How Many Lashes for Eating the Pesach Raw or Boiled

Our Rabbis taught: "In water." From this I know only water; from where do we learn the other liquids? You say it is an argument from the lesser to the greater, and so forth. Rabbi says: From this I know only water; from where do we learn the other liquids? The verse teaches, "boiled in any way," meaning from anything whatsoever. What is the practical difference between them? There is between them the case of meat roasted in a pot [tzli kedar]. And the first teacher, this phrase "boiled in any way," what does he do with it? He requires it for that which was taught: If one boiled it and afterward roasted it, or roasted it and afterward boiled it, he is liable. Granted, if he boiled it and afterward roasted it, he is liable, since he did boil it; but if he roasted it and afterward boiled it, it is still "roasted by fire"? Scripture says, "boiled in any way," from any state whatsoever. One might think that even if he roasted it fully [and then ate it raw in part] he would be liable. The verse teaches, "do not eat any of it raw or boiled": raw or boiled is what I told you, and not that which he roasted to its full need. What is the case in question? Where he made it charred. One might think it would be permitted. The verse teaches, "but only roasted by fire." And what is "raw"? As people say, half-cooked [avarnim, barely warmed]. One who cooks on the Sabbath in the hot springs of Tiberias is exempt, because that is not a derivative of fire. But a Pesach that one cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias renders one liable, because it is not "roasted by fire." Rava said: If one ate it raw, he is flogged twice; if he ate it boiled, he is flogged twice; if raw and boiled, he is flogged three times. Abaye said: One is not flogged for a prohibition stated in general terms. Some say only two sets of lashes are not given, but at least one set is given; and some say not even one, since the prohibition is not singled out like the prohibition against muzzling. "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled": since there was no need for the verse to say "but only roasted by fire," what does "but only roasted by fire" come to teach? To tell you that at the time when there is a positive obligation to eat it roasted, it is under the prohibition "you shall not eat it raw"; but at the time when there is no positive obligation to eat it roasted, it is not under the prohibition "you shall not eat it raw." Rabbi says: I might read "boiled"; what does "boiled in any way" teach? That one might think I have liability only for one who boiled it after dark; from where do I learn one who boiled it while it was still day? The verse teaches "boiled in any way," from any state whatsoever. But this "boiled in any way" has already been used for meat roasted in a pot. If so, let the verse say either "boiled boiled" or "cooked cooked." What is the force of "boiled cooked"? Learn from it two teachings. Our Rabbis taught: If one ate an olive's bulk of roasted meat while it was still day, and an olive's bulk of raw meat after dark, he is liable to karet [extirpation]. It teaches roasted alongside raw: just as raw is under a negative prohibition, so too roasted is under a negative prohibition. Granted regarding raw, for it is written, "do not eat any of it raw"; but roasted, from where do we learn it? It is written, "and they shall eat the meat in this night" (Exodus 12:8), at night, yes, by day, no. But this is a prohibition derived from a positive commandment, which has the status of a positive commandment. Rav Chisda said: This is the view of Rabbi Yehudah, for it was taught: "A bull or a lamb that has a limb too long or too short you may make a freewill offering" (Leviticus 22:23). "It" you may dedicate to the Temple's upkeep, but you may not dedicate unblemished animals to the Temple's upkeep. From here the sages said: anyone who dedicates unblemished animals to the Temple's upkeep transgresses a positive commandment. From this I know only a positive commandment; from where do I learn there is also a negative one? The verse teaches, "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying," teaching about the entire passage that it is under a negative commandment; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah, and so forth.