Menachot 58b (נח:) — the Talmud in English

And

therefore Abaye held that there is

a

prohibition against

burning

leaven even when that burning is

less than an olive-bulk.

And Rava said: A kometz is not less than two olive-bulks

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

and

therefore Rava held that

there is no

prohibition against

burning

leaven when it is

less than an olive-bulk.

It was stated: One who offers

a mixture made

of leaven and honey

together

upon the altar—

Rava said:

He receives four sets of lashes for such an offering:

He is lashed because he

offers

leaven, and he is lashed because he

offers

honey. He is lashed because of a mixture of leaven, and

he is also lashed

because of a mixture of honey.

This means that Rava held that the derivation from “all,” which prohibits a mixture of leaven or honey with other substances, constitutes an additional prohibition for which one receives lashes.

Abaye said: One does not receive lashes for a general prohibition!

For the derivation “all” stated with regard to leaven includes both leaven itself and mixtures of leaven, and likewise the derivation “all” stated with regard to honey includes both honey itself and mixtures of honey. And it is an established principle that one does not receive lashes for a general prohibition; therefore, he does not receive lashes for the prohibitions involving the mixtures.

There are two versions of the Gemara concerning Abaye’s view:

Some say: For one of them, at least, he receives lashes.

For the prohibition against offering leaven and honey themselves, without their mixtures, is not considered a general prohibition, despite the fact that it includes both leaven and honey. Rather, it is as though it had been written: “You shall not offer leaven, and you shall not offer honey.” Therefore, he receives two sets of lashes, one for the leaven and one for the honey [when it says, “For one of them, at least, he receives lashes,” this means one of the two involving leaven—leaven itself and its mixture—and one of the two involving honey—honey itself and its mixture].

And some say: He does not receive even one set of lashes, for its prohibition is not designated as specifically as the prohibition against muzzling.

For the law of lashes for all prohibitions is derived from the fact that the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it threshes is juxtaposed in the verse to the passage concerning lashes; from this we learn that one receives lashes for every prohibition resembling the prohibition against muzzling. Therefore, one does not receive lashes for a general prohibition, because such a prohibition does not resemble the prohibition against muzzling, which is a specific prohibition, and not a general prohibition.

Had it been explicitly written that one may not offer leaven, mixtures of leaven, honey, and mixtures of honey, he would receive lashes for each and every one, even though all the particulars were included in a single prohibition. This is similar to the kohen who marries a widow, a divorcee, a ḥalala, or a zona: he receives lashes for each particular, despite the fact that they are included in a single prohibition. Since they are explicitly stated in the verse, it is as though each had been written as a separate prohibition. But here, where it is written “all leaven” and it is written “all honey,” and we derive the inclusion of mixtures of leaven and mixtures of honey from the derivation of “all,” this prohibition, which includes leaven and mixtures of leaven, and honey and mixtures of honey, is considered a general prohibition, for which one does not receive lashes at all.