Zevachim 9a — the Talmud in English

Rather,

consecrated offerings that are eaten displace consecrated offerings that are eaten

and it becomes a shelamim offering that is eaten,

but consecrated offerings that are eaten do not displace consecrated offerings that are not eaten,

such as an ola. Therefore, even if one slaughtered it for the sake of an ola, it is uprooted and becomes a shelamim, and it is offered and eaten according to the law of a shelamim offering

Additional explanation: The Gemara does not intend that it is a sevara that the surplus of the Pesach should be a shelamim, and that there is no need for the additional derivation of “and for a sacrifice”; rather, this sevara reveals that the intention of the Torah is that in every manner in which one slaughtered it, it should be “for a shelamim sacrifice.” And my teacher and master, the GRAIL, added that this sevara does not remove the meaning of the verse, “everything for which he slaughters it, it shall be like it,” for the distinction between “eaten” and “not eaten” is not merely a distinction in the laws of the offering, but in its very sanctity; and necessarily, the intention of the verse is not to include that if he slaughters it for the sake of a chatat, its law will change to another sanctity, but only that it should be like a shelamim, whose sanctity is like the sanctity of the Pesach. And he likewise explained the distinction between offerings eaten by every person and those eaten only by male kohanim, for the eating by kohanim adds to the atonement of the offering, whereas with the Pesach and shelamim there is only a mitzva of eating. See the notes to Tosafot here [s.v. “displace”] and above [6a s.v. “but surely”]. And although a shelamim is considered of a higher degree than a Pesach and a firstborn [in the Mishna below, 89a], it is possible to say that the surplus of the Pesach will be a shelamim and not a firstborn, because a distinction is not considered a distinction in the type of sanctity unless there is a distinction between those who eat it or between kodshei kodashim and kodashim kalim. See the note 2. And we raise an objection: Surely this answer is effective only if one slaughtered it for the sake of an ola, but it still should be difficult in a case where one slaughtered it for the sake of a chatat or an asham: why should it not be a chatat or an asham?

Is it so that a chatat and an asham—are they not eaten? -

Rather, this is what must be said:

consecrated offerings eaten by every person

(the Pesach offering)

are displaced by consecrated offerings eaten by every person

(shelamim),

but consecrated offerings eaten by every person are not displaced by consecrated offerings not eaten by every person,

for a chatat and an asham are eaten only by male kohanim.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Avin said: Consecrated offerings of lesser sanctity displace consecrated offerings of lesser sanctity

(for the Pesach and shelamim are consecrated offerings of lesser sanctity),

but consecrated offerings of lesser sanctity do not displace

an ola, a chatat, or an asham, which are

offerings of the highest sanctity.

Rav Yitzchak bar Rabbi Savrin challenged it: Say—

if he slaughtered it for the sake of second tithe

animal,

let it be

an offering of

second tithe

animal and not a shelamim.

For what halakhic purpose—

so that it need not require libations

(whereas a shelamim requires one to bring libations),

and so that he be flogged for it with

“it shall not be redeemed”

if he sells it [for selling a second-tithe animal one is flogged]!?

And we answer:

The verse says

a limitation regarding animal second tithe: “

The tenth shall be holy,”

and the verse comes to teach us:

this,

which was designated as animal second tithe, alone, shall be

second tithe

(which is exempt from libations, and one is flogged for its sale),

and no other

becomes

second tithe,

excluding the case in which one slaughtered another offering for the sake of second tithe, for it does not become second tithe.

And we raise another objection:

Say, if he slaughtered it

the Pesach during the rest of the year

for the sake of

an offering of

a firstborn, let it be like a firstborn; for what halakhic purpose—

so that it need not require libations, or alternatively, so that it be given to the kohanim

according to the law of a firstborn?

And we answer:

A firstborn also—

a gezeira shava of

“passed”

“passed”—

is derived from second tithe

(regarding a firstborn it says, “you shall cause every offspring that opens the womb to pass over,” and regarding second tithe it says, “everything that passes under the staff”), teaching that the surplus of the Pesach does not become either second tithe or a firstborn.

And we raise another objection:

And say—

if he slaughtered it

the Pesach for the sake of an offering of

a substitute

of the Pesach [and some explain: for the sake of a substitute of second tithe]

should it be a substitute?

[And the initial assumption would be that even when one does not actually substitute one animal for another, but merely slaughters the Pesach offering for the sake of an offering of a substitute for the Pesach, it is considered substitution.]

For what halakhic purpose—

to be flogged for it

because of “he shall not substitute it and he shall not exchange it”!?

And we answer:

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Nahman, said:

Since he does not bring an additional unconsecrated animal and substitute it for a consecrated one, but merely wishes to impose upon an offering the designation of an “offering of substitution,” he is not liable as one who performs substitution, for

the verse says,

“and it shall be, he and its substitute,”

and we expound:

this,

which he brings as an unconsecrated animal and substitutes for a consecrated animal, is considered

a substitute, and no other

offering that he slaughtered for the sake of a substitute is considered

a substitute.

And we raise another objection:

And say—

if he slaughtered it

the Pesach

for the sake of a thanksgiving offering, let it be like a thanksgiving offering.

For what halakhic purpose—

to require it to have bread

according to the law of a thanksgiving offering.

And we answer:

Is there anything such that the Pesach itself does not require bread, while its surplus

(when it was slaughtered not at its proper time and its designation was uprooted from it)

requires bread?

And the Gemara wondered about this answer:

If so,

that it is impossible for the surplus of the Pesach to be obligated in something in which the Pesach itself is not obligated,

now also

it should be difficult for you: How can the surplus of the Pesach be offered as a shelamim—

is there anything such that the Pesach itself does not require libations, while its surplus,

which is offered as a shelamim,

requires libations?

And therefore the Gemara explains:

This is what we are saying:

Is there anything such that the surplus of the thanksgiving offering itself [such as one who designated a thanksgiving offering, and it was lost, and he designated another thanksgiving offering, and afterward the first was found: he brings the first with bread, while the second, which is the “surplus of a thanksgiving offering,” is exempt from bringing bread]

such as when one consecrated a thanksgiving offering and it was lost, then consecrated another thanksgiving offering, and afterward the first was found: he brings the first with bread, while the second, which is the “surplus of a thanksgiving offering,” does not require the bringing of bread,

does not require bread, whereas the surplus that comes from elsewhere [that is, the surplus of the Passover offering that he slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving offering]

namely, the surplus of a Paschal offering that was slaughtered as a thanksgiving offering,

does require bread?

And therefore it is not applicable to say that if he slaughters the surplus of the Passover offering for the sake of a thanksgiving offering, it becomes a thanksgiving offering.

Rav Yemar, son of Rav Hillel, raised an objection

to the father of Shmuel, who earlier learned that the surplus of the Passover offering is offered as a peace offering from the verse, “And if his offering is from the flock—for a peace-offering sacrifice to the Lord,” and expounded: “Something that comes from the flock shall be for a peace-offering sacrifice,” and this refers to the Passover offering:

And from where

is it that only “something that comes from the flock” is written with regard to the surplus of the Passover offering?

Perhaps it is written with regard to the surplus of a guilt offering,

for it too comes only from the flock,

it is written,

and the verse comes to say that the surplus of a guilt offering must have its name uprooted from it by slaughtering it for the sake of a peace offering [and although the surplus of a guilt offering is offered as a burnt offering, the intent of the verse is to say that its name must be uprooted from it by slaughtering it for the sake of another offering; and then, once its name has been uprooted, the designation of a burnt offering takes effect upon it, despite the fact that it was slaughtered for the sake of a peace offering. Tosafot].

And we answer:

Rava said: The verse says,

“And if his offering is from the flock”—

“for a peace-offering sacrifice,”

and we expound that it refers specifically to

“something that is common to all the flock,”

namely, the Passover offering, which may be offered both from sheep and from goats, unlike a guilt offering, which is not offered from goats.

Rabbi Avin bar Hiyya raised an objection, and some say Rabbi Avin bar Kahana: Everywhere you say

that when it says

“from,”

the intent of the verse is

to exclude [for example: “from cattle”—but not all cattle—to exclude an animal with a permanent blemish or one that has been used for bestiality],

[for example, “from the cattle”—but not all cattle—to exclude an animal that mated unnaturally or one that was used in bestiality],

and

how is it that

here

you say that the intent of the verse,

“from”

the flock, is

to include

something that comes from the entire flock and not from only part of the flock!?

Rabbi Mani said: Here too,

we expound from the verse

“from”

the flock

to exclude—

that it does not come

as a Passover offering

when it is two years old,

and likewise

and that it does not come as a female.

And thus we expound this verse: “From” is a limitation that teaches that it refers to something that does not come as a female or as a two-year-old, whereas “flock” refers to something that includes the entire flock, both sheep and goats.

Rav Hanan of Baghdad raised an objection

to the father of Shmuel:

And can you really say that when this verse

“And if his offering is from the flock”

is written, it is written with regard to the surplus of the Passover offering?

But since it is written

in the continuation of the passage,

“If it is a sheep

he offers,” and afterward it also says,

“And if it is a goat

his offering,”

by inference

you learn

that it is not with regard to the surplus of the Passover offering that it is written,

but rather to inform us of the law of offering peace offerings in general, for with regard to the surplus of the Passover offering it is obvious that it comes from sheep and goats, as is stated in the passage concerning the Passover offering!?

And we answer: In fact, this passage deals with the surplus of the Passover offering, and as for what is said in it, “If it is a sheep he offers,”

that

verse

is needed for that which was taught in a baraita: “

If it is

a sheep

he offers”—it is superfluous, for it was already said, “And if it is from the flock,” and finally, “And if it is a goat his offering.” And since there are only two species in the flock, sheep and goats, once it is written at the end, “And if it is a goat,” it necessarily follows that “from the flock,” which was written at the beginning, refers to a sheep. If so, why did it return and write [in addition to “from the flock”], “If it is a sheep”

to include the Passover offering with regard to the fat tail,

so that the fat tail of the Passover offering is offered together with its other sacrificial portions?

And they further expounded in this baraita:

When it says,

“If it is a sheep” -

the verse comes

to include a Passover offering whose year has passed [whose first year has passed and which has become disqualified from being offered as a Passover offering] ,

[whose first year has passed and which is disqualified from being offered as a Paschal offering] ,

and

also to include

peace offerings that come on account of the Passover offering [the festival peace offering of the fourteenth, which comes in order to eat it before eating the Passover offering, with the aim that he eat the Passover offering “when satiated,” when he is full and not hungry]

[the offering of the fourteenth of Nisan, brought so that it may be eaten before eating the Paschal offering, in order that one eat the Paschal offering “while satiated,” when he is full and not hungry]

for all the laws of peace offerings —

that they require leaning, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh , unlike the Passover offering itself, which has neither leaning, nor libations, nor the waving of the breast and thigh.

And they further expounded in this baraita:

When it says,

“And if it is a goat

his offering”—

the subject was interrupted,

and thereby

it taught with regard to the goat that it does not require a fat tail,

for the fat tail of a goat is not offered together with the sacrificial portions, but is permitted for eating.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

when

this

law—that a Passover offering whose year has passed is offered as a peace offering and not as a Passover offering—

from here [from “If it is a sheep”]

[from “If he brings a sheep”],

is it derived?

But it is the “surplus of the Passover offering,” and the surplus of the Passover offering

is derived from the father of Shmuel!

For the father of Shmuel said [above],

[above],

“And if his offering is from the flock, for a peace-offering sacrifice,”

something that comes from the flock

alone—and this is the surplus of the Passover offering—

shall be for a peace-offering sacrifice?!

And we answer: But

still,

even according to your reasoning it is difficult, for the exposition of the father of Shmuel is also superfluous, since

it is derived from Rav Nahman who said it in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha.

For Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: From where do we know that the surplus of the Passover offering is offered as a peace offering? As it is stated,

“And you shall slaughter the Passover offering to the Lord

your God, flock and cattle,”

and the word “cattle” is not stated concerning the body of the Passover offering, for

does not the Passover offering come only from sheep and goats? Rather,

the verse comes to teach us—

from here that the surplus of the Passover offering shall be

offered

for something that comes

also

from the flock

and also

from cattle, and what is it?—

peace offerings,

which come from the entire flock and cattle, both males and females.

Rather,

it is necessarily necessary to say that we do not learn from any one of these verses alone, but

three verses are written [namely, “If from the flock,” “If it is a sheep,” and “And you shall slaughter the Passover offering”], and all of them were needed to teach with regard to the surplus of the Passover offering that it is offered as a peace offering—

[“If his offering is from the flock,” “If he brings a sheep,” and “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering”], and all of them are needed to teach that the surplus of a Paschal offering is offered as a peace offering—