(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 75


QUESTION: The Gemara explains the Mishnah to be saying that roasting the Korban Pesach on a normal grill is prohibited, but roasting it on a grill with holes ("Menukeves") is permitted. Why is a grill with holes better than one without holes? In either case, part of the animal is resting on the grill on a place where there are no holes, and thus that part of the meat is being roasted by the heat of the grill and not directly by the flame!


(a) RASHI says that "Menukeves" means that the grill not only has holes, but that it has parallel metal rods without cross-rods. The Pesach is roasted no a spit which is held in the empty space *between* two of the parallel rods, but it is not touching the rods at all.

What new Halachah, then, is the Mishnah teaching? Why shouldn't such a method of roasting be acceptable, that the Mishnah must specifically permit it? Apparently, the Mishnah is teaching that Rabanan did not prohibit roasting in this manner lest the animal touch the walls of the grill.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Korban Pesach 8:9) writes that "one is not allowed to roast the Korban Pesach atop a stone or metal utensil, but if it has holes and the fire can reach through the holes to roast the animal, then it is permitted."

Why is this permitted? Even if the fire reaches the animal through the holes, there are still parts of the animal resting on the base of the grill where there are no holes (RA'AVAD)!

The KESEF MISHNAH, because of this question, is in doubt about what the Rambam means. He suggests that perhaps since the rods of the grill are so narrow, the fire is able to reach the meat even while it is resting on those areas. (That is, this is not to be compared to the case in the Mishnah which says that if the gravy of the Pesach drips onto the earthen oven wall it becomes forbidden -- because the oven, and not the fire, caused it to cook. In that case, the gravy becomes forbidden because the gravy covers a larger surface area of the oven wall, or because the oven wall is at the edge, and not the center, of the oven.)

(c) The second explanation of the KESEF MISHNAH is easier to understand. The Rambam is referring to a case where the Korban Pesach is hung *above* the grill and is not touching it at all -- exactly as the Ra'avad himself suggests. Thus, the fire can reach through the holes in the grill and roast the animal.

If so, what is the Mishnah teaching us that we would not have known? Why would the Pesach be prohibited in such a case had the grill *not* been perforated? The Mishnah is teaching that when there are no holes in the grill, it is prohibited to roast the Korban there; it would not be considered "Tzli Esh," since the heat of the fire is reaching it only indirectly. This also seems to be the approach of RABEINU CHANANEL in our Sugya.

QUESTION: The Torah (Vayikra 21:9) teaches that a Bas Kohen who was betrothed and sinned with another man is punished by Sereifah. The Gemara says that the punishment is carried out by pouring molten lead into her mouth. The Gemara asks why we do not interpret the verse in its most literal sense and burn her with a fire and firewood? The Gemara answers that there is a Gezeirah Shavah that teaches that her punishment must be similar to the death of the sons of Aharon, who died by having their Neshamos burned while their bodies remained intact.

In the end of the Sugya, the Gemara brings the teaching of Rav Nachman, who derives from the verse, "v'Ahavta l'Re'acha Kamocha" (Vayikra 18:19) that we must choose the least painful, quickest death to administer. Therefore, we use molten lead because that is the least painful and quickest punishment.

The Gemara says that even though we learn from the teaching of Rav Nachman that the Bas Kohen is killed with molten lead, we still need the Gezeirah Shavah to the death of the sons of Aharon, because without it we might have thought that this form of death is not considered Sereifah -- only when the body is burned is it considered Sereifah -- and even though it is the least painful death, we may not use it because the Torah requires Sereifah. The Gezeirah Shavah teaches that even when the Neshamah alone is burned and not the body ("Sereifas ha'Neshamah"), it is considered Sereifah.

RASHI explains that from the Gezeirah Shavah we learn that Sereifas ha'Neshamah is *also* a type of Sereifah, implying that it is not the only type that may be used, but that it may *also* be used. Why does Rashi say that? In the beginning of the Sugya, the Gemara said that the reason why we may not kill her using firewood is because we *must* kill her with Sereifas ha'Neshamah (using molten lead). That is, the Gezeirah Shavah is teaching that the *only* type of acceptable Sereifah for the Bas Kohen is Sereifas ha'Neshamah. Why, then, does Rashi now say that the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that Sereifas ha'Neshamah is just a *permissible* way of killing her, and not the only way? Rashi seems to be contradicting the beginning of the Sugya! (MAHARSHAL, MAHARASHA; see also HAGAHOS HA'BACH)

ANSWER: The Acharonim explain that Rashi bases his explanation on the Sugya in Sanhedrin (52a). It is clear from the Gemara there that the Gezeirah Shavah does not limit the punishment *exclusively* to Sereifas ha'Neshamah, but it means to include Sereifas ha'Neshamah as a permissible form of Sereifah. Indeed, we find other instances of "Sereifah" in the Torah which are done with a normal fire (such as the way the sinners of Korach's group were punished, and the way that Korbanos that are Pesulos must be disposed of).

Rashi, then, must have learned that our Gemara originally thought that the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that *only* Sereifas ha'Neshamah may be used, because it did not know of any other reason why she should not be burned with firewood. However, after the Gemara mentions the Halachah of Rav Nachman, that we must choose the least painful death, and that is the source to exclude burning her with firewood, then the Gemara now understands that the Gezeirah Shavah only *adds* this type of Sereifah as a viable option. The requirement to choose the least painful death then teaches us to choose Sereifas ha'Neshamah as her punishment.

(The RASHASH, to demonstrate that Sereifas ha'Neshamah is not the only acceptable form of Sereifah, points out that Chazal record an incident (Bereishis Raba, end of chapter 65) of a Jew who transgressed every sin in the Torah. In the end of his life he did Teshuvah and he accepted upon himself to die with all four types of death penalties. In order to fulfill the death penalty of Sereifah, he jumped into a fire. From here we see that Sereifah also includes burning by fire.)


Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,