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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Pesachim 75


1) Before recording the story of Rebbi in our Mishnah, who instructed his servant Tavi, to roast a Pesach on a grill (in spite of the previous Tana, who forbade this) - we have to add the words 've'Im Askela Menukeves, Mutar'. The story of Tavi too, speaks about a grill with a large hole in it, which was permitted provided the Pesach did not touch the grill.


(a) If one baked bread in an oven that had been heated with Orlah peels, but after the peels had been removed, then even Rebbi (who forbids the bread before the peels have been removed) agrees that the bread is permitted (see Tosfos DH 've'Garfo' to understand the Chidush).

(b) We deduce from the fact that the Torah writes "Tz'li Esh" twice - that, if not for the extra Pasuk, what is roasted by the wall of the oven that was, in turn, heated by fire, is considered as if it was heated by the fire itself. This appears to contradict the statement in a., where Rebbi permitted bread baked by an oven that was in turn, heated by Orlah peels.

(c) Alternatively, the Gemara answers that had the Torah not written "Tzli Esh" twice, we would have permitted roasting the Pesach by the heat of the oven, since, when all's said and done, it is 'Tzli Esh' (heated by fire - albeit second-hand); whereas by Orlah, where the Torah forbids deriving benefit from the fruit of the first three years' growth, an oven heated by peels of Orlah, the criterion is not whether it is called 'Tzli Esh' or not, but whether the Orlah is there or not. Consequently, once the Orlah-peels have been burnt, any further benefit is permitted.

(a) The difference whether one contracts Tzara'as on the location of a boil or a burn is only regarding the fact that, half the Shiur of one (i.e. a k'G'ris) and half a Shiur of the other do not combine. Independently, they have exactly the same Din.

(b) We learn from the extra word "Michvah" - that Tzara'as is applicable, not only on the location of a burn caused by fire, but also on the location of one caused by hot coals, hot ashes and various kinds of hot lime.

(c) This presents a Kashya on Rebbi, who permits cutting the Pesach and placing it on coals to roast - whereas we have just seen that burning by hot coal is not considered burning in fire (since we need a special Pasuk to include it).

(a) "ba'Eish" refers to fire - "Tisaref" comes to include other forms of death not directly through fire.

(b) We do not surround her with branches and set fire to them (in spite of the Pasuk "*ba'Eish* Yisaref") - because we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Sereifah" "Sereifah" from the sons of Aharon, that burning in fire comprises the burning of the Neshamah with the body remaining intact.

(c) W learn in this regard, from the Pasuk "ve'Ahavta le'Rei'acha Kamocha" - that we cannot kill a Bas Kohen by burning her in boiling water, because that is a particularly painful death.

(d) We cannot preclude killing the Bas Kohen by kindling branches, from this last Derashah (of "ve'Ahavta le'Rei'acha Kamocha"), without the Gezeirah Shavah of "Sereifah" "Sereifah" from the sons of Aharon - because it would be possible to add branches and fuel, so that she should die quickly, and as for burning the Neshamah and not the body, were it not for the Gezeirah Shavah of "Sereifah" "Sereifah", we would have said that *that* is not called Sereifah.

5) "*ba'Eish* Tisaref" comes to preclude lead that was extracted from the earth already hot, to teach us that only lead that has been heated by fire may be used.


(a) A Bas Kohen is burnt by an indirect heat, because the Torah writes "ba'Eish *Tisaref*" to include other forms of heat; whereas Parim ha'Nisrafim are burnt specifically in fire, because the Torah writes "ba'Eish" at the end ("ve'Saraf Oso Al Eitzim ba'Eish") to preclude anything else.

(b) The Torah adds "Al Shefech ha'Deshen *Yisaref*" to teach us that the Parim ha'Nisrafim must be burnt even if there are no ashes there (despite the expression "Al Shefesh *ha'Deshen*"), and that one should continue to make sure that it burns (by adding coals and stoking it) even after the fire has consumed most of it.




  1. ... Omemos - are coals that are still hot but whose flame has already died.
  2. ... Locheshos - are hot coals that are still flaming.
  3. ... Shalheves - is the flame itself.
(b) The problem with the Beraisa (which, speaking about the Kohen Gadol taking "Gachalei Esh" for the Mitzvah of Ketores on Yom Kipur, explains that the Torah needs to write "Eish" to preclude from the need to take *Omemos - as implied by "Gachalei"* - and "Gachalei" to preclude from *Shalheves, as implied by "Eish"*) is that from the Reisha ['Omemos - as implied by "Gachalei"'] implies that Esh incorporates Lochshos; whereas the Seifa ['*Shalheves, as implied by "Eish"'] implies that it does not.

(c) Since, even according to Rav Sheshes, the Beraisa uses the word "Gachalei" to include Lochshos, it appears that Esh does *not* incorporate coals - a Kashya on Rebbi, who holds that it *does*.

(d) According to Abaye's final explanation, "Eish" incorporates both a Shalheves and Lochshos, and "Gachalei" comes to preclude a flame.

(a) We would not require "Gachalei" to teach us that the Kohen Gadol should not rub oil on to a vessel and light it - because one would not do this to honor a *human* king, let alone the King of Kings!

(b) We would have explained "Eish" to mean that he must take half a coal and half a flame from the Mizbei'ach, so that by the time he reached the Kodesh Kodshim, it would have turned into a coal. Therefore the Torah writes "*ve'Lakach* Me'lo ha'Machtah *Gachalei* Esh me'Al ha'Mizbei'ach" - to teach us that it must be entirely coal (and not half flame) from the moment he takes it from the Mizbei'ach.

9) We prove from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Arazim Lo Amemuhu be'Gan Elokim" - that the word 'Omemos' is spelt with an 'Ayin' and not with an 'Aleph'.


(a) If ...
1. ... the flesh of the Pesach touched the earthenware oven whilst it was roasting - one must peel off one thin layer the Pesach at the point where it touched the oven, because it is not 'Tzli-Eish'.
2. ... some gravy from the Pesach splashed on to the hot wall of the oven and back on to the Pesach - one must remove a finger-breadth of Pesach from that point, because gravy tends to penetrate deeper than if the flesh just touches the oven.
3. ... some gravy dripped from the Pesach on to flour - one removes a fistful of flour.
(b) If someone smeared Terumah oil on to ...
  1. ... a raw Pesach belonging to Yisraelim - one simply washes it off.
  2. ... a roasted Pesach - one peels off a thin layer from the Pesach.
(c) One cannot redeem a Pesach that was smeared with Ma'ser Sheni oil - because once Ma'ser Sheni enters Yerushalayim, it cannot be redeemed.
Next daf


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