לִשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

it comes to teach about the prohibition against taking as collateral other items used in the preparation of food.

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?

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ כְּרַב יְהוּדָה, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּ״כִי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל״ לָא מַשְׁמַע רֵיחַיִם וָרֶכֶב, הִלְכָּךְ לִשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

The Gemara responds: Rava could have said to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as there is a difference between the two cases: Rav Yehuda states his opinion only there, with regard to collateral, because the phrase: “For he takes a man’s life as collateral” (Deuteronomy 24:6), does not itself indicate that the verse is referring to the lower and upper millstones. Rather, it is a general statement, and therefore it comes to teach about the prohibition against taking as collateral other items used in the preparation of food, not to add a prohibition to take as collateral the lower and upper millstones.

אֲבָל הָכָא ״כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְלָאו.

But here, the phrase “but roasted with fire” comes for what purpose? It excludes only raw or cooked meat, which were already mentioned. Therefore, learn from it that it comes to include another prohibition in addition to those specific directives referring to raw and cooked meat.

וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַב הוּנָא: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּ״כִי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל״

And Abaye could have said to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. This is because Rav Huna states his opinion only there, with regard to collateral, because the prohibition “For he takes a man’s life as collateral”