What exactly is a Lav shebi'Chelalos? Furthermore, according to the Gemara's
first explanation of Abaye, why does one get even one set of Malkus if Abaye
holds that one does not get Malkus for a Lav shebi'Chelalos, and the Lav
against eating the Korban Pesach in any way other than roasted is a Lav
(a) RASHI and TOSFOS understand Abaye's opinion as follows. The Gemara's
first explanation, which says that Abaye means to say that one gets one set
of Malkus but not two, means to say that if one was warned by witnesses
("Hasra'ah") not to eat the Korban in a manner other than roasted, but was
not warned not to eat the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal," and the person went ahead and ate the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal," he gets Malkus for
transgressing "only roasted on a fire." He is only exempt from Malkus in a
case where Malkus for Na or Mevushal -- or Malkus for both Na and Mevushal -
- coincides with Malkus for "only roasted."
(Rashi and Tosfos differ, however, when the person ate the Korban in a state
other than "Na," "Mevushal," or roasted. According to Rashi, one gets Malkus
for not eating the Korban roasted even if the Korban was not "Na" or
"Mevushal" -- for example, if it was raw or burnt. Tosfos holds that one
will not get Malkus at all according to Abaye when the Korban was not "Na"
or "Mevushal" -- see previous Insights.)
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"), and it means that one will not get Malkus for it
when it is *done together with a Lav that is specific*. But if it is done
alone then one does get Malkus for it.
The second explanation of Abaye, that states that one gets no Malkus, means
that there is 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 of preparing the Korban. Since it is so broad, it is
called a Lav shebi'Chelalos. However, even according to this opinion --
which says that there is never Malkus for transgressing "only roasted on a
fire," Abaye agrees that one gets Malkus for eating the Korban "Na" or
"Mevushal" (as opposed to saying that the whole Lav, including the
prohibition against eating it "Na" or "Mevushal," is a Lav shebi'Chelalos).
(b) The RAMBAN (in his comments on the Rambam's Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh
#9) writes that Lav shebi'Chelalos, in the context of our Sugya, does not
mean a "broad" Lav. Ours is a different type of Lav shebi'Chelalos.
The opinion that says one gets only one set of Malkus holds that one cannot
get two sets of Malkus for transgressing one Lav (since it only says, "Do
not eat..." one time). *Any* single set of Malkus, though, could be
administered (that is, for eating it "Na," "Mevushal," or for eating it any
way other than roasted). (According to this view, if a person eats a Korban
Pesach which is both "Na" and "Mevushal," one gets only one set of Malkus.
Rashi and Tosfos, on the other hand, would hold that in this case even Abaye
would agree that one gets two sets of Malkus.)
The opinion that says one gets no Malkus again holds that one does not get
Malkus at all for transgressing "only roasted on a fire," but not because it
is a "broad" Lav. Rather, it is a different type of Lav shebi'Chelalos. This
Lav is not like a normal Lav which tells us specifically what we may *not*
do; rather, it is a Lav telling us *what we should do*. One does not get
Malkus for transgressing such a Lav. Alternatively, the reason why one gets
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, did
the Torah specify that one should not eat it "Na" or "Mevushal" if those
ways are already included in the Lav? It must be that the Torah is
specifying these two types in order to show that *only* for these does one
get Malkus, but one does not get Malkus for eating it any other way.
(c) The RAMBAM (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh #9) has a different approach. The
Rambam explains that the opinion that says one gets a single set of Malkus
follows the logic explained by the Ramban, that one cannot get more than one
set of Malkus for transgressing just one Lav.
The opinion that says one get no Malkus at all holds that one does not get
Malkus for transgressing "only roasted on a fire" *nor for eating it "Na" or
"Mevushal"*. The reason is because the prohibition in the Torah, "Do not
eat it Na or Mevushal but only roasted on a fire," is not specific to only
one action, but it includes a number of actions (eating it "Na," eating it
"Mevushal," and eating it any way other than roasted). Therefore, since this
Lav is broad, and any broad Lav is a Lav shebi'Chelalos, one gets no Malkus
at all for this Lav.