Pesachim 63b

פסחים ס״ג ע״ב

Learn Pesachim 63b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Pesachim 63b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Slaughtering the קרבן פסח while owning חמץ: the רבי יוחנן–ריש לקיש dispute about 'עַל בסמוך', whose חמץ counts, and two conflicting ברייתות

Overview

The תורה forbids slaughtering the קרבן פסח 'עַל חמץ', while חמץ is owned. ריש לקיש says one is liable only if the חמץ is with him in the עזרה. רבי יוחנן says he is liable even if it is not. The גמרא first suggests they argue whether 'עַל' means 'next to' (בסמוך). It then tries התראת ספק instead, but each idea seems already covered by another argument of theirs: the תודה bread for the first, and an oath to eat a loaf for the second. In the end it returns to 'עַל בסמוך' and shows with a צריכא that both the חמץ case and the bread case had to be taught. Next, רב אושעיא and רבי אמי establish that the חמץ of any member of the חבורה counts, but not a stranger's, because the פסוק links this איסור to 'ולא ילין'. From this רב פפא rules that the כהן who burns the fats is also included, and a ברייתא supports him. The amud ends with a second ברייתא that contradicts the first on the מקטיר and the מולק. The answer to that contradiction comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (25)

1. Statementריש לקיש: the חמץ must be with him in the courtyard
2. Statementרבי יוחנן: liable even if the חמץ is not in the courtyard
3. QuestionWhat is the root of their dispute?
4. ResponseFirst suggestion: does 'on' mean 'right next to'?
5. ChallengeBut they already argued about that once
6. ProofThe source: the bread of the thanks-offering
7. QuestionWhich wall is meant?
8. Responseרבי יוחנן: the outer wall of ירושלים
9. Responseריש לקיש: even the courtyard wall
10. ResolutionSecond suggestion: an uncertain warning
11. ChallengeThey already argued about that too
12. ProofThe oath to eat a loaf today
13. Statementרבי יוחנן's reason: no action was done
14. Statementריש לקיש's reason: the warning was uncertain
15. ResolutionBack to 'next to', and why the חמץ case alone is not enough
16. ConclusionWhy the bread case is also needed
17. ConclusionWhy the argument also had to be taught about חמץ
18. QuestionWhat if only a group member owns חמץ?
19. ResponseThe פסוק says 'חמץ', not 'your חמץ'
20. ChallengeThen even someone at the end of the world?
21. ResolutionLimited to those bound by 'ולא ילין'
22. StatementA כהן burning the fats also violates the איסור
23. ProofA ברייתא Supports רב פפא
24. ChallengeA Second ברייתא Is Brought: רבי יהודה and the תמיד
25. ChallengeThe Clash: Pinching a Bird Counts, Burning Fats Does Not