Pesachim 41b — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

the Passover offering that

he ate raw,

he is

liable to lashes

for it

twice.

Because of “You shall not eat from it raw,” and because of “You shall not eat, etc., except roasted over fire.”

And likewise, one who eats it

cooked is liable to two lashes.

Because of “cooked, cooked in water,” and because of “except roasted over fire.”

And one who eats from it a kezayit

raw and

a kezayit

cooked is liable to three

sets of lashes! Because of “You shall not eat from it raw,” because of “cooked, cooked,” and because of “roasted over fire.”

Abaye said:

One is not lashed for the prohibition of “You shall not eat, etc., except roasted over fire,” because it is a general prohibition . For it includes several forms of cooking that are not roasting, and likewise raw meat. And

one is not lashed for a general prohibition !

Therefore, if he ate it raw or cooked, he is lashed only once .

And two approaches were stated in Abaye’s position.

Some say: it is only two that he does not receive lashes.

For if he is already lashed because of raw or cooked, he does not additionally receive lashes because of “except roasted over fire.” But where there is no other prohibition in the eating—for example, if he cooked it in the hot springs of Tiberias—

at least one

set of lashes he receives because of “roasted over fire,” even though it is a general prohibition .

And some say: he does not even receive one set of lashes!

For one is not lashed for a general prohibition at all, because

its prohibition is not designated

for a specific form, and it is not

like the prohibition of muzzling .

For the source of the punishment of lashes for all the prohibitions in the Torah is that the prohibition “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing” is juxtaposed to the section of lashes. Therefore, for every prohibition that is not similar to the prohibition of muzzling, one is not lashed.

And likewise we find that they disputed concerning the prohibition of a nazirite, as it is written: “All the days of his naziriteship, from everything that is made from the grapevine, from grape seeds to grape skins, he shall not eat.”

For Rava said:

A nazirite who

ate a grape skin [

the peel of a grape]

receives two sets of lashes.

One because of “he shall not eat the grape skin,” and one because of “from everything that is made from the grapevine.”

And likewise, if he ate

a grape seed [

the seed of the grape],

he receives two sets of lashes.

One because of “from grape seed to grape skin he shall not eat,” and one because of “from everything that is made from the grapevine.”

And if he ate

a grape skin and a grape seed, he receives three

sets of lashes: one because of “he shall not eat the grape skin,” one because of “from grape seeds, etc., he shall not eat,” and one because of “from everything that is made, etc., he shall not eat.”

And

Abaye said:

“From everything that is made from the grapevine” is a general prohibition, for it includes matters of eating, such as fresh or dried grapes, a grape skin, a grape seed, grape leaves, and grape tendrils. And

one is not lashed for a general prohibition!

Some say

in Abaye’s view:

it is only two that he does not receive lashes!

For if he has already become liable because of the grape skin, he does not again become liable because of the general prohibition. But if he ate leaves or tendrils of the vine, for which no specific prohibition is explicit, he receives at least one set of lashes for them, because of “from everything that is made.”

And some say:

Even

one set he does not receive

according to Abaye, because of “from everything that is made,” since its prohibition is not designated like the prohibition of muzzling.

However, even according to Abaye, if he ate a grape skin and a grape seed, he receives two sets of lashes. And although they are included in one prohibition, as it is written, “from grape seeds to grape skin he shall not eat,” they are not considered a general prohibition, for each one is specified separately. It is as though it were written, “he shall not eat,” separately for each one.

The Sages taught:

One who

ate a kezayit of raw meat

of the Passover offering, if he ate it

during the day,

before the night of the fifteenth, he is exempt from lashes, because the time for eating the Passover offering had not yet arrived. Below, the source of this law will be explained.

And if he ate

a kezayit of raw meat after dark,

on the night of the fifteenth, he is

liable

to lashes, for the time of the Passover offering had already arrived.

We hold as established: the Passover offering is not eaten in two places. One who ate from the Passover offering in one place may no longer eat it in another place, as it is written, “In one house shall it be eaten.” And likewise, the Passover offering is not eaten by two groups. If he ate it with one group, he may no longer eat it with the members of another group, for it is written, “In one house shall it be eaten,” and we translate it: “In one group shall it be eaten.”

But if he

ate

from the Passover offering

a kezayit of roasted meat [

in accordance with the correction of the Passover offering and its halakha]

during the day,

before the time of its eating,

he did not disqualify

himself

from

eating the Passover offering at night with

the members of

the

group

the other one with whom they had registered, or from eating it in another place, because eating before its time is not eating.

But if he ate from the Passover offering for which he was registered

a kezayit of roasted meat after dark,

when the time for its eating had already arrived, then

he disqualified

himself

from

eating with

the members of the group

the other one, or from eating in another place.

Another [baraita] was taught: Could it be

that if he

ate a kezayit of raw meat during the day, he would be liable? —

For

the

kal va-chomer

is

that he should become liable.

And just as at the time when there is

the mitzva of

“Arise,

eat roasted” [

the night of the fifteenth]

there is

the prohibition of

“do not eat raw,” at the time when there is not “arise, eat roasted” [

on the fourteenth], is it

not a logical conclusion that there is “do not eat raw”?!

Or not

shall this be said? Rather, it should be said differently. Specifically during the day, when it is

at a time when there is not

the mitzva of

“arise, eat roasted,”

then

there is

the prohibition of

“do not eat raw.”

But on the night of the fifteenth, when it is

at a time when there is “arise, eat roasted,”

perhaps

there is not “do not eat raw.”

And do not be surprised

by this, for this is more reasonable.

For

the night of the fifteenth

was permitted from its general rule

with regard to eating the Passover offering

when roasted.

Therefore, it should be said that one is not lashed even for eating it raw [although it is initially prohibited]. This is not so during the day, when the Passover offering was not permitted at all for eating, and even roasted it was still prohibited, as it is written, “And you shall eat the meat on this night”; its raw eating is more severe, and one is lashed for it.

And the baraita concludes: the law is not according to either of the two stated approaches. For

the verse says: “You shall not eat

from it raw or cooked, cooked in water, but roasted over fire.”

It was not necessary to state

“but roasted over fire,”

for the preceding verse already stated, “And they shall eat the meat on this night, roasted over fire, and unleavened bread.”

And what does

“but roasted over fire”

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is written concerning the Paschal offering: “It shall be cooked, cooked in water.” I could read “It shall be cooked in water” alone, and “cooked” would be a superfluous word.

come to teach? To tell you: at the time when there is “arise, eat roasted,” there is “do not eat raw.”

But

at the time when there is not “arise, eat roasted,”

there is also

not “do not eat raw.”

Rabbi says:

It is written concerning the Passover offering, “and cooked, cooked in water.”

I would read

“and cooked

in water” alone, and “cooked” is superfluous wording. And

what does

“cooked”

come to teach?

I might have only

that

one is liable for eating it when he

cooked it after dark,

since that is then the principal time of the Passover offering. But if he

cooked it during the day, whence

do we know that he is lashed if he ate it at night?

The verse says: “cooked, cooked,”

in any event !

And even if he cooked it during the day, he is lashed for eating it .

And we raise an objection:

And

behold,

this

“cooked, cooked,” he derived [

expounded]

Rabbi to

make one liable even for

pot-roasting [

cooking it in its own water], and

to

make one liable for

other liquids,

and not only when it was cooked in water.

And we answer:

If so [

if it comes for pot-roasting],

let the verse say either

“cooked, cooked in water,” or “cooked, cooked

in water.” For this superfluity would suffice to derive pot-roasting and other liquids.

What [then] is “cooked, cooked”?

Rather, you learn from it two expositions:

from the change in wording between “cooked” and “cooked,” we also derive that if he cooked it before dark, he is lashed for eating it.

The Sages taught: One who ate

a kezayit

of roasted meat

from the Passover offering

during the day [

on the fourteenth day], he is

liable

to lashes! And below it will be explained for what reason he is liable.

And

likewise, one who eats

a kezayit of raw meat after dark,

on the night of the fifteenth, is

liable

to lashes!

And we inquire about it:

It teaches

that the prohibition of eating

roasted meat

during the day is

analogous to

the prohibition of eating

raw meat

after dark.

Just as the prohibition of

eating

raw meat

at night is

a prohibition, so too

the prohibition of eating

roasted meat

during the day is

a prohibition.

And in both cases he is liable to lashes.

And we wonder:

Granted, the prohibition of

eating

raw meat

after dark, its source is that it

is written

“You shall not eat from it raw.”

But

the prohibition of eating

roasted meat

during the day,

from where do we know it?

And we answer: From

that which is written

concerning the Passover offering,

“And they shall eat the meat on this night.”

And we expound:

at night

of the fifteenth,

yes [

they shall eat it]. But

during the day

of the fourteenth,

no

shall they eat it.

And we again wonder: but

this prohibition

was not written in the Torah in the language of a prohibition, but in the language of a positive commandment. And it

is a prohibition derived from a positive commandment.

And

we hold as established:

every prohibition derived from a positive commandment

is governed as a

positive commandment!

And it is not considered a prohibition. The practical consequence is that one is not lashed for it like the other prohibitions in the Torah.