Pesachim 149

לקיוהא דפירא בעיניה הכא ליתא לקיוהא דפירא בעיניה:

the tartness of the fruit is present in its natural state, whereas here the tartness of the fruit is not present natural state.

אין צולין את הפסח וכו': מעשה לסתור חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני ואם אסכלא מנוקבת מותר ואמר רבי צדוק מעשה בר"ג שאמר לטבי עבדו צא וצלה לנו את הפסח על האסכלא מנוקבת

ONE MAY NOT ROAST THE PASSOVER-OFFERING etc. A story [is quoted] in contradiction? - The text is defective, and it teaches thus: But if it is a perforated grill, it is permitted, and R'ZADOK SAID [LIKEWISE]: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT R'GAMALIEL SAID TO HIS SERVANT: GO OUT AND ROAST US THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON THE PERFORATED GRILL'.

בעא מיניה רב חיננא בר אידי מרב אדא בר אהבה תנור שהסיקו בקליפי ערלה וגרפו ואפה בו את הפת לדברי האוסר מהו א"ל הפת מותרת

R'Hinena B'Idi asked R'Idi B'Ahabah: If a man fires an oven with the shells of 'orlah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹</span>

א"ל והאמר רב חיננא סבא אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן תנור שהסיקו וגרפו וצלה בו את הפסח אין זה צלי אש שנאמר (שמות יב, ח) צלי אש (שמות יב, ח) צלי אש שתי פעמי'

and then sweeps it out and bakes bread in it, what is [the law] on the view that it is forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it is not first swept out; V. supra 26b. Here, however, there is no improvement of the fuel in the loaf; hence the question.');">²</span>

טעמא דגלי רחמנא צלי אש צלי אש שתי פעמים הא לא גלי רחמנא הוי אמינא צלי אש הוא

The bread is permitted, he answered.

א"ל גלי רחמנא התם וילפינן מינה

Said he to him, But R'Hinena the Elder said in R'Assi's name in R'Johanan's name: If a man fires an oven, sweeps it out, and roasts the Passover-offering in it, that is not 'roast with fire,' because 'roast wi fire,' is stated twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 8, 9. The repetition emphasizes that it must be roast actually over the fire itself.');">³</span>

ואי בעית אימא התם טעמא דכתב רחמנא צלי אש שתי פעמים הא לא כתב רחמנא צלי אש שתי פעמים הוה אמינא אאש קפיד רחמנא ואפילו גרפו נמי צלי אש הוא אבל הכא אעצים דאיסורא קא קפיד רחמנא והא ליתנהו

[Thus] the reason is that the Divine Law revealed [it by stating] roast with fire' twice; but if the Divine Law had not revealed it, I would say, it is 'roast with fire'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence in the present case as there is no Biblical intimation, we should regard it as though the fire itself were present, and by corollary, as though, the oven were unswept.');">⁴</span>

ת"ר חתכו ונתנו על גבי גחלים רבי אומר אומר אני שזה צלי אש רמי ליה רב אחדבוי בר אמי לרב חסדא מי אמר רבי גחלים אש נינהו

- The Divine Law revealed it there, replied he, and we learn from it [for elsewhere].

ורמינהו (ויקרא יג, כד) מכות אש אין לי אלא שנכוה באש נכוה בגחלת ברמץ בסיד רותח בגפסיס רותח וכל דבר הבא מן האור לאיתויי חמי האור מניין ת"ל מכוה מכוה ריבה

Alternatively, there the reason is that the Divine Law wrote roast with fire' twice; but if the Divine Law had not written 'roast with fire' twice, I would say, the Divine Law insisted on fire, and even if he swept it out, that too is 'roast with fire';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the heat was the result of fire.');">⁵</span>

טעמא דרבי רחמנא מכוה מכוה הא לא רבי רחמנא מכוה מכוה גחלים לאו אש נינהו

but here the Divine Law objected to forbidden fuel, which is [now] absent.

א"ל גחלת של עץ לא איצטריך קרא לרבויי כי איצטריך קרא לגחלת של מתכת

Our Rabbis taught: If he cut it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Passover-offering; not actually dividing it, but making a number of deep cuts, so that it should roast more quickly.');">⁶</span>

וגחלים של מתכת לאו אש הוא והא גבי בת כהן דכתיב (ויקרא כא, ט) באש תשרף ואמר רב מתנה פתילה של אבר היו עושין לה

and placed it on the coals,Rabbi said: I maintain that this is 'roast with fi R'Ahadeboi B'Ammi pointed out a contradiction to R'Hisda: Did then Rabbi rule [that] coals are fire?

שאני התם דאמר קרא באש תשרף תשרף לרבות כל שריפות הבאות מן האש

But the following contradicts it: [Or when the flesh hath in the skin thereof] a burning by fire [etc.]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 24.');">⁷</span>

וכ"ש אש עצמה ונקיף לה חבילי זמורות ונקלה אתיא שריפה שריפה מבני אהרן מה להלן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים אף כאן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים

I know it only where it was burnt by fire; if it was burnt with coals, hot ashes, boiling lime, boiling gypsum, or anything produced by fire, which includes hot water [heated] by fire, how do we know it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it falls within this particular category of leprosy? V. Hul. 8a.');">⁸</span>

ונעביד לה חמי האור משום דר"נ דאמר ר"נ אמר קרא (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה

Therefore 'a burning' is stated twice, as an amplification.

וכי מאחר דאיכא רב נחמן גזירה שוה למה לי אמרי אי לאו גזירה שוה ה"א שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים לאו שריפה היא ואי משום דרב נחמן ניפוש לה חבילי זמורות טובא כי היכי דתמות בעגלא קמ"ל

[Hence] it is only because the Divine Law amplified [it by writing] 'a burning' twice, but if the Divine Law had not amplified [it by writing] 'a burning' twice, [I would say that] coals are not fire?

ואלא באש ל"ל לאפוקי אבר מעיקרו

Scripture does not find it necessary to include a wood coal, he answered him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For that indeed is fire.');">⁹</span>

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא וכל היכא דכתיב באש תשרף לרבות כל שריפות הבאות מחמת אש הוא והא גבי פרים הנשרפים דכתיב בהו (ויקרא ד, יב) ושרף אותו על עצים באש ותניא באש ולא בסיד רותח ולא בגפסיס רותח

a verse is necessary only in respect of a coal of metal.

א"ל הכי השתא התם כתיב באש והדר תשרף לרבות כל שריפות הבאות מחמת האש הכא כתיב ושרף אותו על עצים באש לבסוף אש למימרא דאש אין מידי אחרינא לא

Then are not coals of metal fire?

התם נמי כתיבא שריפה לבסוף דכתיב

Surely in respect of a priest's daughter [who committed adultery], though it is written, she shall be burnt with fire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 9.');">¹⁰</span> R'Mattenah said: They made a lead wick for her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 52a.');">¹¹</span> - There it is different, because the Divine Law said, 'she shall be burnt with fire': 'she shall be burnt' is to include all burnings which come from fire, then all the more fire itself! [If so] let us surround her with bundles of faggots and burn her? - The meaning of 'burning' is learnt from the children of Aaron: just as there it was a burning of the soul while the body remained intact, so here burning of the soul while the body remains intact [is meant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 52a.');">¹²</span> Then let us prepare for her boiling water [heated] by the fire?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., let us execute her by scalding.');">¹³</span> - [That is ruled out] on account of R'Nahman' [s dictum]. For R'Nahman said, Scripture saith, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 18.');">¹⁴</span> choose an easy death for him. Now, since there is R'Nahman['s deduction], what is the purpose of the gezerah shawah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. I.e., the derivation from the sons of Aaron. it. Nahman's dictum in itself excludes also burning by faggots.');">¹⁵</span> - I will tell you: But for the gezerah shawah, I would say [that] the burning of the soul while the body remains intact is not burning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the only alternative left is burning by faggots.');">¹⁶</span> while as for R'Nahman's [teaching], let us use many bundles of faggots for her, so that she should die quickly. Therefore it [the gezerah shawah] informs us [that it is not so]. Then what is the purpose of '[she shall be burnt] with fire'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since after all the verse is taken to include all burnings which come from fire.');">¹⁷</span> - It is to exclude [boiling] lead [drawn straight] from its source. R'Jeremiah said to R'Zera: Then wherever 'she shall be burnt with fire' is written, it is to include all burnings which are produced by fire? Surely in respect to the [sacrificial] bullocks which were burnt, though it is written, and the [the priest] shall burn it on wood with fire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 12.');">¹⁸</span> it was nevertheless taught: 'With fire,' but not with boiling lime or boiling gypsum? - Said he to him, How compare! There 'with fire' is written [first] and 'she shall be burnt' after: [hence] it is to include all burnings which are produced by fire;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the addition of 'she shall be burnt', after 'with fire' has already been stated, it is superfluous.');">¹⁹</span> [whereas] here is written, and he shall burn it on wood with fire,' 'with fire' being at the end, to intimate that fire on [is permitted], but not anything else. But there too burning is written at the end, for it is written,