Clarification: One cannot ask from the Reisha, where it touched the earthenware of the oven which require K'lifah,

Clarification (cont.): Even according to what we at first thought that it is speaking by where the earthenware is cold.

Reason #1: Since everyone agrees that the bottom one absorbs at least K'dei K'lifah.

Reason #1(cont.): And likewise after it has been slightly heated, it cooks the Pesach a K'dei K'lifah.

Reason #2: Alternatively, since it states 'Naga', we do not know whether it touched at the top or at the bottom ...

Reason #2 (concl.): Whereas here, where it says 'Nataf', it implies at the bottom.

Reason #3: Alternatively, the earthenware of the oven is definitely hot; whereas the Seifa, which simply says 'Cheres', we would have thought that it is cold.

Refutation: But this is not correct, because 'Cheres' implies the earthenware of the oven.

Question: According to the opinion that holds 'Ila'ah Gavar', why does the Pesach not become Asur on account of the spit-rod, in which case the area around the spit-rod ought to need Netilah?

Answer #1: The Ri explains that a wooden spit-rod does not collect the heat like earthenware and flour.

Answer #2: The inside it is not as hot as the outside.

Text: Most texts, including that of Rabeinu Chananel read 'And when the gravy returns to the Pesach, the Pesach is roasted due to the heat of the earthenware.

Question: Why does the Gemara not give the reason that the Pesach has now absorbed Isur?

Answer: It seems that when it says 'and the Pesach is roasted', it is really referring to the gravy, since it says 'due to the ... earthenware. And had it been referring to the Pesach, it ought to have said 'due to the gravy'.

Text #1: The Text in all the Sefarim and in that of Rabeinu Chananel reads 'It will suffice to remove a Shi'ur Netilah'.

Text #2: Rashi however, erases it ...

Reason: Because, he asks, seeing as the flour causes whatever falls into it to cool down, what Isur can there be in the gravy?

Refuted Answer: It is a Dochek to say that it speaks where the flour belongs to a different group, and the gravy is forbidden to them because they have not been designated on it.

Reinstatement of Text #1: Rabeinu Tam however, retains the original text.

Reason: Since it can only be speaking where the gravy was not fully-roasted and therefore falls under the category 'Na' ...

Reason (cont.): Because had it been fully roasted it could no longer become Pasul on account of its being roasted because of something else (other than fire).

Implied Question: And cooking after roasting is forbidden?

Answer: Specifically in water - on account of the Ribuy of "u'Basheil Mevushal" - 'no matter what', as the Gemara explains at the end of 'Kol Sha'ah' (above, Daf 41.), but in anything else, not.

Proof: This must be the case, because otherwise it would be forbidden to cut the Pesach with a knife, as long as it is hot, since it will then heat the knife, and the knife will re-heat the Pesach, rendering it 'Tz'li Machmas Davar Acher'.

Proof (concl.): The answer is that once the Pesach has been fully roasted, it cannot become Pasul for this reason.

Question: Still, why do we forbid the flour for this reason? Why not bake it and roast the gravy at the same time?

Answer: Because then the gravy will be 'Tz'li Machmas DavarAcher', seeing as it will then be roasted by the heat of the flour.

Question: According to this however, it is unnecessary to conclude earlier (on the Amud) 'and the flour then heats up the gravy', since why attribute the Isur to 'Tz'li Machmas Davar Acher', seeing as the Isur 'Na' already exists?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the Gemara is happy to mention every Isur that it can.

Answer (concl): However above, in the case where the gravy dripped on to the earthenware, we do not have the text "be'Yiklof es Mekomo Sagi', since it is possible to roast it together with the gravy. Rabeinu Chananel too, does not have it in his text.

Clarification: It speaks where he anointed it after it has been roasted, and it did not remain long in the oven ...

Proof: Because otherwise, due to the heat of the oven, it would become absorbed in the meat, even according to those who hold 'Ila'ah Gavar'.

Question: Why does the Gemara see fit to cite this Beraisa?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that it comes to teach us that even milk is permitted. Even though, normally hot into cold requires K'lifah, there where it is possible, there where it is not (such as in milk), it is permitted (without K'lifah).

Proof: Since it does not mention that the milk is Asur, in the way that it mentions K'lifah with regard to the meat.

Refutation: The Riva disagrees however, and requires sixty times the K'lifah in order for the milk to be permitted.

Question: According to Rashi, who explains that Levi permits only Bedi'eved, what is the Gemara asking, bearing in mind that the Beraisa is speaking Lechatchilah, and that Bedi'eved it is permitted, like Levi?

Question: What exactly is the Gemara asking, seeing as Rav only forbids a mixture of bodies there where they are both weak, where there is therefore no mixture of tastes?

P'sak Halachah #1: It is from here that Rabeinu Tam Paskens like Rav, and even Rava (in Avodah-Zarah, Daf 66.) who permits 'bas Tiyha', can hold like him (as Tosfos explains there).

P'sak Halachah #2: And in our large ovens one is permitted to bake bread together with Pashtida, because, seeing as they are well covered, they are like two pots; and even 'Paldunash' which has a strong smell, Rebbi does not think that it will be forbidden, since there is a lot of space in the oven, which allows the steam to spread (and dissipate).

Refutation of Text: We do not have the text 'Seeing as is has Tashlumin (one is obligated to make up for not bringing it in its time).

Reason: Since that is not a reason (for it not to override Tum'ah) ...

Proof #1: Because above, in Perek Eilu Devarim (Daf 70:) we learn that it does not override Shabbos from the Pasuk "Vechagosem ... ".

Proof #2: Moreover, Pesach too, has Tashlumin on Pesach Sheini, yet it overrides Tum'ah.

Proof #3: Furthermore, there is an opinion in this Perek (Daf 80.) which maintains that the Chagigah of the fifteenth does not have Tashlumin, there where the owner becomes Tamei, that if the owner becomes Tamei on the fifteenth and is not fit to bring it on the day that he is Chayav to bring it, it has no Tashlumin.