Pesachim 97b (צז:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: We found the case of a lost sin-offering that is left to graze,

as in the statement of Rabbi Oshaya.

For Rabbi Oshaya said:

One who was obligated to bring a sin-offering and

set aside two sin-offerings as a safeguard,

so that if one sin-offering were lost, he would sacrifice the other—

once he achieves atonement through one of them, the second is left to graze [until it develops a blemish; it is then sold, and with the proceeds he brings burnt-offerings for the maintenance of the altar].

And even if the second one was lost, Rabbi concedes that it is not put to death, since from the outset, from the moment they were set aside, one of them was not intended for sacrifice but for rejection.

And just as it is left to graze when it was not lost, so too is it left to graze when it was lost. [Tosafot]

And we challenge: Shmuel said: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is left to graze, with regard to a Paschal offering as well it is left to graze.”

But

yet

if

this had been

a

sacrifice of

the Paschal offering in such a case—

where he set aside two Paschal offerings as a safeguard—the second Paschal animal would not be left to graze; rather, the second sacrifice

would be sacrificed as a peace-offering!

For this is a complete case of the surplus of a Paschal offering [and is sacrificed as a peace-offering], since it was set aside for this purpose, and there is no rejection here!

And we answer:

Rather,

Shmuel actually holds that when one sets aside two sin-offerings as a safeguard, he achieves atonement through one and the second is put to death, and not in accordance with the words of Rabbi Oshaya.

And

Shmuel

holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who said: The five sin-offerings

that the Sages said are taken to be put to death

are put to death

in every circumstance applicable to them.

And since Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, it is impossible to find any circumstance in which a lost sin-offering is left to graze.

And we challenge:

But

“left to graze,” according to Rabbi Shimon—

he has no such case at all!

For according to Rabbi Shimon, no lost sin-offering is left to graze. If so, how could Shmuel say: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is left to graze, with regard to a Paschal offering as well it is left to graze”?

And we answer:

Shmuel too stated only one matter.

Indeed, Shmuel did not say that there is a case in which a sin-offering is left to graze; rather, he spoke only about one matter.

And this is what Shmuel said:

In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death,

whatever lost animal it may be, whose status with regard to a sin-offering is that it is put to death—

with regard to a Paschal offering, it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

That is, just as there is no lost sin-offering that is not put to death, so there is no lost Paschal offering that is not sacrificed as a peace-offering. Every Paschal animal that was lost after midday is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Although Shmuel said only: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death, with regard to a Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering,” and did not say: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is left to graze, with regard to a Paschal offering as well it is left to graze,” nevertheless, we must say that Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. For if we say that Shmuel does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, but rather in accordance with Rabbi, as above, the difficulty would still remain: Why did Shmuel say, “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death, with regard to a Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering”? This implies that specifically in a case in which the sin-offering is put to death, the Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Yet even in a case in which the sin-offering is not put to death, the Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering—for example, when one sets aside two sin-offerings as a safeguard. And it is necessarily the case that Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, according to whom even when one sets aside two sin-offerings as a safeguard, the second sin-offering is put to death. Rashi].

And we challenge: Since Shmuel said only: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death, with regard to a Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering” [that is, every “lost” Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering], this can be learned from our Mishna. For we learned that a Paschal offering found after the slaughter is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And Rabbi Zeira explained that “after the slaughter” means after midday, which is the time of the slaughter. We learn from here that every lost Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering, since before midday it is not called lost

! And what does he teach us

and what novelty did Shmuel teach us? And we answer: Shmuel came

to exclude

and reject

the view of Rabbi Yohanan, who said: The Paschal 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.

For Rabbi Yohanan interprets the Mishna according to its plain meaning: only a Paschal offering found actually after the slaughter is sacrificed as a peace-offering [and this is the view of Rabba in the Gemara above, 96b].

It follows

from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that

the slaughter determines

and not midday.

He teaches us,

Shmuel came to teach us that

midday determines!

For Shmuel holds that every lost animal that, with regard to a sin-offering, is put to death, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon, has the same status. And since Shmuel said: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death, with regard to a Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering,” we learn that every Paschal offering called “lost” is sacrificed as a peace-offering. This refers to a Paschal offering that was lost at midday [for before midday it is not called lost], even if it was found before the slaughter.

Alternatively,

some versions teach the preceding passage in a different form:

Shmuel said: In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death, with regard to a Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering; and in every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is left to graze, with regard to a Paschal offering as well it is left to graze.

The Gemara established Shmuel’s statement as referring to animals that were lost [and not to rejected animals].

And we challenge: Can one find a case of a lost animal? [That is, Shmuel said: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is left to graze, with regard to a Paschal offering as well it is left to graze.” Can his statement really be correct with regard to a lost animal]?! Yet there is the case of an animal that was lost at the time it was set aside [and found before the slaughter], which according to the Rabbis is taken to be left to graze [according to the Rabbis, it grazes until it develops a blemish],

whereas with regard to a Paschal offering, where [

where ]

it was lost and found after midday but before the slaughter—

it is sacrificed as a peace-offering!

The Gemara above answered that Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi, who says that a sin-offering found before the slaughter is put to death. But here, in the “alternative version,” it gives a different answer to this challenge:

Shmuel—

holds in accordance with Rabba.

Shmuel holds like Rabba,

who said that the slaughter determines.

A Paschal offering found after midday but before the slaughter is left to graze until it develops a blemish, since the slaughter determines the designation of the sacrifice as a Paschal offering, and it has thereby been rejected and disqualified. Similarly, with regard to a sin-offering, according to the Rabbis, if it is found before atonement, it is left to graze.

And we challenge:

But

yet

from the fact that Rabbi Yohanan said concerning it,

from the fact that Rabbi Yohanan came to dispute Shmuel and said:

The Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering only

a Paschal offering

that was found after the slaughter, but

if it was found

before the slaughter, it is not. It follows that Shmuel

disagrees with this,

and holds that midday determines!

For if we say that Shmuel too holds that the slaughter determines, then in what way did Rabbi Yohanan disagree with him?

Rather,

the Gemara retracts, and it is impossible to say that Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabba.

Rather, Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Zeira, who says that midday determines.

If so, the challenge raised above returns: According to the Rabbis, a sin-offering found before the slaughter is left to graze, whereas a Paschal offering found after midday but before the slaughter is sacrificed as a peace-offering!

From this point onward, the words of the Gemara here in the “later version” are exactly like the words of the Gemara above in the “earlier version.” And we answer:

Shmuel—

holds in accordance with Rabbi.

Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi,

who said that a

sin-offering that was

lost,

even if it was found before the slaughter of the second one,

is taken to be put to death,

that is, it goes to its death.

This resolves the matter: a Paschal offering found after midday but before the slaughter is sacrificed as a peace-offering, since the corresponding case with regard to a lost sin-offering is one that goes to its death.

But once we have established Shmuel’s statement according to Rabbi’s method, there is a difficulty in the opposite direction:

But every

sin-offering

that was lost, according to Rabbi, is put to death [

is put to death ].

Whereas with regard to a Paschal offering,

there is a case of a lost animal that is not sacrificed as a peace-offering. For example,

where [

where ]

it was lost before midday and found before midday,

when the designation “Paschal offering” had been established for it and it was rejected, and it is therefore left to graze!

If so, how could Shmuel say: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death, with regard to a Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering”?

And we answer: A Paschal offering that was lost and found

before midday—

is not

“lost”

at all.

It does not bear the designation “lost,” since before midday, even when the Paschal offering is standing before us, it is not yet fit for sacrifice. Consequently, the fact that it was lost did not change anything about it, and it is not called lost.

It follows that Shmuel was not speaking about a Paschal offering found before midday, since it is not called “lost.”

This resolves the first clause of Shmuel’s statement: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death, with regard to a Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.”

But the latter clause of Shmuel’s statement—“In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is left to graze, with regard to a Paschal offering as well it is left to graze”—still remains difficult. For according to Rabbi, every lost sin-offering is put to death, so how could Shmuel say: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is left to graze”?

The Gemara above attempted to resolve this on the basis of Rabbi Oshaya’s statement, but that answer was rejected.

And we conclude that Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who says that every sin-offering that was lost goes to its death, and Shmuel said only: “In every case in which, with regard to a sin-offering, it is put to death, with regard to a Paschal offering it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.” That is, just as every lost sin-offering is put to death, so every lost Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

He came to teach us that a Paschal offering found after midday is sacrificed as a peace-offering even if it was found before the slaughter. [And not in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s statement].

And he holds

that Shmuel

holds that midday determines

and not the slaughter; and since at midday the first Paschal offering was lost, the designation “Paschal offering” was not established for it, and rejection did not take effect upon it. It is therefore sacrificed as a peace-offering.

Mishna:

The Paschal offering is a male lamb in its first year. As it is stated [Exodus 12:5]: “You shall have a year-old male sheep without blemish.”

One who sets aside a female animal for his Paschal offering, or a two-year-old male,

which are not fit for a Paschal offering: the law of the sacrifice is that it

is left to graze until it develops a blemish,

that is, until it develops a defect,

and it is sold, and its proceeds are used for a voluntary peace-offering,

as is the law of the surplus of a Paschal offering, which after Passover is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

He does not sacrifice the female animal itself that he set aside [or the two-year-old male] as a peace-offering, even though a peace-offering is valid when brought from a female animal and also from a two-year-old animal. Since when a person sets aside for his Paschal offering an animal that is unfit for a Paschal offering, it is as though the designation “Paschal offering” was established for it, and it was rejected. Therefore, it is permanently disqualified from being sacrificed itself as any type of offering. Rather, he brings an offering with its proceeds.