Pesachim 150

Chapter 150

א (ויקרא ד, יב) על שפך הדשן ישרף אמרי ההוא ישרף מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ישרף אע"פ שאין שם דשן ישרף אע"פ שהצית האור ברובו
1 where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>1</sup></span> I will tell you: that 'shall it be burnt' is required for w was taught: 'It shall be burnt': even if no ashes are there; 'it shall be burnt', even if he made the fire catch to the greater part of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet he must not leave it until the whole is burning. This is deduced because 'it shall be burnt' is repeated at the end of the sentence, which emphasizes that it is to be entirely burnt in all cases.');"><sup>2</sup></span> Rabina said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the contradiction pointed out by R. Ahadeboi.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב רבינא אמר כרוך ותני (ויקרא יג, כד) מכות אש אין לי אלא שנכוה באש ובגחלת נכוה ברמץ בסיד רותח ובגפסיס רותח ובכל דבר הבא מחמת האור לאיתויי חמי האור מנין ת"ל מכוה מכוה ריבה
2 Unite them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wrap'.');"><sup>4</sup></span> and learn: 'A burning by fire': I know it only if it was burnt by fire or with a coal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Coal is included as implied by the term 'fire', and not derived from the repetition of 'a burning', as stated in the original version.');"><sup>5</sup></span> if it was burnt with hot ashes, boiling lime, boiling gypsum or with anything produced by fire, which includes hot water [heated] by the fire, how do we know it?
ג רבא רמי מי אמר ר' גחלים איקרו אש ורמינהי גחלי יכול עוממות ת"ל אש אי אש יכול שלהבת ת"ל גחלי הא כיצד מביא מן הלוחשות (אלמא גחלים לא איקרי אש
3 Therefore 'a burning' is stated twice as an amplification. Raba pointed out a contradiction: did then Rabbi say [that] coals are designated fire? But the following contradicts it: [And he shall take a censer full of] coals [of fire]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 12.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד אמרי) והא גופא קשיא אמרת גחלי יכול עוממות אלמא לוחשות אש נינהו אימא סיפא אי אש יכול שלהבת ת"ל גחלי אלמא אפילו לוחשות לאו אש נינהו
4 you might think [that] quenched [smouldering] coals are meant;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., without a flame, for otherwise they are simply called 'fire'.');"><sup>7</sup></span> therefore 'fire' is stated. If 'fire', you might think [that] a flame [must b brought]; therefore 'coals of' is stated.
ה ואמר רב ששת הכי קתני גחלי יכול בין עוממות בין לוחשות ת"ל אש אי אש יכול שלהבת ת"ל גחלי הא כיצד מביא מן הלוחשות מ"מ גחלים לא איקרי אש קשיא לרבי
5 How then [is it to be understood]? He must bring of the brightly-burning [coals].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whispering,' for when coals are burning brightly they make a slight hissing noise something like a sibilant whisper.');"><sup>8</sup></span> Now this is self-contradictory: you say: "'coals," you might think [that] quenched coals [are meant],' which proves that brightly-burning [coals] are [termed] fire.
ו אמר אביי תריץ הכי גחלי יכול עוממות ולא לוחשות ת"ל אש אי אש יכול רצה שלהבת יביא רצה גחלת יביא ת"ל גחלי הא כיצד מביא מן הלוחשות
6 Then consider the second clause: 'if "fire", you might think [that] a flame [must be brought]; therefore "coals of" is stated,' which pro that even brightly-burning [coals] are not fire? Whereupon R'Shesheth answered, This is what he teaches: coals: you might think, both smouldering and brightly-burning [can be taken]; therefore 'fire' is stated. if 'fire,' you might think [that] a flame [must be brought]; therefore 'coals of' is stated.
ז אמר רבה רצה גחלת יביא רצה שלהבת יביא שלהבת בלא גחלת היכי משכחת לה כגון דשפייה למנא משחא ואתלי ביה נורא ההוא למה לי קרא למעוטי השתא לפני מלך בשר ודם אין עושין כן לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה לא כל שכן
7 How then [is this to b understood]? He must bring of the brightly-burning [coals]. Yet at all events coals are not called fire, which is a difficulty according to Rabbi? - Said Abaye, Explain it thus: coals of:you might think quenched, but not brightly-burning; therefore 'fire' is stated; if 'fire,' you might think, he can bring a flame<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without a coal.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ח אלא אמר רבא תריץ הכי גחלי יכול עוממות ולא לוחשות ת"ל אש אי אש יכול יביא מחצה גחלת ומחצה שלהבת אדעייל לגואי הוי כוליה גחלת תלמוד לומר (ויקרא טז, יב) ולקח מלא המחתה גחלי אש מעל המזבח משעת לקיחה ניהוי גחלים
8 or a coal, whichever he desires; therefore 'coals of fire is stated. How then [is it meant]? He must bring of the brightly burning [coals].
ט איבעיא להו אוממות או עוממות אמר רבי יצחק (יחזקאל לא, ח) ארזים לא עממוהו בגן אלהים:
9 Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As emended in margin from Rabbah.');"><sup>10</sup></span> asked: [You say] 'He can bring a flame or a coal, as he desires.' [But] how is a flame without a coal possible?
י <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נגע בחרסו של תנור יקלוף את מקומו נטף מרוטבו על החרס וחזר אליו יטול את מקומו נטף מרוטבו על הסולת יקמוץ את מקומו
10 [Only] if one smears a vessel with oil and lights a fire in it! [Then] why do I need a verse [to exclude] that? Seeing that you do not do thus before a king of flesh and blood, is it not all the more [forbidden] before the Holy One, blessed be He! Rather said Raba, Explain it thus: 'coals of': you might think, quenched but not brightly-burning; therefore 'fire' is stated; if fire, you might think, let him bring ha coal and half flame,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a piece of wood part only of which is well alight. t g');"><sup>11</sup></span> so that by the time he carries it within [the Holy of Holies] it is all a coal; therefore stated, 'And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar': at the very time of taking they m be coals.
יא סכו בשמן תרומה אם חבורת כהנים יאכלו אם של ישראל אם חי הוא ידיחנו ואם צלי הוא יקלוף את החיצון סכו בשמן של מעשר שני לא יעשנו דמים על בני חבורה שאין פודין מעשר שני בירושלים:
11 The Scholars asked: [Is the word] omemoth or 'omemoth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With an alef () or with an 'ayin () ? g');"><sup>12</sup></span> -R'Isaac quoted: The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it ['amamuhu].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XXXI, 8; 'amamuhu is with an 'ayin () , and the root really means to dim, darken, whence E.V. 'hide'.');"><sup>13</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF IT [THE PASCHAL LAMB] TOUCHED THE EARTHEN[WARE] OF THE OVEN, HE MUST PARE ITS PLACE; IF SOME OF ITS JUICE DRIPPED ON TO THE EARTHEN[WARE] AND DRIPPED BACK ON TO IT, HE MUST REMOVE ITS PLACE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the part on to which it dripped. 'Pare' denotes a very thin strip; 'to remove,' the thickness of the finger. The reason is explained in the GEMARA:');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר חם לתוך חם דברי הכל
12 IF SOME OF ITS JUICE FELL ON THE FLOUR, HE MUST TAKE A HANDFUL AWAY FROM ITS PLACE. IF HE BASTED IT [THE PASCHAL LAMB] WITH OIL OF TERUMAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As emended in margin from Rabbah.');"><sup>10</sup></span> IF THEY WHO REGISTERED FOR IT ARE A COMPANY OF PRIESTS, THEY MAY EAT [IT]; BUT IF ISRAELITES, IF IT IS [YET] RAW, LET HIM WASH IT OFF; IF IT IS ROAST, HE MUST PARE THE OUTER PART. IF HE ANOINTED IT WITH OIL OF SECOND TITHE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Second tithe was brought to Jerusalem and eaten there by its Israelite owners; if it was too burdensome, they redeemed it and expended the redemption money in Jerusalem, v. Deut. XIV, 22f.');"><sup>15</sup></span> HE MUST NOT CHANGE ITS VALUE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY, BECAUSE SECOND TITHE MUST NOT BE REDEEMED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: sold.');"><sup>16</sup></span> IN JERUSALEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even to eat it in Jerusalem as holy food. If the owner of this oil charges the other members for their share, he virtually redeems or sells it as far as he is concerned.');"><sup>17</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It was stated: [If] hot matter [falls] into hot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., hot milk into hot meat, or hot forbidden flesh into hot permitted flesh, or vice versa. By 'hot', boiling is meant.');"><sup>18</sup></span> all agree
Previous ChapterNext Chapter