ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 41
PESACHIM 41 - dedicated b'Ahavas ha'Torah by Rav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence,
(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 Yossi (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) 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
(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) The Rabbanan learn from "u"Vashel Mevushal" - to forbid even a Korban
Pesach which is roasted after having been cooked or cooked after having been
(b) Rebbi Yossi says that one is not Yotze the Mitzvah of Matzah with Matzah
that was cooked, even if it did melt, and even though it had been roasted
(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 Yotze - from the Pasuk "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal
ba'Mayim"; 'Na u'Vashel Mevushal Amarti Lach, ve'Lo she'Tzal'o Kol Tzorcho'.
(a) The Korban Pesach may not be eaten raw - because the Torah writes "Ki Im
(b) One does not however, receive Malkos for doing so - because the specific
La'av of "Bashel Mevushal only incorporates half-roasted and cooked, but not
raw. "Ki Im Tz'li Esh" is a La'av she'bi'Chelalos (for which one does
receive Malkos). Note: Tosfos considers "Ki Im Tz'li Esh" to be an Asei, and
not a La'av at all.
(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
La'av of "Bashel Mevushal", but to that of "Ki Im Tz'li-Esh".
(b) Rav Chisda holds 'Lokin Al La'av she'bi'Chelalos' (see above answer to
(a) According to Rava, someone who eats the Korban both half roasted and
fully-cooked will receive three sets of Malkos - for "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na"
and "Al Tochlu Ki Im Tz'li 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 Malkos, because "Ki Im Tz'li Esh" is
a La'av she'bi'Chelalos, for which one does not receive Malkos.
(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 Malkos because of "Ki Im Tz'li Esh" (since that is the only
Malkos that is due).
(d) Others say that one does not receive Malkos at all for the La'av of "Lo
Sochal ... Ki Im Tzeli Esh" - because the Torah has not issued a La'av for
any specific act, only for a group of acts incorporated in the one word.
(a) The La'av 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 ...
(b) A Nazir receives two sets of Malkos 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 La'av (such
as "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag Lo Yochel" or "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel
Mevushal"), it is as if the Torah had written a La'av by each of the
details, and they are counted as two La'avin.
(a) We learn that someone who ate a half-roasted Korban Pesach before
nightfall is Patur from Malkos - from the juxtaposition of "Al Tochlu Mimenu
Na" ... to " "Ki Im Tz'li Esh, which teaches us that one is only Chayav for
the former at the time when the latter applies (i.e. after nightfall), but
(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 disqulafied from eating
it again with another group (because one is not allowed to eat from two
(c) We would otherwise have thought that if there is a La'av 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 Malkos.
(a) Rebbi learns from "Bashel Mevushal" - that someone who eats a cooked
Pesach receives Malkos, even if it was cooked by day.
(b) True, Rebbi has already used this Pasuk to include a Pesach that was
pot-roasted orooked with other liquids in the La'av - 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) The Beraisa compare eating the Pesach roasted by day to eating it half-
roasted by night - inasmuch as they are both La'avin.
(b) How can the Tana derive a *La'av* from the Pasuk "ve'Achlu es ha'Basar
ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" 'ba'Laylah In, ba'Yom Lo'? Surely "ve'Achlu" ... is an
Asei, and 'La'av ha'Ba Mi'chelal Asei, *Asei*'?
(c) Rebbi Yehudah Darshens the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Shor va'Seh Saru'a
ve'Kalut, Nedavah Ta'aseh Oso" ... 'Oso Ata Matfis le'Bedek ha'Bayis, ve'I
Ata Matfis Temimim le'Bedek ha'Bayis'. This is an Asei; however, he goes on
to add a La'av from "va'Yedaber Hashem el Moshe *Leimor* (which always
implies a La'av - whenever it is used in connection with a 'La'av ha'Ba
mi'Chelal Asei' [see Tosfos DH 'Leimor']). And by the Korban Pesach too, the
Parshah begins with "va'Yomer Hashem el Moshe ve'El Aharon *Leimor", which
is why the Tana of the Beraisa ascribes a La'av for someone who ate the
Pesach half-roasted by day.