Bava Metzia 115b (קטו:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection concerning this:

Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree in the same dispute as Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda?

It is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: “You shall not eat of it raw, nor cooked in water, but only roasted over fire” [Exodus 12:9].

As Rava said:

If

one ate

the Paschal offering while the meat was still

raw,

meaning that it was not properly roasted but only partially roasted,

he receives two sets of lashes,

one

because of

“You shall not eat of it

raw,” and

one

because of “but only roasted over fire.”

And likewise, if one ate the meat when it was

cooked, he receives two sets of lashes,

one

because of

“You shall not eat of it

cooked,” and

one

because of “but only roasted over fire.”

But if one ate it when it was

raw and cooked,

for example, he roasted it slightly and afterward cooked it,

he receives three sets of lashes,

one

because of

“You shall not eat of it

raw,” and

one

because of

“You shall not eat of it

cooked,” and

one

because of “You shall not eat it except roasted over fire.”

Abaye said:

If one ate it raw or cooked, he receives one set of lashes, either because of “You shall not eat of it raw” or because of “You shall not eat of it cooked”; and if one ate it raw and cooked, he receives two sets of lashes. But for the end of the verse, as it is written, “but only roasted over fire,” one does not receive lashes,

because

one does not receive lashes for a general prohibition.

A prohibition that includes several prohibitions within it—for example, here, where “but only roasted over fire” includes two prohibitions, not to eat it raw and not to eat it cooked [but only roasted over fire]—does not result in lashes for either of them.

And the Gemara discusses this:

Shall we say that Abaye, who said

that one does not receive lashes because of “but only roasted over fire,” since it includes several prohibitions, holds

in accordance with Rav Yehuda,

who said that one does not receive lashes because of “for he is taking the life” since it includes the prohibition against seizing any article used in preparing food?

And Rava, who said

that one does receive lashes because of “but only roasted over fire,” holds

in accordance with Rav Huna,

who said that one does receive lashes because of “for he is taking the life.”

Rava could have said to you: I, who say

that one receives lashes for eating it raw and cooked also because of “but only roasted over fire,”

even in accordance with Rav Yehuda

do I hold.

For

Rav Yehuda said this only there,

that one does not receive lashes for “for he is taking the life,”

but

because

the

verse

“for he is taking the life” does not indicate

that it is speaking of one who seizes

a pair of millstones and a riding mill. Therefore,

Rav Yehuda held that this verse came

to

one who seizes

other articles

that are used in preparing food;

that is what it came to address.

But here,

with regard to the Paschal offering, what purpose does the verse

“but only roasted over fire” serve?

We have already learned from the preceding verse that it must be eaten specifically roasted, since it has already been excluded by “You shall not eat of it raw,” whose meaning is that it may not be eaten in any manner other than fully roasted. If so, certainly the conclusion of the verse, “but only roasted over fire,” did not come to introduce a prohibition concerning something else. Rather,

infer from it

that the verse came

to

add a

prohibition

against one who eats it raw or cooked.

And Abaye could have said to you: I, who say

that one does not receive lashes because of “but only roasted over fire,” since it is a general prohibition,

even according to Rav Huna

do I say this.

For

Rav Huna said this only there,

that one receives lashes for the prohibition of “You shall not seize collateral, for he is taking the life,”

but

because

the

verse

“for he is taking the life,”