Yoma 51a — the Talmud in English

And

this is not so, as

there is

")

the firstborn and the tithe

of animals—

For

they too

take effect on an animal with a permanent blemish

because a firstborn animal becomes sacred from the womb, whether it is unblemished or blemished; and with regard to the animal tithe it is stated: “He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad,” which teaches that the tithe takes effect even on a bad animal]—

and they do not leave their sacred status to be shorn or worked,

because a firstborn animal cannot be redeemed, as it is stated: “However, a firstborn ox you shall not redeem”; and with regard to the animal tithe it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed.”]

Rather,

you are forced to say that

the phrase “the category of an offering” was not taught;

the subject of the beraita is not all offerings, but one specific offering, namely Aaron’s bull or Aaron’s ram.

And we explain:

And what is different about substitution,

that is, what is the actual reason that with regard to an offering the beraita discusses one specific offering, whereas with regard to substitution it discusses all substitutions?!

This is the reason:

the category of substitution is one,

as all substitutions are alike with regard to the laws discussed in the beraita [and the issue discussed in the beraita applies even to the substitution of a sin offering; it is merely not relevant with regard to Shabbat and ritual impurity, because even on an ordinary weekday it may not be offered]—

But with regard to

an offering,

there

are a firstborn and an animal tithe,

and what the beraita seeks to teach does not apply to them, because they too have the same law as a substitution: they take effect on an animal with a permanent blemish, and they do not leave the realm of sanctity entirely.

We return to the matter and raise a question:

And according to Rav Sheshet,

who rejected the necessity of saying that the beraita is referring to Aaron’s bull, since it can be established as referring to Aaron’s ram, to which everything discussed in the beraita applies:

Rather than establish it

as referring to the offering concerning which the beraita says “the stringency of an offering”

as Aaron’s ram,

which is a strained interpretation of the wording of the beraita, which simply says “an offering”—

let us establish it

as referring

to the Paschal offering,

which the Torah calls a “Paschal sacrifice” [Tosafot], since everything discussed in the beraita applies to it as well—

For

it

supersedes Shabbat and ritual impurity,

since it is written “at its appointed time,” and we derive that it is performed even on Shabbat and even in a state of ritual impurity, provided that the majority of the people require it to be performed in impurity.

And it creates a substitution, for

it

is an individual offering.

And we answer:

He holds

Rav Sheshet according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda:

the Paschal offering may not be slaughtered on behalf of one individual

unless others have joined him as registered participants in that Paschal offering. Therefore, it is a partnership offering, and it is not applicable to say of it: “And it creates a substitution.”

The reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling is that it is stated: “You may not slaughter the Paschal offering in any of your gates,” and we interpret it as follows: “You may not slaughter the Paschal offering by one”—rather, it must be by two or more.

We are still astonished by Rav Sheshet:

And let us establish it

as referring to the beraita

as the Second Paschal offering,

which is certainly brought by an individual?! And we answer: Does

the Second Paschal offering supersede

ritual

impurity?!

Since it does not supersede it, it would not be possible to teach: “And it supersedes ritual impurity.”

Here the Gemara returns to explain what was mentioned above, on 50a: “Rabbi Meir said to him: But the bull of Yom Kippur, the high priest’s griddle-offering, and the Paschal offering are individual offerings and supersede Shabbat and ritual impurity”; and what was mentioned above: “Rabbi Yaakov said to him: But the bull brought for an unintentional communal transgression, the goats for idolatry, and the festival peace offering are communal offerings, and they do not supersede either Shabbat or ritual impurity.”

He said

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

raised an objection to Rava:

And the tanna

mentioned above [50a],

what is different about “the Paschal offering”

which individuals bring

that he calls it an “individual” offering—

and what is different about “the festival peace offering”

which individuals also bring

that he calls it a “communal” offering?!

то есть при собрании народа] во время праздников, то песах также приходит при собрании, и почему же он считается индивидуальной жертвой?! Рава сказал Раву Уне, сыну Рава Иегошуа: Действительно, песах считается общественной жертвой, поскольку приходит при собрании; однако

But

if

the reason the tanna calls the festival peace offering a communal offering is

because it comes through an assembly

[the gathering] of the community on the festivals—then

the Paschal offering also comes through an assembly,

so why is it considered an individual offering?!

Rava said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

Indeed, the Paschal offering is considered a communal offering because it comes through an assembly. However,

there is the Second Paschal offering, which does not come through an assembly,

and it is certainly not a communal offering. It is this offering that the tanna intended when he said: “But the bull and so on, and the Paschal offering, which is an individual offering and supersedes Shabbat and ritual impurity.”

He said to him,

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, to Rava:

If so,

that the tanna intended the Second Paschal offering,

shall it

[the word]

“shall it”

is not in “Precise Readings of the Sages”]

supersede Shabbat and ritual impurity

[as a question]?!

That is: Does the Second Paschal offering in fact supersede ritual impurity, so that the tanna can say: “And it supersedes Shabbat and ritual impurity”? Surely, although it supersedes Shabbat, it does not supersede ritual impurity?!

[The version of Rabbi Hananel:

He said to him: Does it supersede ritual impurity.]

He said to him,

Rava to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

Yes,

this tanna indeed holds

according to the one who says

[Rabbi Yehuda]

that the Second Paschal offering supersedes

ritual impurity.

As it is taught in a beraita: The Second Paschal offering supersedes Shabbat, but it does not supersede ritual impurity; Rabbi Yehuda says: It also supersedes ritual impurity.

And we explain:

What is the reasoning of the first tanna?!

He can say to you:

But

because of ritual impurity,

that he was impure at the time of the offering of the first Paschal offering,

you deferred him

to the Second Paschal offering,

and

now should he

perform it in impurity?!

And Rabbi Yehuda can say to you: The verse states

with regard to the Second Paschal offering:

“According to every statute of the Paschal offering they shall perform it,” even in a state of ritual impurity,

just as with the first Paschal offering—

And as for what you said: “Because of ritual impurity you deferred him, and should he perform it in impurity”?!

The Torah returned him to perform it in purity,

but if he

did not succeed

in performing it in purity, then

he shall perform it in impurity,

see the note ].