Pesachim 152

Chapter 152

א בשר שחוטה שמן שצלאו עם בשר נבילה כחוש אסור מאי טעמא מפטמי מהדדי
1 Fat meat of a [ritually] slaughtered [animal] which was roasted together with lean meat of nebelah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same oven on separate spits and not touching.');"><sup>1</sup></span> is forbidden. What is the reason?
ב ולוי אמר אפילו בשר שחוטה כחוש שצלאו עם בשר נבילה שמן מותר מאי טעמא ריחא בעלמא הוא וריחא לאו מילתא היא עביד לוי עובדא בי ריש גלותא בגדי ודבר אחר
2 They fatten each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The odour of the fat meat enters the lean meat and makes it fat, and then in turn the odour of the lean meat, which is forbidden enters the permitted meat and renders it forbidden too. - Hence if the meat of nebelah itself is fat, it is certainly forbidden.');"><sup>2</sup></span> But Levi maintained: Even lean meat of a [ritually] slaughtered [animal] which was roasted together with fat meat of nebelah is permitted. What is the reason?
ג מיתיבי אין צולין שני פסחים כאחד מפני התערובת מאי לאו תערובת טעמים וקשיא ללוי לא מפני תערובת גופין
3 It is a mere smell, and smell is nothing. Levi gave a practical decision<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As distinct from a mere theoretical ruling - in accordance with his view.');"><sup>3</sup></span> at the house of the Resh Galutha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני סיפא אפילו גדי וטלה אי אמרת בשלמא מפני גופין היינו דקתני אפי' גדי וטלה אלא אי אמרת מפני תערובת טעמים מה לי גדי וטלה מה לי גדי וגדי
4 in the case of a goat and 'something else.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a swine, which was generally referred to thus; cf. supra 3b. These had been roasted together.');"><sup>5</sup></span> An objection is raised: One may not roast two Passover offerings together, on account of the mixture. Surely that means, the mixture of [the] flavours,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each absorbs the flavour of the other through its smell, which would thus be enjoyed by those who have not registered for that animal.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה אלא מאי על כרחיך מפני תערובת גופין הוא דאסור אבל תערובת טעמים שרי לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דרב אמר רבי ירמיה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שצלאו בשתי קדירות
5 which is a difficulty on Levi's view? No: [it means] the mixture of their carcasses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animals themselves may be mixed up with each other.');"><sup>7</sup></span> This too is logical, since the second clause teaches: Even a kid and a lamb.
ו בשתי קדירות סלקא דעתך אלא אימא כעין שתי קדירות והכי קאמר אין צולין שני פסחים כאחד מפני תערובת מאי תערובת תערובת טעמים ואפי' כעין שתי קדירות דליכא תערובת טעמים אסור משום תערובת גופין ואפילו גדי וטלה
6 Now it is well if you say [that it is] on account of the carcasses: hence he teaches, 'even a kid and a lamb.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a mistake is less likely there.');"><sup>8</sup></span> But if you say [that it is] on account of the mingling of [the] flavours, what does it matter whether it is a kid and a lamb or a kid and a kid? - What then? You are bound [to say] that it is forbidden only on account of the mixing of the carcasses, but the mingling of flavours is permitted; shall we say [then] that this is a refutatio of Rab? - Said R'Jeremiah: The case we discuss here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the teaching cited.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז אמר רב מרי כתנאי הרודה פת חמה ונתנה ע"פ חבית יין של תרומה ר"מ אוסר ורבי יהודה מתיר ורבי יוסי מתיר בשל חיטין ואוסר בשל שעורים מפני שהשעורים שואבות מאי לאו תנאי היא דמר סבר ריחא לאו מילתא היא ומר סבר ריחא מילתא היא
7 is e.g. , where he roasted them in two pots. [You say] 'In two pots - can you think so!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Passover-offering may not be roasted in pots at all.');"><sup>10</sup></span> - Rather say, as though [they were roasted in] two pots,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A heap of coals or ashes intervening between the two sacrifices.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ח ללוי ודאי תנאי היא לרב נימא תנאי היא
8 and this is what it teaches: One may not roast two Passover-offerings together, on account of the mixture. What mixture? The mixture of the flavours.
ט אמר לך רב דכולי עלמא ריחא מילתא היא לאו איתמר עלה דההיא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ריש לקיש בפת חמה וחבית פתוחה דברי הכל אסור בפת צוננת וחבית מגופה דברי הכל מותר לא נחלקו אלא בפת חמה וחבית חתומה פת צוננת וחבית פתוחה והא נמי כפת חמה וחבית פתוחה דמיא
9 And even [when roasted] as it were in two pots it is forbidden on account of the [possible] confusing of the carcasses, and even a kid and a lamb [must not be roasted together]. R'Mari said: This is dependent on Tannaim. If a man removes a hot loaf [from the oven] and places It on a wine barrel of terumah, - R'Meir forbids it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a lay Israelite, because it has absorbed the odour of the wine.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
י תני רב כהנא בריה דרב חיננא סבא פת שאפאה עם צלי בתנור אסור לאכלה בכותחא ההיא ביניתא דאיטווא בהדי בישרא אסרה רבא מפרזיקיא למיכליה בכותחא מר בר רב אשי אמר אפי' במילחא נמי אסורה משום דקשיא לריחא ולדבר אחר:
10 whereas R'Judah permits it; while R'Jose permits it in the case of [a loaf of] wheat, but forbids it in the case of barley [flour], because barley absorbs. Surely then it dependent on Tannaim, one Master holding: Smell is nothing; while the other Master holds: Smell is something [substantial]? According to Levi, it is certainly dependent on Tannaim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Meir's view certainly contradicts his.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יא <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חמשה דברים באין בטומאה ואינן נאכלין בטומאה העומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים וזבחי שלמי צבור ושעירי ראשי חדשים הפסח שבא בטומאה נאכל בטומאה שלא בא מתחילתו אלא לאכילה:
11 Shall we say that it is [dependent on] Tannaim according to Rab [too]? - Rab can tell you: All agree that smell is something [substantial]; [and as to the ruling of R'Judah] was it not stated thereon, Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said in the name of Resh Lakish: In the case of a hot loaf and an open barrel, all agree that it is forbidden; in the case o a cold loaf and a closed [stoppered] barrel, all agree that it is permitted. They differ only in the case of a h loaf and a sealed barrel, [or] a cold loaf and an open barrel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is only in such cases that R. Judah permits.');"><sup>14</sup></span> and this too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the case disputed by Rab and Levi.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> חמשה למעוטי מאי למעוטי חגיגת חמשה עשר
12 is like a hot loaf and an open barrel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which even R. Judah agrees is forbidden.');"><sup>16</sup></span> R'Kahana the son of R'Hinena the Elder recited: A loaf which was baked together with roast [meat] in an oven may not be eaten with kutah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. This contains milk.');"><sup>17</sup></span> A fish was roasted [i.e., baked] together with meat, [whereupon] Raba of Parzikia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obermeyer, p. 227, n. 2 thinks this identical with Perezina (Faransag) , near Bagdad.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יג דסלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דקרבן ציבור הוא וקביעא ליה מועד תדחי טומאה קא משמע לן כיון דאית ליה תשלומין כל שבעה לא דחיא שבת ומדשבת לא דחיא לא דחיא טומאה
13 forbade it to be eaten with kutah. Mar B'R'Ashi said: Even with salt too it is forbidden, because it is harmful to [one's] smell and in respect of 'something else.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Leprosy.');"><sup>19</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>FIVE THINGS [SACRIFICES] MAY COME IN UNCLEANNESS, YET MUST NOT BE EATEN IN UNCLEANNESS: THE 'OMER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. and Lev. XXIII, 10f.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יד וניתני נמי שעירי הרגלים הא תנא ליה זבחי שלמי צבור אי הכי שעירי ראשי חדשים נמי לא ניתני דהא תנא זבחי שלמי צבור אמרי
14 THE TWO LOAVES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. 17.');"><sup>21</sup></span> THE SHEWBREAD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXV, 30.');"><sup>22</sup></span> THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lambs offered on Pentecost, v. Num. XXVIII, 27.');"><sup>23</sup></span> AND THE HE-GOATS OF NEW MOONS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. 15 - all these are brought even if the community is unclean, which of course makes them unclean too through the handling of the officiating priest; nevertheless, they may not be eaten for they are brought merely in discharge of public obligations, but their main purpose is not to be eaten.');"><sup>24</sup></span> THE PASCHAL LAMB WHICH COMES IN UNCLEANNESS IS EATEN IN UNCLEANNESS, FOR FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IT CAME FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE BUT TO BE EATEN. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What does 'FIVE' exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that the number has this purpose, for otherwise the Mishnah would simply state, The 'omer . . come in uncleanness etc.');"><sup>25</sup></span> - It excludes the hagigah [for example] of the fifteenth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly the hagigah of any other Festival.');"><sup>26</sup></span> For I might argue, since it is a public sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that all Jews must bring a hagigah.');"><sup>27</sup></span> and a season is fixed for it, let it override uncleanness; therefor he informs us [that] since you can make it up the whole seven [days],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If not brought on the first day it can be brought for a week afterwards, v. Hag. 9a.');"><sup>28</sup></span> it does not override the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A public sacrifice overrides the Sabbath only when it cannot be offered on any other day.');"><sup>29</sup></span> and since it does not override the Sabbath, it does not override uncleanness. Now, let him [the Tanna] state the he-goats of festivals too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XXVIII, 15, 22, 30; XXIX, 5, 16, 38.');"><sup>30</sup></span> - He does indeed state THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the he-goats too are public sacrifices (R. Han) .');"><sup>31</sup></span> If so, let him not state the he-goats of New Moons either, seeing that he States THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS? - I will tell you:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter