Bava Metzia 230
לימא אביי ורבא בפלוגתא דרב הונא ורב יהודה קמיפלגי
Shall we say that Abaye and Raba differ in the same controversy as R. Huna and Rab Judah? For Raba said: If one ate it [the Paschal sacrifice] half roasted, he is flagellated twice: once on account of [the injunction against] half-roast [flesh]. and again because of the verse, [Eat not…] but roast with fire. [If he ate it] boiled, he is flagellated twice: once because of the prohibition against boiled [flesh], and again because of the Verse, [Eat not…] but roast with fire. For both half-roast and boiled, he is flagellated thrice, on account of [the injunction against] half-roast, boiled, and the injunction, Eat not … but roast with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to: Eat not of it raw, nor sodden (i.e., boiled) at all with water, but roast with fire, Ex. XII, 9. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
דאמר רבא אכל נא לוקה שתים משום נא ומשום (שמות יב, ט) כי אם צלי אש מבושל לוקה שתים משום מבושל ומשום כי אם צלי אש נא ומבושל לוקה שלש משום נא ומשום מבושל ומשום לא תאכלנו כי אם צלי אש
Abaye said: One is not flagellated on account of an implied prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thou shalt not eat it save roast with the fire: this is not a direct prohibition of a particular method of preparation, but includes everything that is not 'roast with the fire.' ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אביי אמר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות לימא אביי דאמר כרב יהודה ורבא דאמר כרב הונא
Shall we assume that Abaye agrees with Rab Judah, Raba with R. Huna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the hypothesis that the phrase, for he taketh a man's life to pledge, which specifies no article, is likewise a general or implied prohibition, and R. Huna rules that it involves flagellation, whereas Rab Judah holds that it does not. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמר לך רבא אנא דאמרי אפילו כרב יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר רב יהודה התם אלא דכי נפש הוא חובל לא משמע ריחים ורכב הלכך לשאר דברים הוא דאתא
— Raba can answer you: My ruling agrees even with Rab Judah's. It is only there that Rab Judah maintains [his view], because, 'for he taketh a man's life,' does not [necessarily] imply the nether and the upper millstones; hence it must refer to other things: But here, what is the purpose of 'save roast with the fire'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For semi-roasting and boiling includes every manner of preparation except roasting, and these are explicitly forbidden. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אבל הכא כי אם צלי אש למאי אתא ש"מ ללאו
Hence it must be for [the addition of] a negative precept. Abaye can argue likewise: My ruling agrees even with R. Huna's. It is only there that R. Huna maintains [his view], because 'for he taketh a man's life'