(a)The Tana Kama and Rebbi Meir argue in our Mishnah over mustard to which flour was added. What does Rav Kahana say about Charoses (an acidic condiment - which is similar to vinegar) to which flour was added?
(b)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua maintains they argue in that case, too. How does the Gemara attempt to prove Rav Kahana right from Shmuel, who rules not like Rebbi Yosi (in whose opinion vinegar freezes - i.e. closes up)?
(c)How is this proof rejected?
(a)According to Rav Kahana, everyone will agree that if someone placed flour into Charoses, the Charoses is forbidden.
(b)The Gemara attempts to prove Rav Kahana right from Shmuel, who rules not like Rebbi Yosi (in whose opinion vinegar freezes). Now, if the Halachah is that vinegar does not freeze, can we not infer that it renders Chametz - substantiating Rav Kahana's opinion?
(c)Who said that, answers the Gemara? Perhaps vinegar neither freezes flour or dough, nor renders it Chametz.
(a)How does the Tana Kama learn the prohibition of cooking the Korban Pesach in other liquids, from that of cooking it in water?
(b)Where does Rebbi learn it from?
(c)What is the Halachic difference between the two opinions?
(a)The Tana Kama learns the prohibition of cooking the Korban Pesach in other liquids (which detract from the tasteof the meat), from a Kal va'Chomer from cooking it in water (which does not).
(b)Rebbi learns it from "u'Vashel Mevushal ba'Mayim", which is superfluous.
(c)The difference between the two opinions is when the Korban Pesach is pot-roasted, which will be permitted according to the Chachamim (see Tosfos DH 'Ika Beinaihu' - and also answer to 4b); whereas according to Rebbi, it is also included in "Bashel Mevushal", and is forbidden.
(a)What do the Rabanan learn from "u'Vashel Mevushal"?
(b)According to Rav Kahana, the Tana who holds that cooking after roasting negates the status of 'roasted' is Rebbi Yosi. What does Rebbi Yosi say?
(c)According to Ula, even Rebbi Meir, who holds by Matzah, that cooking after baking does not negate the status of 'baked', might agree by the Korban Pesach that it does. Why is that?
(d)From where do we learn that even if the Korban Pesach roasts until it burns, one is still Yotzei the Mitzvah?
(a)The Rabanan learn from "u'Vashel Mevushal" - to forbid even a Korban Pesach which is roasted after having been cooked or cooked after having been roasted.
(b)Rebbi Yosi says that one is not Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah with Matzah that was cooked, even if it did melt, and even though it had been roasted previously.
(c)Ula maintains that even Rebbi Meir, who holds by Matzah, that cooking after baking does not negate the status of 'baked', might agree by the Korban Pesach that it does - because of the Pasuk "u'Vashel Mevushal", which specifically comes to preclude it.
(d)We learn that even if the Korban Pesach roasts until it burns, one is still Yotzei - from the Pasuk "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal ba'Mayim"; 'Na u'Vashel Mevushal Amarti Lach, v'Lo she'Tzal'o Kol Tzorcho'.
(a)May one eat the Korban Pesach raw?
(b)Then why does one not receive Malkus for doing so?
(a)The Korban Pesach may not be eaten raw - because the Torah writes "Ki Im Tzli Esh".
(b)One does not however, receive Malkus for doing so - because the specific Lav of "Bashel Mevushal only incorporates half-roasted and cooked, but not raw. "Ki Im Tzli Esh" is a Lav she'bi'Chelalos (for which one does receive Malkus). Note: Tosfos considers "Ki Im Tzli Esh" to be an Aseh, and not a Lav at all.
(a)One is not Chayav for cooking in the Hot Springs of Teverya on Shabbos. Then what does Rav Chisda mean when he says that one is Chayav for eating a Pesach that was cooked in them? Is cooking in the hot-springs of Teverya considered cooking, or is it not?
(b)Why should one receive Malkus for the Lav of "Ki Im Tz'li Esh"? Is that not a 'Lav she'bi'Chelalus' (a Lav that includes many things)?
(a)Cooking in the Hot Springs of Teverya is not considered cooking by the Korban Pesach, any more than it is by Shabbos. When Rav Chisda said that one is Chayav for eating such a Korban Pesach, he was referring, not to the Lav of "Bashel Mevushal", but to that of "Ki Im Tzli-Esh".
(b)Rav Chisda holds 'Lokin Al Lav she'bi'Chelalos' (see above answer to 4b).
(a)According to Rava, someone who eats the Korban Pesach either half-roasted or fully-cooked receives two sets of Malkus. How many sets will he receive if he eats it both half-roasted and fully-cooked, and what are they for?
(b)On what grounds does Abaye disagree with Rava?
(c)Some say that what Abaye means is that he does not receive two Malkus, but that he will receive one. What does this mean?
(d)Others say that he does not receive Malkus at all for the Lav of "Lo Sochal ... Ki Im Tzeli Esh". Why not?
(a)According to Rava, someone who eats the Korban both half roasted and fully-cooked will receive three sets of Malkus - for "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na" and "Al Tochlu Ki Im Tzli Esh" (for eating it half-roasted) and for "Al Tochlu ... u'Bashel Mevushal ba'Mayim" (for eating it cooked).
(b)Abaye disagrees with the the third Malkus, because "Ki Im Tzli Esh" is a Lav she'bi'Chelalos, for which one does not receive Malkus.
(c)If what Abaye says is that one does not receive two sets of Malkus, but that he will receive one - he means that if, for example, someone would eat a Korban Pesach that was cooked in the hot springs of Teverya, he will receive Malkus because of "Ki Im Tzli Esh" (since that is the only Malkus that is due).
(d)Others say that one does not receive Malkus at all for the Lav of "Lo Sochal ... Ki Im Tzli Esh" - because the Torah has not issued a Lav for any specific act, only for a group of acts incorporated in the one word.
(a)Abaye and Rava argue the equivalent Machlokes with regard to a Nazir who ate grape-skins or pits, or both. There too, the Gemara presents two interpretations in Abaye. Which Lav is the one in question?
(b)Why, according to everyone, will a Nazir receive two Malkus for eating grape-skins and pits (and by the same token, will someone who eats the Korban Pesach both half-roasted and cooked), seeing as the Torah writes "Lo Sochal" only once?
(a)The Lav over which Abaye and Rava argue (with regard to a Nazir who ate grape-skins and pits) - is "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin ... Lo Yochel".
(b)A Nazir receives two sets of Malkus for eating grape-skins and pits (and by the same token, someone who eats the Korban Pesach both half-roasted and cooked), in spite of the fact that the Torah writes "Lo Sochal" only once - because, when the Torah writes two details that pertain to one Lav (such as "m'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag Lo Yochel" or "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal"), it is as if the Torah had written a Lav by each of the details, and they are counted as two La'avin.
(a)From where do we learn that someone who ate a half-roasted Korban Pesach before nightfall is Patur from Malkus (although he has negated a Mitzvas Aseh)?
(b)What other ramifications does this Derashah have with regard to eating the Korban Pesach in one group?
(c)With regard to the initial Halachah, what would we otherwise have thought?
(d)There is even reason to think the opposite: that one should only be Chayav for eating the Korban Pesach half-roasted by day, but not after nightfall. Why might we have thought that?
(a)We learn that someone who ate a half-roasted Korban Pesach before nightfall is Patur from Malkus - from the juxtaposition of "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na" ... to " "Ki Im Tzli Esh, which teaches us that one is only Chayav for the former at the time when the latter applies (i.e. after nightfall), but not otherwise.
(b)By the same token, someone who ate from the Korban Pesach before nightfall, is considered as if he had not eaten the Korban Pesach, and is therefore not disqualified from eating again after nightfall; whereas someone who eats from one group after nightfall is disqualified from eating it again with another group (because one is not allowed to eat from two Pesachim).
(c)We would otherwise have thought that if there is a Lav to eat the Pesach half-cooked when there is a Mitzvah to eat it roasted, how much more so when there is not.
(d)We might even have thought that one would only be Chayav for eating the Korban Pesach half-roasted by day, and not after nightfall - because it is feasible to say that the Torah's Heter to eat the Pesach roasted after nightfall will also extend to eating it half-roasted, if not to permit it, then at least to remove the Isur Malkus.
(a)What does Rebbi learn from "Bashel Mevushal"?
(b)But did he not already learn from there to include pot-roast and cooked with other liquids in the Lav?
(a)Rebbi learns from "Bashel Mevushal" - that someone who eats a cooked Pesach receives Malkus, even if it was cooked by day.
(b)True, Rebbi has already used this Pasuk to include a Pesach that was pot-roasted or cooked with other liquids in the Lav - but for that, the torah could have written "Bashel Bashel" or Mevushal Mevushal". Why did it change from "Bashel" to "Mevushal", if not to teach us both things?
(a)In which connection does the Beraisa compare eating a roasted Pesach by day to eating it half-roasted by night?
(b)The Tana derives this from the Pasuk in Bo "v'Achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" 'ba'Laylah In, ba'Yom, Lo'. What is the problem with this Derashah?
(c)According to Rav Chisda, the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah. What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(a)The Beraisa compare eating the Pesach roasted by day to eating it half-roasted by night - inasmuch as they are both Lavin.
(b)How can the Tana derive a Lav from the Pasuk "v'Achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" 'ba'Laylah In, ba'Yom Lo'? Surely "v'Achlu" ... is an Aseh, and 'Lav ha'Ba Mi'chelal Aseh, Aseh'?
(c)Rebbi Yehudah Darshens the Pasuk in Emor "v'Shor va'Seh Saru'a v'Kalut, Nedavah Ta'aseh Oso" ... 'Oso Ata Matfis l'Bedek ha'Bayis, v'Iy Ata Matfis Temimim l'Bedek ha'Bayis'. This is an Aseh; however, he goes on to add a Lav from "va'Yedaber Hash-m el Moshe Leimor (which always implies a Lav - whenever it is used in connection with a 'Lav ha'Ba mi'Chelal Aseh' [see Tosfos DH 'Leimor']). And by the Korban Pesach too, the Parshah begins with "va'Yomer Hash-m el Moshe v'El Aharon Leimor", which is why the Tana of the Beraisa ascribes a Lav for someone who ate the Pesach half-roasted by day.