## Pesachim Daf 75a

###### Pesachim 75a:1
[Pesachim 75a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:1)

לְקִיּוּהָא דְפֵירָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ. הָכָא — לֵיתָא לְקִיּוּהָא דְפֵירָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**sharpness of the fruit** remains present in the vinegar **in its pure,** unadulterated form, despite the fact that the vinegar itself is not sharp. **Here, the sharpness of the fruit does not** remain present in the vinegar **in its pure,** unadulterated form because it has already been used with the meat. Therefore, the vinegar is no longer potent enough to keep the blood in the meat.


###### Pesachim 75a:2
[Pesachim 75a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:2)

אֵין צוֹלִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח וְכוּ׳. מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר?! חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְאִם אַסְכָּלָא מְנוּקֶּבֶת — מוּתָּר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי צָדוֹק, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְטָבִי עַבְדּוֹ: צֵא וּצְלֵה לָנוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הָאַסְכָּלָא מְנוּקֶּבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the mishna that **one** may **not roast the Paschal lamb** on a grill. Subsequently, the mishna quotes an incident in which Rabban Gamliel instructed his servant to roast the Paschal lamb for him on a grill. The Gemara expresses surprise: Was **an incident** cited **to contradict** what was previously stated? The Gemara responds: The mishna **is incomplete and is teaching the following: And if it is a perforated grill,** so that the fire reaches each part of the meat and the animal will not be roasted from the heat of the grill itself, **it is permitted. And** with regard to this **Rabbi Tzadok said** that **there was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the perforated grill.**


###### Pesachim 75a:3
[Pesachim 75a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:3)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר אִידִי מֵרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עׇרְלָה וּגְרָפוֹ וְאָפָה בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹסֵר, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַפַּת מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a discussion related to the subject of roasting the Paschal lamb. **Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi raised a dilemma before Rav Adda bar Ahava:** In the case of **an oven that one fired with peels of** fruit that are ***orla*,** i.e., fruit that grows on a tree the first three years after it was planted, from which one may not receive any benefit, if, after the oven became very hot, **he swept it** and removed the fuel and the ashes, **and he baked bread in it, according to the opinion that prohibits** bread baked directly with heat from *orla* fuel, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to this bread? It was baked with the heat trapped in the oven only after the fuel was removed. **He said to him: The bread is permitted.**


###### Pesachim 75a:4
[Pesachim 75a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָאָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא סָבָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ וּגְרָפוֹ וְצָלָה בּוֹ אֶת הַפֶּסַח — אֵין זֶה צְלִי אֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״צְלִי אֵשׁ ... צְלִי אֵשׁ״, שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥinnana **said to him: But didn’t Rav Ḥinnana the Elder say** that **Rabbi Asi said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If there is **an oven that one fired and swept** so that the heat remains but there is no longer any fire in the oven, **and** one then **roasted the Paschal lamb in it, this is not** a fulfillment of the Torah’s command that the Paschal lamb must be **roasted in fire, as it is stated** in the Torah: “And they shall eat the meat on that night, **roasted in fire,** and *matzot*; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but **roasted in fire;** its head with its legs and with its inner parts” (Exodus 12:8–9), and since it says the phrase: Roasted in fire, **two times,** the verse emphasizes that the Paschal lamb must literally be roasted on the fire?


###### Pesachim 75a:5
[Pesachim 75a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:5)

טַעְמָא דְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״ ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים. הָא לָא גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא, הֲוֵי אָמֵינָא צְלִי אֵשׁ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The following can now be inferred: **The reason** is specifically because **the Merciful One reveals** this *halakha* with regard to the Paschal lamb in the Torah by repeating: **Roasted in fire, roasted in fire, twice. But** if **the Merciful One had not revealed** this *halakha* by emphasizing the need to roast it directly on the fire, **I would have said** a Paschal lamb roasted in an oven that has already been swept **is** nonetheless considered **roasted in fire.** Therefore, in other situations in which something is roasted in an oven, even if it is not roasted directly from the heat of a fire, its status should be comparable to something that was roasted directly from the fuel. If the fuel is forbidden, the food should be forbidden.


###### Pesachim 75a:6
[Pesachim 75a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא הָתָם, וְיָלְפִינַן מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Adda bar Ahava **said to** Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi: **The Merciful One reveals it there,** with regard to the Paschal lamb, **and we learn from it** that even in other areas of *halakha*, only something that is roasted directly by a fire is considered roasted in fire.


###### Pesachim 75a:7
[Pesachim 75a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:7)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָתָם טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, הָא לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַאֵשׁ קָפֵיד רַחֲמָנָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ גְּרָפוֹ נָמֵי — צְלִי אֵשׁ הוּא. אֲבָל הָכָא, אַעֵצִים דְּאִיסּוּרָא קָא קָפֵיד רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לֵיתַנְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** a different answer instead: **There,** in the case of the Paschal lamb, **the reason** one may not roast the lamb if one has already swept out the oven **is that the Merciful One writes “roasted in fire” twice. But** if **the Merciful One had not written “roasted in fire” twice, I would have said that the Merciful One is particular about fire,** meaning that the source of the heat in the oven should be fire, **and even if one swept it, it is** still considered **roasted in fire.** It was therefore necessary to repeat the phrase “roasted in fire.” **But here,** in the case of *orla*, **the Merciful One is particular about the prohibited fuel, and it is not here** in the oven. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit the bread.


###### Pesachim 75a:8
[Pesachim 75a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲתָכוֹ, וּנְתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁזֶּה צְלִי אֵשׁ. רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי לְרַב חִסְדָּא: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי גֶּחָלִים אֵשׁ נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** If **one cuts** the Paschal lamb superficially in several places **and places it on coals, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: I say that this is** considered **roasted in fire,** as coals have the status of real fire. **Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raised a contradiction to Rav Ḥisda: Did Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi actually **say that coals are** considered like **fire?**


###### Pesachim 75a:9
[Pesachim 75a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:9)

וּרְמִינְהוּ ״מִכְוַת אֵשׁ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּכְוָה בְּאֵשׁ, נִכְוָה בְּגַחֶלֶת, בְּרֶמֶץ, בְּסִיד רוֹתֵחַ, בְּגִפְסִיס רוֹתֵחַ, וְכׇל דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הָאוּר, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חַמֵּי הָאוּר, מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִכְוָה״ ״מִכְוָה״ רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami **raised a contradiction** based on the Torah’s statement with regard to the laws of leprosy: “Or flesh that shall have on its skin **a burn from fire”** (Leviticus 13:24). From the fact that it says a burn from fire, I have derived **nothing other** than a case in which **it is burned by fire** itself; if it **is burned by a coal, by burning ash, by burning lime, by burning plaster [*gipsis*], or** by **anything** else that is burning **and** whose source of heat **comes from fire, to include** also **water heated by fire, from where** is it derived that these are also considered a burn from fire? **The verse states: A burn, a burn,** twice. By repeating the term, **it includes** all these types of burns.


###### Pesachim 75a:10
[Pesachim 75a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:10)

טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״מִכְוָה״ ״מִכְוָה״, הָא לָא רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״מִכְוָה״ ״מִכְוָה״, גֶּחָלִים לָאו אֵשׁ נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The following can now be inferred: **The reason is that the Merciful One includes** these types of burns in the Torah through the words: **A burn, a burn. But** if **the Merciful One had not included** them through the repetitive expression **a burn, a burn,** one would have assumed that **coals are not** considered **fire,** which contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that any usage of the term fire includes coals as well.


###### Pesachim 75a:11
[Pesachim 75a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל עֵץ לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי. כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְגַחֶלֶת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him:** With regard to a red-hot **wood coal,** it is **not necessary** for **the verse to include it.** As long as it is burning, it is certainly considered a fire. **Where a verse is necessary** is with regard **to** a red-hot **piece of metal** that was heated by a fire. Without the verse, it would have been possible to think a person burned by hot metal it is not considered burned by fire.


###### Pesachim 75a:12
[Pesachim 75a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:12)

וְגֶחָלִים שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת לָאו אֵשׁ הוּא? וְהָא גַּבֵּי בַּת כֹּהֵן, דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״. וְאָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: פְּתִילָה שֶׁל אֲבָר הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין לָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise at the previous answer: **And are** red-hot **pieces of metal not** considered **fire? But with regard to a daughter of a priest** who committed adultery after betrothal, **it is written:** “And the daughter of a priest, if she profanes herself through adultery, she profanes her father; **in fire she shall be burned”** (Leviticus 21:9), **and Rav Mattana said:** They would not literally burn her in fire; rather, **they would prepare for her** a molten **bar of lead.** They would execute her by pouring molten lead down her throat. This proves that burning metal is considered fire.


###### Pesachim 75a:13
[Pesachim 75a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:13)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״, ״תִּשָּׂרֵף״ — לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל שְׂרֵיפוֹת הַבָּאוֹת מִן הָאֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **It is different there, as the verse states** not simply fire, but **“in fire she shall be burned.”** The expression **“she shall be burned”** comes **to include all burnings that come from fire.**


###### Pesachim 75a:14
[Pesachim 75a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:14)

וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן אֵשׁ עַצְמָהּ. וְנַקֵּיף לַהּ חֲבִילֵי זְמוֹרוֹת וְנִקְלַהּ! אָתְיָא ״שְׂרֵיפָה״ ״שְׂרֵיפָה״ מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן. מָה לְהַלָּן — שְׂרֵיפַת נְשָׁמָה וְגוּף קַיָּים, אַף כָּאן — שְׂרֵיפַת נְשָׁמָה וְגוּף קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If so, **all the more so fire itself** fulfills the requirement of burning. **Let us surround her** with **bundles of branches and burn her** with them. The Gemara responds: **It comes** from a verbal analogy between the word **“burning”** stated here and the word **“burning”** stated and in the context of the death of **the sons of Aaron: Just as below,** with regard to the sons of Aaron, the verse states that they were burned with fire (see Leviticus 10:2), and it was **a burning of the soul and the body remained,** as even their clothes were not burned, **so too, here,** with regard to the daughter of a priest, it means the **burning of the soul and the body remains.**


###### Pesachim 75a:15
[Pesachim 75a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:15)

וְנַעְבֵּיד לַהּ חַמֵּי הָאוּר? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Let us** execute **her with** boiling **water heated by fire.** The Gemara answers: It is **due to** the statement of **Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said** that **the verse states: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself”** (Leviticus 19:18). When executing someone, **select for him a kind death.** Even when someone must be executed, his dignity should be protected. He should be executed in the most comfortable way possible.


###### Pesachim 75a:16
[Pesachim 75a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:16)

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאִיכָּא רַב נַחְמָן, גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמָה לִי? אָמְרִי: אִי לָאו גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: שְׂרֵיפַת נְשָׁמָה וְגוּף קַיָּים — לָאו שְׂרֵיפָה הִיא. וְאִי מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב נַחְמָן — נַיפֵּושׁ לַהּ חֲבִילֵי זְמוֹרוֹת טוּבָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דִּתְמוּת בַּעֲגָלָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Once there is** the reason of **Rav Naḥman, why do I** need **the verbal analogy** derived from the sons of Aaron? Even without it, Rav Naḥman’s ruling requires the court to carry out the execution with molten lead, which provides an easier death. **Say** in answer to this question: **If not** for the **verbal analogy, I would have said that burning the soul** while **the body remains is not** considered **burning. And if** it were only **due to** the statement of **Rav Naḥman** that one must select a kind death, **we should add many bundles of branches so that she would die quickly.** Therefore, the verbal analogy **teaches us** that executing with molten lead is considered burning.


###### Pesachim 75a:17
[Pesachim 75a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:17)

וְאֶלָּא ״בָּאֵשׁ״ לְמָה לִי? לְאַפּוֹקֵי אֲבָר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if it so that the verse says “she shall be burned” to include all methods of burning, **for what do I need** the expression **“in fire”?** The Gemara answers: **To exclude lead from its source.**


###### Pesachim 75a:18
[Pesachim 75a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״, לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל שְׂרֵיפוֹת הַבָּאוֹת מֵחֲמַת אֵשׁ הוּא? וְהָא גַּבֵּי פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: ״וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ עַל עֵצִים בָּאֵשׁ״, וְתַנְיָא: ״בָּאֵשׁ״ וְלֹא בְּסִיד רוֹתֵחַ, וְלֹא בְּגִפְסִיס רוֹתֵחַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira:** Is it true that **anywhere that it is written: “In fire she shall be burned”** it comes **to include all** methods of **burning that come from fire? But** what of **bulls that are burned,** about **which it is written: “And he shall burn it on wood in fire,** where the ash is poured it shall be burned” (Leviticus 4:12), **and it was taught** in a *baraita*: **In fire, and not in burning lime and not in burning plaster?** Why aren’t all methods of burning permitted in this case as well?


###### Pesachim 75a:19
[Pesachim 75a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם כְּתִיב ״בָּאֵשׁ״ וַהֲדַר ״תִּשָּׂרֵף״ — לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל שְׂרֵיפוֹת הַבָּאוֹת מֵחֲמַת הָאֵשׁ. הָכָא כְּתִיב ״וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ עַל עֵצִים בָּאֵשׁ״ לְבַסּוֹף ״אֵשׁ״, לְמֵימְרָא דְּאֵשׁ — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him: How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the daughter of a priest, **it is written: “In fire,” and** the verse **subsequently** states that **she shall be burned,** which comes **to include all** methods of **burning that come from fire. Here,** in the case of a bull, **it is written: “And he shall burn it on wood in fire.” At the end** it says **fire, to say that** with regard to **fire, yes,** it may be used, but with regard to **something else, no,** it may not be used.


###### Pesachim 75a:20
[Pesachim 75a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75a:20)

הָתָם נָמֵי כְּתִיבָא שְׂרֵיפָה לְבַסּוֹף, דִּכְתִיב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **There, too,** with regard to bulls that are burned, **burning is written at the end, as it is written** at the end of that verse: