Pesachim

he is flagellated twice;1 if he ate it boiled, he is flagellated twice;2 [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,3 but he is nevertheless flagellated once.4 Others say. He is not even flagellated once, because [Scripture] does not particularize its interdict, like the interdict of muzzling.5 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.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. 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. 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;9 [if he eats] as much as an olive of roast meat after dark,10 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]’,11 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:12 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 freed13 from its general interdict in respect to roast.14 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;15 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.16 Rabbi said: I could read ‘bashel’; why is ‘mebushshal’ stated [too]? For I might think, I only know it17 where he boiled it after nightfall. Whence do we know it if he boiled it during the day?18 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 — If so,20 let Scripture say either bashel bashel or mebushshal mebushshal:21 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?22 — Said R. Hisda, The author of this fire’. flagellated on account of the implied interdict too. implied injunction. Tosaf.: If he was merely warned against violating the injunction, ‘Eat not of it . . . but roast with fire’. 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. 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. 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. 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. when one is bidden to eat the roast of the Passover sacrifice, but not on the day of the fourteenth, before the obligation commences.