פסחים עו

פסחים עו

אָסוּר. צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן, וְצוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַם, רַב אָמַר: עִילָּאָה גָּבַר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: תַּתָּאָה גָּבַר.

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.

תְּנַן: נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס וְחָזַר אֵלָיו — יִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּחֶרֶס צוֹנֶנֶת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר ״עִילָּאָה גָּבַר״, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי יִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ — דְּאָזֵל רוֹטֶב מַרְתַּח לֵיהּ לְחֶרֶס, וְהָדַר חֶרֶס מַרְתַּח לֵיהּ לְרוֹטֶב. וְכִי הָדַר רוֹטֶב אַפֶּסַח — קָא מִטְּוֵי פֶּסַח מֵחֲמַת חַמִּימוּתָא דְחֶרֶס, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״, וְלֹא צָלִי מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר.

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’s 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: “Roasted in fire” (Exodus 12:8), and not roasted due to something else.

אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר ״תַּתָּאָה גָּבַר״, חֶרֶס כֵּיוָן דְּצוֹנֵן הוּא — אַקּוֹרֵי מֵיקַר לֵיהּ לְרוֹטֶב, אַמַּאי יִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ? כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּסוֹלֶת רוֹתַחַת, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּחֶרֶס רוֹתֵחַ.

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’s 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.

תְּנַן: נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַסּוֹלֶת יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּסוֹלֶת צוֹנֶנֶת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר ״עִילָּאָה גָּבַר״, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ — דְּמַרְתַּח לַהּ לְסוֹלֶת דְּהָדַר הוּדְרָנֵיהּ, וְהָדְרָא סוֹלֶת וּמַרְתְּחָא לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ, וְקָא מִטְּוֵי רוֹטֶב מֵחֲמַת חַמִּימוּתָא דְסוֹלֶת, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״, וְלֹא צָלִי מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר.

We also learned in the mishna that if some of the Paschal lamb’s 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: “Roasted in fire,” and not roasted due to something else.

אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר ״תַּתָּאָה גָּבַר״, סוֹלֶת כֵּיוָן דְּצוֹנֶנֶת הִיא — אַקּוֹרֵי קָא מֵיקַר לֵיהּ, לְמָה לִי יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ? (תִּסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בְּיִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ!) אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּסוֹלֶת רוֹתַחַת.

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.

תְּנַן: סָכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, אִם חֲבוּרַת כֹּהֲנִים — יֹאכֵלוּ. אִם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִם חַי הוּא — יְדִיחֶנּוּ, אִם צָלִי הוּא — יִקְלוֹף אֶת הַחִיצוֹן. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר ״עִילָּאָה גָּבַר״, אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְלִיפָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּעִילָּאָה צוֹנֵן הוּא.

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.

אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר ״תַּתָּאָה גָּבַר״, כֵּיוָן דְּחַם הוּא — מִבְלָע בָּלַע, אַמַּאי סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְלִיפָה? נִיתְּסַר לִגְמָרֵי! שָׁאנֵי סִיכָה, דְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא.

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.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַם לְתוֹךְ חַם — אָסוּר. וְכֵן צוֹנֵן שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹךְ חַם — אָסוּר. חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן וְצוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ.

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.

חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן מֵדִיחַ — כֵּיוָן דְּחָם הוּא, אַדְּמֵיקַר לֵיהּ — אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא בָּלַע פּוּרְתָּא, קְלִיפָה מִיהָא נִיבְעֵי! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — קוֹלֵף, צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ.

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.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בָּשָׂר רוֹתֵחַ שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ חָלָב רוֹתֵחַ, וְכֵן צוֹנֵן שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ חַם — אָסוּר. חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן וְצוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ. חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן מֵדִיחַ — כֵּיוָן דְּחַם הוּא, אַדְּמֵיקַר לֵיהּ — אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא בָּלַע פּוּרְתָּא, קְלִיפָה מִיהָא נִיבְעֵי! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — קוֹלֵף, צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ.

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.

אָמַר מָר: צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מְלָחוֹ, אֲבָל מְלָחוֹ — אָסוּר. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ. כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ (וְכוּ׳) — לֹא (אֲמַרַן) [שָׁנוּ] אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ, אֲבָל נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ — לֹא.

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.

הָהוּא בַּר גּוֹזָלָא דִּנְפַל לְכַדָּא דְּכַמְכָּא, שַׁרְיֵיא רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא.

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

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חַכִּים לְמִישְׁרֵא מִילְּתָא כִּי הָא, אִי לָאו רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא, דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא. אָמַר לְךָ, כִּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ — שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ, הַאי נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ.

Rava said about this: Who is wise enough to permit something as complicated as this, if not Rav Ḥinnana, 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 kutaḥ 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.

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי חַי, אֲבָל צָלִי — בָּעֵי קְלִיפָה. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ פִּילֵי, אֲבָל אִית בֵּיהּ פִּילֵי — אָסוּר. וְאִי מְתוּבַּל בְּתַבְלֵי — אָסוּר.

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.

אָמַר רַב:

Rav said:

בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה שָׁמֵן, שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ עִם בְּשַׂר נְבֵילָה כָּחוּשׁ — אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא — מִפַּטְּמִי מֵהֲדָדֵי.

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.

וְלֵוִי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה כָּחוּשׁ, שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ עִם בְּשַׂר נְבֵילָה שָׁמֵן — מוּתָּר. מַאי טַעְמָא — רֵיחָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְרֵיחָא לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא. עָבֵיד לֵוִי עוֹבָדָא בֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בִּגְדִי וְדָבָר אַחֵר.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין צוֹלִין שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים כְּאֶחָד מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבֶת. מַאי לָאו — תַּעֲרוֹבֶת טְעָמִים, וְקַשְׁיָא לְלֵוִי! לָא, מִפְּנֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת גּוּפִין.

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.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲפִילּוּ גְּדִי וְטָלֶה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִפְּנֵי גּוּפִין — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי אֲפִילּוּ גְּדִי וְטָלֶה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִפְּנֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת טְעָמִים, מָה לִי גְּדִי וְטָלֶה מָה לִי גְּדִי וּגְדִי.

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.

אֶלָּא מַאי, עַל כׇּרְחָיךְ מִפְּנֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת גּוּפִין הוּא דְּאָסוּר, אֲבָל תַּעֲרוֹבֶת טְעָמִים — שְׁרֵי, לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ בִּשְׁתֵּי קְדֵירוֹת.

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.

בִּשְׁתֵּי קְדֵירוֹת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כְּעֵין שְׁתֵּי קְדֵירוֹת. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין צוֹלִין שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים כְּאֶחָד מִפְּנֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת. מַאי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת — תַּעֲרוֹבֶת טְעָמִים. וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּעֵין שְׁתֵּי קְדֵירוֹת, דְּלֵיכָּא תַּעֲרוֹבֶת טְעָמִים — אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם תַּעֲרוֹבֶת גּוּפִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ גְּדִי וְטָלֶה.

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.

אָמַר רַב מָרִי כְּתַנָּאֵי. הָרוֹדֶה פַּת חַמָּה וּנְתָנָהּ עַל פִּי חָבִית יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר בְּשֶׁל חִיטִּין וְאוֹסֵר בְּשֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַשְּׂעוֹרִים שׁוֹאֲבוֹת. מַאי לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּמָר סָבַר: רֵיחָא — לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, וּמָר סָבַר: רֵיחָא — מִילְּתָא הִיא.

Rav Mari said: This is like the following dispute between tanna’im: 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’im? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that an aroma is nothing significant, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that an aroma is something significant.

לְלֵוִי, וַדַּאי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. לְרַב, נֵימָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?

The Gemara says: According to the opinion of Levi, i.e., that aroma is insignificant, it certainly is a dispute between tanna’im. 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’im?

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא רֵיחָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ דְּהַהִיא, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בְּפַת חַמָּה וְחָבִית פְּתוּחָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. בְּפַת צוֹנֶנֶת וְחָבִית מְגוּפָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּפַת חַמָּה וְחָבִית חֲתוּמָה, פַּת צוֹנֶנֶת וְחָבִית פְּתוּחָה. וְהָא נָמֵי כְּפַת חַמָּה וְחָבִית פְּתוּחָה דָּמְיָא.

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 Ḥana 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.

תָּנֵי רַב כָּהֲנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִינָּנָא סָבָא: פַּת שֶׁאֲפָאָהּ עִם צָלִי בַּתַּנּוּר — אָסוּר לְאׇכְלָהּ בְּכוּתָּחָא. הָהִיא בִּינִיתָא דְּאִיטְּווֹא בַּהֲדֵי בִּישְׂרָא, אַסְרַהּ רָבָא מִפַּרְזִיקְיָא לְמֵיכְלַיהּ בְּכוּתָּחָא. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִילְחָא נָמֵי אֲסוּרָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לְרֵיחָא וּלְדָבָר אַחֵר.

Rav Kahana, son of Rav Ḥinnana 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 kutaḥ, which contains milk, because the bread absorbs some of the meat’s aroma. The Gemara relates: There was a certain fish that was roasted together with meat, Rava of Parzikiyya prohibited it from being eaten with kutaḥ, 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.

מַתְנִי׳ חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בָּאִין בְּטוּמְאָה, וְאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין בְּטוּמְאָה: הָעוֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. הַפֶּסַח שֶׁבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה נֶאֱכָל בְּטוּמְאָה, שֶׁלֹּא בָּא מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ אֶלָּא לַאֲכִילָה.

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.

גְּמָ׳ חֲמִשָּׁה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי חֲגִיגַת חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

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.

דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר הוּא, וּקְבִיעָא לֵיהּ מוֹעֵד — תִּדְחֵי טוּמְאָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ תַּשְׁלוּמִין כׇּל שִׁבְעָה — לָא דָּחֲיָא שַׁבָּת, וּמִדְּשַׁבָּת לָא דָּחֲיָא — לָא דָּחֲיָא טוּמְאָה.

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.

וְנִיתְנֵי נָמֵי שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים! הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר. אִי הָכִי, שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי לָא נִיתְנֵי, דְּהָא תְּנָא זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר! אָמְרִי:

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: