(Mishnah): One may not roast Pesach [on a spit or griddle...R. Gamliel once told his slave to roast the Pesach on a griddle].

Question: The episode contradicts the law!

Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated, it means as follows:

It is permitted if the griddle has holes (Rashi - the Pesach is totally in the gap between crossbars of the griddle);

R. Tzadok says, R. Gamliel once told his slave to roast the Pesach on a griddle with holes.

Question (Rav Chinena bar Idi): (Tana'im (26B) argue about the permissibility of bread baked using forbidden wood.) If an oven was heated with peels of Orlah and [the coals were] swept out and bread was baked inside, according to the opinion that forbids [when bread baked on the coals themselves, because Yesh Shevach Etzim b'Pas], what is the law?

Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): It is permitted.

Question (Rav Chinena bar Idi): But Rav Chinena Sava said in the name of R. Yochanan that if an oven was heated and [the coals were] swept out and Pesach was roasted inside, this is not called Tzeli Esh (it is invalid);

It says "Tzeli Esh" twice [to require roasting directly by a fire].

Inference: Had it not written "Tzeli Esh" twice, we would call it "Tzeli Esh" (likewise, we should say that the bread was baked by the Orlah)!

Answer #1 (Rav Ada): We learn from Pesach [that cooking in an oven heated by a fire is unlike cooking by the fire].

Answer #2 (Rav Ada): It says "Tzeli Esh" twice there - otherwise, we would have thought to Machshir even if the coals were swept out;

Here, the Torah forbids [benefit from] Orlah - the Orlah is not here.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If one made cuts in the Pesach [to help it roast quickly - he did not separate it into pieces] and roasted it on coals, this is Tzeli Esh.

Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami): Elsewhere, Rebbi does not consider coals to be fire!

(Beraisa #1) Question: "Michvas Esh" refers to a scald through fire (it has special laws regarding Tzara'as) - what is the source to include a scald through a coal, hot ashes, boiling plaster or anything else heated by fire, i.e. even water?

Answer: It says "Michvah" twice to include these.

Inference: This is only because it says "Michvah" twice - otherwise we would not consider coals to be fire! (The Gemara does not explain why this is according to Rebbi. Tzelach - Rebbi does not use the repetition of "Tzeli Esh" to exempt one who eats Pesach Na before night [unlike Chachamim - see Maharsha 41B], therefore he uses it to teach that we do not learn from Michvah that things other than fire are called "Esh.")

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): No verse is needed for a wooden coal (surely, it is considered fire) - the Beraisa discusses a metal coal.

Question: A metal coal is considered fire!

If a Bas Kohen transgresses adultery, "Ba'Esh Tisaref" - yet Rav Masnah taught that molten lead is used (it is poured into her mouth and burns her innards)!

Answer: "Ba'Esh Tisaref" is extra, to include any burning that comes from fire.

Question: All the more so, fire itself is valid - we should surround her with bundles of twigs and burn her!

Answer: We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Sereifah-Sereifah" from Nadav and Avihu - just like their Neshamos were burned (i.e. they were killed) but their bodies remained intact, death by burning should be similar.

Suggestion: We should kill through boiling water!

Rejection: [The person would die slowly -] Rav Nachman expounded "V'Ohavta l'Re'echa Kamocha" - [Chachamim must] choose a nice death for one who must be executed.

Question: If so, why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah to disqualify burning the body?

Answer: We know that burning the Neshamah but not the body is called burning only from the Gezeirah Shavah.

We would fulfill Rav Nachman's teaching by making a big fire to kill her quickly;

The verse teaches, this is not so (we need not burn the body).

Question: Why does it say "Ba'Esh"? (It would suffice to say "Tisaref"!)

Answer: This includes naturally molten lead [taken out of the ground in molten form].

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Sometimes "Ba'Esh Tisaref" does not include any burning that does not come from fire!

It says about Parim ha'Nisrafim (inner Chata'os that are burned outside the Machaneh) "V'Soraf Oso Al Etzim ba'Esh";

(Beraisa): "Ba'Esh" - not by boiling plaster or gypsum.

Answer (R. Zeira): Regarding Misas Beis Din it says "Ba'Esh" and then "Tisaref" to include any burning that does not come from fire;

Regarding Parim ha'Nisrafim it says "V'Soraf Oso Al Etzim ba'Esh" - Esh is at the end, to require actual fire.

Question: Also regarding Parim ha'Nisrafim it mentions [in another verse] burning at the end - "Al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref"!

Answer: We learn different laws from that Yisaref:

(Beraisa): "Yisaref" - even if there are no ashes there; "Yisaref" - even after most of it catches fire [one must engage in burning it].

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Ravina): Beraisa #1 is erroneous, it should say as follows:

Question: Perhaps "Michvas Esh" applies only to a scald through fire or a coal - what is the source to include a scald through hot ashes, boiling plaster or anything else heated by fire, i.e. even water?

Answer: It says "Michvah" twice to include these.

Question (Rava): Here, Rebbi considers coals to be fire;

Contradiction (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Gachalei" [regarding the coals the Kohen Gadol takes from the Mizbe'ach on Yom Kipur for the Ketores] refers to Omemos (fading coals)!

Rejection: It says "Esh."

Suggestion: Perhaps "Esh" mandates a flame!

Rejection: It says "Gachalei."

Resolution: He takes glimmering coals (if one would insert a chip of wood, it would catch flame).

Question: First we suggest that Gachalei refers to fading coals - this implies that glimmering coals are called Esh;

Then it suggests that "Esh" mandates a flame - we reject this, because it says "Gachalei," therefore he takes glimmering coals instead - this shows that glimmering coals are not called Esh!

Answer (Rav Sheshes): First we suggest that Gachalei refers to fading or glimmering coals - we reject this, because it says "Esh" (this excludes fading coals);

Then we say that had it written only "Esh," we would require a flame - we reject this, because it says "Gachalei";

Therefore, he takes glimmering coals [which are called Gechalim and Esh].

Summation of question: This shows that coals are not called Esh (had it written only "Esh," we would require a flame), unlike Rebbi!

Answer #1 (Abaye): Rather, first we suggest that Gachalei refers to fading or glimmering coals - we reject this, because it says "Esh";

Then it says that had it written only "Esh," we would allow a flame or glimmering coals - since it also says "Gachalei," glimmering coals are required.

Objection (Rava): How could one bring a flame without coals?!

Answer: He anoints a Keli with oil, and catches it on fire.

Rejection: This is improper in front of a mortal king (it exudes smoke) - all the more so we do not do so in front of Hash-m! (The Kodesh ha'Kodoshim gets filled with smoke of the Ketores (Yoma 53A), and Haktaras Olas ha'Of with its feathers makes much smoke! Perhaps here is different, for the flame is merely Hechsher Avodah, but those are actual Avodos in which Hash-m desires smoke - "Ki be'Anan Era'eh Al ha'Kapores" (Vayikra 16:2), and to make the Mizbe'ach appear satiated with an Ani's Korban (Vayikra Rabah 3:5 according to Rashi Vayikra 1:17).)

Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, first we suggest that Gachalei refers only to coals that are fading, not glimmering - we reject this, because it says "Esh";

Then it says that had it written only "Esh," we would allow half coals and half flame - by the time he takes them in [to the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim], they will be all coals!

"V'Lokach Malei ha'Machtah Gachalei Esh" mandates that from the time he takes them they are all coals.

Question: Is 'Omemos' spelled with an Aleph, or with an Ayin?

Answer (Rav Chisda bar Avdimi): We learn from "Arazim Lo Amamuhu" (it is spelled with an Ayin).

(Mishnah): If the Korban touched the ceramic wall of the oven [the outer surface of the meat was cooked by the oven and not by the fire, therefore] one must peel off a layer of meat from the place that touched;

If juice dripped onto the Cheres (ceramic, and is cooked by it) and splattered back onto the Korban, one must remove [more than just a layer of meat] from that place [for the drop gets absorbed);

If juice dripped onto flour, one must remove a handful of flour [and burn it, for the juice is cooked by the flour and absorbed into it].

If the Korban was smeared with Terumah oil:

If the Chaburah (owners of the Korban) are Kohanim, they may eat it;

If they are Yisraelim:

If the Korban is raw, we rinse it (Tosfos; Me'iri - here, 'raw' and 'roasted' refer to cold and hot);

If the Korban was roasted, we peel off the outer layer.

If the Korban was smeared with Ma'aser Sheni oil, he (the owner of the oil) may not charge them for it, for we may not sell Ma'aser Sheni in Jerusalem. (This is the text of Rashi, Tosfos, Bach. Rashi - mid'Oraisa one may not sell Ma'aser in Yerushalayim; Ri - it is forbidden mid'Rabanan, lest one redeem it in Yerushalayim; Rashba - it is a disgrace to the Mitzvah.)