Menachot 58b — the Talmud in English

And

therefore Abaye held that

has

a prohibition of

burning

sourdough even when that burning is

less than an olive-bulk.

And Rava said: A kometz is no less than two olive-bulks

and therefore, even when we derive from “all” that half a kometz is included, it is still of the measure of an olive-bulk,

and

therefore Rava held that

there is no

prohibition of

burning

sourdough when it is

less than an olive-bulk.

It was stated: One who brings up

a mixture that is made

of sourdough and honey

together

upon the altar—

Rava said:

He is flogged for such bringing up four sets of lashes:

he is flogged on account of

bringing up

sourdough, and he is flogged on account of

bringing up

honey. He is flogged on account of a mixture of sourdough, and

he is also flogged

on account of a mixture of honey.

That is, Rava held that the inclusion of “all,” which prohibits a mixture of sourdough or honey with other things, is an additional prohibition for which one is flogged.

Abaye said: One is not flogged for a negative commandment that includes several matters!

For the inclusion “all” stated with regard to sourdough includes both the sourdough itself and mixtures of sourdough, and likewise the inclusion “all” stated with regard to honey includes both the honey itself and mixtures of honey. And it is established for us that one is not flogged for a negative commandment that includes several matters; therefore, he is not flogged for the prohibitions of the mixtures.

And two formulations of the Gemara disputed Abaye’s view:

There are those who say: For one, at least, he is flogged.

For the prohibition against burning the sourdough and honey themselves, without their mixtures, is not considered a negative commandment that includes several matters, even though it includes both the sourdough and the honey; rather, it is as though it were written: “You shall not burn sourdough, and you shall not burn honey.” Therefore, he is flogged twice, once for the sourdough and once for the honey [the meaning of what it says, “For one, at least, he is flogged,” is one out of the two of sourdough and its mixture, and one out of the two of honey and its mixture].

And there are those who say: He is not flogged even once, for its prohibition is not singled out like the prohibition of muzzling.

For the law of lashes for all the negative commandments is learned from the fact that in the verse the prohibition against muzzling an ox during its threshing was juxtaposed to the passage of lashes, and from it we learn that one is flogged for every negative commandment resembling the prohibition of muzzling. Therefore, one is not flogged for a negative commandment that includes several matters, because this negative commandment does not resemble the prohibition of muzzling, which is a particular negative commandment, and not a negative commandment that includes several matters.

Had it been explicitly written that one may not burn sourdough, mixtures of sourdough, honey, and mixtures of honey, he would be flogged for each and every one, even though all the particulars are enumerated in one negative commandment; just as the koen who marries a widow, a divorced woman, a woman rendered disqualified, and a prostitute is flogged for each particular, despite the fact that they are included in one negative commandment. Since they are explicit in the verse, it is as though each one had been written as a separate negative commandment. But here, where it is written “all sourdough,” and it is written “all honey,” and we derive mixtures of sourdough and mixtures of honey as well from the exposition of “all,” this negative commandment, which includes both sourdough and mixtures of sourdough, and also honey and mixtures of honey, is considered a negative commandment that includes several matters, for which one is not flogged at all.