Pesachim 96b — the Talmud in English

Rather

how will you interpret the Mishna

? “Its leavening”

that the prohibition of leaven on the Passover of future generations applies for seven days? This too presents a difficulty:

For in the first part of the Mishna we learned concerning the Passover of Egypt: “and it was eaten in haste, one night

”—this implies that the Passover of Egypt was prohibited with leaven for one night

only

and no more

and beyond this there is no prohibition, even on the fifteenth day?!

But it was taught

for it was taught in a beraita

: Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: From where [do we know] concerning the Passover of Egypt that its leavening applies only for one day

and not for seven days

? The verse states

[in Exodus 12], concerning the Passover of Egypt

: “No leaven shall be eaten,” and adjacent to it

it is written: “Today you are going out,” and they expounded that leaven may not be eaten on the fifteenth of Nisan, on which you are going out.

And from the words of the beraita it follows that the entire day of the fifteenth of Nisan is prohibited with leaven. If so, it is difficult: how can one say that the prohibition of leaven on the Passover of Egypt applied only at night?

And we answer

: Rather

several words are missing from our Mishna [Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro

], and this is what he means

this is what the tanna said in our Mishna: “

And [the Passover of Egypt] was eaten in haste

one night.”

And the same law applies to the Passover of future generations

which too is eaten for one night [but not in haste].

And “its leavening”

the prohibition of leaven that applies to the Passover of Egypt applies

“the entire day”

of the fifteenth of Nisan.

And

if

“the Passover of future generations”—

the prohibition of leaven concerning it

“applies for all seven [days].”

Mishna:

It is stated at the end of the Book of Leviticus [27:32]: “He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad, nor shall he exchange it; and if he does exchange it, then both it and its replacement shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.” From here [we learn] that one who says concerning an unconsecrated animal, “This is the replacement of a sacrificial animal,” both animals possess the sanctity of the sacrifice.

Rabbi Joshua said: I heard

from my teachers

that

there is

a replacement of a Passover offering

that

is offered

as a peace-offering after Passover. In accordance with the law of the surplus of the Passover offering [for example, where he set aside two lambs for responsibility for his Passover offering, and one remained after Passover], which is offered as a peace-offering.

And

there is a case in which

the replacement of a Passover offering is not offered

as a peace-offering itself, but he leaves it to graze in the field until it develops a disqualifying defect.

That is, until a defect occurs in it. After it develops a defect, he may sell it [in accordance with the law of all consecrated animals in which a defect occurred, which are redeemed], and he brings a peace-offering with its value. For the surplus of the Passover offering is offered as a peace-offering.

And Rabbi Joshua added

: I have no

possibility

of explaining

which replacement of a Passover offering is offered and which is not offered, for I have forgotten what my teachers explained.

Rabbi Akiva said: I shall explain:

What Rabbi Joshua heard—that there is a replacement of a Passover offering that is offered and one that is not offered—was not said only with regard to the replacement of the Passover offering. Rather, it also applies to the Passover offering itself that was lost and another was offered in its place: if the first Passover offering is found, there is a manner in which it itself is offered as a peace-offering, and there is a manner in which it is not offered, but grazes until it develops a disqualifying defect, is sold, and a peace-offering is brought with its value.

The manner in which the Passover offering and its replacement are not offered is as follows:

The Passover offering

the first one

that was found before the slaughter of the Passover offering

the second one, and both lambs stood before him at the time of slaughter. If he slaughtered the second and not the first, the designation “Passover offering” was fixed upon the first lamb at the time of slaughter, and he actively rejected it from being offered. Since the designation “Passover offering” was fixed upon it and it was rejected from being offered as a Passover offering, it is disqualified from being offered itself upon the altar. Rather,

it grazes until it develops a disqualifying defect, is sold, and a peace-offering is brought with its value.

And likewise its replacement

of the first Passover offering that was lost and found before the slaughter of the second Passover offering. For example, he exchanged it for an unconsecrated animal before the slaughter. It follows that at the time of slaughter the designation “Passover offering” was fixed upon the replacement, and it was rejected from being offered as a Passover offering. Therefore it was disqualified from being offered itself upon the altar, and a peace-offering is brought with its value.

Rashi interpreted “and likewise its replacement” as referring to a case where the first Passover offering was found before slaughter, but he exchanged another animal for it only after slaughter. It follows that with regard to the replacement itself there was no deḥuy, since he consecrated it only after slaughter; nevertheless, the law of the replacement is like the law of the Passover offering itself, and it is disqualified from being offered itself upon the altar; only its value is fit. But in the Gemara the amoraim disputed what the law is in this case. It will be explained below.

And the manner in which the Passover offering and its replacement are offered is as follows:

The first Passover offering that was found

after the slaughter of the second Passover offering,

at the time of slaughter it was not before us and was not fit to be offered as a Passover offering. Therefore the designation “Passover offering” was not fixed upon it, and it was not actively rejected. Consequently,

it is offered as a peace-offering

itself.

And likewise its replacement

if he exchanged another animal for the first Passover offering after it was found after slaughter, the replacement itself is offered as a peace-offering.

Accordingly, Rabbi Joshua, who said, “I heard that the replacement of the Passover offering is offered, and the replacement of the Passover offering is not offered,” could have been speaking also of the Passover offering itself. For the same distinction that applies to the replacement of the Passover offering also applies to the Passover offering itself, as Rabbi Akiva explained. And the Gemara explains why Rabbi Joshua spoke of the replacement of the Passover offering and not of the Passover offering itself.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Joshua said, “I heard that the replacement of a Passover offering is offered, and the replacement of a Passover offering is not offered.”

And we raise an objection: Rabbi Akiva explained that also with regard to the Passover offering itself, there is a Passover offering that is offered and one that is not offered.

And

if so,

let him say

let Rabbi Joshua say that

a Passover offering is offered and a Passover offering is not offered!

And we answer

: This teaches us

the tanna comes to teach us this: that not only with regard to the Passover offering itself is there a Passover offering that is not offered, but

there is

a

replacement of a Passover offering that is not offered.

For I might have said that specifically the first Passover offering itself, which from the outset was set aside in order to offer it as a Passover offering, if it is standing before us at the time of slaughter, the designation “Passover offering” is fixed upon it. But with regard to the replacement of the Passover offering—for example, where he exchanged another animal for the first Passover offering before slaughter — in this case I might have said that the replacement from the outset was not intended to be offered as a Passover offering, but as a peace-offering . And even at the time of slaughter it was not designated as a Passover offering, and consequently deḥuy does not apply to it.

And the tanna taught us that the replacement is indeed designated with the name of a Passover offering at the time of slaughter, since it too is fit to be offered in the capacity of a Passover offering on the fourteenth of Nisan. And since he did not offer it, he actively rejected it, and it was disqualified from being offered upon the altar.

We learned in the Mishna: “Rabbi Akiva said: I shall explain. The Passover offering that was found before the slaughter of the Passover offering shall graze until it develops a disqualifying defect … after the slaughter of the Passover offering it is offered as a peace-offering.”

The amoraim disputed whether what we learned, “before the slaughter of the Passover offering” and “after the slaughter of the Passover offering,” refers to the actual slaughter of the Passover offering, or whether it refers to midday, which is the time at which the Passover offering is slaughtered:

It was stated: Rabba said: “Before slaughter”

literally,

and “after slaughter”

literally,

we learned.

And if the Passover offering was lost at midday and was found after midday, before the slaughter of the second Passover offering, this is called in the Mishna “before the slaughter of the Passover offering.” Since the Passover offering was before us before the slaughter of the second, the designation “Passover offering” was fixed upon it, and it was rejected.

Rabbi Zeira said: “Before midday, and after midday, we learned.”

Midday is the time that determines whether the designation “Passover offering” takes effect upon the lamb. Therefore, if it was found before midday, the designation “Passover offering” was fixed upon it, and since they did not offer it, it was rejected and disqualified. But if it was found after midday, even if it was found before the slaughter of the second, at midday it was lost and the designation “Passover offering” was not fixed upon it; therefore deḥuy does not apply here.

And we object

: But according to Rabbi Zeira

who said, “Before midday and after midday we learned,”

does it not state

for we learned in the Mishna

“before the slaughter of the Passover offering”!

How, then, did Rabbi Zeira say “before midday”?

And we answer

: Say

that our Mishna says

“before the time of slaughter of the Passover offering,”

that is, before midday.

As in the dispute between the tannaim,

the tannaim already disputed this matter in a beraita:

The Passover offering that was found before slaughter shall graze; after slaughter it shall be offered. Rabbi Eliezer says: Before midday it shall graze; after midday it shall be offered.

We learned in the Mishna

: “After the slaughter of the Passover offering, he shall bring a peace-offering,”

and likewise its replacement.

Rava said

[Rabba]

: They taught

that the replacement is offered

only

in a case

where it was found after slaughter, and he exchanged another animal for it after slaughter,

for in this case the designation “Passover offering” was fixed neither upon the Passover offering nor upon its replacement.

But

if

it was found before slaughter, and he exchanged another animal for it after slaughter,

in this case, although the designation “Passover offering” was not fixed upon the replacement, since he exchanged another animal for it only after slaughter, nevertheless the Passover offering itself was found before slaughter, and the designation “Passover offering” was fixed upon it and it was rejected; consequently,

its replacement

of the Passover offering

comes by virtue of rejected sanctity

[it comes]

and is not offered.

Abaye challenged Rabba

Abaye questioned Rabba’s words from the following beraita:

With regard to the peace-offering, three sections are stated [Leviticus 3]: the first section concerns cattle, the second concerns sheep, and the third concerns goats. With regard to offering a sheep it is stated [in verse 6]: “And if his offering is from the flock.” And in the following verse it is stated

: “If a sheep

he offers as his offering.”

And the beraita asked

: What does

the verse come to teach us

“If a sheep”?

For it is written at the beginning of the passage, “And if his offering is from the flock,” and it is impossible to err and say that it is speaking of a goat, for in the following section it is stated, “And if his offering is a goat”!

And the beraita answers

: To include the replacement of the Passover offering after Passover, which is offered

itself

as a peace-offering .

And Abaye asked

: What are the circumstances

of the replacement of the Passover offering of which the beraita is speaking?

If you say

that it is speaking of a Passover offering

that was found after slaughter and he exchanged another animal for it after slaughter,

and the designation “Passover offering” was fixed neither upon the Passover offering nor upon its replacement, then it is

obvious

that the replacement itself can be offered as a peace-offering! And

why do I need a verse?

Rather, is it not

necessarily

that it was found before

slaughter

and he exchanged another animal for it after slaughter?!

Necessarily, the beraita comes to teach us that although the Passover offering itself was rejected, its replacement is offered, since the replacement itself was not rejected. This contradicts Rabba’s words.

Rabba answered Abaye

: No,

it is not speaking of a case where it was found before slaughter! Rather,

it always

speaks of a case

where it was found after

slaughter, and he exchanged another animal for it after slaughter,

and only in this case is the replacement itself offered as a peace-offering.

And concerning what you, Abaye, asked—why do I need a verse?—one can say that in truth the Torah did not write “if a sheep” in order to teach that the replacement is offered as a peace-offering.

And the verse

[the verse “if a sheep”]

is merely an ancillary support.

Rather,

it is difficult:

For what purpose did the verse come

for what purpose was “if a sheep” written?

Rabba answered this

: For that which was taught

that they expounded a different exposition from this verse in a beraita:

It is stated concerning peace-offerings

“sheep,”

and this verse is superfluous [for in the following section it is written “and if a goat,” and necessarily this section speaks of a sheep, as above]. To teach us

to include the Passover offering with regard to the fat tail,

as follows.

Sacrifices that are cattle do not have the fat tail burned upon them, whereas in all sacrifices of sheep the Torah states that the fat tail is offered upon the altar together with the fats. [With regard to a sheep peace-offering it is stated: “its fat, the fat tail.” With regard to a guilt-offering: “all its fat he shall remove from it, the fat tail.” And a sin-offering has the law of a guilt-offering.]

And with regard to the Passover offering, the burning of the sacrificial fats is not stated in the Torah at all. Rather, it is learned from the verse [Numbers 18:17]: “You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and you shall burn their fat.” [This is speaking there of a firstborn, and it is difficult: why was “their blood” and “their fat” written in the plural? From here they expounded to include the Passover offering and the tithe-offering with regard to the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the sacrificial fats, above, 64b.]

And since the burning of the sacrificial fats is not mentioned with regard to the Passover offering, but is learned from an inclusion, and the fat tail was not mentioned with regard to it, I might have said that the fat tail of the Passover offering is not offered. Therefore it is stated concerning peace-offerings, “sheep,” to include the Passover offering with regard to the fat tail.

And the beraita adds:

when it

the verse

says, “if it be a sheep”

—that the word “if” is superfluous—it comes to inform us another matter:

to include a Pesah whose year has passed

for a Pesah comes only from a sheep in its year, and if its first year has passed, and it is not fit to be offered as a Pesah, it is offered as a peace-offering.

And

likewise

peace-offerings that come on account of the Pesah

such as the substitution of the Pesah. Or a Pesah that was lost, and its owners obtained atonement through another one, and afterward the first was found. [And some explain: this is the festival-offering that comes on the fourteenth of Nisan so that the Pesah will be eaten when one is satiated. Rashi in the name of his teacher]. And we learn from the word “if” to include [to obligate] them

in all the mitzvot of peace-offerings:

that it requires laying of hands

on the head of the offering.

And

it requires bringing

libations

with the offering.

And the waving of the breast and thigh

which they wave and give to the koen.

And these matters do not apply to a Pesah, but only to peace-offerings. And we learn from the word “if” to include a Pesah whose year has passed and peace-offerings that come on account of the Pesah, whose law is like that of peace-offerings and not like that of a Pesah.

And the beraita adds:

and when it

the verse

says, “and if it be a goat”

—that the word “and if” is superfluous—

it interrupted the matter

it comes to interrupt between the passage of the sheep that was stated previously and the passage of the goat. [For the word “and if” is an interruption].

It taught regarding the goat

that it is not like the sheep,

for

the goat

does not require

the offering of

an alyah.

And we learn from the beraita that “if it be a sheep” includes a Pesah for an alyah, and it does not come to include the substitution of the Pesah after the Pesah, which is offered as a peace-offering; rather, this is merely an asmakhta.

Until here are the words of Rabba: that if the Pesah was found before slaughter, even though he made a substitution for it after slaughter, the substitution is invalid, because it comes by virtue of a rejected sanctity. [And Abaye challenged him from the beraita, and Rabba answered Abaye’s difficulty and brought another beraita].

There are those who teach it

there are others who taught Rabba’s words in a different manner. For what Rabba mentioned in his words, “they did not state,” he was not speaking about the conclusion of the Mishna [which speaks of a case in which the substitution is offered], but

about the beginning

about the beginning of the Mishna’s words, which speaks of a case in which the substitution is not offered.

For thus we learned at the beginning:

The Pesah

the first

that was found before the slaughter of the Pesah

the second

shall graze until it develops a blemish, and it shall be sold, and with its money he shall bring peace-offerings, and likewise its substitution.

And concerning this

said

They taught this only

Rabba: “They did not state”

that the substitution is not offered,

except when it was found

the Pesah

before slaughter, and

also

he made a substitution for it before slaughter,

for then it is found that the substitution stood before him at the time of the slaughter of the Pesah, and the name Pesah was fixed upon it. And since he rejected it and did not offer it as a Pesah, it became invalid.

But

if the Pesah

was found before slaughter, and he made a substitution for it after slaughter, its substitution is offered as a peace-offering.

What is the reason?

What is the reason for the matter?

For the slaughter fixed

what does the slaughter of the Pesah fix?

something that is fit for it

something that is already sanctified and fit to be offered as a Pesah! But

something that is not fit for it

something that has not yet been sanctified and is not fit to be offered as a Pesah,

it did not fix.

And this substitution was sanctified only after the slaughter of the Pesah; it follows that at the time of the slaughter it was unconsecrated and was not fixed with the name “Pesah.”

And according to this formulation, it disagrees with the first formulation in Rabba’s words, and maintains that even though this substitution comes by virtue of a rejected sanctity, nevertheless the substitution is fit to be offered, since there was no rejection in it itself.

Abaye challenged him

Abaye challenged Rabba, that there is a contradiction to his words from the beraita [which we already brought above]:

It is stated concerning the peace-offering, “if it be a sheep” [and this is superfluous, since in the passage after it, “and if it be a goat,” it is evident in any case that here it is speaking of a sheep], and the beraita asked:

“‘If it be a sheep’—what does it teach us?”

What does it come to teach us?

The beraita answers:

to include the substitution of the Pesah

that was found

after the Pesah, which is offered as a peace-offering.