אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה, וְעַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בָּעֲזָרָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ בָּעֲזָרָה. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אִילֵימָא בְּ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ סָבַר: ״עַל״ – בְּסָמוּךְ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵינַן ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ. וְהָא אִיפְלְגוּ בָּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא!

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 Yoḥanan 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 “with” indicates next to, namely, that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that “with” always indicates next to, and therefore “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” means that the leaven must not be next to the one slaughtering the sacrifice, in the Temple courtyard itself, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that when the verse says “with,” 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.

דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט תּוֹדָה לִפְנִים, וְלַחְמָהּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.

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: “And he shall offer with the thanks-offering unleavened cakes.” (Leviticus 7:12).

מַאי חוּץ לַחוֹמָה? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פָּאגֵי, אֲבָל חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה – קָדֵישׁ, וְלָא בָּעֵינַן עַל בְּסָמוּךְ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת עֲזָרָה לָא קָדֵישׁ. אַלְמָא: בָּעֵינַן עַל בְּסָמוּךְ.

A question was raised with regard to this mishna: What is the meaning of the phrase outside the wall? Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 “with” 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 “with” the offering be next to it in order to be sanctified. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish have already disputed this issue, they presumably did not repeat this same dispute in other contexts.

אֶלָּא: בְּהַתְרָאַת סָפֵק קָמִיפַּלְגִי. בְּהָא נַמִי הָא פְּלִיגִי בָּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא!

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 Yoḥanan 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.

דְּאִיתְּמַר: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ הַיּוֹם וְעָבַר הַיּוֹם וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכָל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. אֲבָל הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק – שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה.

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 Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both said that he is not flogged even though he violated his oath and thereby transgressed the prohibition of: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 19:7). However, they disagree about the reason for this law. Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק, וְהַתְרָאַת סָפֵק לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה. אֲבָל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

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 Yoḥanan 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.

אָמְרִי: לְעוֹלָם בְּעַל בְּסָמוּךְ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אִיפַּלִּיגוּ לְעִנְיַן חָמֵץ – הֲוָה אָמִינָא: בְּהַהוּא הוּא דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן עַל בְּסָמוּךְ – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיסּוּר הוּא, וְכָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ אִיתֵיהּ.

They say in answer to this: Actually, we can explain that they disagree about whether “with” 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 Yoḥanan said that when the verse says “with,” 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.

אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מִקְדַּשׁ לֶחֶם – לָא קָדֵישׁ אֶלָּא בִּפְנִים, אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּבָעֵינַן עַל בְּסָמוּךְ. דְּאִי אִיתֵיהּ גַּוָּאֵי – קָדֵישׁ, אִי לָא – לָא קָדֵישׁ. מִידֵּי דַּהֲוָה אַכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת, צְרִיכָא.

However, with regard to sanctification of the bread, it becomes sanctified only inside the Temple courtyard. Consequently, say that in that case Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that we require that the bread described as “with” 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.

וְאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן לְעִנְיַן מִקְדַּשׁ לֶחֶם – הֲוָה אָמִינָא: בְּהַךְ קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּבָעֵינַן עַל בְּסָמוּךְ – דְּאִי אִיתֵיהּ גַּוָּאֵי קָדֵישׁ, אִי לָא – לָא קָדֵישׁ. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן חָמֵץ – מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן עַל בְּסָמוּךְ דְּאִיסּוּרָא הוּא, וְכָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ – אִיתֵיהּ, צְרִיכָא.

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 “with” 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 Yoḥanan that when the verse says “with,” 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.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעֲיָא מֵרַבִּי אַמִי: אֵין לוֹ לַשּׁוֹחֵט, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי כְּתִיב ״לֹא תִשְׁחַט עַל חֲמֵצְךָ״? ״לֹא תִשְׁחַט עַל חָמֵץ״ כְּתִיב,

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: “You shall not offer with leavened bread” (Exodus 34:25), meaning you may not slaughter it with anyone’s leaven and not necessarily leaven that belongs to the slaughterer.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי – אֲפִילּוּ לְאֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם נַמִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא תִשְׁחַט״ ״וְלֹא יָלִין״ ״לֹא תִשְׁחַט עַל חָמֵץ״, הָנָךְ דְּקָיְימִי עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם לֹא יָלִין.

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: “You shall not offer,” and the end of the verse states: “Neither shall the sacrifice of the festival of Passover be left until the morning.” The verse equates the two prohibitions, from which the following may be derived: “You shall not offer with leavened bread” applies to those who are governed by the prohibition of “neither shall be left over,” 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.

אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא: הִילְכָּךְ, כֹּהֵן הַמַּקְטִיר אֶת הַחֵלֶב – עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה, הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בִּכְלָל הֲלָנַת אֵמוּרִין.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, based on this reason, the priest who burns the fats of the Paschal lamb transgresses the negative commandment of “You shall not offer” 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.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפָּא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הֶחָמֵץ – עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא לַשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹ לַזּוֹרֵק אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה. הָיָה לְאֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם – אֵין זָקוּק לוֹ. וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹרֵק וְאֶחָד הַמַּקְטִיר חַיָּיב. אֲבָל הַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הָעוֹף בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא כְּלוּם.

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.

וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הֶחָמֵץ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַתָּמִיד. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בַּפֶּסַח בִּלְבַד. אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹ לַזּוֹרֵק אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה. הָיָה לְאֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם – אֵין זָקוּק לוֹ.

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.

וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹרֵק וְאֶחָד הַמּוֹלֵק וְאֶחָד הַמַּזֶּה חַיָּיב, אֲבָל הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. הַמַּקְטִיר אֶת הָאֵימוּרִין – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה.

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 “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice.” 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.