## Pesachim Daf 97a

###### Pesachim 97a:1
[Pesachim 97a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:1)

יָכוֹל אַף לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הוּא״ — הוּא קָרֵב, וְאֵין תְּמוּרַת הַפֶּסַח קְרֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “It,”** to emphasize that **it,** a valid Paschal lamb, **is sacrificed, and the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed.**


###### Pesachim 97a:2
[Pesachim 97a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:2)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁנִּמְצָא קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה וְהֵמִיר בּוֹ קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה — פְּשִׁיטָא! לְמָה לִי קְרָא? אֶלָּא לָאו, שֶׁנִּמְצָא קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה וְהֵמִיר בּוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Pesachim 97a:3
[Pesachim 97a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:3)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה — בַּפֶּסַח קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים, וְכֹל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת רוֹעֶה — בַּפֶּסַח נָמֵי רוֹעֶה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין הַפֶּסַח קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצָא אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Yoḥanan 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.


###### Pesachim 97a:4
[Pesachim 97a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וּכְלָלָא הוּא? וַהֲרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, דְּלִרְעִיָּה אָזְלָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: חַטָּאת שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ — רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְרוֹעֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef strongly objects to** Shmuel’s statement: **Is that an** established **principle** in every possible circumstance? **Isn’t** 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.


###### Pesachim 97a:5
[Pesachim 97a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:5)

וְאִילּוּ בְּפֶסַח כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים, דְּתַנְיָא: ״כֶּשֶׂב״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפֶּסַח לְאַלְיָה, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִם כֶּשֶׂב״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפֶּסַח שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ וּשְׁלָמִים הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת פֶּסַח לְכׇל מִצְוַת שְׁלָמִים, שֶׁטְּעוּנִים סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִם עֵז״ — הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן, לִימֵּד עַל הָעֵז שֶׁאֵין טָעוּן אַלְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, a Paschal lamb in a case like this is sacrificed as a peace-offering, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: The word **“lamb”** comes **to include the Paschal lamb** in the requirement that **the fat tail** be sacrificed on the altar. **When it says: “If** he brings **a lamb,”** 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: **“And if** his offering is a **she-goat”** (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.


###### Pesachim 97a:6
[Pesachim 97a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, בַּאֲבוּדִין. בִּדְחוּיִין לָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Pesachim 97a:7
[Pesachim 97a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:7)

וְאָבוּד מִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? וַהֲרֵי אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה, לְרַבָּנַן, דְּלִרְעִיָּה אָזְלָא. דִּתְנַן: הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת — אַחַת מֵהֶן תִּקְרַב וּשְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַטָּאת מֵתָה אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים. הָא קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים — רוֹעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its line of questioning: With regard to **lost** sacrifices **do you find** Shmuel’s 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.**


###### Pesachim 97a:8
[Pesachim 97a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:8)

וְאִילּוּ בְּפֶסַח, הֵיכָא דְּאָבַד וְנִמְצָא אַחַר חֲצוֹת קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה — קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים. שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר אֲבוּדָה לְמִיתָה אָזְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s 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.**


###### Pesachim 97a:9
[Pesachim 97a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:9)

וְהָא כֹּל אֲבוּדָה לְרַבִּי מֵתָה, וְאִילּוּ בְּפֶסַח הֵיכָא דְּאָבַד קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְנִמְצָא קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת — רוֹעֶה! קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת לָאו אָבוּד הוּא, כִּדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אֲבֵידַת לַיְלָה לָאו שְׁמָהּ אֲבֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Pesachim 97a:10
[Pesachim 97a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/97a:10)

אֶלָּא, רוֹעָה לְרַבִּי הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s ruling with regard to any sin-offering that is left to graze.