Pesachim 96b (צו:) — the Talmud in English

Rather

how will you interpret the Mishna

“the prohibition of leaven”

that, with regard to the Passover of the generations, the prohibition of leaven applies for seven days? This too presents a difficulty:

For in the first part of the Mishna, where it discusses the Passover of Egypt, we learned: “And it was eaten in haste for one night

”—by inference, the Passover of Egypt was prohibited with regard to leaven for one night only

and no more

!

Beyond that there is no prohibition, even on the fifteenth of Nisan?!

But it was taught

and the following was taught in a beraita

: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived that, with regard to the Passover of Egypt, the prohibition of leaven applies for only one day

and not for seven days?

The verse states

[in Exodus 12, concerning the Passover of Egypt]:

“No leaven may be eaten,” and it is juxtaposed

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

It follows from the words of the beraita that the entire fifteenth of Nisan is prohibited with regard to leaven. If so, it is difficult: How can it be said that the prohibition of leaven during the Passover of Egypt applied only at night?

And we resolve

: Rather,

several words are missing from our Mishna [Rav Ovadya of Bartenura

and this is what it says

the tanna of our Mishna said: “

And [the Passover of Egypt] was eaten in haste

for one night.”

And the same law applies to the Passover of the generations,

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

And “its leavening,”

the prohibition of leaven with regard to the Passover of Egypt, applies

“the entire day”

of the fifteenth of Nisan.

And

if

“the Passover of the generations”—

the prohibition of leaven in its regard

“applies for all seven days.”

Mishna:

It is stated at the end of Leviticus: “He shall not inspect whether it be good or bad, nor shall he exchange it. But if he does exchange it, then it and its substitute shall both be sacred; it may not be redeemed.” From here it is derived that if one says concerning an unconsecrated animal, “This is the substitute for a sacrificial animal,” both animals possess the sanctity of a sacrifice.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard

from my teachers

that

there is

a substitute for a Paschal offering

that

is sacrificed

as a peace-offering after Passover. This is the law of the surplus of a Paschal offering [for example, if one set aside two lambs as a safeguard for his Paschal offering and one remained after Passover], which is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

And

there is a case in which

the substitute for the Passover offering is not sacrificed

as a peace offering itself. Rather, it is left to graze in the field until it develops a disqualifying defect.

That is, until a blemish occurs in it. Once it develops a blemish, it may be sold. [As is the law concerning all consecrated animals that develop a blemish, which are redeemed], and with its proceeds he brings a peace-offering. For the surplus of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

And Rabbi Yehoshua added:

And I have no

ability

to explain

which substitute for a Paschal offering is sacrificed and which is not sacrificed, for I have forgotten what my teachers explained.

Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain:

What Rabbi Yehoshua heard—that there is a substitute for a Paschal offering that is sacrificed and one that is not sacrificed—was not stated only with regard to the substitute for the Paschal offering. Rather, the same law applies to the Paschal offering itself that was lost and for which another was sacrificed in its place: If the first Paschal offering is found, there is a case in which it itself is sacrificed as a peace-offering, and there is a case in which it is not sacrificed; rather, it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish, is sold, and a peace-offering is brought with its proceeds.

The circumstance in which the Paschal offering and its substitute are not sacrificed is as follows:

The

first Paschal offering

that was found before the slaughter of the Paschal offering

the second one, and both lambs were standing before him at the time of slaughter. If he slaughtered the second and not the first, the designation “Paschal offering” was fixed upon the first lamb at the time of slaughter, and he actively disqualified it from being sacrificed. Since the designation “Paschal offering” was fixed upon it and it was disqualified from being sacrificed as a Paschal offering, it is disqualified from being sacrificed by itself on the altar. Rather, it

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

And likewise its substitute

of the first Paschal offering that was lost and found before the slaughter of the second Paschal offering. For example, he exchanged it for an unconsecrated animal before slaughter; consequently, at the time of slaughter, the designation “Paschal offering” was fixed upon the substitute. It was disqualified from being sacrificed as a Paschal offering, and therefore was disqualified from being sacrificed by itself on the altar; rather, a peace-offering is brought with its proceeds.

Rashi explained “and likewise its substitute” as referring to a case in which the first Paschal offering was found before slaughter, but he exchanged an animal for it only after slaughter. Consequently, the substitute itself had not been subject to rejection, since it was consecrated only after slaughter. Nevertheless, the substitute has the same law as the Paschal offering itself and is disqualified from being sacrificed by itself on the altar; only its proceeds are fit. But the amoraim disagree in the Gemara below about the law in this case. It will be explained below.

The circumstance in which the Paschal offering and its substitute are sacrificed is as follows:

The first Paschal offering that was found

after the slaughter of the second Paschal offering,

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

it is sacrificed as a peace-offering

by itself.

And likewise its substitute

if he exchanged an animal for the first Paschal offering after it was found after slaughter, the substitute itself is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

Accordingly, Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, “I heard that a substitute for a Paschal offering is sacrificed, and that a substitute for a Paschal offering is not sacrificed,” could have been speaking about the Paschal offering itself as well. For the same distinction that applies to the substitute for a Paschal offering also applies to the Paschal offering itself, as Rabbi Akiva explained. The Gemara explains why Rabbi Yehoshua spoke specifically about the substitute for a Paschal offering and not about the Paschal offering itself.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua said, “I heard that a substitute for a Paschal offering is sacrificed, and that a substitute for a Paschal offering is not sacrificed.”

And we challenge this: Rabbi Akiva explained that the same distinction applies to the Paschal offering itself: There is a Paschal offering that is sacrificed and one that is not sacrificed.

And

if so,

let him say

Rabbi Yehoshua:

A Paschal offering is sacrificed, and a Paschal offering is not sacrificed!

And we resolve

: This teaches us

the tanna came to teach us that not only with regard to the Paschal offering itself is there a Paschal offering that is not sacrificed; rather,

there is

a

substitute for a Paschal offering that is not sacrificed.

For I might have said that specifically the first Paschal offering itself, which was initially set aside in order to sacrifice it as a Paschal offering, acquires the designation “Paschal offering” if it is standing before us at the time of slaughter. But as for the substitute for a Paschal offering—for example, if he exchanged an animal for the first Paschal offering before slaughter— I might have said that the substitute was initially not intended to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering, but as a peace-offering. Even at the time of slaughter, the designation “Paschal offering” was not fixed upon it, and consequently the concept of rejection does not apply to it.

The tanna therefore teaches us that the designation “Paschal offering” is indeed fixed upon the substitute at the time of slaughter, since it too is fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan. And since it was not sacrificed, it was actively disqualified and became unfit to be sacrificed on the altar.

We learned in the Mishna: “Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain: A Paschal offering that was found before the slaughter of the Paschal offering grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish ... after the slaughter of the Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.”

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

It was stated: Rabba said: “Before slaughter”

means literally before slaughter,

and “after slaughter”

means literally after slaughter;

this is what we learned.

If the Paschal offering was lost at midday and found after midday, before the slaughter of the second Paschal offering, this is called “before the slaughter of the Paschal offering” in the Mishna. Since the Paschal offering was before us before the slaughter of the second one, the designation “Paschal offering” was fixed upon it and it was disqualified.

Rabbi Zeira said: “Before midday, and after midday”—this is what we learned.

Midday is the time that determines whether the designation “Paschal offering” takes effect upon the lamb. Therefore, if it was found before midday, the designation “Paschal offering” was fixed upon it, and since it was not sacrificed, it was rejected and became disqualified. But if it was found after midday, even if it was found before the slaughter of the second one, at midday it was lost and the designation “Paschal offering” was not fixed upon it; consequently, rejection does not apply here.

And we challenge this

: But according to Rabbi Zeira,

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

it is taught

we learned in the Mishna

“before the slaughter of the Paschal offering”!

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

And we resolve

: Say

that our Mishna says

“before the time of slaughtering the Paschal offering,”

that is, before midday.

According to the tannaim

the tannaim already disagreed about this in a beraita:

A Paschal offering that was found before slaughter must graze; after slaughter it is sacrificed. Rabbi Eliezer says: Before midday it must graze; after midday it is sacrificed.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

and likewise its substitute.

Rava

said

: It was taught

that the substitute is sacrificed

only

in a case

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

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

But

if

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

then, although the designation “Paschal offering” was not fixed upon the substitute, since he exchanged an animal for it only after slaughter, nevertheless the Paschal offering itself was found before slaughter, the designation “Paschal offering” was fixed upon it, and it was rejected. Consequently,

its substitute

of the Paschal offering

comes by virtue of a rejected sanctity [

it comes]

and is not sacrificed.

Abaye challenged him

Abaye questioned Rabba’s statement from the following beraita:

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

“If it is a sheep

that he brings as his offering.”

And the beraita asks:

What does the verse teach

what does it come to teach us by saying

“if it is a sheep”?

For at the beginning of the passage it is written: “And if his offering is from the flock,” and it is impossible to mistakenly say that the reference is to a goat, since in the following passage it is stated: “And if his offering is a goat”!

And the beraita answers:

To include a substitute for a Paschal offering after Passover, which is sacrificed

by itself

as a peace-offering .

And Abaye asked:

What are the circumstances

of the substitute for a Paschal offering referred to in the beraita?

If you say

that it is referring to a Paschal offering

that was found after slaughter and for which he exchanged an animal after slaughter,

so that the designation “Paschal offering” was fixed neither upon the Paschal offering nor upon its substitute, then

it is obvious

that the substitute itself may be sacrificed 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 an animal for it after slaughter?!

Necessarily, the beraita comes to teach us that although the Paschal offering itself was rejected, its substitute is sacrificed, since the substitute itself was not rejected! This is contrary to Rabba’s statement.

Rabba answered Abaye:

No,

the case is not that it was found before slaughter. Rather,

in fact

it is referring to a case

in which it was found after

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

and only in this circumstance is the substitute itself sacrificed as a peace-offering.

As for your [Abaye’s] question, “Why do I need a verse?” one can say that, in truth, the Torah did not write “if it is a sheep” in order to teach that the substitute is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

And the verse

[the verse “if it is a sheep”]

is merely an allusion.

Rather,

there is a difficulty:

For what purpose does the verse come

why was “if it is a sheep” written?

Rabba answered this:

For that which was taught

the following alternative exposition was derived from this verse in a beraita:

With regard to a peace-offering it is stated

“sheep,”

and this verse is superfluous [since in the following passage it says “and if it is a goat,” and it necessarily follows that this passage concerns a sheep, as above]. It teaches us

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

as follows.

For sacrifices that are cattle, the fat tail is not burned on the altar, whereas with regard to all sacrifices of sheep, the Torah states that the fat tail is sacrificed on the altar together with the fats. [With regard to a sheep brought as a 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 same law as a guilt-offering.]

With regard to the Paschal offering, the burning of the fats is not stated explicitly in the Torah. Rather, it is learned from the verse [Numbers 18]: “Their blood you shall sprinkle upon the altar, and their fat you shall burn.” [That verse concerns the firstborn offering, and it is difficult: Why is “their blood” and “their fat” written in the plural? From here they expounded that the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats of the Paschal offering and the second tithe are included, above, 64b.]

Since the burning of the fats of the Paschal offering is not mentioned explicitly, but is learned through an inclusion, and since the fat tail is not mentioned with regard to it, I might have said that the fat tail of the Paschal offering is not sacrificed. Therefore, with regard to peace-offerings it is stated “sheep,” to include the Paschal offering with regard to the fat tail.

The baraita adds:

When it

the verse]

says, “If it is a sheep”—

the word “if” is superfluous and comes to teach us another matter:

to include a Pesach offering whose second year has passed—

for the Pesach offering is brought only from a sheep in its first year; and if the sheep’s first year has passed and it is no longer fit to be sacrificed as a Pesach offering, it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

And

likewise,

peace-offerings that come on account of the Pesach offering—

such as the substitute of a Pesach offering, or a Pesach offering that was lost, whose owners achieved atonement through another offering, and afterward the first one was found. [Some explain this as referring to the festival peace-offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan so that the Pesach offering would be eaten when one was satiated; this is Rashi’s explanation in the name of his teacher.] And we learn from the word “if” that these offerings are included [and obligated]

in all the laws of peace-offerings:

That it requires semikha

on the head of the offering.

And

it requires the bringing of

libations

with the offering.

And the waving of the breast and thigh

which are waved and then given to the priest.

These matters do not apply to a Pesach offering, but only to peace-offerings. And we learn from the word “if” to include a Pesach offering whose second year has passed and peace-offerings that come on account of the Pesach offering, whose status is that of peace-offerings and not that of a Pesach offering.

The baraita adds:

And when it [

the verse]

says, “And if it is a goat”—

the word “and if” is superfluous—

it interrupted the passage

it comes to separate the passage concerning the sheep, stated previously, from the passage concerning the goat. [For the word “and if” serves as an interruption].

It taught concerning the goat

that it is unlike the sheep:

it does not

the goat

require

the offering of

the tail.

And we learn from the baraita that “if it is a sheep” includes the Pesach offering with regard to the tail; it does not come to include the substitute of a Pesach offering after the Pesach offering, which is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Rather, that is merely an asmachta.

This concludes the words of Rabba: If the Pesach offering was found before slaughter, then even if one made a substitution for it after slaughter, the substitute is disqualified, because it derives from a sanctity that had been rejected. [Abaye raised an objection to him from the baraita, and Rabba answered Abaye’s difficulty and cited another baraita].

There are those who teach it

There are others who taught Rabba’s statement differently. When Rabba mentioned in his statement, “They did not state this,” he was not referring to the latter clause of the Mishna [which discusses a case in which the substitute is sacrificed], but rather

to the first clause

to the beginning of the Mishna, which discusses a case in which the substitute is not sacrificed.

For this is what we learned in the first clause:

The Pesach offering [

the first one]

that was found before the slaughter of the Pesach offering [

the second one]

shall graze until it develops a blemish, and it shall be sold, and with its proceeds one shall bring a peace-offering; and likewise its substitute.

And concerning this

Rabba said:

They taught this only

They did not state this

that the substitute is not sacrificed

unless it was found

the Pesach offering

before slaughter, and

also

one made a substitution for it before slaughter,

for in that case it is found that the substitute was standing before him at the time of the slaughter of the Pesach offering, and the designation “Pesach offering” was fixed upon it. Since he rejected it and did not sacrifice it as a Pesach offering, it became disqualified.

But

if the Pesach offering

was found before slaughter, and one made a substitution for it after slaughter, its substitute is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

What is the reason? [

What is the reason for this matter?]

Since the slaughter fixes

What does the slaughter of the Pesach offering fix?

Something that is fit for it

something that is already sacred and fit to be sacrificed as a Pesach offering. But

something that is not fit for it

something that has not yet been consecrated and is not fit to be sacrificed as a Pesach offering,

it does not fix.

This substitute was consecrated only after the slaughter of the Pesach offering. It follows that at the time of the slaughter it was unconsecrated and was not designated by the name “Pesach offering.”

According to this formulation, this disputes the first formulation of Rabba’s statement and maintains that even though this substitute derives from a sanctity that had been rejected, nevertheless the substitute is fit to be sacrificed, since there had been no rejection in the substitute itself.

Abaye raised an objection to him

Abaye challenged Rabba, showing that his statement contradicts the baraita [which we already cited above]:

Regarding a peace-offering, it is stated, “If it is a sheep” [which is superfluous, since in the passage that follows it says, “And if it is a goat”; it is therefore obvious that this passage concerns a sheep]. And the baraita asked:

“If it is a sheep”—what does the verse come to teach?

What does it come to teach us?

The baraita answers:

To include the substitute of a Pesach offering

that was found

after the Pesach offering, which is sacrificed as a peace-offering.