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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Rava said: One who ate the Paschal lamb partially roasted,