פסחים 97:1 — Soncino English Talmud

You might think that it is also thus before Passover, therefore it is stated, ‘it’: ‘it’ is offered [as a peace-offering], but the substitute of a Passover-offering is not offered [as such] — How is it meant? If we say that it was found before slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it before slaughtering, then it is obvious! Why do I require a verse? Hence it must surely apply to where it was found before the slaughtering, ‘while he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering. Thus the refutation of Raba is indeed a refutation. Samuel said: Whatever must be left to perish in the case of a sin-offering, is brought as a peace-offering in the case of a Passover, and whatever must be left to graze in the case of a sin-offering, must also be left to graze in the case of a Passover. While R. Johanan said: No Passover is brought as a peace-offering save that which is found after the slaughtering, but not [if it is found] before the slaughtering. To this R. Joseph demurred: Now is this a general rule? Surely there is the sin-offering more than a year old, which goes forth to pasture, for R. Simeon b. Lakish said: A sin-offering more than a year old, we regard as though it stood in a cemetery, and it must be left to graze; whereas a Passover in such a case is brought as a peace-offering, for it was taught: ‘[If he bring] a lamb [etc.]’: this is to include the Passover-offering, in respect of its fat tail. When it is stated, ‘If [he bring] a lamb,’ this is to include [an animal] more than a year old [dedicated for] a Passover and a peace-offering which comes In virtue of a Passover-offering in respect of all the regulations of a peace-offering, [viz.,] that they require laying [of the hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Again, when it [Scripture] states, ‘and if [his offering be] a goat’, it breaks across the subject and teaches of a goat that it does not require [the burning of its] fat tail [on the altar]! — Said he to him, Samuel spoke only of lost [sacrifices], but he did not say it of rejected [animals]. Yet is [this principle] possible [in the case of] a lost [sacrifice]? Surely an [animal which was] lost at the time of separating [another], in the view of the Rabbis goes to pasture [until it receives a blemish], for we learned: If he set apart [an animal as] his sinoffering and it was lost, and he [then] set apart another in its stead, and [then] the first was found again, and behold! both stand [before us], [any] one of them may be sacrificed, while the other must die: this is Rabbi's ruling. But the Sages maintain: No sin-offering must die except one found after its owner has been atoned for. Hence [if found again] before its owner was atoned for, it must graze. Whereas in the case of a Passover-offering, if it was lost and found again after midday [but] before the slaughtering [of the second], it is brought as a peace-offering? — Samuel agrees with Rabbi, who maintained: A lost animal goes forth to perish. But every lost [sin-offering], according to Rabbi, is left to die, whereas in the case of a Passover-offering, if it was lost before midday and found again before midday it must be left to graze?- [If found] before midday it is not [regarded as lost], in accordance with Raba. For Raba said: A loss at night is not designated a loss . Then according to Rabbi, how is it possible that [a sin.offering] should be left to graze?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:That the substitute of a Passover which is found before Passover is offered as a peace-offering.
^ᵇnote:He seems to translate, If it (hu) is a lamb (which) he brings etc. , and treats the ‘it’ as a limitation.
^ᶜnote:this does not mean that where the Passover itself is offered as a peace-offering its substitute is not, but that there is a substitute of the Passover which is not offered as a peace-offering.
^ᵈnote:that it cannot be offered itself’, having been rejected as explained in n. 6 on the Mishnah.
^ᵉnote:Here we cannot answer that the verse is a mere support, as above, for in that case what is the purpose of the verse?
^ᶠnote:There are five cases of the former: (i) the offspring of a sin-offering; (ii) the substitute of a sin-offering; (iii) a sin-offering whose owner died; (iv) a sin-offering which was lost, and refound after its owner had made atonement with another; and (v) a sin-offering more than a year old. All these must be allowed to perish. It is now assumed that all these, in the case of a Passover (the first of course is excluded, the Passover being a male), are brought as a peace-offering.
^ᵍnote:until it receives a blemish, when it can be redeemed.-It is discussed anon which these are.
^ʰnote:Until it receives a blemish.
^ⁱnote:Thus inaccessible to the priest for sacrifice-i.e., it cannot be sacrificed.
^ʲnote:This is the point of the objection.
^ᵏnote:V. supra 96b for notes.
^ˡnote:I.e,, iv in p. 521, n. 7.
^ᵐnote:If a sin-offering was lost and another consecrated, and then the first was found again before the second was sacrificed, so that the first was a lost animal only when the second was set apart, but not when it was sacrificed.
^ⁿnote:By another offering.
^ᵒnote:Even if another had been separated in its place.
^ᵖnote:If a sin-offering was lost at night, and another was separated in its stead, and the first was found by the morning, even on Rabbi's view It is not regarded as having been lost, since it could not have been sacrificed at night in any case, and therefore it goes forth to pasture. By the same reasoning, if the lost Passover-offering is found before midday, it is not regarded as having been lost, since it could not have been sacrificed before midday.