Zevachim 193

השפוד והאסכלא מגעילן בחמין:

THE SPIT AND THE GRILLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which flesh was roasted.');">¹</span> ARE SCALDED IN HOT WATER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 5. This makes them fit for further use.');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי טעמא דר"ט דאמר קרא (דברים טז, ז) ופנית בבקר והלכת לאהלך הכתוב עשאו לכולן בקר אחד

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is R'Tarfon's reason? - Because Scripture saith, And thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVI,7. This means that the Israelite could return home on the morning after the festival.');">³</span> the Writ treats the whole [of the festival] as one morning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as one day. Since the reason for scouring and rinsing is that what is absorbed of the meat in the pot becomes nothar, it follows that it cannot become nothar from the beginning until the end of a festival, as it is all counted as one day.');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב אחדבוי בר אמי וכי אין פיגול ברגל ואין נותר ברגל

To this R'Ahadboi B'Ammi demurred: Is there no piggul during a festival, and is there no nothar during a festival?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one intends eating the sacrifice after its permitted period of two days, or if flesh is left over after two days, does it not become piggul or nothar, although it is still the festival?');">⁵</span> And should you say, that indeed is so; surely it was taught, R'Nathan said: R'Tarfon gave this ruling only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in respect of scouring and rinsing; but he admits that there can be piggul and nothar during a festival.');">⁶</span>

וכי תימא ה"נ והתניא ר' נתן אומר לא אמר ר"ט אלא זו בלבד

Rather, [the reason is] as R'Nahman said in Rabbah B'Abbuha's name, viz. : Each day effects scalding for the previous one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Many peace-offerings were sacrificed during the festival, and the boiling of each day's sacrifice expels from the pot what it absorbed the previous day, and thus it does not become nothar.');">⁷</span> BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: UNTIL THE TIME OF EATING etc. What does this mean? - Said R'Nahman in Rabbah B'Abbuhah's name: He must wait as long as [the sacrifice] may be eaten, and then scour and rinse it.

אלא כדר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה דאמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה כל יום ויום נעשה גיעול לחבירו:

Whence do we know this? - Said R'Johanan on the authority of Abba Jose B'Abba: It is written, 'It shall be scoured and rinsed';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 21.');">⁸</span> and it is written, 'Every male among the priests may eat':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 22.');">⁹</span>

וחכ"א עד זמן אכילה כו': מאי קאמר אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה ממתין לה עד זמן אכילה והדר עביד לה מריקה ושטיפה

what does this proximity intimate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how is this?' - The second text immediately follows the first.');">¹⁰</span> He must wait as long as [the sacrifice] may be eaten, and then scour and rinse it.

מנהני מילי א"ר יוחנן משום אבא יוסי בן אבא כתיב (ויקרא ו, כא) ומורק ושוטף וכתיב (ויקרא ו, כב) כל זכר בכהנים יאכל הא כיצד ממתין לה עד זמן אכילה והדר עביד לה מריקה ושטיפה:

SCOURING IS AS THE SCOURING OF A GOBLET; RINSING IS AS THE RINSING OF A GOBLET. Our Rabbis taught: Scouring and rinsing are [done] with cold [water]: these are the words of Rabbi; but the Sages maintain: Scouring is with hot [water], and rinsing is with cold.

מריקה כמריקת הכוס שטיפה כשטיפת הכוס: ת"ר מריקה ושטיפה בצונן דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים מריקה בחמין ושטיפה בצונן

What is the reason of the Rabbis? - It is comparable to the cleansing [gi'ul] of heathen [vessels].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to expel what they had absorbed. This requires heat, as Scripture says in this connection: Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire, and it shall be clean (Num. XXXI, 23) .');">¹¹</span> And Rabbi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he not accept this argument?');">¹²</span>

מ"ט דרבנן מידי דהוה אגיעולי עובדי כוכבים ורבי אמר לך הגעלה לא קאמינא כי קאמינא למריקה ושטיפה דבתר הגעלה

- He can tell you: I do not speak of hag'alah [scalding];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That certainly requires hot water.');">¹³</span> I speak of the scouring and rinsing after hag'alah.

ורבנן א"כ לכתוב קרא או מורק מורק או שוטף שוטף מאי ומורק ושוטף ש"מ מריקה בחמין ושטיפה בצונן

And the Rabbis? - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If Scripture meant that scouring and rinsing must follow hag'alah, for scouring is not hag'alah itself.');">¹⁴</span> let Scripture write either, 'it shall be well scoured',or, 'well rinsed';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., shall be scoured, scoured, or, shall be rinsed, rinsed. For if scouring is not hag'alah, it is identical with rinsing (both being in cold water) , and Scripture merely means that it must be rinsed twice. Then the same word should be used for each operation.');">¹⁵</span>

ורבי אי כתיב ומורק מורק ה"א תרי זימני מורק או תרי זימני שוטף לכך כתיב ומורק ושוטף לומר לך מריקה כמריקת הכוס שטיפה כשטיפת הכוס:

why say 'it shall be scoured and rinsed'? - To inform you [that] scouring is [done] with hot water<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is hag'alah.');">¹⁶</span> and rinsing is [done] with cold.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בישל בו קדשים וחולין או קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים אם יש בהן בנותן טעם הרי הקלים נאכלין כחמורין שבהן ואינן טעונין מריקה ושטיפה ואינן פוסלים במגע

And Rabbi? - If Scripture wrote, 'it shall be well scoured', I would say [that it requires] two scourings or two rinsings; therefore 'it shall be scoured and rinsed' is written to inform you that scouring must be as the scouring of a goblet, rinsing must be as the rinsing of a goblet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., once on the outside and once on the inside.');">¹⁷</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE BOILED SACRIFICES AND HULLIN IN IT, OR MOST HOLY SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES; IF THEY WERE SUFFICIENT TO IMPART THEIR FLAVOUR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the pot had absorbed enough of the former to impart its flavour to the latter; or, if both were boiled together, if the former was sufficient to impart its flavour noticeably to the latter. - If they are both of the same kind, we regard them as though they were two different kinds.');">¹⁸</span>

רקיק שנגע ברקיק וחתיכה בחתיכה לא כל הרקיקין ולא כל החתיכות אסורין אינו אסור אלא במקום שבלע:

THE LESS STRINGENT MUST BE EATEN AS THE MORE STRINGENT OF THEM;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If lesser sacrifices and hullin were boiled, the hullin must be eaten within the precincts of Jerusalem, and for two days only. If lesser sacrifices and most holy sacrifices were boiled in it, the lesser sacrifices must be eaten in the Temple court, on the same day, and by male priests only.');">¹⁹</span> BUT THEY DO NOT NECESSITATE SCOURING AND RINSING;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the end of the shorter period allowed for the consumption of the more stringent, but only at the end of the longer allowed for the less stringent.');">²⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי קאמר אם יש בהן בנותן טעם הרי הקלין נאכלין כחמורין וטעונין מריקה ושטיפה ופוסלין במגע

AND THEY DO NOT DISQUALIFY BY TOUCH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the less stringent became disqualified, they do not in turn disqualify any flesh that touches them.');">²¹</span> IF [AN UNFIT] WAFER TOUCHED A [FIT] WAFER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a meal-offering, v. Lev. II, 4.');">²²</span>

אין בהן בנותן טעם אין הקלין נאכלין כחמורים ואין טעונין מריקה ושטיפה ואין פוסלין במגע

OR AN [UNFIT] PIECE OF FLESH TOUCHED A [FIT] PIECE OF FLESH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter in each case absorbing from the former.');">²³</span> NOT THE WHOLE WAFER OR THE WHOLE PIECE OF FLESH IS FORBIDDEN; ONLY THE PART THAT ABSORBED [OF THE UNFIT] IS FORBIDDEN.

נהי דקדשי קדשים לא בעו קדשים קלים ניבעי

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What does this mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is it not scoured and rinsed at the end of the period allowed for the more stringent?');">²⁴</span> - This is what it means: If they were sufficient to impart their flavour, the less stringent must be eaten as the more stringent of them, and they require scouring and rinsing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly, i.e. at the end of the shorter time.');">²⁵</span>

אמר אביי מאי אין טעונין דקאמר קדשי קדשים אבל קדשים קלים טעונין רבא אמר הא מני ר"ש היא דאמר קדשים קלים אין טעונין מריקה ושטיפה

and they disqualify by their touch.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the more stringent were unfit while the less stringent were fit, the less stringent become disqualified too and in turn disqualify others just as the more stringent disqualified.');">²⁶</span> If they were insufficient to impart their flavour, the less stringent need no be eaten as the more stringent, and they do not necessitate scouring and rinsing, and do not disqualify by their touch.

בשלמא לרבא היינו דקתני או קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים אלא לאביי תרתי למה לי

Granted that they do not require [scouring and rinsing] as for most sacred sacrifices, yet they should require [them] as for lesser sacrifices? - Said Abaye: What does he mean by THEY DO NOT NECESSITATE? [As for] most sacred sacrifices; but they do necessitate [them] as for lesser sacrifices.

צריכי דאי תנא קדשים וחולין ה"א חולין הוא דמבטלי קדשים דלאו מינייהו אבל קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים אימא לא

Raba said: This is in accordance with R'Simeon, who maintained: Lesser sacrifices do not necessitate scouring and rinsing. As for Raba, it is well: for that reason he [the Tanna] teaches, SACRIFICES AND HULLIN, OR MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give an anonymous ruling in accordance with R. Simeon, viz., that lesser sacrifices do necessitate scouring and rinsing.');">²⁷</span>

ואי תנא קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים ה"א קדשים הוא דאלימי לבטולי קדשים אבל חולין אימא לא צריכא:

But on Abaye's explanation, why do I need two clauses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the same principle operates in both.');">²⁸</span> - They are necessary.

רקיק שהגיע ברקיק כו': ת"ר כל אשר יגע יכול אפי' שלא בלע ת"ל בבשרה

For if he taught SACRIFICES AND HULLIN [only] I would say, Only hullin can nullify sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the latter do not communicate their flavour to the former.');">²⁹</span> as they are not of the same kind; but in the case of MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES, it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the former do not impart their flavour to the latter, the whole must be treated with the stringency of the former.');">³⁰</span> And if he taught about MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES only, l would think that only sacrifices are strong enough to nullify other sacrifices; but hullin I would say is not [strong enough].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the sacrifice does not impart its flavour to the hullin, the whole must he treated with the stringency of the former.');">³¹</span> Thus both are necessary. IF AN [UNFIT] WAFER TOUCHED A [FIT] WAFER etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whatever shall touch [. shall be holy];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 20. 'Holy' means that it is subject to the same restrictions as the flesh of the sacrifice.');">³²</span> you might think, even if it did not absorb; therefore it says, in the flesh thereof:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. translation.');">³³</span>