Beraisa (R.Yosa): Todos of Rome directed the people of Rome to eat Mekulas kids on the night of Pesach.

The Chachamim sent to him a message saying, "If you would not be an important person, would we not excommunicate you?!''.

Question: In what way was he important?

Answer (R. Chananya): He would help the Rabbanan to sustain themselves (by giving them merchandise to sell).

He brought the many to eat Kodshim outside of the Beis HaMikdash which is punishable with excommunication!

R. Yosa bei R.Bun quoting Rav: This teaches us that a person may not say to his friend, "Take this money and go and buy with it meat for Pesach''. However, he could say, "Take this money and go and buy with it meat to roast.'' (The second statement is permitted as he did not mention Pesach.)

Query (R. Imi): May one remove the coals from the oven and roast the Pesach there (from the heat that remains in the oven)?

R. Yirmiyah: His query is only according to R. Yosi HaGalili (who required the feet to be inside the animal when roasting, so the feet are roasted via the flesh of the animal); but according to R. Akiva, it is obviously invalid (as it is not "roasted in fire'').

R. Yosa disagrees: His query is also according to R. Akiva - for example, coals in the air of the oven will roast something in half an hour; coals outside of the oven will roast it in an hour. What is the difference whether part or all of it is roasted because of the oven?

R. Yosa bei R. Bun responds: In truth, according to R. Akiva, it is not at all roasted from the heat of the oven as the heat of the coals overcomes the heat of the oven. The reason that it takes half an hour to roast inside the oven is because the oven focuses the heat of the coals.

(Mishnah): One may not roast the Pesach on a spit or on a griddle.

R. Tzadok: Rabban Gamliel once told his slave Tavi to roast the Pesach on a griddle.

If the Pesach touched the ceramic wall of the oven, he must remove a layer of the flesh from that area.

If its juices dripped onto the ceramic wall and then fell back onto the flesh, he must remove the flesh from that area.

If its juices dripped onto fine flour, he must remove a handful [of flour] from that area.

(Gemara): The Pasuk states, (Shemos 12, 8), "roasted in fire'' - but not on a spit, in a pot, on a griddle, through metal or through anything else.

Concerning Tzora'as on the skin, the Pasuk states (Vayikra 13, 24), "Michvas Aish'' - "a burn from fire''. I might have thought that this would apply even if it was still seeping pus? The Pasuk states (ibid), "and the healed skin''. If it is healed skin, I might have thought that it must have grown a scab - the Pasuk states (ibid), "a burn from fire''. How is this? It has semi-healed.

Similarly the Pasuk states (Vayikra 13, 28), "it is the scarring of the burning'' - only if it has scabbed like the skin of a garlic.

Question: Why then did the word "aish''- "fire'' exclude any way of roasting the Pesach that is not actual fire?

Answer (R. Elazar): There it states (Shemos 12, 8), "roasted in fire'' and the following Pasuk repeats, "only roasted in fire'' - the Torah repeats it to indicate that it is crucial. However, here the Pasuk states (Vayikra 13, 24), "and the healed skin'', without repeating the word "fire'' - this includes any type of burn.

R. Shmuel bar Avudama: There (Pesach) the Pasuk states "Chukah'' - "its law'' and "Torah'' - "law''. This teaches that all of the requirements mentioned about the Pesach offering are crucial. However, in the case of "Negaim'', which word indicates that it is crucial?

Question: Does Rabban Gamliel not agree to the law learned from the words "roasted in fire'', that one cannot roast it on a griddle?

Answer: He only applied the requirement of "roasted in fire'' to the Korban Pesach brought upon leaving Egypt.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Rabban Gamliel did apply "roasted in fire'' to all generations, but he treated a derivative of a fire like fire itself and Rabbanan did not. (Therefore, according to Rabban Gamliel, a griddle is permitted.)

The Mishnah is lacking words and in fact, Rabban Gamliel disagreed with the Chachamim and permitted using a griddle. The Mishnah then quoted R. Tzadok who related an incident that illustrates Rabban Gamliel's opinion.

If the Pasuk would have stated, "Do not eat from it except if roasted in fire'', without mentioning the prohibition of "Na'' - "semi-roasted'', I would have said that if he merely singed it, it would be permitted.

And if the Pasuk would have stated, "Do not eat from it except if roasted in fire'', without a mention of the prohibition of "U'vashel'' - "and cooked'', I would have said that if he stewed and then roasted it, it would be permitted.

And if the Pasuk would have stated, "Do not eat from it except if roasted in fire'', without a mention of the prohibition of "Mevushal'' - "cooked'', I would have said that if he cooked and then roasted it, it would be permitted. Therefore, the Torah needed to mention these three words (Na, U'vashel, Mevushal).