Pesachim 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda:

When you said, “The halakha is in accordance with the Sages,” what did you mean? Did you also mean

ḥaroses

—yes,

Master—

that, in your view, the Sages permit even in the case of ḥaroses?

Or

perhaps you meant specifically

mustard—

yes,

Master!

But with regard to ḥaroses, even according to the Sages it must be burned.

He said to him,

Rav Huna:

What practical difference is there?

There is no difference between them.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: We find

that Rav Kahana

distinguished between them.

For Rav Kahana said: The dispute

concerns one who puts flour

into mustard. But

one who puts it

into ḥaroses must, according to everyone, burn it immediately!

He said to him:

That statement of Rav Kahana

has not been heard by me; that is, I do not agree with it!

Rather, in the case of ḥaroses as well, the Sages permitted eating it immediately. And the halakha is in accordance with them.

Rav Ashi said: Rav Kahana’s position is more reasonable,

for the Sages permitted eating immediately only in the case of flour placed in mustard, but not in ḥaroses. This is demonstrated

by what Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who said, with regard to barley that had split, “Soak it in vinegar, and the vinegar seals it”—rather, even when it is soaked in vinegar, it becomes leavened.

And Rav Ashi concluded his proof:

Is it not

from the fact that vinegar

does not seal

the barley and does not prevent the barley that has swollen from becoming leavened, that we may infer that it

also causes leavening!

It hastens the leavening of flour placed in it initially. Evidently, Shmuel holds like Rav Kahana: flour placed in ḥaroses must be burned immediately because of the vinegar in it.

And we reject this:

No,

Shmuel is not a proof.

Perhaps

he said only that the vinegar

does not seal.

It does not prevent the wheat from becoming leavened because of the water absorbed during soaking, before it was put into the vinegar. But

we do not

say that it

causes leavening!

It merely does not prevent leavening, but it does not hasten it either. It can still be said that if one put flour into ḥaroses, according to the Sages it may be eaten immediately.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not cook

the Paschal offering, neither in liquids nor in fruit juice!

The Sages taught:

It is written: “You shall not eat of it raw or cooked

in water.”

I know only

that it is prohibited to eat it cooked in

water.

From where

do I know concerning other liquids

that it is prohibited?

You can say: It is a kal va-chomer

:

If water, which does not

diminish

the

flavor

of the Paschal offerings,

is prohibited

for cooking the Paschal offering in it—

other liquids,

which

diminish

the

flavor

of the Paschal offerings,

all the more so

is it prohibited to cook it in them.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “Or cooked

in water”

in water”

is written.

I know only

that cooking in

water

is prohibited.

From where do I know concerning

other liquids?

The verse states: “Cooked, thoroughly cooked”—in every manner! It would have sufficed for it to write, “You shall not eat of it raw or cooked.” The word “cook” is superfluous, and we derive from it that cooking in other liquids is also prohibited.

We inquire:

What is the difference between them,

between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? What practical difference is there whether other liquids are included through a kal va-chomer or through a superfluous word?

And we answer:

The difference between them is roasted in a pot!

This is when the Paschal offering is cooked in a pot without adding water or another liquid; it cooks in the liquid released from the meat itself. According to the Sages, who prohibit other liquids through a kal va-chomer, that kal va-chomer does not apply here, since the liquids released from its own body do not diminish its flavor. Therefore it is permitted to eat it.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who derives the prohibition of other liquids from the superfluous words “cooked, thoroughly cooked,” even the liquid released from the meat itself is included in this prohibition.

We inquire:

And the Sages,

who prohibit cooking in liquids through a kal va-chomer,

what do they do with this

“cooked, thoroughly cooked”

and its apparent superfluity?

And we answer:

They need it

for this superfluous expression

to

derive from it

the

innovation stated in the beraita.

As it was taught: If they

If one

cooked it

for Passover, even though

afterward they roasted it,

he receives lashes for the prohibition “cooked, thoroughly cooked in water.”

Or,

even if

he roasted it and afterward cooked it, he is liable

for eating it, because of the stated prohibition. This is derived from the fact that it does not say merely “cooked,” but “cook, thoroughly cooked.”

We inquire:

Granted,

the statement

“If he cooked it and afterward

roasted it, he is liable”,

is readily understandable,

for

since before

he cooked it,

it had already become prohibited to eat.

But

“If he roasted it and afterward cooked it”—it

has already

been roasted over fire.

Cooking is no longer applicable to it.

Why, then,

are they liable for eating it?

Rav Kahana said: This

beraita

is the position of Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that cooking after baking is possible!

As it was taught: One fulfills

the obligation of matza

with a wafer soaked

in a cooked dish after it has been baked. Even though it dissolves in the dish, it is still called “bread” so long as it has not completely dissolved.

And

one likewise fulfills the obligation

with

a wafer

cooked

after it was baked,

so long as it has not dissolved!

Although something is called “bread” only when it is baked, and matza must be “the bread of affliction,” one fulfills the obligation with it, because it was baked. Cooking after baking is not considered cooking and does not remove its status as “bread”—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: One fulfills the obligation with a soaked wafer,

because it was baked.

But one does not

fulfill the obligation

with

a wafer

that was cooked, even though it has not dissolved!

Because cooking after baking nullifies its status as bread.

Evidently, Rabbi Yosei holds that cooking after baking is possible. The same applies: cooking after roasting is possible. Therefore, a Paschal offering that he roasted and afterward cooked is properly considered cooked. Consequently, one receives lashes for eating it. Ulla said: Even if you say that the beraita concerning the Paschal offering is the opinion of

Rabbi Meir, it can still be understood well. Although generally there is no cooking after roasting,

here it is different,

in the case of the Paschal offering,

as the verse says,

“cook, thoroughly cooked

in water.” From this we include cooking

in every manner!

Even cooking after roasting prohibits the Paschal offering from being eaten; it is a decree of the verse.

The Sages taught: One might have thought that if

he roasted it

for Passover

completely, he would be liable

to lashes for eating it, because it is no longer called “roasted over fire,” but rather scorched and burned.

completely, he should be liable

for lashes for eating it, because it is no longer called “roasted over fire,” but rather scorched or burned.

The verse states: “You shall not eat of it raw or cooked, thoroughly cooked in water.”

Specifically,

“raw” [lightly roasted] and “cooked, thoroughly cooked”

I told you

not to eat. But

I did not

prohibit a Paschal offering

that he roasted completely.

We inquire:

What are the circumstances of “he roasted it completely,” such that it occurred to us that it would be prohibited to eat?

Rav Ashi said: It is where

he made it completely charred

[burned].

where he made it completely charred

[burned]!

The Sages taught: One might have thought that if

he ate an olive-bulk of it raw

[not roasted at all] of the Paschal offering,

he would be liable to lashes? —

The verse states: “You shall not eat of it raw or cooked, thoroughly cooked

in water.”

“Raw”

and “cooked”

I told you

that one receives lashes for them. But

I did not

make one liable for lashes for meat that is

raw.

One might have thought it is entirely permitted

to eat it raw?

—

The verse states: “You shall not eat of it raw, and so on,

only roasted over fire, with its head, its legs, and its innards!” This is as though it were written: You shall not eat it when it is not roasted. Anyone who eats it without roasting violates this prohibition. However, this is a general prohibition, since several matters are included in the prohibition of “not roasted.” One does not receive lashes for a general prohibition.

except roasted over fire, its head with its legs and its innards.” This is as though it were written: You shall not eat from it when it is not roasted. Anyone who eats it without roasting transgresses this prohibition. But this is a general prohibition, because several matters are included in the prohibition of eating it “unroasted.” One is not flogged for a general prohibition.

to eat it raw altogether? —

The verse states: “

You shall not eat from it raw, etc.”

but only roasted over fire, its head with its legs and its entrails!” And this is as though it were written: You shall not eat from it when it is not roasted. And anyone who eats it without roasting transgresses this prohibition. But it is a comprehensive prohibition, because several matters are included in the prohibition of “not roasted.” And one does not receive lashes for a comprehensive prohibition.

We inquire:

What are the circumstances of “raw”? Rav said: It is like the sort of roasting that the Persians call “avranim”! That is what it is called in their language; in the Holy Tongue it is called “raw.”

Rav Ḥisda said: One who cooks

in the boiling springs of

the hot springs of Tiberias

on Shabbat is

exempt!

One is liable for “cooking” only when cooking on a fire or on something derived from fire.

But

a Paschal offering cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias

is

liable

for eating it! And it occurred to us that he receives lashes because of the prohibition “cooked, thoroughly cooked in water.”

We inquire:

What is different about Shabbat, where he is not

liable? It is because

we require a derivative of fire

for it to be considered “cooking.”

And

in the hot springs of Tiberias

there is

none. If so,

with regard to the Paschal offering as well, one should be exempt when cooking it there, since

it is not a derivative of fire,

and is not considered cooking.

Rava said: What

is the meaning of

“liable”

that

Rav Ḥisda

said? It is not because of the prohibition “cooked, thoroughly cooked.” Rather,

he violates

the prohibition, “You shall not eat of it … only

roasted over fire”!

He also receives lashes for it, because he holds that one receives lashes for a general prohibition.

and it is not considered cooking.

Rava said: What

“liable”

did

Rav Ḥisda say? — Not because of the prohibition of “cooked, cooked.” Rather,

he transgresses because of

the prohibition of “You shall not eat, etc., but only

roasted over fire”! And he also receives lashes for it, because he holds that one receives lashes for a comprehensive prohibition.

Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Natan, teaches this statement of Rav Hisda explicitly,

as Rava explained it.

And thus he taught:

Rav Hisda said: One who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt. And a Pesach offering that he cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias

renders him liable to lashes,

because

he transgressed the prohibition of

the negative commandment

“roasted over fire”!