Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 3, 2021 | 讻状讗 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 74

Today鈥檚 Daf is sponsored by Faye Schwartz in honor of Gabi and Daniel Altman, “whose friendship I treasure. They are role models for their friends and community as they are exemplars of Torah, Avoda and Gemilut Chesed.”

The mishnah describes how the Passover sacrifice is roasted. On what kind of skewer? Why? Where did they put the legs and intestines? There is controversy over the issue. It is forbidden to eat roast meat while there is no Passover sacrifice? If it is roasted in what way, is it included in the prohibition not to roast mean anymore? Moliata, meat with a meat stuffing, is permitted by Raba. There is no need to worry that the meat outside will swallow blood from the meat inside because it has been swallowed, so they were emitted. Is this the same reason in the Passover sacrifice for those who hold that the intestines and legs went inside? Or is it the same reason about eating a heart that if they are not torn, they are torn after cooking to get the blood out? The gemara brings different cases of a food that had a dough around the meat and discusses them – when one should be afraid that there is blood that is expelled from the meat and swallowed in the dough. Is it possible from there to bring evidence to from there that as it is swallowed so it is emitted? Rabbi Acha and Ravina disagrees in three cases regarding kashering meat 鈥 by raw meat from an animal that was wounded before dying and had a lot of blood collected, animal testicles and a large vein in the neck. Can one salt it, roast it or put it directly on coals? The gemara adds more details of the law of the raw meat. And also discusses one who soaks the meat in vinegar.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 爪讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 诪讘讬讗讬谉 砖驻讜讚 砖诇 专诪讜谉 讜转讜讞讘讜 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 注讚 讘讬转 谞拽讜讘转讜 讜谞讜转谉 讗转 讻专注讬讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜 诇转讜讻讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诪讬谉 讘讬砖讜诇 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 转讜诇讬谉 讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇讗 注诇 讛砖驻讜讚 讜诇讗 注诇 讛讗住讻诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇讟讘讬 注讘讚讜 爪讗 讜爪诇讛 诇谞讜 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讗住讻诇讗:


MISHNA: How does one roast the Paschal lamb? One brings a spit [shappud] of pomegranate wood and thrusts it into the mouth of the lamb until it reaches its anus, and one then puts its legs and entrails inside it and roasts it all together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: One does not insert its legs and entrails inside it, as this is a type of cooking. Anything placed inside the offering does not get roasted directly by the fire and is considered to have been cooked. Rather, one suspends the legs and entrails from the spit above the animal鈥檚 head outside it. One may not roast the Paschal lamb on the metal spit nor on a metal grill [askela]. However, Rabbi Tzadok said: There was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the grill.


讙诪壮 讜谞讬转讬 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讞诐 诪拽爪转讜 讞诐 讻讜诇讜 讜拽诪讟讜讬 诪讞诪转 讛砖驻讜讚 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 爪诇讬 讗砖 讜诇讗 爪诇讬 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜谞讬转讬 砖诇 讚拽诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖讬讘讬 诪驻讬拽 诪讬讗 讜讛讜讬 讻诪讘讜砖诇 讜谞讬转讬 砖诇 转讗谞讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪讞诇讞诇 诪驻讬拽 诪讬讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讘讜砖诇


GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a metal spit. The Gemara answers: With regard to a metal utensil, once part of it is hot, it is all hot, and the meat is roasted due to the heat of the spit. And the Merciful One states in the Torah that the Paschal lamb must be roasted in fire and not roasted through something else. The Gemara asks why it is necessary to use specifically a spit of pomegranate wood: Let them bring a spit of palm wood. The Gemara answers: Since the palm branch has grooves between the leaves, it gives off a small amount of water from the grooves during roasting. The meat of the offering that touches the spit is as though it is cooked. The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a spit of fig wood. The Gemara answers: Since it is hollow and has sap inside, it gives off water, and it is as though the meat is cooked.


讜谞讬转讬 砖诇 讗诇讜谉 砖诇 讞专讜讘 讜砖诇 砖拽诪讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽讬讟专讬 诪驻讬拽 诪讬讗


The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a spit made from an oak or from a carob tree or from a sycamore, which are hard and do not have sap. The Gemara answers: With regard to each one of these trees, since it has knots and one must cut them off in order to smooth the branch, it gives off water from the locations of the cuts during roasting, and the meat is considered cooked.


砖诇 专诪讜谉 谞诪讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽讬讟专讬 砖讬注讬 拽讬讟专讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘谞讘讙讗 讘专 砖转讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 拽讬讟专讬 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 驻住拽讬讛 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讘讬 驻住拽讬讛 诇讘专


The Gemara asks: A branch from a pomegranate tree also has knots. The Gemara answers: Its knots are smooth. There is no need to straighten the branch with a knife in order to use it, and therefore it does not emit water. And if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a branch within its first year, which does not yet have knots. The Gemara asks: But there is the place it was cut from the tree, and water will come from there. The Gemara answers: One leaves the place it was cut outside of the animal rather than inserting that side of the branch into the animal.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖砖驻讜讚 砖诇 注抓 讗讬谞讜 谞砖专祝 讻讱 砖驻讜讚 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗讬谞讜 诪专转讬讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讝讛 讞诐 诪拽爪转讜 讞诐 讻讜诇讜 讜讝讛 讞诐 诪拽爪转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞诐 讻讜诇讜:


The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Just as the part of a spit of wood that is inside the animal is not burned, although it is over the fire, so the part of a spit of metal that is inside the animal does not become burning hot. There is no concern that the meat will be roasted from the heat of the spit. The Rabbis said to him: This is not the case. With regard to this, the metal, when part of it is hot, it is all hot. And with regard to that, the wood, when part of it is hot, not all of it is hot, and therefore the meat is cooked by the heat of the fire and not by the heat of the spit.


讜谞讜转谉 讗转 讻专注讬讜 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽讜专讬讛讜 转讜讱 转讜讱 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 拽讜专讬讛讜 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住


It was taught in the mishna that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, one places the legs and entrails inside the lamb鈥檚 body and roasts them together. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael would call the Paschal lamb: Tokh, tokh, because when one roasts the legs and entrails inside the lamb they make that sound, like other things that are cooked. Rabbi Tarfon would call it: Helmeted kid. In his opinion, the entrails must be roasted when they are suspended from the spit above the head of the animal, somewhat resembling a helmet.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住 讚讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讻诇 砖爪诇讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讻讗讞讚 谞讞转讱 诪诪谞讜 讗讘专 谞砖诇拽 诪诪谞讜 讗讘专 讗讬谉 讝讛 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住


The Sages taught: Which is the kid roasted whole that it is prohibited to eat on the nights of Passover in modern times, so as not appear as though one sacrificed the Paschal lamb outside the Temple? It is any kid that one roasted all at once in the manner that the Paschal lamb was roasted. However, if one of its limbs is severed or one of its limbs is boiled, it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.


讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 谞讞转讱 诪诪谞讜 讗讘专 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪讟讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讗诪专转 诇讗 谞砖诇拽 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 砖砖诇拽讜 讘诪讞讜讘专


The Gemara expresses surprise at the formulation of this baraita. Now, one can say that if one of its limbs is severed, although one roasts it together with the rest of the animal, you said that it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole, and it is permitted in modern times. If one of its limbs is severed and boiled, which is not an approved method of preparation of the Paschal lamb, is it necessary to say that that it is not considered roasted whole? Rav Sheshet said: This is referring to a case where one boiled the limb while it was attached to the rest of the animal. The halakha teaches that even if the animal remains whole, if one of its limbs is cooked it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗讬 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 砖专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 讘诇注 讚诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘讜诇注讛 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讛


The Gemara raises a general halakhic discussion related to the mishna. Rabba said: This stuffing of raw meat inside another animal that is being roasted is permitted, even if the meat that is stuffed inside has not been salted to remove the blood. Abaye said to him: But the meat of the animal being roasted absorbs blood from the stuffing. He said to him: As it absorbs it, so it then emits it. The heat of the fire causes blood to be released from the meat used as stuffing into the meat of the animal being stuffed, and the heat then draws the blood out of that meat as well.


谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讻专注讬讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜 诇转讜讻讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讘讜诇注讜 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讜 讗诪专讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讚诪讞诇讞诇


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports him: He places its legs and its entrails inside the Paschal lamb and roasts them together. What is the reason that it is permitted to do this? Is it not because we say: As it absorbs it, so it emits it? Although Rabbi Akiva disputes this statement, his opinion is due to the unique halakhot of the Paschal lamb. It seems that everyone agrees that there is no concern about the prohibition against consuming blood. The Gemara refutes this proof: Say it is different there, in the case of the Paschal lamb. Since there is the place of the slaughter, which is hollow and open,


诪讬讚讘 讚讬讬讘讬


the blood flows out. However, in the case of regular stuffing, which is closed on all sides, there is no way for the blood to drain.


谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛诇讘 拽讜专注讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讚诪讜 诇讗 拽专注讜 拽讜专注讜 诇讗讞专 讘讬砖讜诇讜 讜诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讘讜诇注讜 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讜


The Gemara suggests further: Let us say that the following mishna supports him: With regard to the heart of an animal, one must tear it and remove its blood before one roasts or cooks it. And if he did not tear it beforehand, he tears it after it is cooked, i.e., roasted, and it is permitted. What is the reason the heart is permitted although there is presumably still blood inside? Is it not because we say that as it absorbs it, so it emits it, and therefore as the heart is roasted the blood is absorbed in the meat and then discharged, so that no blood is left in the meat, and whatever is still inside the hollow part of the heart can be removed when it is torn open? This would support the opinion of Rabba.


砖讗谞讬 诇讘 讚砖讬注


The Gemara refutes the proof: A heart is different because it is smooth and does not absorb much blood. However, generally one does not necessarily rely on the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it.


(讗讬谞讬) 讜讛讗 专讘讬谉 住讘讗 讟驻诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 诇专讘 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪注诇讬 讟驻诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讜讗讬讻讜诇 讛讛讬讗 讘住诪讬讚讗 讚诪驻专讬专


The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Ravin the Elder wrap a particular young dove in dough for Rav and roast it, and Rav said to him: If its dough tastes good, give me some and I will eat? Apparently, according to Rav, although the breading absorbed blood, it also certainly discharged it during the roasting. The Gemara refutes this point: That incident involved fine flour [semida], which is crumbly and allows the blood to flow through it.


讜讛讗 专讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讟驻诇讜 诇讬讛 讘专 讗讜讜讝讗 讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗 讚讞讝讬转讬讛 讚讝讬讙 讻讝讜讝讗 讞讬讜专讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讘讜诇注讜 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讬 讝讬讙 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 诇讗 讝讬讙 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讘讞讬讜专转讗 讚砖专讬专


The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rava happen to come to the house of the Exilarch, and they breaded a young goose for him, and he said: If I had not seen that the breading is as clear as a white, i.e., new, coin, I would not eat from it out of concern that it absorbed some of the blood? And if it should enter your mind to accept the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it, why note that he ate it particularly because it was clear? Even if it was not clear, it should also be permitted. The Gemara responds: There, it was talking about white flour, which is firm and does not allow the blood to pass through; Rava ate it only because its color indicated that no blood remained in the breading.


讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讚住诪讬讚讗 讘讬谉 讗住诪讬拽 讘讬谉 诇讗 讗住诪讬拽 砖专讬讗 讚讞讬讜专转讗 讗讬 讝讬讙 讻讝讜讝讗 讞讬讜专讗 砖专讬讗 讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专 讚砖讗专 拽诪讞讬诐 讗住诪讬拽 讗住讜专 诇讗 讗住诪讬拽 砖专讬


The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if one makes the breading of fine flour, whether it turned red from blood or did not turn red, it is permitted. The following rule applies to breading of white flour: If it is clear like a white coin, it is permitted; if not, it is prohibited. With regard to breading of other types of flour, which are not especially firm or crumbly, if the breading turned red, it is prohibited; if it did not turn red, it is permitted.


讛讗讬 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讜诪讗 诇转讞转 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讜诪讗 诇注讬诇 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 砖专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讜诪讗 诇注讬诇


With regard to this meat stuffing in an animal: The one who prohibits one to eat it, Abaye, does so even if the opening is facing downward, allowing the blood to escape more easily. And the one who permits one to eat it, Rabba, does so even if the opening is facing upward. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that stuffing is permitted even if the opening is facing upward, in accordance with the lenient opinion.


讗讜诪爪讗 讘讬注讬 讜诪讬讝专拽讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚专讘 讗讞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讗讞讗 诇拽讜诇讗


The Gemara quotes a further discussion concerning the topic of blood absorbed in meat and the preparation of meat permitted for eating. The Gemara addresses three cases: Raw meat [umtza] that is eaten without being salted, testicles of an animal, and the large veins of the neck. Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed about this. The Gemara points out: In all their discussions about the Torah, whenever there is a dispute between them and there is no explanation as to which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Rav A岣 is stringent and the opinion of Ravina is lenient, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient. This applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav A岣 is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 to be lenient.


讛讗讬 讗讜诪爪讗 讚讗住诪讬拽 讞转讻讬讛 讜诪诇讞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚专讛 砖专讬 砖驻讚讬讛 讘砖驻讜讚讗 砖专讬 诪讬讚讘 讚讬讬讘 讗讞转讬讛 讗讙讜诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诪爪诪讬转 爪诪讬转 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘


The Gemara explains: With regard to this piece of raw meat that became red from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot because it is clear that salt removes blood from meat. If one put it on a spit in order to roast it, it is permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed about the halakha in this case; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that the coals cause the meat to shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside. And the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, leaving only the meat. And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood.


讜讻谉 讘讬注讬 讞转讻讬谞讛讜 讜诪诇讞讬谞讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚专讛 砖专讬讬谉 转诇讬谞讛讜 讘砖驻讜讚讗 砖专讬讬谉 诪讬讚讘 讚讬讬讘 讗讞转讬谞讛讜 讗讙讜诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诪爪诪讬转 爪诪讬转 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘


And, so too, with regard to testicles: If one cut them and salted them, they are permitted even to be cooked in a pot. If one hung them on a spit in order to roast them, they are permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed them on coals, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed about this; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood.


讜讻谉 诪讬讝专拽讬 讞转讻讬讛 讜诪诇讞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚专讛 砖专讬 转诇讬讬讛 讘砖驻讜讚讗 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 诇转转讗讬 砖专讬 诪讬讚讘 讚讗讬讘 讗讞转讬讛 讗讙讜诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诪爪诪讬转 爪诪讬转 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘


And, so too, with regard to large veins: If one cut them and salted them, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot. If one hung them on a spit and the place of the incision of the slaughter is facing downward, it is permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed about this matter; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood. And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, and it is permitted.


讛讗讬 讗讜诪爪讗 讚讗住诪讬拽 讞诇讬讬讛 讗住讬专 诇讗 讗住诪讬拽 讞诇讬讬讛 砖专讬 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讗住诪讬拽 谞诪讬 讞诇讬讬讛 讗住讬专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讜专讬讬拽讬 讚诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 诪讙诪注 诇讬讛 讙诪讜注讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讙诪注 诇讬讛 讙诪讜注讬


The Gemara raises another discussion with regard to blood absorbed in meat. People would soak raw meat (Tosafot) in vinegar in order to ensure that none of the blood would separate from its original place and prohibit the meat from being eaten, as it is permitted to eat blood that has not separated from its original place. This piece of raw meat, whose vinegar became red due to the blood absorbed in it, is forbidden. If its vinegar did not become red, it is permitted. Ravina said: Even if its vinegar did not become red, it is forbidden; it is impossible that it does not have streaks of blood. Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Father, i.e., Ameimar, would swallow the vinegar and was unconcerned that there may be blood in it. Some say Rav Ashi himself would swallow it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 讛讗讬 讞诇讗 讚讞诇讬讟 讘讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 转讜 诇讗 转讗谞讬 讞诇讬讟 讘讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讞诇讗 诪转诪讛讗 讚讞诇讟讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讛转诐 讗讬转讬讛


Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The practice of my father, Ameimar, was that with regard to vinegar in which he had soaked meat one time to keep in its blood, he would not soak meat in it again. It could no longer keep the blood in the meat. The Gemara asks: In what way is vinegar that has been used once different from weak vinegar, in which we soak meat without concern that it will be unable to keep the blood in the meat? The Gemara explains: There, the


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Dr. Tamara Spitz

Pesachim 74-80 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we start the 7th chapter of Pesachim and learn how the Pesach sacrifice was roasted. We will learn...
zevach seh labayit

A Real Sacrifice

With the seventh chapter of Pesachim we finally hear about cooking the Passover sacrifice itself 鈥 we are getting closer...

Pesachim 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 74

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 爪讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 诪讘讬讗讬谉 砖驻讜讚 砖诇 专诪讜谉 讜转讜讞讘讜 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 注讚 讘讬转 谞拽讜讘转讜 讜谞讜转谉 讗转 讻专注讬讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜 诇转讜讻讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诪讬谉 讘讬砖讜诇 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 转讜诇讬谉 讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇讗 注诇 讛砖驻讜讚 讜诇讗 注诇 讛讗住讻诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇讟讘讬 注讘讚讜 爪讗 讜爪诇讛 诇谞讜 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讗住讻诇讗:


MISHNA: How does one roast the Paschal lamb? One brings a spit [shappud] of pomegranate wood and thrusts it into the mouth of the lamb until it reaches its anus, and one then puts its legs and entrails inside it and roasts it all together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: One does not insert its legs and entrails inside it, as this is a type of cooking. Anything placed inside the offering does not get roasted directly by the fire and is considered to have been cooked. Rather, one suspends the legs and entrails from the spit above the animal鈥檚 head outside it. One may not roast the Paschal lamb on the metal spit nor on a metal grill [askela]. However, Rabbi Tzadok said: There was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the grill.


讙诪壮 讜谞讬转讬 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讞诐 诪拽爪转讜 讞诐 讻讜诇讜 讜拽诪讟讜讬 诪讞诪转 讛砖驻讜讚 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 爪诇讬 讗砖 讜诇讗 爪诇讬 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜谞讬转讬 砖诇 讚拽诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖讬讘讬 诪驻讬拽 诪讬讗 讜讛讜讬 讻诪讘讜砖诇 讜谞讬转讬 砖诇 转讗谞讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪讞诇讞诇 诪驻讬拽 诪讬讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讘讜砖诇


GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a metal spit. The Gemara answers: With regard to a metal utensil, once part of it is hot, it is all hot, and the meat is roasted due to the heat of the spit. And the Merciful One states in the Torah that the Paschal lamb must be roasted in fire and not roasted through something else. The Gemara asks why it is necessary to use specifically a spit of pomegranate wood: Let them bring a spit of palm wood. The Gemara answers: Since the palm branch has grooves between the leaves, it gives off a small amount of water from the grooves during roasting. The meat of the offering that touches the spit is as though it is cooked. The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a spit of fig wood. The Gemara answers: Since it is hollow and has sap inside, it gives off water, and it is as though the meat is cooked.


讜谞讬转讬 砖诇 讗诇讜谉 砖诇 讞专讜讘 讜砖诇 砖拽诪讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽讬讟专讬 诪驻讬拽 诪讬讗


The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a spit made from an oak or from a carob tree or from a sycamore, which are hard and do not have sap. The Gemara answers: With regard to each one of these trees, since it has knots and one must cut them off in order to smooth the branch, it gives off water from the locations of the cuts during roasting, and the meat is considered cooked.


砖诇 专诪讜谉 谞诪讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽讬讟专讬 砖讬注讬 拽讬讟专讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘谞讘讙讗 讘专 砖转讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 拽讬讟专讬 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 驻住拽讬讛 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讘讬 驻住拽讬讛 诇讘专


The Gemara asks: A branch from a pomegranate tree also has knots. The Gemara answers: Its knots are smooth. There is no need to straighten the branch with a knife in order to use it, and therefore it does not emit water. And if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a branch within its first year, which does not yet have knots. The Gemara asks: But there is the place it was cut from the tree, and water will come from there. The Gemara answers: One leaves the place it was cut outside of the animal rather than inserting that side of the branch into the animal.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖砖驻讜讚 砖诇 注抓 讗讬谞讜 谞砖专祝 讻讱 砖驻讜讚 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗讬谞讜 诪专转讬讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讝讛 讞诐 诪拽爪转讜 讞诐 讻讜诇讜 讜讝讛 讞诐 诪拽爪转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞诐 讻讜诇讜:


The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Just as the part of a spit of wood that is inside the animal is not burned, although it is over the fire, so the part of a spit of metal that is inside the animal does not become burning hot. There is no concern that the meat will be roasted from the heat of the spit. The Rabbis said to him: This is not the case. With regard to this, the metal, when part of it is hot, it is all hot. And with regard to that, the wood, when part of it is hot, not all of it is hot, and therefore the meat is cooked by the heat of the fire and not by the heat of the spit.


讜谞讜转谉 讗转 讻专注讬讜 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽讜专讬讛讜 转讜讱 转讜讱 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 拽讜专讬讛讜 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住


It was taught in the mishna that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, one places the legs and entrails inside the lamb鈥檚 body and roasts them together. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael would call the Paschal lamb: Tokh, tokh, because when one roasts the legs and entrails inside the lamb they make that sound, like other things that are cooked. Rabbi Tarfon would call it: Helmeted kid. In his opinion, the entrails must be roasted when they are suspended from the spit above the head of the animal, somewhat resembling a helmet.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住 讚讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讻诇 砖爪诇讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讻讗讞讚 谞讞转讱 诪诪谞讜 讗讘专 谞砖诇拽 诪诪谞讜 讗讘专 讗讬谉 讝讛 讙讚讬 诪拽讜诇住


The Sages taught: Which is the kid roasted whole that it is prohibited to eat on the nights of Passover in modern times, so as not appear as though one sacrificed the Paschal lamb outside the Temple? It is any kid that one roasted all at once in the manner that the Paschal lamb was roasted. However, if one of its limbs is severed or one of its limbs is boiled, it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.


讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 谞讞转讱 诪诪谞讜 讗讘专 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪讟讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讗诪专转 诇讗 谞砖诇拽 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 砖砖诇拽讜 讘诪讞讜讘专


The Gemara expresses surprise at the formulation of this baraita. Now, one can say that if one of its limbs is severed, although one roasts it together with the rest of the animal, you said that it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole, and it is permitted in modern times. If one of its limbs is severed and boiled, which is not an approved method of preparation of the Paschal lamb, is it necessary to say that that it is not considered roasted whole? Rav Sheshet said: This is referring to a case where one boiled the limb while it was attached to the rest of the animal. The halakha teaches that even if the animal remains whole, if one of its limbs is cooked it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗讬 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 砖专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 讘诇注 讚诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘讜诇注讛 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讛


The Gemara raises a general halakhic discussion related to the mishna. Rabba said: This stuffing of raw meat inside another animal that is being roasted is permitted, even if the meat that is stuffed inside has not been salted to remove the blood. Abaye said to him: But the meat of the animal being roasted absorbs blood from the stuffing. He said to him: As it absorbs it, so it then emits it. The heat of the fire causes blood to be released from the meat used as stuffing into the meat of the animal being stuffed, and the heat then draws the blood out of that meat as well.


谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讻专注讬讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜 诇转讜讻讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讘讜诇注讜 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讜 讗诪专讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讚诪讞诇讞诇


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports him: He places its legs and its entrails inside the Paschal lamb and roasts them together. What is the reason that it is permitted to do this? Is it not because we say: As it absorbs it, so it emits it? Although Rabbi Akiva disputes this statement, his opinion is due to the unique halakhot of the Paschal lamb. It seems that everyone agrees that there is no concern about the prohibition against consuming blood. The Gemara refutes this proof: Say it is different there, in the case of the Paschal lamb. Since there is the place of the slaughter, which is hollow and open,


诪讬讚讘 讚讬讬讘讬


the blood flows out. However, in the case of regular stuffing, which is closed on all sides, there is no way for the blood to drain.


谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛诇讘 拽讜专注讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讚诪讜 诇讗 拽专注讜 拽讜专注讜 诇讗讞专 讘讬砖讜诇讜 讜诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讘讜诇注讜 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讜


The Gemara suggests further: Let us say that the following mishna supports him: With regard to the heart of an animal, one must tear it and remove its blood before one roasts or cooks it. And if he did not tear it beforehand, he tears it after it is cooked, i.e., roasted, and it is permitted. What is the reason the heart is permitted although there is presumably still blood inside? Is it not because we say that as it absorbs it, so it emits it, and therefore as the heart is roasted the blood is absorbed in the meat and then discharged, so that no blood is left in the meat, and whatever is still inside the hollow part of the heart can be removed when it is torn open? This would support the opinion of Rabba.


砖讗谞讬 诇讘 讚砖讬注


The Gemara refutes the proof: A heart is different because it is smooth and does not absorb much blood. However, generally one does not necessarily rely on the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it.


(讗讬谞讬) 讜讛讗 专讘讬谉 住讘讗 讟驻诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 诇专讘 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪注诇讬 讟驻诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讜讗讬讻讜诇 讛讛讬讗 讘住诪讬讚讗 讚诪驻专讬专


The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Ravin the Elder wrap a particular young dove in dough for Rav and roast it, and Rav said to him: If its dough tastes good, give me some and I will eat? Apparently, according to Rav, although the breading absorbed blood, it also certainly discharged it during the roasting. The Gemara refutes this point: That incident involved fine flour [semida], which is crumbly and allows the blood to flow through it.


讜讛讗 专讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讟驻诇讜 诇讬讛 讘专 讗讜讜讝讗 讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗 讚讞讝讬转讬讛 讚讝讬讙 讻讝讜讝讗 讞讬讜专讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讘讜诇注讜 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讬 讝讬讙 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 诇讗 讝讬讙 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讘讞讬讜专转讗 讚砖专讬专


The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rava happen to come to the house of the Exilarch, and they breaded a young goose for him, and he said: If I had not seen that the breading is as clear as a white, i.e., new, coin, I would not eat from it out of concern that it absorbed some of the blood? And if it should enter your mind to accept the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it, why note that he ate it particularly because it was clear? Even if it was not clear, it should also be permitted. The Gemara responds: There, it was talking about white flour, which is firm and does not allow the blood to pass through; Rava ate it only because its color indicated that no blood remained in the breading.


讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讚住诪讬讚讗 讘讬谉 讗住诪讬拽 讘讬谉 诇讗 讗住诪讬拽 砖专讬讗 讚讞讬讜专转讗 讗讬 讝讬讙 讻讝讜讝讗 讞讬讜专讗 砖专讬讗 讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专 讚砖讗专 拽诪讞讬诐 讗住诪讬拽 讗住讜专 诇讗 讗住诪讬拽 砖专讬


The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if one makes the breading of fine flour, whether it turned red from blood or did not turn red, it is permitted. The following rule applies to breading of white flour: If it is clear like a white coin, it is permitted; if not, it is prohibited. With regard to breading of other types of flour, which are not especially firm or crumbly, if the breading turned red, it is prohibited; if it did not turn red, it is permitted.


讛讗讬 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讜诪讗 诇转讞转 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讜诪讗 诇注讬诇 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 砖专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讜诪讗 诇注讬诇


With regard to this meat stuffing in an animal: The one who prohibits one to eat it, Abaye, does so even if the opening is facing downward, allowing the blood to escape more easily. And the one who permits one to eat it, Rabba, does so even if the opening is facing upward. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that stuffing is permitted even if the opening is facing upward, in accordance with the lenient opinion.


讗讜诪爪讗 讘讬注讬 讜诪讬讝专拽讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚专讘 讗讞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讗讞讗 诇拽讜诇讗


The Gemara quotes a further discussion concerning the topic of blood absorbed in meat and the preparation of meat permitted for eating. The Gemara addresses three cases: Raw meat [umtza] that is eaten without being salted, testicles of an animal, and the large veins of the neck. Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed about this. The Gemara points out: In all their discussions about the Torah, whenever there is a dispute between them and there is no explanation as to which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Rav A岣 is stringent and the opinion of Ravina is lenient, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient. This applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav A岣 is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 to be lenient.


讛讗讬 讗讜诪爪讗 讚讗住诪讬拽 讞转讻讬讛 讜诪诇讞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚专讛 砖专讬 砖驻讚讬讛 讘砖驻讜讚讗 砖专讬 诪讬讚讘 讚讬讬讘 讗讞转讬讛 讗讙讜诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诪爪诪讬转 爪诪讬转 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘


The Gemara explains: With regard to this piece of raw meat that became red from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot because it is clear that salt removes blood from meat. If one put it on a spit in order to roast it, it is permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed about the halakha in this case; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that the coals cause the meat to shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside. And the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, leaving only the meat. And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood.


讜讻谉 讘讬注讬 讞转讻讬谞讛讜 讜诪诇讞讬谞讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚专讛 砖专讬讬谉 转诇讬谞讛讜 讘砖驻讜讚讗 砖专讬讬谉 诪讬讚讘 讚讬讬讘 讗讞转讬谞讛讜 讗讙讜诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诪爪诪讬转 爪诪讬转 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘


And, so too, with regard to testicles: If one cut them and salted them, they are permitted even to be cooked in a pot. If one hung them on a spit in order to roast them, they are permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed them on coals, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed about this; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood.


讜讻谉 诪讬讝专拽讬 讞转讻讬讛 讜诪诇讞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚专讛 砖专讬 转诇讬讬讛 讘砖驻讜讚讗 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 诇转转讗讬 砖专讬 诪讬讚讘 讚讗讬讘 讗讞转讬讛 讗讙讜诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诪爪诪讬转 爪诪讬转 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 诪讬砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘


And, so too, with regard to large veins: If one cut them and salted them, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot. If one hung them on a spit and the place of the incision of the slaughter is facing downward, it is permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed about this matter; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood. And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, and it is permitted.


讛讗讬 讗讜诪爪讗 讚讗住诪讬拽 讞诇讬讬讛 讗住讬专 诇讗 讗住诪讬拽 讞诇讬讬讛 砖专讬 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讗住诪讬拽 谞诪讬 讞诇讬讬讛 讗住讬专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讜专讬讬拽讬 讚诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 诪讙诪注 诇讬讛 讙诪讜注讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讙诪注 诇讬讛 讙诪讜注讬


The Gemara raises another discussion with regard to blood absorbed in meat. People would soak raw meat (Tosafot) in vinegar in order to ensure that none of the blood would separate from its original place and prohibit the meat from being eaten, as it is permitted to eat blood that has not separated from its original place. This piece of raw meat, whose vinegar became red due to the blood absorbed in it, is forbidden. If its vinegar did not become red, it is permitted. Ravina said: Even if its vinegar did not become red, it is forbidden; it is impossible that it does not have streaks of blood. Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Father, i.e., Ameimar, would swallow the vinegar and was unconcerned that there may be blood in it. Some say Rav Ashi himself would swallow it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 讛讗讬 讞诇讗 讚讞诇讬讟 讘讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 转讜 诇讗 转讗谞讬 讞诇讬讟 讘讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讞诇讗 诪转诪讛讗 讚讞诇讟讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讛转诐 讗讬转讬讛


Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The practice of my father, Ameimar, was that with regard to vinegar in which he had soaked meat one time to keep in its blood, he would not soak meat in it again. It could no longer keep the blood in the meat. The Gemara asks: In what way is vinegar that has been used once different from weak vinegar, in which we soak meat without concern that it will be unable to keep the blood in the meat? The Gemara explains: There, the


Scroll To Top