אָסוּר. צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן, וְצוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַם, רַב אָמַר: עִילָּאָה גָּבַר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: תַּתָּאָה גָּבַר. that the permitted foods become forbidden, because they absorb some of the forbidden food. If a cold food item falls into another cold item, all agree it is permitted; the food needs only to be rinsed off. The dispute pertains to a hot food item that falls into a cold one or a cold food item that falls into a hot one. Rav said: The upper one prevails. The halakha is determined based upon the state of the upper substance. If the upper food is hot, the case is judged as though a hot food fell into another hot food because the upper food heats the lower food. If the upper food is cold, the case is similar to a situation where a cold food falls into another cold food because the upper food cools down the lower one and prevents absorption. And Shmuel said: The lower one prevails. In his opinion, if the upper substance is hot and the lower one is cold, the permitted food remains permitted; if the lower one is hot and upper one is cold, they are forbidden.
תְּנַן: נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס וְחָזַר אֵלָיו — יִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּחֶרֶס צוֹנֶנֶת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר ״עִילָּאָה גָּבַר״, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי יִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ — דְּאָזֵל רוֹטֶב מַרְתַּח לֵיהּ לְחֶרֶס, וְהָדַר חֶרֶס מַרְתַּח לֵיהּ לְרוֹטֶב. וְכִי הָדַר רוֹטֶב אַפֶּסַח — קָא מִטְּוֵי פֶּסַח מֵחֲמַת חַמִּימוּתָא דְחֶרֶס, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״, וְלֹא צָלִי מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר. We learned in the mishna: If some of the gravy of the Paschal lamb dripped onto the earthenware and returned to it, one must remove its place. It might enter your mind to say that this is referring to cold earthenware. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, who said the upper one prevails, it is due to this reason that one must remove its place. According to Rav’s view, the gravy goes and heats the earthenware, and then the earthenware heats the gravy, and when the gravy returns to the Paschal lamb, the Paschal lamb becomes roasted from the heat of the earthenware, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Roasted in fire” (Exodus 12:8), and not roasted due to something else.
אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר ״תַּתָּאָה גָּבַר״, חֶרֶס כֵּיוָן דְּצוֹנֵן הוּא — אַקּוֹרֵי מֵיקַר לֵיהּ לְרוֹטֶב, אַמַּאי יִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ? כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּסוֹלֶת רוֹתַחַת, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּחֶרֶס רוֹתֵחַ. But according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said the lower one prevails, since the earthenware is cold, it cools down the gravy. In that case, why must he remove its place? The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said in explanation of the mishna’s next ruling in the case of gravy that dripped onto flour: The mishna is referring to hot flour. Here, too, it is referring to hot earthenware. Since the earthenware is already hot, it is a case of something hot that fell onto something hot, even according to Shmuel.
תְּנַן: נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַסּוֹלֶת יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּסוֹלֶת צוֹנֶנֶת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר ״עִילָּאָה גָּבַר״, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ — דְּמַרְתַּח לַהּ לְסוֹלֶת דְּהָדַר הוּדְרָנֵיהּ, וְהָדְרָא סוֹלֶת וּמַרְתְּחָא לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ, וְקָא מִטְּוֵי רוֹטֶב מֵחֲמַת חַמִּימוּתָא דְסוֹלֶת, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״, וְלֹא צָלִי מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר. We also learned in the mishna that if some of the Paschal lamb’s gravy dripped onto flour, one must remove a handful of flour from its place. It could enter your mind to say that this is talking about cold flour. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, who said the upper one prevails, it is due to this reason that one must remove a handful of flour from its place, as the gravy heats the flour around it, and the flour then heats the gravy, and the gravy is roasted from the heat of the flour, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Roasted in fire,” and not roasted due to something else.
אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר ״תַּתָּאָה גָּבַר״, סוֹלֶת כֵּיוָן דְּצוֹנֶנֶת הִיא — אַקּוֹרֵי קָא מֵיקַר לֵיהּ, לְמָה לִי יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ? (תִּסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בְּיִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ!) אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּסוֹלֶת רוֹתַחַת. But according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said the lower one prevails, since the flour is cold it cools down the gravy. In that case, why do I need to say: One must remove a handful of flour from its place? It should be enough for one to remove a small amount from its place, and it should not be necessary to take anything more. With regard to this Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to hot flour. The gravy is therefore roasted from the heat of the flour, and an entire handful of flour must be removed.
תְּנַן: סָכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, אִם חֲבוּרַת כֹּהֲנִים — יֹאכֵלוּ. אִם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִם חַי הוּא — יְדִיחֶנּוּ, אִם צָלִי הוּא — יִקְלוֹף אֶת הַחִיצוֹן. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר ״עִילָּאָה גָּבַר״, אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְלִיפָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּעִילָּאָה צוֹנֵן הוּא. We learned in the mishna: In a case where one smears the Paschal lamb with teruma oil, if the Paschal lamb belongs to a group of priests they may eat it, as they are permitted to eat teruma. If it belongs to a group of Israelites, then if the Paschal lamb is still raw, one must rinse it in order to remove the teruma oil; and if it is roasted, one must peel off the outer layer. Granted, according to Rav, who said the upper one prevails, for this reason it is sufficient to remove only the outer peel, because the upper one is cold and therefore the oil is not absorbed deeply into the meat.
אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר ״תַּתָּאָה גָּבַר״, כֵּיוָן דְּחַם הוּא — מִבְלָע בָּלַע, אַמַּאי סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְלִיפָה? נִיתְּסַר לִגְמָרֵי! שָׁאנֵי סִיכָה, דְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא. But according to Shmuel, who said: The lower one prevails, since the meat, which is on the bottom, is hot, it absorbs the oil. In that case, why is it enough for it to be permitted when only the outer peel is removed? It should be entirely forbidden. The Gemara answers: Smearing is different because it is done with only a minute amount. Since one smears only a little bit of oil, there is not enough oil to render the entire offering forbidden.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַם לְתוֹךְ חַם — אָסוּר. וְכֵן צוֹנֵן שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹךְ חַם — אָסוּר. חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן וְצוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ. It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If hot permitted food falls into hot forbidden food, it is forbidden. And, so too, cold permitted food that one put into hot forbidden food is forbidden. If hot food falls into cold food, and similarly, if cold food falls into cold food, one must rinse the permitted food, and it remains permitted.
חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן מֵדִיחַ — כֵּיוָן דְּחָם הוּא, אַדְּמֵיקַר לֵיהּ — אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא בָּלַע פּוּרְתָּא, קְלִיפָה מִיהָא נִיבְעֵי! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — קוֹלֵף, צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ. The Gemara asks: Is it true that if hot permitted food falls into cold forbidden food, one must rinse the permitted food and it remains permitted? Since it is hot, until the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb a little of the forbidden food. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel; rinsing it should not be sufficient. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot food falls into cold food, one must peel off the outer layer; if cold food falls into cold food, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בָּשָׂר רוֹתֵחַ שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ חָלָב רוֹתֵחַ, וְכֵן צוֹנֵן שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ חַם — אָסוּר. חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן וְצוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ. חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן מֵדִיחַ — כֵּיוָן דְּחַם הוּא, אַדְּמֵיקַר לֵיהּ — אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא בָּלַע פּוּרְתָּא, קְלִיפָה מִיהָא נִיבְעֵי! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: חַם לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — קוֹלֵף, צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ. It was taught in another baraita: Hot meat that fell into hot milk, and so too, cold meat that fell into hot milk, is prohibited. If hot meat falls into cold milk and similarly, if cold meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient. The Gemara asks: Is it true that if hot meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient? Since it is hot, until the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb a little of the milk. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot meat falls into cold milk, one must peel off the outer layer; if cold meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient.
אָמַר מָר: צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן — מֵדִיחַ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מְלָחוֹ, אֲבָל מְלָחוֹ — אָסוּר. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ. כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל. The Master said in the baraita quoted above: If cold meat falls into cold milk or into a prohibited food, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient. Rav Huna said: They taught this halakha only in a case where he did not salt either of the food items. However, if he salted one of them it is forbidden, as Shmuel said: A salted food item is considered like a boiling food item with regard to its ability to transmit flavor. Additionally, a food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like is considered like a cooked food item, as it absorbs flavor from the liquid in which it is marinated or from other foods with which it is marinated.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ (וְכוּ׳) — לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ, אֲבָל נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ — לָא. Rava said: With regard to that which Shmuel said, that a salted food is like a boiling food, we said it only with regard to something salted to the point that it is not typically eaten due to its salt. But if the food is still eaten due to its salt, i.e., despite its having been salted, then it is not considered like something that is boiling, and it does not transmit flavor.
הָהוּא בַּר גּוֹזָלָא דִּנְפַל לְכַדָּא דְּכַמְכָּא, שַׁרְיֵיא רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא. There was a particular young bird that fell into a jug of kamka, also known as kutaḥ, a food item that contains milk. There was a question whether the food is considered a forbidden mixture of meat and milk. Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava of the city of Pashronya, permitted it.
אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חַכִּים לְמִישְׁרֵא מִילְּתָא כִּי הָא, אִי לָאו רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא, דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא. אָמַר לְךָ, כִּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ — שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ, הַאי נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ. Rava said about this: Who is wise enough to permit something as complicated as this, if not Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava of Pashronya, as he is a great man and can recognize the reason for leniency even in a case that appears to be prohibited? He could have said to you in explanation of his lenient ruling: When Shmuel said that a salted food item is like a boiling food item, that halakha concerned a food that was salted to the point that it is not eaten due to its salt, but this kutaḥ is still eaten due to, i.e., despite, its salt. Therefore, the case is comparable to a cold food that falls into another cold food, which is permitted after it is rinsed.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי חַי, אֲבָל צָלִי — בָּעֵי קְלִיפָה. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ פִּילֵי, אֲבָל אִית בֵּיהּ פִּילֵי — אָסוּר. וְאִי מְתוּבַּל בְּתַבְלֵי — אָסוּר. The Gemara points out that this applies only if the bird is raw; but if it is roasted, it requires the removal of the outer peel. The roasting softens the meat, enabling it to absorb flavor more easily. And we said that the bird is permitted only when it does not have cracks; but if it has cracks, it is forbidden because the milk is absorbed into the cracks. And if it has been flavored with spices it is forbidden because the spices soften the meat, causing it to be absorbent.
אָמַר רַב: Rav said: