Pesachim 126

או לאחד מבני חבורה ועד שיהא עמו בעזרה ר' יוחנן אמר אע"פ שאין עמו בעזרה במאי קמיפלגי אילימא בעל בסמוך קמיפלגי דרבי שמעון בן לקיש סבר על בסמוך ורבי יוחנן סבר לא בעינן על בסמוך והא איפלגו בה חדא זימנא

or to one of the members of the company,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Registered for this sacrifice.');">¹</span> and providing that it [the leaven] is with him in the Temple Court. R'Johanan said: Even if it is not with him in the Temple Court.

דתנן השוחט תודה לפנים ולחומה חוץ לחומה לא קדש הלחם

Wherein do they differ? Shall we say that they differ in whether 'with' ['al] means 'near,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XXXIV, 25, quoted on p. 317, n. 6.');">²</span> R'Simeon B'Lakish holding, 'with' means near, while R'Johanan holds, We do not require 'with' [in the sense of] near,' - but surely they have differed in this once [already]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then repeat the controversy here?');">³</span>

מאי חוץ לחומה רבי יוחנן אמר חוץ לחומת בית פאגי אבל חוץ לחומת העזרה קדיש ולא בעינן על בסמוך רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר אפילו חוץ לחומת עזרה לא קדיש אלמא בעינן על בסמוך

For we learned: If a man slaughters the thanksoffering within [the Temple Court], while its bread is without the wall, the bread is not sanctified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thanksoffering was accompanied by forty loaves. These were verbally sanctified before the sacrifice was actually slaughtered, whereupon they acquired a monetary consecration, which means that they might not henceforth be eaten or put to use until the offering is sacrificed; while if they became defiled, they were redeemed and reverted to hullin. The slaughtering of the sacrifice conferred intrinsic ('bodily') kg sanctity upon them; they were more readily disqualified then, and if defiled they had to be burnt. In this connection too 'with' () is written: kg then he shall offer with the sacrifice of the thanksoffering unleavened cakes . . with () cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering');">⁴</span> What does 'without the wall' mean? R'Johanan said, Without the wall of Beth Pagi;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fortified suburb of Jerusalem (Jast.) , which is the uttermost boundary of the town (Rashi) . Its exact spot has not been identified, v. Neubauer, Geographie, pp. 247ff.');">⁵</span>

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.');">⁶</span> But in this too they have already differed once?

דאיתמר שבועה שאוכל ככר זו היום ועבר היום ולא אכלה ר' יוחנן ור"ש בן לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו אינו לוקה רבי יוחנן אמר אינו לוקה משום דהוה ליה לאו שאין בו מעשה וכל לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו אבל התראת ספק שמה התראה

For it was stated: [If a man declares, 'I take] an oath that I will eat this loaf to-day,' and th passed and he did not eat it, - R'Johanan and R'Simeon B'Lakish both maintain, He is not flagellated. R'Johanan said, He is not flagellated, because it is a negative injunction not involving an action,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he violates the injunction, 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (Ex. XX, 7) by remaining passive, not by a positive act, v. Shebu. 20b.');">⁷</span> and every negative command not involving an action, we do not flagellate for it; but a doubtful warning counts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its name is'.');">⁸</span>

ור"ש בן לקיש אמר אינו לוקה משום דהוה ליה התראת ספק והתראת ספק לא שמה התראה אבל לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו

as a warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For naturally until the last moment of the day only a doubtful warning can be given, as we do not know that he will permit the day to pass without eating it.');">⁹</span> While R'Simeon B'Lakish said, He is not flagellated, because it is a doubtful warning, and a doubtful warning does not count as a warning; but as for a negative command not involving an action, we flagellate for it! I will tell you: After all they differ in whether 'with' implies near, yet it is necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For them to differ in both cases.');">¹⁰</span>

אמרי לעולם בעל בסמוך קא מיפלגי וצריכא דאי איפליגו לענין חמץ הוה אמינא בההוא הוא דקאמר רבי יוחנן דלא בעינן על בסמוך משום דאיסור הוא וכל היכא דאיתיה איתיה

For if they differed on the subject of leaven [alone], I would say: It is only there that R'Johanan maintains that we do not require 'with' [in the sense of] near, because it is a prohibited article, and wherever it is, it is;but in the matter o sanctifying the bread,it is not sanctified save within [the Temple Court], [hence] I would assume [that] he agrees with R'Simeon B'Lakish, that if it is inside it is sanctified, and if not, it is not sanctified, by ana with service vessels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These sanctify whatever is put into them, but only when they are in the Temple Court (Tosaf.) .');">¹¹</span> Thus this [latter case] is necessary. And if we were informed [of this] in the matter of sanctifying the bread, I would say: in this R'Simeon B'Lakish maintains that we require 'with' [in the sense of] near, so that if it is inside it is sanctified, [and] if not, It is not sanctified.

אבל לענין מקדש לחם לא קדיש אלא בפנים אימא מודה ליה לר"ש בן לקיש דבעינן על בסמוך דאי איתיה גואי קדיש אי לא לא קדיש מידי דהוה אכלי שרת צריכא

But in the matter of lea would say that] he agrees with R'Johanan that we do not require 'with' [in the sense of] near, because it is a prohibited article, and wherever it is, it is. Hence they are [both] necessary. R'Oshaia asked R'Ammi: What if he who slaughters has none, but one of the members of the company has [leaven]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish states it (supra) as an obvious thing, but R. Oshaia was in doubt.');">¹²</span>

ואי אשמעינן לענין מקדש לחם ה"א בהך קאמר ר"ש בן לקיש דבעינן על בסמוך דאי איתיה גואי קדיש אי לא לא קדיש אבל לענין חמץ מודה ליה לרבי יוחנן דלא בעינן על בסמוך דאיסורא הוא וכל היכא דאיתיה איתיה צריכא

- Said he to him, Is it then written, 'Thou shalt not slaughter [the blood of My sacrifice] wit thy leavened bread'? 'Thou shalt not slaughter [the blood of My sacrifice] with leavened bread' is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXIV, 25. Hence he is culpable.');">¹³</span> If so, he countered, [he is culpable] even if a person at the end of the world [possesses leaven]! - Said he to him, Scripture saith, Thou shalt not slaughter [the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread]; neither shall [the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover] be left overnight unto the morning: [thus,] 'Thou shalt not slaught. with leavened bread' [applies to] those who are subject to 'it shall not be left overnight' on its account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that obviously applies to its owners only.');">¹⁴</span>

בעא מיניה רב אושעיא מרבי אמי אין לו לשוחט ויש לו לאחד מבני חבורה מהו אמר ליה מי כתיב לא תשחט על חמצך (שמות לד, כה) לא תשחט על חמץ כתיב

R'Papa said: As a corollary, the priest who burns the fat [on the altar] violates a negative command, since he is subject to the general [interdict of] leaving the emurim overnight.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he still has leaven when he burns the fat, even if none of the company has any.');">¹⁵</span> It was taught in accordance with R'Papa. He who slaughters the Passover sacrifice with leaven violates a negative command - When is that?

אמר ליה אי הכי אפילו לאחד בסוף העולם נמי אמר ליה אמר קרא לא תשחט ולא ילין לא תשחט על חמץ הנך דקיימי עליה משום לא ילין

When it belongs to him who slaughters or to him who sprinkles [the blood] or to one of the members of the company. If it belonged to someone at the end of the world, he is not tied to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He has no connection with him, - or, he is not bound to take him into account, - is unaffected thereby.');">¹⁶</span> And whether he slaughters or sprinkles or burns [the fat],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This supports R. Papa.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב פפא הילכך כהן המקטיר את החלב עובר בלא תעשה הואיל וישנו בכלל הלנת אמורין

he is liable. But he who wrings a bird's neck on the fourteenth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While he still possesses leaven. The reference is to a bird offered as a sacrifice for a man lacking atonement; as stated supra 59a, it could be brought on the fourteenth after the afternoon tamid, i.e., when it is time for the Passover sacrifice to be slaughtered.');">¹⁸</span> does not violate anything.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained anon.');">¹⁹</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב פפא השוחט את הפסח על החמץ עובר בל"ת אימתי בזמן שהוא לשוחט או לזורק או לאחד מבני חבורה היה לאחד בסוף העולם אין זקוק לו ואחד השוחט ואחד הזורק ואחד המקטיר חייב אבל המולק את העוף בארבעה עשר אינו עובר בלא כלום

But the following contradicts it: He who slaughters the Passover offering with leaven violates a negative command. R'Judah said: The tamid too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note on MISHNAH: vzn ezr');">²⁰</span> Said they to him, They [the Sages] said [thus] of nought except the Passover-offering alone.

ורמינהי השוחט את הפסח על החמץ עובר בלא תעשה ר' יהודה אומר אף התמיד אמרו לו לא אמרו אלא בפסח בלבד אימתי בזמן שיש לשוחט או לזורק או לאחד מבני חבורה היה לאחד בסוף העולם אין זקוק לו

When is that? When either he who slaughters or he who sprinkles or one of the members of the company possesses [the leaven]. If a person at the end of the world possesses it, he is not tied to him.

ואחד השוחט ואחד הזורק ואחד המולק ואחד המזה חייב אבל הקומץ את המנחה אינו עובר בלא תעשה המקטיר את האימורין אינו עובר בלא תעשה

And whether he slaughters or he sprinkles or he wrings [a bird's neck] or he sprinkles<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , term used in connection with bird sacrifices, as distinct from , which refers to animal sacrifices.');">²¹</span> [the blood of the bird], he is liable. But he who takes the handful of the meal-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. II, 2.');">²²</span> does not violate a negative command. He who burns the emurim does not violate a negative command.