“Where the ash is poured it shall be burned” (Leviticus 4:12). The Gemara responds: Say: That usage of the expression “it shall be burned” is needed for that which was taught in a baraita: It shall be burned even though there is no ash there, as the presence of ash from the altar is not essential for burning the bulls. “It shall be burned” also teaches that although the fire has consumed most of it, that is not sufficient. One must take care to complete the burning process.

Ravina said that the contradiction cited earlier between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement, that roasting over coal is considered roasting over fire, and the baraita, which requires a derivation to indicate that coal is considered fire with regard to leprosy, can be answered by changing the text of the baraita. Combine and teach the first two types of burns together. From the phrase “a burn from fire,” I have derived nothing other than a case in which one was burned by a fire or by a coal. With regard to one who is burned by hot ash, by burning lime, or by burning plaster, or by anything else that is burning and whose source of heat comes from fire, to include water heated by fire, from where is it derived that these cases are also considered a burn from fire? The verse states: A burn, a burn, twice. By repeating the term, it includes all these types of burns.

Rava raised a contradiction: Did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi actually say that coals are called fire? And we raise a contradiction based on the verse: “And he shall take a pan full of burning coals from upon the altar before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:12). From the verse’s use of the word coals, I might have thought that one may bring smoldering coals, meaning that the fire is almost extinguished and is not noticeable from the outside. Therefore, the verse states: Fire. If it had stated only fire, I might have thought it was referring to a flame. Therefore, the verse states: Coals. How are these two requirements reconciled? One brings from the coals that are flickering, meaning that the fire is visible. Apparently, plain coals are not called fire.

Say in answer to this question: Isn’t this baraita itself difficult? You said: From the verse’s use of the word coals, I might have thought the verse is referring to coals that are smoldering. Apparently, it is clear that flickering coals are considered fire. Say the latter clause of that same baraita as follows: If it had stated only fire, I might have thought it was referring to a flame. Therefore, the verse states: Coals. Apparently, even flickering coals are not considered fire, and there is an internal contradiction in the baraita.

And Rav Sheshet said, in order to resolve this contradiction: This is what the baraita is teaching: From the verse’s use of the word coals, I might have thought he can take whatever he wants, whether smoldering or flickering. Therefore, the Torah states: Fire. If it had stated only fire, I might have thought it was referring to a flame. Therefore, the verse states: Coals. How is this to be understood? He brings from the flickering coals. In any event, it is derived from here that coals, even if they are flickering, are not called fire. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, according to which coals are considered fire.

Abaye said that the answer is as follows: Based on the word coals, I might have thought they must be smoldering and not flickering. Therefore, the verse states: Fire. If it had stated only fire, I might have thought that if one wanted a flame he may bring it, and if he wanted a coal he may bring it. Therefore, the Torah states: Coals. How is this to be understood? He brings from the flickering coals. According to this, it is clear that coals are considered fire, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Rabba said: In this last explanation, it was stated that one might have thought that if he wanted a coal he may bring it, and if he wanted a flame he may bring it. Under what circumstances can a flame without a coal be found? The Gemara answers: In a case where one smears a utensil with oil and lights it on fire. However, for a case like this, why do I need a verse to exclude it and indicate that one may not bring such a flame? Now, in front of a king of flesh and blood one does not do this, as it is considered disgraceful to bring such a flame before a king; in front of the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is it not all the more so a disgrace? Therefore, the verse would not need to exclude this type of flame.

Rather, Rava said that one should answer as follows: Based on the word coals, I might have thought they must be smoldering and not flickering; therefore, the verse states: Fire. If it had said only fire, I might have thought one should bring half coal and half fire, meaning that when one takes the coals from the altar they should be burning strongly and their flame should be visible, and by the time he enters the inside of the Holy of Holies the fire will die down and it will be all coal. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall take a coal-pan full of burning coals from upon the altar” (Leviticus 16:12), which indicates that from the time of their taking they should be coals and not flames.

Since the discussion until now has focused on smoldering coals, the Gemara mentions that a dilemma was raised before the Sages in the study hall about whether the word smoldering should be rendered omemot with an alef or omemot with an ayin. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: It should be rendered with an ayin, as it is stated: “The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it [amamuhu]” (Ezekiel 31:8), as the word amamuhu in the verse is spelled with an ayin.

MISHNA: If the Paschal lamb touched the earthenware surface of an oven, one must peel off its place on the Paschal lamb, as it was roasted by the heat of the oven and not by the fire itself. If some of the gravy of the Paschal lamb dripped on the earthenware and then returned to it, i.e., the gravy splattered back onto the meat, one must remove its place. Peeling off the outer layer is not enough, and one must remove some of the meat underneath the outer layer, because it is considered to have been cooked by the liquid rather than roasted by the fire. If some of the Paschal lamb’s gravy dripped onto hot flour, one must remove a handful of flour from its place, i.e., the place where the gravy landed in the flour, and destroy it.

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 the Paschal lamb belongs to a group of Israelites, then if it 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 that has absorbed the oil, so that the Israelites do not eat the teruma, which is prohibited to them. If one smears the Paschal lamb with oil of the second tithe, he may not demand money for it from the members of the group, as one may not redeem second tithe in Jerusalem. Second-tithe produce that is in Jerusalem is meant to be eaten; it may be given as a gift to others, but may not be redeemed or sold.

GEMARA: Based on the mishna, the Gemara introduces a general discussion concerning the halakhot of forbidden foods that come into contact with other foods. It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to these matters, but first the Gemara mentions the cases that are clear: If a hot food item falls into another hot item, e.g., hot meat falls into boiling milk or hot permitted meat falls into hot prohibited soup, all agree