Bava Metzia 115b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

Let us say that Abaye and Rava disagree in the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda.

It is stated concerning the Passover offering: “You shall not eat from it raw, or cooked in water, but only fire-roasted” [Exodus 12:9].

For Rava said:

If

he ate

the Passover offering when the meat was still

raw,

not properly roasted, but only partially roasted,

he receives two sets of lashes,

one

because of “

You shall not eat from it

raw,” and

one

because of “but only fire-roasted.”

And likewise, if he ate the meat when it was

cooked, he receives two sets of lashes,

one

because of “

You shall not eat from it

cooked,” and

one

because of “but only fire-roasted.”

But if he ate it when it was

raw and cooked,

such as he roasted it slightly and afterward cooked it,

he receives three sets of lashes,

one

because of

“You shall not eat from it

raw,” and

one

because of

“You shall not eat from it

cooked,” and

one

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

Abaye said:

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

because

one does not receive lashes for a negative commandment that includes generalities.

A negative commandment that includes within it several prohibitions, such as here, where “but only fire-roasted” includes two negative commandments: not to eat it raw and not to eat it cooked [but only fire-roasted]; one does not receive lashes for either of them.

And the Gemara discusses:

Let us say that Abaye, who said

that one does not receive lashes because of “but only fire-roasted,” because it includes within it several prohibitions, held

in accordance with Rav Yehuda,

who said that one does not receive lashes because of “for it is a life that he takes as collateral,” because it includes within it the prohibition of taking as collateral every implement necessary for the preparation of food,

and Rava, who said

that one receives lashes because of “but only fire-roasted,” held

in accordance with Rav Huna,

who said that one receives lashes because of “for it is a life that he takes as collateral.”

Rava could say to you: I, who say

that there are lashes for one who eats it raw and cooked also because of “but only fire-roasted,”

even in accordance with Rav Yehuda

I hold.

For

Rav Yehuda said only there,

that one does not receive lashes for “for it is a life that he takes as collateral,”

because

of the fact that

the

verse

“for it is a life that he takes as collateral” does not indicate

that it is speaking of one who takes as collateral

a millstone and an upper millstone. Therefore

Rav Yehuda held that this verse

for

one who takes as collateral

other things,

which are necessary for the preparation of food,

it came,

but here,

with regard to the Passover offering, what does that which is written

“but only fire-roasted” come for?

For 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 from it raw,” whose meaning is that it may not be eaten in any manner other than completely roasted. If so, surely the conclusion of the verse, “but only fire-roasted,” did not come to introduce a prohibition concerning something else. Rather,

infer from it

that the verse came

to

add a

negative commandment

concerning one who eats it raw or cooked.

And Abaye could say to you: I, who say

that one does not receive lashes because of “but only fire-roasted,” because it is a negative commandment that includes generalities,

I say this even in accordance with Rav Huna.

I hold.

For

Rav Huna said only there,

that one receives lashes for the negative commandment of “You shall not take as collateral, for it is a life that he takes as collateral

but

because

the

verse

“for it is a life that he takes as collateral,”