אלא בהתראת ספק קמיפלגי בהא נמי הא פליגי בה חדא זימנא
but [if] without the wall of the Temple Court, it is sanctified, and we do not require 'with' [in the sense of] near. R'Simeon B'Lakish said: Even if without the wall of the Temple Court, it is not sanctified; which proves that we require 'with' [in the sense of] near! - Rather, they differ over a doubtful warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Flagellation, the punishment for violating a negative command, is imposed only if the offender has been duly warned before he sinned. Now, if the leaven is in the Temple Court, he can be warned with the certainty that his proposed action is forbidden. But if it is not in the Temple Court, we are doubtful, as we do not know whether he has leaven at home, and thus it is a doubtful warning. R. Simeon b. Lakish holds that such is not a valid warning, and flagellation is not thereby incurred; while R. Johanan holds that it is a warning, and when we subsequently learn that he had leaven at home, he is flagellated.');"><sup>6</sup></span> But in this too they have already differed once?
Tosefta Pesachim
One who slaughters the Passover offering along with chametz on the fourteenth [of Nissan] transgresses a negative commandment, [but the] Passover offering itself is valid, and he fulfills his obligation through it with [respect to] the Passover offering. And whether he is the one who slaughters it, or the one who sprinkles its blood, or the one who offers it up [on the Altar, he is liable]. In what case does this apply? When one of the members of a collective [who will partake in the Paschal lamb] has chametz [in his possession]. If none of the members of the collective has chametz, he is exempt, but the one who pinches the neck of a bird inside [the Temple] with chametz on the fourteenth transgresses a negative commandment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosefta Pesachim
One who slaughters the Passover offering along with chametz on the fourteenth [of Nissan] transgresses a negative commandment, [but the] Passover offering itself is valid, and he fulfills his obligation through it with [respect to] the Passover offering. And whether he is the one who slaughters it, or the one who sprinkles its blood, or the one who offers it up [on the Altar, he is liable]. In what case does this apply? When one of the members of a collective [who will partake in the Paschal lamb] has chametz [in his possession]. If none of the members of the collective has chametz, he is exempt, but the one who pinches the neck of a bird inside [the Temple] with chametz on the fourteenth transgresses a negative commandment.
