משנה: אֵין צוֹלִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח לֹא בִּשְׁפּוּד וְלֹא בָּאֶסְכָלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי צָדוֹק מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְטָבִי עַבְדּוֹ צֵא וּצְלֵה לָנוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הָאֶסְכָלָה. נָגַע בְּחַרְסוֹ שֶׁל תַּנּוּר יִקְלוֹף אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס וְחָזַר עָלָיו יִטּוֹל אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַסּוֹלֶת יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ׃ MISHNAH: One roasts the Pesaḥ neither on a spit30A metal spit. nor on a grill31Greek ἐσχάρα, ἡ.. Rebbi Ṣadoq said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel said to his slave Tabi, go and roast us the Pesaḥ on a sacrificial hearth32He holds that anything heated by fire is as good as fire itself. Since the metal gets all its heat from the fire, it is permitted. This Rabban Gamliel must be Gamliel I, preceding R. Jehudah (Pesachim 7:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.7.1.3">Note 4) by three generations, showing that Rebbi Jehudah is a reliable historical source.. If it touched the pottery of the tannur, he has to shave off its place33Since that place on the surface of the meat was cooked by the wall of the tannur, not roasted by the air heated by the fire.. If some of its fluid fell on clay and returned, one has to remove this place34The the fluid was heated by the clay walls; falling back onto the meat it penetrated into it and therefore surface shaving is insufficient.. If some of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place35Since the entire lamb has to be consumed roasted in fire, the fluid in the flour may not be consumed; it has to be removed and burned separately..
הלכה: צְלִי־אֵ֣שׁ. לֹא צְלִי שְׁפוּד. לֹא צָלִי קְדֵירָה. לֹא צְלִי אֶסְכָלָה. לֹא צְלִי [מַתֶּכֶת. וְלֹא] כָל־דָּבָר. HALAKHAH: Fire roasted, not spit roasted, nor pot roasted, nor grill roasted, nor metal roasted, nor roasted in any other way36Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 6 (p. 19); cf. Pesachim.74a">Babli 74a, Pesachim.76a">76a. The corrector’s addition is only found in the Babli..
מִכְוַת־אֵ֑שׁ. יָכוֹל מוֹרֶרֶת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְֽהָֽיְתָ֞ה מִחְיַ֣ת הַמִּכְוָ֗ה. [אִם מִחְיַ֣ת הַמִּכְוָ֗ה] יְכוֹל עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה צַלֱּקֵת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִכְוַת־אֵ֑שׁ. הָא כֵיצַד. חָֽיְתָה לֹא חָֽיְתָה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַטָּן צָרֶ֥בֶת הַמִּכְוָה֭ הִיא. עַד שֶׁתִּקְרוּם כִּקְלִיפַּת הַשּׁוּם. וָכָא הוּא אוֹמֵר הָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. תַּמָּן צְלִי־אֵ֣שׁ. כִּ֣י אִם־צְלִי־אֵ֔שׁ. שִׁנָּה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב לְעִיכּוּב. בְּרַם הָכָא וְֽהָֽיְתָ֞ה מִחְיַ֣ת הַמִּכְוָ֗ה. מִכָּל־ מָקוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבוּדַּמָא. תַּמָּן חוּקָּה תוֹרָה מְעַכֵּב. הָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. “A fire burn37Leviticus.13.24">Lev. 13:24, in the rules of skin disease., I could think if it stays moist38This is Maimonides’s interpretation (Negaˋim 7:8), based on the reading in Sifra מורדת. The reading here, מורדת could be interpreted, parallel to Arabic استمرّ “to stay unchanged”, that the wound does not heal., the verse says, if the burn was healed39Leviticus.13.27">Lev. 13:27.. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar;40Leviticus.13.28">Lev. 13:28. until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.”41Sifra Tazria Pereq 7(3). And here he says so42Why for skin disease does one include anything which minimally corresponds to the description in the verses, but for Pesaḥ one excludes everything but strict adherence to the prescribed manner.? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted43Exodus.12.8">Ex. 12:8,Exodus.12.9">9. Pesachim.95a">Babli 95a., the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable44For the Pesaḥ “law” is written in Exodus.12.43">Ex.12:43, “teaching” in 12:49. Any commandment labelled “law” or “teaching” must be kept to the letter; Menachot.19a">Babli Menaḥot 19a. For skin disease, “teaching” is mentioned the first time for the purification rites (Leviticus.14.43">Lev.14:43).. But here what do you have?
לֵית לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל צְלִי־אֵ֣שׁ. [אִית לֵיהּ. פֶּסַח מִצְרַיִם צְלִי־אֵ֣שׁ.] אֵין פֶּסַח הַדּוֹרוֹת צְלִי־אֵ֣שׁ. אְמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא עֲבַד תּוֹלְדוֹת אֵשׁ כְּאֵשׁ. וְרַבָּנִין עָֽבְדִין תּוֹלְדוֹת אֵשׁ כְּאֵשׁ. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל חָלוּק עַל חֲכָמִים וְעוֹשֶׂה הֲלָכָה כְיוֹצֵא בוֹ. Does Rabban Gamliel not have fire roasted? He does. The Pesaḥ in Egypt was fire roasted; the Pesaḥ for generations is not fire roasted45In the rules for the Pesaḥ to be observed in the future, at the end of Exodus.12">Ex. 12 and the beginning of Numbers.9">Num. 9, roasting in fire is not mentioned.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Gamliel did not consider consequences of fire as fire; the rabbis consider consequences of fire as fire46It is obvious that the places of “did not consider” and “consider” have to be switched. Since the problematic text also is in K, it is not a scribal error.
The Pesachim.95a">Babli, 95a top, explains the problem away.. Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and in practice acts on his own opinion47Cf. Berakhot 1:1:30" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.1.1.30">Berakhot 1:2, Note 111; also Avodah zarah 3:12, Note 252..
אִילּוּ אָמַר לֹא תאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר נָא. הָיִיתִי אוֹמַר. הִיבְהֲבוּ וּצְלָייוֹ מוּתָּר. הֲוֵי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר נָא. אוֹ אִילּוּ אָמַר. (לֹא) [אַל תֹּאכְלוּ] מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר וּבָשֵׁל. הָיִיתִי אוֹמַר. שְׁלָקוֹ וּצְלָייוֹ יְהֵא מוּתָּר. הֲוֵי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר וּבָשֵׁל. אוֹ אִילּוּ אָמַר. אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר מְבוּשָּׁל. הָיִיתִי אוֹמַר. בִּישְּׁלוֹ וּצְלָייוֹ יְהֵא מוּתָּר. הֲוֵי צָרִיךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר נָא. וְצָרִיךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר [בָּשֵׁל. וְצָרִיךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר] מְבוּשָּׁל. If it had said “do not eat from it except fire roasted” and had not said “raw”, I would have said that if he singed it and roasted it would be permitted; therefore he needed to say, “raw”. Or if it had said “do not [eat from it] except fire roasted” and had not said “cooked”, I would have said that if he parboiled it and roasted it, it would be permitted; therefore he needed to say, “cooked”. Or if it had said “do not eat from it except fire roasted” and had not said “thoroughly cooked”, I would have said that if he cooked it and roasted it would be permitted. Therefore it was needed to say “raw”, and it was needed to say [“cooked”, and it was needed to say] “thoroughly cooked.”48Cf. Mekhilta dR. IsmaelBo 6, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 21; Pesachim.41a">Babli 41a. “Raw” is interpreted as “rare”. C”s addition is confirmed by K.
אָכַל כְּזַיִת נָא מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חַייָב. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. פָּטוּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חַייָב. אַל־תֹּֽאכְל֤וּ מִמֶּ֨נּוּ֙ נָ֔א מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. פָּטוּרּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא בְקוּם אֲכוֹל צְלִי הוּא בְּבַל תֹּאכַל נָא. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְקוּם אֲכוֹל צְלִי אֵינוֹ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל נָא. If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight49On the 14th of Nisan.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable50Pesachim.41b">Babli 41b.. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw53It may not be eaten but because it is indirectly disqualified one has to wait until it would have to be burned even if qualified; cf. Pesachim 6:6:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.6.4">Chapter 6, after Note 151., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw.
שָׁבַר בּוֹ עֶצֶם מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חַייָב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. פָּטוּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חַייָב. וְעֶ֖צֶם לֹ֥א תִשְׁבְּרוּ־בֽוֹ כו׳ מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. פָּטוּר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְקוּם אֲכוֹל צְלִי אֵינוֹ מִשּׁוּם וְעֶ֖צֶם לֹ֥א תִשְׁבְּרוּ־בֽוֹ׃ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא בְקוּם אֲכוֹל צְלִי הוּא מִשּׁוּם וְעֶ֖צֶם לֹ֥א תִשְׁבְּרוּ־בֽוֹ׃. If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable51Pesachim.84b">Babli 84b.. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it52Exodus.12.46">Ex. 12:46. etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it.
נָגַע בְּחַרְסוֹ שֶׁלְתַּנּוּר. פְּסוּל גּוּף [הוּא] וְנִשְׂרַף מִיַּד. נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס. פְּסוּל מַכְשִׁיר [הוּא] וְטָעוּן צוּרָה. נָטַף מֵרוֹטְבּוֹ עַל הַסּוֹלֶת [יִקְמוֹץ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ]. חִייָה בַּר אָדָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׂמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּרוֹתַחַת. אֲבָל בְּצוֹנֶנֶת אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. לֹא אָֽמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה. הוּא לֹא יִצְלֶה אֶת אֲחֵרִים. אֶלָּא הוּא לֹא יִצָּלֶה מַחְמַת אֲחֵרִים. “If it touched the pottery of the tannur,” it is a disability of its body and it has to be burned immediately. “If of its fluid fell on clay,” it is a disability on the instrument and needs [losing its] shape53It may not be eaten but because it is indirectly disqualified one has to wait until it would have to be burned even if qualified; cf. Pesachim 6:6:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.6.4">Chapter 6, after Note 151.. “If of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.” Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: that is, if it is hot54Pesachim.75b-76a">Babli 75b/76a.. But if it is cool, it is forbidden55In contrast to “liable”, “forbidden” means rabbinically forbidden.. Rebbi Eleazar, the Torah did not say, it should not cook others, but it should not be cooked because of others56He disagrees and notes that since there is no biblical prohibition if the hot fluid falls into cold edibles; there is no reason for a rabbinic prohibition either..