Zevachim 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

sacrificial animals that are eaten may displace sacrificial animals that are eaten

and it thereby becomes a shelamim offering, which is eaten,

but sacrificial animals that are eaten may not displace sacrificial animals that are not eaten,

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

And we raise an objection: This answer is effective only if one slaughtered it for the sake of an ola offering, but it can still be objected that if one slaughtered it for the sake of a sin offering or a guilt offering, why should it not become a sin offering or a guilt offering?

Is that so? Are sin offerings and guilt offerings not eaten? -

Rather, this is what must be said:

sacrificial animals eaten by everyone

(the Paschal offering)

may displace sacrificial animals eaten by everyone

(a shelamim offering),

but sacrificial animals eaten by everyone may not displace sacrificial animals that are not eaten by everyone,

as sin offerings and guilt offerings are eaten only by male priests.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Avin said: Sacrificial animals of lesser sanctity may displace sacrificial animals of lesser sanctity

(as the Paschal offering and shelamim are offerings of lesser sanctity),

but sacrificial animals of lesser sanctity may not displace

an ola, sin offering, or guilt offering, which are

offerings of most sacred sanctity.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Savrin challenged this: Say—

if one slaughtered it for the sake of a tithe

animal,

let it be

an offering of

animal tithe,

and not a shelamim offering.

For what halakhic purpose?—

So that it would not require libations

(whereas a shelamim offering requires libations),

and so that one would be flogged for it for

“It shall not be redeemed”

if he sells it (as one is flogged for selling an animal tithe)!?

And we answer:

The verse says,

with regard to the animal tithe, an exclusion—

“The tenth shall be sacred.”

And the verse comes to teach us:

This,

which was designated as an animal tithe, alone shall be

an animal tithe

(which is exempt from libations, and one is flogged for selling it),

but no other

becomes

an animal tithe;

this excludes a case in which one slaughtered another offering for the sake of an animal tithe, as it does not become an animal tithe.

And we raise another objection:

Say that if one slaughtered it

the Paschal offering during the rest of the year

for the sake of

an offering of

a firstborn offering, let it become like a firstborn offering. For what halakhic purpose?—

So that it would not require libations, or alternatively, so that it would be given to the priests,

as is the law of a firstborn offering?

And we answer:

A firstborn offering as well is derived through a gzera shava,

“transferred”—

“transferred”—

it is derived from an animal tithe

(with regard to a firstborn offering it says, “You shall transfer every opening of the womb,” and with regard to an animal tithe it says, “Everything that passes under the staff”), teaching that the surplus of the Paschal offering becomes neither an animal tithe nor a firstborn offering.

And we raise another objection:

And say—

if one slaughtered it

the Paschal offering for the sake of an offering of

a substitute

of a Paschal offering [and some explain: for the sake of a substitute of an animal tithe]

let it become a substitute?

(The initial assumption is that even when one does not actually substitute one animal for another, but merely slaughters the Paschal offering for the sake of an offering that is a substitute for a Paschal offering, it is considered substitution.)

For what halakhic purpose?—

So that one would be flogged for it

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

And we answer:

Mar Zutra, son of Rabbi Naḥman, said:

Since he is not bringing an additional unconsecrated animal and substituting it for a consecrated animal, but merely wishes to impose upon an offering the status 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 derive:

This,

which involves bringing an unconsecrated animal and substituting it for a consecrated animal, is considered

a substitute, but no other

(another offering slaughtered for the sake of a substitute) is considered

a substitute.

And we raise another objection:

And say—

if one slaughtered it

the Paschal offering

for the sake of a thanks offering, let it become like a thanks offering.

For what halakhic purpose?—

So that it would require loaves,

as is the law of a thanks offering.

And we answer:

Is there such a thing: The Paschal offering itself does not require loaves, while its surplus

(when it is slaughtered after its proper time and its name is uprooted from it)

requires loaves?

And the Gemara expresses astonishment at this answer:

If so,

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

now too

it should be difficult for you to understand how the surplus of the Paschal offering can be sacrificed as a shelamim offering:

Is there such a thing: The Paschal offering itself does not require libations, while its surplus,

which is sacrificed as a shelamim offering,

requires libations?

And therefore the Gemara explains:

This is what we are saying:

Is there anything for which the leftover of the todah itself [

such as one who designated a todah offering and it was lost, and then designated another todah offering, after which the first was found: he brings the first together with bread, while the second, which is the “leftover of a todah,” is exempt from bringing bread ]

does not require bread, whereas the leftover that comes from elsewhere [

that is, the leftover of the Paschal offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a todah ]

does require bread?

And therefore it is not applicable to say that if one slaughters the leftover of the Paschal offering for the sake of a todah, it becomes a todah.

Rav Yemar, son of Rav Hillel, raised an objection

to Avuh of Shmuel, who earlier learned that the leftover of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a shelamim from the verse, “And if his offering is from the flock, for a sacrifice of shelamim to the Lord,” and expounded: “Something that comes from the flock shall be for a sacrifice of shelamim,” which refers to the Paschal offering:

And from where is it known that the verse speaks only of “something that comes from the flock”

in the case of the leftover of a Paschal offering?

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

since that offering also comes only from the flock,

and the verse

comes to say that the leftover of a guilt offering must have its name removed by slaughtering it for the sake of a shelamim [although the leftover of a guilt offering is sacrificed as an olah, the intent of the verse is that one must remove its original designation by slaughtering it for the sake of another offering. Once its designation has been removed, the designation of an olah takes effect upon it, despite the fact that it was slaughtered for the sake of a shelamim. Tosafot].

And we answer:

Rava said: The verse states, “

And if his offering is from the flock

for a sacrifice of shelamim,”

and we expound that this refers specifically to

something common to all the flock—

namely, the Paschal offering, which may come either from sheep or from goats, unlike a guilt offering, which may not come from goats.

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

that when the verse says

“from”,

the intent of the verse is

to exclude [

for example, “from cattle”—but not all cattle—to exclude an animal that copulated or was the object of bestiality ],

and

how

here

do you say that the intent of the verse’s expression

“from”

the flock

is to include

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

Rabbi Mani said: Here too,

we expound from the verse

“from”

the flock

to exclude—

that a

Paschal offering

does not come when it is two years old,

and likewise

that it does not come as a female.

And this is how we expound the verse: “From” is an exclusion, teaching that it speaks of something that does not come as a female or as a two-year-old; whereas “flock” refers to something encompassing the entire flock, both sheep and goats.

Rav Hanan of Baghdad raised an objection

to Avuh of Shmuel:

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 leftover of the Paschal offering?

But since it is written

later in the passage,

“If he offers a sheep

as his offering,” and afterward it also says

“And if a goat

is his offering,”

by inference

you learn

that it is not written with regard to the leftover of a Paschal offering,

but rather to teach the law of sacrificing shelamim in general. For with regard to the leftover of a Paschal offering, it is obvious that it comes from sheep and goats, as stated in the passage concerning the Paschal offering?!

And we answer: In truth, this passage is discussing the leftover of a Paschal offering. And as for what is stated in it, “If he offers a sheep,”

that

verse

is needed for that which was taught in a beraita:

“If

a sheep

he offers”—this is superfluous, since it has already been stated, “And if it is from the flock,” and ultimately, “And if a goat is his offering.” Since there are only two species in the flock, sheep and goats, once it is ultimately written, “And if a goat,” it necessarily follows that “from the flock,” written at the beginning, refers to a sheep. If so, why did the verse repeat and write [in addition to “from the flock”], “If a sheep”—

to include the Paschal offering with regard to its tail—

so that the tail of the Paschal offering is sacrificed together with its other sacrificial parts.

The beraita further expounded:

When it says,

“If a sheep” -

the verse comes

to include a Paschal offering whose second year has passed [

whose first year has passed, rendering it unfit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering ] ,

and

likewise to include

a shelamim that comes on account of the Paschal offering [

the festival offering of the fourteenth, which is brought so that it may be eaten before eating the Paschal offering, in order that he eat the Paschal offering “when satisfied,” when he is satiated and not hungry ]

with regard to all the mitzvot of a shelamim —

so that it requires semikha, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh , unlike the Paschal offering itself, which has neither semikha, nor libations, nor the waving of the breast and thigh.

The beraita further expounded:

When it says,

“And if a goat

is his offering”—

the subject is interrupted,

and thereby

it teaches concerning the goat that it does not require a tail—

the tail of the goat is not sacrificed together with the sacrificial parts; rather, it is permitted for eating.

And we ask:

And

is it the case

that this,

the law that a Paschal offering whose second year has passed is sacrificed as a shelamim and not as a Paschal offering,

is derived from here [

from “If a sheep” ]

? But it is the leftover of a Paschal offering, and the law of the leftover of a Paschal offering

But it is the “surplus of a Paschal offering,” and the surplus of a Paschal offering

is derived from Avuh of Shmuel!

For Avuh of Shmuel said [

earlier ]

“And if his offering is from the flock, for a sacrifice of shelamim”,

something that comes only from the flock—

which is the leftover of a Paschal offering—

shall be for a sacrifice of shelamim?!

And we answer: But

still,

even according to your reasoning, this is difficult, because Avuh of Shmuel’s exposition is also superfluous, since

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

For Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: From where is it known that the leftover of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a shelamim? As it is stated,

“And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord

your God, flock and cattle”.

The word “cattle” was not stated with regard to the Paschal offering itself, because

does a Paschal offering not come only from sheep and goats? Rather,

the verse comes to teach us:

from here it is derived that the leftover of a Paschal offering shall be

sacrificed

as something that comes

also

from the flock

and also

from cattle—and what is it?—

shelamim,

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

Rather,

it is necessarily necessary to say that one does not learn this from any one of these verses alone, but rather

three verses are written [

namely, “If it is from the flock,” “If a sheep,” and “You shall sacrifice the Paschal offering” ], and all of them are necessary to teach that the leftover of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a shelamim—