Pesachim 41b (מא:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

with regard to the Paschal offering, if one

ate it raw,

then he is

liable to lashes

for it,

two.

One because of the prohibition: “You shall not eat from it raw,” and one because of: “You shall not eat it, etc., except roasted over fire.”

And likewise, one who eats it

cooked is liable to two lashes.

One because of: “It shall be cooked, cooked in water,” and one because of: “Except roasted over fire.”

And one who eats from it

a kezayit of raw and

a kezayit

of cooked meat is liable to three

sets of lashes: one because of “You shall not eat from it raw,” one because of “It shall be cooked, cooked,” and one because of “roasted over fire.”

Abaye said: One is not lashed for the prohibition of “You shall not eat it, etc., except roasted over fire,” because it is a general prohibition.

For it includes several methods of cooking that are not roasting, as well as raw meat. And one is not lashed for a general prohibition!

Therefore, if one ate it raw or cooked, he is liable to only one set of lashes.

Two approaches were stated concerning Abaye’s position.

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

If he is already liable to lashes because of raw or cooked meat, he does not incur an additional set of lashes because of “except roasted over fire.” But where the eating involves no other prohibition—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 receive even one set of lashes!

One is never lashed for a general prohibition, because

its prohibition is not designated

for a specific manner, and it is not

like the prohibition of muzzling

the ox.

The source of the punishment of lashes for all the prohibitions in the Torah is the juxtaposition of the prohibition “You shall not muzzle an ox while it threshes” to the section concerning lashes. Therefore, any prohibition that is not similar to the prohibition of muzzling is not punishable by lashes.

We likewise find that they disputed concerning the prohibition of a nazirite. For it is written: “All the days of his nazirite status, from everything made from the grapevine, from grape seeds to grape skin, he shall not eat.” For Rava said:

A nazirite who

ate grape skin

[the peel of a grape]

receives two sets of lashes.

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

And likewise, if he ate

a grape seed

[the seed of a grape],

he receives two sets of lashes.

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

And if he ate

grape skin and a grape seed, he receives three sets of lashes.

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

And

Abaye said: “From everything made from the grapevine” is a general prohibition.

For it includes various forms of eating, such as fresh or dried grapes, grape skin, grape seeds, grape leaves, and grape tendrils. And

one is not lashed for a general prohibition!

Some say

according to Abaye’s opinion:

It is only two that he does not receive lashes for!

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

And some say:

He does not receive

even one set of lashes

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

Nevertheless, even according to Abaye, if he ate grape skin and a grape seed, he receives two sets of lashes. Although they were 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, since each one is specified separately. It is as though the verse had written “he shall not eat” separately with regard to each of them.

The Sages taught:

One who

ate a kezayit of raw meat

of the Paschal offering, if he ate it

while it was still day,

before the night of the fifteenth, is exempt from lashes.

This is because the time for eating the Paschal offering had not yet arrived. The source of this law will be explained below.

And if he ate

a kezayit of raw meat after nightfall,

on the night of the fifteenth, he is

liable

to lashes, since the time of the Paschal offering had already arrived.

It is established that the Paschal offering may not be eaten in two places. If one ate from the Paschal offering in one place, he may no longer eat it in another place, as it is written: “In one house shall it be eaten.” And likewise, the Paschal offering may not be eaten by two groups. If one 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 this: “It shall be eaten by one group.”

But if he

ate

from the Paschal offering

a kezayit of roasted meat

[in accordance with the proper preparation and the halakha]

while it was still day,

before the time for eating it,

he did

not disqualify

himself

from eating the Paschal offering that night with

the members

of

the other group to which he had registered, or from eating it in another place. This is because eating before its proper time is not considered eating.

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

a kezayit of roasted meat after nightfall,

when the time for eating it had already arrived, then he

disqualified

himself

from eating with

the members of the other group

or from eating it in another place.

Another baraita was taught: It might have been thought

that if one

ate a kezayit of raw meat while it was still day, he would be liable?

For this is a

kal va-homer

:

Just as when

the mitzva

“Arise, eat roasted meat”

[on the night of the fifteenth] applies, the prohibition

“Do not eat raw meat”

also applies,

when the mitzva

“Arise, eat roasted meat”

does not apply [on the fourteenth], is it not certainly the case that the prohibition

“Do not eat raw meat”

applies?

Or perhaps this is not so, but rather the matter should be understood differently: specifically while it is still day, when he is

not at the time of

the mitzva

“Arise, eat roasted meat,”

the prohibition

“Do not eat raw meat”

applies. But on the night of the fifteenth, when he is

at the time of “Arise, eat roasted meat,”

perhaps the prohibition

“Do not eat raw meat”

does not apply.

And do not be surprised

by this, for it is more reasonable in this way.

For on the night of the fifteenth,

the prohibition was

permitted in its general scope

with regard to the Paschal offering

in the case of roasted meat.

Therefore, it may be said that one is not lashed for eating it raw [although such eating is prohibited ab initio]. This is unlike eating it while it is still day, when the Paschal offering was not permitted for eating at all, even when roasted, as it is written: “And you shall eat the meat on this night.” Thus, eating it raw is more severe, and one is lashed for it.

The baraita concludes: The law is not in accordance with either of the two proposed approaches. For

the verse states: “You shall not eat from it raw or cooked, cooked in water, but only roasted over fire.”

There would be no need for the verse to state

“but only roasted over fire,”

since the preceding verse already states: “And they shall eat the meat on this night, roasted over fire, and matzot.”

And what does the verse come to teach

by stating “but only roasted over fire”?

—

To tell you: When “Arise, eat roasted meat” applies, “Do not eat raw meat” applies.

But

when “Arise, eat roasted meat” does not apply,

even

“Do not eat raw meat” does not apply.

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.

teach? It teaches you: When “Arise and eat roasted meat” applies, “Do not eat raw meat” applies.

But

when “Arise and eat roasted meat” does not apply,

there is

also no prohibition of “Do not eat raw meat.”

And what does the verse come to teach

by stating “cooked”?

One might have thought that I know only

that one is liable for eating it

if he cooked it after nightfall,

since that is the primary time of the Paschal offering. But if he

cooked it while it was still day, how

do we know that he receives lashes if he ate it at night?

The verse states: “It shall be cooked, cooked,”

in every case !

Even if he cooked it while it was still day, he is lashed for eating it.

And we challenge this: But this “It shall be cooked, cooked,” he expounded [the verse] to teach that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is liable even for roasting in a pot [cooking in its own juices], and to teach that he is liable when cooked in other liquids, not only when cooked in water. And we answer: If so, [if the verse comes to teach only the law of roasting in a pot],

because that is the principal time of the Paschal offering. But if he

cooked it while it was still day, how

do I know that he is flogged if he eats it at night?

The verse states: “Cooked, cooked,”

in every case!

Even if he cooked it while it was still day, he is flogged for eating it.

let the verse say either

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

The superfluity would then suffice to derive both roasting in a pot and cooking in other liquids.

What, then, is the significance of “It shall be cooked, cooked”?

Rather, you may learn two teachings from it

—from the difference in wording between “cooked” and “cooked,” we also derive that even if he cooked it before nightfall, he receives lashes for eating it.

The Sages taught: One who ate

a kezayit of

roasted meat

from the Paschal offering

while it was still day

[on the fourteenth] is

liable

to lashes! The reason for his liability will be explained below.

And

likewise, one who eats

a kezayit of raw meat after nightfall,

on the night of the fifteenth, is

liable

to lashes!

And we inquire concerning this:

It teaches

that the prohibition against eating

roasted meat

while it is still day is

analogous to

the prohibition against eating

raw meat

after nightfall.

Just as the prohibition against

raw meat

at night is

a prohibition,

so too the prohibition against eating

roasted meat

while it is still day is

a prohibition. In both cases he is liable to lashes.

And we ask:

Granted, the prohibition against

raw meat

after nightfall is derived from what is

written:

“You shall not eat from it raw.”

But the prohibition against eating

roasted meat

while it is still day—

from where do we derive it?

And we answer: From what is

written concerning the Paschal offering:

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

And we expound:

At night,

of the fifteenth,

they may eat it; but

during the day,

of the fourteenth, they may

not eat it.

Granted, the

prohibition against

raw meat

after nightfall is derived from the fact that it is

written:

“You shall not eat any of it raw.”

We again ask:

But this prohibition was not written in the Torah in the language of a prohibition, but in the language of a positive commandment. It is

a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment.

And it is established that

every prohibition inferred from a positive commandment has the status of

a positive commandment!

It is not considered a prohibition. The practical consequence is that one does not receive lashes for it, as for the other prohibitions in the Torah.

concerning the Paschal offering:

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

And we interpret it:

At night

of the fifteenth,

yes,

they may eat it. But

by day,

on the fourteenth,

no,

they may not eat it.

And we question this further:

This prohibition

is not written in the Torah in the language of a prohibition, but in the language of a positive commandment. It is

a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment.

And

it is established:

Every prohibition inferred from a positive commandment

has the status of an

affirmative commandment!

It is not considered a prohibition, and the practical consequence is that one is not flogged for it, as one is for the other prohibitions in the Torah.