להכי כתיב קרא למימר דלא אתא מבינייא
Rather, for that reason a text is written [to include sprinkling] to intimate that you may not infer from both combined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture thus intimates that this reasoning is not permissible in the present instance, Hence it is also not permissible in respect of taking the fistful or receiving, and so no text is required to show that these do not involve liability.');"><sup>4</sup></span> R'Abbahu said: If one slaughtered [a sacrifice] and sprinkled [its blood without]: according to R'Ishmael he is liable to one [sin-offering], [whereas] according to R'Akiba he is liable to two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ishmael infers liability for sprinkling from the phrase, 'blood shall be imputed'. Now, this is actually written in connection with slaughtering: thus we have a single interdict covering both, and the same kareth is written in connection with both. Hence when he commits both in one state of ignorance, they rank as one offence, and render him liable to one sin-offering only. R. Akiba, however, infers it from 'or a sacrifice', which is written in reference to offering-up. Hence slaughtering and sprinkling are separate interdicts and involve separate sin-offerings.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Tosefta Pesachim
[The Mishnah, Pes. 3:8, says that one who leaves Jerusalem and remembers that he is carrying consecrated meat may burn it where he stands if he has passed Mount Scopus, but otherwise he must return to the Temple and burn it there.] What is [Mount] Scopus? [It is the place from where] one sees [all of Jerusalem] and there is nothing that obstructs [his view]. You say, one who is on his way to slaughter the Passover offering, or to circumcise his son, or to eat at a betrothal feast in his father-in-law's house, and he remembers that he has chametz inside his house, if he has enough time to return, he returns [to his house and removes the chametz], and if not, he does not return [but rather he annuls it in his heart]. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, any feast [hosted by an am ha'aretz] that is not in furtherance of a mitzvah, a chaver is not permitted to eat from it (see Dem. 2:3). If he passed [Mount] Scopus, he burns it (i.e., the consecrated meat) where he stands, and if not, he returns and burns it in front of the Temple with wood from the [Altar] pile. In other words, they only said that he need not return in order to make it easy on him. How much [consecrated meat or chametz triggers the requirement that] they return? Ben Beteira says, [if] it has at least the equivalent of two eggs'-bulk, but we did not find anyone who agreed with him (see Pes. 50a:2). [If] he wanted to burn it in front of the Temple with his own wood, or on its roof with wood from the [Altar] pile (see Zeb. 107b:14), we do not listen to him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
