Pesachim 63b — the Talmud in English

Or

that the leaven belongs

to one of the members of the group

who were registered for this Paschal offering.

And below it explains, for it is written: “You shall not slaughter over leaven the blood of My offering, and you shall not leave until morning the offering of the Festival of Passover.” And we derive: specifically, whoever is subject to the prohibition of “you shall not leave” is subject to the prohibition of “you shall not slaughter over leaven.” And these are the members of the group, who are included in “you shall not leave of the flesh until morning

”

Rashi explained that if one of them has leaven, they all transgress. And

he is not liable

until the leaven is

the leaven

with him in the Temple courtyard.

And below it explains the reason.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Even though the leaven is not

the leaven

with him in the Temple courtyard—

he is liable.

And we raised an objection to it:

With what do they disagree?

If you say

[if it is said]

with regard to “over”—

“adjacent.”

That is, does every place in which “over” is written mean “adjacent

”? And as the verse [Numbers 2] “and beside him the tribe of Manasseh” means—adjacent to him. And with this

they disagree

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds:

every place where

“over”

is written means

“adjacent,”

and here too, where it is written, “You shall not slaughter over leaven,” its meaning is that one may not slaughter adjacent to leaven, in the Temple courtyard.

And Rabbi Yohanan holds: We do not require

there is no need, where

“over”

is written, that this be specifically

“adjacent” [but since the leaven is in his possession, even if it is located in a distant place, it is as though it were in his hand, and “over” applies to it. Rabbi Hananel].

[rather, since the leavened food is in his possession, even if it is far away, it is considered as though it were in his hand, and the word “over” applies to it. Rabbi Hananel].

It is impossible to establish their disagreement in this manner.

For why did Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish need to disagree about this here

—but they already disagreed about it [they disagreed about this]

[they had already disagreed about this]

one time

in another place?

For we learned

with regard to one who slaughters the thanksgiving offering, in Menahot 78b:

With regard to the thanksgiving peace-offering it is written [Leviticus 7:13]: “With cakes of leavened bread he shall offer his offering, with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving peace-offerings.” For one must bring leavened bread together with the thanksgiving offering. And Rashi, Rashi there, explained:

And Rashi explained there: “‘He shall present his offering together with the sacrifice of his peace-offering of thanksgiving’ teaches that the bread does not acquire inherent sanctity, such that by virtue of its sanctity it would become susceptible to disqualification if taken outside the Temple courtyard, or through contact with one who immersed that day, if such a person touched the bread. Nor may it be redeemed and thereby become ordinary food—until the thanksgiving offering is slaughtered.”

“He shall offer his offering with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings”—this teaches that the bread does not receive the sanctity of the body, so as to be fit, by virtue of its sanctity, to become disqualified through leaving, if they take it outside the Temple courtyard, or through contact with one who has immersed himself that day, if he touched the bread. And to be taken out to ordinary status through redemption—until the sacrifice of the thanksgiving offering is slaughtered.

And from here we learn that one who consecrates the loaves of a thanksgiving offering, from the moment that he consecrates them verbally, the bread does not receive the sanctity of the body like other offerings; rather, it receives only “sanctity of value,” like the sanctity of other things that are not offerings.

Therefore, if it becomes impure, it is redeemed and goes out to ordinary status, and likewise it does not become disqualified through the disqualifications of offerings, such as disqualification through being left overnight or “leaving

And we learned there in Menahot:

One who slaughters a thanksgiving offering inside, in the Temple courtyard, while its bread was

at that same time

outside the wall—

the bread did not acquire sanctity

”.

of inherent sanctity

.

And we discuss this:

What is meant by

“outside the wall”?

Which wall is being discussed?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Outside the wall of Beit Pagi,

which was the outermost area of Jerusalem. Since the bread was outside Jerusalem at the time the thanksgiving offering was slaughtered, it could not acquire inherent sanctity through the slaughter of the offering, because outside Jerusalem is not a place where offerings of lesser sanctity may be eaten; if they leave that area, they are disqualified by being taken outside. Therefore, the bread does not acquire sanctity there through the slaughter.

But

if the bread was inside the wall of Jerusalem at the time the thanksgiving offering was slaughtered, but

outside the wall of the Temple courtyard—

And at the time that he slaughtered the thanksgiving offering, the bread received the sanctity of the body, and its law is like the law of the thanksgiving offering itself in every respect.

it acquires sanctity.

And we learned there in Menahot:

And

even though it is written, “together with the sacrifice of his peace-offering of thanksgiving”—

we do not require “over”—

One who slaughters a thanksgiving offering inside, in the Temple courtyard, while its bread was

“nearby.”

at that time

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even if it was outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, the bread does not acquire sanctity,

because it is written, “together with the sacrifice of his peace-offering of thanksgiving,” and “together with” means nearby to the sacrifice of his peace-offering of thanksgiving, in the Temple courtyard.

Evidently,

it is clear that according to Reish Lakish

we require

“over”

outside the wall—

to mean “nearby.”

The difficulty now is: Why did Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish need to disagree concerning one who slaughters the Paschal offering over leavened food about whether “over” must mean “nearby”? They had already disagreed about this concerning the thanksgiving offering.

It must be that they did not disagree about “over” meaning “nearby.”

Rather, they disagree about an uncertain warning.

the bread did not receive sanctity

For every flogging prescribed by the Torah for a transgression, the person who transgresses is liable only if he was warned beforehand. They disagree about an uncertain warning: the person was warned not to slaughter the Paschal offering because he had leavened food in his house, but this was uncertain, since perhaps the leavened food had already been eaten, burned, or removed by others. Rabbi Hananel.

Reish Lakish holds that an uncertain warning is not considered a warning. Therefore, the leavened food must be with him in the Temple courtyard, when he sees with his own eyes that the leavened food exists.

And Rabbi Yohanan holds that an uncertain warning is considered a warning.

Even if the leavened food is in his house, where it is possible that it has already been eaten or burned, he is warned that he may not slaughter the Paschal offering, in case the leavened food still exists. If in the end it is found that there was leavened food in his house at that time, he is flogged.

And we ask: But

in this matter,

the issue of an uncertain warning,

they also already disagreed about it

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish

once

with regard to an oath of expression.

If one says, “I swear that I will not eat this loaf today,” and he was warned not to eat it, but he ate it, everyone agrees that he is flogged because of the prohibition “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” For by eating it he transgressed a prohibition involving an act, and he received a definite warning, since if he eats this loaf, he certainly transgresses the prohibition of taking the Divine Name in vain.

It was stated:

He said:

“I swear that I will eat this loaf today,”

and witnesses warned him that he was obligated to eat it,

but the day passed and he did not eat it.

of the body.

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both said: He is not flogged.

They disagreed only about the reason he is not flogged.

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not flogged because this is a prohibition that does not involve an act.

And we raised an objection to it:

For he merely sat and did not eat the loaf; there was no prohibited act performed by him.

And one is not flogged for any prohibition that does not involve an act.

We infer from Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

But an uncertain warning is considered a warning!

That is, at the time the witnesses warned him that he was obligated to eat the bread, it was an uncertain warning, since even if he did not eat the bread immediately, perhaps he would eat it later, and the person issuing the warning cannot arrange for the day to pass within the time required to say a short statement after the warning [Rashi, Shevuot 21a]. If so, why did Rabbi Yohanan not say that he is exempt because of an uncertain warning? It must be that Rabbi Yohanan holds that an uncertain warning is considered a warning.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He is not flogged because this is an uncertain warning, and an uncertain warning is not considered a warning.

We infer from Reish Lakish’s words:

But one is flogged for a prohibition that does not involve an act.

That is, since Reish Lakish did not say that he is not flogged because the prohibition involves no act, it necessarily follows that he holds that one is flogged for a prohibition that does not involve an act.

The difficulty now is: Why did Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagree concerning one who slaughters the Paschal offering over leavened food about whether an uncertain warning is considered a warning? They had already disagreed about this concerning an oath of expression, and that dispute should apply to the entire Torah.

And we answer:

They said

[the Sages said in explanation]

In fact, they disagree about whether “over” means “nearby.”

Although they had already disagreed about this concerning the loaves of a thanksgiving offering,

it is necessary

to teach that they disagree in both of these cases.

For if they had disagreed only concerning leavened food,

alone,

I might have said that in that case Rabbi Yohanan says that we do not require “over” to mean “nearby,” because it is prohibited

to keep leavened food in one’s possession,

and wherever it is,

the leavened food

is present

as a matter of prohibition. Therefore, it would not make sense for Rabbi Yohanan to say that the prohibition “You shall not slaughter over leavened food My sacrificial blood” applies only when the leavened food is nearby.

But concerning consecrating,

the loaves of a thanksgiving offering, it is reasonable to say that

the bread acquires sanctity only inside

the Temple courtyard, and

perhaps he agrees

Rabbi Yohanan

with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

that “over” must mean “nearby.”

For if it is

[if the bread is located]

inside,

inside the Temple courtyard,

it acquires sanctity; if not, it does not acquire sanctity.

And the reason why it acquires sanctity specifically in the Temple courtyard is:

as is the case with

[as we find with]

sacred vessels,

for when sacred vessels receive meal offerings and libations, from the moment these are placed in the sacred vessels, they acquire inherent sanctity [as stated in Menahot 100b]. Specifically, sacred vessels in the Temple courtyard sanctify what is placed inside them. Therefore, one might say that likewise, the loaves of a thanksgiving offering acquire sanctity only when they are in the Temple courtyard. [Tosaafot; Rashi explained this differently, and Tosaafot challenged his explanation].

Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach that with regard to the loaves of a thanksgiving offering as well, Rabbi Yohanan holds that “over” need not mean “nearby.”

And if it had taught us

only that they disagree

concerning the consecration of bread

alone,

I might have said that in this case,

concerning the loaves of a thanksgiving offering,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that we require

“over”—

What

“nearby,”

since it is reasonable to say

that if it is

the bread

inside, it acquires sanctity; if not, it does not acquire sanctity.

is “outside the wall”?

Which wall is being discussed? Rabbi Yohanan said: Outside the wall of Beit Pagi, which is the outermost place in Jerusalem. Since the bread was located at the time of the slaughtering of the thanksgiving offering outside Jerusalem, it cannot receive the sanctity of the body through the slaughtering of the thanksgiving offering, because outside Jerusalem is not a place where offerings of lesser sanctity may be eaten, and if they leave for there, they are disqualified through leaving. Therefore, it does not become sanctified there through the slaughtering. But if the bread was at the time of the slaughtering of the thanksgiving offering within the wall of Jerusalem, but it was outside the wall of the Temple courtyard— it receives sanctity. And even though it is written, “with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings ”—we do not require “over” “adjacent.” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even outside the wall of the Temple courtyard it does not receive sanctity the bread, because it is written, “with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings,” and the meaning of “over” is adjacent to the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings, in the Temple courtyard. Evidently, it is demonstrated that according to Resh Lakish we require “over” “adjacent.” And now it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish need to disagree, with regard to one who slaughters the Paschal offering over leaven, whether we require “over” to mean adjacent? They already disagreed about this with regard to the thanksgiving offering. And necessarily, they did not disagree about “over—adjacent.” Rather, they disagree concerning a doubtful warning. For all lashes in the Torah for a transgression, the transgressor is liable only if he was warned. And Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disagreed concerning a doubtful warning, when they warned a person not to slaughter the Paschal offering because he had leaven in his house, and the matter was doubtful, because perhaps the leaven had already been eaten or burned, or others had removed it. Rabbi Hananel. Resh Lakish holds that a doubtful warning is not called a warning; therefore, we require that the leaven be with him in the Temple courtyard, when he sees with his own eyes that the leaven exists. And Rabbi Yohanan holds that a doubtful warning is called a warning. And even if the leaven is in his house, where it is possible that it has already been eaten or burned, they warn him that he is forbidden to slaughter the Paschal offering, lest the leaven still exist. And if in the end it is found that there was leaven in his house at that time, he receives lashes. And we ask: But in this matter, the doubtful warning, they too already disagreed about it Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish one time with regard to an utterance oath. If one says, “An oath that I will not eat this loaf today,” and they warned him not to eat it, and he ate it, everyone agrees that he receives lashes because of “You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain.” For by eating it he transgressed a negative commandment that involves an action, and they gave him a definite warning, since if he eats this loaf, he certainly transgresses the negative commandment of “You shall not take.” For it was stated: He said “An oath that I will eat this loaf today,” and witnesses warned him that he was obligated to eat it, and the day passed and he did not eat it. Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both said: He does not receive lashes. Rather, they disagreed as to the reason that he does not receive lashes. Rabbi Yohanan said: He does not receive lashes, because it is a negative commandment that does not involve an action. For he sat and did not eat the loaf, and there is no act of transgression performed by his hands. And for every negative commandment that does not involve an action, one does not receive lashes. And we infer from Rabbi Yohanan’s words: But a doubtful warning is called a warning! That is, at the time when the witnesses warn him that he is obligated to eat the bread, it is a doubtful warning, since even if he does not eat the bread now, perhaps he will eat it later, and the one giving the warning cannot arrange that the day will pass within the time required for speech of the warning [Rashi, Shevuot 21a]. And if so, why did Rabbi Yohanan not say that he is exempt because of a doubtful warning? It must be that Rabbi Yohanan holds that a doubtful warning is called a warning. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He does not receive lashes, because it is a doubtful warning, and a doubtful warning is not called a warning. And we infer from Resh Lakish’s words: But for a negative commandment that does not involve an action, one does receive lashes. That is, since Resh Lakish did not say that one does not receive lashes because it does not involve an action, it necessarily follows that he holds that one does receive lashes for a negative commandment that does not involve an action. And now it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disagree, with regard to one who slaughters the Paschal offering over leaven, whether a doubtful warning is called a warning? They already disagreed about this concerning an utterance oath, and from there it can be learned for the entire Torah. And we answer: They said [the Sages said to answer] In truth, they disagree about “over—adjacent,” and although they had already disagreed about this with regard to the loaves of a thanksgiving offering, it was necessary to inform us that they disagree in these two places. For if they had disagreed only with regard to leaven, alone, I might have said that it is only in that matter that Rabbi Yohanan says that we do not require “over” to mean adjacent, because it is a prohibition to leave leaven in his possession, and wherever it is the leaven, the prohibition is there, and therefore it does not stand to reason for Rabbi Yohanan to say that the negative commandment of “You shall not slaughter over leaven the blood of My offering” speaks specifically of adjacency. But with regard to consecration, to consecrating the loaves of a thanksgiving offering, there is reason to say that the bread receives sanctity only inside the Temple courtyard, and say that he agrees with him Rabbi Yohanan with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that we require “over” to mean adjacent. For if it is there [if the bread is located] inside, inside the Temple courtyard, it receives sanctity; if not, it does not receive sanctity. And the reason for the matter is that specifically in the Temple courtyard it receives sanctity— just as is the case with [as we find] sacred vessels, for sacred vessels into which meal-offerings and libations were placed received the sanctity of the body from the moment they were in a sacred vessel [as stated in Menahot 100b]. And specifically sacred vessels in the Temple courtyard sanctify what is within them; therefore, one might say that here too the loaves of a thanksgiving offering are sanctified only if they are in the Temple courtyard. [Tosafot, while Rashi explained it differently. And Tosafot raised an objection to him]. Therefore, it was necessary to inform us that also with regard to the loaves of a thanksgiving offering Rabbi Yohanan holds that we do not require “over” to mean adjacent. And if it had informed us that they disagree with regard to consecrating bread alone, I might have said in this matter of the loaves of a thanksgiving offering that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that we require “over— adjacent,” since there is reason to say that if it is there the bread inside, it receives sanctity; if not, it does not receive sanctity. But with regard to leaven, where there is no reason to distinguish between leaven in his house and leaven in the Temple courtyard, I might have said that he agrees with him Resh Lakish with Rabbi Yohanan, that we do not require “over” to mean adjacent, because it is a prohibition, and wherever it is, it is there. And therefore it was necessary to inform us that also with regard to leaven Resh Lakish holds that we require “over” to mean adjacent.

where there is no reason to distinguish between leavened food in his house and leavened food in the Temple courtyard, I might have said that

he agrees

with him

Reish Lakish agrees with Rabbi Yohanan

that “over” need not mean “nearby,” since it is a prohibition, and wherever it is, it is present.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach that concerning leavened food as well, Reish Lakish holds that “over” must mean “nearby.”

Rav Oshaya asked Rabbi Ami:

If

the slaughterer does not have

leaven in his possession,

but one of the members of the group has

leaven at the time of slaughtering—

what is the law?

Does he transgress because of “You shall not slaughter over leaven the blood of My offering

”? [And what is obvious to Resh Lakish above, that he receives lashes, is a question to Rav Oshaya.]

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami:

Is it written, “You shall not slaughter over your leaven”,

which would indicate the leaven of the slaughterer?

“You shall not slaughter over leaven” is written,

and it indicates any leaven, even if it does not belong to the slaughterer.

He said to him,

Rav Oshaya:

If so, even if

there is

to someone at the end of the world,

who is not among the members of the group, leaven in the Temple courtyard,

also

this slaughterer should transgress because of it if they warned him.

He said [he answered]

[he replied]

to him,

Rabbi Ami:

The verse says: “You shall not slaughter

over leaven the blood of My offering,

and you shall not leave

until morning the offering of the Festival of Passover.” And why were these two negative commandments written adjacent to one another?

To tell you:

“You shall not slaughter over leaven”

that belongs to

those who are subject [who are liable concerning it]

[liable for it]

to “you shall not leave.”

And these are all the members of the group, who are included in “you shall not leave of the flesh.” For it is written, “You shall not leave of it until morning,” since all the members of the group are commanded to eat the Paschal offering at night.

Rav Pappa said:

Since we derive “you shall not slaughter” as referring to those who are subject to “you shall not leave”—

therefore, the priest who burns the sacrificial fats,

and he has leaven at the time of burning, even though at the time of slaughtering there was no leaven belonging to one of the members of the group—

he transgresses

the priest

a negative commandment, since

he

is included in leaving the sacrificial portions overnight.

For it is written [Exodus 23]: “You shall not slaughter over leaven the blood of My offering, and you shall not leave the fat of My Festival until morning.” And from here we learned a commandment for the priest who burns the sacrificial fats not to leave the burning of the fats until morning.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa’s opinion: One who slaughters the Paschal offering over leaven transgresses a negative commandment.

When?

When it [the leaven]

belongs

to the slaughterer, or to the one who sprinkles the blood, or to one of the members of the group.

If there was

leaven

belonging to someone at the end of the world—

he need not concern himself with it,

that is, it is not the concern of the slaughterer, and he is permitted to slaughter the Paschal offering when a stranger has leaven.

Both the slaughterer, and the one who sprinkles the blood, and the one who burns the sacrificial fats are liable.

But

other offerings that he performed over leaven, such as

one who pinches the bird-offering on the fourteenth,

at the time of slaughtering the Paschal offering,

does not transgress anything.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between two baraitot:

And it raises a contradiction

from that which was taught:

One who slaughters the Paschal offering over leaven transgresses a negative commandment.

Rabbi Judah says: Even

one who slaughters

the daily offering

over leaven.

They said to him: They said this only with regard to the Paschal offering.

When? When there is

leaven

belonging to the slaughterer or to the one who sprinkles

the blood

or to one of the members of the group.

But if

there was

leaven in the Temple courtyard

belonging to someone at the end of the world,

who was not registered with them—

he need not concern himself

to be concerned

with it.

Both the slaughterer, and the one who sprinkles the blood, and the one who pinches

the bird-offering,

and the one who sprinkles

the blood of the bird-offering—

is liable.

But one who takes the handful from the meal-offering—

does not transgress a negative commandment.

And likewise the priest

who burns the sacrificial portions—

does not transgress a negative commandment.