Commentary for Zevachim 212:16

אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנא ואמר לי ממותיר לא אתיא דאיכא למיפרך מה למותיר שכן אין לו תקנה תאמר פסח יש לו תקנה

let us infer [a negative injunction in their case] from one who leaves [anything] over [of the Passover-offering]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is forbidden by a negative injunction: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning (Ex. XII, 10) .');">²⁰</span> If Scripture interdicted in the case of one who leaves over, though it did not prescribe a penalty, is it not logical that it interdicted in the case of the Passover-offering and circumcision where it did prescribe a penalty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if such an argument is permissible, they should rank as subject to a negative injunction too. viz., not to neglect them.');">²¹</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 212:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.