(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.

(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."

(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!