Commentary for Pesachim 145:4

א"ל רב הונא בר חיננא לבריה כי אזלת לקמיה דרבי זריקא בעי מיניה לדברי האומר מקלקל בחבורה פטור שחטו שלא לאוכליו חייב מה תיקן

IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN etc. R. Huna said in Rab's name: A guilt-offering which was transferred to pasture and [then] slaughtered without a specified purpose is fit for a burnt-offering. This proves that he holds that it does not require [express] abrogation. If so, [even] if it was not transferred too? [When it is sacrificed thus immediately] after atonement it is preventively forbidden on account of [when it is sacrificed thus even] before atonement. And whence do you rule [thus]? For we learned: A guilt-offering whose owner died or whose owner [otherwise] obtained atonement must graze until it becomes unfit; then it is sold, and its money falls [is utilized] for a voluntary offering. R. Eliezer said: It is left to die. R. Joshua said: he can sell it and bring a burnt-offering for its money. Thus, only for its money, but not that itself, because he preventively forbids [it when sacrificed] after atonement on account of [when it is sacrificed] before atonement. This proves it.

Explore commentary for Pesachim 145:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.