Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 76

1) PEELING OFF THE OUTER LAYER

QUESTION: The Mishnah (75b) states that if the Korban Pesach was smeared with oil of Terumah, then only the outer layer must be peeled off, even though the Korban was hot. The Gemara says that according to Rav, who holds "Ila'a Gavar" (the temperature of the upper food overpowers that of the lower food), it is clear why only the outer layer must be peeled off and we are not afraid that the Korban absorbed the oil of Terumah. Since the oil itself is not hot, it cools off the Korban Pesach at the point of contact and thus it does not get cooked into the animal.

RASHI asks that according to Rav, it should suffice to wash off the oil, and peeling off a layer of the Korban should not be necessary. Rashi answers that since the animal has been roasted, it is soft and absorbent, and therefore even if it is cold it absorbs some of the oil and the outer layer must be peeled off.

Why does Rashi not say that the reason why the animal absorbs some of the oil is because of the reason given in the next few lines of the Gemara -- that until the oil cools the heat of the meat, the meat heats and absorbs a little of the oil? That should be the reason why peeling is necessary! (SEFAS EMES)

ANSWER: The DEVAR SHMUEL (Mahadura Basra) points out that the question does not start. Rashi learned his answer from the Mishnah. The Mishnah says that if the animal is raw (it has not yet been roasted), then one may simply wash off the oil of Terumah. If it is roasted, though, one must peel off the outer layer. The Mishnah does not differentiate between whether the Korban is *cold or hot*, but whether the Korban is *roasted or raw*, as pointd out by TOSFOS, 75b, DH l'Fi. That is why Rashi says that the reason the outer layer must be peeled off is because it has become soft and absorbent by being roasted, even though it is cold. For the same reason, Rashi at the end of the Amud explains that the Bar Gozla, young bird, that fell into the Kutach dip would have absorbed some of the dip had it been roasted and not raw, *even though* it was cold at the time that it fell in.

(What exactly the Mishnah means by "roasted" and "raw" is, in fact, debated among the Rishonim. The RASHBA (Toras ha'Bayis and Chulin 112a) and the RITVA (ibid.) explain that when the Mishnah and Gemara refer to "roasted" as opposed to "raw," it in fact means that the food is "hot" as opposed to "cold," unlike we described above (see Insights to Chulin 112:2). Some (Rashba ibid.) say that this is Rashi's opinion as well. If this is indeed Rashi's approach, then the question of the Sefas Emes will return.

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that "Kavush k'Mevushal" -- "soaking is like cooking." Soaking an item in a liquid causes a transference of taste, like cooking, so that a permissible item soaked with a forbidden item will become forbidden. What are the parameters of this principle? What liquids cause transferral of taste, and after how long?

(a) RASHI explains that "Kavush" refers only to soaking something in vinegar, or in something very sharp, such as a liquid with sharp spices in it (as Rashi adds in Chulin, 97b, DH Kavush). He does not specify any time duration for which the item must be soaked in order to absorb taste.

(b) The MORDECHAI (Beitzah, #674) argues and says that even if the liquid is not sharp, it causes the items soaked in it to transfer their tastes. The Mordechai, as well as the ROSH in Avodah Zarah 5:11, further states that after 24 hours, taste is transferred. He proves this from Pesachim (44b), where the Gemara says that meat and milk are forbidden when the meat is cooked in milk, but not when it is soaked in milk for one day, whereas all other Isurim will make another item forbidden even when soaked with it for a day. It is evident from there that "Kavush" transfers taste after twenty- four hours.

It would also appear clear from the Gemara that they cited that even immersion in non-sharp liquids, such as milk, is considered "Kavush." How will Rashi explain that Gemara?

1. Rashi (44b) explains that the Gemara means that even if the milk gets absorbed in the meat and gives its taste, if the meat is squeezed and wrung out it is permitted. The reason why other Isurim would forbid the item in such a case is not because of "Kavush," but because of "Nosen Ta'am" (they give their taste to the permitted item). "Nosen Ta'am" for all other Isurim is Asur, but for meat and milk is Mutar until they are cooked together. (See also TOSFOS, Chulin 108a, DH Chidush)

2. The CHASAM SOFER (Teshuvos OC 129, DH Ivra) explains that since milk becomes sour after 24 hours, it has the same quality as vinegar and is able to make the meat soaking in it "Kavush."

76b

OPINIONS: Rav and Levi argue whether the "Rei'ach" (aroma) of a food is significant enough to forbid another item. Rav says that if Kosher meat was cooked in the same oven with Neveilah meat, the Rei'ach of the Neveilah meat becomes absorbed into the Kosher meat and makes it forbidden. Levi argues and says that "Reicha *Lav* Milsa Hi;" since the vapor is insignificant, it does not prohibit the Kosher meat. What is the Halachah?

(a) RASHI (DH Amar Lach Rav) says that the Halachah follows the opinion of Levi. Even though Rav was able to explain that all of the Tana'im agree with his opinion, the Halachah follows Levi. The reason is because elsewhere (Avodah Zarah 66b) Abaye and Rava also argue about Rei'ach, and Rava agrees with the opinion of Levi. Since the Halachah always follows Rava when he argues with Abaye, the Halachah is that Rei'ach is *not* considered significant.

However, it is evident from the words of Rashi (DH Avad Uvda, as pointed out by TOSFOS DH Mai) that according to Levi, "Rei'ach" is insignificant only *b'Di'eved*. Levi agrees that l'Chatchilah we consider Rei'ach to transfer taste. This is also the ruling of the RIF in Chulin (32b of the pages of the Rif), who rules like Levi but only permits the food b'Di'eved, and the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 15:33).

(b) TOSFOS (DH Asrah) cites RABEINU TAM who rules like Rav, that Rei'ach *is* considered significant, even b'Di'eved. Even though Rava in Avodah Zarah (66b) seems to agree with Levi that Rei'ach is not significant, Tosfos asserts that he said that only with regard to the specific case under discussion in Avodah Zarah. In all other cases, though, Rava agrees that Rei'ach is significant. This is also the opinion of the ROSH (Avodah Zarah 5:8) according to the TUR (see, however, BEIS YOSEF who points out that the Rosh brings both opinions and does not seem to side like one in particular).

HALACHAH: The BEIS YOSEF (YD 97, DH u'l'Inyan Halachah) rules like the Rif and Rambam and says that l'Chatchilah it is Asur to cook a permitted item with a forbidden one in a small oven (in a large oven, or in one which has an exhaust fan, it may be permissible even l'Chatchilah), but b'Di'eved it is permitted. This is the ruling of the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 108:1).

The REMA adds that this also applies to a meat food and a milk food cooked together in the same oven; b'Di'eved the foods are Mutar even if they were cooked together in a small oven. (There are some, though, they prohibit the food in this case unless it is a situation of great loss.) However, if either food was very spicy, then even b'Di'eved they are Asur.

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 92:8) adds, based on the ROSH (Teshuvos 20:26), that when two items are cooked in the same oven, there is also a problem of *steam* ("Zei'a"). Steam from a milk food that rises up to a meat food forbids it. Unlike Rei'ach, which is permitted b'Di'eved, the Shulchan Aruch rules that steam of milk actually makes a meat item prohibited even b'Di'eved.

In practice, there are three general approaches to whether one may cook meat and milk, after each other, in the same oven:

1. The ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN (YD 92:55) writes that in our modern ovens, steam is not a problem, only Rei'ach is. Rei'ach, though, is only a problem when the meat and milk are in the oven at the same time. One may, however, cook meat right *after* milk in our modern ovens. (The oven, though, must be clean.)

2. The MINCHAS YITZCHAK (YD 5:20) rules that since the difference between Rei'ach and Zei'a is not well defined, it is best for a person to have two ovens, one for meat and one for milk. He says that steam left in the oven from the meat food might enter the milk food, or that the steam becomes absorbed into the walls of the oven, which absorbs both the meat and milk steam, rendering the oven itself not Kosher. If one does not have two ovens, then one must either Kasher the oven between using it for meat and using it for milk (such as by heating it to the highest setting for an hour or so), or double-wrap either the meat or the milk item. This is also the ruling of the BE'ER MOSHE (3:105:2).

3. RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN (Igros Moshe YD 1:40 and end of 59) takes a compromise stance, writing that steam is only a problem when it comes to liquid foods; we do not have to worry that solid foods will produce a significant amount of steam (unless one clearly observes them doing so). Similarly, the REMA (YD 92:8) says that steam is not a problem when the pot producing it is covered. Therefore, Rav Moshe suggests that one may cook meat immediately after cooking milk once the oven cools down, as long as neither one is a liquid food, or if one is covered. Thus, if one's oven is a meat oven, one may cook meat in it as normal, and after the oven cools down, one may cook a solid milk food in it, or even a liquid milk food which is covered. Alternatively, a liquid milk item may be cooked in the meat oven uncovered if one waits twenty-four hours from the last time the oven was used for meat (so that the steam that is absorbed becomes Nosen Ta'am l'Pegam). (See also Rav Ovadyah Yosef in YABIA OMER 5, YD 7:5 and 7.)

Of course, in practice, one should consult a competent rabbinic authority.