Korban Pesach - Chapter 8

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 56) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 6) include this as one of 613 mitzvot in addition to the mitzvah to offer the sacrifice. As stated in Hilchot Avodah Sarah 12:3, women are also obligated in this mitzvah.
Ma’aseh Nissim, sec. 5, raises the question: Since the entire purpose of offering the Paschal sacrifice is to partake of it, why are offering it and partaking of it considered as two mitzvot? (See Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9, which states that when the fulfillment of a command involves two activities, they should be considered as a single mitzvah.)
Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam’s son, explains that his father considered the two activities as separate mitzvot because the times when they must be fulfilled are different. The Paschal sacrifice is offered during the daytime and it cannot be eaten until after nightfall. Also, the punishments associated with the negation of these commands are different. One is liable for karet for failing to offer the Paschal sacrifice, but not for failing to partake of it.

The Mechilta derives this concept from the conclusion of the prooftext which states: “shall you partake of it,” implying that, when there is no other alternative, partaking of “it,” the Paschal sacrifice is sufficient.

I.e., there is no Scriptural mitzvah. Our Sages, however, instituted the mitzvah of partaking of bitter herbs on Pesach night (see Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 7:12). It is, however, a Scriptural mitzvah to partake of matzah independent of the Paschal sacrifice, for Exodus 12:18 states: “In the evening, you will partake of matzot” (ibid. 6:1).

For this is a sign that one ascribes importance to the food that one is eating last (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Kessef Mishneh interprets the comments of the Mechilta on the verse from Exodus cited above as implying that after one eats his fill of matzot and bitter herbs, he should partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 13, there is no obligation to bring a festive offering. The matter is left to the person’s choice.

The measure associated with most mitzvot and transgressions associated with eating. Even if he is not satiated, eating this measure fulfills the mitzvah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 58) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 381) include this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

Although it is forbidden to eat a lesser amount prepared in these prohibited manners, one is liable only for partaking of an olive-sized portion or more.

I.e., the first or the second Pesach.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 125) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 7) include this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

See the definition of this term in Halachah 6.

See Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., which quotes the discussion in Pesachim 41a as to whether the two charges are considered as separate prohibitions or not. See also Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2 which explains why this prohibition is not considered as “a prohibition of a general nature.” Were it to have been placed in that category, one would not be liable for lashes at all.

It is, however, forbidden to do so, and one also violates a positive commandment, as stated in the following halachah.

I.e., after nightfall.

And thus is not punishable by lashes.

For he did not violate a prohibition.

Implied is that this is not the desirable way of fulfilling the commandment (Pesachim 42b). As long as the meat is fit for consumption, however, he fulfills his obligation (Meiri).

I.e., although the verse explicitly mentions “cooked in water,” the repetition of the root implies that one is also liable for cooking in other liquids.

Even without water, but allowing it to cook in its own juices (Rashi, Pesachim 40a). See the Kessef Mishneh which explains the Rambam’s interpretation of that passage so that his rulings here do not appear contradictory.

I.e., putting on the floor of either a stone or metal oven.

I.e.; the intent is that the meat should be roasted with the heat of the fire itself and not from an object that becomes hot from the fire and then cooks the meat.

The Ra’avad qualifies this statement saying that the perforated utensil must not touch the meat of the Paschal sacrifice. If it does, the place where contact was made must be removed before partaking of the meat. The Kessef Mishneh debates whether or not the Rambam would accept this point.

Using the heat radiated from the walls of the oven to roast the sacrifice.

For the fire has already been removed and the heat is considered merely a derivative of fire (see Pesachim 75a).

In contrast to the ordinary practice of roasting it whole, as stated later on in the halachah. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 11.

Even though there is no apparent fire, the burning coals are considered to be fire and not the derivatives of fire.

This is a somewhat hypothetical question, because there are no such hot springs in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem.

Although these substances have natural warmth from the earth’s element of fire, this is not considered as fire in a simple sense.

Because wood is a poor conductor of heat and will not roast the meat on its own.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:1), the Rambam writes that pomegranate wood does not emit any sap at all when heated. The commentaries explain that although a pomegranate spit is preferable, a spit of any type of wood is acceptable.

In contrast to skinning of a thin layer of meat as required by the previous halachah, here it is necessary to cut off a portion the thickness of a finger. This is necessary because the fat of the juice will cause it to penetrate the thickness of the meat.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:2), the Rambam explains that the flour is forbidden because it absorbed the juice of the Paschal sacrifice and it is forbidden to partake of any portion of the Paschal sacrifice that is not connected to the body of the sacrifice itself.

Which may be eaten only by priests in a state of ritual purity.

Who are forbidden to partake of terumah.

To remove the oil.

To remove both the remnants of the oil and also the water, because it is forbidden to apply water to it, as stated in Halachah 8 (Har HaMoriah).

I.e., if the oil had been applied while the sacrifice was being roasted or afterwards, while it was still hot.

Because it absorbed the oil which is forbidden to a non-priest. Only the outer portion is forbidden for this reason.

Which must be eaten in a state of holiness in Jerusalem.

Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 2:8. It is forbidden to sell produce of the second tithe even if it will be eaten while upholding all the restrictions associated with this produce.

And thus the Paschal sacrifice would be eaten by persons who were not enumerated on it.

Even though they would not normally become intermingled, because they are two different species, our Sages instituted this safeguard to prevent companies from roasting their sacrifices together.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:8; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:12, Chapter 10, Halachah 14, in these halachot. (Significantly, the other two sources do not mention the Paschal sacrifice explicitly.)

This safeguard is a Rabbinic decree, lest they partake of it after dawn and become liable for karet.

For when a mitzvah applies at night, it applies the entire night (Megilah 2:6; see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah).

Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 8:10 with regard to the recitation of Halle!; and 8:14, with regard to not eating after waking.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 15.

As explained in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah, this applies only when: a) all the members of the company fell asleep; and b) their sleep was so sound that they would not respond to questions posed to them.