DOES VINEGAR CAUSE OR IMPEDE CHIMUTZ?
(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows Chachamim.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: Do you refer to Charoses or mustard?
Rav Huna: What difference does it make? (No one distinguishes between them!)
Rav Nachman: Rav Kahana distinguishes!
(Rav Kahana): They argue about flour put into mustard - but all agree that if flour was put into Charoses it must be buried immediately.
Rav Huna: I disagree with Rav Kahana. (Tosfos - even though a Beraisa supports Rav Kahana, Rav Huna holds that the Mishnah is unlike him.)
(Rav Ashi): Presumably, Rav Kahana is correct, for Shmuel taught that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi [who says that if barley is inflating one soaks it in vinegar to impede Chimutz].
Suggestion: Vinegar does not impede Chimutz - rather, it is Mechametz!
Rejection: Perhaps it does not impede Chimutz, nor does it Mechametz.
KORBAN PESACH MUST BE ROASTED
(Mishnah): One may not cook [Korban Pesach...]
(Beraisa) Question: "Ba'Mayim" forbids [cooking it in] water - what is the source to forbid other liquids?
Answer #1: A Kal va'Chomer teaches this:
Water does not lose its taste to the meat, nevertheless it is forbidden - other liquids lose their taste, all the more so they are forbidden!
Answer #2 (Rebbi): We include other liquids from "U'Vashel Mevushal" - in any way.
Question: What is the difference between these answers?
Answer: They argue about Tzeli Kedar (meat cooked in a pot in its own juice. Tosfos - Chachamim forbid but do not lash for [eating] it; Rebbi lashes for it. Rashi - Chachamim permit; Rebbi forbids.)
Question: How do Chachamim expound "U'Vashel Mevushal"?
Answer (Beraisa): If one cooked the Pesach and then roasted it, or vice-versa, he is liable.
Question: We understand if he cooked it and then roasted it he is liable, for it was cooked;
But if he roasted it and then cooked it, it is "Tzeli Esh" (roasted) - why is he liable?!
Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): The Beraisa is R. Yosi:
(Beraisa - R. Meir): One is Yotzei [Matzah even] with a wafer that was soaked [in water], or if it was cooked but did not dissolve;
R. Yosi says, one is Yotzei with a soaked wafer, but not if it was cooked, even if it did not dissolve (it is no longer considered baked - likewise, if Tzeli was cooked it is no longer considered roasted)!
Answer #2 (Ula): It is even like R. Meir - it says "U'Vashel Mevushal" to forbid if it was cooked at any time.
(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable if it was fully (i.e. excessively) roasted!
Rejection: "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal ba'Mayim" - Na (partially roasted) and cooked are forbidden, fully roasted is not.
Question: What is considered fully roasted?
Answer (Rav Ashi): It was burned.
(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for eating a k'Zayis that is [totally] raw!
Rejection: "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal" - Na and cooked are forbidden, raw is not.
Suggestion: Perhaps raw is permitted!
Rejection: "Ki Im Tzeli Esh" (this is Lav shebi'Chlalos - the Tana exempts for it).
Question: What is considered Na?
Answer (Rav): This is what Persians call Avarnim.
Version #1 (Rav Chisda): One who cooks in hot spring water on Shabbos is exempt; if Pesach was cooked in such water [and one ate it], he is liable.
Question: Presumably, he is exempt regarding Shabbos because it is not cooked by fire - for the same reason he should be exempt regarding Pesach!
Answer (Rava): Indeed, he is liable for "Ki Im Tzeli Esh" [but not for "U'Vashel Mevushal"; Rav Chisda is Mechayev for Lav shebi'Chlalos. The next version agrees, just in it Rav Chisda explains himself more.]
Version #2 - Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Noson - (Rav Chisda): One who cooks in hot spring water on Shabbos is exempt; if Pesach was cooked in such water [and one ate it], he transgressed "[Ki Im] Tzeli Esh."
LIABILITY FOR EATING PESACH THE WRONG WAY
(Rava): If one eats a Pesach partially roasted he is lashed twice [one set of 39 lashes for "Na," and one for "Ki Im Tzeli Esh;" if he eats it cooked, he is lashed twice [for "Mevushal" and "Ki Im Tzeli Esh"];
If he eats [a k'Zayis] Na and [a k'Zayis] cooked, he is lashed three times.
(Abaye): One is not lashed for a Lav shebi'Chlalos (such as "Ki Im Tzeli Esh," which forbids many things, i.e. all other ways of cooking).
Version #1: Abaye exempts from additional lashes [for "Ki Im Tzeli Esh" when he is lashed for Na or Mevushal] - but he agrees that he is lashed once [for "Ki Im Tzeli Esh" when he is not lashed for Na or Mevushal, e.g. if it was cooked in hot spring water].
Version #2: Abaye always exempts from lashes, because it is unlike the Lav of muzzling [from which we learn about lashes - it forbids just one thing].
(Rava): If a Nazir ate grape pits; he is lashed twice; if he ate grape skins, he is lashed twice; if he ate grape skins and pits, he is lashed three times ("Al Tochlu" applies to "Me'Chartzanim," "v'Ad Zag," and "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin");
(Abaye): One is not lashed for a Lav shebi'Chlalos ("mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin").
Version #1: Abaye exempts from additional lashes [if he ate grape skins or pits and is lashed for them], but he agrees that he is lashed once [if he ate grape leaves];
Version #2: Abaye always exempts from lashes, because it is unlike the Lav of muzzling.
(Beraisa #1): If during the day [on Erev Pesach] one ate a k'Zayis Na, he is exempt; if at night he ate a k'Zayis Na, he is liable.
[One may not eat Pesach in two places or in two groups - nevertheless,] if one ate a k'Zayis roasted during the day [this is not considered eating, so] he did not disqualify himself from eating [at night] with his group.
(Beraisa #2) Suggestion: Perhaps if one ate during the day a k'Zayis Na he is liable - a Kal va'Chomer supports this!
At night, there is a Mitzvah to eat roasted, and one who eats Na is liable - during the day, there is no Mitzvah to eat roasted, all the more so one who eats Na should be liable!
Or - perhaps [during the day] when there is no Mitzvah to eat roasted, there is a Lav not to eat Na - but [at night] when there is a Mitzvah to eat roasted, there is no Lav not to eat Na!
This is not unreasonable - night is lenient, it is permitted to eat roasted then!
Rejection: "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal ba'Mayim Ki Im Tzeli Esh" - this is extra (it already says "Tzeli Esh...Yochluhu"), to teach that the Lav of Na applies only when there is an Ase to eat roasted.
Question (Rebbi): It could have said 'Bashel' - why does it say "Mevushal"?
Answer - Question: [Pesach is eaten at night, so] the primary Isur of Mevushal is at night - what is the source to forbid if it was cooked and eaten during the day (Maharsha - it was eaten at night)?
Answer: We learn from "U'Vashel Mevushal".
Question: Rebbi uses this to forbid Tzeli Kedar and cooking in other liquids!
Answer: If the Torah only wanted to teach one matter (the method of cooking or the time), it would have written 'Bashel Bashel' or 'Mevushal Mevushal' - rather, it wrote "U'Vashel Mevushal" to teach both.
(Beraisa): If during the day one ate a k'Zayis roasted, he is liable; if at night he ate a k'Zayis Na, he is liable.
Inference: The Beraisa teaches roasted together with Na - just like a Lav forbids Na, a Lav forbids roasted [eaten during the day]!
Question: Granted, "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na" explicitly forbids Na - what is the Lav forbidding roasted [during the day]?
Answer: "V'Ochlu Es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" - not during the day.
Question: This is a Lav inferred from an Ase, which is like an Ase!