משנה: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הֶחָמֵץ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף הַתָּמִיד. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אַף הַפֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִשְׁמוֹ חַייָב וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּטוּר. וּשְׁאָר כָּל־הַזְּבָחִין בֵּין לִשְׁמָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן פָּטוּר. וּבַמּוֹעֵד לִשְׁמוֹ פָּטוּר וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ חַייָב. וּשְׁאָר כָּל־הַזְּבָחִין בֵּין לִשְׁמָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן חַייָב חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ׃ MISHNAH: One who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition130Exodus.23.18">Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession.; Rebbi Jehudah says, also the daily sacrifice131Since this is an elevation offering which is completely burned, it is My sacrifice.. Rebbi Simeon says, the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, if for its purpose, he is liable, not for its purpose he is not liable132A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.. All other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is not liable133Since the verse refers only to the Pesaḥ.. On the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable134R. Simeon reads the verse as referring not only to the 14th of Nisan but also to the entire Holiday of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15–21. Since the Pesaḥ slaughtered for its purpose on any day other than the 14th is disqualified, it does not count. But not for its purpose it is a qualified well-being sacrifice.; for all other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is liable except for the purification offering which he slaughtered not for its purpose135Which is disqualified (Zevachim 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Zevachim.1.1">Mishna Zevaḥim 1:1)..
הלכה: מְנַיִין לַשּׁוֹחֵט פֶּסַח עַל הֶחָמֵץ שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹֽא־תִשְׁחַ֥ט עַל־חָמֵץ֭ דַּם־זִבְחִ֑י. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַשּׁוֹחֵט. הַזּוֹרֵק מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹֽא עַל־חָמֵץ֭ דַּם. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מִמַּה שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַייֵב עַל הַזְּרִיקָה הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. פֶּסַח עַצְמוֹ כָשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנִּתְמַנֶּה לוֹ חָמֵץ בֵּין שְׁחִיטָה לִזְרִיקָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה זֶה שׁוֹחֵט וְזֶה זוֹרֵק. HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says130Exodus.23.18">Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession., do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified132,A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.136Tosephta 4:3.. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring137In both cases the slaughter was correct and only the pouring incorrect. One still has to assume that the Pesaḥ slaughtered on leavened matter even in the afternoon of the 14th is disqualified..
תַנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. לֹֽא־תִשְׁחַ֥ט עַל־חָמֵץ֭ דַּם־זִבְחִ֑י. הַתּוֹרָה קָֽרְאָת אוֹתוֹ זִבְחִי. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אִילוּלֵי דְתַנִּיתָהּ חִזְקִיָּה מָצִינוּ דָבָר פָּסוּל וְחַייָבִין עָלָיו חַטָּאת. הַמְחַמֵּץ אֶת הַפְּסוּלָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חַייָב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חַייָב. בְּשֶׁנִּפְסְלָה מַחְמַת חִימּוּצָהּ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. פָּטוּר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִפְסְלָה מַחְמַת חִימּוּצָהּ. Ḥizqiah stated: Do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice130Exodus.23.18">Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession., the Torah called it “My sacrifice”138This implies that it is a valid sacrifice. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 219, line 1.. Rebbi Mana said, if Ḥizqiah had not stated this, do we find anything disqualified because of which one is liable for a purification sacrifice139Without Ḥizqiah”s statement we would have declared the sacrifice disqualified since in fact we find that a person who sacrifices outside the official sanctuary is liable (i. e., for extirpation or a purification sacrifice) both for the slaughter and for burning on an altar even though the slaughter disqualifies (Zevachim 13:1" href="/Mishnah_Zevachim.13.1">Mishnah Zevaḥim13:1).? If somebody leavens the disqualified140This refers to flour offerings the entire year. They are required to be unleavened, Leviticus.2.11">Lev.2:11.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says liable, if it became disqualified because of its leavening241Being inside the sacred district, they could not sit down.; he who says not liable, if it did not become disqualified because of its leavening.
הֶקְטֶיר אֵימוֹרִין עַל חָמֵץ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חַייָב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. פָּטוּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חַייָב. דַּם מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. מָאן דְּאָמַר. פָּטוּר. זֶבַח. מַה זְבִיחָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת הָכַּפָּרָה. יָֽצְאוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הָכַּפָּרָה. The burning of the parts on leavening142On the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. Differently Babli 63b-64a.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.
מָלַק עוֹף עַל חָמֵץ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חַייָב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. פָּטוּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חַייָב. דַּם מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. פָּטוּר. זֶבַח. יָצָא עוֹף שֶׁאֵינוֹ זֶבַח. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חַייָב. נִיחָא. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר לְעִנְייַן פְּטוֹר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. פָּטוּר. מַה טַעֲמָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְמֵידִין עוֹנֶשׁ מֵעוֹנֶשׁ וְאֵין לְמֵידִין עוֹנֶשׁ מִפְּטוֹר. If one broke a bird’s neck on leavening143This must refer to the middle days of the holiday following R. Simeon, since it was stated earlier that on the 14th one is liable only for the Pesaḥ and possibly the daily sacrifice.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. This excludes the bird which is not slaughtered as sacrifice144זֶבַח is a sanctum, parts of which are consumed by lay people. A bird sacrifice, not killed by šehitah, if eaten at all is reserved for priests.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Him who said “liable” one understands as you are saying for freeing from liability144aScribe’s text deleted by corrector, therefore iy is not found in the printed texts. But it is confirmed by K and necessary to understand R. Yose’s response. R. Jacob bar Zavdi argues that since bird sacrifices are treated as equal to animal sacrifices on the 14th, there is no liability if the owner still has leavened matter while bringing his offering, they also should be treated like animal sacrifices on the holiday and there should be liability.. What is the reason of him who frees from liability? He said to him, one may infer punishment from punishment but one may not infer punishment from exemption.
רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּעַייָן. יָכוֹל הַמְקַבֵּל וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ עַל חָמֵץ יְהֵא חַייָב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר זֶבַח. מַה זְבִיחָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ בַחוּץ. יָצָא הַמְקַבֵּל וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ שֶׁאֵין חַייָבִין עָלֶיהֶן בַּחוּץ. יָכוֹל הַמַּקְטִיר אֵימוֹרִים עַל חָמֵץ יְהֵא חַייָב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִפֵּר. מַה זְרִיקָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה. יָֽצְאוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הָכַּפָּרָה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. עַד דְּאַתְּ דַּיִין לָהּ לִפְטוֹר. דּוֹנָהּ לְחִיּוּב. יָכוֹל הַמְקַבֵּל וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ עַל חָמֵץ יְהֵא פָטוּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר זֶבַח. מַה זְבִיחָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ בַחוּץ. אַף אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהֶן בַּחוּץ. יָכוֹל הַמַּקְטִיר אֵימוֹרִין עַל חָמֵץ יְהֵא פָטוּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִפֵּר. מַה זְרִיקָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה. אַף אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה הַמְקַבֵּל וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ שֶׁהֵן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הָכַּפָּרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דָּבָר שָׁוֶה בִשְׁנֵיהֶן מְלַמֵּד. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בִשְׁנֵיהֶן אֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד. זֶבַח. מַה זְבִיחָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה וְחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ בַחוּץ. יָצָא הַמְקַבֵּל וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ עַל חָמֵץ שֶׁאֵין חַייָבִין עָלֶיהֶן בַּחוּץ. יָֽצְאוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבוֹת אֶת הָכַּפָּרָה. The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood]145The Cohen who receives the blood of the sacrifice slaughtered by a layman or Levite, and the one who carries it to the altar. These two actions are biblically required. Reception of the blood in a sanctified vessel is mentioned explicitly; the action of carrying the blood is required implicitly since slaughter of the sacrifice must be performed away from the altar (North of the altar for most holy sacrifices, Leviticus.1.11">Lev. 1:11; before the Tent of Meeting for simple sacrifices, Leviticus.3.2">Lev. 3:2,Leviticus.3.8">8,Leviticus.3.13">13). on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside146In the prohibition of sacrifices outside the Sanctuary (Leviticus.17">Lev. 17), only slaughter (v.4), pouring and burning of the parts (v. 6) are mentioned. There exists liability for extirpation or a purification sacrifice even if the slaughter was performed so that collection of the blood and carrying it was not necessary.. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones147This expression is never used for the Pesaḥ. The reference is to the verses referring to purification sacrifices, Leviticus.4.26">Lev.4:26,Leviticus.4.31">31, from which it would appear that the burning of the fat on the altar is the atoning agent but which in Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq 11 (5–6) is explained to refer only to the pouring of the blood.. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood]148The argument shows that instead of “the one who receives or carries” one has to read “one who burns parts”. on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter149The argument shows that instead of “one who burns parts” one has to read “the one who receives or carries”. not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement150The argument of the rabbis of Caesarea is invalid since it can be turned upside down.. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement151The statement of the rabbis of Caesarea is correct but their argument is incomplete..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. [בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים] שְׂאוֹר כַּזַּיִת וְחָמֵץ כְּכּוֹתֶבֶת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים זֶה וָזֶה בְּכַזַּיִת׃ רִבִּי זְרִיקָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֶּן חֲנִינָא. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְבִיעוּרוֹ. אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה כַזַּיִת. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין לְבִיעוּרוֹ בֵּין לַאֲכִילָה כַזַּיִת. קָם רִבִּי מָנָא עִם רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. אְמַר לֵיהּ. מְנָן שְׁמַע רִבִּי הָדָא מִלְּתַא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מִן רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וַאֲנָן אָֽמְרִין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין לְבִיעוּרוֹ בֵּין לַאֲכִילָה כַזַּיִת. 152This paragraph has a parallel in Yom Tov 1:1 (end). There, we have stated153Mishnah Yom Tov (Beṣah) 1:1.: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive154Even the House of Shammai agree that eating leavened matter in the volume of an olive on Passover creates liability.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive155This statement refers only to the opinion of the House of Hillel. While leavened matter is forbidden on Passover in the most minute amount, liability is created only by the volume of an olive, whether active leavening or passive leavened matter.. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive156In this version, nothing can be learned from the discussion between RR. Mana and Ḥizqiah. In Yom Tov the statement of R. Abbahu continues with a proof, that if there were different standards for leavening and leavened matter, the Mishnah in Keritut which enumerates the transgressions causing extirpation should have enumerated them separately..
שְׁחָטוֹ עַל חָמֵץ. אַחַר מִי אַתְּ מְהַלֵּךְ. אַחַר אֲכִילָתוֹ אוֹ אָחָר בִּיעוּרוֹ. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵתִים בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת אֵין הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרֵף. בְּתוּךְ הַכֶּלִי הַכֶּלִי מִצְטָרֵף. שְׁחָטוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְאֵין הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרֵף פָּטוּר. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַכֶּלִי וְהַכֶּלִי מִצְטָרֵף חַייָב. שְׁחָטוֹ עַל סִיעוֹר. מֵאַחַר דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. מוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לְכַלְבּוֹ. פָּטוּר. אוֹ מֵאַחַר דְּרַב אָמַר. לוֹקִין עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. חַייָב. If one slaughtered on leavened matter, after what are you going? After eating or after elimination? There157Pesachim 3:2:2-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.3.2.2-6">Halakhah 3:2, beginning. did Rebbi Jeremiah say in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. If one slaughtered on them, if they were in the house, and the house did not combine them, he is not liable; or if they were in one vessel and the vessel combines them, he is liable. If he slaughtered on leavening. Since Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav, he is permitted to feed it to his dog158Pesachim 2:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.2.1.2">Halakhah 2:1, Note 9., he is not liable; or since Rav said, one flogs for eating it, he is liable159The questions are not answered..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לַשּׁוֹחֵט לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לַשּׁוֹחֵט אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה. לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹחֵט. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ נָתוּן עִמּוֹ בִירושָׁלֵם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא נָתוּן עִמּוֹ בָעֲזָרָה. דֵּין כְדַעְתֵּיהּ וְדֵין כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁלְגָּלִיוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְקַבְּלִין הַתְרָייָה עַל סָפֵק. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין הַתְרָייָה עַל סָפֵק. הַכֹל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם הָיָה נָתוּן כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בַחַלּוֹן בִּירושָׁלֵם. מָאן דְּאָמַר. סָפֵק. ווַדַּאי. מָאן דְּאָמַר. בָּעֲזָרָה. בִּירוּשָׁלֵם הוּא. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group160What does it mean, “one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter”? Whose leavened matter?. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard161He reads “on” as meaning “physically close” (Menachot.98a">Babli Menaḥot 98a).
In the text of K, the opinion of R. Joḥanan is repeated (supported) by R. Jacob bar [Aha].. 162Yevamot 11:7:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.11.7.6">Yebamot 11:7 Note 171, Nazir 8:1 Notes 48,49. Pesachim.64b">Babli 64b, Shevuot.3b">Ševuot 3b. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora163Before the publication of the computed calendar, communities which could not be informed by messengers about the determination of the first days of the months of Nisan and Tishri, kept two days of holidays to account for possible variations in the dates. Since each day was only one of a possible two, and in talmudic interpretation no infraction could be prosecuted unless the perpetrator was duly warned by two witnesses not to commit the crime, work on the holidays could not be prosecutable unless the warning was given for both days, the infraction occurred on both days, and this kind of long-term conditional warning was accepted in court. [After the publication of the calendar computations, the first day of a holiday is of biblical character; the second day is purely rabbinic and is kept only because the algorithm was published on condition that its users continue to keep the second day (Eruvin 3:9:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Eruvin.3.9.3">Eruvin 3, Note 190; Beitzah.4b">Babli Beṣah 4b).]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt164The disagreement of RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish can be explained as one about warnings in cases of doubt only if the leavened matter is not visible by the slaughterer at the moment of slaughter, for it might have been disposed of in the meantime. If it is visible to the slaughterer on the Temple Mount the doubt does not apply. But if the reason is that “on” means physical presence, R. Simeon ben Laqish still will declare the slaughterer not liable even though the leavened matter is visible in Jerusalem., it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.
מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה. דַּם זִבְחִי. דַּם פֶּסַח וְדַם תָּמִיד. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? The blood of my sacrifices, the blood of Pesaḥ and the blood of the daily sacrifice166R. Jehudah in the Mishnah includes the daily sacrifice in the prohibition of leavened matter. He reads זְבָחַי instead of זְבְחִי. Pesachim.64a">Babli 64a..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. לֹֽא־תִשְׁחַ֥ט עַל־חָמֵץ֭ דַּם־זִבְחִ֑י. וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר לֹֽא־תִזְבַּ֥ח עַל־חָמֵץ֭ דַּם־זִבְחִ֑י. אֶחָד הַפֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אֶחָד שְׁאָר כָּל־הַזְּבָחִים בְּחוֹלוֹ שֶׁלְמוֹעֵד. מָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹתָן בְּחוֹלוֹ שֶׁלְמוֹעֵד וּלְהוֹצִיאָן מִן אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָה הַכָּתוּב מִיעֵט. מַרְבֶּה אֲנִי אוֹתָן בְּחוֹלוֹ שֶׁלְמוֹעֵד שֶׁהוּא בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא. וּמוֹצִיאָן מֵאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁאֵינָן בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא. וָאַתְיָא כַיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. כְּלָהֵן דִּכִתִיב זֶבַ֭ח חַ֥ג הַפָּֽסַח אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֲנָן קַייָמִין. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse167The second verse is Exodus.23.18">Ex. 23:18, where it says לֹא־תִזְבַּח, the first is Ex..34:25. Pesachim.64a">Babli 64a. says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one168This is formulated as if the second verse referred to the intermediate days of the holiday. to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted169Exodus.23.18">Ex. 23:18 is general, referring to sacrifices eaten by its owners in general, while Ex..34:25 explicitly mentions the Pesaḥ and therefore restricts its meaning.. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”170Pesachim 2:1:16" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.2.1.16">Chapter 2:2 Note 90., and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words171Pesachim 1:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.4.2">Chapter 1:4, Notes 109–110.. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth172Ex..34:25 must refer to the 14th of Nisan; the anonymous majority is justified in rejecting R. Simeon’s position.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חֲבוּרָה הָֽיְתָה מַקְשָׁה. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּשֶׂאָבַד וְנִמְצָא קוֹדֶם לַכַּפָּרָה. בֶּין לִשְׁמוֹ בֵין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָשֵׁר וְנִיתַּק לִרְעָיָה. אִם בְּשֶׂאָבַד וְנִמְצָא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה. בֶּין לִשְׁמוֹ בֵין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פְסוּל שְׁלָמִים הוּא. וְקִייַמְנָה בְּשֶׁנִּיטמְאוּ הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁהֵזִידוּ וּכְבָר נִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁינִי. לִשְׁמוֹ פָטוּר וְהוּא פָסוּל. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ חַייָב וְהוּא כָשֵׁר. וְהַיי דֵינוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ פָטוּר. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. בְּשֶׁעָֽבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ בֵּין רִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּשֶׁעִיבֵּר זְמַן כַּפָּרָתוֹ. פֶּסַח שֶׁעִיבֵּר זְמַנּוֹ וּשְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ בִזְמַנּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט אֲחֵרִים לִשְׁמוֹ בִזְמַנּוֹ. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר פוֹסֵל וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ מַכְשִׁיר. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר פוֹסֵל שֶׁהוּא כְשׁוֹחֵט פֶּסַח לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ מַכְשִׁיר שֶׁהוּא כְשׁוֹחֵט שְׁלָמִים לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁעִיבֵּר זְמַנּוֹ לֹא שַׁנְייָא. הִיא הַשּׁוֹחֵט פֶּסַח לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. הִיא הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁלָמִים לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. עַל דַּעְתְּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. בְּשֶׁעִיבֵּר שְׁנָתוֹ בֵּין רִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁינִי. עַל דַּעְתְּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּשֶׁעִיבֵּר זְמַן כַּפָּרָתוֹ. 173The different commentators offer different emendations of this paragraph. The following commentary is offered as a tentative explanation of the text as it stands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding174Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah, “on the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable.”? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing175Pesachim 9:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.9.6.1">Mishnah 9:5. If an animal had been designated as Pesaḥ, was lost, another animal was designated, and then the original was found before the other was slaughtered, it is qualified as sacrifice but cannot be used as Pesaḥ. A qualified sacrifice cannot be redeemed (Leviticus.27.10">Lev. 27:10); therefore it shall graze until it develops a defect, then be sold and the money used to buy well-being offerings.. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering176While Pesachim 9:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.9.6.1">Mishnah 9:5 states clearly that a Pesaḥ animal, which was lost and only found after the replacement was slaughtered, is a qualified well-being offering, there is an opinion in Halakhah 9:6 that “the body of any which was acceptable as a Pesaḥ cannot be brought as well-being offering.” While this is explained away in Halakhah 9:6, it seems to be the basis of the statement here.. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ177The offering on the 14th of Iyar for those incapable of coming to the Sanctuary on the 14th of Nisan; Numbers.9.9-14">Num. 9:9–14.. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified134R. Simeon reads the verse as referring not only to the 14th of Nisan but also to the entire Holiday of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15–21. Since the Pesaḥ slaughtered for its purpose on any day other than the 14th is disqualified, it does not count. But not for its purpose it is a qualified well-being sacrifice.. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second178The Pesaḥ lamb must be a yearling., Exodus.12.5">Ex. 12:5. If the animal was dedicated before Passover but then its owner was prevented from coming to the Sanctuary in time, it automatically is dedicated for the Second Pesaḥ. If then it will be too old, it is automatically dedicated as well-being offering and can be used as such during the holiday; this is “not for its purpose” as Pesaḥ.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed179If for some reason it was not used on the 14th and its owner is not eligible to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, it may be used as well-being sacrifice during the holiday.. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time180An old animal, which had been dedicated when young, slaughtered on the 14th as Pesaḥ., or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time181An animal dedicated as well-being offering used as Pesaḥ., Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.182The Babylonian version of the baraita is in Zevachim.11a">Babli Zevaḥim 11a, Tosephta Pesaḥim 4:5.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed183Interpretations of: “Pesaḥ whose time had passed.”.