Pesachim 97a (צז.) — the Talmud in English

Could it be even before Passover in this manner?

And the Gemara explains below what question the baraita is asking.

The verse states: “

Passover

it is”

[Exodus 11:11]. And the Sages derived from the word “it is” that specifically

it

[the valid Passover offering]

is sacrificed, but the substitute of the Passover offering is not

in every case

sacrificed,

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

What are the circumstances

in which the substitute of the Passover offering is not sacrificed?

If you say

that it is referring to a Passover offering

that was found before the slaughter and was exchanged for another animal before the slaughter, it is obvious

that its substitute is not sacrificed! For the designation of Passover offering was fixed upon it at the time of slaughter, and it was consequently rejected.

Why do I need a verse

to include this explicitly?

Rather, is it not referring to a Passover offering that was found before the slaughter and was exchanged for another animal after the slaughter!

And from here there is a proof that a Passover offering found before the slaughter and exchanged for another animal after the slaughter is not sacrificed. And

rebuttal

of Rava

of Rabba!

And we conclude:

rebuttal.

And Rabba’s statement according to this version is rejected. [Rather, a Passover offering found before the slaughter, even if it was exchanged for another animal after the slaughter, is such that, since the Passover offering itself was rejected, its substitute is also not sacrificed.]

Shmuel said:

Most offerings that became disqualified are redeemed, and another offering is brought with their proceeds. But with regard to a sin offering, there are five sin offerings that are unfit for sacrifice, and it was stated as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that they die: They are placed in a closed room [called a kippa] and are not fed until they die on their own. We will specify below which offerings these are.

And Shmuel stated a general principle concerning the Passover offering:

Every

case

that

if it had occurred

with a sin offering

it would have

died,

if a comparable case occurs

with a Passover offering, it is sacrificed

as a peace offering.

And every

case

in which, with a sin offering, it grazes,

until it develops a disqualifying blemish and another offering is brought with its proceeds, [as will be explained below], if a comparable case occurs

with a Passover offering, it likewise grazes.

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagreed with Shmuel and

said: The Passover offering is sacrificed as a peace offering only when it was found after the slaughter, but

if it was found

before the slaughter, it is not.

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

From Rabbi Yohanan’s words, in which he came to disagree with Shmuel, we learn that Shmuel holds that a Passover offering found after midday is sacrificed as a peace offering, even if it was found before the slaughter. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira above, that midday is the time that fixes the designation of Passover offering upon the offering. [Tosafot] And below it will be explained where this is hinted at in Shmuel’s words.

From this point onward, the Gemara discusses Shmuel’s statement that anything which, in the case of a sin offering, dies, in the case of a Passover offering is sacrificed as a peace offering. To understand the sugya, we will first explain when a sin offering dies and when it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish. [According to the method of the Gemara in our sugya.]

There are five sin offerings that cannot be sacrificed and die. They are:

a. The offspring of a sin offering: A female sheep designated as a sin offering became pregnant and gave birth; the owners achieve atonement through the mother, and the offspring goes to its 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 sacrifice only to atone for its owners during their lifetimes. But after the owners’ death, the sin offering is disqualified and dies.

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

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

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 sacrifice only if it is a 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.

There are also sin offerings that, although they cannot be sacrificed, do not go to their death; rather, they graze until they develop a disqualifying blemish. They are:

a. A sin offering that was lost and found before its owners achieved atonement through another offering, and that has no additional disqualification: According to the Sages, it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish, is sold, and its proceeds go to a voluntary offering [for burnt offerings for the enhancement of the Altar]. But Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon disagree and hold that it goes to its death. As stated above.

b. A sin offering whose year has passed: According to the Sages and Rabbi, it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish, is sold, and another sin offering is brought with its proceeds. But Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that it goes to its death.

c. A blemished sin offering: There is no need to wait until it develops a disqualifying blemish, since it is already disqualified through its blemish; it is sold, and a sin offering is brought with its proceeds.

And Shmuel taught us a general principle: Anything which, in the case of a sin offering, dies, in the case of a Passover offering is sacrificed as a peace offering. And anything which, in the case of a sin offering, grazes, in the case of a Passover offering likewise grazes. Now the Gemara discusses Shmuel’s statement.

Rav Yosef raised an objection:

Rav Yosef challenged Shmuel’s statement and raised the following difficulty:

Is that in fact a general principle

that wherever, in the case of a sin offering, it grazes, in the case of a Passover offering it likewise grazes?!

But what of a sin offering whose year has passed, which goes to graze

until it develops a disqualifying blemish,

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

does not have a disqualification severe enough for it to die. Rather,

we view it as though it were

a valid sin offering that

is standing in a cemetery

and no priest can enter the cemetery, take it, and sacrifice it. That is, a sin offering whose year has passed does not have a severe disqualification in its body that invalidates it. Rather, it has something resembling an external disqualification: the Torah prohibited sacrificing it because it remained until its year passed. Therefore, it does not die,

but grazes

until it develops a disqualifying blemish.

But in the case of a Passover offering, in a comparable circumstance

[whose year has passed,]

it is sacrificed as a peace offering!

As it was taught:

This is the baraita cited above, on 96b:

“A sheep” includes the Passover offering with regard to the fat tail,

which is sacrificed upon the Altar.

And when

the verse

says, “And if it is a sheep,”

[the word “if” is superfluous,] it comes

to include a Passover offering whose year has passed and peace offerings brought on account of a Passover offering

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

in all the mitzvot of peace offerings, which require placing of hands, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh.

When

the verse

says, “And if it is a goat,”

[as the word “if” is superfluous,]

it interrupts the matter and teaches that a goat does not require a fat tail.

It is clear from the baraita that a Passover offering whose year has passed is sacrificed as a peace offering. Whereas regarding a sin offering, Reish Lakish said that it grazes. This is therefore a difficulty against Shmuel, who said: Anything which, in the case of a sin offering, grazes, in the case of a Passover offering likewise grazes! And we answer:

He said to him

When Shmuel said

which sin offerings was Shmuel discussing? Only

lost offerings

sin offerings that were lost. For a lost sin offering has circumstances in which it dies and circumstances in which it grazes. With regard to this, Shmuel said that the comparable case involving a Passover offering has circumstances in which it is sacrificed as a peace offering and circumstances in which it grazes [and below the Gemara explains the circumstances to which Shmuel was referring].

But

with regard to rejected offerings

sin offerings that were rejected from being sacrificed upon the Altar without having been lost, such as those whose owners died and similar cases, there are no circumstances in which the sin offering grazes. Therefore, in this case

he did not say

the principle, “Anything which, in the case of a sin offering, dies, in the case of a Passover offering is sacrificed as a peace offering.” And with regard to an offering whose year has passed, although in the case of a sin offering it grazes, nevertheless, in the case of a Passover offering it is sacrificed as a peace offering.

And we ask:

But can you find a lost offering

with regard to which Shmuel’s principle is indeed correct?!

What of one lost at the time of designation

alone? That is, a sin offering that was lost and for which another was designated in its place while the first was still lost. But at the time of the sacrifice [when the second was sacrificed], the first had already been found;

according to the Sages, it goes to graze

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

As we learned in a mishna: If one designated his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its place, and the first was found, and both are standing

before us—that is, the second has not yet been sacrificed—

one of them is sacrificed and the other dies, this is the statement of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: A sin offering

that was lost

dies only if it is found after the owners achieved atonement

through the second one.

This

meaning, it follows from the words of the Sages that if it was found

before the owners achieved atonement, it grazes.

But in the case of a Passover offering, where

where

it was lost and found after midday,

even though it was found

before the slaughter,

it

is sacrificed as a peace offering,

as it was explained that Shmuel holds here in accordance with Rabbi Zeira, that midday is the time that fixes the designation of Passover offering upon the offering.

And if so, it is difficult: How could Shmuel state a principle concerning a lost offering—“Anything which, in the case of a sin offering, grazes, in the case of a Passover offering likewise grazes”? For a lost sin offering found before its owners achieved atonement, according to the Sages, grazes, whereas a lost Passover offering has a case in which it is sacrificed as a peace offering, for example, when it was found after midday!

And we answer:

Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi

he holds in accordance with Rabbi,

who said

that a sin offering

that was lost

goes to its death,

and so

Shmuel’s statement is resolved: A Passover offering found after midday is sacrificed as a peace offering, since the corresponding lost sin offering dies.

But once we have established that Shmuel follows Rabbi, there is a difficulty in the opposite direction:

But every

sin offering

that was lost dies according to Rabbi, whereas in the case of a Passover offering

that was lost there is a circumstance in which it is not sacrificed as a peace offering, for example,

where

it was

lost before midday and found before midday,

so that the designation of Passover offering was fixed upon it and it was rejected, and it

grazes! If so, how could Shmuel say, “Anything which, in the case of a sin offering, dies, in the case of a Passover offering is sacrificed 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 status of a lost offering, since before midday, in any event, even when it is present before us, it is not fit for sacrifice. Its loss therefore changed nothing about it; only at midday, when it becomes fit for sacrifice, can it acquire the status of “lost.”

It is analogous to Rava’s

statement, which is similar to the words of Rava,

who said

concerning a lost sin offering:

A nocturnally lost offering

a sin offering that was lost at night, when it is not a time of sacrifice, and was found by morning light,

is not considered lost.

Even Rabbi agrees that it does not die, but grazes.

Since Shmuel spoke only about a lost offering, he must have been speaking only of a Passover offering found after midday, since before midday a Passover offering does not have the status of a lost offering. With regard to this, Shmuel said that anything which, in the case of a sin offering, dies—that is, when it has the status of a lost offering—its counterpart in the case of a Passover offering after midday is sacrificed as a peace offering. [Tosafot]

This resolves the first clause of Shmuel’s statement: “Anything which, in the case of a sin offering, dies, in the case of a Passover offering is sacrificed as a peace offering.”

But concerning the latter clause of Shmuel’s statement—“Anything which, in the case of a sin offering, grazes, in the case of a Passover offering likewise grazes”—we ask:

Rather,

since we said that Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi, it is difficult:

where can one find a lost sin offering that grazes according to Rabbi

where do we find a lost sin offering that grazes? After all, according to Rabbi, the law of every lost sin offering is that it dies!