Pesachim 81

Chapter 81

א אחרוסת קאמר מר או אחרדל קאמר מר א"ל למאי נפקא מינה

1 Do you1 say it in reference to haroseth.2

ב לדרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא מחלוקת לתוך החרדל אבל לתוך החרוסת דברי הכל ישרף מיד

2 or do you say it in reference to mustard? What is the practical difference?

ג א"ל לא שמיע לי כלומר לא סבירא לי

3 asked he. - In respect to R'Kahana's [dictum] - For R'Kahana said: The controversy is [about putting flour] into mustard; but [if it was put] into haroseth, all agree that it must be burnt immediately.3

ד א"ר אשי כוותיה דרב כהנא מסתברא מדאמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבי יוסי מאי לאו צמותי הוא דלא צמית הא חמועי מחמעא

4 I have not heard it, he replied to him, as if to say, I do not agree with it. R'Ashi said: Logic supports R'Kahana, since Samuel said: The halachah is not as R'Jose.4

ה לא דילמא לא מצמת צמית ולא חמוע מחמע:

5 Surely then, since it [vinegar] does not bind, it does indeed cause fermentation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the reason that flour must not be put into haroseth, since it contains vinegar, and it further follows that if put into it, it is forbidden. Hence when Samuel said that the halachah is as the Sages, that it is permitted, he must have referred to mustard, but not to haroseth.');">5 - No: perhaps it neither binds nor promotes fermentation.

ו אין מבשלין וכו': ת"ר (שמות יב, ט) במים אין לי אלא במים שאר משקין מניין

6 ONE MAY NOT BOIL etc. Our Rabbis taught: [Eat not of it raw, nor boiled at all] with water:6 I only know [that it may not be boiled] in water; whence do we know [it of] other liquids?

ז אמרת קל וחומר ומה מים שאין מפיגין טעמן אסורין שאר משקין שמפיגין טעמן לא כ"ש

7 You can answer, [it follows] a minor,' if water, which does not impart its taste,7 is forbidden; then other liquids, which impart their taste, how much

ח רבי אומר במים אין לי אלא מים שאר משקין מניין ת"ל (שמות יב, ט) ובשל מבושל מ"מ

8 with these liquids when it is being roasted, and the roasted meat may be dipped into liquids at the time of eating. more so!8

ט מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו צלי קדר

9 Rabbi said: 'With water': I only know it of water; whence do we know [it of] other liquids? Because it is stated, 'nor boiled at all',9

י ורבנן האי בשל מבושל מאי עבדי להו מבעי ליה לכדתניא בשלו ואח"כ צלאו או שצלאו ואח"כ בשלו חייב

10 [implying] in all cases.10 Wherein do they differ? - They differ in respect of [that which is] roasted in a pot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without any liquid, save its own juice. If we deduce the interdict of other liquids a minori, this however is permitted. But when we learn it from the emphatic doubling of the verb, even this is forbidden. - The Passover sacrifice was roasted on a spit directly over the fire.');">11

יא בשלמא בשלו ואח"כ צלאו חייב דהא בשליה אלא צלאו ואח"כ בשלו הא צלי אש הוא אמאי

11 And the Rabbis: how do they utilize this [phrase] 'nor boiled at all'? - They employ it for what was taught: If he boiled it and then roasted it, or roasted it and then boiled it, he is liable.12 As for 'if he boiled it and then roasted it, he is liable,' that is well, seeing that he boiled it.13

יב אמר רב כהנא הא מני רבי יוסי היא דתניא יוצאין ברקיק השרוי ובמבושל שלא נימוח דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר יוצאין ברקיק השרוי אבל לא במבושל אע"פ שלא נימוח

12 But if he roasted it and then boiled it, surely it is 'roast with fire'; why [then is he liable]? - Said R'Kaha The author of this is R'Jose. For it was taught: The law14

יג עולא אמר אפילו תימא ר"מ שאני הכא דאמר קרא ובשל מבושל מ"מ

13 is complied with by [eating] an [unleavened] wafer that is soaked15 or boiled, but not dissolved: this is the view of R'Meir.

יד ת"ר יכול צלאו כל צורכו יהא חייב ת"ל (שמות יב, ט) אל תאכל ממנו נא ובשל מבושל במים נא ובשל מבושל אמרתי לך ולא שצלאו כל צורכו

14 R'Jose said: The law is complied with by [eating] a wafer that is soaked, but not with one that is boiled, even if not dissolved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because It is not called bread, notwithstanding that it was previously baked in an oven. Similarly, if the Passover is boiled after being roasted, it is no longer regarded as 'roast with fire'.');">16 'Ulla said: You may even say [that it agrees with] R'Meir;17

טו היכי דמי אמר רב אשי דשויא חרוכא

15 here it is different, because Scripture saith, 'nor boiled a all', [implying] in all cases.18 Our Rabbis taught: You might think that if he roasted it as much as it needs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he overroasted it, thus burning it. I might think that this is not called 'roast with fire' but 'burnt with fire', and therefore he incurs flagellation for eating it.');">19

טז תנו רבנן יכול אכל כזית חי יהא חייב תלמוד לומר אל תאכלו ממנו נא ובשל מבושל נא ובשל אמרתי לך ולא חי

16 he should be liable. Therefore it is stated: Eat not of it semi-roast nor boiled at all with water': semi-roast or boiled did I forbid20

יז יכול יהא מותר תלמוד לומר (שמות יב, ט) כי אם צלי אש היכי דמי נא אמר רב כדאמרי פרסאי אברנים

17 thee, but not that which is roasted as much as it needs.21 How is that meant? - Said R'Ashi: That he rendered it charred meat.

יח אמר רב חסדא המבשל בחמי טבריא בשבת פטור פסח שבשלו בחמי טבריא חייב

18 Our Rabbis taught: You might think that if he ate as much as an olive of raw meat,22 he should be liable; therefore it is stated, Eat not of it semi-roast [na] nor boiled at all [with wate semi-roast and boiled did I forbid thee, but not raw.

יט מאי שנא בשבת דלא דתולדות אש בעינן וליכא פסח נמי לאו תולדות אש הוא

19 You might think that it is permitted; therefore it is stated, 'but roast with fire'. How is 'na' understood? - Said Rab: as that which the Persians call abarnim.23

כ אמר רבא מאי חייב דקתני דקא עבר משום צלי אש

20 R'Hisda said: He who cooks [food] in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath is not culpable;24 if he boiled the Passover sacrifice in the hot springs of Tiberias, he is culpable.

כא רב חייא בריה דרב נתן מתני לה להא דרב חסדא בהדיא א"ר חסדא המבשל בחמי טבריא בשבת פטור ופסח שבשלו בחמי טבריא חייב שעבר משום צלי אש

21 Wherein does the Sabbath differ, that [he is] not [culpable]? Because we require the product of fire,25

כב אמר רבא אכלו נא

22 which is absent! Then [in respect to] the Passover sacrifice too it is not a product of fire? - Said Raba, What is the meaning of his statement,26 'he is culpable'? That he transgresses on account of '[Thou shalt not eat.] but roast with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is not culpable on account of, Thou shalt not eat of it. . boiled with water' because this is not designated boiling. But the other portion of the verse, 'but roast with fire', is an implied negative injunction, the command being that you must not eat anything which is not roast, and what is boiled in the springs of Tiberias is therefore forbidden by implication. He thus holds that a man is flagellated for an implied negative injunction, i.e., one which is not explicitly stated.');">27 R'Hiyya son of R'Nathan recited this [dictum] of R'Hisda explicitly. [Thus:] R'Hisda said: He who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath is not culpable; but if he boiled the Passover sacrifice in the hot springs of Tiberias, he is culpable. because he transgressed on account of 'but roast with fire'. Raba said: If he ate it semi-roast,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter