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

Daf Yomi

February 5, 2021 | 讻状讙 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 76

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Ruth Rotenberg in commemoration of the yahrzeit of her daughter Tanielle Gavre’ea Margalit. “Tanielle a’h had a unique innate love of hashem, the torah and fellow man. We continue to hold her close and learn from her relatively short and powerful life.” And by Faye Darack in honor of Tamir Feldman. “Mazel Tov on your Bar Mitzvah. Love Sabba and Savta.”

If the meat of the Passover sacrifice touched the side of the oven and was roasted because of the heat of the oven and not the fire, or the sauce touched it and was absorbed back into the meat, thereby having the meat cook from heat and not fire, what needs to be done? If the Pesach sacrifice was smeared with oil of truma, how can it be fixed? Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding one item that falls into another is it the top one that overpowers the bottom or the reverse. For example, when meat falls into milk and one is cold and the other is hot, which one prevails the lower or upper? The gemara raises some difficulties from our mishnah for Shmuel who said that the lower prevails. Then they bring braitot that support his opinion. Shmuel also said salting foods is the same as boiling in terms of cooking milk and meat. But Rava limits his statement to food that has so much salt in it that one cannot eat it. The gemara brings up a controversy between Rav and Levi as to whether or not steam is considered significant. The gemara brings a difficulty on Levi from a braita regarding the roasting of two Passover sacrifices together. Rav Meri brings a source to show that the debate between Rav and Levi was also a subject of a tannaitic debate. Bread baked in the oven with roasted meat, cannot be eaten with dairy food.

讗住讜专 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讞诐 专讘 讗诪专 注讬诇讗讛 讙讘专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 转转讗讛 讙讘专


that the permitted foods become forbidden, because they absorb some of the forbidden food. If a cold food item falls into another cold item, all agree it is permitted; the food needs only to be rinsed off. The dispute pertains to a hot food item that falls into a cold one or a cold food item that falls into a hot one. Rav said: The upper one prevails. The halakha is determined based upon the state of the upper substance. If the upper food is hot, the case is judged as though a hot food fell into another hot food because the upper food heats the lower food. If the upper food is cold, the case is similar to a situation where a cold food falls into another cold food because the upper food cools down the lower one and prevents absorption. And Shmuel said: The lower one prevails. In his opinion, if the upper substance is hot and the lower one is cold, the permitted food remains permitted; if the lower one is hot and upper one is cold, they are forbidden.


转谞谉 谞讟祝 诪专讜讟讘讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讜讞讝专 讗诇讬讜 讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讞专住 爪讜谞谞转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讬诇讗讛 讙讘专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 讚讗讝诇 专讜讟讘 诪专转讞 诇讬讛 诇讞专住 讜讛讚专 讞专住 诪专转讞 诇讬讛 诇专讜讟讘 讜讻讬 讛讚专 专讜讟讘 讗驻住讞 拽讗 诪讟讜讬 驻住讞 诪讞诪转 讞诪讬诪讜转讗 讚讞专住 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


We learned in the mishna: If some of the gravy of the Paschal lamb dripped onto the earthenware and returned to it, one must remove its place. It might enter your mind to say that this is referring to cold earthenware. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, who said the upper one prevails, it is due to this reason that one must remove its place. According to Rav鈥檚 view, the gravy goes and heats the earthenware, and then the earthenware heats the gravy, and when the gravy returns to the Paschal lamb, the Paschal lamb becomes roasted from the heat of the earthenware, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淩oasted in fire鈥 (Exodus 12:8), and not roasted due to something else.


讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转转讗讛 讙讘专 讞专住 讻讬讜谉 讚爪讜谞谉 讛讜讗 讗拽讜专讬 诪讬拽专 诇讬讛 诇专讜讟讘 讗诪讗讬 讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘住讜诇转 专讜转讞转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讞专住 专讜转讞


But according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said the lower one prevails, since the earthenware is cold, it cools down the gravy. In that case, why must he remove its place? The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said in explanation of the mishna鈥檚 next ruling in the case of gravy that dripped onto flour: The mishna is referring to hot flour. Here, too, it is referring to hot earthenware. Since the earthenware is already hot, it is a case of something hot that fell onto something hot, even according to Shmuel.


转谞谉 谞讟祝 诪专讜讟讘讜 注诇 讛住讜诇转 讬拽诪讜抓 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住讜诇转 爪讜谞谞转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讬诇讗讛 讙讘专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬拽诪讜抓 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪专转讞 诇讛 诇住讜诇转 讚讛讚专 讛讜讚专谞讬讛 讜讛讚专讗 住讜诇转 讜诪专转讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜拽讗 诪讟讜讬 专讜讟讘 诪讞诪转 讞诪讬诪讜转讗 讚住讜诇转 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


We also learned in the mishna that if some of the Paschal lamb鈥檚 gravy dripped onto flour, one must remove a handful of flour from its place. It could enter your mind to say that this is talking about cold flour. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, who said the upper one prevails, it is due to this reason that one must remove a handful of flour from its place, as the gravy heats the flour around it, and the flour then heats the gravy, and the gravy is roasted from the heat of the flour, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淩oasted in fire,鈥 and not roasted due to something else.


讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转转讗讛 讙讘专 住讜诇转 讻讬讜谉 讚爪讜谞谞转 讛讬讗 讗拽讜专讬 拽讗 诪讬拽专 诇讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讬拽诪讜抓 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 (转住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘住讜诇转 专讜转讞转


But according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said the lower one prevails, since the flour is cold it cools down the gravy. In that case, why do I need to say: One must remove a handful of flour from its place? It should be enough for one to remove a small amount from its place, and it should not be necessary to take anything more. With regard to this Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to hot flour. The gravy is therefore roasted from the heat of the flour, and an entire handful of flour must be removed.


转谞谉 住讻讜 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗诐 讞讘讜专转 讻讛谞讬诐 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诐 讞讬 讛讜讗 讬讚讬讞谞讜 讗诐 爪诇讬 讛讜讗 讬拽诇讜祝 讗转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讬诇讗讛 讙讘专 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘拽诇讬驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讬诇讗讛 爪讜谞谉 讛讜讗


We learned in the mishna: In a case where one smears the Paschal lamb with teruma oil, if the Paschal lamb belongs to a group of priests they may eat it, as they are permitted to eat teruma. If it belongs to a group of Israelites, then if the Paschal lamb is still raw, one must rinse it in order to remove the teruma oil; and if it is roasted, one must peel off the outer layer. Granted, according to Rav, who said the upper one prevails, for this reason it is sufficient to remove only the outer peel, because the upper one is cold and therefore the oil is not absorbed deeply into the meat.


讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转转讗讛 讙讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诐 讛讜讗 诪讘诇注 讘诇注 讗诪讗讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘拽诇讬驻讛 谞讬转住专 诇讙诪专讬 砖讗谞讬 住讬讻讛 讚诪砖讛讜 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗


But according to Shmuel, who said: The lower one prevails, since the meat, which is on the bottom, is hot, it absorbs the oil. In that case, why is it enough for it to be permitted when only the outer peel is removed? It should be entirely forbidden. The Gemara answers: Smearing is different because it is done with only a minute amount. Since one smears only a little bit of oil, there is not enough oil to render the entire offering forbidden.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讞诐 诇转讜讱 讞诐 讗住讜专 讜讻谉 爪讜谞谉 砖谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讞诐 讗住讜专 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞


It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If hot permitted food falls into hot forbidden food, it is forbidden. And, so too, cold permitted food that one put into hot forbidden food is forbidden. If hot food falls into cold food, and similarly, if cold food falls into cold food, one must rinse the permitted food, and it remains permitted.


讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诐 讛讜讗 讗讚诪讬拽专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讘诇注 驻讜专转讗 拽诇讬驻讛 诪讬讛讗 谞讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 拽讜诇祝 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞


The Gemara asks: Is it true that if hot permitted food falls into cold forbidden food, one must rinse the permitted food and it remains permitted? Since it is hot, until the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb a little of the forbidden food. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel; rinsing it should not be sufficient. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot food falls into cold food, one must peel off the outer layer; if cold food falls into cold food, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘砖专 专讜转讞 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讞诇讘 专讜转讞 讜讻谉 爪讜谞谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讞诐 讗住讜专 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诐 讛讜讗 讗讚诪讬拽专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讘诇注 驻讜专转讗 拽诇讬驻讛 诪讬讛讗 谞讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 拽讜诇祝 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞


It was taught in another baraita: Hot meat that fell into hot milk, and so too, cold meat that fell into hot milk, is prohibited. If hot meat falls into cold milk and similarly, if cold meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient. The Gemara asks: Is it true that if hot meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient? Since it is hot, until the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb a little of the milk. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot meat falls into cold milk, one must peel off the outer layer; if cold meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient.


讗诪专 诪专 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 诪诇讞讜 讗讘诇 诪诇讞讜 讗住讜专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇讬讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讜转讞 讻讘讜砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讘讜砖诇


The Master said in the baraita quoted above: If cold meat falls into cold milk or into a prohibited food, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient. Rav Huna said: They taught this halakha only in a case where he did not salt either of the food items. However, if he salted one of them it is forbidden, as Shmuel said: A salted food item is considered like a boiling food item with regard to its ability to transmit flavor. Additionally, a food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like is considered like a cooked food item, as it absorbs flavor from the liquid in which it is marinated or from other foods with which it is marinated.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇讬讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讜转讞 (讜讻讜壮) 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞讗讻诇 诪讞诪转 诪诇讞讜 讗讘诇 谞讗讻诇 诪讞诪转 诪诇讞讜 诇讗


Rava said: With regard to that which Shmuel said, that a salted food is like a boiling food, we said it only with regard to something salted to the point that it is not typically eaten due to its salt. But if the food is still eaten due to its salt, i.e., despite its having been salted, then it is not considered like something that is boiling, and it does not transmit flavor.


讛讛讜讗 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讻讚讗 讚讻诪讻讗 砖专讬讬讗 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪驻砖专讜谞讬讗


There was a particular young bird that fell into a jug of kamka, also known as kuta岣, a food item that contains milk. There was a question whether the food is considered a forbidden mixture of meat and milk. Rav 岣nnana, son of Rava of the city of Pashronya, permitted it.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讞讻讬诐 诇诪讬砖专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讻讬 讛讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪驻砖专讜谞讬讗 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇讬讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讜转讞 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇 诪讞诪转 诪诇讞讜 讛讗讬 谞讗讻诇 诪讞诪转 诪诇讞讜


Rava said about this: Who is wise enough to permit something as complicated as this, if not Rav 岣nnana, son of Rava of Pashronya, as he is a great man and can recognize the reason for leniency even in a case that appears to be prohibited? He could have said to you in explanation of his lenient ruling: When Shmuel said that a salted food item is like a boiling food item, that halakha concerned a food that was salted to the point that it is not eaten due to its salt, but this kuta岣 is still eaten due to, i.e., despite, its salt. Therefore, the case is comparable to a cold food that falls into another cold food, which is permitted after it is rinsed.


讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讞讬 讗讘诇 爪诇讬 讘注讬 拽诇讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 驻讬诇讬 讗讘诇 讗讬转 讘讬讛 驻讬诇讬 讗住讜专 讜讗讬 诪转讜讘诇 讘转讘诇讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara points out that this applies only if the bird is raw; but if it is roasted, it requires the removal of the outer peel. The roasting softens the meat, enabling it to absorb flavor more easily. And we said that the bird is permitted only when it does not have cracks; but if it has cracks, it is forbidden because the milk is absorbed into the cracks. And if it has been flavored with spices it is forbidden because the spices soften the meat, causing it to be absorbent.


讗诪专 专讘


Rav said:


讘砖专 砖讞讜讟讛 砖诪谉 砖爪诇讗讜 注诐 讘砖专 谞讘讬诇讛 讻讞讜砖 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻讟诪讬 诪讛讚讚讬


Fatty kosher meat that one roasted in an oven together with lean non-kosher meat is forbidden, even if the two meats never came into contact with one another. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that they are flavored from one another. The fatty meat emits an aroma that is absorbed in the non-kosher meat. The aroma is then transferred back to the kosher meat, causing the kosher meat to absorb some aroma from the non-kosher meat.


讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖专 砖讞讜讟讛 讻讞讜砖 砖爪诇讗讜 注诐 讘砖专 谞讘讬诇讛 砖诪谉 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讬讞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜专讬讞讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 注讘讬讚 诇讜讬 注讜讘讚讗 讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘讙讚讬 讜讚讘专 讗讞专


And Levi said: That aroma does not cause meat to be forbidden. Even lean kosher meat that one roasted with fatty non-kosher meat is permitted. What is the reason for this halakha? Although the non-kosher meat emits an aroma that is absorbed into the kosher meat, it is merely an aroma, and an aroma is nothing significant. The Gemara relates that Levi took action, meaning that he put his opinion into practice, in the house of the Exilarch with a kid and something else, i.e., a pig, that had been roasted together. Levi did not prohibit the meat of the kid due to the aroma of the pig.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 诪驻谞讬 讛转注专讜讘转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 讜拽砖讬讗 诇诇讜讬 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 讙讜驻讬谉


The Gemara raises an objection: One may not roast two Paschal lambs together due to the mixing. What, is it not prohibited due to the mixing of flavors, i.e., due to the aromas that waft from one to the other, and it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Levi? The Gemara rejects this challenge: No, it is prohibited due to the mixing of carcasses. The groups who are roasting their Paschal offerings might accidentally switch offerings, in which case the offerings will be eaten by people who did not register for them.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪驻谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讬 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 讙讚讬 讜讙讚讬


The Gemara adds: So too, one can conclude that this explanation is reasonable from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause that the ruling applies even if the two offerings are a kid and a lamb. Granted, if you say that the reason is due to the mixing of carcasses, this is why it was taught that the halakha applies to even a kid and a lamb. The baraita needed to teach that although they do not look alike, there is still a concern that after they have been skinned they will be mixed up. But if you say that the reason is due to the mixing of flavors, what is the difference between a case in which the two offerings are a kid and a lamb and one in which they are a kid and another kid? The case of the kid and the lamb mentioned at the end of the baraita would not teach anything new.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注诇 讻专讞讬讱 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 讙讜驻讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 砖专讬 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖爪诇讗讜 讘砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转


The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? Perforce, it is due to the mixing of carcasses that it is prohibited, but a mixing of flavors is permitted. Let us say that this will be a refutation of the opinion of Rav, who prohibited the mixing of flavors by means of an aroma. Rabbi Yirmeya said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one roasted the offerings in two pots. Consequently, they do not absorb flavor from one another.


讘砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻注讬谉 砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 诪讗讬 转注专讜讘转 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻注讬谉 砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转 讚诇讬讻讗 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 转注专讜讘转 讙讜驻讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛


The Gemara expresses surprise: Could it enter your mind to say that they roasted the Paschal offerings in two pots? It is prohibited to the roast the Paschal offering in a pot. Rather, say that they were roasted in a manner similar to two pots, meaning that they were distanced from each other and separated by a partition. And this is what the baraita is saying: One may not roast two Paschal offerings together due to mixing. What is this mixing? It is the mixing of flavors. And even roasting them in a manner similar to two pots, where there is no mixing of flavors, is also prohibited, due to the concern with regard to the mixing of carcasses. And this is the halakha even if the animals are a kid and a lamb.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讻转谞讗讬 讛专讜讚讛 驻转 讞诪讛 讜谞转谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 讬讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讘砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 讜讗讜住专 讘砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛砖注讜专讬诐 砖讜讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚诪专 住讘专 专讬讞讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 专讬讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗


Rav Mari said: This is like the following dispute between tanna鈥檌m: In the case of one who removes hot bread from an oven and places it on top of a barrel of wine that is teruma, Rabbi Meir prohibits a non-priest from eating the bread. In his opinion, the bread absorbs the aroma of the teruma wine and therefore attains the status of teruma. And Rabbi Yehuda permits it. And Rabbi Yosei permits bread made of wheat, which is not very absorbent, but prohibits bread made of barley, because barley draws out and absorbs the aroma. What, is it not a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that an aroma is nothing significant, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that an aroma is something significant.


诇诇讜讬 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘 谞讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


The Gemara says: According to the opinion of Levi, i.e., that aroma is insignificant, it certainly is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei hold that it is significant, and Levi accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that aroma is insignificant. However, according to the opinion of Rav, shall we say it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 专讬讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讘驻转 爪讜谞谞转 讜讞讘讬转 诪讙讜驻讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 讞转讜诪讛 驻转 爪讜谞谞转 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 讻驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讚诪讬讗


Rav could have said to you: Everyone agrees that aroma is something significant. The dispute is about whether bread absorbs aroma in the circumstance under discussion. Was it not stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to hot bread and an open barrel, everyone agrees that it is prohibited because it certainly draws out the aroma; and with regard to cold bread and a closed barrel, everyone agrees it is permitted? They disagreed only with regard to hot bread and a sealed barrel because perhaps the bread nonetheless draws out aroma through the cracks. Similarly, they disputed the case of cold bread and an open barrel. And this case of two Paschal offerings roasted in the same oven is also considered like the case of hot bread and an open barrel.


转谞讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 驻转 砖讗驻讗讛 注诐 爪诇讬 讘转谞讜专 讗住讜专 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讻讜转讞讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讬谞讬转讗 讚讗讬讟讜讜讗 讘讛讚讬 讘讬砖专讗 讗住专讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝讬拽讬讗 诇诪讬讻诇讬讛 讘讻讜转讞讗 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬诇讞讗 谞诪讬 讗住讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 诇专讬讞讗 讜诇讚讘专 讗讞专:


Rav Kahana, son of Rav 岣nnana the Elder, teaches: In the case of bread that one baked together with roasting meat in the oven, it is prohibited to eat the bread with kuta岣, which contains milk, because the bread absorbs some of the meat鈥檚 aroma. The Gemara relates: There was a certain fish that was roasted together with meat, Rava of Parzikiyya prohibited it from being eaten with kuta岣, due to the meat flavor absorbed in the fish. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even to merely eat it with salt is also prohibited because meat that is roasted or cooked with fish is bad for odor, meaning it causes bad breath, and for something else, i.e., leprosy. Therefore, one should avoid eating it due to the danger involved.


诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讛注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讛驻住讞 砖讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 谞讗讻诇 讘讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘讗 诪转讞讬诇转讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛:


MISHNA: Five items, i.e., offerings, may be brought in a state of ritual impurity, but they may not be eaten in a state of ritual impurity. They are all communal offerings: The omer, which is brought in Nisan; the two loaves brought on Shavuot; the shewbread, which were arranged each week; the communal peace-offerings, which were brought on Shavuot; and the goats sacrificed on the New Moons, which were sin-offerings eaten by the priests. However, the Paschal lamb that is sacrificed in impurity is eaten even in impurity, as it is brought to begin with only for eating, which is the essence of the mitzva. With regard to other offerings, the essence of their mitzva is fulfilled when they are sacrificed on the altar, and the eating is non-essential.


讙诪壮 讞诪砖讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讙讬讙转 讞诪砖讛 注砖专


GEMARA: The mishna mentions the number five. The Gemara asks: To exclude what does the mishna emphasize this number? The Gemara answers: It is to exclude the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan, which is a Festival peace-offering brought on the Festival itself and which may not be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.


讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讜拽讘讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讜注讚 转讚讞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 讜诪讚砖讘转 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 讟讜诪讗讛


It could enter your mind to say: Since it is a communal offering, as each individual sacrifices it on the Festival in a public setting, and its time is set, as it cannot be brought every day, it should override ritual impurity like the other communal offerings that have a set time. Therefore, the mishna teaches us: Since there is redress all seven days of the Festival if the offering was not brought on the fifteenth, it does not override Shabbat. And since it does not override Shabbat, it does not override ritual impurity. Therefore, this offering may not be brought in a state of ritual impurity.


讜谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 砖注讬专讬 讛专讙诇讬诐 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖注讬专讬 专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬转谞讬 讚讛讗 转谞讗 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讗诪专讬


The Gemara asks: Let it also teach that the goats brought as sin-offerings on the Festivals override ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: It did teach that, as the goats are included in the category of communal peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: If so, it should also not be necessary to teach separately that the goats sacrificed on the New Moons are brought in a state of ritual impurity, as it already taught the halakha with regard to the communal peace-offerings. Say in answer to this question:


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...
alon shvut women

Pesach in the Mikdash

Pesachim Daf 065 The Gemara analyzes each line in the mishna to create a vivid picture of korban Pesach in...

Pesachim 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 76

讗住讜专 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讞诐 专讘 讗诪专 注讬诇讗讛 讙讘专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 转转讗讛 讙讘专


that the permitted foods become forbidden, because they absorb some of the forbidden food. If a cold food item falls into another cold item, all agree it is permitted; the food needs only to be rinsed off. The dispute pertains to a hot food item that falls into a cold one or a cold food item that falls into a hot one. Rav said: The upper one prevails. The halakha is determined based upon the state of the upper substance. If the upper food is hot, the case is judged as though a hot food fell into another hot food because the upper food heats the lower food. If the upper food is cold, the case is similar to a situation where a cold food falls into another cold food because the upper food cools down the lower one and prevents absorption. And Shmuel said: The lower one prevails. In his opinion, if the upper substance is hot and the lower one is cold, the permitted food remains permitted; if the lower one is hot and upper one is cold, they are forbidden.


转谞谉 谞讟祝 诪专讜讟讘讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讜讞讝专 讗诇讬讜 讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讞专住 爪讜谞谞转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讬诇讗讛 讙讘专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 讚讗讝诇 专讜讟讘 诪专转讞 诇讬讛 诇讞专住 讜讛讚专 讞专住 诪专转讞 诇讬讛 诇专讜讟讘 讜讻讬 讛讚专 专讜讟讘 讗驻住讞 拽讗 诪讟讜讬 驻住讞 诪讞诪转 讞诪讬诪讜转讗 讚讞专住 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


We learned in the mishna: If some of the gravy of the Paschal lamb dripped onto the earthenware and returned to it, one must remove its place. It might enter your mind to say that this is referring to cold earthenware. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, who said the upper one prevails, it is due to this reason that one must remove its place. According to Rav鈥檚 view, the gravy goes and heats the earthenware, and then the earthenware heats the gravy, and when the gravy returns to the Paschal lamb, the Paschal lamb becomes roasted from the heat of the earthenware, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淩oasted in fire鈥 (Exodus 12:8), and not roasted due to something else.


讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转转讗讛 讙讘专 讞专住 讻讬讜谉 讚爪讜谞谉 讛讜讗 讗拽讜专讬 诪讬拽专 诇讬讛 诇专讜讟讘 讗诪讗讬 讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘住讜诇转 专讜转讞转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讞专住 专讜转讞


But according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said the lower one prevails, since the earthenware is cold, it cools down the gravy. In that case, why must he remove its place? The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said in explanation of the mishna鈥檚 next ruling in the case of gravy that dripped onto flour: The mishna is referring to hot flour. Here, too, it is referring to hot earthenware. Since the earthenware is already hot, it is a case of something hot that fell onto something hot, even according to Shmuel.


转谞谉 谞讟祝 诪专讜讟讘讜 注诇 讛住讜诇转 讬拽诪讜抓 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住讜诇转 爪讜谞谞转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讬诇讗讛 讙讘专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬拽诪讜抓 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪专转讞 诇讛 诇住讜诇转 讚讛讚专 讛讜讚专谞讬讛 讜讛讚专讗 住讜诇转 讜诪专转讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜拽讗 诪讟讜讬 专讜讟讘 诪讞诪转 讞诪讬诪讜转讗 讚住讜诇转 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


We also learned in the mishna that if some of the Paschal lamb鈥檚 gravy dripped onto flour, one must remove a handful of flour from its place. It could enter your mind to say that this is talking about cold flour. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, who said the upper one prevails, it is due to this reason that one must remove a handful of flour from its place, as the gravy heats the flour around it, and the flour then heats the gravy, and the gravy is roasted from the heat of the flour, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淩oasted in fire,鈥 and not roasted due to something else.


讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转转讗讛 讙讘专 住讜诇转 讻讬讜谉 讚爪讜谞谞转 讛讬讗 讗拽讜专讬 拽讗 诪讬拽专 诇讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讬拽诪讜抓 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜 (转住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘住讜诇转 专讜转讞转


But according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said the lower one prevails, since the flour is cold it cools down the gravy. In that case, why do I need to say: One must remove a handful of flour from its place? It should be enough for one to remove a small amount from its place, and it should not be necessary to take anything more. With regard to this Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to hot flour. The gravy is therefore roasted from the heat of the flour, and an entire handful of flour must be removed.


转谞谉 住讻讜 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗诐 讞讘讜专转 讻讛谞讬诐 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诐 讞讬 讛讜讗 讬讚讬讞谞讜 讗诐 爪诇讬 讛讜讗 讬拽诇讜祝 讗转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 注讬诇讗讛 讙讘专 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘拽诇讬驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讬诇讗讛 爪讜谞谉 讛讜讗


We learned in the mishna: In a case where one smears the Paschal lamb with teruma oil, if the Paschal lamb belongs to a group of priests they may eat it, as they are permitted to eat teruma. If it belongs to a group of Israelites, then if the Paschal lamb is still raw, one must rinse it in order to remove the teruma oil; and if it is roasted, one must peel off the outer layer. Granted, according to Rav, who said the upper one prevails, for this reason it is sufficient to remove only the outer peel, because the upper one is cold and therefore the oil is not absorbed deeply into the meat.


讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转转讗讛 讙讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诐 讛讜讗 诪讘诇注 讘诇注 讗诪讗讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘拽诇讬驻讛 谞讬转住专 诇讙诪专讬 砖讗谞讬 住讬讻讛 讚诪砖讛讜 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗


But according to Shmuel, who said: The lower one prevails, since the meat, which is on the bottom, is hot, it absorbs the oil. In that case, why is it enough for it to be permitted when only the outer peel is removed? It should be entirely forbidden. The Gemara answers: Smearing is different because it is done with only a minute amount. Since one smears only a little bit of oil, there is not enough oil to render the entire offering forbidden.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讞诐 诇转讜讱 讞诐 讗住讜专 讜讻谉 爪讜谞谉 砖谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讞诐 讗住讜专 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞


It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If hot permitted food falls into hot forbidden food, it is forbidden. And, so too, cold permitted food that one put into hot forbidden food is forbidden. If hot food falls into cold food, and similarly, if cold food falls into cold food, one must rinse the permitted food, and it remains permitted.


讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诐 讛讜讗 讗讚诪讬拽专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讘诇注 驻讜专转讗 拽诇讬驻讛 诪讬讛讗 谞讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 拽讜诇祝 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞


The Gemara asks: Is it true that if hot permitted food falls into cold forbidden food, one must rinse the permitted food and it remains permitted? Since it is hot, until the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb a little of the forbidden food. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel; rinsing it should not be sufficient. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot food falls into cold food, one must peel off the outer layer; if cold food falls into cold food, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘砖专 专讜转讞 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讞诇讘 专讜转讞 讜讻谉 爪讜谞谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讞诐 讗住讜专 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诐 讛讜讗 讗讚诪讬拽专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讘诇注 驻讜专转讗 拽诇讬驻讛 诪讬讛讗 谞讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讞诐 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 拽讜诇祝 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞


It was taught in another baraita: Hot meat that fell into hot milk, and so too, cold meat that fell into hot milk, is prohibited. If hot meat falls into cold milk and similarly, if cold meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient. The Gemara asks: Is it true that if hot meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient? Since it is hot, until the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb a little of the milk. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot meat falls into cold milk, one must peel off the outer layer; if cold meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient.


讗诪专 诪专 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 诪讚讬讞 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 诪诇讞讜 讗讘诇 诪诇讞讜 讗住讜专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇讬讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讜转讞 讻讘讜砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讘讜砖诇


The Master said in the baraita quoted above: If cold meat falls into cold milk or into a prohibited food, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient. Rav Huna said: They taught this halakha only in a case where he did not salt either of the food items. However, if he salted one of them it is forbidden, as Shmuel said: A salted food item is considered like a boiling food item with regard to its ability to transmit flavor. Additionally, a food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like is considered like a cooked food item, as it absorbs flavor from the liquid in which it is marinated or from other foods with which it is marinated.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇讬讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讜转讞 (讜讻讜壮) 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞讗讻诇 诪讞诪转 诪诇讞讜 讗讘诇 谞讗讻诇 诪讞诪转 诪诇讞讜 诇讗


Rava said: With regard to that which Shmuel said, that a salted food is like a boiling food, we said it only with regard to something salted to the point that it is not typically eaten due to its salt. But if the food is still eaten due to its salt, i.e., despite its having been salted, then it is not considered like something that is boiling, and it does not transmit flavor.


讛讛讜讗 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讻讚讗 讚讻诪讻讗 砖专讬讬讗 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪驻砖专讜谞讬讗


There was a particular young bird that fell into a jug of kamka, also known as kuta岣, a food item that contains milk. There was a question whether the food is considered a forbidden mixture of meat and milk. Rav 岣nnana, son of Rava of the city of Pashronya, permitted it.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讞讻讬诐 诇诪讬砖专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讻讬 讛讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪驻砖专讜谞讬讗 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇讬讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讜转讞 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇 诪讞诪转 诪诇讞讜 讛讗讬 谞讗讻诇 诪讞诪转 诪诇讞讜


Rava said about this: Who is wise enough to permit something as complicated as this, if not Rav 岣nnana, son of Rava of Pashronya, as he is a great man and can recognize the reason for leniency even in a case that appears to be prohibited? He could have said to you in explanation of his lenient ruling: When Shmuel said that a salted food item is like a boiling food item, that halakha concerned a food that was salted to the point that it is not eaten due to its salt, but this kuta岣 is still eaten due to, i.e., despite, its salt. Therefore, the case is comparable to a cold food that falls into another cold food, which is permitted after it is rinsed.


讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讞讬 讗讘诇 爪诇讬 讘注讬 拽诇讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 驻讬诇讬 讗讘诇 讗讬转 讘讬讛 驻讬诇讬 讗住讜专 讜讗讬 诪转讜讘诇 讘转讘诇讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara points out that this applies only if the bird is raw; but if it is roasted, it requires the removal of the outer peel. The roasting softens the meat, enabling it to absorb flavor more easily. And we said that the bird is permitted only when it does not have cracks; but if it has cracks, it is forbidden because the milk is absorbed into the cracks. And if it has been flavored with spices it is forbidden because the spices soften the meat, causing it to be absorbent.


讗诪专 专讘


Rav said:


讘砖专 砖讞讜讟讛 砖诪谉 砖爪诇讗讜 注诐 讘砖专 谞讘讬诇讛 讻讞讜砖 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻讟诪讬 诪讛讚讚讬


Fatty kosher meat that one roasted in an oven together with lean non-kosher meat is forbidden, even if the two meats never came into contact with one another. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that they are flavored from one another. The fatty meat emits an aroma that is absorbed in the non-kosher meat. The aroma is then transferred back to the kosher meat, causing the kosher meat to absorb some aroma from the non-kosher meat.


讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖专 砖讞讜讟讛 讻讞讜砖 砖爪诇讗讜 注诐 讘砖专 谞讘讬诇讛 砖诪谉 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讬讞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜专讬讞讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 注讘讬讚 诇讜讬 注讜讘讚讗 讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘讙讚讬 讜讚讘专 讗讞专


And Levi said: That aroma does not cause meat to be forbidden. Even lean kosher meat that one roasted with fatty non-kosher meat is permitted. What is the reason for this halakha? Although the non-kosher meat emits an aroma that is absorbed into the kosher meat, it is merely an aroma, and an aroma is nothing significant. The Gemara relates that Levi took action, meaning that he put his opinion into practice, in the house of the Exilarch with a kid and something else, i.e., a pig, that had been roasted together. Levi did not prohibit the meat of the kid due to the aroma of the pig.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 诪驻谞讬 讛转注专讜讘转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 讜拽砖讬讗 诇诇讜讬 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 讙讜驻讬谉


The Gemara raises an objection: One may not roast two Paschal lambs together due to the mixing. What, is it not prohibited due to the mixing of flavors, i.e., due to the aromas that waft from one to the other, and it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Levi? The Gemara rejects this challenge: No, it is prohibited due to the mixing of carcasses. The groups who are roasting their Paschal offerings might accidentally switch offerings, in which case the offerings will be eaten by people who did not register for them.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪驻谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讬 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 讙讚讬 讜讙讚讬


The Gemara adds: So too, one can conclude that this explanation is reasonable from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause that the ruling applies even if the two offerings are a kid and a lamb. Granted, if you say that the reason is due to the mixing of carcasses, this is why it was taught that the halakha applies to even a kid and a lamb. The baraita needed to teach that although they do not look alike, there is still a concern that after they have been skinned they will be mixed up. But if you say that the reason is due to the mixing of flavors, what is the difference between a case in which the two offerings are a kid and a lamb and one in which they are a kid and another kid? The case of the kid and the lamb mentioned at the end of the baraita would not teach anything new.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注诇 讻专讞讬讱 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 讙讜驻讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 砖专讬 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖爪诇讗讜 讘砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转


The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? Perforce, it is due to the mixing of carcasses that it is prohibited, but a mixing of flavors is permitted. Let us say that this will be a refutation of the opinion of Rav, who prohibited the mixing of flavors by means of an aroma. Rabbi Yirmeya said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one roasted the offerings in two pots. Consequently, they do not absorb flavor from one another.


讘砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻注讬谉 砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 诪讗讬 转注专讜讘转 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻注讬谉 砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转 讚诇讬讻讗 转注专讜讘转 讟注诪讬诐 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 转注专讜讘转 讙讜驻讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛


The Gemara expresses surprise: Could it enter your mind to say that they roasted the Paschal offerings in two pots? It is prohibited to the roast the Paschal offering in a pot. Rather, say that they were roasted in a manner similar to two pots, meaning that they were distanced from each other and separated by a partition. And this is what the baraita is saying: One may not roast two Paschal offerings together due to mixing. What is this mixing? It is the mixing of flavors. And even roasting them in a manner similar to two pots, where there is no mixing of flavors, is also prohibited, due to the concern with regard to the mixing of carcasses. And this is the halakha even if the animals are a kid and a lamb.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讻转谞讗讬 讛专讜讚讛 驻转 讞诪讛 讜谞转谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 讬讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讘砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 讜讗讜住专 讘砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛砖注讜专讬诐 砖讜讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚诪专 住讘专 专讬讞讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 专讬讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗


Rav Mari said: This is like the following dispute between tanna鈥檌m: In the case of one who removes hot bread from an oven and places it on top of a barrel of wine that is teruma, Rabbi Meir prohibits a non-priest from eating the bread. In his opinion, the bread absorbs the aroma of the teruma wine and therefore attains the status of teruma. And Rabbi Yehuda permits it. And Rabbi Yosei permits bread made of wheat, which is not very absorbent, but prohibits bread made of barley, because barley draws out and absorbs the aroma. What, is it not a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that an aroma is nothing significant, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that an aroma is something significant.


诇诇讜讬 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘 谞讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


The Gemara says: According to the opinion of Levi, i.e., that aroma is insignificant, it certainly is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei hold that it is significant, and Levi accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that aroma is insignificant. However, according to the opinion of Rav, shall we say it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 专讬讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讘驻转 爪讜谞谞转 讜讞讘讬转 诪讙讜驻讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 讞转讜诪讛 驻转 爪讜谞谞转 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 讻驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讚诪讬讗


Rav could have said to you: Everyone agrees that aroma is something significant. The dispute is about whether bread absorbs aroma in the circumstance under discussion. Was it not stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to hot bread and an open barrel, everyone agrees that it is prohibited because it certainly draws out the aroma; and with regard to cold bread and a closed barrel, everyone agrees it is permitted? They disagreed only with regard to hot bread and a sealed barrel because perhaps the bread nonetheless draws out aroma through the cracks. Similarly, they disputed the case of cold bread and an open barrel. And this case of two Paschal offerings roasted in the same oven is also considered like the case of hot bread and an open barrel.


转谞讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 驻转 砖讗驻讗讛 注诐 爪诇讬 讘转谞讜专 讗住讜专 诇讗讻诇讛 讘讻讜转讞讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讬谞讬转讗 讚讗讬讟讜讜讗 讘讛讚讬 讘讬砖专讗 讗住专讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝讬拽讬讗 诇诪讬讻诇讬讛 讘讻讜转讞讗 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬诇讞讗 谞诪讬 讗住讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 诇专讬讞讗 讜诇讚讘专 讗讞专:


Rav Kahana, son of Rav 岣nnana the Elder, teaches: In the case of bread that one baked together with roasting meat in the oven, it is prohibited to eat the bread with kuta岣, which contains milk, because the bread absorbs some of the meat鈥檚 aroma. The Gemara relates: There was a certain fish that was roasted together with meat, Rava of Parzikiyya prohibited it from being eaten with kuta岣, due to the meat flavor absorbed in the fish. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even to merely eat it with salt is also prohibited because meat that is roasted or cooked with fish is bad for odor, meaning it causes bad breath, and for something else, i.e., leprosy. Therefore, one should avoid eating it due to the danger involved.


诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讛注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讛驻住讞 砖讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 谞讗讻诇 讘讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘讗 诪转讞讬诇转讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛:


MISHNA: Five items, i.e., offerings, may be brought in a state of ritual impurity, but they may not be eaten in a state of ritual impurity. They are all communal offerings: The omer, which is brought in Nisan; the two loaves brought on Shavuot; the shewbread, which were arranged each week; the communal peace-offerings, which were brought on Shavuot; and the goats sacrificed on the New Moons, which were sin-offerings eaten by the priests. However, the Paschal lamb that is sacrificed in impurity is eaten even in impurity, as it is brought to begin with only for eating, which is the essence of the mitzva. With regard to other offerings, the essence of their mitzva is fulfilled when they are sacrificed on the altar, and the eating is non-essential.


讙诪壮 讞诪砖讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讙讬讙转 讞诪砖讛 注砖专


GEMARA: The mishna mentions the number five. The Gemara asks: To exclude what does the mishna emphasize this number? The Gemara answers: It is to exclude the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan, which is a Festival peace-offering brought on the Festival itself and which may not be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.


讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讜拽讘讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讜注讚 转讚讞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 讜诪讚砖讘转 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 讟讜诪讗讛


It could enter your mind to say: Since it is a communal offering, as each individual sacrifices it on the Festival in a public setting, and its time is set, as it cannot be brought every day, it should override ritual impurity like the other communal offerings that have a set time. Therefore, the mishna teaches us: Since there is redress all seven days of the Festival if the offering was not brought on the fifteenth, it does not override Shabbat. And since it does not override Shabbat, it does not override ritual impurity. Therefore, this offering may not be brought in a state of ritual impurity.


讜谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 砖注讬专讬 讛专讙诇讬诐 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖注讬专讬 专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬转谞讬 讚讛讗 转谞讗 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讗诪专讬


The Gemara asks: Let it also teach that the goats brought as sin-offerings on the Festivals override ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: It did teach that, as the goats are included in the category of communal peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: If so, it should also not be necessary to teach separately that the goats sacrificed on the New Moons are brought in a state of ritual impurity, as it already taught the halakha with regard to the communal peace-offerings. Say in answer to this question:


Scroll To Top