Pesachim

Do you1 say it in reference to haroseth.2 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.3 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.4 Surely then, since it [vinegar] does not bind, it does indeed cause fermentation?5 — 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:6 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,7 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!8 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’,9 [implying] in all cases.10 Wherein do they differ? — They differ in respect of [that which is] roasted in a pot.11 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.12 As for ‘if he boiled it and then roasted it, he is liable,’ that is well, seeing that he boiled it.13 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 law14 is complied with by [eating] an [unleavened] wafer that is soaked15 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.16 ‘Ulla said: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Meir;17 here it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘nor boiled at all’, [implying] in all cases.18 Our Rabbis taught: You might think that if he roasted it as much as it needs,19 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 forbid20 thee, but not that which is roasted as much as it needs.21 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,22 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.23 R. Hisda said: He who cooks [food] in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath is not culpable;24 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,25 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,26 ‘he is culpable’? That he transgresses on account of ‘[Thou shalt not eat . . .] but roast with fire.27 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, 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. 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. boiled after being roasted, it is no longer regarded as ‘roast with fire’. all"?’. therefore he incurs flagellation for eating it. 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.