Pesachim 73b — the Talmud in English

And it was taught concerning it:

that the statement of our Mishna is [also taught] in a

beraita,

that after the slaughter it became known that the owners had withdrawn their hands from it, or had died [even before the slaughter]—

it shall be burned

the disqualified Paschal offering

immediately,

since the disqualification of a Passover offering slaughtered not for its registered members is “its disqualification is in its body”; and every offering whose disqualification is in its body, as will be explained below, is not kept waiting before being burned.

The disqualified offerings are divided into lenient and severe ones.

The severe disqualifications are those in which “its disqualification is in its body” of the offering itself, such as piggul, notar, or impurity.

The lenient disqualifications are those whose disqualification is not in the body of the offering itself, but in the blood of the offering or in its owners, such as when the blood was spilled, or when the owners of a Paschal offering died or became impure after the sprinkling of the blood. For the offering itself was not disqualified, since at the time of the sprinkling it had been slaughtered for its registered members in accordance with halakha; rather, now it has no people who can eat it, since it may be eaten only by its registered members, and they cannot eat it.

The severe disqualifications, which are “its disqualification is in its body,” are burned immediately, but the lenient disqualifications are burned only after “its form has passed,” that its form changes and the meat no longer appears as it did at the time of its slaughter.

The reason for the matter is that burning is a disgrace to consecrated things; therefore, they were stringent with consecrated things whose disqualification is lenient, not to burn them until the form of the meat changes. The change is effected by leaving them overnight, and burning them only on the following day [and since by leaving them overnight they acquire the disqualification of leaving overnight, which is “its disqualification is in its body,” from this aspect they should be burned immediately on the following day].

And Rav Hisda deduces from here that an offering whose status has changed is not fit according to its new designation unless its previous designation is removed from it.

For this Paschal offering, whose owners died before the slaughter, can no longer be offered as a Paschal offering, but only as a peace-offering.

Had they slaughtered this Passover offering for the sake of a peace-offering, the designation “Passover offering” would have been removed from it, and it would have been offered according to the law of a peace-offering. But now, since they did not remove the designation “Paschal offering” from it, although it is no longer designated for Passover but for a peace-offering, it is disqualified with the bodily disqualification of a Passover offering slaughtered not for its registered members, and because of this disqualification it is burned immediately.

And thus Rav Hisda raised the difficulty:

Granted, if you say

that although by default it is now destined to be offered as a peace-offering, nevertheless

it requires removal

of the designation “Passover offering” from it, then

this one

which has not had its designation removed is still an offering

of Passover.

And since

it is a Paschal offering

that has no owners—

it is “an offering whose disqualification is in its body,” and for this reason,

therefore properly

it shall be burned immediately,

without the need for its form to pass through being left overnight.

But, if you say that it does not require removal,

and from the moment its owners died, since it cannot be offered as a Paschal offering, by default it is already destined to be offered as a peace-offering without the need for removal—

from the outset,

from the time its owners died,

it is

already an offering

of peace-offerings.

And if so,

its disqualification

of this offering—

because of what

is it? For it is not a bodily disqualification, since it was slaughtered as a peace-offering, and it no longer has the disqualification of a Paschal offering whose owners died.

Rather,

its disqualification is because of another matter,

it is not a bodily disqualification, because

he slaughtered it

as a peace-offering

after the daily offering between the evenings

[which is the time for offering the Passover offering, whereas other offerings must be brought before the daily offering].

And if so, since its disqualification is not in its body—

its form must pass!

For they must leave it overnight so that the form of the meat changes, and once it has been left overnight, it has the bodily disqualification of leaving overnight.

For it was taught: This is the principle: Anything whose disqualification is in its body—

shall be burned immediately.

But if its disqualification is

in the blood,

such as when it was spilled, or

in the owners,

such as when the owners of a Paschal offering died [or became impure] after its slaughter—

its form shall pass, and it shall go to the place of burning.

And here, if you say that it does not require removal, its disqualification is not in its body; so why should it be burned immediately, even before its form has passed?

Rather,

by virtue of this difficulty, it must be proved that Rav stated his words in a different manner.

Therefore,

do not say

that Rav said: “An offering of guilt that was released for grazing and

they slaughtered it without specification—

is valid for the sake of a burnt-offering.”

Rather, say

that Rav said as follows: An offering of guilt that was released for grazing, if

they slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering—

it is valid,

because by slaughtering it for the sake of a burnt-offering, he removed the designation “offering of guilt” from it.

And from here one should deduce the opposite deduction from what we deduced according to the previous version:

apparently,

it is proven that an offering whose status changed

requires removal,

and does not by default stand according to its new designation.

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Gamda, who said

above, in the chapter “The Daily Offering Was Slaughtered” [64b]:

it was cast forth from the mouth of the group

[that is, everyone agrees on this matter],

and they say:

The fact proven from the Mishna there, that a Passover offering during the rest of the days of the year requires removal, and we do not say that during the rest of the year it by default stands as a peace-offering even without removal, is not proof that a Passover offering requires removal, because the Mishna is dealing with

a case where the owners were

of a Paschal offering

impure through contact with the dead,

and therefore they did not offer it at its appointed time,

and they are deferred

the owners together with their offering

to the Second Passover.

In that case, the Passover offering does not by default stand for peace-offerings, but stands for the Second Passover; therefore it requires removal if one wishes to change it to a peace-offering.

And according to this interpretation of the Mishna, it is proven that only

this one,

a Paschal offering that stands for the Second Passover,

requires removal

to change it to a peace-offering.

But elsewhere,

when it does not stand for the Second Passover,

it does not require

the Paschal offering during the rest of the days of the year

removal

from the designation “Passover,” since during the rest of the year it by default stands for peace-offerings, and the designation “Passover” is removed from it even without removal.

And according to him—

what can be said?

That is, his words are refuted by the beraita above, which says that a Passover offering whose owners died has its disqualification in its body and is therefore burned immediately; and this law applies only if a Passover offering requires removal. For if it does not require removal, it has no bodily disqualification, since by default it stands for a peace-offering, and its only deficiency is because of another matter: it may not be offered after the daily offering, but only before it.

And because of this difficulty, the Gemara returns to the first approach and maintains that a Passover offering does not require removal, and that the fact that its law is to be burned immediately is no proof that it requires removal.

Rather, Rav Huna son of Rabbi Joshua said:

Rav always said as we established at the beginning of the discussion: an offering of guilt whose owners died, and they slaughtered it without specification, is valid as a burnt-offering, since after the death of its owners it stands for a burnt-offering, even if they did not remove the designation “offering of guilt” from it, because removal is not necessary.

And this that we learned, that a Passover offering whose owners died is burned immediately, which would seem to indicate that it requires removal, is not proof.

For

with what are we dealing here?—

with a case where its owners designated it

for a Paschal offering

before midday

of the eve of Passover,

and the owners died after midday,

so that the Paschal offering was established as a Paschal offering at midday on the eve of Passover, which is its appointed time.

And since at midday the owners were alive and the offering was fit to be offered as a Paschal offering,

it is

an offering that was “seen and then deferred”: it was fit at its appointed time, and was deferred from Passover when its owners died after midday.

And anything that was seen and then deferred—

does not return to its state of being seen again!

Since it was deferred at its appointed time from being offered as a Paschal offering, it does not return to become fit as an offering in the form of a peace-offering; consequently, its disqualification is in its body, and therefore it is burned immediately.

And what we find, that the surplus of a Passover offering is offered as a peace-offering, refers to a Paschal offering that was lost before midday and found only after the slaughter of the Passover offering, which midday had not established, and which had never been seen as destined for the slaughter of the Passover offering.

And we refute this:

Is that the reason?

Behold, this entire explanation applies

only to Rav,

who said: “An offering of guilt that was released for grazing and they slaughtered it without specification is valid.”

And according to his words, it is impossible to resolve the matter according to the principle that anything that was seen and then deferred does not return to its state of being seen.

For

Rav said: Living animals are not subject to deferral!

For every law of permanent deferral applies only to the blood or to the owners [see Rashi]: if they were deferred once, they are deferred forever, even if they subsequently became fit again.

But a living offering is not permanently disqualified on account of deferral; rather, it returns to being fit when the cause of the deferral passes. Here, since the owners died, the offering is alive and returns to being fit to be offered as a peace-offering.

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Indeed, it does not require removal, and by default it stands for peace-offerings; nevertheless, if its owners died on a weekday, it is burned immediately.

For

whose opinion is this?—

It is Rabbi Eliezer’s, who said: And likewise, one who slaughters other offerings

[peace-offerings]

for the sake of a Passover offering—

it is disqualified.

And if so, although removal is not necessary, the offering is disqualified, since after its owners died it by default stands as a peace-offering, and slaughtering it for the sake of a Paschal offering disqualifies it,

for its disqualification is in its body,

and therefore it is burned immediately.

And we raise a difficulty:

And if

our Mishna is

Rabbi Eliezer’s,

this is difficult: an offering of

sin also incurs liability

for slaughtering it for the sake of a Passover offering, since he disqualified the offering, and he cannot be exempted on the grounds that he erred in a matter of a mitzva,

for Rabbi Eliezer does not hold

that

“one who errs in a matter of a mitzva is exempt.”

Rather, Rav Yosef son of Rav Sala Hasida explained before Rav Pappa: Whose opinion is this?—

It is Yosef ben Hunai’s!

For we learned: Yosef ben Hunai says:

other sacrifices

that are slaughtered for the sake of a Passover offering or for the sake of a sin-offering—

are disqualified!

Apparently,

peace-offerings slaughtered for the sake of a Passover offering—

their disqualification is in their body,

and since, when its owners died, it is a peace-offering, and they slaughtered it for the sake of a Passover offering,

for this reason it shall be burned immediately.

And concerning

the matter of

the exemptions

of one who errs in a matter of a mitzva,

he held

Yosef ben Hunai

like Rabbi Joshua,

who exempts one who errs in a matter of a mitzva.

Rav Ashi said

another resolution in order to establish Rav’s words:

Rav, who said

above that removal is not necessary, does not hold like the tanna of the beraita who taught as an addition to our Mishna: “On a weekday, in such a case, it shall be burned immediately” [according to whom removal is necessary, and therefore it is burned immediately as the law of an offering whose disqualification is in its body, because as long as the designation “Passover” has not been removed from it, that designation remains upon it; consequently, it was slaughtered not for its registered members and was disqualified with a bodily disqualification].

Rather, Rav,

who said

that removal is not necessary, holds

like Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,

who taught in a beraita concerning our Mishna differently: it is not burned immediately, but requires its form to pass; and according to him, removal is not necessary.

For it was taught: Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says:

This that we learned in our Mishna, that one who slaughters the Passover offering on Shabbat and learns that its owners died before the slaughter is exempt under the law of one who errs in a matter of a mitzva, was not stated in every circumstance.

For

if there is time during the day,

and the slaughterer can investigate and

know whether the owners withdrew their hands

from the offering,

or died,

the owners,

or became impure,

the slaughterer should have investigated this; and if he did not ask and investigate, he is not one who errs in a matter of a mitzva, and he is

liable

to bring a sin-offering for having unwittingly desecrated Shabbat,

and

the meat of the offering—

its form shall pass

through being left overnight,

and

afterward it

shall go to the place of burning.

And the law of our Mishna, that the slaughterer is exempt, was stated only when there was no time during the day to investigate whether indeed the owners had not withdrawn their hands from the offering, and whether they were alive and pure.

And Rav Ashi deduces:

What is the reason

that Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, holds that the meat requires its form to pass and is not burned immediately, as is meat whose disqualification is in its body?

What—

is it not because he does not require

the Passover offering

removal

when its owners withdraw their hands from it, but it automatically stands by default as a peace-offering; and when they slaughtered it, it was not disqualified with the bodily disqualification [of a Passover offering without registered members], but only with another disqualification, that it was slaughtered as a peace-offering after the daily offering between the evenings?

And Rav holds according to his words.

And the Gemara rejects Rav Ashi’s resolution:

From where

is it known that Rabbi Ishmael’s reason is that removal is not necessary?

Perhaps

his reason is

because he holds like the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuha, who said: even

when its disqualification is in its body, such as the disqualification of

piggul, it also requires its form to pass, for he derives

by a gzera shava of

“iniquity—

iniquity” from

the disqualification of

notar,

for in the disqualification of notar its form passes.

And the Gemara proves that it is indeed necessary to say that Rabbi Ishmael, who holds that it requires its form to pass, does so because in his view even a bodily disqualification requires its form to pass, and not because of the reason stated by Rav Ashi, that removal is not necessary.

For

if the owners became impure—

what can be said?

Behold,

in this case

it certainly requires removal!

For everyone agrees that without removal the designation “Passover” still remains upon it.

And the proof is:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Gamda said: It was cast forth from the mouth of the group

[that is, everyone agrees on this matter], that the law stated in the beraita [in the chapter “The Daily Offering Was Slaughtered”], that a Passover offering requires removal, is dealing

with a case where the owners were

of the offering

impure through contact with the dead, and were deferred to the Second Passover,

for then the offering stands for Passover and the designation of a peace-offering does not apply to it; therefore, according to everyone, removal is necessary, and by default it is a Paschal offering.

And if so, this is difficult: why, if its owners became impure and it was slaughtered for the sake of a Passover offering, is it not burned immediately, when its disqualification is surely in its body? Rather, it is proven that according to Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, even a bodily disqualification requires its form to pass.

Rather, it is clear

that the matter is clear and it cannot be resolved as Rav Ashi did; rather, Rabbi Ishmael’s reason is that he holds that a bodily disqualification requires its form to pass. But the tanna who teaches that it shall be burned immediately disagrees with him and holds that it does not require its form to pass.

And to resolve Rav’s words, we must resolve them

as we resolved them initially,

as the resolution above: since the Passover offering does not require removal, when its owners died or withdrew their hands, the designation “Passover” was removed from the offering automatically, and it by default stands as a peace-offering; and its bodily disqualification is because he slaughtered the peace-offering for the sake of a Passover offering.

And

it is Yosef ben Hunai’s opinion,

who holds that even peace-offerings slaughtered for the sake of a Passover offering are disqualified with a bodily disqualification; therefore, on a weekday they are burned immediately.

We shall return to you, chapter “These Matters.”