Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 26, 2021 | 讬状讚 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her father Nahum Mayar ben Dovid Baer. Judge Norman Krivosha was a remarkable individual who, in the words of Mary Oliver, did far more than "simply visit this world". Yehi Zichro Baruch.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Pesachim 97

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Sigal Spitzer in honor of her mother in law, Abby Flamholz, “for inspiring me and the whole extended family to learn torah, especially daf yomi!” And by Deborah and Binyamin Radomsky in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of their son Betzalel Tzvi Radomsky ben Binyamin HaLevi and Devorah Rut. “We are so proud that he has started learning Daf Yomi this cycle.” And by Amy Cohn leilui nishmat her big sister Cindy Navah bat haRav Dov Chaim on her 16th yahrzeit. “She loved to learn Talmud with our father.” And for a refuah shleima for Benyomin Zev ben Chaya Miriam.

The mishna discussed a case of a Pesach sacrifice that got lost and another was taken in its place. What is the status of the original one if it is found, and what is the law regarding a replacement of the original one, temura. The laws depend on the time it was found. There are two versions of Rava concerning cases where the original animal was found before the second one was slaughtered but the substitution was after. What is the status of the substituted one? Shmuel says that in a case where an animal designated for a sin offering would be left to die, a Pesach in that same situation would be brought as a peace offering. And when a sin offering it left to graze, the Pesach will also be send to graze. The gemara raises some questions against this statement and explains how his statement could be understood.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 拽专讘 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转 讛驻住讞 拽专讬讘讛


One might have thought that even a substitute Paschal lamb that was found before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb should have the same status, and it should be permitted to sacrifice such a lamb as a peace-offering. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t,鈥 to emphasize that it, a valid Paschal lamb, is sacrificed, and the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖谞诪爪讗 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讛诪讬专 讘讜 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖谞诪爪讗 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讛诪讬专 讘讜 讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗


What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say it is a case in which the lamb is found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution before the slaughter of the replacement, it is obvious; why do I need a specific verse to teach this halakha? Rather, is it not addressing a case in which the original lamb was found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution after the slaughter of the replacement, and the baraita ruled that the substitute lamb may not be sacrificed as a peace-offering, in opposition to the ruling of Rava? The Gemara concludes that the refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his opinion is rejected according to this version.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 专讜注讛 讘驻住讞 谞诪讬 专讜注讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗


Shmuel stated a principle pertaining to the halakhot of offerings: With regard to any animal that was consecrated as an offering and becomes unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition would be placed in isolation for it to die, meaning that it would be caused to die, if it is a Paschal lamb in that condition it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And with regard to any animal that becomes unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition is left to graze until it develops a blemish, if it is a Paschal lamb it is also left to graze. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when the lost lamb was found after the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, but if it was found before the slaughter, there is no instance in which it is brought as a peace-offering.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 讚诇专注讬讛 讗讝诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注讜诪讚转 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜专讜注讛


Rav Yosef strongly objects to Shmuel鈥檚 statement: Is that an established principle in every possible circumstance? Isn鈥檛 there the case of a sin-offering whose first year has passed and is therefore no longer fit to be offered as a sin-offering, which goes to graze until it develops a blemish? As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A sin-offering whose first year has passed, it is viewed as though it were standing in a cemetery where a priest may not enter in order to retrieve it; therefore, it grazes until it develops a blemish. The animal is then sold and its sanctity transferred to the proceeds of the sale, which are used to purchase an animal for a peace-offering.


讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讻砖讘 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇讗诇讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讻砖讘 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻住讞 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 诇讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬诐 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注讝 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛注讝 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讗诇讬讛


However, a Paschal lamb in a case like this is sacrificed as a peace-offering, as it was taught in a baraita: The word 鈥渓amb鈥 comes to include the Paschal lamb in the requirement that the fat tail be sacrificed on the altar. When it says: 鈥淚f he brings a lamb,鈥 it comes to include a lamb consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed and peace-offerings that come due to a Paschal lamb. These are considered peace-offerings rather than Paschal lambs, and they are included in all the laws of peace-offerings in that they require leaning and libations and the waving of the breast and thigh. When it says later: 鈥淎nd if his offering is a she-goat鈥 (Leviticus 3:12), it interrupted the previous matter of the halakhot of sheep brought as peace-offerings and began a new discussion in order to teach that the offering of a she-goat does not require the fat tail to be offered on the altar. This baraita teaches that an animal consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed is offered as a peace-offering and is not left to graze until it develops a blemish.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讘讜讚讬谉 讘讚讞讜讬讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专


He said to him: When Shmuel stated his principle, it was specifically with regard to Paschal lambs that were lost; he did not state his principle with regard to Paschal lambs that were deferred because they had become unfit for use.


讜讗讘讜讚 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讜讛专讬 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇专注讬讛 讗讝诇讗 讚转谞谉 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 转拽专讘 讜砖谞讬讛 转诪讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗转 诇讗讞专 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 拽讜讚诐 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐 专讜注讛


The Gemara continues its line of questioning: With regard to lost sacrifices do you find Shmuel鈥檚 principle to be correct? But what about the case of a sin-offering that was already lost at the time of the separation of a replacement to take its place, and the original animal was found before the second was sacrificed? According to the Rabbis, this animal goes for grazing, as we learned in a mishna: If one separated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place and the first was found, and therefore both are available, then one of them, whichever he chooses, is sacrificed, as he may bring only one offering, and the second shall be caused to die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: A sin-offering is caused to die only when it is found after the owners gained atonement through another offering. Therefore, according to the Rabbis, if the animal was found before the owners gained atonement, it grazes.


讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讘讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讚讛 诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗


And yet with regard to the Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is found after midday before the slaughter, it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Consequently, Shmuel鈥檚 principle is not correct even with regard to offerings that were lost. The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a lost sin-offering is put into isolation and goes to its death.


讜讛讗 讻诇 讗讘讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 诪转讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讘讚 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜谞诪爪讗 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 专讜注讛 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 诇讗讜 讗讘讜讚 讛讜讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讘讬讚转 诇讬诇讛 诇讗讜 砖诪讛 讗讘讬讚讛


The Gemara asks: But every lost sin-offering is placed in isolation and left to die according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas with regard to the Paschal lamb, when it was lost before midday and then found before midday but after a replacement animal had been separated, it grazes. The Gemara responds: A Paschal lamb lost before midday is not considered lost, in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: A sin-offering lost at night and found by the morning is not called lost, and the halakhot of lost sin-offerings do not apply because a sin-offering cannot be sacrificed at night in any case. Similarly, if a Paschal lamb is lost before midday on the eve of Passover, since it could not be sacrificed at that time, it does not attain the status of a lost sacrifice even if one separates a replacement. In such a case, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would concede that the original animal would be left to graze rather than being left to die.


讗诇讗 专讜注讛 诇专讘讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛


The Gemara asks: But if so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, under what circumstances can the case of a sin-offering that is left to graze be found? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that every lost sin-offering is left to die and none is left to graze; therefore, there is no significance to Shmuel鈥檚 ruling with regard to any sin-offering that is left to graze.


讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜砖谞讬讛 转专注讛


The Gemara answers: Even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there is a case in which a sin-offering is left to graze, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, as Rabbi Oshaya said: If one separated two sin-offerings from the outset as a guarantee, so that if one is lost he may gain atonement with the other, he gains atonement with one of them and the second is left to graze.


讜讛讗 讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪转讜转


The Gemara challenges this: But with regard to a Paschal lamb, in a case like this the second animal would be sacrificed as a peace-offering. This, too, does not follow Shmuel鈥檚 principle. Rather, it can be explained that Shmuel held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said there are five sin-offerings that are left in isolation to die, including all those which are lost or deferred.


讜讛讗 专讜注讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇诇 砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讞讚讗 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐


The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Shimon does not concede in any case at all that a sin-offering is left to graze, as he holds that any sin-offering which is deferred for any reason is left to die, while Shmuel referred to sin-offerings left to graze. The Gemara answers: Shmuel also said only one case. He did not mention sin-offerings that are left to graze; he said only that with regard to any offering that became unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition would be left to die, if it is a Paschal lamb in that condition it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.


讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 砖讞讬讟讛 拽讘注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讞爪讜转 拽讘注


The Gemara asks: And what does he teach us with this statement beyond what was taught explicitly in the mishna? The Gemara answers that Shmuel鈥檚 statement was meant to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when it is found after slaughter, but if it is found before the slaughter, no, it is not sacrificed as a peace-offering. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan held that the slaughter determines when a sacrifice is deferred; therefore, Shmuel teaches us that in his opinion midday determines whether it is considered deferred, even if the other animal has not yet been slaughtered, because midday is the time when it may be slaughtered. Consequently, if the Paschal lamb is still lost at midday, it may be offered as a peace-offering when it is found.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讘讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 拽讘注


The Gemara presents another version of the discussion, beginning from the proof that the halakhot of a sin-offering cannot be equated to those of a Paschal lamb because with regard to a Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is lost and then found after midday but before the slaughter of its replacement, it is offered as a peace-offering, which is not consistent with Shmuel鈥檚 principle. The Gemara answers: According to this version, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, who said that the slaughter of the replacement determines the status of a lost offering; therefore, if the original animal is found before the slaughter of the second animal, even after midday, it is not considered to have been lost.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注诇讛 讗讬谉 讛驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 砖讞讬讟讛 拽讘注 诪讻诇诇 讚砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 讞爪讜转 拽讘注


The Gemara asks: But from the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan said about this halakha that a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when it was found after the slaughter of the replacement, but if it was found before the slaughter, no, it is not, apparently he held that the slaughter determines whether the offering is considered lost. Since there is a dispute about this point, this proves by inference that Shmuel holds that midday determines this status, so that any animal lost at midday is considered lost and is sacrificed as a peace-offering, even if it is found before the slaughter. That does not accord with this second version of Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.


讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讚讛 诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗 讜讛讗 讻诇 讗讘讜讚讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪转讬谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讘讚 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜谞诪爪讗 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 专讜注讛 拽住讘专 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 诇讗讜 讗讘讜讚 讛讜讗 讜拽住讘专 讞爪讜转 拽讘注:


Rather, Shmuel鈥檚 statement must be explained differently: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a lost sin-offering always goes to its death. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi all lost sin-offerings are left in isolation to die, whereas with regard to the Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is lost before midday and found before midday it is left to graze and is not sacrificed as a peace-offering. The Gemara answers: He held that a Paschal lamb that is lost before midday is not considered lost because the time for slaughtering the Paschal lamb has not yet arrived, and he held that midday determines the status of a lost Paschal lamb, not the time of the actual slaughter.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇驻住讞讜 讗讜 讝讻专 讘谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诇砖诇诪讬诐


MISHNA: In the case of one who separates a female animal for his Paschal lamb although the Torah requires a male, or a male that is in its second year although a Paschal lamb must be an animal that is in its first year, the animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish and becomes unfit, and it is then sold and its money is used for free-will offerings or peace-offerings.

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her father Nahum Mayar ben Dovid Baer. Judge Norman Krivosha was a remarkable individual who, in the words of Mary Oliver, did far more than "simply visit this world". Yehi Zichro Baruch.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 95-101- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will be completing the 9th chapter of Pesachim and discussing the differences between Pesach and Pesach Sheni,...

Pesachim 97

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 97

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 拽专讘 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转 讛驻住讞 拽专讬讘讛


One might have thought that even a substitute Paschal lamb that was found before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb should have the same status, and it should be permitted to sacrifice such a lamb as a peace-offering. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t,鈥 to emphasize that it, a valid Paschal lamb, is sacrificed, and the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖谞诪爪讗 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讛诪讬专 讘讜 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖谞诪爪讗 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讛诪讬专 讘讜 讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗


What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say it is a case in which the lamb is found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution before the slaughter of the replacement, it is obvious; why do I need a specific verse to teach this halakha? Rather, is it not addressing a case in which the original lamb was found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution after the slaughter of the replacement, and the baraita ruled that the substitute lamb may not be sacrificed as a peace-offering, in opposition to the ruling of Rava? The Gemara concludes that the refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his opinion is rejected according to this version.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 专讜注讛 讘驻住讞 谞诪讬 专讜注讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗


Shmuel stated a principle pertaining to the halakhot of offerings: With regard to any animal that was consecrated as an offering and becomes unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition would be placed in isolation for it to die, meaning that it would be caused to die, if it is a Paschal lamb in that condition it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And with regard to any animal that becomes unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition is left to graze until it develops a blemish, if it is a Paschal lamb it is also left to graze. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when the lost lamb was found after the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, but if it was found before the slaughter, there is no instance in which it is brought as a peace-offering.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 讚诇专注讬讛 讗讝诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注讜诪讚转 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜专讜注讛


Rav Yosef strongly objects to Shmuel鈥檚 statement: Is that an established principle in every possible circumstance? Isn鈥檛 there the case of a sin-offering whose first year has passed and is therefore no longer fit to be offered as a sin-offering, which goes to graze until it develops a blemish? As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A sin-offering whose first year has passed, it is viewed as though it were standing in a cemetery where a priest may not enter in order to retrieve it; therefore, it grazes until it develops a blemish. The animal is then sold and its sanctity transferred to the proceeds of the sale, which are used to purchase an animal for a peace-offering.


讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讻砖讘 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇讗诇讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讻砖讘 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻住讞 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 诇讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬诐 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注讝 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛注讝 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讗诇讬讛


However, a Paschal lamb in a case like this is sacrificed as a peace-offering, as it was taught in a baraita: The word 鈥渓amb鈥 comes to include the Paschal lamb in the requirement that the fat tail be sacrificed on the altar. When it says: 鈥淚f he brings a lamb,鈥 it comes to include a lamb consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed and peace-offerings that come due to a Paschal lamb. These are considered peace-offerings rather than Paschal lambs, and they are included in all the laws of peace-offerings in that they require leaning and libations and the waving of the breast and thigh. When it says later: 鈥淎nd if his offering is a she-goat鈥 (Leviticus 3:12), it interrupted the previous matter of the halakhot of sheep brought as peace-offerings and began a new discussion in order to teach that the offering of a she-goat does not require the fat tail to be offered on the altar. This baraita teaches that an animal consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed is offered as a peace-offering and is not left to graze until it develops a blemish.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讘讜讚讬谉 讘讚讞讜讬讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专


He said to him: When Shmuel stated his principle, it was specifically with regard to Paschal lambs that were lost; he did not state his principle with regard to Paschal lambs that were deferred because they had become unfit for use.


讜讗讘讜讚 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讜讛专讬 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇专注讬讛 讗讝诇讗 讚转谞谉 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 转拽专讘 讜砖谞讬讛 转诪讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗转 诇讗讞专 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 拽讜讚诐 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐 专讜注讛


The Gemara continues its line of questioning: With regard to lost sacrifices do you find Shmuel鈥檚 principle to be correct? But what about the case of a sin-offering that was already lost at the time of the separation of a replacement to take its place, and the original animal was found before the second was sacrificed? According to the Rabbis, this animal goes for grazing, as we learned in a mishna: If one separated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place and the first was found, and therefore both are available, then one of them, whichever he chooses, is sacrificed, as he may bring only one offering, and the second shall be caused to die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: A sin-offering is caused to die only when it is found after the owners gained atonement through another offering. Therefore, according to the Rabbis, if the animal was found before the owners gained atonement, it grazes.


讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讘讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讚讛 诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗


And yet with regard to the Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is found after midday before the slaughter, it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Consequently, Shmuel鈥檚 principle is not correct even with regard to offerings that were lost. The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a lost sin-offering is put into isolation and goes to its death.


讜讛讗 讻诇 讗讘讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 诪转讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讘讚 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜谞诪爪讗 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 专讜注讛 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 诇讗讜 讗讘讜讚 讛讜讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讘讬讚转 诇讬诇讛 诇讗讜 砖诪讛 讗讘讬讚讛


The Gemara asks: But every lost sin-offering is placed in isolation and left to die according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas with regard to the Paschal lamb, when it was lost before midday and then found before midday but after a replacement animal had been separated, it grazes. The Gemara responds: A Paschal lamb lost before midday is not considered lost, in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: A sin-offering lost at night and found by the morning is not called lost, and the halakhot of lost sin-offerings do not apply because a sin-offering cannot be sacrificed at night in any case. Similarly, if a Paschal lamb is lost before midday on the eve of Passover, since it could not be sacrificed at that time, it does not attain the status of a lost sacrifice even if one separates a replacement. In such a case, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would concede that the original animal would be left to graze rather than being left to die.


讗诇讗 专讜注讛 诇专讘讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛


The Gemara asks: But if so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, under what circumstances can the case of a sin-offering that is left to graze be found? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that every lost sin-offering is left to die and none is left to graze; therefore, there is no significance to Shmuel鈥檚 ruling with regard to any sin-offering that is left to graze.


讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜砖谞讬讛 转专注讛


The Gemara answers: Even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there is a case in which a sin-offering is left to graze, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, as Rabbi Oshaya said: If one separated two sin-offerings from the outset as a guarantee, so that if one is lost he may gain atonement with the other, he gains atonement with one of them and the second is left to graze.


讜讛讗 讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪转讜转


The Gemara challenges this: But with regard to a Paschal lamb, in a case like this the second animal would be sacrificed as a peace-offering. This, too, does not follow Shmuel鈥檚 principle. Rather, it can be explained that Shmuel held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said there are five sin-offerings that are left in isolation to die, including all those which are lost or deferred.


讜讛讗 专讜注讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇诇 砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讞讚讗 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐


The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Shimon does not concede in any case at all that a sin-offering is left to graze, as he holds that any sin-offering which is deferred for any reason is left to die, while Shmuel referred to sin-offerings left to graze. The Gemara answers: Shmuel also said only one case. He did not mention sin-offerings that are left to graze; he said only that with regard to any offering that became unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition would be left to die, if it is a Paschal lamb in that condition it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.


讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 砖讞讬讟讛 拽讘注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讞爪讜转 拽讘注


The Gemara asks: And what does he teach us with this statement beyond what was taught explicitly in the mishna? The Gemara answers that Shmuel鈥檚 statement was meant to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when it is found after slaughter, but if it is found before the slaughter, no, it is not sacrificed as a peace-offering. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan held that the slaughter determines when a sacrifice is deferred; therefore, Shmuel teaches us that in his opinion midday determines whether it is considered deferred, even if the other animal has not yet been slaughtered, because midday is the time when it may be slaughtered. Consequently, if the Paschal lamb is still lost at midday, it may be offered as a peace-offering when it is found.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讘讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 拽讘注


The Gemara presents another version of the discussion, beginning from the proof that the halakhot of a sin-offering cannot be equated to those of a Paschal lamb because with regard to a Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is lost and then found after midday but before the slaughter of its replacement, it is offered as a peace-offering, which is not consistent with Shmuel鈥檚 principle. The Gemara answers: According to this version, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, who said that the slaughter of the replacement determines the status of a lost offering; therefore, if the original animal is found before the slaughter of the second animal, even after midday, it is not considered to have been lost.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注诇讛 讗讬谉 讛驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 砖讞讬讟讛 拽讘注 诪讻诇诇 讚砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 讞爪讜转 拽讘注


The Gemara asks: But from the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan said about this halakha that a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when it was found after the slaughter of the replacement, but if it was found before the slaughter, no, it is not, apparently he held that the slaughter determines whether the offering is considered lost. Since there is a dispute about this point, this proves by inference that Shmuel holds that midday determines this status, so that any animal lost at midday is considered lost and is sacrificed as a peace-offering, even if it is found before the slaughter. That does not accord with this second version of Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.


讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讚讛 诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗 讜讛讗 讻诇 讗讘讜讚讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪转讬谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讘讚 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜谞诪爪讗 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 专讜注讛 拽住讘专 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 诇讗讜 讗讘讜讚 讛讜讗 讜拽住讘专 讞爪讜转 拽讘注:


Rather, Shmuel鈥檚 statement must be explained differently: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a lost sin-offering always goes to its death. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi all lost sin-offerings are left in isolation to die, whereas with regard to the Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is lost before midday and found before midday it is left to graze and is not sacrificed as a peace-offering. The Gemara answers: He held that a Paschal lamb that is lost before midday is not considered lost because the time for slaughtering the Paschal lamb has not yet arrived, and he held that midday determines the status of a lost Paschal lamb, not the time of the actual slaughter.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇驻住讞讜 讗讜 讝讻专 讘谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诇砖诇诪讬诐


MISHNA: In the case of one who separates a female animal for his Paschal lamb although the Torah requires a male, or a male that is in its second year although a Paschal lamb must be an animal that is in its first year, the animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish and becomes unfit, and it is then sold and its money is used for free-will offerings or peace-offerings.

Scroll To Top