QUESTION: The Beraisa suggests that "one should be liable [for Malkus if he eats the Korban Pesach] when it is overly roasted (burnt)," or if he eats it raw, just as one is liable if he eats the Korban when it is "Na" (partially roasted) or "Mevushal" (cooked). The Beraisa concludes that the Torah says that one is liable only if he eats the Korban Pesach when it is "Na" or "Mevushal," but not when it is burnt or raw.

Why does the Beraisa need to teach that one is punished with Malkus only for "Na" and "Mevushal" but for nothing else? The Torah explicitly states that one may not eat the Korban Pesach only when it is "Na" or "Mevushal." Why would we have thought that one should be punished with Malkus if he eats the Korban Pesach burnt or raw? (MAHARSHA)

ANSWER: The verse concludes that one may not eat the Korban Pesach when it is "Na" or "Mevushal," but only when it is "roasted on a fire." The Gemara later (41b) says that this part of the verse also expresses a Lav, according to some opinions. That is, the verse teaches that one is prohibited to eat the Korban Pesach prepared in any state other than roasted (see Rashi to 41b, DH Lokeh Shtayim). Therefore, we might have thought that one who eats the Korban burnt or raw is punished with Malkus. (MAHARSHA)

However, if the verse indeed prohibits one from eating the Korban Pesach in any state other than roasted, why does the Beraisa conclude that one is not punished with Malkus if he eats it burnt or raw?

According to TOSFOS (41b, DH Ika), the requirement to eat the Korban Pesach "only roasted on a fire" is considered a Lav only under certain circumstances. It is considered a Lav with regard to eating the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal" (since these words are written in immediate proximity to the prohibition of eating it "Na" or "Mevushal"). The Torah means that a person who eats the Korban when it is "Na" or "Mevushal" transgresses two prohibitions, and not just one. One who eats the Korban when it was prepared any other way (overly roasted, or raw), however, transgresses only a Mitzvas Aseh (to eat it "only roasted on a fire").

RASHI disagrees and says that "only roasted on a fire" is a Lav that prohibits eating the Korban in any manner other than roasted. Rashi (DH Yachol) therefore suggests that one is not punished with Malkus for eating the Pesach raw (or burnt), because the Lav that prohibits it is a "Lav shebi'Chelalos" (a single, broad Lav that prohibits many different acts; see following Insight), and the Tana of this Beraisa maintains that one is not punished with Malkus for transgressing a Lav shebi'Chelalos.

OPINIONS: Rava and Abaye argue with regard to the prohibition against eating the Korban Pesach "Na" or "Mevushal." Rava says that one who eats the Korban Pesach "Na" (or "Mevushal") is punished with two sets of Malkus -- one for eating it "Na" and another for eating it not roasted. Abaye says that one is not punished with two sets of Malkus; rather, he receives 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 single, broad Lav that prohibits many different acts). Rava and Abaye argue similarly with regard to a Nazir who eats grapes.

According to the Gemara's first explanation of Abaye, why is one punished with even one set of Malkus, if Abaye maintains that one does not receive Malkus at all for a Lav shebi'Chelalos? The Lav against eating the Korban Pesach in any way other than roasted is a Lav shebi'Chelalos, and thus one should not receive Malkus for transgressing it.

The answer to this question involves the precise definition of a Lav shebi'Chelalos.

(a) TOSFOS understands Abaye's opinion as follows. The Gemara's first explanation of Abaye's words, that Abaye maintains that one receives one set of Malkus but not two, refers to the following case. One was warned by witnesses with Hasra'ah not to eat the Korban in a manner other than roasted, but he was not warned not to eat the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal." He ignored the warning and ate the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal." In such a case, he is punished with Malkus only for his transgression of "only roasted on a fire," but not for his transgression of "Na" or "Mevushal."

Rashi offers a similar explanation. However, he maintains that one also receives Malkus for eating the Korban Pesach "not roasted" in a second case. He receives Malkus for eating the Korban "not roasted" even if the Korban was neither "Na" nor "Mevushal" -- for example, if it was raw or burnt. According to Tosfos, Abaye maintains that one does not receive Malkus at all when the Korban was not "Na" or "Mevushal"; he receives Malkus for eating the Korban Pesach "not roasted" only if he eats it "Na" or "Mevushal" (see previous Insight).

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," which does not mention any specific manner in which one may not eat the Korban Pesach). One does not receive Malkus when he transgresses such a Lav together with a Lav that is specific. If, however, one transgresses a Lav shebi'Chelalos alone, he does receive Malkus.

The Gemara's second explanation of Abaye, that Abaye maintains that one receives no Malkus, means that one receives 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. Since the Lav is so broad, it is called a "Lav shebi'Chelalos." However, even according to this opinion (that one never receives Malkus for transgressing "only roasted on a fire"), Abaye agrees that one receives Malkus if he eats the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal"; we do not consider the entire Lav, including the prohibition against eating the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal," to be a Lav shebi'Chelalos.

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

The Gemara's first explanation (that one receives only one set of Malkus) maintains that one cannot be punished with two sets of Malkus for transgressing one Lav (since the verse says "Do not eat..." only one time). A single set of Malkus, however, may be administered, whether it is for a transgression of eating the Korban "Na," "Mevushal," or any way other than roasted. In this case, "Lav shebi'Chelalos" means "a combination of more than one Lav." (According to this view, if a person eats a Korban Pesach which is both "Na" and "Mevushal," he receives only one set of Malkus. Rashi and Tosfos, on the other hand, maintain that in such a case even Abaye agrees that one receives two sets of Malkus.)

The Gemara's second explanation (that one receives no Malkus) maintains that one does not receive Malkus at all for transgressing "only roasted on a fire," but -- again -- not because that Lav is a "broad" Lav, but because that Lav is a different type of Lav shebi'Chelalos. It is not like a normal Lav which specifically instructs us what we may not do; rather, this Lav tells us what we must do, and we infer from there what we may not do. One does not receive Malkus for transgressing such a Lav.

Alternatively, the reason why one receives 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, does the Torah specify that one should not eat it "Na" or "Mevushal" if those ways are already included in the Lav of "only roasted on a fire"? It must be that the Torah specifies these two types in order to show that only for these two does one receive Malkus, but one does not receive Malkus for eating the Korban Pesach in any other state.

(c) The RAMBAM (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh #9, DH veha'Min ha'Sheni) explains the Gemara's first explanation (that one receives a single set of Malkus) according to the logic expressed by the Ramban, that one cannot receive more than one set of Malkus for transgressing just one Lav.

However, the Rambam understands the Gemara's second explanation (that one receives no Malkus) in the same way that Rashi and Tosfos understand it. The prohibition in the Torah, "Do not eat it Na or Mevushal but only roasted on a fire," is not specific to one action, but it includes a number of actions (eating it "Na," eating it "Mevushal," and eating it any way other than roasted). Since this Lav is broad, it is a Lav shebi'Chelalos and one receives no Malkus at all for this Lav.