you say that he absorbed them together with one of the agents,

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

but we learned that he must rub three times,

he must rub the stain three times

with each one

of the agents separately,

we learned.

And we answer:

Rather, he absorbs them

the urine

into tasteless saliva,

which is the first agent. Tasteless saliva is the saliva that comes from the mouth in the morning of one who has tasted nothing throughout the night, before he eats or speaks.

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

of the agents.

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

Mishna:

This Mishna teaches which items require rinsing and scouring.

Both one in which he cooked

whether a vessel in which sacrificial meat was cooked

and one into which he poured boiling liquid,

whether a vessel into which he poured boiling sacrificial stew,

both the most sacred sacrifices,

such as the meat of a sin-offering or guilt-offering,

and the lesser sanctified sacrifices,

such as a peace-offering,

require rinsing and scouring,

if they were copper vessels.

Rabbi Shimon says: Lesser sanctified sacrifices do not require rinsing and scouring.

However, Rabbi Shimon agrees that the vessel must be purged with boiling water, since the flavor absorbed into the vessel becomes notar, and if it is not purged, it will release the prohibited flavor of notar into permitted food cooked in it. Rabbi Shimon excludes the vessel only from the laws of rinsing and scouring.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated: “And the earthenware vessel

in which it was cooked

shall be broken.”

This applies only when one cooked in it,

in which case it must be broken. But

if he poured

boiling liquid into it, how do we know

that in this case too it must be broken?

The verse therefore states: “In which it was cooked, it shall be broken.”

Since the verse juxtaposes “it shall be broken” with “in it,” rather than saying, “If it is cooked in an earthenware vessel, it shall be broken,” we derive that if something was absorbed “in it,” in any manner, it must be broken. The fundamental reason for the mitzva is the absorption of sacrificial food; therefore, there is no difference between cooking and pouring, since both cause absorption.

We inquire:

If he suspended

a sin-offering spit in order to roast it

in the air of an oven,

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

what is

the law? Must the oven be broken or not?

Should we say that

with regard to cooking

that involves

absorption is what the Merciful One took care to prohibit?

But cooking without absorption does not require breaking the vessel.

Or perhaps, with regard to cooking

without absorption,

the Torah was also concerned about it and requires the vessel to be broken.

And we answer:

Rava said: Come and hear

from our Mishna:

Both one in which he cooked and one into which he poured boiling liquid.

It follows that the Torah was concerned with either one of these alone, for in the case of pouring into it there is absorption but no cooking, and nevertheless it requires rinsing and scouring. The same should apply to cooking without absorption: it too should require rinsing and scouring.

And we reject this:

Absorption without cooking is not the issue about which we inquire.

Since the absorbed substance becomes notar, and the Torah testified concerning an earthenware vessel that what is absorbed never leaves its walls, it must be broken.

What we inquire is: Cooking without absorption—what is

the law? Does it require breaking or not?

Come and hear: For Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: The oven of the Temple was made of metal.

We had thought to say that only the spits of sin-offerings were roasted in it, and that they made it of metal so that it would not require breaking. For if they had roasted in an earthenware oven, it would have required breaking.

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

the Temple oven

of earthenware,

since the spit does not cause the oven to absorb anything, and the earthenware oven would not be required to be broken. Why, then, did they not make the Temple oven of earthenware? Rather, it must be that cooking without absorption also requires breaking.

And we reject this:

Since there were leftovers

of meal-offerings

that were baked in the oven

of the Temple,

and there was cooking and absorption

from the oil of the meal-offering, therefore

we made it of metal.

But no inference can be drawn from here that cooking without absorption requires breaking.

And we say:

As for that oven in which they spread a coating,

a type of frying made from bread, in which they smear the oven with tail fat [sheep fat] and bake the bread after smearing the oven, so that the fat imparts flavor to the bread,

Rabba bar Ahilai prohibited eating the bread from it forever,

even if the oven was subsequently heated, for this does not render the oven fit,

even with salt,

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

lest one come to eat it with kutḥa,

a dairy food.

And we challenge this:

It was taught in a baraita: One may not knead dough with milk. And if he kneaded it, the entire loaf is prohibited, due to habituation to transgression,

as we are concerned that he might eat the bread with meat.

Similarly, one may not smear

the oven

with tail fat, and if he smeared it, the entire loaf is prohibited until he heats

the oven.

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

It is evident that heating is effective in making an oven fit, which poses a difficulty to Rabba, who said that it is forever prohibited to bake bread in such an oven and that heating is ineffective in making it fit.

And we conclude:

A refutation

of Rabba bar Ahilai—a conclusive refutation; his statement is disproved.

And we challenge this:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Since Rabba bar Ahilai has been refuted,

and his statement has been disproved,

why did Rav say: The pots

of leavened food

used during Pesaḥ must be broken?!

They have a remedy: heat them until they glow, since heating is effective for an earthenware vessel.

And we answer:

He said to him: Rav interprets that

baraita, which teaches “until he heats the oven,” as referring

to one made of metal.

But as for one made of earthenware, the Torah testified that what is absorbed into its walls never leaves them, and even heating is ineffective.

And we offer another answer:

And if you wish, say

that Rav interprets the baraita as referring

to an earthenware oven. And this

is an oven for which heating is effective, because

it was heated from the inside.

But

that

which Rav said is not rendered fit by heating refers to pots, which

were heated from the outside.

Therefore, they have no remedy other than breaking.

And we challenge this:

Let us heat them from the inside,

which would render the pots fit?

And we answer:

He is concerned that they will break.

He will be afraid to heat them properly until they glow, because he will worry that they may break, since they are not ordinarily heated on the inside but on the outside.

Therefore, as for this kuvya,

a vessel made of hollow tiles, resembling a pot placed on a fire, which is sometimes smeared and used to bake bread,

its heating is from the outside,

and therefore

it is prohibited

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