Perek Keitzad Tzolin
(a)What kind of spit was used to roast the Korban Pesach, and how was it arranged?
(b)According to Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili, they would put the legs and innards of the Pesach inside it while it roasted. What is Rebbi Akiva's objection to that? How did they roast them, according to him?
(c)Why did they not roast the legs and innards independently?
(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 Yosi 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 v'Al Kirbo", implying that they should all be roasted simultaneously.
(a)Why could one not use a metal spit or roast the Pesach on a metal grill?
(b)Why could they not use a spit of ...
1. ... palm-wood?
2. ... fig-wood?
(c)Oak, carob and Shikmah wood has knots in it. Pomegranate-wood has knots in it, too. So why is it not Pasul? (two answers)
(d)Why are we not worried that the wide end of the rod, where it was cut, will exude water and cook the Pesach?
(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 "Tzli-*Esh*").
(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.
2. ... fig-wood - because fig-wood tends to exude water (even without the grooves).
(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 yet developed.
(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 in a Beraisa, permits a metal spit-rod. Why?
(b)In which point do the Rabanan disagree with him?
(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 Rabanan hold 'Cham Miktzaso, Cham Kulo' (even when it is inside the body of the Pesach).
(a)Rebbi Yishmael called it 'Toch Toch'; Rebbi Tarfon called it 'Ge'di Mekulas'. What does it mean in either case?
(b)What is the significance of a Ge'di Mekulas nowadays?
(c)If, when a limb is cut off and roasted, it is not called Mekulas and is permitted, why does the Tana need to add the case when it was cooked? Why is this not a Kal va'Chomer?
(a)Rebbi Yishmael held like Rebbi Yosi 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 'Gdi Mekulas', because it resembled a warrior wearing his 'copper helmet' (which is what 'Mekulas' means).
(b)Nowadays, it is forbidden to eat a 'Gdi 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. Why is he not concerned that the blood from the stuffing will become absorbed by the lamb?
(b)Is there a proof for Rabah from Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili in our Mishnah, who permits placing the legs and the innards into the lamb and roasting them together?
(c)The Mishnah in Chulin states: 'ha'Lev, Kor'o u'Motzi es Damo. Lo Kar'o, Kor'o l'Achar Bishulo, u'Mutar'. Is there a proof from there that 'k'Bol'o Kach Polto'?
(d)What is the difference between the two reasons as to how we will explain the word 'Bishulo' in that Mishnah?
(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 'k'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 Yosi 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 l'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 therefore, absorb.
(d)If the reason that it is permitted there is because 'k'Bol'o Kach Polto', then 'Kor'o l'Achar Bishulo' must mean after it was roasted (since it is obvious that 'k'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 'l'Achar Bishulo' can be taken literally.
(a)The elder Ravin made a pie, of which the stuffing was an entire bird, and which Rav was prepared to partake of. Is there a proof from there for Rabah, who holds 'k'Bol'o Kach Polto'?
(b)If, on the other hand, we were to hold 'k'Bol'o Kach Polto', then why did Rava need 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. Why could he not just assume 'k'Bol'o Kach Polto'?
(c)The Gemara rules like the two previous explanations (of Rav and Rava respectively). What is the Din by a pie made of other kinds of flour?
(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 foods).
(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 'k'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)Why do some opinions forbid force-meat even if the opening is facing downwards? Why should it be any different than the Beis-ha'Shechitah which everyone agrees is permitted, as long as the opening is facing downwards? (See Tosfos DH 'Ma'n d'Asar')
(a)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.
(a)Rav Acha and Ravina argue over Umtza Bei'ei and Mizreki. What are these?
(b)Like whom is the Halachah and what does he say?
(c)In which case do we establish their Machlokes, and what are their respective reasons?
(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 three.
(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)What do Rav Acha and Ravina hold by a red piece of Umtza which has been ...
1. ... cut and salted?
2. ... hung on a spit?
(b)Does meat require salting before being roasted?
(c)The same Dinim apply to the male-eggs and to the blood-vessels of the Beis ha'Shechitah. What stringency does the latter have over the other two?
(a)Rav Acha and Ravina both agree that a red piece of Umtza which has been ...
1. ... cut and salted is permitted even for cooking.
2. ... hung on a spit is permitted, because the blood drains.
(b)According to Rashi, meat hung on a spit for roasting must first be lightly salted (see Tosfos Amud a. DH 'Hai').
(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 d'Asmik, Chalyeih Asur'. What are the two possible meanings of 'Chalyeih'?
(b)'Lo Asmik, Shari'. Ravina disagrees. What does he say, and what is his reason?
(c)What did Mar Bar Ameimar tell Rav Ashi about his father in this regard?
(d)Why is it that, whereas one may use weak vinegar to make Chalitah, one may not use vinegar that was already used once for Chalitah, a second time, since it has lost its strength?
(a)'Ha'i Umtza d'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 d'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 d'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.