פסחים 41 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Do you say it in reference to haroseth. or do you say it in reference to mustard? What is the practical difference? asked he. — In respect to R. Kahana's [dictum] — For R. Kahana said: The controversy is [about putting flour] into mustard; but [if it was put] into haroseth, all agree that it must be burnt immediately. I have not heard it, he replied to him, as if to say, I do not agree with it. R. Ashi said: Logic supports R. Kahana, since Samuel said: The halachah is not as R. Jose. Surely then, since it [vinegar] does not bind, it does indeed cause fermentation? — No: perhaps it neither binds nor promotes fermentation. ONE MAY NOT BOIL etc. Our Rabbis taught: [Eat not of it raw, nor boiled at all] with water: I only know [that it may not be boiled] in water; whence do we know [it of] other liquids? You can answer, [it follows] a minor,’ if water, which does not impart its taste, is forbidden; then other liquids, which impart their taste, how much with these liquids when it is being roasted, and the roasted meat may be dipped into liquids at the time of eating. more so! Rabbi said: ‘With water’: I only know it of water; whence do we know [it of] other liquids? Because it is stated, ‘nor boiled at all’, [implying] in all cases. Wherein do they differ? — They differ in respect of [that which is] roasted in a pot. And the Rabbis: how do they utilize this [phrase] ‘nor boiled at all’? — They employ it for what was taught: If he boiled it and then roasted it, or roasted it and then boiled it, he is liable. As for ‘if he boiled it and then roasted it, he is liable,’ that is well, seeing that he boiled it. But if he roasted it and then boiled it, surely it is ‘roast with fire’; why [then is he liable]? — Said R. Kahana: The author of this is R. Jose. For it was taught: The law is complied with by [eating] an [unleavened] wafer that is soaked or boiled, but not dissolved: this is the view of R. Meir. R. Jose said: The law is complied with by [eating] a wafer that is soaked, but not with one that is boiled, even if not dissolved. ‘Ulla said: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Meir; here it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘nor boiled at all’, [implying] in all cases. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that if he roasted it as much as it needs, he should be liable. Therefore it is stated: Eat not of it semi-roast nor boiled at all with water’: semi-roast or boiled did I forbid thee, but not that which is roasted as much as it needs. How is that meant? — Said R. Ashi: That he rendered it charred meat. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that if he ate as much as an olive of raw meat, he should be liable; therefore it is stated, Eat not of it semi-roast [na] nor boiled at all [with water]: semi-roast and boiled did I forbid thee, but not raw. You might think that it is permitted; therefore it is stated, ‘but roast with fire’. How is ‘na’ understood? — Said Rab: as that which the Persians call abarnim. R. Hisda said: He who cooks [food] in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath is not culpable; if he boiled the Passover sacrifice in the hot springs of Tiberias, he is culpable. Wherein does the Sabbath differ, that [he is] not [culpable]? Because we require the product of fire, which is absent! Then [in respect to] the Passover sacrifice too it is not a product of fire? — Said Raba, What is the meaning of his statement, ‘he is culpable’? That he transgresses on account of ‘[Thou shalt not eat . . .] but roast with fire. R. Hiyya son of R. Nathan recited this [dictum] of R. Hisda explicitly. [Thus:] R. Hisda said: He who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath is not culpable; but if he boiled the Passover sacrifice in the hot springs of Tiberias, he is culpable. because he transgressed on account of ‘but roast with fire’. Raba said: If he ate it semi-roast,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘does the Master’.
^ᵇnote:That the paps ferment also with haroseth.
^ᶜnote:Do you too accept this, or do you maintain that there is a controversy in respect of haroseth too?
^ᵈnote:Supra 40a, q.v. in reference to vinegar.
^ᵉnote:Which is the reason that flour must not be put into haroseth, since it contains vinegar, and it further follows that if put into it, it is forbidden. Hence when Samuel said that the halachah is as the Sages, that it is permitted, he must have referred to mustard, but not to haroseth.
^ᶠnote:Ex. XII, 9.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘which does not lose its taste’ (to the substance boiled in it).
^ʰnote:Since the sacrifice now has a foreign flavour.
^ⁱnote:The emphatic ‘at all’ is expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb.
^ʲnote:In whatever it is boiled.
^ᵏnote:Without any liquid, save its own juice. If we deduce the interdict of other liquids a minori, this however is permitted. But when we learn it from the emphatic doubling of the verb, even this is forbidden. — The Passover sacrifice was roasted on a spit directly over the fire.
^ˡnote:To flagellation for eating it.
^ᵐnote:In the first place. It can never be subsequently regarded as ‘roast with fire’.
^ⁿnote:Relating to the eating of unleavened bread on Passover.
^ᵒnote:In another dish.
^ᵖnote:Because It is not called bread, notwithstanding that it was previously baked in an oven. Similarly, if the Passover is boiled after being roasted, it is no longer regarded as ‘roast with fire’.
^ᵠnote:Viz., that once baked it retains its name as bread.
^ʳnote:Even after roasting. This answers the question, ‘And the Rabbis: how do they utilize this (phrase), "nor boiled at all"?’.
^ˢnote:I.e., he overroasted it, thus burning it. I might think that this is not called ‘roast with fire’ but ‘burnt with fire’, and therefore he incurs flagellation for eating it.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘tell’.
^ᵘnote:No interdict is violated by eating it thus.
^ᵛnote:Of the Passover sacrifices.
^ʷnote:Half-done meat. v. Jast. s.v. ohbrct.
^ˣnote:For the desecration of the Sabbath, because this is not really cooking.
^ʸnote:Before it can be called cooking.
^ᶻnote:Lit. , ‘which he states’.
^ᵃᵃnote:He is not culpable on account of, Thou shalt not eat of it. . . boiled with water’ because this is not designated boiling. But the other portion of the verse, ‘but roast with fire’, is an implied negative injunction, the command being that you must not eat anything which is not roast, and what is boiled in the springs of Tiberias is therefore forbidden by implication. He thus holds that a man is flagellated for an implied negative injunction, i.e., one which is not explicitly stated.

²he is flagellated twice; if he ate it boiled, he is flagellated twice; [if he ate] semi-roast and boiled, he is flagellated thrice. Abaye said: We do not flagellate on account of an implied prohibition. Some maintain: He is not indeed flagellated twice, but he is nevertheless flagellated once. Others say. He is not even flagellated once, because [Scripture] does not particularize its interdict, like the interdict of muzzling. Raba said: If he [a nazirite] ate the husk [of grapes]. he is flagellated twice; if he ate the kernel, he is flagellated twice; [for] the husk and the kernel, he is flagellated thrice. 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. Others maintain: He is not even flagellated once, because [Scripture] does not particularize its interdict, like the interdict of muzzling. Our Rabbis taught: If he ate as much as an olive of semi-roast [paschal offering] before nightfall, he is not culpable; [if he ate] as much as an olive of semi-roast flesh after dark, he is culpable. If he ate as much as an olive of roast meat before nightfall, he does not disqualify himself from [being one of] the members of the company; [if he eats] as much as an olive of roast meat after dark, 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 roast [flesh]’, he is subject to [the interdict] ‘do not eat it semi-roast’; then when he is not subject to [the precept], ‘arise and eat roast’, is it not logical that he is subject to [the interdict] ‘do not eat it semi-roast?’ Or perhaps it is not so: when he is not subject to [the precept]. ‘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 interdict] ‘do not eat it semi-roast’, and do not wonder [threat], for lo! it was freed from its general interdict in respect to roast. Therefore it is stated, ‘Eat not of it semi-roast’; nor boiled at all [bashel mebushshal] with water, but roast with fire’. Now, ‘but roast with fire’ should not be stated; then why is ‘but roast with fire’ stated? To teach you: When he is subject [to the command]. ‘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, ‘Eat not of it semi-roast. Rabbi said: I could read ‘bashel’; why is ‘mebushshal’ stated [too]? For I might think, I only know it where he boiled it after nightfall. Whence do we know it if he boiled it during the day? 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? — If so, let Scripture say either bashel bashel or mebushshal mebushshal: why ‘bashel mebushshal’? Hence you infer two things from it. Our Rabbis taught: If he ate roast [paschal offering] during the day. he is culpable; and [if he ate] as much as an olive of semi-roast after nightfall, he is culpable. [Thus] he teaches roast similar to half-roast: just as semi-roast [after nightfall] is [interdicted] by a negative injunction, so is roast [before nightfall] subject to a 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’: only 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? — Said R. Hisda, The author of this^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᵇnote:Once on account of the injunction against semi-roast, and again because of the interdict, ‘Eat not . . . but roast with fire’.
^ᵃᶜnote:On account of the injunction against boiled flesh, and again as in the case of semi-roast meat.
^ᵃᵈnote: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.
^ᵃᵉnote: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’.
^ᵃᶠnote: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’ does not particularize any method of preparation as forbidden.
^ᵃᵍnote: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.
^ᵃʰnote:Rashi: E.g.. if he ate the leaves of the vine; cf.n. 2.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘while it was yet day’ — on the fourteenth of Nisan.
^ᵃʲnote: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.
^ᵃᵏnote:Not in the company where he registered.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., perhaps a different argument is to be used.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., after nightfall.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘permitted’.
^ᵃᵒnote: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.
^ᵃᵖnote:For the previous verse states: And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire.
^ᵃᵠnote: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.
^ᵃʳnote:That boiled paschal offering flesh must not be eaten.
^ᵃˢnote:That even then it may not be eaten at night.
^ᵃᵗnote:Supra 41a.
^ᵃᵘnote:That that is its only teaching.
^ᵃᵛnote:Granted that the repetition is necessary, the same grammatical form could be repeated.
^ᵃʷnote:Which does not involve flagellation.