Pesachim 97b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: We have found a lost sin-offering that is grazing,

as Rabbi Oshaya.

For Rabbi Oshaya said:

One who was obligated to bring a sin-offering, and

designated two sin-offerings for responsibility,

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

he attains atonement through one of them, and the second shall graze [until it develops a disqualifying blemish, and it is sold, and with its proceeds he offers burnt-offerings for the summer of the altar].

до тех пор, пока не станет непригодной из-за порока; затем ее продают, а на вырученные деньги приносят жертвы всесожжения для нужд жертвенника.

And even if the second one was lost, Rabbi [Oshaya] concedes that it does not die, since from the outset, from the time of the designation, one of them was not intended for offering, but for rejection.

And just as it grazes when it was not lost, so it also grazes when it was lost. [Tosafot]

And we object: Samuel said: “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes—in the case of a Passover-offering, it also grazes.”

But

but surely

if

this had been

a

Passover

offering of this kind—

that one designated two Passover-offerings for responsibility—the second Passover animal would not graze; rather, the second offering

would be offered as a peace-offering!

For this is a full case of the surplus of a Passover-offering [and it is offered as a peace-offering], since for this purpose it was designated, and there is no rejection here!

And we answer:

Rather,

Samuel actually holds that when one designated two sin-offerings for responsibility, he attains atonement through one and the second dies. And this is not in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya.

And

Samuel

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

that the Sages said go to death

die

in every circumstance applicable to them.

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

And we object:

But

“grazes,” according to Rabbi Shimon—

he has no such thing at all!

For according to Rabbi Shimon, no lost sin-offering grazes; if so, how did Samuel say: “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes—in the case of a Passover-offering, it also grazes”?

And we answer:

Samuel too stated only one matter.

Indeed, Samuel also did not say that something grazes in the case of a sin-offering; Samuel spoke only of one matter.

And this is what Samuel said:

Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies,

whatever lost animal it may be, whose law in the case of a sin-offering is death—

in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering.

That is, just as you have no lost sin-offering that does not die, so you have no lost Passover-offering that is not offered as a peace-offering. And every Passover animal that was lost after midday is offered as a peace-offering. Another version, some taught the preceding passage in a different wording: Samuel said: Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering; and anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes—in the case of a Passover-offering, it also grazes. And the Gemara established Samuel’s words as referring to lost animals [and not to rejected animals]. And we object: Can one find a lost animal? [That is, Samuel said: “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes—in the case of a Passover-offering, it also grazes”; are his words indeed correct with regard to a lost animal]?! But surely, an animal lost at the time of designation [and found before slaughter], according to the Rabbis, goes to grazing [according to the Sages, it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish], whereas in the case of a Passover-offering, where [where] it was lost, and was found after midday before slaughter— it is offered as a peace-offering! And above the Gemara answered that Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbi, who says that a sin-offering found before slaughter dies. But here, in the “another version,” we give another answer to this objection: Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbah. Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbah, who says that slaughter determines. And a Passover-offering found after midday before slaughter has the status that it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish, since slaughter determines the designation “Passover-offering” for the animal, and it is rejected and disqualified. And similarly, in the case of a sin-offering, according to the Rabbis, if it is found before atonement, it grazes. And we object: But but surely from the fact that Rabbi Yohanan said concerning it, from the fact that Rabbi Yohanan came to dispute Samuel and said: The Passover-offering is offered as a peace-offering only a Passover-offering that was found after slaughter, but if it was found before slaughter, no. It follows, that Samuel disagrees with this, and holds that midday determines! For if we say that Samuel too holds that slaughter determines, then in what way did Rabbi Yohanan disagree with him? Rather, the Gemara retracts, and it is impossible to say that Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbah. Rather, Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Zeira, that midday determines. If so, the objection we raised above returns: a sin-offering found before slaughter, according to the Rabbis, grazes, whereas a Passover-offering found after midday before slaughter is offered as a peace-offering! And from here onward, the words of the Gemara here in the “another version” And even though Samuel said only, “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering,” and did not say, “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes—in the case of a Passover-offering, it also grazes,” nevertheless, we must say that Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. For if we say that Samuel does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Shimon but in accordance with Rabbi, as above, it would still be difficult: Why did Samuel say, “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering”? This implies that specifically something that dies in the case of a sin-offering is, only in that case, offered as a peace-offering in the case of a Passover-offering. But even in a case where the sin-offering does not die, in the case of a Passover-offering it is offered as a peace-offering, for example: one who designated two sin-offerings for responsibility.

Хотя Шмуэль сказал только: «Всякий случай, когда жертва за грех умирает, — в случае жертвы Песах она приносится как мирная жертва», и не сказал: «Всякий случай, когда жертва за грех пасется, — в случае жертвы Песах она также пасется», все же необходимо утверждать, что Шмуэль придерживается мнения рабби Шимона. Ведь если предположить, что Шмуэль не придерживается мнения рабби Шимона, а придерживается мнения рабби, как выше, тогда остается вопрос: почему Шмуэль сказал: «Всякий случай, когда жертва за грех умирает, — в случае жертвы Песах она приносится как мирная жертва»? Из этого следует, что именно случай, когда жертва за грех умирает, приводит к принесению мирной жертвы в случае Песах; однако и в случае, когда жертва за грех не умирает, жертва Песах приносится как мирная жертва, например когда человек отделил двух жертв за грех в качестве запаса.

And necessarily Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who says that even when one designated two sin-offerings for responsibility, the second sin-offering dies. Rashi]].

And we object: Since Samuel said only, “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering” [that is, every “lost” Passover-offering is offered as a peace-offering], this can be learned from our Mishna. For we learned in the case of a Passover-offering that was found after slaughter: it is offered as a peace-offering. And Rabbi Zeira explained that “after slaughter” means after midday, which is the time of slaughter. And we learned from here that every lost Passover-offering is offered as a peace-offering, for before midday it is not called lost

! And what does he teach us

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

to exclude

to exclude

Rabbi Yohanan, who said: The Passover-offering is offered as a peace-offering only when it was found after slaughter.

But

if it was found

before slaughter, no.

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

Thus it follows

we learn from the words of Rabbi Yohanan that

slaughter determines

and not midday.

He teaches us,

Samuel came to teach us that

midday determines!

For Samuel holds that every lost animal in the case of a sin-offering dies, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon. And since Samuel said, “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering,” we learn that every Passover-offering called “lost” is offered as a peace-offering. This is a Passover-offering that was lost at midday [for before midday it is not called lost], even though it was found before slaughter.

Another version,

some taught the preceding passage in a different wording:

Samuel said: Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering; and anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes—in the case of a Passover-offering, it also grazes.

And the Gemara established Samuel’s words as referring to lost animals [and not to rejected animals].

And we object: Can one find a lost animal? [That is, Samuel said: “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes—in the case of a Passover-offering, it also grazes”; are his words indeed correct with regard to a lost animal]?! But surely, an animal lost at the time of designation [and found before slaughter], according to the Rabbis, goes to grazing [according to the Sages, it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish],

whereas in the case of a Passover-offering, where

[where]

it was lost and was found after midday before slaughter—

it is offered as a peace-offering!

And above the Gemara answered that Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbi, who says that a sin-offering found before slaughter dies. But here, in the “another version,” we give another answer to this objection:

Samuel—

holds in accordance with Rabbah.

Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbah,

who says that slaughter determines.

And a Passover-offering found after midday before slaughter has the status that it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish, since slaughter determines the designation “Passover-offering” for the animal, and it is rejected and disqualified. And similarly, in the case of a sin-offering, according to the Rabbis, if it is found before atonement, it grazes.

And we object:

But

but surely

from the fact that Rabbi Yohanan said concerning it,

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

The Passover-offering is offered as a peace-offering only

a Passover-offering

that was found after slaughter, but

if it was found

before slaughter, no. It follows that Samuel

disagrees with this,

and holds that midday determines!

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

Rather,

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

Rather, Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Zeira, that midday determines.

If so, the objection we raised above returns: a sin-offering found before slaughter, according to the Rabbis, grazes, whereas a Passover-offering found after midday before slaughter is offered as a peace-offering!

And from here onward, the words of the Gemara here in the “later version” are exactly like the words of the Gemara above in the “first version.” And we answer:

Samuel—

holds in accordance with Rabbi.

Samuel 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,

goes to death,

goes to death.

And through this it is resolved that a Passover-offering found after midday before slaughter is offered as a peace-offering. For its equivalent in the case of a sin-offering, a lost animal goes to death.

But since we established Samuel’s words according to Rabbi’s method, it is difficult in the opposite direction:

But all

sin-offerings

that are lost, according to Rabbi, die

[die].

Whereas in the case of a Passover-offering

there is a lost animal that is not offered as a peace-offering. For example,

where

[where]

it was lost before midday and found before midday,

on which the designation “Passover-offering” had been established and which was rejected, and it grazes!

If so, how did Samuel say: “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering”?

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

before midday—

is not

“lost”

at all.

It does not bear the designation “lost,” for before midday, even when the Passover-offering is standing before us, it is not fit for offering; consequently, the loss did not change anything in it. And it is not called lost.

And consequently, Samuel did not speak of a Passover-offering found before midday, for it is not called “lost.”

And through this the first clause of Samuel’s words is resolved: “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering.”

But the latter clause of Samuel’s words—“Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes—in the case of a Passover-offering, it also grazes”—still remains difficult. For according to Rabbi, every lost sin-offering dies, and how did Samuel say: “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, grazes”?

And above, the Gemara attempted to resolve this according to the words of Rabbi Oshaya, but this resolution was rejected.

And we conclude that Samuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, that every sin-offering that was lost goes to death, and Samuel said only: “Anything that, in the case of a sin-offering, dies—in the case of a Passover-offering, it is offered as a peace-offering.” That is, just as every lost sin-offering dies, so every lost Passover-offering is offered as a peace-offering.

And he came to teach us that a Passover-offering found after midday, even if it was found before slaughter, is offered as a peace-offering. [And not in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan].

And he holds

Samuel

that midday determines,

not slaughter; and since at the time of midday the first Passover-offering was lost, the designation “Passover-offering” was not established upon it, and rejection did not take effect in it, and it is offered as a peace-offering.

Mishna:

The Passover-offering is offered as a male lamb in its first year. As it is stated [Exodus 12:5]: “A perfect male, in its first year, shall it be for you.”

One who designates a female for his Passover-offering, or a male in its second year,

which are not fit for a Passover-offering, the law of the offering is that it

shall graze until it develops a disqualifying blemish,

that a blemish should occur in it,

and it shall be sold, and its proceeds shall fall to a voluntary offering for peace-offerings,

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

And he does not offer the female itself that he designated [or the male in its second year] as a peace-offering, even though a peace-offering is valid when it comes from a female, and also from an animal in its second year. For when a person designates for his Passover-offering an animal that is not fit for a Passover-offering, it is as though the designation “Passover-offering” was established in it, and it was rejected. Therefore, it is disqualified forever from being offered itself for any offering. Rather, he brings an offering with its proceeds.