Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 41

1) EATING THE KORBAN PESACH IN ANY MANNER OTHER THAN ROASTED

QUESTION: The Beraisa suggests that perhaps "one should be Chayav [Malkus for eating the Korban Pesach] when it was overly roasted (burnt)," or raw, just like one is punished with Malkus for eating "Na" (partially roastd) or "Mevushal" (cooked). It concludes that the Torah says that one is only Chayav for eating the Korban Pesach when it is "Na" or "Mevushal," but not when it is burnt or raw.

Why must a Beraisa to teach us that one gets Malkus only for "Na" and "Mevushal" and for nothing else? The Torah explicitly only states that one may not eat the Korban Pesach when it is "Na" or "Mevushal!" Why would we have thought that one would get Malkus if he ate the Korban Pesach burnt or raw? (MAHARSHA)

ANSWER: The verse concludes that one may not eat the Korban Pesach Na or Mevushal, "only roasted on a fire." Later (Daf 41b), the Gemara says that according to many opinions, this latter statement is also a Lav. That is, it is prohibited with a Lav to eat the Korban Pesach any way other than roasted (see the first Rashi on 41b, DH Lokeh Shetayim). Therefore, we might have thought that if one eats it burnt or raw, one would get Malkus. (MAHARSHA)

However, if so then why does the Beraisa indeed conclude that one does *not* get Malkus for eating it burnt or raw?

According to TOSFOS (41b, DH Ika), although the requirement to eat it "only roasted on a fire" is sometimes considered to be a Lav, it is only considered a Lav with regard to eating the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal" (since it is written in immediate proximity to the prohibition of eating it Na or Mevushal). The Torah means to say that a person who eats the Korban Na or Mevushal transgresses *two* Lav's, and not just one. Eating the Korban when it was prepared any other way (overly roasted, or raw), however, is only prohibited with an Aseh.

RASHI disagrees and says that "only roasted on a fire" is a Lav for eating the Korban in *any* manner other than roasted. Rashi (DH Yachol) therefore suggests that there is no Malkus for eating the Pesach [burnt or] raw because the Lav that prohibits it is a Lav shebi'Chelalos (a broad, inclusive Lav that covers many actions and not a single, specific one -- see following Insights), and the Tana of this Beraisa is of the opinion that one does not receive Malkus for a Lav shebi'Chelalos.

41b

OPINIONS: Rava and Abaye argue concerning the prohibition against eating the Korban Pesach "Na" or "Mevushal." Rava says that if one eats the Korban Pesach "Na" (or "Mevushal") one gets two sets of Malkus -- one for eating it "Na" and another for eating it *not roasted*. Abaye says that one does not get two sets of Malkus; rather, one gets either one set of Malkus (according to the Gemara's first explanation of Abaye's words) or none at all (according to the Gemara's second explanation of Abaye's words), because it is a "Lav shebi'Chelalos" (a broad, inclusive Lav that covers many actions and not a single, specific one). Rava and Abaye argue similarly with regard to a Nazir who eats grapes.

What exactly is a Lav shebi'Chelalos? Furthermore, according to the Gemara's first explanation of Abaye, why does one get even one set of Malkus if Abaye holds that one does not get Malkus for a Lav shebi'Chelalos, and the Lav against eating the Korban Pesach in any way other than roasted is a Lav shebi'Chelalos?

(a) RASHI and TOSFOS understand Abaye's opinion as follows. The Gemara's first explanation, which says that Abaye means to say that one gets one set of Malkus but not two, means to say that if one was warned by witnesses ("Hasra'ah") not to eat the Korban in a manner other than roasted, but was not warned not to eat the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal," and the person went ahead and ate the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal," he gets Malkus for transgressing "only roasted on a fire." He is only exempt from Malkus in a case where Malkus for Na or Mevushal -- or Malkus for both Na and Mevushal - - coincides with Malkus for "only roasted."

(Rashi and Tosfos differ, however, when the person ate the Korban in a state other than "Na," "Mevushal," or roasted. According to Rashi, one gets Malkus for not eating the Korban roasted even if the Korban was not "Na" or "Mevushal" -- for example, if it was raw or burnt. Tosfos holds that one will not get Malkus at all according to Abaye when the Korban was not "Na" or "Mevushal" -- see previous Insights.)

According to Rashi and Tosfos, a Lav shebi'Chelalos refers to any Lav that is not specific (such as "Do not eat the Korban Pesach... [in any way] other than roasted on a fire"), and it means that one will not get Malkus for it when it is *done together with a Lav that is specific*. But if it is done alone then one does get Malkus for it.

The second explanation of Abaye, that states that one gets no Malkus, means that there is no Malkus for transgressing "only roasted on a fire," because that Lav includes many types of ways of preparing the Korban, and does not forbid any specific way of preparing the Korban. Since it is so broad, it is called a Lav shebi'Chelalos. However, even according to this opinion -- which says that there is never Malkus for transgressing "only roasted on a fire," Abaye agrees that one gets Malkus for eating the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal" (as opposed to saying that the whole Lav, including the prohibition against eating it "Na" or "Mevushal," is a Lav shebi'Chelalos).

(b) The RAMBAN (in his comments on the Rambam's Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh #9) writes that Lav shebi'Chelalos, in the context of our Sugya, does not mean a "broad" Lav. Ours is a different type of Lav shebi'Chelalos.

The opinion that says one gets only one set of Malkus holds that one cannot get two sets of Malkus for transgressing one Lav (since it only says, "Do not eat..." one time). *Any* single set of Malkus, though, could be administered (that is, for eating it "Na," "Mevushal," or for eating it any way other than roasted). (According to this view, if a person eats a Korban Pesach which is both "Na" and "Mevushal," one gets only one set of Malkus. Rashi and Tosfos, on the other hand, would hold that in this case even Abaye would agree that one gets two sets of Malkus.)

The opinion that says one gets no Malkus again holds that one does not get Malkus at all for transgressing "only roasted on a fire," but not because it is a "broad" Lav. Rather, it is a different type of Lav shebi'Chelalos. This Lav is not like a normal Lav which tells us specifically what we may *not* do; rather, it is a Lav telling us *what we should do*. One does not get Malkus for transgressing such a Lav. Alternatively, the reason why one gets no Malkus is because the Lav against eating the Korban any way other than "roasted on a fire" *includes* eating it "Na" or "Mevushal." Why, then, did the Torah specify that one should not eat it "Na" or "Mevushal" if those ways are already included in the Lav? It must be that the Torah is specifying these two types in order to show that *only* for these does one get Malkus, but one does not get Malkus for eating it any other way.

(c) The RAMBAM (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh #9) has a different approach. The Rambam explains that the opinion that says one gets a single set of Malkus follows the logic explained by the Ramban, that one cannot get more than one set of Malkus for transgressing just one Lav.

The opinion that says one get no Malkus at all holds that one does not get Malkus for transgressing "only roasted on a fire" *nor for eating it "Na" or "Mevushal"*. The reason is because the prohibition in the Torah, "Do not eat it Na or Mevushal but only roasted on a fire," is not specific to only one action, but it includes a number of actions (eating it "Na," eating it "Mevushal," and eating it any way other than roasted). Therefore, since this Lav is broad, and any broad Lav is a Lav shebi'Chelalos, one gets no Malkus at all for this Lav.