Bava Metzia 115B

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 Talmud suggests: should 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 3 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.”