Daf Ditty Pesachim 75: Ἄλκιμος לא י ק ו ם Alcimus (from Greek: Ἄλκιμος Alkimos, "valiant" or Hebrew Elyaqum, "God will rise"), also called Jacimus, or Joachim (Ἰάκειμος), High Priest of Israel for three years, 162–159 BCE, who espoused the Syrian cause. 1 2 It was taught in the mishna that one may not roast the Paschal lamb on a grill. Subsequently, the mishna quotes an incident in which Rabban Gamliel instructed his servant to roast the Paschal lamb for him on a grill. The Gemara expresses surprise: Was an incident cited to contradict what was previously stated? The Gemara responds: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: And if it is a perforated grill, so that the fire reaches each part of the meat and the animal will not be roasted from the heat of the grill itself, it is permitted. And with regard to this Rabbi Tzadok said that there was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the perforated grill. 3 The Gemara cites a discussion related to the subject of roasting the Paschal lamb. Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi raised a dilemma before Rav Adda bar Ahava: In the case of an oven that one fired with peels of fruit that are orla, i.e., fruit that grows on a tree the first three years after it was planted, from which one may not receive any benefit, if, after the oven became very hot, he swept it and removed the fuel and the ashes, and he baked bread in it, according to the opinion that prohibits bread baked directly with heat from orla fuel, what is the halakha with regard to this bread? It was baked with the heat trapped in the oven only after the fuel was removed. He said to him: The bread is permitted. 4 Rav Ḥinnana said to him: But didn’t Rav Ḥinnana the Elder say that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If there is an oven that one fired and swept so that the heat remains but there is no longer any fire in the oven, and one then roasted the Paschal lamb in it, this is not a fulfillment of the Torah’s command that the Paschal lamb must be roasted in fire, as it is stated in the Torah: “And they shall eat the meat on that night, roasted in fire, and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire; its head with its legs and with its inner parts” (Exodus 12:8–9), and since it says the phrase: Roasted in fire, two times, the verse emphasizes that the Paschal lamb must literally be roasted on the fire? 5 Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi: The Merciful One reveals it there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, and we learn from it that even in other areas of halakha, only something that is roasted directly by a fire is considered roasted in fire. And if you wish, say a different answer instead: There, in the case of the Paschal lamb, the reason one may not roast the lamb if one has already swept out the oven is that the Merciful One writes “roasted in fire” twice. But if the Merciful One had not written “roasted in fire” twice, I would have said that the Merciful One is particular about fire, meaning that the source of the heat in the oven should be fire, and even if one swept it, it is still considered roasted in fire. It was therefore necessary to repeat the phrase “roasted in fire.” But here, in the case of orla, the Merciful One is particular about the prohibited fuel, and it is not here in the oven. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit the bread. 6 The Sages taught: If one cuts the Paschal lamb superficially in several places and places it on coals, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this is considered roasted in fire, as coals have the status of real fire. Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raised a contradiction to Rav Ḥisda: Did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi actually say that coals are considered like fire? He said to him: With regard to a red-hot wood coal, it is not necessary for the verse to include it. As long as it is burning, it is certainly considered a fire. Where a verse is necessary is with regard to a red-hot piece of metal that was heated by a fire. Without the verse, it would have been possible to think a person burned by hot metal it is not considered burned by fire. 7 The Gemara responds: It is different there, as the verse states not simply fire, but “in fire she shall be burned.” And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by 9 ט בוּ תַ שׁיִ א הֹ כּ ,ןֵ יִ כּ חֵ ת לֵ זִ ל תוֹנְ -- תֶא - playing the harlot, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt ָא ָהיִב איִה ֶלֶלַּחְמ ,ת ָ בּ שֵׁ א שִּׂ תּ רָ .ףֵ }ס{ with fire. {S} Lev 21:9 The expression “she shall be burned” comes to include all burnings that come from fire. The Gemara suggests: If so, all the more so fire itself fulfills the requirement of burning. Let us surround her with bundles of branches and burn her with them. The Gemara responds: It comes from a verbal analogy between the word “burning” stated here and the word “burning” stated and in the context of the death of the sons of Aaron: Just as below, with regard to the sons of Aaron, the verse states that they were burned with fire (see Leviticus 10:2), and it was a burning of the soul and the body remained, as even their clothes were not burned, so too, here, with regard to the daughter of a priest, it means the burning of the soul and the body remains. The Gemara challenges: Let us execute her with boiling water heated by fire. The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said that the verse states: 8 “And you shall love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). When executing someone, select for him a kind death. Even when someone must be executed, his dignity should be protected. He should be executed in the most comfortable way possible. The Gemara asks: Once there is the reason of Rav Naḥman, why do I need the verbal analogy derived from the sons of Aaron? Even without it, Rav Naḥman’s ruling requires the court to carry out the execution with molten lead, which provides an easier death. Say in answer to this question: If not for the verbal analogy, I would have said that burning the soul while the body remains is not considered burning. And if it were only due to the statement of Rav Naḥman that one must select a kind death, we should add many bundles of branches so that she would die quickly. Therefore, the verbal analogy teaches us that executing with molten lead is considered burning. But if it so that the verse says, “she shall be burned” to include all methods of burning, for what do I need the expression “in fire”? The Gemara answers: To exclude lead from its source. Summary Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1 One could use metal rods to help roast the korban pesach if it is placed far away from the actual korban. We explained earlier that the korban pesach has to be roasted by fire, not other things heated by fire. This is why a metal spit cannot be used, as the metal itself will heat the korban pesach. However, the Gemora says that if metal rods are used to hold up the wooden spit (of pomegranate), and the metal is far away from the body of the korban pesach, this is permitted. 1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Pesachim_75.pdf 9 The Gemora explains the source of the law that a fire has to roast the korban pesach, and not merely heat that came from a fire. The Gemora says that if someone would make a fire in an oven, and then put it out and stick his korban pesach in the oven, it is not considered “tzli aish” -- “roasted by fire” despite the fact that the oven is extremely hot. Being that the Torah twice said the words “tzli aish,” the emphasis implies that the fire must be present and directly roasting the korban, as opposed to a fire that was put out and the heat remains (or a metal bar that was heated by fire). When the Torah says that someone must be burned, it does not mean that his body should be enveloped in fire. The Gemora says that we derive this from the sons of Aharon HaKohen. Just as the Torah states that they were burned, when it is clear from the verses that their insides were burned but their body remained intact, also when the Torah mandates that a person be killed by burning, it means that they should be burned in a way that leaves their body outside intact. [They are made to swallow a burning hot piece of metal.] When deducing from the Torah methods of capital punishment, we always try to understand that it is an easier form of death rather than a more difficult form of death.