ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 74
***** Perek Keitzad Tzolin *****
(a) To roast the Korban Pesach, they would take a spit of pomegranate-wood,
and stick its point through the mouth to protrude from the area of the tail.
(b) Rebbi Akiva objects to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, according to whom that
they would put the lamb's legs and innards inside it while it roasted - on
the grounds that this is very much like cooking, and not roasting, as
required by the Torah.
(c) They did not roast the legs and innards independently - because the
Torah writes "Rosho Al Kera'av ve'Al Kirbo", implying that they should all
be roasted simultaneously.
(a) One could one not use a metal spit or roast the Pesach on a metal grill
- because metal conducts heat from one end to the other, in which case, the
Pesach would be roasted from the heat of the spit or the grill, and not from
the fire (and the Torah writes "Tz'li-*Eish*").
(b) They could not use a spit of ...
1. ... palm-wood - because it contains grooves which exude water, causing
the Pesach to become cooked instead of roasted.
(c) Pomegranate-wood has knots in it, too; nevertheless, it is eligible -
either because its knots are smooth and do not therefore exude water, or
because they used poles from a *young* pomegranate-tree whose knots had not
2. ... fig-wood - because fig-wood tends to exude water (even without the
(d) We are not worried that the end of the rod, where it has been cut, will
exude water and cook the Pesach - because the end of the rod protruded from
the mouth of the Pesach, and the water would not therefore touch its flesh.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah permits a metal spit-rod - because, in his opinion, the
metal will not heat up inside the body of the Pesach, any more than the wood
of a spit.
(b) The Rabbanan hold 'Cham Miktzaso, Cham Kulo' (even when it is inside the
body of the Pesach).
(a) Rebbi Yishmael held like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, and 'Toch Toch' reminded
him of the noise that the pieces roasting *inside* the body of the Korban
Pesach would make; Rebbi Tarfon held like Rebbi Akiva, and referred to the
roasting lamb with the pieces hanging on the *outside* as 'Ge'di Mekulas',
because it resembled a warrior wearing his 'copper helmet' (which is what
(b) Nowadays, it is forbidden to eat a 'Ge'di Mekulas' on Seder-night, so as
not to confuse it with a Korban Pesach.
(c) The Tana needs to add the case when it was *cooked* after the case when
it was *roasted* (i.e. it is not obvious) - because, whereas the latter
speaks about roasting a *detached* limb, the former speaks about cooking one
that is *attached*.
(a) Rabah permits a lamb or chicken that is stuffed (with other meat) -
known as force-meat. He is not concerned that the blood from the stuffing
will become absorbed by the lamb - because 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto' (the same
heat that causes the blood to became absorbed into the body of the lamb or
the chicken, extracts it from there).
(b) There is no proof for Rabah from Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in our Mishnah,
who permits placing the legs and the innards into the lamb and roasting them
together - because there, the reason is not necessarily because of the
regular 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto', but because the Beis ha'Shechitah
(constituting a large cut), which is at the foot of the Pesach, enables the
blood to drain.
(c) Nor is there a proof from the Mishnah in Chulin, which states: 'ha'Lev,
Kor'o u'Motzi es Damo. *Lo Kar'o*, Kor'o Le'achar Bishulo, *u'Mutar*' -
because there too, the reason that the heart is permitted is not because
'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto', but because the heart is smooth, and does not
(d) If the reason that it is permitted there is because 'ke'Bol'o Kach
Polto', then 'Kor'o Le'achar Bishulo' must mean after it was *roasted*
(since it is obvious that 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto' will not be permitted by
cooking in a pot, only by roasting); whereas if the reason is because the
heart, due to its smoothness, does not absorb blood, then it will not absorb
it in a pot either, and 'Le'achar Bishulo' can be taken literally.
(a) There is no proof from the case of Ravin, who made a pie, of which the
stuffing was an entire bird, and of which Rav was prepared to partake -
because that is speaking about a dough made of So'les (refined flour), which
breaks up easily and from which the blood drains easily (more than by other
Some opinions forbid force-meat, even if the opening is facing downwards,
because its opening is only small; whereas the opening in the case of the
Beis-ha'Shechitah, which the Gemara specifically permitted when it is facing
downwards, is large.
(b) On the other hand, Rava found it necessary to explain that he only
partook of the goose-pie that they offered him because the dough was so
clear that one could actually see that it contained no blood, and not just
because 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto' - because that was a case of a dough made of
white, unrefined flour, which is particularly hard and from which the blood
does not drain easily.
(c) A pie made of other kinds of flour is forbidden if the flour turned red,
and permitted if it did not.
(a) 'Umtza' is raw red (bruised) meat; 'Bei'ei', the eggs of a male and
'Mizreki', the blood-vessels in the neck.
(b) The Halachah (unlike everywhere else in Shas, where the Halachah is like
Ravina who is lenient) - is like Rav Achah, who is lenient permitting all
(c) We establish their Machlokes by a case when the Umtza, Bei'ei and
Mizreki are placed on coals: according to Ravina, the coals cause the blood
to congeal inside them, preventing it from draining; whereas Rav Acha holds
that, even here, the fire draws out the blood.
(a) Rav Acha and Ravina both agree that a red piece of Umtza which has been
(b) According to Rashi, meat hung on a spit for roasting must first be
lightly salted (see Tosfos Amud a. DH 'Hai').
- ... cut and salted is permitted even for cooking.
- ... hung on a spit is permitted, because the blood drains.
(c) The blood-vessels that are hung on a spit to roast are only permitted if
their opening is facing downwards.
(a) 'Ha'i Umtza de'Asmik, Chalyeih Asur' - 'Chalyeih' either refers to the
juice that drips from it, or that he heated it in vinegar after roasting it.
(b) According to Ravina, 'Hai Umtza de'Chalyeih', is forbidden even if did
*not* turn red, since it is impossible for there not to be a few drops of
blood (even though they are not readily visible).
(c) Mar Bar Ameimar told Rav Ashi that his father permitted Umtza
de'Chalyeih as long as it did not turn red.
(d) One may use weak vinegar to make Chalitah - because, in spite of its
weakness, it still retains its original strength and is able extract the
blood; whereas vinegar that was already used once has lost its strength, and
is no longer able to do so.