Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 1, 2021 | 讬状讝 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

Pesachim 41

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rachel and Oren Seliger in memory of Rachel’s father, Avner Yossef ben Yehuda Aryeh and Zelta Friva, on his 31st yahrzeit. “Avner Yehuda was a baal tshuva as a teenager. He was always in awe of people learning Talmud. He would be very proud to know that his children are learning daf yomi.” And by Rivkah Isseroff l’iluy nishmat Yaakov ben R’ Yehuda Leib “who encouraged torah learning for all his daughters, and would be so pleased to see his daughter and granddaughter, Alisa Benayoun, learning the daf.” And by Carol and Art Gould “in recognition of the great goodness that we have received in learning that Carol’s PET Scan results are clean and that she remains in remission from her lung cancer. We thank HaShem for His mercy. We thank the incredibly warm, supportive and loving Hadran Zoomer community and Rabbanit Farber for their concern.” And by Rhea Brown in honor of her daughter in law, Liz Fisher鈥檚 birthday. “Happy Birthday Liz and keep studying. Liz loves the daily podcast and has turned me into it as well. Love Rhea and Ron.”

One cannot add flour to mustard or to charoset (a dip made with vinegar) as its pungency may cause the flour to leaven. If one did, can one eat it or does it need to be burned immediately before it leavens? Rabi Meir and the rabbis disagree – but do they disagree about both or only about the mustard? Why the difference? The gemara moves to discuss in depth and from derashot from the verses in the Torah regarding the commandment to eat the meat of the Passover sacrifice roasted and not partially roasted or cooked in water. What if it was cooked in other liquids? Its own liquids? What if it was cooked in the hot spring of Tiberias?聽 What if it was eaten totally wraw? Is the prohibition to eat it prepared in the wrong manner also an issue during the day of the 14th or only on the night of the 15th? Does one receive one or multiple sets of lashes if one eats it cooked or partially roasted? Or possibly no lashes as it is a lav she’bichlalot – one prohibition that includes a number of things. What if one ate is roasted during the day? Does one receive lashes – isn’t it a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment and the rule should be no lashes.

讗讞专讜住转 拽讗诪专 诪专 讗讜 讗讞专讚诇 拽讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛


Did the Master say this statement with regard to 岣roset, or did the Master say it with regard to mustard? He said to him: What is the practical difference whether he was referring to 岣roset or mustard? Both of these are mentioned together, and the same halakha applies to both.


诇讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇转讜讱 讛讞专讚诇 讗讘诇 诇转讜讱 讛讞专讜住转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚


He said to him: There is a difference with regard to that which was stated by Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis concerns a case in which flour was added to mustard. However, if flour was added to 岣roset, everyone agrees that it must be burned immediately. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k was asking Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, whether he disagrees with Rav Kahana and maintains that the Rabbis dispute the halakha in the case of 岣roset as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬


He said to him: I did not hear about this statement; that is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it. I do not distinguish between these two cases, as in my opinion the Rabbis permit one to eat even this 岣roset.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 爪诪讜转讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 爪诪讬转 讛讗 讞诪讜注讬 诪讞诪注讗


Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, from the fact that Shmuel said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that vinegar will prevent grain from becoming leavened. What, isn鈥檛 it correct to infer from here that vinegar added to flour does not shrink the grain and will even leaven it? According to this explanation, food that contains vinegar, e.g., 岣roset, is likely to be leavened immediately, as claimed by Rav Kahana.


诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪爪诪转 爪诪讬转 讜诇讗 讞诪讜注 诪讞诪注:


The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, this is no proof, as perhaps Shmuel meant that, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, vinegar will neither cause the wheat to shrink nor leaven it. Consequently, this statement cannot serve as a proof of the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to 岣roset.


讗讬谉 诪讘砖诇讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讬诐 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 诪谞讬讬谉


The mishna taught that one may not boil the Paschal lamb in liquid. To explain this issue, the Gemara cites a baraita that interprets the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any way in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs, and with the innards in it鈥 (Exodus 12:9). The Sages taught: 鈥淚n water鈥; I have derived nothing other than the prohibition against boiling the Paschal lamb in water. From where do I know that it is likewise prohibited to boil it in other liquids?


讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪驻讬讙讬谉 讟注诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 砖诪驻讬讙讬谉 讟注诪谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


You said that this can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: And just as water, which does not temper the taste of the food boiled in it, is prohibited for boiling the Paschal lamb, with regard to other liquids, which do temper the taste of the food boiled in them, is it not all the more so that it is prohibited to boil the Paschal lamb in them?


专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讬诐 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi provides a different derivation and says: From the phrase 鈥淚n water,鈥 I have derived nothing other than the prohibition against boiling the Paschal lamb in water. From where do I learn that it is likewise prohibited to boil it in other liquids? The verse states: 鈥淣or boiled in any way,鈥 which means: In any case, i.e., boiling the Paschal lamb in any type of liquid is prohibited.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 爪诇讬 拽讚专


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two derivations? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to meat that is roasted in a pot without the addition of any liquid, but is cooked in its own juices. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is prohibited to prepare the Paschal lamb in this manner, as this is considered boiling, whereas the Rabbis maintain that an action is classified as boiling only if one adds liquid to the meat.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讘砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 爪诇讗讜 讗讜 砖爪诇讗讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诇讜 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, with regard to that phrase, 鈥渂oiled in any way,鈥 what do they do with it? The Gemara answers: It is required for that which was taught in a baraita: If one boiled the Paschal lamb and afterward roasted it, or roasted it and afterward boiled it, he is liable to receive lashes for boiling the Paschal lamb.


讘砖诇诪讗 讘砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 爪诇讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 讘砖诇讬讛 讗诇讗 爪诇讗讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诇讜 讛讗 爪诇讬 讗砖 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬


The Gemara asks: Granted, if one boiled the Paschal lamb and afterward roasted it, he is liable, as he boiled it first and is punished for this act. However, if he roasted it and afterward boiled it, and it is a food that has been roasted by fire, why is he liable?


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘专拽讬拽 讛砖专讜讬 讜讘诪讘讜砖诇 砖诇讗 谞讬诪讜讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘专拽讬拽 讛砖专讜讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讘讜砖诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬诪讜讞


Rav Kahana said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that boiling after roasting nullifies the previous act of roasting. As it was taught in a baraita: One can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with a wafer that has been soaked in water or with a boiled wafer that has not yet dissolved; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One can fulfill his obligation with a wafer that has been soaked in a cooked dish but not with a boiled wafer, even if it has not dissolved. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei maintains that food that was initially baked and subsequently boiled is no longer categorized as baked, and the same presumably applies to meat that was roasted and then boiled.


注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Ulla said: Even if you say that the halakha with regard to boiled matza is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, there is no difficulty, as the cases of matza and the Paschal lamb are dissimilar in this regard. Here, with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淣or boiled in any way,鈥 which indicates that it is prohibited to boil it in any case. No restriction of this kind is stated with regard to matza.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 爪诇讗讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 讘诪讬诐 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 砖爪诇讗讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜


The Sages taught: I might have thought that if one roasted the Paschal lamb fully, he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any way in water鈥 (Exodus 12:9). This verse teaches that I, God, said to you that the Paschal lamb is prohibited if it is partially roasted or boiled in any way, but not if it is fully roasted. One who roasts the Paschal lamb fully has not violated a prohibition.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚砖讜讬讗 讞专讜讻讗


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case that render it necessary for a verse to teach that roasting the Paschal lamb fully is not a violation of a prohibition? Rav Ashi said: This is referring to a situation where one burned it. The verse indicates that even one who entirely burns the Paschal lamb does not violate this prohibition.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讞讬 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讞讬


The Sages taught: I might have thought that one who ate an olive-bulk portion of the Paschal sacrifice raw should be liable for violating a prohibition. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted [na], nor boiled in any way in water.鈥 This verse teaches that I, God, said to you that it is prohibited to eat the Paschal lamb partially roasted or boiled, but there is no prohibition against eating it raw.


讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 诪讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讚讗诪专讬 驻专住讗讬 讗讘专谞讬诐


I might have thought that it is permitted to eat it raw ab initio. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淏ut roasted with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9). This teaches that the mitzva is to roast the Paschal lamb with fire, ab initio. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of cooking that are defined as na, partially roasted? Rav said: As the Persians say: Avarnim, half roasted.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 驻住讞 砖讘砖诇讜 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讞讬讬讘


Rav 岣sda said: One who cooks food in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt. One violates the Shabbat prohibition of cooking only if he uses a fire. In the case of a Paschal lamb that was cooked, i.e., boiled, in the hot springs of Tiberias, one is liable for boiling the offering.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘砖讘转 讚诇讗 讚转讜诇讚讜转 讗砖 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 驻住讞 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 转讜诇讚讜转 讗砖 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to Shabbat, that one is not punished for cooking in this manner? The reason is that a fire, or a fire derivative, is required for an act to be defined as cooking on Shabbat, but there is no fire here, as the hot springs are not generated by fire. If so, with regard to the Paschal lamb as well, it is not a fire derivative, and it should not be considered boiling with regard to this prohibition either.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讚拽转谞讬 讚拽讗 注讘专 诪砖讜诐 爪诇讬 讗砖


Rava said: What is the meaning of the word liable that Rav 岣sda taught? It means that in doing so one violated the positive mitzva, due to that which is written: 鈥淩oasted with fire.鈥 In other words, one who boils the Paschal lamb in the hot springs of Tiberias did not in fact violate the prohibition of boiling the Paschal lamb, but he has also not fulfilled the positive mitzva to roast the offering.


专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 讜驻住讞 砖讘砖诇讜 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讞讬讬讘 砖注讘专 诪砖讜诐 爪诇讬 讗砖


Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Natan, teaches this interpretation of Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement explicitly, i.e., that Rav 岣sda himself said: One who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt, and with regard to a Paschal lamb that was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, one is liable to receive punishment for this act. In doing so, he violated a positive mitzva, due to that which is written: 鈥淩oasted with fire.鈥


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇讜 谞讗


Rava said: One who ate the Paschal lamb partially roasted,


诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 诪讘讜砖诇 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 谞讗 讜诪讘讜砖诇 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖


he receives two sets of lashes, for violating the prohibitions: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted鈥 (Exodus 12:9) and: 鈥淵ou shall only eat it鈥oasted with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9). One who ate it boiled receives two sets of lashes, for the prohibitions: 鈥淣or shall it be boiled in any way in water鈥 (Exodus 12:9), and 鈥淵ou shall only eat it鈥oasted with fire.鈥 One who ate the Paschal lamb after it had been partially roasted and then boiled receives three sets of lashes, for eating the Paschal lamb partially roasted, for eating it boiled, and for failing to eat it roasted.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转


Abaye said: One does not receive lashes for a prohibition stated in general terms. The prohibition inferred from the verse “You shall only eat it…roasted in fire” includes many types of cooking, and one is not punished with lashes for violating this mitzva, as it is a general prohibition that includes meat cooked in several different ways.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专转讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇拽讬 讞讚讗 诪讬讛转 诇拽讬


Some say that Abaye said: It is two sets of lashes that he does not receive, as the mitzva that the Paschal lamb be roasted with fire does not add to the specific prohibitions against eating it partially roasted or cooked. However, at any rate one set of lashes he does receive. Therefore, one who prepared a Paschal lamb without properly cooking it but without roasting it is punished with lashes for failing to roast it 鈥渨ith fire.鈥


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇拽讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚 诇讗讜讬讛 讻诇讗讜 讚讞住讬诪讛


Some say that one does not receive even one set of lashes for violating this prohibition, as the prohibition he transgressed is not specific to one matter, like the prohibition against muzzling. The principle that one is liable to receive lashes for violating a prohibition is derived from the juxtaposition of the mitzva: 鈥淵ou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:4) with the verses that deal with lashes. It is inferred from this juxtaposition that one is not liable to receive lashes for violating prohibitions that are dissimilar to that of muzzling, e.g., a prohibition that is not specific to one matter.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讻诇 讝讙 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讞专爪谉 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讝讙 讜讞专爪谉 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖


The Gemara cites a parallel dispute with regard to a different halakha. Rava said: If a nazirite ate a grape skin he receives two sets of lashes, as the verse states: 鈥淎ll the days that he is a nazirite he shall eat nothing that is made of the grapevine; from pressed grapes to a grape pit he shall not eat鈥 (Numbers 6:4). He receives two sets of lashes, one for eating food that grew on a grapevine and one for consuming the skin of a grape. Likewise, if he ate a grape pit he receives two sets of lashes, one for eating a grape pit and the other for eating a grape product. If he ate a grape skin and a grape pit he receives three sets of lashes, one for eating the grape skin, one for eating the grape pit, and the third for eating a grape product.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专转讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇拽讬 讞讚讗 诪讬讛转 诇拽讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇拽讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚 诇讗讜讬讛 讻诇讗讜 讚讞住讬诪讛


Abaye said: As with regard to the Paschal lamb, one does not receive lashes for a prohibition stated in general terms. Some say that according to Abaye, it is two sets of lashes that he does not receive; however, at any rate one set of lashes he does receive. And some say: One does not receive even one set of lashes for transgressing this prohibition, as the prohibition he transgressed is not specific to one matter, like the prohibition against muzzling.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 谞讗 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 驻讟讜专 讻讝讬转 谞讗 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 爪诇讬 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诇讗 驻住诇 注爪诪讜 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讻讝讬转 爪诇讬 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 驻住诇 注爪诪讜 诪讘谞讬 讛讞讘讜专讛


The Sages taught: If one ate a partially roasted olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb while it was still day on the fourteenth of Nisan, he is exempt. If he ate a partially roasted olive-bulk after dark, he is liable to receive lashes. If he ate a roasted olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb while it was still day on the fourteenth of Nisan, he has not disqualified himself from his group. Once he has started eating the offering, he may not leave the group he joined that arranged to partake together of a single Paschal lamb. Nevertheless, this case is different, as he began eating before the obligation to eat the Paschal lamb went into effect, and therefore he has not disqualified himself from his group by eating the Paschal lamb of another group. However, if he ate a roasted olive-bulk after dark, when he is obligated to eat the Paschal lamb, he disqualifies himself from the group he had joined.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讻讜诇 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 谞讗 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗


It was taught in another baraita: I might have thought that one who eats a partially roasted olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb while it was still day is liable to receive lashes. And this is a logical derivation by means of an a fortiori inference: If at the time when one is included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is also included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted, then at a time when one is not included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, isn鈥檛 it right that he should be included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted?


讗讜 诇讗 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗


Or perhaps this is not the case, as the opposite can be stated: At the time when one is not included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted. However, at a time when one is included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is not included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted, as the prohibition applies only before one is permitted to eat the Paschal lamb.


讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 爪诇讬


The Gemara adds: And do not be confounded by this suggestion, as the prohibition against eating from the Paschal lamb is relaxed because of special circumstances with regard to roasted meat. Before nightfall of the fifteenth of Nisan it is prohibited to eat the Paschal lamb regardless of how it was prepared, but once it grows dark it is permitted to eat it roasted. Perhaps the relaxation of this prohibition indicates that one who eats a partially roasted Paschal lamb after nightfall also does not violate a transgression.


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 讘诪讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any way [bashel mevushal] in water, but roasted with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淩oasted with fire,鈥 since the previous verse already said: 鈥淥n this night you shall eat the meat roasted with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:8), what then is the meaning when the second verse states: 鈥淩oasted with fire鈥? This verse comes to tell you that at the time when one is included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is also included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted, whereas at a time when one is not included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is not included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted either.


专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗拽专讗 讗谞讬 讘砖诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讘砖诇 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讘讬砖诇讜 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讘砖诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I could have simply read 鈥渂oiled [bashel],鈥 as this word suffices to teach that eating a boiled Paschal lamb is prohibited after dark. What is the meaning when the verse states the seemingly superfluous word mevushal, which also means boiled? These two words together are translated as 鈥渂oiled in any way.鈥 As I might have thought that I have only derived that this prohibition applies when it was boiled after dark, when the obligation to eat the Paschal lamb is in effect. From where do I derive that one is liable if he boils it while it was still day? The verse states the inclusive phrase bashel mevushal, which teaches that this prohibition applies in any case.


讜讛讗讬 讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 讗驻拽讬讛 专讘讬 诇爪诇讬 拽讚专 讜诇砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉


The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself derived from the expression bashel mevushal the prohibition against roasting the meat of the Paschal lamb in a pot, i.e., cooking the meat in a pot without the addition of liquids, and the prohibition against boiling it with other liquids. How can he derive another halakha from this same phrase?


讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讗讜 讘砖诇 讘砖诇 讗讜 诪讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讗讬 讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


The Gemara answers: If so, i.e., if this verse is referring only to the matter of cooking meat with other liquids or without any liquids, let the verse say either 鈥bashel bashel鈥 or 鈥mevushal mevushal,鈥 and one halakha would be derived from the extraneous word. What is derived from the varied wording bashel mevushal鈥? Learn from this verse two halakhot, one with regard to the manner of the cooking of the Paschal lamb, and the other concerning the time of its cooking.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 爪诇讬 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讝讬转 谞讗 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘


The Sages taught: If one ate from a roasted Paschal lamb when it was still day, he is liable to receive lashes, and likewise if one ate after dark an olive-bulk that was partially roasted, he is liable to receive lashes.


拽转谞讬 爪诇讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讗 诪讛 谞讗 讘诇讗讜 讗祝 爪诇讬 讘诇讗讜


This baraita taught that the case of roasted meat is similar to the case of partially roasted meat: Just as one who consumes partially roasted meat is in violation of a prohibition, so too, one who consumes this roasted meat while it is still day is in violation of a prohibition.


讘砖诇诪讗 谞讗 讻转讬讘 讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗 讗诇讗 爪诇讬 诪谞诇谉


The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to partially roasted meat, it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted鈥 (Exodus 12:9). However, with regard to meat that has been roasted, from where do we derive that one who eats it before the proper time has committed a transgression?


讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛讘砖专 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 诇讗


The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall eat the meat on that night, roasted with fire, and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it鈥 (Exodus 12:8). The Gemara derives from this verse: At night, yes, the Paschal lamb may be eaten; however, by day, no, it may not be eaten in any manner.


讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛


The Gemara asks: This is a prohibition that comes by inference from a positive mitzva, i.e., it is not stated in the Torah in the form of a prohibition. There is a principle that every prohibition that comes by inference from a positive mitzva is classified as a positive mitzva. One who transgresses a mitzva of this kind is considered to have transgressed a positive mitzva, not a prohibition.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诪谞讬


The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Dr. Tamara Spitz

Pesachim 39-45 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about different vegetables that can be used as Marror and if vinegar stops the leavening...

Pesachim 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 41

讗讞专讜住转 拽讗诪专 诪专 讗讜 讗讞专讚诇 拽讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛


Did the Master say this statement with regard to 岣roset, or did the Master say it with regard to mustard? He said to him: What is the practical difference whether he was referring to 岣roset or mustard? Both of these are mentioned together, and the same halakha applies to both.


诇讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇转讜讱 讛讞专讚诇 讗讘诇 诇转讜讱 讛讞专讜住转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚


He said to him: There is a difference with regard to that which was stated by Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis concerns a case in which flour was added to mustard. However, if flour was added to 岣roset, everyone agrees that it must be burned immediately. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k was asking Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, whether he disagrees with Rav Kahana and maintains that the Rabbis dispute the halakha in the case of 岣roset as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬


He said to him: I did not hear about this statement; that is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it. I do not distinguish between these two cases, as in my opinion the Rabbis permit one to eat even this 岣roset.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 爪诪讜转讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 爪诪讬转 讛讗 讞诪讜注讬 诪讞诪注讗


Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, from the fact that Shmuel said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that vinegar will prevent grain from becoming leavened. What, isn鈥檛 it correct to infer from here that vinegar added to flour does not shrink the grain and will even leaven it? According to this explanation, food that contains vinegar, e.g., 岣roset, is likely to be leavened immediately, as claimed by Rav Kahana.


诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪爪诪转 爪诪讬转 讜诇讗 讞诪讜注 诪讞诪注:


The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, this is no proof, as perhaps Shmuel meant that, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, vinegar will neither cause the wheat to shrink nor leaven it. Consequently, this statement cannot serve as a proof of the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to 岣roset.


讗讬谉 诪讘砖诇讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讬诐 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 诪谞讬讬谉


The mishna taught that one may not boil the Paschal lamb in liquid. To explain this issue, the Gemara cites a baraita that interprets the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any way in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs, and with the innards in it鈥 (Exodus 12:9). The Sages taught: 鈥淚n water鈥; I have derived nothing other than the prohibition against boiling the Paschal lamb in water. From where do I know that it is likewise prohibited to boil it in other liquids?


讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪驻讬讙讬谉 讟注诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 砖诪驻讬讙讬谉 讟注诪谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


You said that this can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: And just as water, which does not temper the taste of the food boiled in it, is prohibited for boiling the Paschal lamb, with regard to other liquids, which do temper the taste of the food boiled in them, is it not all the more so that it is prohibited to boil the Paschal lamb in them?


专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讬诐 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi provides a different derivation and says: From the phrase 鈥淚n water,鈥 I have derived nothing other than the prohibition against boiling the Paschal lamb in water. From where do I learn that it is likewise prohibited to boil it in other liquids? The verse states: 鈥淣or boiled in any way,鈥 which means: In any case, i.e., boiling the Paschal lamb in any type of liquid is prohibited.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 爪诇讬 拽讚专


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two derivations? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to meat that is roasted in a pot without the addition of any liquid, but is cooked in its own juices. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is prohibited to prepare the Paschal lamb in this manner, as this is considered boiling, whereas the Rabbis maintain that an action is classified as boiling only if one adds liquid to the meat.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讘砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 爪诇讗讜 讗讜 砖爪诇讗讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诇讜 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, with regard to that phrase, 鈥渂oiled in any way,鈥 what do they do with it? The Gemara answers: It is required for that which was taught in a baraita: If one boiled the Paschal lamb and afterward roasted it, or roasted it and afterward boiled it, he is liable to receive lashes for boiling the Paschal lamb.


讘砖诇诪讗 讘砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 爪诇讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 讘砖诇讬讛 讗诇讗 爪诇讗讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖诇讜 讛讗 爪诇讬 讗砖 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬


The Gemara asks: Granted, if one boiled the Paschal lamb and afterward roasted it, he is liable, as he boiled it first and is punished for this act. However, if he roasted it and afterward boiled it, and it is a food that has been roasted by fire, why is he liable?


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘专拽讬拽 讛砖专讜讬 讜讘诪讘讜砖诇 砖诇讗 谞讬诪讜讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘专拽讬拽 讛砖专讜讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讘讜砖诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬诪讜讞


Rav Kahana said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that boiling after roasting nullifies the previous act of roasting. As it was taught in a baraita: One can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with a wafer that has been soaked in water or with a boiled wafer that has not yet dissolved; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One can fulfill his obligation with a wafer that has been soaked in a cooked dish but not with a boiled wafer, even if it has not dissolved. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei maintains that food that was initially baked and subsequently boiled is no longer categorized as baked, and the same presumably applies to meat that was roasted and then boiled.


注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Ulla said: Even if you say that the halakha with regard to boiled matza is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, there is no difficulty, as the cases of matza and the Paschal lamb are dissimilar in this regard. Here, with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淣or boiled in any way,鈥 which indicates that it is prohibited to boil it in any case. No restriction of this kind is stated with regard to matza.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 爪诇讗讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 讘诪讬诐 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 砖爪诇讗讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜


The Sages taught: I might have thought that if one roasted the Paschal lamb fully, he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any way in water鈥 (Exodus 12:9). This verse teaches that I, God, said to you that the Paschal lamb is prohibited if it is partially roasted or boiled in any way, but not if it is fully roasted. One who roasts the Paschal lamb fully has not violated a prohibition.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚砖讜讬讗 讞专讜讻讗


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case that render it necessary for a verse to teach that roasting the Paschal lamb fully is not a violation of a prohibition? Rav Ashi said: This is referring to a situation where one burned it. The verse indicates that even one who entirely burns the Paschal lamb does not violate this prohibition.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讞讬 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讞讬


The Sages taught: I might have thought that one who ate an olive-bulk portion of the Paschal sacrifice raw should be liable for violating a prohibition. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted [na], nor boiled in any way in water.鈥 This verse teaches that I, God, said to you that it is prohibited to eat the Paschal lamb partially roasted or boiled, but there is no prohibition against eating it raw.


讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 诪讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讚讗诪专讬 驻专住讗讬 讗讘专谞讬诐


I might have thought that it is permitted to eat it raw ab initio. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淏ut roasted with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9). This teaches that the mitzva is to roast the Paschal lamb with fire, ab initio. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of cooking that are defined as na, partially roasted? Rav said: As the Persians say: Avarnim, half roasted.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 驻住讞 砖讘砖诇讜 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讞讬讬讘


Rav 岣sda said: One who cooks food in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt. One violates the Shabbat prohibition of cooking only if he uses a fire. In the case of a Paschal lamb that was cooked, i.e., boiled, in the hot springs of Tiberias, one is liable for boiling the offering.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘砖讘转 讚诇讗 讚转讜诇讚讜转 讗砖 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 驻住讞 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 转讜诇讚讜转 讗砖 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to Shabbat, that one is not punished for cooking in this manner? The reason is that a fire, or a fire derivative, is required for an act to be defined as cooking on Shabbat, but there is no fire here, as the hot springs are not generated by fire. If so, with regard to the Paschal lamb as well, it is not a fire derivative, and it should not be considered boiling with regard to this prohibition either.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讚拽转谞讬 讚拽讗 注讘专 诪砖讜诐 爪诇讬 讗砖


Rava said: What is the meaning of the word liable that Rav 岣sda taught? It means that in doing so one violated the positive mitzva, due to that which is written: 鈥淩oasted with fire.鈥 In other words, one who boils the Paschal lamb in the hot springs of Tiberias did not in fact violate the prohibition of boiling the Paschal lamb, but he has also not fulfilled the positive mitzva to roast the offering.


专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 讜驻住讞 砖讘砖诇讜 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讞讬讬讘 砖注讘专 诪砖讜诐 爪诇讬 讗砖


Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Natan, teaches this interpretation of Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement explicitly, i.e., that Rav 岣sda himself said: One who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt, and with regard to a Paschal lamb that was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, one is liable to receive punishment for this act. In doing so, he violated a positive mitzva, due to that which is written: 鈥淩oasted with fire.鈥


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇讜 谞讗


Rava said: One who ate the Paschal lamb partially roasted,


诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 诪讘讜砖诇 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 谞讗 讜诪讘讜砖诇 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖


he receives two sets of lashes, for violating the prohibitions: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted鈥 (Exodus 12:9) and: 鈥淵ou shall only eat it鈥oasted with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9). One who ate it boiled receives two sets of lashes, for the prohibitions: 鈥淣or shall it be boiled in any way in water鈥 (Exodus 12:9), and 鈥淵ou shall only eat it鈥oasted with fire.鈥 One who ate the Paschal lamb after it had been partially roasted and then boiled receives three sets of lashes, for eating the Paschal lamb partially roasted, for eating it boiled, and for failing to eat it roasted.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转


Abaye said: One does not receive lashes for a prohibition stated in general terms. The prohibition inferred from the verse “You shall only eat it…roasted in fire” includes many types of cooking, and one is not punished with lashes for violating this mitzva, as it is a general prohibition that includes meat cooked in several different ways.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专转讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇拽讬 讞讚讗 诪讬讛转 诇拽讬


Some say that Abaye said: It is two sets of lashes that he does not receive, as the mitzva that the Paschal lamb be roasted with fire does not add to the specific prohibitions against eating it partially roasted or cooked. However, at any rate one set of lashes he does receive. Therefore, one who prepared a Paschal lamb without properly cooking it but without roasting it is punished with lashes for failing to roast it 鈥渨ith fire.鈥


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇拽讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚 诇讗讜讬讛 讻诇讗讜 讚讞住讬诪讛


Some say that one does not receive even one set of lashes for violating this prohibition, as the prohibition he transgressed is not specific to one matter, like the prohibition against muzzling. The principle that one is liable to receive lashes for violating a prohibition is derived from the juxtaposition of the mitzva: 鈥淵ou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:4) with the verses that deal with lashes. It is inferred from this juxtaposition that one is not liable to receive lashes for violating prohibitions that are dissimilar to that of muzzling, e.g., a prohibition that is not specific to one matter.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讻诇 讝讙 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讞专爪谉 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讝讙 讜讞专爪谉 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖


The Gemara cites a parallel dispute with regard to a different halakha. Rava said: If a nazirite ate a grape skin he receives two sets of lashes, as the verse states: 鈥淎ll the days that he is a nazirite he shall eat nothing that is made of the grapevine; from pressed grapes to a grape pit he shall not eat鈥 (Numbers 6:4). He receives two sets of lashes, one for eating food that grew on a grapevine and one for consuming the skin of a grape. Likewise, if he ate a grape pit he receives two sets of lashes, one for eating a grape pit and the other for eating a grape product. If he ate a grape skin and a grape pit he receives three sets of lashes, one for eating the grape skin, one for eating the grape pit, and the third for eating a grape product.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专转讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇拽讬 讞讚讗 诪讬讛转 诇拽讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇拽讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚 诇讗讜讬讛 讻诇讗讜 讚讞住讬诪讛


Abaye said: As with regard to the Paschal lamb, one does not receive lashes for a prohibition stated in general terms. Some say that according to Abaye, it is two sets of lashes that he does not receive; however, at any rate one set of lashes he does receive. And some say: One does not receive even one set of lashes for transgressing this prohibition, as the prohibition he transgressed is not specific to one matter, like the prohibition against muzzling.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 谞讗 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 驻讟讜专 讻讝讬转 谞讗 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 爪诇讬 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诇讗 驻住诇 注爪诪讜 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讻讝讬转 爪诇讬 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 驻住诇 注爪诪讜 诪讘谞讬 讛讞讘讜专讛


The Sages taught: If one ate a partially roasted olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb while it was still day on the fourteenth of Nisan, he is exempt. If he ate a partially roasted olive-bulk after dark, he is liable to receive lashes. If he ate a roasted olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb while it was still day on the fourteenth of Nisan, he has not disqualified himself from his group. Once he has started eating the offering, he may not leave the group he joined that arranged to partake together of a single Paschal lamb. Nevertheless, this case is different, as he began eating before the obligation to eat the Paschal lamb went into effect, and therefore he has not disqualified himself from his group by eating the Paschal lamb of another group. However, if he ate a roasted olive-bulk after dark, when he is obligated to eat the Paschal lamb, he disqualifies himself from the group he had joined.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讻讜诇 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 谞讗 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗


It was taught in another baraita: I might have thought that one who eats a partially roasted olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb while it was still day is liable to receive lashes. And this is a logical derivation by means of an a fortiori inference: If at the time when one is included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is also included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted, then at a time when one is not included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, isn鈥檛 it right that he should be included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted?


讗讜 诇讗 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗


Or perhaps this is not the case, as the opposite can be stated: At the time when one is not included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted. However, at a time when one is included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is not included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted, as the prohibition applies only before one is permitted to eat the Paschal lamb.


讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 爪诇讬


The Gemara adds: And do not be confounded by this suggestion, as the prohibition against eating from the Paschal lamb is relaxed because of special circumstances with regard to roasted meat. Before nightfall of the fifteenth of Nisan it is prohibited to eat the Paschal lamb regardless of how it was prepared, but once it grows dark it is permitted to eat it roasted. Perhaps the relaxation of this prohibition indicates that one who eats a partially roasted Paschal lamb after nightfall also does not violate a transgression.


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗 讜讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 讘诪讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any way [bashel mevushal] in water, but roasted with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淩oasted with fire,鈥 since the previous verse already said: 鈥淥n this night you shall eat the meat roasted with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:8), what then is the meaning when the second verse states: 鈥淩oasted with fire鈥? This verse comes to tell you that at the time when one is included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is also included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted, whereas at a time when one is not included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal lamb, he is not included in the prohibition not to eat it partially roasted either.


专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗拽专讗 讗谞讬 讘砖诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讘砖诇 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讘讬砖诇讜 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讘砖诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I could have simply read 鈥渂oiled [bashel],鈥 as this word suffices to teach that eating a boiled Paschal lamb is prohibited after dark. What is the meaning when the verse states the seemingly superfluous word mevushal, which also means boiled? These two words together are translated as 鈥渂oiled in any way.鈥 As I might have thought that I have only derived that this prohibition applies when it was boiled after dark, when the obligation to eat the Paschal lamb is in effect. From where do I derive that one is liable if he boils it while it was still day? The verse states the inclusive phrase bashel mevushal, which teaches that this prohibition applies in any case.


讜讛讗讬 讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 讗驻拽讬讛 专讘讬 诇爪诇讬 拽讚专 讜诇砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉


The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself derived from the expression bashel mevushal the prohibition against roasting the meat of the Paschal lamb in a pot, i.e., cooking the meat in a pot without the addition of liquids, and the prohibition against boiling it with other liquids. How can he derive another halakha from this same phrase?


讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讗讜 讘砖诇 讘砖诇 讗讜 诪讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 诪讗讬 讘砖诇 诪讘砖诇 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


The Gemara answers: If so, i.e., if this verse is referring only to the matter of cooking meat with other liquids or without any liquids, let the verse say either 鈥bashel bashel鈥 or 鈥mevushal mevushal,鈥 and one halakha would be derived from the extraneous word. What is derived from the varied wording bashel mevushal鈥? Learn from this verse two halakhot, one with regard to the manner of the cooking of the Paschal lamb, and the other concerning the time of its cooking.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 爪诇讬 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讝讬转 谞讗 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讞讬讬讘


The Sages taught: If one ate from a roasted Paschal lamb when it was still day, he is liable to receive lashes, and likewise if one ate after dark an olive-bulk that was partially roasted, he is liable to receive lashes.


拽转谞讬 爪诇讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讗 诪讛 谞讗 讘诇讗讜 讗祝 爪诇讬 讘诇讗讜


This baraita taught that the case of roasted meat is similar to the case of partially roasted meat: Just as one who consumes partially roasted meat is in violation of a prohibition, so too, one who consumes this roasted meat while it is still day is in violation of a prohibition.


讘砖诇诪讗 谞讗 讻转讬讘 讗诇 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 谞讗 讗诇讗 爪诇讬 诪谞诇谉


The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to partially roasted meat, it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it partially roasted鈥 (Exodus 12:9). However, with regard to meat that has been roasted, from where do we derive that one who eats it before the proper time has committed a transgression?


讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛讘砖专 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 诇讗


The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall eat the meat on that night, roasted with fire, and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it鈥 (Exodus 12:8). The Gemara derives from this verse: At night, yes, the Paschal lamb may be eaten; however, by day, no, it may not be eaten in any manner.


讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛


The Gemara asks: This is a prohibition that comes by inference from a positive mitzva, i.e., it is not stated in the Torah in the form of a prohibition. There is a principle that every prohibition that comes by inference from a positive mitzva is classified as a positive mitzva. One who transgresses a mitzva of this kind is considered to have transgressed a positive mitzva, not a prohibition.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诪谞讬


The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?


Scroll To Top