Implied Question: Even though we learned a Beraisa in support of him (Rav Kahana).

Answer: He (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) maintains that our Mishnah disagrees.

Clarification: Now the Gemara is comparing vinegar to Charoses.

Explanation: The Ri explains that Ula, who said earlier (on the previous Amud) that 'either way it is Asur because of the principle "Lech lech Amrinan, Nezira S'chor S'chor, le'Karma Lo Sikrav' definitely disagrees with Rav Kahana ...

Explanation (concl.): Since Rav Kahana said 'But into Charoses, it all has to be burned', whereas according to Ula, it is only forbidden on account of 'Lech Leach Amrinan ... ' (but not intrinsically).

Question: The Ri asks that earlier on the Beraisa that according to Yesh Omrim, one may even add vinegar and afterwards the flour ', the Gemara asks 'Let us establish it like Rebbi Yossi, who says 'One should soak it in vinegar and the vinegar will cause it to contract'?

Question (cont.): This implies that the Tana Kama of Yesh Omrim is the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi, who doesn't hold that vinegar causes it to contract, yet he says that 'One should first place the flour and then the vinegar',

Question (cont.): So we see that although vinegar does not cause the flour to contract, it does not cause it to become Chametz either?

Answer: The Ri explains that the Gemara earlier goes according to the conclusion of this Sugya.

Question: Why does it insert this ruling here?

Suggested Answer: If it is because the Tana mentions 'Yerakos Shelukos u'Mevushalos' (in the Mishnah on 39.) ...

Refutation: Then it ought to have mentioned it immediately afterwards (without interrupting with another Mishnah in between).

Clarification: this is said with reference to Malkos, but both opinions agree that it is Pasul and that it is even subject to an Asei.

Source: As we have learned in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (Daf 75:) 'If some of its gravy dripped on to the earthenware (of the oven) and splashed back on to it (i.e. the Korban Pesach),he should remove a layer from the location where it splashed. If it touched the earthenware of the oven, he is obligated to peel the location where it touched. And the same will apply to other liquids (which we will learn from a Kal va'Chomer).

Conclusion: We only need to ascertain as to whether it is subject to Malkos or not.

Question: How can we learn other liquids from a Kal va'Chomer (with regard to Malkos), seeing as we have a principle 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din'?

Answer: This Kal va'Chomer is no more than a revelation that the cooking referred to by the Torah includes other liquids.

Question: According to Rav Kahana who establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Yossi, how will the Rabbanan explain "Basheil Mevushal"?

Question (cont.): Because cooking after roasting does not require a Pasuk, since, logically speaking, we know that cooking negates roasting, as Rebbi Yossi states with regard to Matzah.

Answer: According to Rav Kahana, Rebbi Yossi learns from "Basheil Mevushal" that cooking negates baking.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that cooking negates it from the realm of Lechem.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to that,it must be speaking about a soft dough, since a hard dough is not considered as having left the realm of Lechem, as Tosfos explained earlier (on 37: DH 'de'Kuli Alma').

Explanation #2: The Ri however, explains that it is speaking about a hard dough, and it is Pasul because it is 'Matzah Ashirah'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara is saying that - just as Rebbi Yossi holds cooking talkes it out of the realm of baked, to render it Matzah Ashirah as if it was not baked, by the same token, by the Korban Pesach, cooking negates it from the realm of roasted.

Clarification: It is comparing here the Pesach to Matzah with regard to cooking.

Clarification (cont.): But this does not conform to the conclusion of the Gemara in 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (B'rachos 38:) which establishes Ula in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, who obligates reciting 'Shehakol' over Shelakos (well-cooked vegetables),like Rebbi Yossi, who holds here, by Matzah that cooking negates baking, and it is by the same token that cooking negates the status of vegetable from the Yerakos.

Clarification (concl.): And the Gemara refutes this on the grounds that 'Rebbi Yossi only said his Din with regard to Matzah, which specifically requires the taste of Matzah.

Conclusion: And Ula follows his reasoning, in that, just as here, he does not want to say that the reason of Rebbi Yossi is because one needs the taste of Matzah, so too there, he maintains that, according to Rebbi Yossi, one recites 'Shehakol'.

Clarification: Because of both "Na" and "ki im Tz'li Eish", since it is as if the Torah had written 'Do not eat it other than roasted in fire!'

Question: The Ri from Orleans asks why at the beginning of 'Eilu Na'aros' (K'suvos Daf 30.), considers a Be'ulah to a Kohen Gadol exclusively as an Asei, based on the Pasuk "ki im Besulah me'Amav" ...

Question (concl.): Just as here we consider "ki im Tz'li Eish" a La'av, so too, ought we to do likewise regarding a Be'ulah le'Kohen Gadol, since it is as if the Torah had written 'Do not take a woman other than a Besulah!'?

Answer: It is not possible to consider "ki im Besulah" a La'av, due to the Seifa of the Pasuk "ki im Besulah me'Amav Yikach Ishah", which clearly indicates that it is an Asei.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that by both raw and by the hot springs of Teverya one is Chayav on account of "ki-im Tz'li Eish".

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam asks that in that case one can query both Abaye and Rava from the Beraisa earlier 'I said to you, not raw!', from which we see that eating it raw is not subject to Malkos.

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara said in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a 115:) in connection with the Machlokes between Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah with regard to 'Choveil Rechayim va'Rachev, where Rav Yehudah obligates two sets of Malkos, whereas Rav Huna says three.

Question #2 (cont.): And Rava concludes there 'that he even holds like Rav Yehudah ...

Question #2 (concl.): Because until now, Rav Yehudah only said his Din there, because "ki Nefesh Hu Choveil refers to other objects, whereas here, what else can "Ki-im Tz'li Eish" be coming to teach us?

Question #2 (concl.): Now according to Rashi, we need it to teach us 'Chai' and 'Chamei Teverya'.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that everybody 'Chai' is not subject to Malkos according to anybody, since "ki-im Tz'li Eish" does not imply Malkos, but rather an Asei to eat only roast.

Implied Question: And it is not comparable to "ki Nefesh hu Choveil"

Answer: Since everyone agrees there that it comes to render a person Chayav Malkos for taking other objects ...

Source: As we specifically learned there in a Beraisa 'If someone took a pair of barber's scissors or a pair of cows as a security, he will receive two sets of Malkos ...

Reason: Because "ki Nefesh Hu Choveil", which is a reason, implies a La'av (as if to say that one may not take as a security anything that has to do with livelihood), therefore justifying what Rava says there that "ki Nefesh hu Choveil" comes to teach us other objects.

Reason (cont.): Whereas "ki-im Tz'li Eish" can only come for an Asei; in which case they are arguing exclusively over "Na" and "Mevushal" ...

Conclusion: Rava holds that the Pasuk juxtaposes it to them ("Na" and "Mevushal"), in order to render the offender Malkos, since they are subject to Malkos; whereas according to Abaye, there is no Malkos on a La'av she'bi'Chelalus'.

Clarification: And when the Gemara says here that one receives at least one set of Malkos, it refers to there where he was warned because of "ki-im Tz'li Eish" only ...

Clarification (cont.): But not if they warned him on "Na u'Mevushal"

Reason: Because for that the fact that the Torah presented it in the form of a K'lal will suffice to preclude them from an independent Malkos.

Conclusion: But on their own they will receive Malkos (from "ki-im Tz'li eish"), seeing as the Torah juxtaposed them next to cases which are subject to Malkos (i.e. Tz'li Eish).

Discrepancy: This same Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is presented with the opinions reversed in Perek Sheloshah Miynim (Nazir 38:).

Conclusion: And there many such cases in Shas.

Implied Question: Even though it is needed to teach us thatone receives Malkos on account of "ki im Tz'li Eish"?

Answer: That too, is because it is juxtaposed to "Na" and "Mevushal".

Clarification: This Sugya implies that it is normal to repeat a word exactly, rather than to change its format.

Precedence: As it does in 'Merubeh' (Bava Kama 65.) regarding "Himatzei Timatzei" and in 'ha'Chovel' (Ibid. Daf 85:) with regard to"Verapo Yerapei".

Question: At the beginning of 'Hayu Bodkin' Sanhedrin Daf 40:) the Gemara extrapolates from the fact that the Torah ought to have written 'Darosh Tidrosh' or 'Chakor Tachkor', and it wrote instead "Heitev" - it must be coming to render it Mufneh.

Question (concl.): This implies that had it indeed written that, it would not be Mufneh?

Answer: Perhaps there, the Torah was not careful about its terminology (and it really ought to have said 'Darosh Darosh' or 'Chakor Chakor'), only to prove that it is Mufneh.