Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 55

ion of R. Jehudah, who said that, as a wooden spit is not burnt while the lamb is being roasted, so also an iron spit will not become sufficiently heated to cook the flesh adjoining it. He was told, however, that while a wooden spit only becomes heated locally, an iron spit when partially heated becomes so through- out. " The legs and entrails are placed inside,'' etc. We have learned in a Boraitha that R. Ishmael calls a lamb roasted in that wise a sizzling roast and R. Tarphon calls it a whole roast. The rabbis taught : What is called a roasted goat which must 143 144 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. not be eaten nowadays on the first night of Passover (outside of the Temple) ? One that has been roasted whole ; but if one of the members was detached or boiled and the remaining part roasted, it may be eaten, because then it is not considered a roasted goat. R. Shesheth said: " Even if a member was cooked (boiled) while still attached to the body of the goat and the remainder was roasted, it may also be eaten, and is not called a roasted goat." Said Rabba: " If the lamb was stuffed with flour it may be eaten, even if it was not salted prior to being roasted." Re- joined Abayi: "Will not the filling absorb the blood in that event ? " And Rabba replied: " Yea; but as soon as the roast- ing commences the blood recedes from the flour and is consumed by the fire." Rabbin the Elder stuffed a dove with flour for Rabh, and the latter said: "If it is toothsome, give me a piece and I shall eat it." We know, however, that, when Rabha was served with a stuffed duck at the house of Exilarch, he said: " If I did not see that the filling is as white as white glass I should not eat it." Now if it is a fact, as Rabba maintained, that during the roast- ing the blood recedes from the filling, why should Rabha have made that assertion — what difference does it make whether the filling was white or not ? In this case the filling was made of coarser meal, which after absorbing the blood is not so easily purged thereof; hence it was necessary for Rabha to see whether the filling was white or not. The Halakha in this case prevails as follows: " Where fine meal is used it makes no difference whether it had remained white or become red. If coarse meal was used it may be eaten only if it remained as white as white' glass, while if any other kind of meal was used it may be eaten if it remains white, but not if it become red (or discolored). Even if a lamb (or goat) was roasted upside down (so that the blood could not escape through its mouth), it may also be eaten ; but concerning half-roasted meat, the testicles of a ram, and the muscles of the neck of a Iamb there is a difference of opinion between R. A'ha and Rab- hina. [In all cases of law, where R. A'ha and Rabhina dispute, R. A'ha upholds the more rigorous decrees and Rabhina the more lenient, and the Halakha prevails according to Rabhina; but in the above three instances R. A'ha inclines towards the more lenient ordinance and Rabhina to the more rigorous, and TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 145 the Halakha prevails according to R. A'ha.] If half-roasted meat, which was dripping with blood, was subsequently salted it may even be boiled. If it was roasted on a spit it is also fit, but if it was roasted on live coals there is again a difference of opinion between R. A'ha and Rabhina. One maintains that it must not be used, because the blood remains in the meat, while the other holds that the blood escapes, and the meat is therefore fit to eat. The Halakha prevails according to the latter opinion. The same case applies to the testicles of a ram. If they were cut up and salted, they may be cooked in a pot ; and if they were roasted on a spit without being cut up and salted, they are still fit to eat, because the blood has been consumed by the fire; but if they were cooked over live coals, then is again the same difference of opinion between R. A'ha and Rabhina, and the Halakha prevails that they may be eaten. Said Mar the son of Ameimar to R. Ashi : "My father would drink the juice of such meat." According to another version, R. Ashi himself would do this, and Mar the son of Ameimar said to him: " My father used to say that vinegar in which meat had been steeped once, must not be used for the same purpose again, because it is diluted." What about diluted vinegar itself, why may that be used ? Vinegar, even if it be weak, still retains its original acidity, and stops the flow of blood in the meat, but vinegar which has been diluted by steeping meat therein has lost its acidity and cannot therefore be used. " The paschal sacrifice must not be roasted, etc., on a gridiron,'' etc. Does R. Zadok relate this instance (in the Mishna) of Rab- bon Gamaliel as a contradiction to the Mishna ? The Mishna is not complete, and should read: " If the gridiron, however, is perforated, it may be used for that purpose, as R. Zadok related that Rabbon Gamaliel," etc. {vide Mishna). The rabbis taught: If the paschal Iamb was cut up and placed over coals. Said Rabbi: " I say, that this is equal to roasting it over a fire." Rabha contradicted this saying: How can it be said that Rabbi calls coals " fire " ; have we not learned that the passage [Lev. xvi. 12]: "And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire," means, that coals which have already become dim must not be used, because it says " coals of fire," and that a flame of fire should not be used, because of the term " coals of fire " ? And R. Shesheth explained: Thus we see that live coals are meant, and that a distinction is made between fire and live coals." How then can Rabbi hold that J46 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. even live coals are equal to fire ? Said Rabha : Therefore, the statement of the rabbis must be explained thus: It is written " coals," and lest we assume that dim coals be meant, it is writ- ten " coals of fire." We might, however, assume that half coals and the other half fire should be brought, and by the time they are brought they will become coals entirely, hence it is said [ibid.] " coals of fire from off the altar," which signifies that when taken from the altar they should be coals already. MISHNA: If any part of the roasted lamb had touched the earthenware oven on which it was roasted, that part must be pared off. If the fat dripping from the lamb had fallen on the oven and then had again fallen on the Iamb, the part of the lamb touched must be cut out. If the dripping, however, fell on fine flour, a handful of that flour must be taken (and burned). If the paschal sacrifice had been anointed (basted) with consecrated oil of heave-offering and the company appointed to partake thereof consist of priests, they are allowed to eat it ; but if the