Pesachim 41a — the Talmud in English

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

Regarding what did you say, “The halakha is according to the Sages”? Is it also

the ḥaroset, you said

so

you, Master, say

and according to your view the Sages permit even [flour placed] in ḥaroset?

Or

perhaps, specifically

the mustard, you said

so

you, Master, say!

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

He said to him

Rav Huna:

What practical difference is there?

After all, there is no difference between them.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: We find

for the view of Rav Kahana

that he distinguished between them.

For Rav Kahana said: The dispute

is concerning one who places flour

into mustard. But

one who places it

into ḥaroset, according to everyone it must be burned immediately!

He said to him:

Rav Huna: The matter of Rav Kahana

was not heard by me; that is, I do not hold

like him! Rather, with ḥaroset as well, the Sages permitted eating it immediately. And the halakha is according to them.

Rav Ashi said: The view of Rav Kahana is reasonable,

for the Sages permitted eating immediately only with flour placed in mustard, and not with ḥaroset. For this is demonstrated

by what Shmuel said: The halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosei,

who said concerning barley that had split: “Soak it in vinegar, and the vinegar binds it!” Rather, even when it is soaked in vinegar, it ferments.

And Rav Ashi concluded his proof:

Is it not from the fact that

vinegar

does not bind

that it does not prevent the barley that has swollen from fermenting; learn from this that

it also causes fermentation!

And it hastens the fermentation of flour placed into it initially. It is apparent, then, that Shmuel holds like Rav Kahana: flour placed into ḥaroset must be burned immediately, because of the vinegar in it.

And we reject [this]:

No,

it is not a proof from Shmuel. For

perhaps

he said only that the vinegar

does not bind

and does not prevent the wheat from fermenting because of the water absorbed into it during its soaking, before it was placed into it. But

we do not

say that it

causes fermentation!

Rather, it does not prevent fermentation, but it also does not hasten it. And it is still possible to say that if one placed flour into ḥaroset, 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 from it raw, or cooked,

in water.”

I have only

that it is prohibited to eat it cooked in

water.

From

other liquids, from where

is it prohibited?

You say: It is a kal va-chomer.

It is so.

Just as water, which does not

diminish

the

taste

of the Paschal offerings,

is prohibited

to cook the Paschal offering in it—

other liquids,

which

diminish

the

taste

of the Paschal offerings,

all the more so

is it prohibited to cook it in them.

Rabbi says: “And cooked,

in water”

is written.

is written.

I have only

that cooking in

water

is prohibited. From

other liquids, from where?

The verse states: “And cooked, cooked,” in every case!

It would have sufficed for it to write: “You shall not eat from it raw or cooked.” Thus “cooked” is superfluous, and from it we include a prohibition even for other liquids.

It would have been sufficient for it to write: “You shall not eat from it raw or cooked.” The word “cooked” is therefore superfluous, and we derive from it that cooking in other liquids is also prohibited. And we inquire:

What is the difference between them,

between the Sages and Rabbi? And what practical difference is there whether we include other liquids by means of a kal va-chomer or from a superfluity?

And we answer:

The difference between them is tzeli keder!

This is when one cooks the Paschal offering in a pot, without adding water or another liquid. It cooks in the water emitted from the offering itself. According to the Sages, who prohibit other liquids by means of a kal va-chomer, here there is no kal va-chomer. For the liquids emitted from its body do not diminish its taste. Therefore it is permitted to eat it.

But according to Rabbi, who derives the prohibition of other liquids from the superfluity of “cooked, cooked,” even the water of the offering itself is included in this prohibition.

And we ask:

And the Sages,

who prohibit cooking in other liquids by means of a kal va-chomer,

this

“cooked, cooked”—what do they do with it

with this superfluity?

And we answer:

They require it

this superfluity

to

derive from it

as

the novel teaching brought in the beraita.

For it was taught:

If they

cooked it

for the Paschal offering, even though

afterward they roasted it,

he receives lashes because of the prohibition of “cooked, cooked in water.”

Or

even if

he roasted it and afterward cooked it, he is liable

for eating it because of the stated prohibition! And we derive this from the fact that it is not written “cooked” alone, but “cooked, cooked.”

And we ask:

Granted,

that which it teaches,

“He cooked it and afterward

roasted it, he is liable,”

this is properly reasonable.

For

since before

he cooked it,

it had already become prohibited to eat.

But

“he roasted it and afterward cooked it”—this

has already

been roasted over fire.

And cooking no longer applies to it.

And why

are they liable for eating it?

Rav Kahana said: This

beraita

is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that there is cooking after baking!

For it was taught: One fulfills

the obligation of matza

with a wafer that has been soaked

in a cooked dish after its baking! And although it dissolves in the cooked dish, it is still called “bread” as long as it has not dissolved completely.

And

one likewise fulfills the obligation

with

a wafer that has been

cooked

after it was baked,

as long as it has not dissolved!

And although “bread” is called only something baked, and with matza we require “the bread of affliction,” one fulfills the obligation with it, since it is baked. And the cooking after the baking is not considered cooking, and does not remove from it the status of “bread”—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

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

since it is baked.

But one does not

fulfill the obligation

with

a wafer that has been

cooked, even though it has not dissolved!

Because the cooking after the baking removes from it the status of bread.

It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is cooking after baking. And the same law applies: there is cooking after roasting. Therefore, a Paschal offering that he roasted and afterward cooked is properly considered cooked. Accordingly, one receives lashes for eating it.

Ulla said: You may even say

that the beraita concerning the Paschal offering is according to

Rabbi Meir, and it too is properly understood. For although ordinarily there is no cooking after roasting,

as the verse states,

here it is different,

with the Paschal offering,

for the verse says

“cooked, cooked

in water.” From it we include cooking

in every case!

And even cooking after roasting prohibits the Paschal offering in eating, and it is a decree of the verse.

The Sages taught: One might have thought

that even if

he roasted it

for the Paschal offering

as much as necessary he would be liable

to lashes for eating it, because it is not called “roasted over fire,” but rather lightly roasted and burned.

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

Specifically

“raw”

[slightly roasted]

and “cooked, cooked”

I told you

not to eat it. But

I did not

prohibit for you a Paschal offering

that he roasted as much as necessary.

And we ask:

What are the circumstances of “he roasted it as much as necessary,” that it entered our minds that it would be prohibited to eat?

[burned]!

Rav Ashi said: It is the case

where he made it charred

[burned].

The Sages taught: One might have thought

if

he ate an olive-sized portion raw

[which had not been roasted at all] from the Paschal offering,

he would be liable

to lashes? —

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

in water.”

“Raw”

and “cooked”

I told you

that lashes are given for them. But

I did not

make one liable to lashes for meat

raw.

One might have thought it would be permitted

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.

And we inquire:

And we ask:

What are the circumstances of

“raw”?

Rav said: It is

like

the

roasting

that the

a Paschal offering that he cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias

Persians call “avranim”!

For that is what it is called in their language. And 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!

For one is liable because of “cooking” only when he cooked on top of a fire or on something produced by fire.

But

a Paschal offering that he cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias

is

liable

for eating it! And it entered our minds that he receives lashes because of the prohibition of “cooked, cooked in water.”

And we ask:

What is different about Shabbat, that he is not

liable? Is it not

because we require something produced by fire

in order for it to be called “cooking”?

And

in the hot springs of Tiberias,

there is none.

If so, with

the Paschal offering as well

one should be exempt for cooking it in them, for

it is not something produced by fire,

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 he taught thus:

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

Tiberias, he is liable

to lashes,

because he transgressed on account of

a negative commandment

of “roasted by fire”!