## Pesachim Daf 75b

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

״עַל שֶׁפֶךְ הַדֶּשֶׁן יִשָּׂרֵף״! אָמְרִי: הָהוּא ״יִשָּׂרֵף״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״יִשָּׂרֵף״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם דֶּשֶׁן. ״יִשָּׂרֵף״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִצִּית הָאוּר בְּרוּבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Where the ash is poured it shall be burned”** (Leviticus 4:12). The Gemara responds: **Say: That** usage of the expression **“it shall be burned” is needed for that which was taught** in a *baraita*: **It shall be burned even though there is no ash there,** as the presence of ash from the altar is not essential for burning the bulls. **“It shall be burned”** also teaches that **although the fire has consumed most of it,** that is not sufficient. One must take care to complete the burning process.


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

רָבִינָא אָמַר, כְּרוֹךְ וּתְנִי: ״מִכְוַת אֵשׁ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּכְוָה בְּאֵשׁ וּבְגַחֶלֶת. נִכְוָה בְּרֶמֶץ, בְּסִיד רוֹתֵחַ, וּבְגִפְסִיס רוֹתֵחַ, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חַמֵּי הָאוּר, מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִכְוָה״ ״מִכְוָה״ רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said** that the contradiction cited earlier between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement, that roasting over coal is considered roasting over fire, and the *baraita*, which requires a derivation to indicate that coal is considered fire with regard to leprosy, can be answered by changing the text of the *baraita*. **Combine and teach** the first two types of burns together. From the phrase **“a burn from fire,” I have** derived **nothing other** than a case in **which one was burned by a fire or by a coal.** With regard to one who is **burned by hot ash, by burning lime, or by burning plaster, or by anything** else that is burning **and** whose source of heat **comes from fire, to include water heated by fire, from where** is it derived that these cases 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 75b:3
[Pesachim 75b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/75b:3)

רָבָא רָמֵי. מִי אָמַר רַבִּי גֶּחָלִים אִיקְּרוּ אֵשׁ? וּרְמִינְהִי: ״גַּחֲלֵי״ — יָכוֹל עוֹמְמוֹת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֵשׁ״. אִי אֵשׁ — יָכוֹל שַׁלְהֶבֶת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גַּחֲלֵי״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא מִן הַלּוֹחֲשׁוֹת. (אַלְמָא גֶּחָלִים לָא אִיקְּרִי אֵשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a contradiction: Did Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi actually **say** that **coals are called fire? And we raise a contradiction** based on the verse: “And he shall take a pan full of burning coals from upon the altar before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:12). From the verse’s use of the word **coals,** I **might** have thought that one may bring **smoldering** coals, meaning that the fire is almost extinguished and is not noticeable from the outside. **Therefore, the verse states: Fire. If** it had stated only **fire,** I **might** have thought it was referring to **a flame. Therefore, the verse states: Coals. How** are these two requirements reconciled? **One brings from the** coals that are **flickering,** meaning that the fire is visible. **Apparently,** plain **coals are not called fire.**


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

אָמְרִי:) וְהָא גּוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: ״גַּחֲלֵי״ — יָכוֹל עוֹמְמוֹת, אַלְמָא לוֹחֲשׁוֹת אֵשׁ נִינְהוּ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִי אֵשׁ — יָכוֹל שַׁלְהֶבֶת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גַּחֲלֵי״, אַלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ לוֹחֲשׁוֹת לָאו אֵשׁ נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Say** in answer to this question: **Isn’t this** *baraita* **itself difficult? You said:** From the verse’s use of the word **coals,** I **might** have thought the verse is referring to coals that are **smoldering. Apparently,** it is clear that **flickering** coals **are** considered **fire. Say the latter clause** of that same *baraita* as follows: **If** it had stated only **fire,** I **might** have thought it was referring to a flame. **Therefore, the verse states: Coals. Apparently, even flickering** coals **are not** considered **fire,** and there is an internal contradiction in the *baraita*.


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

וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: ״גַּחֲלֵי״ — יָכוֹל בֵּין עוֹמְמוֹת בֵּין לוֹחֲשׁוֹת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֵשׁ״. אִי אֵשׁ — יָכוֹל שַׁלְהֶבֶת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גַּחֲלֵי״, הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא מִן הַלּוֹחֲשׁוֹת. מִכׇּל מָקוֹם גֶּחָלִים לָא אִיקְּרִי אֵשׁ, קַשְׁיָא לְרַבִּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Sheshet said,** in order to resolve this contradiction: **This is what** the *baraita* **is teaching:** From the verse’s use of the word **coals,** I **might** have thought he can take whatever he wants, **whether smoldering or flickering. Therefore, the Torah states: Fire. If** it had stated only **fire,** I **might** have thought it was referring to **a flame. Therefore, the verse states: Coals. How** is this to be understood? **He brings from the flickering** coals. **In any event,** it is derived from here that **coals,** even if they are flickering, **are not called fire.** This poses **a difficulty** to the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, according to which coals are considered fire.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: ״גַּחֲלֵי״ — יָכוֹל עוֹמְמוֹת וְלֹא לוֹחֲשׁוֹת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֵשׁ״. אִי אֵשׁ, יָכוֹל רָצָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת — יָבִיא, רָצָה גַּחֶלֶת — יָבִיא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גַּחֲלֵי״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא מִן הַלּוֹחֲשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** that the **answer** is **as follows:** Based on the word **coals,** I **might** have thought they must be **smoldering and not flickering. Therefore, the verse states: Fire. If** it had stated only **fire,** I **might** have thought that if **one wanted a flame he** may **bring** it, and if **he wanted a coal he** may **bring** it. **Therefore, the Torah states: Coals. How** is this to be understood? **He brings from the flickering** coals. According to this, it is clear that coals are considered fire, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


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

אָמַר רַבָּה: רָצָה גַּחֶלֶת — יָבִיא, רָצָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת — יָבִיא. שַׁלְהֶבֶת בְּלֹא גַּחֶלֶת הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁפְיֵיהּ לְמָנָא מִשְׁחָא וְאַתְלִי בֵּיהּ נוּרָא. הָהוּא לְמָה לִי קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי, הַשְׁתָּא לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וְדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין כֵּן, לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** In this last explanation, it was stated that one might have thought that if **he wanted a coal he** may **bring** it, and **if he wanted a flame he** may **bring** it. Under **what circumstances** can **a flame without a coal be found?** The Gemara answers: In a case **where one smears a utensil with oil and lights it on fire.** However, for a case like **this, why do I** need **a verse to exclude it** and indicate that one may not bring such a flame? **Now, in front of a king of flesh and blood one does not do this,** as it is considered disgraceful to bring such a flame before a king; **in front of the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He,** is it **not all the more so** a disgrace? Therefore, the verse would not need to exclude this type of flame.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: ״גַּחֲלֵי״ — יָכוֹל עוֹמְמוֹת וְלֹא לוֹחֲשׁוֹת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֵשׁ״. אִי אֵשׁ — יָכוֹל יָבִיא מֶחֱצָה גַּחֶלֶת וּמֶחֱצָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת, אַדְּעָיֵיל לְגַוַּאי הָוֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ גַּחֶלֶת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָקַח מְלֹא הַמַּחְתָּה גַּחֲלֵי אֵשׁ מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, מִשְּׁעַת לְקִיחָה נִיהְוֵי גֶּחָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that one should **answer as follows:** Based on the word **coals,** I **might** have thought they must be **smoldering and not flickering; therefore, the verse states: Fire. If** it had said only **fire,** I **might** have thought **one should bring half coal and half fire,** meaning that when one takes the coals from the altar they should be burning strongly and their flame should be visible, and **by** the time **he enters** the **inside** of the Holy of Holies the fire will die down **and it will be all coal. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall take a coal-pan full of burning coals from upon the altar”** (Leviticus 16:12), which indicates that **from the time of** their **taking they should be coals** and not flames.


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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אוֹמְמוֹת אוֹ עוֹמְמוֹת? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: ״אֲרָזִים לֹא עֲמָמֻהוּ בְּגַן אֱלֹהִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the discussion until now has focused on smoldering coals, the Gemara mentions that **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages in the study hall about whether the word smoldering should be rendered ***omemot*** with an *alef* **or *omemot*** with an *ayin*. **Rabbi Yitzḥak said:** It should be rendered with an *ayin*, as it is stated: **“The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it [*amamuhu*]”** (Ezekiel 31:8), as the word *amamuhu* in the verse is spelled with an *ayin*.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** נָגַע בְּחַרְסוֹ שֶׁל תַּנּוּר — יִקְלוֹף אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס וְחָזַר אֵלָיו — יִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַסּוֹלֶת — יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If the Paschal lamb **touched** the **earthenware** surface **of an oven, one** must **peel** off **its place** on the Paschal lamb, as it was roasted by the heat of the oven and not by the fire itself. If some **of** the **gravy** of the Paschal lamb **dripped on the earthenware and** then **returned to it,** i.e., the gravy splattered back onto the meat, **one** must **remove its place.** Peeling off the outer layer is not enough, and one must remove some of the meat underneath the outer layer, because it is considered to have been cooked by the liquid rather than roasted by the fire. If some **of** the Paschal lamb’s **gravy dripped onto** hot **flour, one** must **remove a handful of** flour from **its place,** i.e., the place where the gravy landed in the flour, and destroy it.


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

סָכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן תְּרוּמָה, אִם חֲבוּרַת כֹּהֲנִים — יֹאכֵלוּ. אִם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִם חַי הוּא — יְדִיחֶנּוּ. וְאִם צָלִי הוּא — יִקְלוֹף אֶת הַחִיצוֹן. סָכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי — לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ דָּמִים עַל בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where one **smears** the Paschal lamb **with *teruma* oil, if** the Paschal lamb belongs to **a group of priests they may eat it,** as they are permitted to eat *teruma*. **If** the Paschal lamb belongs to a group **of Israelites,** then **if** it is still **raw, one** must **rinse it** in order to remove the *teruma* oil; **and if it is roasted, one** must **peel off the outer** layer that has absorbed the oil, so that the Israelites do not eat the *teruma*, which is prohibited to them. If **one smears** the Paschal lamb **with oil of** the **second tithe, he may not demand money for it from the members of the group, as one** may **not redeem second tithe in Jerusalem.** Second-tithe produce that is in Jerusalem is meant to be eaten; it may be given as a gift to others, but may not be redeemed or sold.


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

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר: חַם לְתוֹךְ חַם — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** Based on the mishna, the Gemara introduces a general discussion concerning the *halakhot* of forbidden foods that come into contact with other foods. **It was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed with regard to these matters, but first the Gemara mentions the cases that are clear: If **a hot** food item falls **into** another **hot** item, e.g., hot meat falls into boiling milk or hot permitted meat falls into hot prohibited soup, **all agree**