(Exodus 12:7) "And they shall take from the blood": I might think either by hand or by vessel; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 22) "And you shall dip it in the blood which is in the saf," whereby we are apprised that he digs out a trough in the lintel and slaughters (the lamb, [the blood dripping]) into it, "saf" signifying a lintel, as in (Ezekiel 43:8) "When they placed their threshold ('sipam') next to My threshold," and (Isaiah 6:4) "And the posts of the threshold ('sippim') shook." These are the words of R. Yishmael.
(Exodus 12:7) "And they shall place it on the two side posts and on the lintel": on the inside. You say on the inside, but perhaps on the outside (is meant)? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 13) "And I will see the blood" — blood which is seen by Me and not by others. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
4
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִבִּפְנִים. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִבִּפְנִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִבַּחוּץ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות יב,יג) "וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת", לָכֶם לְאוֹת וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים לְאוֹת. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם מִבַּחוּץ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמִּצְרִיִּים רוֹאִין וּמֵעֵיהֶן מִתְחַתְּכִין.*וּמֵעֵיהֶן מִתְחַתְּכִין: מצטערים מאוד על שחיטת השה שהוא עבודה זרה שלהם.
R. Nathan says: On the inside. You say on the inside, but perhaps on the outside? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the blood will be for you as a sign" — for you and not for others. R. Yitzchak says: On the outside — so that the Egyptians see (their gods being slaughtered), and their insides be "ripped apart!"
"And they shall place it on the two side posts and on the lintel": I might think that if he placed (the blood on) one before the other, he has not fulfilled his obligation. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 22) "and you shall touch the lintel and the two doorposts," (to teach that even) if he reversed the order, he has fulfilled his obligation. We hereby learn that our forefathers in Egypt had three altars — the lintel and two door-posts. R. Shimon says: Four: the saf, the lintel, and two door-posts.
("and on the lintel) of the houses in which they eat it": This tells me only of the latter. Whence do I derive (the same for) the houses which they slept in? From (Ibid. 13) "upon the houses where you are" — in any event.
"on this night": I might think, the entire night; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 10) "You shall not leave over anything of it until morning, and what is left over of it until morning, in fire shall you burn." What is the intent of (the seemingly superfluous) "until morning"? To set a bound for "the morning of morning." And which is that? The (rising of the) morning star. From here they ruled: The eating of the Paschal lamb and the eating of (other) sacrifices, and the burning of fats and limbs — their mitzvah is until the rising of the morning star. All that is to be eaten in one day — their mitzvah is until the rising of the morning star. And why did they rule ("only) until midnight"? To distance a man from transgression and to make a fence for the Torah and to fulfill the words of the men of the Great Assembly, who said: "Be deliberate in judgment, and set up many disciples, and make a fence for the Torah." R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: It is written here "on this night," and elsewhere (Ibid. 12) "And I shall pass through the land of Egypt in this night." Just as there, until midnight, so, here, until midnight.
9
"צְלִי אֵשׁ". וְלֹא צְלִי שְׁפוּד, וְלֹא צְלִי אֶסְכָלָה,*אֶסְכָלָה. eskhára: רשת מעל גחלים, מנגל. וְלֹא צְלִי חַרְסוֹ שֶׁלַּתַּנּוּר, אֶלָּא צְלִי אֵשׁ.
(Exodus 12:8) "roasted in fire": and not roasted on a spit, and not roasted on a grill, and not roasted in an earthenware oven (cleared of its coals), but roasted in fire, in its raw state.
You say this, but perhaps (the intent is) something which is cooked (before it is roasted)? It is, therefore, written "roasted in fire," connoting that which is roasted raw.
And whence is it derived that in the absence of matzoh and maror one fulfills his obligation with the Pesach? From "shall they eat it" (in any event). I might think that if one does not have a Pesach he fulfills his obligation with matzoh and maror, and that it follows, viz.: (The eating of the) Pesach is a positive commandment and matzoth and maror is a positive commandment. Just as in the absence of matzoh and maror one fulfills his obligation with the Pesach, so, in the absence of the Pesach one fulfills his obligation with matzoh and maror.
It is, therefore, written "with matzoth and maror shall they eat it" (i.e., the eating of the Pesach is a categorical requirement for fulfillment of the obligation.) Variantly: "with matzoh and maror shall they eat it": From here they ruled: The Pesach is to be eaten in a state of satiety, but matzoh and maror are not (necessarily) to be eaten in a state of satiety.
"and vashel mevushal": to make one liable (both) for what is raw and for what is cooked. You say this. But perhaps (the meaning is) to make him liable for what is overly roasted? It is, therefore, written, "but roasted in fire." How, then, is "vashel mevushal" to be understood? As (to make him liable for) what is raw and what is cooked.
"or cooked in water": This tells me only of water. Whence do I derive (the same for) other liquids? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to cook it in water, which does not impart its taste (to the flesh), how much more so other liquids, which do impart their taste!
R. Akiva says: This tells me only of water. How do I derive (the same for) other liquids? It is, therefore, written "uvashel mevushal," (which conveys the sense of "no matter what it is cooked in), to include (as forbidden) other liquids.
Rebbi says: I can read "Eat of it only roasted in fire." Why "raw and vashel mevushal"? For I might then think that it is only when he is commanded to eat it roasted (i.e., at night) that he is forbidden to eat it raw or cooked. Whence would I derive (the same for) the daytime? It is, therefore, written "uvashel mevushal" (connoting "whenever it is cooked").
"uvashel": "bashel" (here refers to flesh that was) roasted (before, the understanding being that it is forbidden to cook it even if it had been roasted previously), as in (Devarim 16:7) "And you shall cook (i.e., roast) it and you shall eat it," and (II Chronicles 35:13) "And they cooked (i.e., roasted) the Pesach in fire as prescribed; and the holy (offerings) they cooked in pots, cauldrons, and pans, and they dispatched them to all the people." From here R.Yoshiyah said: If one takes a vow not to eat "mevushal," roasted (flesh) is (also) forbidden to him. "but roasted in fire": What is the intent of this? I might say: What is (more) fit for roasting should be roasted. It is, therefore, written "but (i.e., exclusively) roasted in fire,"
(Exodus 12:10) "And you shall not leave over anything of it until the morning, and what is left over of it until the morning, in fire shall you burn it." What is the intent of (the seemingly redundant) "until the morning"? To set a bound for the morning of morning (i.e., that he may eat it (only) until the rising of the morning star, and not until sunrise). Variantly: What is the intent of "until morning"? To teach that it is not burned until the eve of the sixteenth (of Nissan).
R. Yishmael says: This is not necessary, for it is written (Ibid. 16) "No labor shall be done in them" (the festival days), and burning is in the category of "labor." What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? If the eve of the sixteenth occurred on Shabbat, it is not burned until the seventeenth.
R. Yonathan says: This is not necessary, if where all ochel nefesh overrides the festival — the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach does not override the festival, then, where partial ochel nefesh does not override the Sabbath, how much more so should the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach not override the Sabbath! What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? To set a bound for the morning or morning (see above).
R. Yitzchak says: (A verse) is not necessary (to tell us that left-overs of the Pesach may not be burned on the festival). For if the burning of chametz, which is interdicted in being seen or being found, does not override the festival, how much more so should the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach not override the festival. What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? As stated above.
(שמות יב,ז) ["וְלָקְחוּ מִן הַדָּם, וְנָתְנוּ עַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם."] "וְלָקְחוּ מִן הַדָּם". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, בֵּין בַּיָּד בֵּין בַּכֶּלִי! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות יב,כב) "אֲשֶׁר בַּסַּף", מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁעוּקָה חוֹקֵק בְּצַד הָאַסְקֻפָּה,*עוּקָה: חפירה; אַסְקוּפָּה: סף הבית. וְשׁוֹחֵט בְּתוֹכָהּ. וְאֵין 'סַף' אֶלָּא אַסְקֻפָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (יחזקאל מג,ח) "בְּתִתָּם סִפָּם אֶת סִפִּי, וּמְזוּזָתָם אֵצֶל מְזוּזָתִי, וְהַקִּיר בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיהֶם, וְטִמְּאוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי בְּתוֹעֲבוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, וָאֲכַל אֹתָם בְּאַפִּי." וְאוֹמֵר (ישעיה ו,ד) "וַיָּנֻעוּ אַמּוֹת הַסִּפִּים". דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
(Exodus 12:7) "And they shall take from the blood": I might think either by hand or by vessel; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 22) "And you shall dip it in the blood which is in the saf," whereby we are apprised that he digs out a trough in the lintel and slaughters (the lamb, [the blood dripping]) into it, "saf" signifying a lintel, as in (Ezekiel 43:8) "When they placed their threshold ('sipam') next to My threshold," and (Isaiah 6:4) "And the posts of the threshold ('sippim') shook." These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין 'סַף' אֶלָּא כְּלִי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (מלכים א ז,נ) "וְהַסִּפּוֹת וְהַמְזַמְּרוֹת וְהַמִּזְרָקוֹת וְהַכַּפּוֹת וְהַמַּחְתּוֹת זָהָב סָגוּר, וְהַפֹּתוֹת לְדַלְתוֹת הַבַּיִת הַפְּנִימִי לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, לְדַלְתֵי הַבַּיִת לַהֵיכָל, זָהָב."
R. Akiva says: "saf" signifies a vessel, as in (I Kings 7:50) "And the 'sippoth' and the snuffers, and the basins and the spoons, etc."
"וְנָתְנוּ עַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף", מִבִּפְנִים. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִבִּפְנִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִבַּחוּץ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות יב,יג) "וְרָאִיתִי אֶת הַדָּם", הַנִּרְאֶה לִי, וְלֹא הַנִּרְאֶה לַאֲחֵרִים. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
(Exodus 12:7) "And they shall place it on the two side posts and on the lintel": on the inside. You say on the inside, but perhaps on the outside (is meant)? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 13) "And I will see the blood" — blood which is seen by Me and not by others. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִבִּפְנִים. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִבִּפְנִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִבַּחוּץ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות יב,יג) "וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת", לָכֶם לְאוֹת וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים לְאוֹת. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם מִבַּחוּץ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמִּצְרִיִּים רוֹאִין וּמֵעֵיהֶן מִתְחַתְּכִין.*וּמֵעֵיהֶן מִתְחַתְּכִין: מצטערים מאוד על שחיטת השה שהוא עבודה זרה שלהם.
R. Nathan says: On the inside. You say on the inside, but perhaps on the outside? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the blood will be for you as a sign" — for you and not for others. R. Yitzchak says: On the outside — so that the Egyptians see (their gods being slaughtered), and their insides be "ripped apart!"
"וְנָתְנוּ עַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אִם הִקְדִּים זֶה לַזֶּה, לֹא יָצָא! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות יב,כב) "וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת", הָא אִם הִקְדִּים זֶה לַזֶּה, יָצָא. נִמְצֵינוּ לְמֵדִין שֶׁשְּׁלֹשָׁה מִזְבְּחוֹת הָיוּ לאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם: הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וּשְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעָה הָיוּ: הַסַּף וְהַמַּשְׁקוֹף וּשְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת.
"And they shall place it on the two side posts and on the lintel": I might think that if he placed (the blood on) one before the other, he has not fulfilled his obligation. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 22) "and you shall touch the lintel and the two doorposts," (to teach that even) if he reversed the order, he has fulfilled his obligation. We hereby learn that our forefathers in Egypt had three altars — the lintel and two door-posts. R. Shimon says: Four: the saf, the lintel, and two door-posts.
"עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם." אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בָּתִּים שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין אוֹתוֹ בָהֶם, בָּתִּים שֶׁהָיוּ יְשֵׁנִים בָּהֶם, מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם שָׁם", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
("and on the lintel) of the houses in which they eat it": This tells me only of the latter. Whence do I derive (the same for) the houses which they slept in? From (Ibid. 13) "upon the houses where you are" — in any event.
(שמות יב,ח) ["וְאָכְלוּ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, צְלִי אֵשׁ וּמַצּוֹת עַל מְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ."] "וְאָכְלוּ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר". בָּשָׂר, וְלֹא גִידִים וְלֹא עֲצָמוֹת וְלֹא קַרְנַיִם וְלֹא טְלָפִים.
(Exodus 12:8) "And they shall eat the flesh": "the flesh" — but not sinews or bones, horns or hooves.
"בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כָּל הַלַּיְלָה! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְלֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר", אֲנִי אֶקְרָא (שמות יב,י) "וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ." לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר "עַד בֹּקֶר"? לֹא בָא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לִתֵּן תְּחוּם לְבָקְרוֹ שֶׁלַּבֹּקֶר, וְאֵי זֶה זֶה? זֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: (משנה ברכות א,א; אבות א) "אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים וַאֲכִילַת זְבָחִים וְהֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. כָּל הַנֶּאֱכָלִים לְיוֹם אֶחָד, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר." וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ "עַד חֲצוֹת"? כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק אָדָם מִן הָעֲבֵרָה, וְלַעֲשׂוֹת סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה, וּלְקַיֵּם דִּבְרֵי אַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: (אבות א,א) "הֱווּ מְתוּנִין בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה!" רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן 'לַיְלָה' וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן 'לַיְלָה', מַה לְּהַלָּן עַד חֲצוֹת, אַף כָּן עַד חֲצוֹת.
"on this night": I might think, the entire night; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 10) "You shall not leave over anything of it until morning, and what is left over of it until morning, in fire shall you burn." What is the intent of (the seemingly superfluous) "until morning"? To set a bound for "the morning of morning." And which is that? The (rising of the) morning star. From here they ruled: The eating of the Paschal lamb and the eating of (other) sacrifices, and the burning of fats and limbs — their mitzvah is until the rising of the morning star. All that is to be eaten in one day — their mitzvah is until the rising of the morning star. And why did they rule ("only) until midnight"? To distance a man from transgression and to make a fence for the Torah and to fulfill the words of the men of the Great Assembly, who said: "Be deliberate in judgment, and set up many disciples, and make a fence for the Torah." R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: It is written here "on this night," and elsewhere (Ibid. 12) "And I shall pass through the land of Egypt in this night." Just as there, until midnight, so, here, until midnight.
"צְלִי אֵשׁ". וְלֹא צְלִי שְׁפוּד, וְלֹא צְלִי אֶסְכָלָה,*אֶסְכָלָה. eskhára: רשת מעל גחלים, מנגל. וְלֹא צְלִי חַרְסוֹ שֶׁלַּתַּנּוּר, אֶלָּא צְלִי אֵשׁ.
(Exodus 12:8) "roasted in fire": and not roasted on a spit, and not roasted on a grill, and not roasted in an earthenware oven (cleared of its coals), but roasted in fire, in its raw state.
"צְלִי אֵשׁ", הַצָּלוּי מִן הַחַי. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר הַצָּלוּי מִן הַחַי, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַצָּלוּי מִן הַמְבֻשָּׁל? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות יב,ח) "כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ", הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "צְלִי אֵשׁ"? הַצָּלוּי מִן הַחַי.
You say this, but perhaps (the intent is) something which is cooked (before it is roasted)? It is, therefore, written "roasted in fire," connoting that which is roasted raw.
"צְלִי אֵשׁ וּמַצּוֹת עַל מְרֹרִים". הוֹסִיף לוֹ הַכָּתוּב שְׁתֵּי מִצְווֹת, חוּץ מִן הַמִּצְוָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָּן בְּגוּפוֹ. וְאֵי זֶה זֶה? זֶה (שמות יב,מו) "וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ."
"with matzoth and maror (bitter herbs) shall they eat it": Scripture here teaches us that the mitzvah of Pesach is matzoh, roasted (flesh), and maror.
"צְלִי אֵשׁ וּמַצּוֹת עַל מְרֹרִים". מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב שֶׁמִּצְוַת הַפֶּסַח צְלִי אֵשׁ, מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר. וּמְנַיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁאִם אֵין לָהֶם מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר, הֵן יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בַּפֶּסַח? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "יֹאכְלֻהוּ." אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר, הֵן יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בַּפֶּסַח, כָּךְ אִם אֵין לָהֶם פֶּסַח, יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: הוֹאִיל וְהַפֶּסַח מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, אִם לָמַדְתָּ, שֶׁאִם אֵין לָהֶם מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר, הֵן יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בַּפֶּסַח, כָּךְ אִם אֵין לָהֶם פֶּסַח, יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר.
And whence is it derived that in the absence of matzoh and maror one fulfills his obligation with the Pesach? From "shall they eat it" (in any event). I might think that if one does not have a Pesach he fulfills his obligation with matzoh and maror, and that it follows, viz.: (The eating of the) Pesach is a positive commandment and matzoth and maror is a positive commandment. Just as in the absence of matzoh and maror one fulfills his obligation with the Pesach, so, in the absence of the Pesach one fulfills his obligation with matzoh and maror.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: (במדבר ט,יא) "עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ." מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: הַפֶּסַח נֶאֱכָל אֲכִילַת שֹׂבַע, וְאֵין מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר נֶאֱכָלִין אֲכִילַת שֹׂבַע.
It is, therefore, written "with matzoth and maror shall they eat it" (i.e., the eating of the Pesach is a categorical requirement for fulfillment of the obligation.) Variantly: "with matzoh and maror shall they eat it": From here they ruled: The Pesach is to be eaten in a state of satiety, but matzoh and maror are not (necessarily) to be eaten in a state of satiety.
(שמות יב,ט) ["אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נָא, וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל בַּמָּיִם, כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ, רֹאשׁוֹ עַל כְּרָעָיו וְעַל קִרְבּוֹ."] "אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נָא", אֵין נָא אֶלָּא חַי.
(Exodus 12:9) "Do not eat of it na": "na" is "raw."
"וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל", לְחַיֵּב עַל הַחַי וְעַל הַמְבֻשָּׁל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְחַיֵּב עַל הַחַי וְעַל הַמְבֻשָּׁל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְחַיֵּב עַל הַחַי וְעַל הַמְבֻשָּׁל בְּיוֹתֵר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ". הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל"? לְחַיֵּב עַל הַחַי וְעַל הַמְבֻשָּׁל.
"and vashel mevushal": to make one liable (both) for what is raw and for what is cooked. You say this. But perhaps (the meaning is) to make him liable for what is overly roasted? It is, therefore, written, "but roasted in fire." How, then, is "vashel mevushal" to be understood? As (to make him liable for) what is raw and what is cooked.
"וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל בַּמָּיִם". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַיִם, שְׁאָר כָּל הַמַּשְׁקִין מְנַיִן? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה, אִם מַיִם, שֶׁאֵינָן מְפִיגִין אֶת טַעְמָן,*מְפִיגִין אֶת טַעְמָן: מוציאים את טעמם בבישול. הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרִין בְּבִשּׁוּל, שְׁאָר הַמַּשְׁקִין, שֶׁהֵן מְפִיגִין אֶת טַעְמָן, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהוּ אֲסוּרִין בְּבִשּׁוּל.
"or cooked in water": This tells me only of water. Whence do I derive (the same for) other liquids? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to cook it in water, which does not impart its taste (to the flesh), how much more so other liquids, which do impart their taste!
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַיִם, שְׁאָר כָּל מַשְׁקִין מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל", לְהָבִיא שְׁאָר הַמַּשְׁקִין.
R. Akiva says: This tells me only of water. How do I derive (the same for) other liquids? It is, therefore, written "uvashel mevushal," (which conveys the sense of "no matter what it is cooked in), to include (as forbidden) other liquids.
*מאמר קשה. ע' פירוש בהורביץ ע' 21.רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֲנִי אֶקְרָא 'אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ', וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "נָא וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל בַּמָּיִם"? שֶׁיָּכֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא בֶּאֱכֹל צְלִי, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא נָא וּמְבֻשָּׁל; מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל", לְחַיֵּב עָלָיו מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.
Rebbi says: I can read "Eat of it only roasted in fire." Why "raw and vashel mevushal"? For I might then think that it is only when he is commanded to eat it roasted (i.e., at night) that he is forbidden to eat it raw or cooked. Whence would I derive (the same for) the daytime? It is, therefore, written "uvashel mevushal" (connoting "whenever it is cooked").
"וּבָשֵׁל", אֵין 'בָּשֵׁל' אֶלָּא צְלִי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים טז,ז) "וּבִשַּׁלְתָּ וְאָכַלְתָּ". וְאוֹמֵר: (דברי הימים ב לה,יג) "וַיְבַשְּׁלוּ הַפֶּסַח בָּאֵשׁ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט, וְהַקֳּדָשִׁים בִּשְּׁלוּ בַּסִּירוֹת וּבַדְּוָדִים וּבַצֵּלָחוֹת, וַיָּרִיצוּ לְכָל בְּנֵי הָעָם." מִכָּן הָיָה רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמְבֻשָּׁל אָסוּר בַּצְּלִי.
"uvashel": "bashel" (here refers to flesh that was) roasted (before, the understanding being that it is forbidden to cook it even if it had been roasted previously), as in (Devarim 16:7) "And you shall cook (i.e., roast) it and you shall eat it," and (II Chronicles 35:13) "And they cooked (i.e., roasted) the Pesach in fire as prescribed; and the holy (offerings) they cooked in pots, cauldrons, and pans, and they dispatched them to all the people." From here R.Yoshiyah said: If one takes a vow not to eat "mevushal," roasted (flesh) is (also) forbidden to him. "but roasted in fire": What is the intent of this? I might say: What is (more) fit for roasting should be roasted. It is, therefore, written "but (i.e., exclusively) roasted in fire,"
"כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ, רֹאשׁוֹ עַל כְּרָעָיו וְעַל קִרְבּוֹ." לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר, הָרָאוּי לִשְׁלֹק, יִשְׁלֹק, הָרָאוּי לִצְלוֹת, יִצְלֶה! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ, רֹאשׁוֹ עַל כְּרָעָיו וְעַל קִרְבּוֹ", תּוֹךְ וּבַר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מְקֻלָּס.*מְקֻלָּס: צלוי כולו. אולי מ- makellon: שוק הבשר.
(what is) inside and what is outside. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: It (the spit, should be) "helmeted" (with the head).
(שמות יב,י) ["וְלֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר, וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר, בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ."] "וְלֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר", הָא אִם הוֹתִיר, עָבַר עַל מִצְוָה. שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהֵי כָּשֵׁר! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ." אֲנִי אֶקְרָא 'וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ', לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר "עַד בֹּקֶר"? אֶלָּא בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִתֵּן תְּחוּם לְבָקְרוֹ שֶׁלַּבֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: "עַד בֹּקֶר", מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׂרָף אֶלָּא אוֹר שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר.
(Exodus 12:10) "And you shall not leave over anything of it until the morning, and what is left over of it until the morning, in fire shall you burn it." What is the intent of (the seemingly redundant) "until the morning"? To set a bound for the morning of morning (i.e., that he may eat it (only) until the rising of the morning star, and not until sunrise). Variantly: What is the intent of "until morning"? To teach that it is not burned until the eve of the sixteenth (of Nissan).
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות יב,טז) "כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶם", וּשְׂרֵפָה, מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה הִיא. וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "עַד בֹּקֶר"? אֶלָּא אִם חָל אוֹר שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת, מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׂרָף אֶלָּא עַד אוֹר שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר.
R. Yishmael says: This is not necessary, for it is written (Ibid. 16) "No labor shall be done in them" (the festival days), and burning is in the category of "labor." What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? If the eve of the sixteenth occurred on Shabbat, it is not burned until the seventeenth.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וּמָה, אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁכָּל אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ דּוֹחֶה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב, אֵין שְׂרֵפַת נוֹתָר דּוֹחָה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מִקְצָת אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵי שְׂרֵפַת נוֹתָר דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "עַד בֹּקֶר"? בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִתֵּן תְּחוּם לְבָקְרוֹ שֶׁלַּבֹּקֶר.
R. Yonathan says: This is not necessary, if where all ochel nefesh overrides the festival — the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach does not override the festival, then, where partial ochel nefesh does not override the Sabbath, how much more so should the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach not override the Sabbath! What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? To set a bound for the morning or morning (see above).
רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וּמָה אִם חָמֵץ, שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל יֵרָאֶה וּבְבַל יִמָּצֵא, אֵין שְׂרֵפָתוֹ דּוֹחָה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב, נוֹתָר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּבַל יֵרָאֶה וּבְבַל יִמָּצֵא, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵי שְׂרֵפַתוֹ דּוֹחָה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב? הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "עַד בֹּקֶר"? לָעִנְיָן שֶׁאֲמַרְנוּ.
R. Yitzchak says: (A verse) is not necessary (to tell us that left-overs of the Pesach may not be burned on the festival). For if the burning of chametz, which is interdicted in being seen or being found, does not override the festival, how much more so should the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach not override the festival. What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? As stated above.