Pesachim 82

Chapter 82

א לוקה שתים מבושל לוקה שתים נא ומבושל לוקה שלש

1 he is flagellated twice;1 if he ate it boiled, he is flagellated twice;2

ב אביי אמר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות

2 [if he ate] semi-roast and boiled, he is flagellated thrice. Abaye said: We do not flagellate on account of an implied prohibition.

ג איכא דאמרי תרתי הוא דלא לקי חדא מיהת לקי

3 Some maintain: He is not indeed flagellated twice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is flagellated on account of the direct prohibition, 'Eat not of it semi-roast', or, 'nor boiled', he is not flagellated on account of the implied interdict too.');">3 but he is nevertheless flagellated once.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: E.g., he who boils it in the hot springs of Tiberias. Since there is no explicit injunction, we fall back upon the implied injunction. Tosaf.: If he was merely warned against violating the injunction, 'Eat not of it . . but roast with fire'.');">4

ד איכא דאמרי חדא נמי לא לקי דלא מייחד לאויה כלאו דחסימה

4 Others say. He is not even flagellated once, because [Scripture] does not particularize its interdict, like the interdict of muzzling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXV, 4. This is an interdict explicitly forbidding a particular action, and this is the model of all interdicts the disregard of which involves flagellation, since it immediately follows the law of flagellation (ibid. v. 3) . But the interdict of 'eat not of it . . but roast with fire' doe not particularize any method of preparation as forbidden.');">5

ה רבא אמר אכל זג לוקה שתים חרצן לוקה שתים זג וחרצן לוקה שלש

5 Raba said: If he [a nazirite] ate the husk [of grapes]. he is flagellated twice; if he ate the kernel, he is flagella twice; [for] the husk and the kernel, he is flagellated thrice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. VI, 4: All the days of his naziriteship he shall eat nothing that is made of the grape vine, from the kernels eaten to the husk. According to Raba, the kernels and the husk are explicitly prohibited, while they are also included in the implied prohibition of 'he shall eat nothing that is made of the grape vine', and the offender is flagellated on account of each.');">6

ו אביי אמר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות איכא דאמרי תרתי הוא דלא לקי חדא מיהת לקי איכא דאמרי חדא נמי לא לקי דלא מייחד לאויה כלאו דחסימה

6 Abaye maintained: We do not flagellate on account of an implied prohibition - Some say: He is indeed not flagellated twice, but he is nevertheless flagellated once.7 Others maintain: He is not even flagellated once, because [Scripture] does not particularize its interdict, like the interdict of muzzling.

ז ת"ר אכל כזית נא מבעוד יום פטור כזית נא משחשיכה חייב אכל כזית צלי מבעוד יום לא פסל עצמו מבני חבורה כזית צלי משחשיכה פסל עצמו מבני החבורה

7 Our Rabbis taught: If he ate as much as an olive of semi-roast [paschal offering] before nightfall,8 he is not culpable; [if he ate] as much as an olive of semi-roast flesh after dark, he is culpable.

ח תניא אידך יכול אכל כזית נא מבעוד יום יהא חייב ודין הוא ומה בשעה שישנו בקום אכול צלי ישנו בבל תאכל נא בשעה שאינו בקום אכול צלי אינו דין שישנו בבל תאכל נא

8 If he ate as much as a olive of roast meat before nightfall, he does not disqualify himself from [being one of] the members of the company;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each paschal offering had to be eaten by one company, the members of which had registered for that particular animal. It might not be eaten by two companies, while on the other hand no man might eat in two separate places. It is now taught that if he eats some roast meat before nightfall, he is not disqualified from eating elsewhere with his company after nightfall, the earlier eating not being regarded as eating of the paschal offering in this sense.');">9 [if he eats] as much as an olive of roast meat after dark,10

ט או לא בשעה שאינו בקום אכול צלי ישנו בבל תאכל נא בשעה שישנו בקום אכול צלי אינו בבל תאכל נא

9 he disqualifies himself from [being one of] the members of his company. Another [Baraitha] taught: You might think that if he ate as much as an olive of semi-roast before nightfall he should be culpable; and it is a logical inference: if when he is subject to [the precept] 'arise and eat roas [flesh]',11

י ואל תתמה שהרי הותר מכללו אצל צלי

10 he is subject to [the interdict] 'do not eat it semi-roast'; then when he is not subject to [the prec 'arise and eat roast', is it not logical that he is subject to [the interdict] 'do not eat it semi-roast? ' Or pe is not so:12 when he is not subject to [the precept].'

יא תלמוד לומר (שמות יב, ט) אל תאכלו ממנו נא ובשל מבושל במים כי אם צלי אש שאין תלמוד לומר כי אם צלי אש ומה תלמוד לומר כי אם צלי אש לומר לך בשעה שישנו בקום אכול צלי ישנו בבל תאכל נא בשעה שאינו בקום אכול צלי אינו בבל תאכל נא

11 arise and eat roast', he is subject to, 'do not eat it semi-roast', [while] when he is subject to [the precept],arise and eat roast', he is not subject to [the interdi 'do not eat it semi-roast', and do not wonder [threat], for lo! it was freed13 from its general interdict in respect to roast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even roast paschal offering is not permitted before nightfall, as it is written, 'and they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire', which implies, but not before; at night this implied prohibition is lifted. Hence we might argue: granted that the general interdict is not lifted at the outset in respect of semiroast too, yet if he ate it he is not liable to punishment.');">14

יב רבי אומר אקרא אני בשל מה ת"ל מבושל שיכול אין לי אלא שבישלו משחשיכה בשלו מבעוד יום מנין תלמוד לומר בשל מבושל מכל מקום

12 Therefore it is stated, 'Eat not of it semi-roast'; nor boiled at all [bashel mebushshal] wi water, but roast with fire'. Now, 'but roast with fire' should not be stated;15

יג והאי בשל מבושל אפקיה רבי לצלי קדר ולשאר משקין

13 then why is 'but roast with fire' stated? To teach you: When he is subject [to the command].'

יד אם כן לימא קרא או בשל בשל או מבושל מבושל מאי בשל מבושל שמעת מינה תרתי

14 Arise and eat roast', he is [also] subject to 'Eat not of it semi-toast'; when he is not subject to [the command].' Arise and eat roast', he is not subject to, 'Ea not of it semi-roast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I. e., flagellation for eating semi-roast meat of the paschal offering is incurred only on the evening of the fifteenth, when one is bidden to eat the roast of the Passover sacrifice, but not on the day of the fourteenth, before the obligation commences.');">16

טו תנו רבנן אכל צלי מבעוד יום חייב וכזית נא משחשיכה חייב

15 Rabbi said: I could read 'bashel'; why is 'mebushshal' stated [too]? For I might think, I only know it17

טז קתני צלי דומיא דנא מה נא בלאו אף צלי בלאו

16 where he boiled it after nightfall. Whence do we know it if he boiled it during the day?18

יז בשלמא נא כתיב אל תאכלו ממנו נא אלא צלי מנלן

17 Therefore it is stated, 'bashel mebushshal', [implying] in all cases. But Rabbi has utilized this 'bashel mebushshal' in respect of [flesh] roast[ed] in a pot and [flesh boiled] in other liquids?19

יח דכתיב (שמות יב, ח) ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה בלילה אין ביום לא

18 - If so,20 let Scripture say either bashel bashel or mebushshal mebushshal:21

יט האי לאו הבא מכלל עשה הוא וכל לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה

19 why 'bashel mebushshal'? Hence you infer two things from it.

כ אמר רב חסדא הא מני

20 Our Rabbis taught: If he ate roast [paschal offering] during the day. he is culpable; and [if he ate] as muc as an olive of semi-roast after nightfall, he is culpable. [Thus] he teaches roast similar to half-roast: just a semi-roast [after nightfall] is [interdicted] by a negative injunction, so is roast [before nightfall] subject t negative injunction. As for half-roast, it is well: it is written, 'Eat not of it semi-roast'. But whence do we know[the negative injunction for] roast? Because it is written, 'And they shall eat the flesh in that night': on at night, but not by day. But this is a negative injunction deduced by implication from an affirmative command, and every negative injunction deduced by implication from an affirmative command is [technically] an affirmative command?22 - Said R'Hisda, The author of this

Previous Chapter Next Chapter