Pesachim 74

מתני׳ כיצד צולין את הפסח מביאין שפוד של רמון ותוחבו לתוך פיו עד בית נקובתו ונותן את כרעיו ואת בני מעיו לתוכו דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר כמין בישול הוא זה אלא תולין חוצה לו אין צולין את הפסח לא על השפוד ולא על האסכלא אמר רבי צדוק מעשה ברבן גמליאל שאמר לטבי עבדו צא וצלה לנו את הפסח על האסכלא:

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’s 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.

גמ׳ וניתי של מתכת איידי דחם מקצתו חם כולו וקמטוי מחמת השפוד ורחמנא אמר צלי אש ולא צלי מחמת דבר אחר וניתי של דקל איידי דאית ליה שיבי מפיק מיא והוי כמבושל וניתי של תאנה איידי דמחלחל מפיק מיא והוה ליה כמבושל

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.

וניתי של אלון של חרוב ושל שקמה איידי דאית ביה קיטרי מפיק מיא

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.

של רמון נמי אית ביה קיטרי שיעי קיטרי ואיבעית אימא בנבגא בר שתא דלית ביה קיטרי והא איכא בי פסקיה דמפיק לבי פסקיה לבר

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.

מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר כשם ששפוד של עץ אינו נשרף כך שפוד של מתכת אינו מרתיח אמרו לו זה חם מקצתו חם כולו וזה חם מקצתו אינו חם כולו:

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.

ונותן את כרעיו וכו׳: תניא רבי ישמעאל קוריהו תוך תוך רבי טרפון קוריהו גדי מקולס

It was taught in the mishna that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, one places the legs and entrails inside the lamb’s 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.

תנו רבנן איזהו גדי מקולס דאסור לאכול בלילי פסח בזמן הזה כל שצלאו כולו כאחד נחתך ממנו אבר נשלק ממנו אבר אין זה גדי מקולס

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.

השתא יש לומר נחתך ממנו אבר דאף על גב דקא מטוי ליה בהדיה אמרת לא נשלק מיבעיא אמר רב ששת ששלקו במחובר

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.

אמר רבה האי מולייתא שריא אמר ליה אביי והא קא בלע דמא אמר ליה כבולעה כך פולטה

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.

נימא מסייע ליה נותן את כרעיו ואת בני מעיו לתוכו מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן כבולעו כך פולטו אמרי שאני התם כיון דאיכא בית השחיטה דמחלחל

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,

מידב דייבי

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.

נימא מסייע ליה הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בישולו ומותר מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן כבולעו כך פולטו

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.

שאני לב דשיע

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.

(איני) והא רבין סבא טפליה ההיא בר גוזלא לרב ואמר ליה אי מעלי טפליה הב לי ואיכול ההיא בסמידא דמפריר

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t 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.

והא רבא איקלע לבי ריש גלותא וטפלו ליה בר אווזא אמר אי לא דחזיתיה דזיג כזוזא חיורא לא אכלי מיניה ואי סלקא דעתך כבולעו כך פולטו מאי איריא כי זיג אפילו כי לא זיג נמי התם בחיורתא דשריר

The Gemara asks: Didn’t 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.

והילכתא דסמידא בין אסמיק בין לא אסמיק שריא דחיורתא אי זיג כזוזא חיורא שריא אי לא אסיר דשאר קמחים אסמיק אסור לא אסמיק שרי

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.

האי מולייתא מאן דאסר אפילו פומא לתחת ומאן דשרי אפילו פומא לעיל והילכתא מולייתא שרי אפילו פומא לעיל

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.

אומצא ביעי ומיזרקי פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא בכל התורה כולה רב אחא לחומרא ורבינא לקולא והילכתא כרבינא לקולא לבר מהני תלת דרב אחא לקולא ורבינא לחומרא והלכתא כרב אחא לקולא

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 Aḥa 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 Aḥa 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 Aḥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa to be lenient.

האי אומצא דאסמיק חתכיה ומלחיה אפילו לקדרה שרי שפדיה בשפודא שרי מידב דייב אחתיה אגומרי פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר מצמית צמית ומאן דשרי מישאב שאיב והילכתא מישאב שאיב

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 Aḥa 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.

וכן ביעי חתכינהו ומלחינהו אפילו לקדרה שריין תלינהו בשפודא שריין מידב דייב אחתינהו אגומרי פליגי ביה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר מצמית צמית ומאן דשרי מישאב שאיב

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 Aḥa 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.

וכן מיזרקי חתכיה ומלחיה אפילו לקדרה שרי תלייה בשפודא בית השחיטה לתתאי שרי מידב דאיב אחתיה אגומרי פליגי רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר מצמית צמית ומאן דשרי מישאב שאיב והלכתא מישאב שאיב

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 Aḥa 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.

האי אומצא דאסמיק חלייה אסיר לא אסמיק חלייה שרי רבינא אמר אפילו לא אסמיק נמי חלייה אסיר אי אפשר דלית בה שורייקי דמא אמר ליה מר בר אמימר לרב אשי אבא מגמע ליה גמועי איכא דאמרי רב אשי גופיה מגמע ליה גמועי

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.

אמר ליה מר בר אמימר לרב אשי אבא האי חלא דחליט ביה חדא זימנא תו לא תאני חליט ביה מאי שנא מחלא מתמהא דחלטינן ביה התם איתיה

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