1)
(a)Five Chata'os must die (i.e. they are left in a small in a room and left them to die - Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai): the baby of a Chatas, its Temurah, one whose owner died, one that is found after the owner has been atoned for by another one and one that became too old. How does Shmuel apply this principle to Pesach? What is the logical connection between them?
(b)And what happens to a Pesach where the equivalent Chatas is 'Ro'eh'?
(c)What does Rebbi Yochanan say about a Pesach that is found before its replacement has been Shechted (in which case the Chatas must die)?
1)
(a)Shmuel says that whenever a Chatas must die, a Shelamim under the same circumstances is brought directly on the Mizbe'ach. This is just a chance similarity, not because there is any logical connection between a Chatas and a Pesach.
(b)And whenever the Chatas must graze, he says, the Pesach grazes, too.
(c)Rebbi Yochanan says that a Pesach that is found before its replacement has been Shechted is not brought directly as a Shelamim.
2)
(a)What does Ro'eh mean?
(b)Resh Lakish says 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah, Ro'in Osah Ke'ilu Hi Omedes b'Veis ha'Kevaros, v'Ro'eh'? But is Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah not one of the Chata'os that has to die?
(c)Why does he compare a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah to one that is standing in a grave-yard?
(d)What happens to a Pesach she'Avrah Shenasah, and how does that clash with Shmuel's principle?
2)
(a)Ro'eh means that it is sent into a field to graze until it obtains a blemish, when it can be redeemed.
(b)According to Resh Lakish, the Mishnah in Temurah does not include 'Avrah Shenasah' on its own, among the Chata'os ha'Meisos, but 'Avrah Shenasah v'Avdah'.
(c)Resh Lakish compares a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah to one that is standing in a grave-yard - to warn the Kohen that just as he is forbidden to Shecht the latter, so too, should he refrain from Shechting the former.
(d)We learn from "Im Kesev" (Vayikra) that a Pesach she'Avrah Shenasah is brought as a Shelamim. According to Resh Lakish, who learns that a Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah, Ro'ah, a Pesach ought to be Ro'eh too!
3)
(a)The Gemara therefore restricts Shmuel's principle to only one of the five cases. Which one?
(b)But even there, asks the Gemara, his principle is questionable, because, according to the Chachamim, a Chatas that is found after its replacement has been designated but not yet brought, goes to graze, whereas a Pesach that is found after mid-day (according to Rebbi Zeira on the previous Amud - but before the Shechitah of the replacement) is brought as a Shelamim? How do we answer this question?
(c)How do we then account for the fact that, according to Rebbi, every lost Chatas dies, whereas a Pesach that is found before mid-day, grazes?
(d)What is the connection between this Din and Rava's statement regarding a Chatas that was lost at night-time?
3)
(a)The Gemara therefore restricts Shmuel's principle to the Avudin i.e. Pesach she'Kipru Ba'aleha. Whenever a Chatas that was lost, dies, the Pesach is brought, and whenever it grazes, the Shelamim grazes too.
(b)Shmuel, explains the Gemara, holds like Rebbi, according to whom a Chatas that is found after its replacement has been designated but not yet brought, must die (and not like the Chachamim, who hold that it grazes), in which case the fact that a Pesach that is found after mid-day (according to Rebbi Zeira on the previous Amud - but before the Shechitah of the replacement) is brought as a Shelamim, conforms with his statement.
(c)There is no problem with Rebbi, who holds that every lost Chatas dies, whereas a Pesach that is both lost and found before mid-day, grazes - because a Pesach that is lost before mid-day (when it is not as yet fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach) does not have the Din of a lost Pesach (even if one replaced it with another one).
(d)This is derived from Rava, who said with regard to a Chatas that was lost at night-time (when it is not yet fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach) is not called 'lost', and which consequently only grazes, and does not die.
97b----------------------------------------97b
4)
(a)According to Rebbi (who says that even a lost Chatas that is found before its replacement was brought, must die) when does a Chatas graze?
(b)Why does this pose a Kashya on Shmuel's principle?
4)
(a)According to Rebbi (who says that even a lost Chatas that is found before its replacement was brought, must die) the case of 'Chatas Ro'eh' is when two Chata'os were designated, one to bring as a Kaparah, and the other, as a back-up; one is brought, whilst the other is sent out to graze.
(b)But in that case, a Pesach under similar circumstances should graze too. Yet it does not, but is brought directly as a Shelamim (since this a classical case of a Mosar Chatas)!? (Note: the Gemara could just as well have asked that this is not the case of Avud (lost) that we are trying to establish!)
5)
(a)The Gemara concludes that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon. What does Rebbi Shimon say (with regard to the five Chata'os that must die)?
(b)Since Shmuel is anyway confined to a Pesach she'Kipru Ba'aleha, why are we forced to establish Shmuel like him, as opposed to Rebbi and the Rabanan?
(c)Seeing as according to Rebbi Shimon, a Chatas never grazes, how does one then account for Shmuel's second statement - that whatever grazes by a Chatas, also grazes by a Pesach?
(d)The Tana of our Mishnah has already informed us that any Pesach found after mid-day (according to Rebbi Zeira) is brought as a Shelamim, in which case, Shmuel's Din appears to be obvious. In fact, the Gemara explains, he is coming to argue with Rebbi Yochanan. What does Rebbi Yochanan say? In which case do they argue?
5)
(a)The Gemara concludes that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon - who says that the five Chata'os die in all circumstances (in the case of Avud, irrespective of when it was found, and even in a case when one separated two Chata'os). Consequently, since there is no case of Ro'eh by Chatas, the previous Kashya falls away.
(b)We establish Shmuel like Rebbi Shimon - because it is only according to him, that his principle 'Kol she'ba'Chatas Meisah, b'Pesach Karev Shelamim' holds water. According to the Chachamim, a Chatas that is found before its replacement has been brought - grazes, and according to Rebbi, when two Chata'os that are designated, one to be brought and the other, as a back-up - one of them grazes, whereas in both cases, a Pesach is brought on the Mizbe'ach (and if Shmuel held like either of them, the Pesach ought to graze, too).
(c)Retracting from the original version of Shmuel's statement, the Gemara now accepts only the first half - 'Kol she'Bachatas Meisah, b'Pesach Karev' etc., but omits the second half - 'Kol she'be'Chatas 'Ro'ah, Ro'ah'.
(d)Rebbi Yochanan says that the Pesach is only brought as a Shelamim if it is found after the Shechitah of the replacement, but not when it is found beforehand - even after mid-day, in which case, it grazes. According to Shmuel however, even then, it may be brought as a Shelamim.
6)
(a)We still restrict Shmuel to the case of a Pesach that is lost (not to all five cases of Chata'os ha'Meisos). Why can he not be referring to a Pesach whose owner died?
(b)What other reason forces us to establish Shmuel specifically by a Pesach that got lost?
6)
(a)Shmuel cannot be referring to a Pesach whose owner died - because the Pesach is fixed at mid-day, so if the owner dies after mid-day, it must be sent to graze.
(b)It is also necessary to establish Shmuel specifically by a lost Pesach - since that is what Rebbi Yochanan (with whom he argues) is talking about.
7)
(a)What happens to a female lamb or to a male lamb that is more than one year old, and that was designated as a Pesach?
7)
(a)A female lamb or a male lamb that is more than one year old, and that was designated as a Pesach - is sent out to graze.
8)
(a)If the owner of the Pesach dies (we will soon see exactly when), his children cannot bring their father's Pesach - as a Pesach. Why not?
(b)What then do they do with it?
(c)Under which circumstances will the children actually be permitted to bring it as a Pesach?
8)
(a)If the owner of the Pesach dies, his son cannot bring it as a Pesach - because it is a Pesach without designees.
(b)He brings it as a Shelamim.
(c)A son is permitted to bring it as a Pesach, provided he is a joint owner.