1 that it is forbidden; cold into cold, all agree that it is permitted. [If] hot [falls] into cold, or cold into hot, — Rab maintained: The upper prevails; while Samuel maintained: The lower prevails. We learned: IF SOME OF ITS JUICE DRIPPED ON TO THE EARTHEN[WARE] AND DRIPPED BACK ON TO IT HE MUST REMOVE ITS PLACE. It was assumed that this refers to a cold earthenware; now it is well on Rab's view that the upper prevails: consequently he must remove its place, because the juice goes and heats the earthenware and the earthenware in turn heats the juice, and when the juice drips back on to the paschal lamb, the paschal lamb is roasted [at that spot] by the heat of the earthenware, whereas the Divine Law said, roast with fire, but not roast with something else. But on Samuel's view that the lower prevails, since the earthenware is cold it actually cools the juice; why then should he remove its place? — As R. Jeremiah said in Samuel's name: The reference is to hot flour; so here too the reference is to hot earthenware. We learned: IF SOME OF ITS JUICE DRIPPED ON TO THE FLOUR, HE MUST REMOVE A HANDFUL FROM ITS PLACE. It was assumed that this refers to cold flour. It is well on Rab's view that the upper prevails: consequently he must remove a handful from its place, because it heats the flour around it and the flour in turn heats it, and the juice is roast by the heat of the flour, whereas the Divine Law said, ‘roast with fire’, but not roast with something else. But on Samuel's view that the lower prevails, since the flour is cold it actually cools it; why then must he remove a handful from its place? — Said R. Jeremiah b. Samuel: This refers to hot flour. We learned: IF HE BASTED IT With OIL OF TERUMAH, IF THEY [WHO REGISTERED FOR IT] ARE A COMPANY OF PRIESTS, THEY MAY EAT [IT]; IF IT BELONGS TO ISRAELITES: IF IT IS [YET] RAW, LET HIM WASH IT OFF; IF IT IS ROAST, HE MUST PARE THE OUTER PART. It is well on Rab's view that the upper prevails: consequently [mere] paring is sufficient, because the upper is cold. But on Samuel's view that the lower prevails, since it is hot it certainly absorbs; why then is paring sufficient: let us forbid it entirely? — Basting is different, because a mere trifle is used. It was taught in accordance with Samuel: [If] hot matter [falls] into hot, it is forbidden; similarly, if he put cold into hot, it is forbidden; hot into cold or cold into cold, he must wash it off. [You say], ‘Hot into cold, he must wash it off’; [surely] since it is hot, until it cools it cannot but absorb a little; then it should at least require paring? Rather say: hot into cold, he must pare it; cold into cold, he must wash it off. Another [Baraitha] taught: If hot meat fell into hot milk, and likewise if cold fell into hot, it is forbidden. Hot into cold or cold into cold, he must wash [the meat]. ‘Hot into cold, he must wash [the meat]’; [surely] since it is hot, until it cools it cannot but absorb a little, then it should at least require paring? — Rather say: hot into cold, he must pare [it]; cold into cold, he must wash [the meat]. The Master said: ‘Cold into cold, he must wash the meat.R. Huna said: They learned this only where he had not [previously] salted it; but if he had salted it, it is forbidden, for Samuel said: Salted [matter] is like hot; if preserved [in vinegar], it is like boiled. Raba said: As to what Samuel said, Salted [matter] is like hot, — this was said only where it cannot be eaten through the salt; but if it can be eaten in spite of the salt, it is not so. A young pigeon fell into a jug of kamka, [and] R. Hinena the son of Raba of Pashrunia permitted it. Said Raba: Who is so wise as to permit such a thing if not R. Hinena the son of Raba of Pashrunia, who is a great man. [For] he can tell you: when did Samuel say, Salted matter is like hot? — Where it cannot be eaten through the salt; whereas this could be eaten in spite of the salt. That is, however, only if it is raw; but if roast, it requires paring. Further, this was said only if it contains no splits; but if it contains splits, it is [altogether] forbidden; and if it is seasoned with condiments, it is forbidden. Rab said:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿ
2 Fat meat of a [ritually] slaughtered [animal] which was roasted together with lean meat of nebelah is forbidden. What is the reason? They fatten each other. But Levi maintained: Even lean meat of a [ritually] slaughtered [animal] which was roasted together with fat meat of nebelah is permitted. What is the reason? It is a mere smell, and smell is nothing. Levi gave a practical decision at the house of the Resh Galutha in the case of a goat and ‘something else.’ An objection is raised: One may not roast two Passover offerings together, on account of the mixture. Surely that means, the mixture of [the] flavours, which is a difficulty on Levi's view? No: [it means] the mixture of their carcasses. This too is logical, since the second clause teaches: Even a kid and a lamb. Now it is well if you say [that it is] on account of the carcasses: hence he teaches, ‘even a kid and a lamb.’ But if you say [that it is] on account of the mingling of [the] flavours, what does it matter whether it is a kid and a lamb or a kid and a kid? — What then? You are bound [to say] that it is forbidden only on account of the mixing of the carcasses, but the mingling of flavours is permitted; shall we say [then] that this is a refutation of Rab? — Said R. Jeremiah: The case we discuss here is e.g., where he roasted them in two pots. [You say] ‘In two pots — can you think so! — Rather say, as though [they were roasted in] two pots, and this is what it teaches: One may not roast two Passover-offerings together, on account of the mixture. What mixture? The mixture of the flavours. And even [when roasted] as it were in two pots it is forbidden on account of the [possible] confusing of the carcasses, and even a kid and a lamb [must not be roasted together]. R. Mari said: This is dependent on Tannaim. If a man removes a hot loaf [from the oven] and places It on a wine barrel of terumah, — R. Meir forbids it; whereas R. Judah permits it; while R. Jose permits it in the case of [a loaf of] wheat, but forbids it in the case of barley [flour], because barley absorbs. Surely then it is dependent on Tannaim, one Master holding: Smell is nothing; while the other Master holds: Smell is something [substantial]? According to Levi, it is certainly dependent on Tannaim. Shall we say that it is [dependent on] Tannaim according to Rab [too]? — Rab can tell you: All agree that smell is something [substantial]; [and as to the ruling of R. Judah] was it not stated thereon, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of Resh Lakish: In the case of a hot loaf and an open barrel, all agree that it is forbidden; in the case of a cold loaf and a closed [stoppered] barrel, all agree that it is permitted. They differ only in the case of a hot loaf and a sealed barrel, [or] a cold loaf and an open barrel; and this too is like a hot loaf and an open barrel. R. Kahana the son of R. Hinena the Elder recited: A loaf which was baked together with roast [meat] in an oven may not be eaten with kutah. A fish was roasted [i.e., baked] together with meat, [whereupon] Raba of Parzikia forbade it to be eaten with kutah. Mar b. R. Ashi said: Even with salt too it is forbidden, because it is harmful to [one's] smell and in respect of ‘something else.’ MISHNAH. FIVE THINGS [SACRIFICES] MAY COME IN UNCLEANNESS, YET MUST NOT BE EATEN IN UNCLEANNESS: THE ‘OMER, THE TWO LOAVES, THE SHEWBREAD, THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS, AND THE HE-GOATS OF NEW MOONS. THE PASCHAL LAMB WHICH COMES IN UNCLEANNESS IS EATEN IN UNCLEANNESS, FOR FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IT CAME FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE BUT TO BE EATEN. GEMARA. What does ‘FIVE’ exclude? — It excludes the hagigah [for example] of the fifteenth. For I might argue, since it is a public sacrifice and a season is fixed for it, let it override uncleanness; therefore he informs us [that] since you can make it up the whole seven [days], it does not override the Sabbath, and since it does not override the Sabbath, it does not override uncleanness. Now, let him [the Tanna] state the he-goats of festivals too? — He does indeed state THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS. If so, let him not state the he-goats of New Moons either, seeing that he States THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS? — I will tell you:ᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢ