Lashes on General Prohibitions

In today’s daf, Bava Metzia 15, we see a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda. Rav Huna says that in a case of taking as surety an upper and lower millstone, in addition to the two violations and lashes, for the upper and lower separately, there’s a third set of lashes for ki nefesh hu chovel. Rav Yehuda disagrees that there’s an extra set of lashes, once your incurred the basic lashes.

Rav Huna represents Sura academy. Rav Yehuda represents Pumbedita academy, which he founded and led.

Abaye and Rava are also leaders of Pumbedita, so we might expect them to both work within Rav Yehuda. The gemara tries to show that a separate Abaye / Rava dispute align with Rav Yehuda / Rav Huna respectively.

לֵימָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא, בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי?

§ The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Abaye and Rava, in another dispute, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of this dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda concerning the collateral? The Torah commands with regard to the preparation of the Paschal offering: “Do not eat of it raw, nor cooked in water, but roasted with fire, its head with its legs and with the innards thereof” (Exodus 12:9). Abaye and Rava engage in a dispute concerning the case of one who ate the meat when it was not properly roasted.

דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אָכַל נָא – לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם: מִשּׁוּם ״נָא״, וּמִשּׁוּם ״כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ״. מְבוּשָּׁל – לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם: מִשּׁוּם ״מְבוּשָּׁל״, וּמִשּׁוּם ״כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ״. נָא וּמְבוּשָּׁל – לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ: מִשּׁוּם ״נָא״, וּמִשּׁוּם ״מְבוּשָּׁל״, וּמִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ״.

As Rava says: If he ate an olive-bulk of it raw, he is flogged with two sets of lashes. One set of lashes is due to the prohibition: “Do not eat of it raw,” and the other is due to the prohibition: “But roasted with fire.” If he ate an olive-bulk of a Paschal offering that had been cooked, he also is flogged with two sets of lashes: One set of lashes is due to the prohibition against it being cooked in water, and the second is due to the injunction: “But roasted with fire.” If he ate an olive-bulk of both raw meat and cooked meat, he is flogged with three sets of lashes: One set of lashes is due to the prohibition against it being raw, and the second is due to the prohibition against it being cooked, and the third is due to the prohibition: “Do not eat of it…but roasted with fire.”

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת. לֵימָא אַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר כְּרַב יְהוּדָה, וְרָבָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַב הוּנָא?

Conversely, Abaye says: The prohibition “Do not eat of it…but roasted with fire” is not referring exclusively to this issue, but includes many cases, and one is not flogged for violating a general prohibition. In this case, Abaye and Rava apparently disagree over the same matter as do Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda. Shall we say that Abaye states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and Rava states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna?

I think that this is indeed possible. Recall that while Abaye is a native Pumbeditan, Rava comes from elsewhere, with his primary teacher as Rav Nachman, of Nehardea (and frequent disputant of Rav Yehuda), and Rav Chisda, who is Rav Huna’s colleague and presided alongside Rabba bar Rav Huna over Sura academy after Rav Huna’s death. So, he may come with some Suran baggage and traditions.

The gemara, however, explains how it not need be so. Rava and Abaye can each explain themselves according to the other, of Rav Yehuda or Rav Huna. I’d point out that “need not be so” just means that it isn’t compelled, and there’s no absolute proof. That doesn’t mean that it indeed isn’t so, just that it is now one possibility in interpreting the evidence.

In explaining Rava so that he works with Rav Yehuda, the gemara essentially makes Rava agree with Abaye that אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת. However, this particular case of “roasting with fire” is different, for a very specific reason. This would be important to us in paskening halachah. After all, we usually rule like Rava over Abaye except in six enumerated cases. If Rava were to say that we do lash for general prohibitions, then maybe he wins. Now that the gemara reinterpreted Rava, assuming we adopt this reinterpretation, then everyone agrees that we do not lash.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. I strongly suspect that Rava holds this consistently. Why? This is not the only time Rava says something, and Abaye responds that אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת. Here is a search of that phrase, with 10 hits on 6 separate sugyot:

Pesachim 24a is Rav Pappa objecting to Abaye in interpreting Rabbi Eleazar, invoking the (presumably agreed upon) principle that אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.

Pesachim 41b is the primary sugya for the eating non-roasted that we have in our Bava Metzia sugya. So it is Rava vs. Abaye. A point that might be relevant is that there are two versions in understanding Abaye there, whether there is however a single lashing, or not even one. See inside. Also salient is that Rava starts on the topic in interpreting his teacher, Rav Chisda, whom I mentioned before, about violating by eating a Paschal offering boiled in the hot springs of Teveriah, because it is not tzli eish, the general prohibition.

In that same sugya, there’s another dispute between Abaye and Rava, about a nazir eating a grape skin, or a grape pit, and receiving two sets of lashes.

רָבָא אָמַר: אָכַל זָג — לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. חַרְצָן — לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. זָג וְחַרְצָן — לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ.

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: “All 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” (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.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: תַּרְתֵּי הוּא דְּלָא לָקֵי, חֲדָא מִיהַת לָקֵי. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: חֲדָא נָמֵי לָא לָקֵי, דְּלָא מְיַיחַד לָאוֵיהּ כְּלָאו דַּחֲסִימָה.

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.

The second set is because of “he shall eat nothing that is made of the grapevine”. Now, in Bava Metzia, the defense of Rava regarding roasting was אֲבָל הָכָא ״כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא, what else other than cooking or eating raw is there, other than roasting? (Set aside that there is chamei teveriah of Rav Chisda, or maybe other means of cooking, e.g. baking.) What do we say by grapes? Are the pit and skin the only thing? What about the grape flesh?

In Menachot 58b:

איתמר המעלה משאור ומדבש על גבי המזבח אמר רבא לוקה משום שאור ולוקה משום דבש לוקה משום עירובי שאור ומשום עירובי דבש

§ The Gemara discusses another dispute between Abaye and Rava on this topic: It was stated: With regard to one who offers up a mixture made of leaven and of honey on the altar, Rava says: He is flogged with four sets of lashes for this act, as the verse: “As any leaven and any honey, you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11), includes four separate prohibitions. He is flogged one set due to the prohibition against sacrificing leaven, and he is flogged a second set due to the prohibition against sacrificing honey, and he is flogged a third set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of leaven, and he is flogged a fourth set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of honey.

אביי אמר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות

Abaye says: One is not flogged for a general prohibition, i.e., a single mitzva in the Torah that includes many different prohibited acts. Since all these actions are covered by the prohibition: “You shall not burn,” it is considered a general prohibition, for which one is not flogged.

איכא דאמרי חדא מיהא לקי

The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the opinion of Abaye. There are those who say that Abaye concedes that in any event the offender is flogged with one set of lashes for sacrificing leaven, and he is also flogged a second set of lashes for sacrificing honey, as these are not considered general prohibitions. Since the phrase: “You shall not burn,” is referring to both leaven and honey, it is as though it were written: You shall not burn leaven; you shall not burn honey.

ואיכא דאמרי חדא נמי לא לקי דהא לא מיחד לאויה כלאו דחסימה:

And there are those who say that Abaye maintains that the offender is not even flogged with one set of lashes, as the prohibition he transgressed is not specific to one matter, like the prohibition against muzzling. The principle that one is liable to be flogged for violating a prohibition is derived from the juxtaposition of the mitzva: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain” (Deuteronomy 25:4), with the verses that mention lashes. It is inferred from this juxtaposition that one is not liable to be flogged for violating prohibitions whose circumstances are not similar to that of muzzling, e.g., a general prohibition that is not referring to one specific action.

This is starting to seem like a pattern. Can the Bava Metzia answer apply here, in terms of mixtures of honey and mixtures of leaven? Surely mixtures can include all sorts of other materials.

In Temurah 7b,

איתמר המעלה אברי בעלי מומין לגבי מזבח אמר רבא עובר משום בל תקטירו כולו ומשום בל תקטירו מקצתו (אמר אביי) אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות

§ A baraita above (6b) stated that one who sacrifices a blemished animal on the altar transgresses the prohibition “You may not burn all of it,” and if he sacrificed part of it, he transgresses the prohibition “You may not burn part of it.” With regard to this it was stated: In the case of one who brings up the limbs of blemished animals onto the altar, Rava says that he violates both the prohibition of “You may not burn all of it;” and the prohibition of “You may not burn part of it,” and he receives two sets of lashes. Abaye says: One is not flogged twice for violating a general prohibition. Since one verse serves as the source for both prohibitions, one is not flogged twice for its violation.

Again Abaye and Rava disagree. Maybe Rava can say here that there is no other alternative, because the general prohibition is either burning all of it or burning part of it?? (But regardless, are either of these two general prohibitions really not general statements that include things not mentioned in the other more specific prohibitions about sacrificing blemished animals? I don’t know. For reference, the underlying Tosefta listing the five names of prohibitions enumerates it thusly,

המקדיש בעל מום למזבח עובר בחמשה לאוין בל תקדיש בל תשחט בל תזרוק את הדם ובל תקטיר חלבו ובל תקטיר מקצתו שנאמר (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״א) תמים יהיה לרצון כל מום וגו' רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אף משום בל תקבל את דמו.

) The gemara then mentions an attack on Abaye from a brayta. It does not mention an attack on Rava for this principle. The attack is:

מיתיבי המקדיש בעלי מומין לגבי מזבח עובר משום חמשה שמות תיובתא דאביי

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (1:10): One who consecrates blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar violates five separate categories of prohibition. The aforementioned baraita enumerated these and included both the prohibition “You may not burn all of it” and the prohibition “You may not burn part of it,” indicating that one is flogged for transgressing each of these prohibitions. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

Abaye defends himself. But the gemara persists in the attack, and says that Abaye is indeed refuted. Is this a refutation of אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת, or is the Rava carve-out still in play, where there is no alternative that can be spoken of, so it must come for a lav.

Keritot 4-5 suggests that a dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and the Sages is predicated on Rabbi Yishmael holding that one does lash on general prohibitions, and the Sages disagreeing. But they push it off and say that perhaps Rabbi Yishmael maintains אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.

At the end of the day, I’m unconvinced that Rava really agrees with Abaye that אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת except in exceptional cases. Rather, the reason Abaye repeatedly objects to him, with these very words, אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת, if even Rava agrees if not for a different reason.

This also has repercussions on tomorrow’s daf, because the proof to Rav Yehuda from the two braytot, according to both Rashi and Tosafot, assume that Rav Yehuda holds אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת. I’m not so convinced that is how to understand Rav Yehuda, or the proof.