Question: The Riva asks what exactly the Gemara is asking, since the Seifa specifically states that if one cooked it on coals, itis unanymously permitted?

Question (concl.): And even according to the opinion that establishes it there by coals that are going out, its heat is surely not less than that of an oven from which the coals have been removed.

Answer: The Ri answers that coals are different inasmuch as their heat does not come from the flame, but from the coals themselves which in themselves are like dust.

Answer (concl.): The heat of the oven from which the coals have been removed on the other hand, comes from the heat of the brand's fire, which is completely Asur. Hence the Gemara's She'eilah.

Question: The Ri asks that since the bread is Asur when the firebrand burns directly on to it, and the heat of the brand is Asur, even one has cleared out the coals and baked bread in it, the bread ought to be Asur?

Answer: And he answers that even if the firebrand burns directly on to itit is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

Refutation #1: This is not however, implied in our Sugya

Refutation #2: Moreover, it would then be feasible to draw a distinction between whether there is 'Sh'vach Eitzim' in the bread or not.

Question: The Yerushalmi asks that when the Pesach is roasted in the oven with the coals underneath it, the heat of the oven too, is instrumental in roasting it, in which case it ought to be forbidden on account of 'Tz'li Machmas Davar Acher'?

Answer: And it answers that as long as there is fire, the fire overrides the heat of the oven, which serves merely to preserve the heat of the coals, to prevent it from dispersing.

Implied Question: Even though a boil and a burn are equal in all regards - since they both render Tamei in one week, either with a white hair or by means of spreading.

Answer: Nevertheless, the difference will manifest itself regarding the Din of 'Tziruf', in that a boil and a burn do not combine.

Question: What is the difference between boiling Gafsis and lime on the one hand, and the earthenware of the oven on the other, regarding which we said above that if not for the fact that Torah writes twice "Tz'li Eish", it would indeed be considered roasted in fire ...

Question (cont.): Whereas here Gafsis and lime require a Ribuy, and without it, they would not be included in "Eish".

Clarification: The Rashba explains that the Gemara could have said that the Torah reveals the Din by Michvah, and we learn from it.

Clarification: And the Gemara finds it necessary to give a different answer only on account of the second Lashon that we learned earlier.

Question: It is difficult however, why the Gemara does not answer that Rebbi is speaking about burning coals, whereas our Sugya we need the Ribuy for coals that are no longer alight.

Answer: Granted, 'Gacheles' mentioned in the Torah refers to those that are no longer alight, when a Mishnah or Beraisos mentions it, it generally refers to burning coals.

Clarification: Because "Tisaref" is a Ribuy, since it could just as well have said 'ba'Eish Tamus'.

Question: Why do we not say that "ba'Eish" is a 'P'rat', and "Tisaref", a K'lal, turning it into a K'lal which is added to the P'rat, which would then include everything.

Answer: Because the K'lal of "Tisaref" refers to the P'rat, as if to say - How should one burn it? By fire!

Answer: That is why we only include from "Tisaref" what is similar to the "Eish" to which it refers

Answer (conl.): Therefore, it is rather 'A K'lal that needs the P'rat', about which we say in 'Kisuy ha'Dam' (Chulin, Daf 88:) that 'It does not have the Din of a K'lal u'P'rat (Riva).

Question: R. Ya'akov from Orleans asks why the Pasuk finds it necessary to preclude lead that comes from the earth hot? Why do we not already know it from the fact that we need "Lo Se'va'aru" to teach us that burning a bas Kohen does not override Shabbos ...

Question (cont.): Since if one could use it, it would be obvious that it does not override Shabbos, seeing as it would be possible to do it without desecrating the Shabbos.

Answer: This is not a Kashya, says the Ri, since we need the Pasuk where no hot lead ... is available.

Answer: Because if we did not say that, we could ask why we need a Pasuk that burning a bas Kohen does not override Shabbos, seeing as onecan heat up a string of lead on Erev Shabbos (See also Tosfos Yevamos 6: DH 'Ta'ama').

Question: Even if the Torah had not inserted "ve'Lakach", and written only "Gachalei Eish", we would have known that they must be coals at the time of taking, because to take them inside when they are not coals does not need a Pasuk, due to the Kal va'Chomer (cited shortly) 'If one would not do such a thing before human king, how much more so before the King of Kings ... !'

Question (concl.): Consequently, the Pasuk must be speaking where they are coals at the time that they are taken.

Answer: To be sure, we do not need a Pasuk for that, only the Torahhad no other way of expressing itself, other than by inserting the word "ve'Lakach".

Clarification: K'lifah will not suffice, because the gravy becomes deeply absorbed inside it.

Question #1: There where it touches the earthenware of the oven, why will K'lifah be sufficient? Why do we not say there too, that the gravy that is absorbed in that Shi'ur K'lifah is absorbed in the Korban Pesach to the extent that it requires Netilas Mekomo, just like when some of the gravy dripped and returned to its original location?

Question #2: Moreover, why do we not say in every case that is forbidden due to being roasted, where we Pasken that it is only forbidden 'K'dei K'lifah', due to the gravy that it contains, why is it too, not forbidden to the Shi'ur of K'dei Netilah?

Answer: One could establish those cases where there is only little gravy, which does not render forbidden, in the same way as the Gemara says 'Anointing is different, since one only rubs in a minimal amount of oil.

Clarification: It speaks in all cases, whether it is hot or whether it is cold, because since it is soft, it will absorb even when it is not hot - since the Tana is speaking in a similar case to when it is raw.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is because the Torah writes "When the journey is too far for you ... then you may exchange it for money".

Question: The Ri queries this however, since the Pasuk is speaking about redemption, when one takes it out of its Kedushah, and transfers it on to something else. Whereas here we are speaking about eating it even in its Kedushah, as Rashi himself explains?

Question (cont.): And this is also implied from the Lashon 'Mochrin' (as opposed to 'Mechal'lin').

Possible Answer: There are in fact, some texts that read 'she'Ein Podin'; But Rashi has the text 'she'Ein Mochrin'.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that in Yerushalayim, they decreed selling on account of redeeming, which is Asur min ha'Torah.

Explanation #3: Whereas the Rashba explains that they only forbade selling because it is downgrading the Mitzvah.

Source: As we learned at the beginning of Maseches Ma'aser Sheini (Perek 2, Mishnah 1) that one may not sell it, give it as a security or weigh against it.