Pesachim 98a — the Talmud in English

One who designated his Paschal offering and died.

And the offering remained without those enrolled for it,

his son may not bring it after him as a Paschal offering

since one may not slaughter a Paschal offering that has no owners,

but

he should bring it

as a peace-offering,

as is the law concerning the surplus of a Paschal offering, which is sacrificed as a peace-offering. The Gemara explains the circumstances to which this applies.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who designates a female animal for his Paschal offering, or a male animal that is two years old, shall let it graze until it becomes blemished, then sell it, and the money shall be allocated for voluntary offerings, for peace-offerings.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Learn three things from this.

Three laws concerning deḥuy can be derived from our Mishna.

The concept of deḥuy means that an offering was rejected and disqualified from sacrifice; even if afterward the reason for its rejection was removed, nevertheless the law of deḥuy takes effect, and it remains rejected and unfit for sacrifice.

1.

Learn from this

derive from our Mishna that

living animals,

living sacrificial animals [that have not yet been slaughtered]

can be rejected:

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disputed this matter in tractate Yoma [63b]. Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that the law of deḥuy applies only after the offering has been slaughtered . But while the animal is still alive, the law of deḥuy does not apply to it. Rabbi Yehuda, however, maintains that the law of deḥuy applies even while the animal is alive .

Однако пока животное живо, закон об отвержении к нему не применяется. Рабби Йегуда же считает, что закон об отвержении действует даже пока животное живо.

In our Mishna we learned concerning a female animal and a male animal that is two years old that they shall graze until they become blemished. From here we learn that living animals can be rejected .

2.

And learn from this

derive from our Mishna that

initial rejection

—that the animal was already rejected from sacrifice at the outset, when the offering was designated [as in our Mishna, where a female animal was designated for his Paschal offering]

is considered rejection.

The Gemara disputes this matter, as some say [Sukka 33b] that the law of deḥuy applies only to an offering that was fit and was subsequently rejected and disqualified. But with regard to an offering that was unfit for sacrifice from the outset, the law of deḥuy does not apply [and if, at a later time, the reason for its rejection is removed, the offering is fit for sacrifice].

We learn from our Mishna that initial rejection is considered rejection.

3.

And learn from this

derive from our Mishna that

there is

a law of

rejection with regard to consecrated value:

That is, an animal upon which the sanctity of the body did not take effect from the outset [so that its body would be sacrificed], but only sanctity of value [so that another offering would be brought with its monetary value], as in the case of one who designates a female animal for his Paschal offering: he cannot sacrifice the body of the animal as a Paschal offering, and the sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it. Rather, only sanctity of value takes effect [so that if it becomes blemished on the fourteenth of Nisan, he brings a male animal with its value and sacrifices it as a Paschal offering] .

It might have been said that the law of deḥuy applies only to an animal possessing sanctity of the body, which is a more stringent sanctity. But with regard to sanctity of value, the sanctity is not significant, and it is like an unconsecrated animal, to which the law of deḥuy does not apply even if there was a reason rendering it unfit for an offering; and if the reason for its disqualification is removed, it can be consecrated and sacrificed.

We learn from our Mishna that this is not so. Rather, deḥuy applies even to sanctity of value: For we learned in the Mishna that one who designates a female animal for his Paschal offering may not sacrifice the animal itself as a peace-offering even after Passover; rather, he sacrifices an offering with its value. From this it follows that the law of deḥuy took effect upon it, even though it possesses only sanctity of value.

We learn from here that the law of deḥuy applies to an animal that is consecrated only with regard to its value .

We learned in the Mishna:

One who designates his Paschal offering

and dies may not bring it after him as a Paschal offering; rather, he brings it as a peace-offering.

The Sages taught:

One who designates his Paschal offering and dies—if his son was enrolled with him

then the Paschal offering still has an owner; therefore

he should bring it

his son

as a Paschal offering.

But if

his son was not enrolled with him,

then the Paschal offering has no owner and is unfit as a Paschal offering; therefore

he should bring it as a peace-offering on the sixteenth

of Nisan.

And we infer: It says at the end of the beraita, “He should bring it as a peace-offering on the sixteenth,” which implies:

On the sixteenth

on the sixteenth

yes [

that is so]. But

on the fifteenth,

on the fifteenth of Nisan, which is the first day of the Festival of Passover,

no!

Why should he not sacrifice it on the fifteenth?

He holds that vow-offerings and voluntary offerings are not sacrificed on a Festival day.

The Gemara now returns to explain the substance of the beraita, which said: “One who designates his Paschal offering and dies—if his son is enrolled with him, he should bring it as a Paschal offering; if his son is not enrolled with him, he should bring it as a peace-offering.”

And we raise a difficulty:

When did the father die?

When did the father die?

If you say

if it is said that he

died [

that he died]

before midday,

there is a difficulty: How can we have learned in the beraita that if

his son is enrolled with him, he should bring it as a Paschal offering?

For mourning already took effect upon him from the outset,

since the state of acute mourning took effect upon him from the beginning of the time when the obligation of the Paschal offering applied, namely, from midday onward. An acute mourner whose relative died before midday is not subject to the obligation of the Paschal offering and does not perform the Paschal offering that day. [Rashi, in his second explanation; and Tosafot] .

Rather,

it must necessarily be said that he

died

the father died

after midday.

In this case, although the son is an acute mourner, he is permitted to sacrifice the Paschal offering, since the obligation of the Paschal offering took effect upon him before his mourning .

But this too presents a difficulty: How can we have learned in the beraita:

“If his son is not enrolled with him, he should bring it as a peace-offering”?

For midday established its designation—

at midday the father was still alive. The offering was fit as a Paschal offering, and the designation “Paschal offering” was established for it at midday. Subsequently, when the father died, the offering was rejected from being sacrificed as a Paschal offering. Since it was rejected from being sacrificed as a Paschal offering, the law of deḥuy took effect upon it, and it cannot be sacrificed even as a peace-offering!

And if we were to explain that the beraita is speaking of a case in which the father died before midday, then the designation “Paschal offering” was not established for the offering, since at midday [the time of sacrificing the Paschal offering] it was already impossible to sacrifice it as a Paschal offering. It would consequently be understood that it could be sacrificed as a peace-offering on the sixteenth of Nisan.

But if we explain it in this manner, the earlier difficulty returns: Why, if his son is enrolled with him, should he bring it as a Paschal offering? The son’s mourning took effect upon him before midday, and he is not permitted to perform the Paschal offering!

He said

Rava

Rabba

an answer:

Actually,

the beraita is speaking of a case in which he

died

the father died

before midday.

Therefore, it is understood that if his son is not enrolled with him, he should bring it as a peace-offering, since at midday the Paschal offering was unfit for sacrifice and no designation at all was established upon it.

But we asked: If so, when his son is enrolled with him, how can he bring it as a Paschal offering, since mourning took effect upon him from the outset? Rabba answered this:

And what

is the meaning of the beraita’s statement

“he should bring it as a Paschal offering”?

As a Second Paschal offering,

on the fourteenth of Iyyar, when the son is no longer an acute mourner.

Abaye said

another answer:

It is taught with regard to two different circumstances.

The beraita must be divided into two parts, with each part referring to a different circumstance.

A. In the first part of the beraita, the case is one in which he

died after midday,

and the beraita says: “If

his son is enrolled with him, he should bring it as a Paschal offering.”

For the obligation of the Paschal offering took effect upon the son at midday, before the state of mourning took effect upon him.

In this case [in which the father died after midday], the beraita does not explain the law when his son is not enrolled with him. Why? Because this law can be learned from the preceding Mishna, where we learned [with regard to a lost Paschal offering] that if the designation “Paschal offering” was established upon an offering and it was subsequently rejected, it is disqualified from being sacrificed as a peace-offering. From this it can be learned that if the father died after midday and his son is not enrolled with him, the designation “Paschal offering” was established upon the offering and it is disqualified. [Rashi]

B. In the second part of the beraita, the case is one in which he

died before midday,

and the beraita says: If

his son is not enrolled with him,

then the Paschal offering has no owner. It cannot be sacrificed as a Paschal offering, and therefore

he should bring it as a peace-offering.

For the designation “Paschal offering” was not established upon the offering at midday, and therefore the law of “rejection” does not apply to it.

In this case [in which the father died before midday], the beraita does not explain the law when his son is enrolled with him. Why? Because in this case it is obvious that the offering is fit, since it still has an owner, and therefore his son should bring it as a Second Paschal offering [Rashi].

Rav Shemaya said

another answer:

Actually,

the beraita is speaking of a case in which he

died [

the father died]

after midday,

and therefore it is understood that if his son is enrolled with him, he should bring it as a Paschal offering that day, since the obligation of the Paschal offering took effect upon him at midday, before his mourning took effect. Therefore, he can sacrifice the Paschal offering.

But we asked: If so, in the case in which his son is not enrolled with him, how can he bring it as a peace-offering? The designation “Paschal offering” was established upon it at midday and it was rejected; therefore it is disqualified even as a peace-offering!

Rav Shemaya answered this:

And

the beraita is speaking of a case

such as when his father was moribund at midday,

and most moribund people die. Therefore, the designation “Paschal offering” was not established upon it at midday, and when the father died after midday [and his son was not enrolled with him], the law of deḥuy did not take effect upon the offering, and it is fit as a peace-offering.

Rav Ashi said

another answer:

Actually,

the beraita is speaking of a case in which he

died [

the father died]

after midday,

and therefore it is understood that if his son is enrolled with him, he should bring it as a Paschal offering, since the obligation of the Paschal offering took effect upon him before his mourning.

But we asked: If so, in the case in which his son is not enrolled with him, how can he bring it as a peace-offering? The designation “Paschal offering” was established upon it at midday and it was rejected, and therefore it is disqualified even as a peace-offering!

Rav Ashi answered this:

And it is Rabbi Shimon’s opinion.

The beraita follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,

who says: Living animals cannot be rejected,

and therefore, although the designation “Paschal offering” was established upon the offering at midday, nevertheless, when the father died, the law of deḥuy did not take effect upon it, and it is fit as a peace-offering.

Ravina said

another answer:

It is a case in which he designated it

the father

after midday, and the owner died [

the father]

after midday,

and in this case it is understood that if his son is enrolled with him, he should bring it as a Paschal offering, since the obligation of the Paschal offering took effect upon him at midday, before his father died and he became an acute mourner.

But there is still a difficulty: At the time when the father designated the Paschal offering after midday, the designation “Paschal offering” was established upon it, and when he died, the law of deḥuy took effect upon it. If so, how can we have learned in the beraita that if his son is not enrolled with him, he should bring it as a peace-offering? The law of deḥuy took effect upon it!

Ravina answered this:

And he holds

that the tanna who taught the beraita held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira [above, 96b], that

midday establishes

the time that establishes the designation “Paschal offering” upon the offering is only midday, and not the remainder of the time during which slaughter is permitted, from midday until sunset .

And therefore, even though the father died after midday, nevertheless, since the designation took place after midday, it follows that the name of a Paschal offering was not established upon the animal at all.

Mishna:

The Paschal offering that became mixed with

other sacrifices, such as three lambs—one a Paschal offering, one a guilt offering, and one a burnt offering—that became mixed with one another—

shall graze until they become blemished

that a blemish should occur in them

and they shall be sold, and he shall bring with the proceeds of

the lamb

the finest among them—

of this kind

such as a Paschal offering.

And with the proceeds of the finest lamb among them—

of this kind

such as a guilt offering, and likewise a burnt offering.

And he shall forfeit the surplus from his house

that surplus [the addition] that he must add to the less fine lambs in order to complete them to the value of the finest among them; this he shall forfeit from non-sacred money in his house.

And how shall he act?

If the finest lamb among them is worth one sela, he brings three sela from his house, and takes one sela and says: Wherever the burnt offering is found, it is redeemed upon this sela. And with this sela he purchases a burnt offering. And he takes a second sela and says: Wherever the guilt offering is found, it is redeemed upon this sela, and with it he brings a guilt offering; and likewise with the Paschal offering.

If

the Paschal offering

became mixed with firstborn offerings

whose blood application upon the altar is the same as that of the Paschal offering [for both are given in a single pouring toward the base], and likewise both are the same in that they do not have the waving of the breast and thigh, laying on of hands, or libations,

Rabbi Shimon says: If

there were people enrolled for the Paschal offering

groups

of priests

slaughter each lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan for the sake of what it is: if it is a firstborn offering, then it is a firstborn offering, and if it is a Paschal offering, then it is a Paschal offering,

and

the priests shall eat

all of them until midnight, for we are uncertain regarding each lamb, lest it be a Paschal offering, and it may be eaten only until midnight.