Parallel
פסחים 63:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
or to one of the members of the company, 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. Wherein do they differ? Shall we say that they differ in whether ‘with’ [‘al] means ‘near,’ 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]? 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. What does ‘without the wall’ mean? R. Johanan said, Without the wall of Beth Pagi; 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. But in this too they have already differed once? For it was stated: [If a man declares, ‘I take] an oath that I will eat this loaf to-day,’ and the day 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, and every negative command not involving an action, we do not flagellate for it; but a doubtful warning counts as a warning. 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. 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 of 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 analogy with service vessels. 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. But in the matter of leaven [I 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]? — Said he to him, Is it then written, ‘Thou shalt not slaughter [the blood of My sacrifice] with thy leavened bread’? ‘Thou shalt not slaughter [the blood of My sacrifice] with leavened bread’ is written. 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 slaughter . . . with leavened bread’ [applies to] those who are subject to ‘it shall not be left overnight’ on its account. 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. It was taught in accordance with R. Papa. He who slaughters the Passover sacrifice with leaven violates a negative command — When is that? 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. And whether he slaughters or sprinkles or burns [the fat], he is liable. But he who wrings a bird's neck on the fourteenth does not violate anything. But the following contradicts it: He who slaughters the Passover offering with leaven violates a negative command. R. Judah said: The tamid too. Said they to him, They [the Sages] said [thus] of nought except the Passover-offering alone. 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. And whether he slaughters or he sprinkles or he wrings [a bird's neck] or he sprinkles [the blood of the bird], he is liable. But he who takes the handful of the meal-offering does not violate a negative command. He who burns the emurim does not violate a negative command.
—