Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 23, 2021 | 讬壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Pesachim 63

A braita brings the opinion of acherim, attributed to Rabbi Meir, who holds that the order in which one says one is slaughtering the animal for those who are circumcised and those who are uncircumcised is important. If one begins with uncircumcised, it is invalid. This disagrees with the mishna. What is the root of the debate? The gemara brings 3 possible explanations and raises a difficulty with the second one. The mishna and gemara delve into the negative prohibition to have chametz in one鈥檚 possession when slaughtering a sacrifice. Which sacrifice- is it only the Paschal sacrifice or also the Tamid? What if one brought other sacrifices either on the 14th of Nissan on or Pesach and has chametz? Does the chametz need to be in the Temple to transgress the prohibition or even if it鈥檚 in one鈥檚 house? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about this and the gemara tries to figure out the source of the debate. The prohibition applies to the slaughterer, the kohen performing the rites and to all the people in the group who registered for that sacrifice.

诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讜讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara asks: Let us say that A岣rim hold that slaughter is not legally significant until the end, meaning that the slaughter is considered to take place only at the end of the rite and not during the time it takes to perform the act of slaughter, in accordance with the opinion of Rava in a different context. As Rava said: It is still a dispute, meaning that the disagreement whether one is held accountable only for his first expression or also for the conclusion of his statement applies even when it is one鈥檚 clear intention that the status he wishes to confer should apply only at a particular time, e.g., if one says that an animal should be consecrated as a burnt-offering until midday and from then on as a peace-offering (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). The opinion of Rabbi Meir, referred to here as A岣rim, is that one is held accountable only for his first expression.

讛讬诇讻讱 讛拽讚讬诐 诪讜诇讬谉 诇注专诇讬诐 诪讜诇讬谉 讞讬讬诇讬 注专诇讬诐 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讬 讛拽讚讬诐 注专诇讬诐 诇诪讜诇讬谉 注专诇讬诐 讞讬讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讬

Therefore, based on these two assumptions, if one put the circumcised people before the uncircumcised people, his statement with regard to circumcised people applies but his statement with regard to uncircumcised people does not apply. If the slaughter is legally considered to take effect in a single instant, and if one said that his intention is for circumcised people at that moment, his statement takes effect. In the reverse case, if one put the uncircumcised people before the circumcised people, his statement with regard to uncircumcised people applies, but his statement with regard to circumcised people does not apply.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专讬 讗讞专讬诐 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 诇转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讘讬谉 诇诪讜诇讬谉 讘讬谉 诇注专诇讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讘驻讬讜 诇注专诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讜诪专 诇诪讜诇讬谉 注讚 砖谞讙诪专讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘注专诇讬诐 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘注讬谞谉 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬诐

Rabba said: No, we should not say this. Actually, A岣rim hold that slaughter is legally significant from beginning to end, and with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one decided in his mind to slaughter the offering for both of them, both circumcised and uncircumcised people, and he verbally expressed his intention with the phrase: For uncircumcised people, but did not have a chance to say: For circumcised people, before the slaughter was already finished as he was saying: For uncircumcised people. And it is with regard to this point that they disagree: Rabbi Meir, who is A岣rim, holds that we do not require that one鈥檚 mouth and heart be the same; what is legally significant is his verbal expression. Since he said: For uncircumcised people, he has disqualified the offering. And the Rabbis hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same. Since he wanted to express his intent for both circumcised and uncircumcised people, he has not disqualified the offering.

讜拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讜诪专 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诪专 诪注砖专 诪注砖专 讜讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讝讛 讜讗诪专 诇讝讛 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讝讛 讜讗诪专 诇讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬谉

The Gemara expresses surprise: But does Rabbi Meir hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same? The Gemara raises a contradiction based on a mishna in tractate Terumot that states: With regard to one who intended to say that the produce he has designated should be teruma, but he mistakenly said the word tithe; or he intended to say tithe but mistakenly said teruma; or he intended to vow: I will not enter this house, but mistakenly said: That house, i.e., he mistakenly referred to a different house; or he intended to vow: I will not derive benefit from this person, but he said: From that person, i.e., he mistakenly referred to someone else; he has not said anything until his mouth and heart are the same. This is an unattributed mishna, and unattributed mishnayot are presumed to be authored by Rabbi Meir.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 住讬诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讜诇讬谉 讜住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讗祝 诇注专诇讬诐 讚讘住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 驻转讬讻讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诇讬谉 住讬驻讗 讚讗诪专 住讬诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 诇注专诇讬诐 住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 诇诪讜诇讬诐 讚讘住讬诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 诇讗 驻转讬讻讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诇讬谉

Rather, Abaye said the following explanation: We are dealing with a case where the person expressed two different intentions within the act of slaughter itself, as valid slaughter involves cutting most of both the windpipe and the esophagus of the animal. The first clause is referring to a case where he said: I cut the first organ for circumcised people and the second organ even for uncircumcised people, so that in the second organ even circumcised people are included. Consequently, he had circumcised people in mind at each stage of the slaughtering. The latter clause is referring to a case where he said: I cut the first organ for uncircumcised people and the second organ for circumcised people, so that in the first organ circumcised people are not included, and his intent during that stage is solely for uncircumcised people.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专:

And Rabbi Meir follows his own line of reasoning, as he says that piggul status can be conferred upon an offering at half of what renders it permitted. In other words, piggul status applies not only when one has a disqualifying intent during the entire act that renders the animal permitted, e.g., while slaughtering both the windpipe and the esophagus, but even if one has the disqualifying intent during half of the act that renders the animal permitted, e.g., while slaughtering one of those two organs. And the Rabbis also follow their regular line of reasoning, as they say that piggul status cannot be conferred at half of what permits it. Since he expressed his intent for both uncircumcised and circumcised people over the course of the entire act of slaughter, the offering is not disqualified.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讞诪抓 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛转诪讬讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛驻住讞 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇砖诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 驻讟讜专 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread still in his possession violates a negative commandment, as the Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the festival of Passover be left until the morning鈥 (Exodus 34:25). Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who slaughters the daily afternoon offering on Passover eve with leaven in his possession violates the commandment. Rabbi Shimon says: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan for its own purpose with leaven in his possession is liable; but if he slaughtered it for a different purpose he is exempt. And for all other offerings that one slaughters on Passover eve, when owning leaven is prohibited, whether he slaughtered them for their own purpose or he slaughtered them for a different purpose, he is exempt.

讜讘诪讜注讚 诇砖诪讜 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇砖诪谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讞讟讗转 砖砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛:

And during the festival of Passover, if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for its own purpose he is exempt. Since a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for its own purpose at an improper time is disqualified, it is not an offering at all and there is no violation of the commandment: 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.鈥 However, if he slaughtered it for a different purpose and thereby validated the sacrifice as a peace-offering, he is liable for having sacrificed it with leaven in his possession. And for all other offerings that one slaughters on Passover, when it is prohibited to slaughter with leaven in one鈥檚 possession, whether he slaughtered them for their own purpose or he slaughtered them for a different purpose, he is liable. This is with the exception of a sin-offering that he slaughtered for a different purpose with leaven in his possession. Unlike other offerings, a sin-offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for a different purpose, and therefore one does not violate the prohibition of 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.鈥

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讛讞诪抓 诇砖讜讞讟 讗讜 诇讝讜专拽

GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One is never liable for having violated the commandment: 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread鈥 unless the leavened bread belongs to the one who slaughters the Paschal lamb, or to the one who sprinkles its blood,

讗讜 诇讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讜注讚 砖讬讛讗 注诪讜 讘注讝专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注诪讜 讘注讝专讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注诇 讘住诪讜讱 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 住讘专 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讜讛讗 讗讬驻诇讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗

or to one of the members of the group; and he is liable only if the leaven is with him in the Temple courtyard itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He is liable even if the leaven is not with him in the Temple courtyard. With regard to what principle do they disagree? If you say that they disagree with regard to whether the expression 鈥渨ith鈥 indicates next to, namely, that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that 鈥渨ith鈥 always indicates next to, and therefore 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread鈥 means that the leaven must not be next to the one slaughtering the sacrifice, in the Temple courtyard itself, and Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that when the verse says 鈥渨ith,鈥 we do not require that the leaven be next to the slaughterer in order to transgress, then this is difficult, because they have already disagreed about this once before.

讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 转讜讚讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讜诇讞诪讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇讗 拽讚砖 讛诇讞诐

As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who slaughters a thanks-offering inside the Temple courtyard while its bread, namely the forty loaves that are brought together with the offering, is outside the wall, the bread has not become sanctified, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall offer with the thanks-offering unleavened cakes.鈥 (Leviticus 7:12).

诪讗讬 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讘讬转 驻讗讙讬 讗讘诇 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 拽讚讬砖 讜诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 注讝专讛 诇讗 拽讚讬砖 讗诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱

A question was raised with regard to this mishna: What is the meaning of the phrase outside the wall? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It means outside the wall of Beit Pagei, the outermost wall around Jerusalem, but if the bread was merely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, it has been sanctified, as we do not require that the bread, described as 鈥渨ith鈥 the offering, be next to it in order to be sanctified. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagreed and said: Even if the bread was merely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, it has not been sanctified. Apparently, he holds that we require that the bread described as 鈥渨ith鈥 the offering be next to it in order to be sanctified. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish have already disputed this issue, they presumably did not repeat this same dispute in other contexts.

讗诇讗 讘讛转专讗转 住驻拽 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗

Rather, say that they disagree about an uncertain warning. There is a general rule that the courts only administer corporal punishment if the transgressor was warned before he committed the transgression. The question arises as to whether punishments are administered after an uncertain warning, i.e., when it is unclear at the time of the warning whether or not the person being warned will actually transgress. It is possible to explain that this is the basis of the dispute with regard to leaven: If the leaven is outside the Temple courtyard, the one issuing the warning cannot be certain that the person he is warning actually has leaven in his possession at the time of the slaughter. The Gemara suggests that such a warning is considered an uncertain warning, and Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that an uncertain warning is a valid warning while Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagrees. However, this is difficult, as they also disagreed about this once before.

讚讗讬转诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讜 讛讬讜诐 讜注讘专 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

As it was stated that if a person said: I take an oath that I will eat this loaf today, and the day passed and he did not eat it, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both said that he is not flogged even though he violated his oath and thereby transgressed the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain鈥 (Exodus 19:7). However, they disagree about the reason for this law. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose transgression does not involve an action, as his transgression was in failing to eat the loaf, and there is a principle that for any prohibition whose transgression does not involve an action one is not flogged; however, an uncertain warning is considered a valid warning.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 讜讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He is not flogged because it is an uncertain warning, and an uncertain warning is not considered a warning. For example, if he is warned in the middle of the day that if he does not eat the loaf he will be flogged, the warning is uncertain because even if he does not eat the loaf at that moment he still has time to eat it later. But for a prohibition whose transgression does not involve an action one is flogged. Thus, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish have already disagreed with regard to this issue as well, and there would have been no reason for them to repeat their dispute.

讗诪专讬 诇注讜诇诐 讘注诇 讘住诪讜讱 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬驻诇讬讙讜 诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讗讬转讬讛

They say in answer to this: Actually, we can explain that they disagree about whether 鈥渨ith鈥 indicates next to, and it is necessary to teach that they disagree about the case involving the leaven in addition to the case of the loaves of the thanks-offering, because the cases are not entirely comparable. As, if they disagreed only with regard to leaven, I would have said that it is only with regard to that case that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that when the verse says 鈥渨ith,鈥 we do not require that the slaughterer have the leaven next to him in order to transgress, because it is a prohibition, and wherever it is, it is. On the eve of Passover in the afternoon one is prohibited to possess leaven anywhere.

讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讚砖 诇讞诐 诇讗 拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讚讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 讙讜讗讬 拽讚讬砖 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽讚讬砖 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讻诇讬 砖专转 爪专讬讻讗

However, with regard to sanctification of the bread, it becomes sanctified only inside the Temple courtyard. Consequently, say that in that case Rabbi Yo岣nan concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that we require that the bread described as 鈥渨ith鈥 the offering be next to it. Therefore, if it is inside, it is sanctified; and if not, it is not sanctified. This is just as it is with regard to a vessel used in the Temple service, which sanctifies a meal-offering only when the meal is inside it and not when the meal is outside of it. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that the dispute applies in both cases.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讚砖 诇讞诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讚讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 讙讜讗讬 拽讚讬砖 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽讚讬砖 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讗讬转讬讛 爪专讬讻讗

And had we been taught the dispute only with regard to sanctification of the bread, I would have said that only in this case did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say that we require that the bread described as 鈥渨ith鈥 the sacrifice be next to it, such that if it is inside the Temple courtyard, it is sanctified; and if not, it is not sanctified. But with regard to leavened bread, he concedes to Rabbi Yo岣nan that when the verse says 鈥渨ith,鈥 we do not require that the slaughterer have the leaven next to him in order to transgress, for it is a prohibition and wherever it is, it is. Therefore, it is necessary to say that they argued in both cases.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇砖讜讞讟 讜讬砖 诇讜 诇讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪爪讱 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪抓 讻转讬讘

Rav Oshaya asked Rabbi Ami the following question: If the slaughterer does not have leaven in his possession but one of the members of the group does have, what is the halakha? Rabbi Ami said to him: Is it written: You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with your leavened bread, meaning you may not slaughter the Paschal lamb with the leaven of the slaughterer? It is written: 鈥淵ou shall not offer with leavened bread鈥 (Exodus 34:25), meaning you may not slaughter it with anyone鈥檚 leaven and not necessarily leaven that belongs to the slaughterer.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转砖讞讟 讜诇讗 讬诇讬谉 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪抓 讛谞讱 讚拽讬讬诪讬 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬诇讬谉

Rav Oshaya said to Rav Ashi: If so, even if someone at the end of the world has leaven it should also be a violation. Since there is no limitation to this prohibition, it should apply even if the leaven belongs to someone who is not associated in any way with this Paschal lamb. Rav Ashi said to him that the verse says: 鈥淵ou shall not offer,鈥 and the end of the verse states: 鈥淣either shall the sacrifice of the festival of Passover be left until the morning.鈥 The verse equates the two prohibitions, from which the following may be derived: 鈥淵ou shall not offer with leavened bread鈥 applies to those who are governed by the prohibition of 鈥渘either shall be left over,鈥 namely, the members of the group that registered for this Paschal lamb. People who are not part of this group are not obligated to ensure that the Paschal lamb does not remain until the morning; similarly, they are not taken into account with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing the offering while in possession of leaven.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬诇讻讱 讻讛谉 讛诪拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讞诇讘 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖谞讜 讘讻诇诇 讛诇谞转 讗诪讜专讬谉

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, based on this reason, the priest who burns the fats of the Paschal lamb transgresses the negative commandment of 鈥淵ou shall not offer鈥 if he has leaven in his possession. Since he is included in the prohibition of leaving over sacrificial parts of the offering, he is also included in the prohibition against sacrificing the offering with leaven, although he is not one of the people who will eat this Paschal lamb.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讞诪抓 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 诇砖讜讞讟 讗讜 诇讝讜专拽 讗讜 诇讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讛讬讛 诇讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讗讞讚 讛讝讜专拽 讜讗讞讚 讛诪拽讟讬专 讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 讛诪讜诇拽 讗转 讛注讜祝 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread in his possession transgresses a negative commandment. When? When the leaven belongs to the slaughterer, or to the one who sprinkles the blood, or to one of the members of the group. If leaven belonged to someone at the end of the world, he is not bound to him, meaning that the slaughterer need not take him into account. And whether he slaughters the animal, or he sprinkles the blood, or he burns the fats, he is liable. But one who pinches the neck of a bird, which is not a Paschal offering but a burnt-offering or sin-offering, if he does so with leaven in his possession on the fourteenth of Nisan, after the prohibition against owning leaven has taken effect, he does not transgress anything.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讞诪抓 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛转诪讬讚 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘驻住讞 讘诇讘讚 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 诇砖讜讞讟 讗讜 诇讝讜专拽 讗讜 诇讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讛讬讛 诇讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讜

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread in his possession transgresses a negative commandment. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who slaughters the daily afternoon offering on the eve of Passover with leavened bread in his possession violates the prohibition. They said to him: They stated this prohibition only with regard to the Paschal lamb. When does one transgress the prohibition? When the slaughterer, or the one who sprinkles the blood, or one of the members of the group has leaven in his possession. If someone at the end of the world had leaven, he is not bound to him.

讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讗讞讚 讛讝讜专拽 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讜诇拽 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讝讛 讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讛诪拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

The baraita continues: And whether he slaughters the animal, or he sprinkles the blood, or he pinches a bird-offering, or he sprinkles the blood of the bird-offering onto the altar, he is liable. But one who scoops a handful of flour from a meal-offering while in possession of leaven does not transgress a negative commandment, because a meal-offering is not included in the prohibition, which is phrased 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice.鈥 One who burns the sacrificial parts of the Paschal lamb or any other sacrifice on the fourteenth of Nisan with leaven in his possession does not transgress a negative commandment.

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 60-66 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

We will learn about the 4 main procedures needed for a sacrifice and what intentions the priest needs to have...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 63: When Saying Other Than You Mean Isn’t Hypocrisy

When it comes to the shechitah of the Korban Pesach, is it one full action, or are the many component...
intro to korbanot sacrifices

Introduction to Korbanot (Sacrifices)

For printable PDF version The different types: Name Type Who eats the meat? Olah 注讜诇讛 (Burnt offering) Kodshei Kodshim Totally...

Pesachim 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 63

诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讜讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara asks: Let us say that A岣rim hold that slaughter is not legally significant until the end, meaning that the slaughter is considered to take place only at the end of the rite and not during the time it takes to perform the act of slaughter, in accordance with the opinion of Rava in a different context. As Rava said: It is still a dispute, meaning that the disagreement whether one is held accountable only for his first expression or also for the conclusion of his statement applies even when it is one鈥檚 clear intention that the status he wishes to confer should apply only at a particular time, e.g., if one says that an animal should be consecrated as a burnt-offering until midday and from then on as a peace-offering (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). The opinion of Rabbi Meir, referred to here as A岣rim, is that one is held accountable only for his first expression.

讛讬诇讻讱 讛拽讚讬诐 诪讜诇讬谉 诇注专诇讬诐 诪讜诇讬谉 讞讬讬诇讬 注专诇讬诐 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讬 讛拽讚讬诐 注专诇讬诐 诇诪讜诇讬谉 注专诇讬诐 讞讬讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讬

Therefore, based on these two assumptions, if one put the circumcised people before the uncircumcised people, his statement with regard to circumcised people applies but his statement with regard to uncircumcised people does not apply. If the slaughter is legally considered to take effect in a single instant, and if one said that his intention is for circumcised people at that moment, his statement takes effect. In the reverse case, if one put the uncircumcised people before the circumcised people, his statement with regard to uncircumcised people applies, but his statement with regard to circumcised people does not apply.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专讬 讗讞专讬诐 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 诇转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讘讬谉 诇诪讜诇讬谉 讘讬谉 诇注专诇讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讘驻讬讜 诇注专诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讜诪专 诇诪讜诇讬谉 注讚 砖谞讙诪专讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘注专诇讬诐 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘注讬谞谉 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬诐

Rabba said: No, we should not say this. Actually, A岣rim hold that slaughter is legally significant from beginning to end, and with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one decided in his mind to slaughter the offering for both of them, both circumcised and uncircumcised people, and he verbally expressed his intention with the phrase: For uncircumcised people, but did not have a chance to say: For circumcised people, before the slaughter was already finished as he was saying: For uncircumcised people. And it is with regard to this point that they disagree: Rabbi Meir, who is A岣rim, holds that we do not require that one鈥檚 mouth and heart be the same; what is legally significant is his verbal expression. Since he said: For uncircumcised people, he has disqualified the offering. And the Rabbis hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same. Since he wanted to express his intent for both circumcised and uncircumcised people, he has not disqualified the offering.

讜拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讜诪专 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诪专 诪注砖专 诪注砖专 讜讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讝讛 讜讗诪专 诇讝讛 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讝讛 讜讗诪专 诇讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬谉

The Gemara expresses surprise: But does Rabbi Meir hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same? The Gemara raises a contradiction based on a mishna in tractate Terumot that states: With regard to one who intended to say that the produce he has designated should be teruma, but he mistakenly said the word tithe; or he intended to say tithe but mistakenly said teruma; or he intended to vow: I will not enter this house, but mistakenly said: That house, i.e., he mistakenly referred to a different house; or he intended to vow: I will not derive benefit from this person, but he said: From that person, i.e., he mistakenly referred to someone else; he has not said anything until his mouth and heart are the same. This is an unattributed mishna, and unattributed mishnayot are presumed to be authored by Rabbi Meir.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 住讬诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讜诇讬谉 讜住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讗祝 诇注专诇讬诐 讚讘住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 驻转讬讻讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诇讬谉 住讬驻讗 讚讗诪专 住讬诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 诇注专诇讬诐 住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 诇诪讜诇讬诐 讚讘住讬诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 诇讗 驻转讬讻讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诇讬谉

Rather, Abaye said the following explanation: We are dealing with a case where the person expressed two different intentions within the act of slaughter itself, as valid slaughter involves cutting most of both the windpipe and the esophagus of the animal. The first clause is referring to a case where he said: I cut the first organ for circumcised people and the second organ even for uncircumcised people, so that in the second organ even circumcised people are included. Consequently, he had circumcised people in mind at each stage of the slaughtering. The latter clause is referring to a case where he said: I cut the first organ for uncircumcised people and the second organ for circumcised people, so that in the first organ circumcised people are not included, and his intent during that stage is solely for uncircumcised people.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专:

And Rabbi Meir follows his own line of reasoning, as he says that piggul status can be conferred upon an offering at half of what renders it permitted. In other words, piggul status applies not only when one has a disqualifying intent during the entire act that renders the animal permitted, e.g., while slaughtering both the windpipe and the esophagus, but even if one has the disqualifying intent during half of the act that renders the animal permitted, e.g., while slaughtering one of those two organs. And the Rabbis also follow their regular line of reasoning, as they say that piggul status cannot be conferred at half of what permits it. Since he expressed his intent for both uncircumcised and circumcised people over the course of the entire act of slaughter, the offering is not disqualified.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讞诪抓 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛转诪讬讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛驻住讞 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇砖诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 驻讟讜专 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread still in his possession violates a negative commandment, as the Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the festival of Passover be left until the morning鈥 (Exodus 34:25). Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who slaughters the daily afternoon offering on Passover eve with leaven in his possession violates the commandment. Rabbi Shimon says: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan for its own purpose with leaven in his possession is liable; but if he slaughtered it for a different purpose he is exempt. And for all other offerings that one slaughters on Passover eve, when owning leaven is prohibited, whether he slaughtered them for their own purpose or he slaughtered them for a different purpose, he is exempt.

讜讘诪讜注讚 诇砖诪讜 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇砖诪谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讞讟讗转 砖砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛:

And during the festival of Passover, if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for its own purpose he is exempt. Since a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for its own purpose at an improper time is disqualified, it is not an offering at all and there is no violation of the commandment: 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.鈥 However, if he slaughtered it for a different purpose and thereby validated the sacrifice as a peace-offering, he is liable for having sacrificed it with leaven in his possession. And for all other offerings that one slaughters on Passover, when it is prohibited to slaughter with leaven in one鈥檚 possession, whether he slaughtered them for their own purpose or he slaughtered them for a different purpose, he is liable. This is with the exception of a sin-offering that he slaughtered for a different purpose with leaven in his possession. Unlike other offerings, a sin-offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for a different purpose, and therefore one does not violate the prohibition of 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.鈥

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讛讞诪抓 诇砖讜讞讟 讗讜 诇讝讜专拽

GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One is never liable for having violated the commandment: 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread鈥 unless the leavened bread belongs to the one who slaughters the Paschal lamb, or to the one who sprinkles its blood,

讗讜 诇讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讜注讚 砖讬讛讗 注诪讜 讘注讝专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注诪讜 讘注讝专讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注诇 讘住诪讜讱 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 住讘专 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讜讛讗 讗讬驻诇讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗

or to one of the members of the group; and he is liable only if the leaven is with him in the Temple courtyard itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He is liable even if the leaven is not with him in the Temple courtyard. With regard to what principle do they disagree? If you say that they disagree with regard to whether the expression 鈥渨ith鈥 indicates next to, namely, that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that 鈥渨ith鈥 always indicates next to, and therefore 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread鈥 means that the leaven must not be next to the one slaughtering the sacrifice, in the Temple courtyard itself, and Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that when the verse says 鈥渨ith,鈥 we do not require that the leaven be next to the slaughterer in order to transgress, then this is difficult, because they have already disagreed about this once before.

讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 转讜讚讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讜诇讞诪讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇讗 拽讚砖 讛诇讞诐

As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who slaughters a thanks-offering inside the Temple courtyard while its bread, namely the forty loaves that are brought together with the offering, is outside the wall, the bread has not become sanctified, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall offer with the thanks-offering unleavened cakes.鈥 (Leviticus 7:12).

诪讗讬 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讘讬转 驻讗讙讬 讗讘诇 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 拽讚讬砖 讜诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 注讝专讛 诇讗 拽讚讬砖 讗诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱

A question was raised with regard to this mishna: What is the meaning of the phrase outside the wall? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It means outside the wall of Beit Pagei, the outermost wall around Jerusalem, but if the bread was merely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, it has been sanctified, as we do not require that the bread, described as 鈥渨ith鈥 the offering, be next to it in order to be sanctified. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagreed and said: Even if the bread was merely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, it has not been sanctified. Apparently, he holds that we require that the bread described as 鈥渨ith鈥 the offering be next to it in order to be sanctified. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish have already disputed this issue, they presumably did not repeat this same dispute in other contexts.

讗诇讗 讘讛转专讗转 住驻拽 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗

Rather, say that they disagree about an uncertain warning. There is a general rule that the courts only administer corporal punishment if the transgressor was warned before he committed the transgression. The question arises as to whether punishments are administered after an uncertain warning, i.e., when it is unclear at the time of the warning whether or not the person being warned will actually transgress. It is possible to explain that this is the basis of the dispute with regard to leaven: If the leaven is outside the Temple courtyard, the one issuing the warning cannot be certain that the person he is warning actually has leaven in his possession at the time of the slaughter. The Gemara suggests that such a warning is considered an uncertain warning, and Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that an uncertain warning is a valid warning while Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagrees. However, this is difficult, as they also disagreed about this once before.

讚讗讬转诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讜 讛讬讜诐 讜注讘专 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

As it was stated that if a person said: I take an oath that I will eat this loaf today, and the day passed and he did not eat it, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both said that he is not flogged even though he violated his oath and thereby transgressed the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain鈥 (Exodus 19:7). However, they disagree about the reason for this law. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose transgression does not involve an action, as his transgression was in failing to eat the loaf, and there is a principle that for any prohibition whose transgression does not involve an action one is not flogged; however, an uncertain warning is considered a valid warning.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 讜讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He is not flogged because it is an uncertain warning, and an uncertain warning is not considered a warning. For example, if he is warned in the middle of the day that if he does not eat the loaf he will be flogged, the warning is uncertain because even if he does not eat the loaf at that moment he still has time to eat it later. But for a prohibition whose transgression does not involve an action one is flogged. Thus, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish have already disagreed with regard to this issue as well, and there would have been no reason for them to repeat their dispute.

讗诪专讬 诇注讜诇诐 讘注诇 讘住诪讜讱 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬驻诇讬讙讜 诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讗讬转讬讛

They say in answer to this: Actually, we can explain that they disagree about whether 鈥渨ith鈥 indicates next to, and it is necessary to teach that they disagree about the case involving the leaven in addition to the case of the loaves of the thanks-offering, because the cases are not entirely comparable. As, if they disagreed only with regard to leaven, I would have said that it is only with regard to that case that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that when the verse says 鈥渨ith,鈥 we do not require that the slaughterer have the leaven next to him in order to transgress, because it is a prohibition, and wherever it is, it is. On the eve of Passover in the afternoon one is prohibited to possess leaven anywhere.

讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讚砖 诇讞诐 诇讗 拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讚讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 讙讜讗讬 拽讚讬砖 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽讚讬砖 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讻诇讬 砖专转 爪专讬讻讗

However, with regard to sanctification of the bread, it becomes sanctified only inside the Temple courtyard. Consequently, say that in that case Rabbi Yo岣nan concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that we require that the bread described as 鈥渨ith鈥 the offering be next to it. Therefore, if it is inside, it is sanctified; and if not, it is not sanctified. This is just as it is with regard to a vessel used in the Temple service, which sanctifies a meal-offering only when the meal is inside it and not when the meal is outside of it. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that the dispute applies in both cases.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讚砖 诇讞诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讚讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 讙讜讗讬 拽讚讬砖 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽讚讬砖 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讗讬转讬讛 爪专讬讻讗

And had we been taught the dispute only with regard to sanctification of the bread, I would have said that only in this case did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say that we require that the bread described as 鈥渨ith鈥 the sacrifice be next to it, such that if it is inside the Temple courtyard, it is sanctified; and if not, it is not sanctified. But with regard to leavened bread, he concedes to Rabbi Yo岣nan that when the verse says 鈥渨ith,鈥 we do not require that the slaughterer have the leaven next to him in order to transgress, for it is a prohibition and wherever it is, it is. Therefore, it is necessary to say that they argued in both cases.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇砖讜讞讟 讜讬砖 诇讜 诇讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪爪讱 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪抓 讻转讬讘

Rav Oshaya asked Rabbi Ami the following question: If the slaughterer does not have leaven in his possession but one of the members of the group does have, what is the halakha? Rabbi Ami said to him: Is it written: You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with your leavened bread, meaning you may not slaughter the Paschal lamb with the leaven of the slaughterer? It is written: 鈥淵ou shall not offer with leavened bread鈥 (Exodus 34:25), meaning you may not slaughter it with anyone鈥檚 leaven and not necessarily leaven that belongs to the slaughterer.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转砖讞讟 讜诇讗 讬诇讬谉 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪抓 讛谞讱 讚拽讬讬诪讬 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬诇讬谉

Rav Oshaya said to Rav Ashi: If so, even if someone at the end of the world has leaven it should also be a violation. Since there is no limitation to this prohibition, it should apply even if the leaven belongs to someone who is not associated in any way with this Paschal lamb. Rav Ashi said to him that the verse says: 鈥淵ou shall not offer,鈥 and the end of the verse states: 鈥淣either shall the sacrifice of the festival of Passover be left until the morning.鈥 The verse equates the two prohibitions, from which the following may be derived: 鈥淵ou shall not offer with leavened bread鈥 applies to those who are governed by the prohibition of 鈥渘either shall be left over,鈥 namely, the members of the group that registered for this Paschal lamb. People who are not part of this group are not obligated to ensure that the Paschal lamb does not remain until the morning; similarly, they are not taken into account with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing the offering while in possession of leaven.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬诇讻讱 讻讛谉 讛诪拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讞诇讘 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖谞讜 讘讻诇诇 讛诇谞转 讗诪讜专讬谉

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, based on this reason, the priest who burns the fats of the Paschal lamb transgresses the negative commandment of 鈥淵ou shall not offer鈥 if he has leaven in his possession. Since he is included in the prohibition of leaving over sacrificial parts of the offering, he is also included in the prohibition against sacrificing the offering with leaven, although he is not one of the people who will eat this Paschal lamb.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讞诪抓 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 诇砖讜讞讟 讗讜 诇讝讜专拽 讗讜 诇讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讛讬讛 诇讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讗讞讚 讛讝讜专拽 讜讗讞讚 讛诪拽讟讬专 讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 讛诪讜诇拽 讗转 讛注讜祝 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread in his possession transgresses a negative commandment. When? When the leaven belongs to the slaughterer, or to the one who sprinkles the blood, or to one of the members of the group. If leaven belonged to someone at the end of the world, he is not bound to him, meaning that the slaughterer need not take him into account. And whether he slaughters the animal, or he sprinkles the blood, or he burns the fats, he is liable. But one who pinches the neck of a bird, which is not a Paschal offering but a burnt-offering or sin-offering, if he does so with leaven in his possession on the fourteenth of Nisan, after the prohibition against owning leaven has taken effect, he does not transgress anything.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讞诪抓 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛转诪讬讚 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘驻住讞 讘诇讘讚 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 诇砖讜讞讟 讗讜 诇讝讜专拽 讗讜 诇讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讛讬讛 诇讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讜

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread in his possession transgresses a negative commandment. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who slaughters the daily afternoon offering on the eve of Passover with leavened bread in his possession violates the prohibition. They said to him: They stated this prohibition only with regard to the Paschal lamb. When does one transgress the prohibition? When the slaughterer, or the one who sprinkles the blood, or one of the members of the group has leaven in his possession. If someone at the end of the world had leaven, he is not bound to him.

讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讗讞讚 讛讝讜专拽 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讜诇拽 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讝讛 讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讛诪拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

The baraita continues: And whether he slaughters the animal, or he sprinkles the blood, or he pinches a bird-offering, or he sprinkles the blood of the bird-offering onto the altar, he is liable. But one who scoops a handful of flour from a meal-offering while in possession of leaven does not transgress a negative commandment, because a meal-offering is not included in the prohibition, which is phrased 鈥淵ou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice.鈥 One who burns the sacrificial parts of the Paschal lamb or any other sacrifice on the fourteenth of Nisan with leaven in his possession does not transgress a negative commandment.

Scroll To Top