QUESTION: The Gemara discusses at length the statement of Shmuel who said,
"Any animal which must be left to die when it is a Korban Chatas, is brought
as a Shelamim when it is a Korban Pesach. Any animal which must be left to
graze when it is a Korban Chatas, is also left to graze when it is a Korban
Pesach."
The Gemara questions Shmuel's statement from a case ("Avrah Shenasah") in
which we find that an animal which must graze if it was a Korban Chatas is
nevertheless brought as a Shelamim when it is a Korban Pesach, which
contradicts Shmuel's statement. The Gemara answers that Shmuel only stated
his rules in cases involving animals that were *lost*, but not in any other
cases of animals being invalidated from being brought as a Korban.
The Gemara later asks that we find no case of a lost animal which, when it
is a Korban Chatas, must be left to graze. The Gemara answers that we find
such a case when one designated two Korbanos (one as the Korban Chatas and
one as a back-up, or "Achrayus"), where the first is brought as a Chatas and
the second is left to graze. However, the Gemara asks that according to
Shmuel's statement, a Korban Pesach in the identical situation should also
be left to graze, but that is not so. In the identical case of the Korban
Pesach (when one designated two Korbanos, one for the Pesach and one as a
back-up), the second animal is brought as a Shelamim!
The Gemara answers that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon who says that even in
such a case the second Chatas must be left to die (and now it is consistent
with Shmuel's statement, for any animal that must die when it is a Chatas,
is brought as a Shelamim when it is a Korban Pesach).
RASHI points out that the Gemara could have asked that the Gemara earlier
established that Shmuel is only discussing cases of lost animals. The case
of designating two Korbanos ("Achrayus") is not a case of a lost animal!
Rashi explains that the Gemara had a different question to ask, and that is
why it did not ask that question. Yet a bit further down on the page, Rashi
seems to contradict himself regarding this point, as follows:
The Gemara asks that if Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon, why did he say that
"any animal which must be left to graze when it is a Korban Chatas, is also
left to graze when it is a Korban Pesach?" According to Rebbi Shimon, there
is no case of a Korban Chatas that is left to graze! The Gemara answers that
Shmuel himself never said this second part of his statement; he never
discussed animals that have to graze.
RASHI asks why was it necessary for the Gemara to say both points -- that
Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon, and that he never discussed animals that
must graze. Once the Gemara says that Shmuel never said the second part of
his statement, then he could also hold like Rebbi! (Rebbi holds that there
are some types of Chatas which must graze, but the identical types of Korban
Pesach are brought as Shelamim. This no longer conflicts with Shmuel's
statement, because we are deleting the second part of his statement.)
Rashi answers that if Shmuel would be in agreement with Rebbi, then his
first statement would also be contradictory. Shmuel stated that all animals
which must die when they are Chata'os, are brought as Shelamim when they are
Pesachim. This implies that *only* animals which, when they are Chata'os,
must be left to die, are brought as Shelamim when they are Pesachim. But if
Shmuel holds like Rebbi, that is not true! There is also an animal which,
when it is a Chatas, is left to graze, which, when it is a Pesach, is
brought as a Shelamim! Therefore, it must be that Shmuel holds like Rebbi
Shimon.
What does Rashi mean? Rashi said, just a few lines earlier, that the case of
designating two animals as a Chatas ("Achrayus") is *not* a case of a lost
animal, and therefore Shmuel was not including that case in his statement!
If so, then there are *no* cases, even according to Rebbi, in which a *lost*
animal, when a Chatas, would be left to graze, and when a Pesach would be
brought as a Shelamim! Thus, Shmuel could still be holding like Rebbi!
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS (DH k'd'Rebbi and DH Ela) disagrees with Rashi. Tosfos explains
that the case of "Achrayus" *is* comparable to a case of an animal that was
lost, since the second animal was not designated for being offered in the
first place, and it is as if it was "Nidcheh," just like an animal that was
lost. Furthermore, in the case of Achrayus, even if the second animal is
actually lost before the first one is offered it will only be sent to graze
and will not be killed, because it was never designated to be offered but
only as a back-up for the first animal. Therefore, since that case also
applies when the animal was lost, it was included in Shmuel's statement, and
therefore Shmuel cannot be holding like Rebbi.
(b) RASHI himself may have understood the Gemara like the RASHBAM (in
TOSFOS, DH Ela). The Rashbam explains that now that the Gemara says that
Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon, it is *disregarding* the previous answer in
which the Gemara said that Shmuel is only discussing lost animals. Rather,
now that we know that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon, he is discussing *all*
types of Chata'os which die. If so, he is also discussing the case of
"Achrayus," as well as the case of "Chatas sh'Evrah Shenasah." In those
cases, Rebbi and the Rabanan hold that the Chatas must graze, even though if
that animal was a Korban Pesach it would be brought as a Shelamim. This
would contradict Shmuel's statement. Therefore, it must be that Shmuel holds
like Rebbi Shimon, that in *all* cases the Chatas must die and the Pesach is
brought as a Shelamim (which is consistent with Shmuel's statement).
However, according to this explanation, the question may be asked that
Shmuel's ruling is then not accurate. If a Pesach was lost and then found
*before Chatzos* on the fourteenth of Nisan, it must be left to graze, as
the Mishnah states, even though the animal in the corresponding case of a
Chatas (that is, when the lost Chatas is found before the new Chatas was
brought) must die according to Rebbi Shimon! According to Shmuel's rule, the
Pesach should be brought as a Shelamim since the Chatas must die!
The RASHBAM explains that Shmuel did not mean that every single case of a
Chatas which must die is going to be brought as a Shelamim when it is a
Pesach. Rather, he meant that for every category of Chatas which must die,
the corresponding Pesach is *sometimes* brought as a Shelamim. A lost Chatas
which is found must be put to death, and similarly *there exists a case*
where a lost Pesach which is found is brought as a Shelamim -- if it was
found *after* Chatzos.
(It must be pointed out that Rashi later in the Sugya [DH Ka Mashma Lan]
seems to reject the explanation of the Rashbam, and says that even according
to the Gemara's conclusion, Shmuel is only discussing *lost animals* and not
other types of Chata'os which must die. However, the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM writes
that these words do not appear in the Kisvei Yad of Rashi [i.e. from the
word "v'Hashta" until the last word, "Nimtza"]. If so, these words might
have been added later by a student, but they do not express the opinion of
Rashi. Thus, it could be indeed that Rashi learns the Gemara like the
Rashbam.
This omission in the above text of Rashi will also answer the question of
the RASHASH, who asks that this section of Rashi contradicts his words
later, 98a, DH Hachi Garsinan Ravina. If this section of Rashi is authored
by a student, then there is no contradiction. Whoever wrote these words in
this Rashi might have learned the Gemara later on 98a like the Me'iri, and
not like the way Rashi explains there.)