Pesachim 98b (צח:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If it became intermingled with firstborn animals, Rabbi Shimon says: If groups of kohanim eat it.

And we raise an objection: How is it possible to sacrifice a lamb that is uncertain whether it is a firstborn animal or a Paschal offering?

But he is bringing sacrificial animals to a state of disqualification.

A firstborn animal is eaten for two days and one night. Here, when one slaughters an animal that is uncertain whether it is a firstborn animal or a Paschal offering, he causes the time for eating the firstborn to be reduced to midnight. What remains until morning must be burned, contrary to the law. And one may not bring sacrificial animals to a state of disqualification!

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon

who permits sacrificing a lamb that is uncertain whether it is a Paschal offering or a firstborn animal

holds accordingly

in accordance with his own view.

For he says: One may bring sacrificial animals to a state of disqualification,

and it is permitted to slaughter an offering whose eating time is reduced because of the uncertainty, causing it to become disqualified, since it is preferable to reduce the time for eating the offering rather than leave it to graze until it develops a permanent blemish.

As we learned

in tractate Zevahim [75b]:

An asham that became intermingled with shelamim

what should be done?

Rabbi Shimon says: They are slaughtered in the north

of the Altar, in accordance with the law of an asham. It is impossible to slaughter them anywhere on the Altar in accordance with the law of shelamim, since there is concern that they are asham offerings.

And they are eaten according to the stricter law applying to them

according to the offering among them subject to the stricter requirements, namely, the asham, which is eaten only by male priests, only for one day and one night, and only within the curtains [in the Temple courtyard].

[The flesh of a shelamim, by contrast, may be eaten by anyone; its breast and thigh are eaten by priests, their wives, and their slaves; and it is eaten for two days and one night throughout Jerusalem.]

They said to him

the Sages said to Rabbi Shimon:

One may not bring sacrificial animals to a state of disqualification,

and it is impossible to sacrifice an animal that is uncertain whether it is an asham or a shelamim, since if it is a shelamim, its eating time is thereby reduced and it is brought to a state of disqualification.

Rather, they should graze until they develop permanent blemishes, and he should bring, with the money received for the better one of them, an asham and a shelamim.

And we raise an objection:

But the Rabbis,

who hold that one may not bring sacrificial animals to a state of disqualification,

what do we do

with a Paschal offering that became intermingled with firstborn animals? It cannot be said that here too they should graze until they develop permanent blemishes, and with the money received for the better one he should bring a Paschal offering and firstborn animals [as we said with regard to an asham that became intermingled with shelamim, or a Paschal offering that became intermingled with an olah and an asham], since a firstborn animal is unlike other offerings. Even when it develops a blemish, it cannot be redeemed; rather, it is eaten by priests with its blemish. And if one purchases another animal with the money from the firstborn animal [that has a blemish], the new animal does not acquire the sanctity of a firstborn animal, as it is stated concerning a firstborn animal: “It shall not be redeemed.”

A Paschal offering that develops a blemish, however, may be redeemed, and with the money one purchases a Paschal offering; and it is forbidden to eat the Paschal offering without redemption.

Rava said

as a resolution:

We shall wait for it

for each and every lamb

until they develop blemishes

until both develop blemishes,

and he shall bring a fat animal

with the value of the better one of them.

And let him say

and declare:

Wherever the Paschal offering is

wherever the Paschal offering exists,

its sanctity shall take effect

its sanctity

upon this one

upon this fat animal, and he shall sacrifice it as a Paschal offering.

And he may eat them

and eat the two lambs that developed blemishes

as firstborn animals with blemishes,

which may not be slaughtered and sold in a butcher’s shop, nor weighed by the litra [a unit of weight], since there is uncertainty concerning each and every lamb as to whether it is the firstborn animal.

But if he recognized which of them was the Paschal offering, he could slaughter it and sell it in a butcher’s shop if he wished, since it had been redeemed and had become unconsecrated.

Mishna:

A group whose Paschal offering was lost, and they said to one person: Go and search

for the lost Paschal offering

and slaughter it on our behalf

[for us].

He went, found it, and slaughtered it

on their behalf,

and they purchased

bought another lamb as a Paschal offering

and slaughtered it

it.

If his was slaughtered first:

All the members of the group fulfilled their obligation through the lamb that he slaughtered first.

Therefore

he eats from his own

[from the lamb that he slaughtered],

and they eat with him from his own,

since they said to him, “Slaughter it on our behalf,” they joined him, fulfilled their obligation through the Paschal offering that he slaughtered, and can no longer join their own. Their Paschal offering is therefore one without owners, and is invalid and must be burned.

And if theirs was slaughtered first:

They eat from their own

[from the lamb that they slaughtered], since when they slaughtered their own, it is as though they withdrew from the lost one [retracted their decision and no longer wished to fulfill their obligation through it]. They joined their own,

and he eats from his own

since he did not join them.

And if it is not known which of them was slaughtered first, or

it is known

that both were slaughtered simultaneously

He eats from his own

since he did not join them.

And they do not eat with him

lest theirs was slaughtered first, in which case they can no longer join him.

And theirs goes to the place of burning.

Since we are uncertain lest his was slaughtered first, they cannot join theirs.

And

even though the members of the group do not eat from the Paschal offering, they are nevertheless

exempt from making a Second Passover,

because they certainly fulfilled their obligation through the Paschal offering that was slaughtered first, and eating the Paschal offering does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation.

A group whose Paschal offering was lost, and they said to one person: Go and search for the lost lamb. They did not tell him to slaughter it.

And

the agent

said to them: If I am delayed—

go and slaughter on my behalf.

He went and found

the lost Paschal offering,

and slaughtered it.

And they purchased

bought a lamb as a Paschal offering

and slaughtered it:

If theirs was slaughtered first:

They eat from their own

since, once they slaughtered another lamb, they retracted and withdrew from the lost lamb, and fulfilled their obligation through the lamb that they slaughtered.

And he eats with them

since he had joined them and fulfilled his obligation through theirs, and his must be burned. For they all fulfilled their obligation through the Paschal offering slaughtered first, and it is therefore like a Paschal offering without owners.

And if his was slaughtered first: He eats from his own,

since his was slaughtered first, and he fulfilled his obligation through it.

And they eat from their own

since they did not tell him to slaughter on their behalf; consequently, they did not fulfill their obligation through his slaughter, but only through the slaughter of their own Paschal offering.

And if it is not known which was slaughtered first, or

it is known

that both were slaughtered simultaneously:

They eat from their own

since they did not tell him to slaughter on their behalf and did not fulfill their obligation through his slaughter.

And he does not eat with them

lest his was slaughtered first, in which case he cannot join theirs. But he also cannot eat from his own, lest theirs was slaughtered first, in which case he withdrew from his own, since he made them his agents, and fulfilled his obligation through theirs.

And

therefore

his goes to the place of burning.

And

even though the agent does not eat from the Paschal offering, he is nevertheless

exempt from making a Second Passover,

since he certainly fulfilled his obligation through the Paschal offering slaughtered first, and eating the Paschal offering does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation.

A group whose Paschal offering was lost and who told one person to search for the Paschal offering, and he

said to them

if I am delayed, go and slaughter on my behalf,

and they said

they

to him

slaughter on our behalf the Paschal offering that you find:

They all eat from the first one,

since they are his agents and he is their agent.

And if it is not known which was slaughtered first: Both go to the place of burning.

Since neither can be eaten, lest the other was slaughtered first. Nevertheless, they all fulfilled their obligation and are exempt from making a Second Passover.

A group whose Paschal offering was lost and who told one person to search for it, and he

did not tell them

to slaughter on his behalf,

and they did not tell

him

to

slaughter the lamb that he would find:

They are not responsible for one another.

It is not the concern of one to know what the other did or which was slaughtered first; rather, they eat from their own and he eats from his own.

Thus far, the Mishna spoke of a group whose Paschal offering was lost and who appointed an agent to search for it.

Two groups,

such as one group of priests and another group of Levites,

whose Paschal offerings became intermingled

with one another:

These

the priests

withdraw for themselves

one lamb,

and these

the Levites

withdraw for themselves

one lamb

[as well].

One of these

of the priests

comes to one of those

to the Levites.

And one of these

of the Levites

comes to one of those

to the priests.

And so they

the priests

say

to the Levite who came to them:

If this Paschal offering is ours,

the one we withdrew for ourselves, then we remain enrolled in it as at first; but you, the Levite,

withdraw your hands from your own [from your enrollment in the whole Paschal offering],

[cancel your membership in your entire Paschal offering]

and enroll [enroll from now on]

[join from now on]

in ours.

And if this Paschal offering is yours,

the one we withdrew, then you are enrolled in it as at first. But we

withdraw our hands from our own and enroll in yours.

[The Levites say the same to the priest who comes to them.]

Why was it necessary for the Levite to come to the group of priests? They could have acted differently: The priests would withdraw one offering for themselves and the Levites would withdraw one for themselves, and they would say: If the offering we withdrew is ours, all is well; and if not, we withdraw our hands from our own and enroll in this one!

The Gemara explains that this cannot be done, because a Paschal offering that had no owners for even one moment is permanently disqualified. If it happened that the priests withdrew the Levites’ lamb and said to the Levites, “We withdraw our hands from our own and enroll in yours,” the result would be that the priests’ Paschal offering would be entirely without owners. The Levites could then no longer enroll in that offering [and could not say, “We withdraw our hands from our own and enroll in this one of the priests”]. Consequently, they would remain without a Paschal offering.

And likewise, five groups of five each

in which there were five people in each group and their Paschal offerings became intermingled,

and

likewise if there were groups

of ten each

and their Paschal offerings became intermingled.

They withdraw for themselves

the members of each group

one from each and every group,

for example, if there were five groups of five people in each group, the five members of each group separate and form new groups, each containing one person from a different original group.

The members of each group withdraw one lamb for themselves,

and

now that they have become new groups,

so [in this manner]

[in this manner]

they

four of the members of the group

say

to one person: If this is your Paschal offering, then the hands of all four of us are withdrawn from the four Paschal offerings belonging to each of us, wherever they may be, and we are now enrolled with you.

And four then say the same to the second person, and likewise to all of them.

The members of each and every group do the same.

Thus, there is no offering here that stood for even one moment without owners, and therefore all of them are valid.

Two,

such as Reuven and Yosef,

whose Paschal offerings became intermingled,

and if Reuven were to withdraw one lamb and say, “If this lamb is mine, all is well; and if not, I withdraw my hands from my own and enroll in yours,” he would leave his own Paschal offering [in Yosef’s possession] without owners, since Yosef has not yet enrolled in it.

And what should they do?

This one,

Reuven,

withdraws for himself

one lamb,

and this one

Yosef

withdraws for himself

one lamb

[as well].

This one,

Reuven

enrolls with him one person from the marketplace,

for example, his brother Shimon, saying to him: Wherever my Paschal offering is found, I hereby enroll you in it;

and this one,

Yosef

enrolls with him one person from the marketplace,

for example, his brother Binyamin.

This one,

Reuven

comes to this one,

to Binyamin, who is enrolled in Yosef’s Paschal offering,

and this one,

Yosef

comes to this one,

to Shimon, who is enrolled in Reuven’s Paschal offering.

And so they,

Reuven and Yosef,

say

each to the guest who is with him:

Reuven says to Binyamin:

If this is my Paschal offering,

the one that Yosef, your brother, withdrew when he withdrew one lamb for himself, and it was mine, then

your hands are withdrawn from your own

from your brother Yosef’s lamb [which is now in Shimon’s possession], in which you are enrolled,

and

from now on

you are enrolled in mine.

And if this is your Paschal offering,

the one that Yosef, your brother, withdrew when he withdrew one lamb for himself, and it was his, and you enrolled with him, then

my hands are withdrawn from my own, and I am enrolled

from now on

in yours.

Yosef says the same, in the same manner, to Shimon.

Thus, no Paschal offering here stood for even one moment without owners, and therefore both are valid.

Gemara:

The Mishna spoke of a group whose Paschal offering was lost and who said to one person: Go and search for the Paschal offering for us.

The Sages taught:

He said

the agent

to them

that they should slaughter on his behalf.

And they said

they too

to him

that he should slaughter on their behalf—

each eats

of them

from

the Paschal offering that was slaughtered

first.

And if it is not known which was slaughtered first, both go to the place of burning.

The agent did not say

the agent

to them

that they should slaughter on his behalf,

and

they too

did not say to him

that he should slaughter on their behalf—

they are not responsible for one another.

It is not the concern of one to know what the other did or which was slaughtered first; each eats from his own.