לשאר דברים הוא דאתא

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

לימא אביי ורבא בפלוגתא דרב הונא ורב יהודה קמיפלגי

§ 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.

דאמר רבא אכל נא לוקה שתים משום נא ומשום כי אם צלי אש מבושל לוקה שתים משום מבושל ומשום כי אם צלי אש נא ומבושל לוקה שלש משום נא ומשום מבושל ומשום לא תאכלנו כי אם צלי אש

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. ”

אביי אמר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות לימא אביי דאמר כרב יהודה ורבא דאמר כרב הונא

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?

אמר לך רבא אנא דאמרי אפילו כרב יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר רב יהודה התם אלא דכי נפש הוא חבל לא משמע ריחים ורכב הלכך לשאר דברים הוא דאתא

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.

אבל הכא כי אם צלי אש למאי אתא שמע מינה ללאו

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.

ואביי אמר לך אנא דאמרי אפילו לרב הונא עד כאן לא קאמר רב הונא התם אלא דכי נפש הוא חבל

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”