## Pesachim Daf 41a

###### Pesachim 41a:1
[Pesachim 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:1)

אַחֲרוֹסֶת קָאָמַר מָר, אוֹ אַחַרְדָּל קָאָמַר מָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Did **the Master say** this statement **with regard to *ḥaroset*, or did the Master say** it **with regard to mustard? He said to him: What is** the **practical difference** whether he was referring to *ḥaroset* or mustard? Both of these are mentioned together, and the same *halakha* applies to both.


###### Pesachim 41a:2
[Pesachim 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:2)

לִדְרַב כָּהֲנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת לְתוֹךְ הַחַרְדָּל, אֲבָל לְתוֹךְ הַחֲרוֹסֶת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף מִיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He said to him: There is a difference with regard **to that** which was stated by **Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said:** The **dispute** between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis concerns a case in which flour was added **to mustard. However,** if flour was added **to *ḥaroset*, everyone agrees** that **it** must **be burned immediately.** Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was asking Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, whether he disagrees with Rav Kahana and maintains that the Rabbis dispute the *halakha* in the case of *ḥaroset* as well.


###### Pesachim 41a:3
[Pesachim 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר לָא סְבִירָא לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him: I did not hear** about this statement; **that is to say, I do not hold** in accordance with it. I do not distinguish between these two cases, as in my opinion the Rabbis permit one to eat even this *ḥaroset*.


###### Pesachim 41a:4
[Pesachim 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:4)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַאי לָאו? צַמּוֹתֵי הוּא דְּלָא צָמֵית, הָא חַמּוֹעֵי מְחַמְּעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable** to rule **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Kahana, from** the fact **that Shmuel said** that **the *halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** who maintains that vinegar will prevent grain from becoming leavened. **What, isn’t it** correct to infer from here that vinegar added to flour **does not shrink** the grain and will **even leaven** it? According to this explanation, food that contains vinegar, e.g., *ḥaroset*, is likely to be leavened immediately, as claimed by Rav Kahana.


###### Pesachim 41a:5
[Pesachim 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:5)

לָא, דִּילְמָא לָא מִצְמָת צָמֵית, וְלָא חַמּוֹעֵי מְחַמַּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this interpretation: **No,** this is no proof, as **perhaps** Shmuel meant that, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, vinegar will **neither cause** the wheat **to shrink nor leaven** it. Consequently, this statement cannot serve as a proof of the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to *ḥaroset*.


###### Pesachim 41a:6
[Pesachim 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:6)

אֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּמַיִם״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּמַיִם, שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין מִנַּיִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught that **one** may **not boil** the Paschal lamb in liquid. To explain this issue, the Gemara cites a *baraita* that interprets the verse: “You shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any way in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs, and with the innards in it” (Exodus 12:9). **The Sages taught: “In water”; I have** derived **nothing other** than the prohibition against boiling the Paschal lamb **in water. From where** do I know that it is likewise prohibited to boil it in **other liquids?**


###### Pesachim 41a:7
[Pesachim 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:7)

אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מַיִם שֶׁאֵין מְפִיגִין טַעְמָן — אֲסוּרִין, שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין שֶׁמְּפִיגִין טַעְמָן — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**You said** that this can be derived by means of **an *a fortiori* inference: And just as water, which does not temper the taste** of the food boiled in it, is **prohibited** for boiling the Paschal lamb, with regard to **other liquids, which do temper the taste** of the food boiled in them, is it **not all the more so** that it is prohibited to boil the Paschal lamb in them?


###### Pesachim 41a:8
[Pesachim 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:8)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״בְּמַיִם״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַיִם, שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi provides a different derivation and **says:** From the phrase **“In water,” I have** derived **nothing other** than the prohibition against boiling the Paschal lamb **in water. From where** do I learn that it is likewise prohibited to boil it in **other liquids? The verse states: “Nor boiled in any way,”** which means: **In any case,** i.e., boiling the Paschal lamb in any type of liquid is prohibited.


###### Pesachim 41a:9
[Pesachim 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:9)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ צְלִי קֵדָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between** these two derivations? The Gemara answers: The practical difference **between them is** with regard to meat **that is roasted in a pot** without the addition of any liquid, but is cooked in its own juices. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is prohibited to prepare the Paschal lamb in this manner, as this is considered boiling, whereas the Rabbis maintain that an action is classified as boiling only if one adds liquid to the meat.


###### Pesachim 41a:10
[Pesachim 41a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:10)

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״בָּשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל״ מַאי עָבְדִי לְהוּ? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: בִּשְּׁלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ צְלָאוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּשְּׁלוֹ — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the Rabbis,** with regard to **that** phrase, **“boiled in any way,” what do they do with it?** The Gemara answers: It is **required for that which was taught** in a *baraita*: If **one boiled** the Paschal lamb **and afterward roasted it, or roasted it and afterward boiled it, he is liable** to receive lashes for boiling the Paschal lamb.


###### Pesachim 41a:11
[Pesachim 41a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:11)

בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּשְּׁלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ צְלָאוֹ חַיָּיב, דְּהָא בַּשְּׁלֵיהּ. אֶלָּא צְלָאוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּשְּׁלוֹ, הָא צְלִי אֵשׁ הוּא, אַמַּאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** if one **boiled** the Paschal lamb **and afterward roasted it, he is liable, as he boiled it** first and is punished for this act. **However,** if **he roasted it and afterward boiled it,** and **it is** a food that has been **roasted by fire, why** is he liable?


###### Pesachim 41a:12
[Pesachim 41a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:12)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: יוֹצְאִין בְּרָקִיק הַשָּׁרוּי וּבִמְבוּשָּׁל שֶׁלֹּא נִימּוֹחַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יוֹצְאִין בְּרָקִיק הַשָּׁרוּי, אֲבָל לֹא בִּמְבוּשָּׁל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִימּוֹחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? It is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** who maintains that boiling after roasting nullifies the previous act of roasting. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: One can **fulfill** his obligation to eat *matza* **with a wafer that has been soaked** in water **or with a boiled** wafer **that has not** yet **dissolved;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One** can **fulfill** his obligation **with a wafer that has been soaked** in a cooked dish **but not with a boiled** wafer, **even if it has not dissolved.** Evidently, Rabbi Yosei maintains that food that was initially baked and subsequently boiled is no longer categorized as baked, and the same presumably applies to meat that was roasted and then boiled.


###### Pesachim 41a:13
[Pesachim 41a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:13)

עוּלָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said: Even** if **you say** that the *halakha* with regard to boiled *matza* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** there is no difficulty, as the cases of *matza* and the Paschal lamb are dissimilar in this regard. **Here,** with regard to the Paschal lamb, **it is different, as the verse states: “Nor boiled in any way,”** which indicates that it is prohibited to boil it **in any case.** No restriction of this kind is stated with regard to *matza*.


###### Pesachim 41a:14
[Pesachim 41a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל צְלָאוֹ כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ יְהֵא חַיָּיב — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נָא וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל בַּמָּיִם״. נָא וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** I **might** have thought **that** if **one roasted** the Paschal lamb **fully, he** should **be liable.** Therefore, **the verse states: “You shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any way in water”** (Exodus 12:9). This verse teaches that **I,** God, **said to you** that the Paschal lamb is prohibited if it is **partially roasted or boiled in any way, but not** if **it is fully roasted.** One who roasts the Paschal lamb fully has not violated a prohibition.


###### Pesachim 41a:15
[Pesachim 41a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:15)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דְּשַׁוְּיֵא חֲרוֹכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case that render it necessary for a verse to teach that roasting the Paschal lamb fully is not a violation of a prohibition? **Rav Ashi said:** This is referring to a situation **where one burned it.** The verse indicates that even one who entirely burns the Paschal lamb does not violate this prohibition.


###### Pesachim 41a:16
[Pesachim 41a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל אָכַל כְּזַיִת חַי יְהֵא חַיָּיב — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נָא וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל״. נָא וּבָשֵׁל אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא חַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** I **might** have thought that **one who ate an olive-bulk** portion of the Paschal sacrifice **raw** should **be liable** for violating a prohibition. Therefore, **the verse states: “You shall not eat it partially roasted [*na*], nor boiled in any way in water.”** This verse **teaches** that **I,** God, **said to you** that it is prohibited to eat the Paschal lamb **partially roasted or boiled, but** there is **no** prohibition against eating **it raw.**


###### Pesachim 41a:17
[Pesachim 41a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:17)

יָכוֹל יְהֵא מוּתָּר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ״. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי נָא? אָמַר רַב: כִּדְאָמְרִי פָּרְסָאֵי: אֲבַרְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
I **might** have thought **that it is permitted** to eat it raw *ab initio*. Therefore, **the verse states: “But roasted with fire”** (Exodus 12:9). This teaches that the mitzva is to roast the Paschal lamb with fire, *ab initio*. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of cooking that are defined as ***na*,** partially roasted? **Rav said: As the Persians say: *Avarnim*,** half roasted.


###### Pesachim 41a:18
[Pesachim 41a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:18)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא בְּשַׁבָּת — פָּטוּר. פֶּסַח שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: One who cooks** food **in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt.** One violates the Shabbat prohibition of cooking only if he uses a fire. In the case of **a Paschal** lamb **that was cooked,** i.e., boiled, **in the hot springs of Tiberias,** one is **liable** for boiling the offering.


###### Pesachim 41a:19
[Pesachim 41a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:19)

מַאי שְׁנָא בְּשַׁבָּת דְּלָא? דְּתוֹלְדוֹת אֵשׁ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא. פֶּסַח נָמֵי, לָאו תּוֹלְדוֹת אֵשׁ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different with regard to Shabbat, that** one is **not** punished for cooking in this manner? The reason is **that** a fire, or **a fire derivative, is required** for an act to be defined as cooking on Shabbat, **but there is no** fire here, as the hot springs are not generated by fire. If so, **with regard to** the **Paschal** lamb **as well, it is not a fire derivative,** and it should not be considered boiling with regard to this prohibition either.


###### Pesachim 41a:20
[Pesachim 41a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:20)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי ״חַיָּיב״ דְּקָתָנֵי — דְּקָא עָבַר מִשּׁוּם ״צָלִי אֵשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: What is** the meaning of the word **liable that** Rav Ḥisda **taught?** It means **that** in doing so **one violated** the positive mitzva, **due to** that which is written: **“Roasted with fire.”** In other words, one who boils the Paschal lamb in the hot springs of Tiberias did not in fact violate the prohibition of boiling the Paschal lamb, but he has also not fulfilled the positive mitzva to roast the offering.


###### Pesachim 41a:21
[Pesachim 41a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:21)

רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן מַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא בְּהֶדְיָא. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא בְּשַׁבָּת — פָּטוּר, וּפֶסַח שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא — חַיָּיב, שֶׁעָבַר מִשּׁוּם ״צְלִי אֵשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Natan, teaches this** interpretation **of Rav Ḥisda’s** statement **explicitly,** i.e., that **Rav Ḥisda** himself **said: One who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt, and** with regard to **a Paschal** lamb **that was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias,** one **is liable** to receive punishment for this act. In doing so, **he violated** a positive mitzva, **due to** that which is written: **“Roasted with fire.”**


###### Pesachim 41a:22
[Pesachim 41a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/41a:22)

אָמַר רָבָא: אֲכָלוֹ נָא —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** One who **ate** the Paschal lamb **partially roasted,**