Pesachim 97a — the Talmud in English

Could this also be so before Passover?

And the Gemara explains below what the beraita is asking.

The verse says: “

Passover

it is” [Exodus 11:11]. And the Sages, of blessed memory, expounded from the word “it is”: specifically,

only

it

the valid Passover-offering

is offered, but the substitutes of the Passover-offering are not offered

in every case

[as being] offered,

rather, there is a case in which the substitute of the Passover-offering is not offered .

What are the circumstances?

In what case is the substitute of the Passover-offering not offered?

If you say

that it is referring to a Passover-offering

that was found before slaughtering, and he made a substitute for it before slaughtering, it is obvious

that its substitute is not offered! For the designation “Passover-offering” was fixed upon it at the time of slaughtering, and it was rejected.

Why do I need a verse

for the verse to include this explicitly?

Rather, is it not referring to one that was found before slaughtering, and he made a substitute for it after slaughtering!

And from here there is proof that a Passover-offering that was found before slaughtering, and for which he made a substitute after slaughtering, is not offered. And

a refutation

of Rava

of Rabbah!

And we conclude:

a refutation.

And the words of Rabbah in this formulation are rejected. [Rather, a Passover-offering that was found before slaughtering—even if he made a substitute for it after slaughtering—since the Passover-offering itself was rejected, its substitute also is not offered].

Shmuel said:

Most offerings that became disqualified are redeemed, and another offering is brought with their value. But concerning a sin-offering, there are five sin-offerings that are unfit for offering, and it was stated as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that they die: they are placed in a closed room [called a “kipa”] and are not fed, until they die on their own. Below we shall specify which they are.

And Shmuel stated a general principle concerning the Passover-offering:

Every

case

that

if it had occurred

in a sin-offering

it would have

died,

if something similar occurred

with a Passover-offering, it is offered

as a peace-offering.

And every

case

in which, with a sin-offering, it grazes,

until it becomes blemished and another offering is brought with its value—[as follows], if something similar occurred

with a Passover-offering, it likewise grazes.

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagreed with Shmuel and

said: The Passover-offering is offered as a peace-offering only when it was found after slaughtering, but

if it was found

before slaughtering, no.

And this is so even if it was found after midday.

From the words of Rabbi Yohanan, who came to disagree with Shmuel, we learn that Shmuel’s view is that a Passover-offering found after midday is offered as a peace-offering, even if it was found before slaughtering. And this is in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s view above, that the time of midday determines the designation “Passover-offering” for the offering. [Tosafot] [And below it will be explained where this matter is hinted at in Shmuel’s words].

From here onward the Gemara discusses Shmuel’s words, who said: Every case that with a sin-offering it dies, with a Passover-offering it is offered as a peace-offering. To understand the discussion, we shall first explain when the sin-offering dies and when it grazes until it becomes blemished. [According to the method of the Gemara in our discussion].

Five sin-offerings that cannot be offered die. And these are:

a. The offspring of a sin-offering: a female sheep designated as a sin-offering that became pregnant and gave birth; the owners achieve atonement through the mother, and the offspring goes to death.

b. The substitute of a sin-offering: the owners achieve atonement through the sin-offering, and its substitute dies.

c. A sin-offering whose owners died: the sin-offering is fit for offering only to atone for the owners during their lifetimes; but after the owners’ death, the sin-offering is disqualified, and it dies.

d. A sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another: a sin-offering that was lost, and the owners brought another sin-offering and achieved atonement through it, and only afterward the first one was found. The law of the first sin-offering is that it dies.

e. A sin-offering that was lost and was found before the owners achieved atonement through another:

According to the Sages, it does not die unless it has an additional disqualification, such as that it was found blemished, or that its year had passed [and a sin-offering is fit for offering only as a one-year-old female sheep]. Since the sin-offering has two disqualifications, the sin-offering dies .

According to Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon, every sin-offering that was lost dies.

And there are sin-offerings that, although they cannot be offered, do not go to death; rather, they graze until they become blemished. And these are:

a. A sin-offering that was lost and was found before its owners achieved atonement through another, and it has no additional disqualification: according to the Sages, it grazes until it becomes blemished, is sold, and its money goes to a free-will offering [for burnt-offerings for the “summer of the altar” ] but Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon disagree and hold that it goes to death. And as above.

b. A sin-offering whose year had passed: according to the Sages and Rabbi, it grazes until it becomes blemished, is sold, and another sin-offering is brought with its value. But Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that it goes to death.

c. A blemished sin-offering: it is not necessary to wait for it to become blemished, since it is already blemished through its defect; it is sold, and a sin-offering is brought with its value.

And Shmuel taught us a general principle: Every case that with a sin-offering it dies, with a Passover-offering it is offered as a peace-offering. Whereas every case that with a sin-offering it grazes, with a Passover-offering also it grazes. And now the Gemara discusses Shmuel’s words.

Rav Yosef raised an objection against him:

[Rav Yosef challenged Shmuel’s words and raised an objection against them]:

And is it a general principle

that this is an absolute rule—that wherever with a sin-offering it grazes, with a Passover-offering also it grazes?!

But a sin-offering whose year had passed, which goes to grazing

until it becomes blemished,

as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A sin-offering whose year had passed

does not have a disqualification so severe that it dies. Rather,

we view it as though it were

a fit sin-offering that

is standing in a cemetery

and a koen cannot enter the cemetery, take it, and offer it; that is, a sin-offering whose year had passed does not have a severe disqualification in its body that disqualifies it. Rather, it is comparable to an external disqualification, which the Torah prohibited offering because it remained until its year passed; therefore, it does not die

and it grazes

until it becomes blemished.

But with a Passover-offering, in such a case

in this manner [whose year had passed],

it is offered as a peace-offering!

For it was taught in a beraita:

[This is the beraita that we brought above, on page 96]:

“A sheep”—to include the Passover-offering with regard to the fat tail,

which is offered upon the altar.

And when it

the verse

says, “If a sheep,”

[the word “if” is superfluous] it comes

to include a Passover-offering whose year had passed, and peace-offerings that come because of a Passover-offering

[such as the substitute of the Passover-offering, and a Passover-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another]

with regard to all the laws of peace-offerings, which require laying on of hands, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh.

When it

the verse

says, “If a goat,”

[for the word “if” is superfluous]

it interrupted the matter, teaching that the goat does not require a fat tail.

And it is explained in the beraita that a Passover-offering whose year had passed is offered as a peace-offering. Whereas regarding a sin-offering, Resh Lakish said that it grazes. And from here there is a difficulty against Shmuel, who said: Every case that with a sin-offering it grazes, with a Passover-offering also it grazes! And we answer:

He said to him

When Shmuel said

which sin-offerings was Shmuel speaking about? Specifically

lost ones,

sin-offerings that were lost. For a sin-offering that was lost has circumstances in which it dies, and circumstances in which it grazes. And concerning this Shmuel said that the corresponding Passover-offering has circumstances in which it is offered as a peace-offering, and circumstances in which it grazes [and below the Gemara explains which circumstances Shmuel was discussing].

But

with rejected ones,

with sin-offerings that die, which were rejected from being offered upon the altar without having been lost, such as one whose owners died and the like, there are no circumstances in which the sin-offering grazes. Therefore, in this matter

he did not say

the principle “Every case that with a sin-offering it dies, with a Passover-offering it is offered as a peace-offering.” And with one whose year had passed, although with a sin-offering it grazes, nevertheless with a Passover-offering it is offered as a peace-offering.

And we object:

And can you find a lost one

and is Shmuel’s principle indeed correct concerning a lost offering?!

But what about one lost at the time of designation

only—that is, a sin-offering that was lost, and they designated another in its place while the first was still lost. But at the time of offering [when they offered the second one], they had already found the first one,

according to the Sages, who say that it goes to grazing

according to the Sages, the law of this sin-offering is that it goes to grazing.

For we learned: If he designated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its place, and the first was found, and both of them are standing

before us—that is, they had not yet offered the second one—

one of them shall be offered and the second shall die; these are the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: A sin-offering

that was lost

dies only if it was found after the owners achieved atonement

through the second one.

This

then it follows from the words of the Sages that if it was found

before the owners achieved atonement, it grazes .

Whereas with a Passover-offering, where

where

it was lost and found after midday,

even though it was found

before slaughtering,

it is

offered as a peace-offering,

as it was explained that Shmuel holds here like Rabbi Zeira, that the time of midday is the time that determines the designation “Passover-offering” for the offering.

And if so, it is difficult: How did Shmuel state a principle concerning a lost offering—“Every case that with a sin-offering it grazes, with a Passover-offering also it grazes”? For a lost sin-offering that was found before the owners achieved atonement—according to the Sages—grazes, whereas a Passover-offering that was lost has a case in which it is offered as a peace-offering, such as when it was found after midday!

And we answer:

Shmuel holds like Rabbi

[he holds like Rabbi]

who said

that a sin-offering

that was lost

goes to death

[as its law],

and thus Shmuel’s words are resolved: a Passover-offering found after midday is offered as a peace-offering, for its counterpart among sin-offerings—a lost sin-offering—has the law of death.

But since we have established Shmuel’s words according to Rabbi’s method, it is difficult from the other side:

But every

sin-offering

that was lost dies according to Rabbi, whereas with a Passover-offering

that was lost there is a case in which it is not offered as a peace-offering, such as

where

[where]

it was lost before midday and found before midday,

for the designation “Passover-offering” was fixed upon it and it was rejected, and it is

grazing!

And if so, how did Shmuel say, “Every” case that with a sin-offering it dies, with a Passover-offering it is offered as a peace-offering?

And we answer: A Passover-offering that was lost and found

before midday is not considered lost.

It does not have the designation “lost,” since before midday, in any event, even when it is before us, it is not fit for offering. Thus the loss did not change anything in it, and only at midday, when it becomes fit for offering, is the designation “lost” applicable to it.

As in the statement of Rava,

this is similar to the words of Rava,

for Rava said

concerning a sin-offering that was lost:

A nighttime loss

a sin-offering that was lost at night, when it is not the time of offering, and it was found before daybreak ,

is not called a loss.

And even Rabbi agrees that it does not die, but grazes.

And since Shmuel spoke only about a loss, he necessarily spoke only about a Passover-offering found after midday, for before midday the Passover-offering does not have the designation “lost.” And concerning this Shmuel said that every case that with a sin-offering it dies—that is, when it has the designation “lost”—its counterpart with a Passover-offering after midday is offered as a peace-offering. [Tosafot]

And with this the first part of Shmuel’s words is resolved: “Every case that with a sin-offering it dies, with a Passover-offering it is offered as a peace-offering.”

But concerning the latter part of Shmuel’s words—“Every case that with a sin-offering it grazes, with a Passover-offering also it grazes”—we object:

Rather,

since we have said that Shmuel holds like Rabbi, it is difficult:

How can you find one that grazes according to Rabbi?

Where do we find a lost sin-offering that grazes? After all, according to Rabbi, every sin-offering that was lost has the law of death!