Siman - Pesachim Daf 24
- אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות
Beginning on Daf 23b Rebbe Shmuel bar Nachmani challenged a number of suggestions for the source Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi used to teach that chametz and a shor haniskal are assur b’hana’ah. Abaye on this daf attempts to use the same pesukim that were initially mentioned but he reverses Rebbe Yehoshua’s reasoning. Let the Torah write only, באש תשרף – it, the chatas, should be burned in the fire, and it does not need to state, לא תאכל – it shall not be eaten. Rashi explains that if it must be burned then it obviously cannot be eaten. And if לא תאכל is not applicable here in its own context, let it be the source, based on Rebbe Elazar’s principle for darshaning, for all other prohibited items in the Torah that it is also prohibited to derive benefit from them.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye that perhaps לא תאכל comes to state a לא תעשה specifically for the chatas itself, because if the negative commandment was only learned through Rebbe Elazar’s rule, one would not receive malkus, because אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות – one does not incur lashes for transgressing a generalized prohibition. Therefore, לא תאכל is not superfluous and cannot be the source for the prohibition against getting hana’ah from chametz and a shor haniskal.
- כל היכא דאיכא למדרש דרשינן
Rav Pappa suggested the source for the prohibition to derive benefit from chametz and a shor haniskal came from the superfluous words לא יאכל mentioned in regard to kodshim that became tamei which cannot be eaten and must be burned. Ravina said to Rav Ashi, ואימא לעבור על שני לאוין – but perhaps the extra words of לא יאכל come to cause one who eats a tamei offering to transgress two prohibitions on its account – the prohibition it shall not be eaten and a prohibition that is derived from the offerings analogy to maaser, learned earlier on. Did not Abaye teach that one could be liable four sets of malkus for eating a putisa, a small non-kosher aquatic creature, five sets for eating an ant and six sets for eating a hornet? Rav Ashi answered, כל היכא דאיכה למדרש דרשינן – Wherever it is possible to expound a new halachah from a passuk we expound it, ולא מוקמינן בלאוי יתירי – and we do not assign the passuk for an additional prohibition.
- כל איסורין שבתורה אין לוקין עליהן אלא דרך אכילתן
Rebbe Abahu said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan, כל איסורין שבתורה אין לוקין עליהן אלא דרך אכילתן – All items prohibited for consumption that are mentioned in the Torah, one does not incur malkus on their account unless he eats them in their normal manner of consumption. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said this rule would exclude a case where one ate raw cheilev from receiving malkus since cheilev is generally cooked. Some say that Rebbe Yochanan said, כל איסורין שבתורה אין לוקין עליהן אלא דרך הנאתן – One does not incur malkus unless one enjoys them in their normal manner of deriving benefit. This would exclude a case where one placed cheilev of a shor haniskal on his wound for medicinal purposes. Abaye said, that all agree that regarding ,כלאי הכרם that one would incur malkus on their account even if he enjoys them not in the normal manner of getting hana’ah, משום דלא כתיב בהו אכילה – because “אכילה” is not written regarding them, which is basis for this principle. Instead the Torah forbids benefit to them from the word, תקדש.
