And it was taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna that on a weekday, in a case like this, where it turns out that there is no one to eat the Paschal offering, it should be burned immediately. Granted, if you say that an offering that has no owner requires uprooting from its previous status in order for its status to change and in the absence of explicit uprooting it retains its original status, here too it can be argued that this is still a Paschal offering. And since it has no owners, its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself, because it was sacrificed for no purpose, and therefore it should be burned immediately.

But if you say that an offering such as this does not require uprooting, but rather its original status is automatically void upon the death of its owner, and it was a peace-offering from the beginning, as a Paschal offering whose status has been revoked is considered a peace-offering, due to what then is its disqualification? Due to something else, i.e., that he slaughtered it after the daily afternoon offering, which is the proper time to slaughter the Paschal lamb. But a peace-offering that is slaughtered then is disqualified. In that case, however, it should require that it be left overnight until its form decays, thus attaining the status of leftover sacrificial meat, and only then should it be burned.

As it was taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering whose disqualification is in the body of the offering itself should be burned immediately and without delay. But if the disqualification is in the blood of the offering or in the owners, the meat must be kept overnight, so that its form is allowed to decay, and only then should it be taken out to the place of burning. Thus, the baraita that says that a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered on a weekday, and afterward it became known that the owners had died, should be burned immediately proves, against the opinion of Rav Huna, that an offering that has no owners still requires explicit uprooting from its previous status for its status to change.

Rather, do not say that Rav said that a guilt-offering that one slaughtered without specification is valid as a burnt-offering. Say rather that he said that if one took a guilt-offering whose owner had already achieved atonement through a different animal and he explicitly slaughtered it as a burnt-offering, it is valid. And conclude from this that Rav apparently holds that changing the status of an offering requires explicit uprooting.

The Gemara asks: A difficulty arises according to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda, who dealt with the question whether a Paschal lamb requires uprooting and said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the issue, and they all said as follows: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Pesaḥ and they were pushed off to the second Pesaḥ, for in that case, they presumably want to sacrifice this animal as their Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ, and therefore its status does not change unless it is explicitly uprooted.

The Gemara infers from this that it is only this offering that requires explicit uprooting, because it is reasonable to assume that its owners still intend to use it for its original purpose, but in general it does not require uprooting. According to this opinion, what is there to say, as it would seem that our mishna indicates that explicit uprooting is necessary?

Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With what are we dealing here in our mishna? We are dealing with a case where they designated the animal to be sacrificed as their Paschal offering before midday, and midday came and it was firmly established as their Paschal offering, and the owners died after midday, such that the offering was first considered fit and then rejected: It was originally fit to be sacrificed as either a Paschal offering or a peace-offering, and then it was rejected as a peace-offering when it was firmly established as a Paschal offering, and rejected as a Paschal offering when its owners died. And the principle is that anything that was first fit and afterward rejected does not return to being fit. The offering is therefore disqualified and burned immediately, as it can never be brought as a Paschal offering or as a peace-offering.

The Gemara rejects this answer: Is this reason necessary for anyone but Rav, who holds that explicit uprooting is not required? But Rav himself said that living creatures cannot be permanently rejected. The halakha of rejection applies only to animals that were already slaughtered, but living creatures cannot be permanently rejected from their sanctified status or eligibility for a mitzva.

Rather, Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita that adds to the mishna the detail that on a weekday the disqualified offering is immediately burned? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: And similarly, if one slaughtered another offering, such as a peace-offering, for the purpose of a Paschal offering, it is disqualified. If so, its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself, and so it should be burned immediately.

The Gemara asks: But if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he would deem him liable also to bring a sin-offering for having slaughtered an invalid offering on Shabbat, for Rabbi Eliezer does not accept the position that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This explanation must, therefore, be rejected.

Rather, Rav Yosef, son of Rav Salla the Ḥasid, explained before Rav Pappa as follows: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ḥonai. As we learned in a mishna that Yosef ben Ḥonai says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering or for the purpose of a sin-offering are disqualified, as he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer in this regard. It is apparent that its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself and therefore it should be burned immediately. But with regard to exemptions from sin-offerings in cases of unintentional desecration of Shabbat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt.

Rav Ashi said a different answer to this question: Rav said his ruling with regard to a guilt-offering in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: If one slaughtering the Paschal offering on Shabbat still has time in the day to clarify whether the owners withdrew or died or became ritually impure, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having slaughtered on Shabbat, and the meat must be kept overnight so that its form be allowed to decay, and then it should be taken out to the place of burning. What is the reason that its form must be allowed to decay? Is it not because he holds that it does not require uprooting? And for that reason the disqualification is not inherent in the offering, and so it must be left overnight to attain the status of leftover sacrificial meat before being burned.

The Gemara rejects this argument: From where is this known to be correct? Perhaps it requires uprooting and the disqualification is inherent. And the fact that he requires decay of form is because he agrees with the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said that even piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intent, which is considered an inherent disqualification, also requires decay of form, for he derived this requirement by way of a verbal analogy between the word “iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18) stated in relation to an offering disqualified by improper intent and the word “iniquity” (Leviticus 19:7) stated with regard to leftover sacrificial meat.

For if you do not say so, i.e., that the baraita was taught in accordance with this opinion, then in a case in which the owners became ritually impure, what is there to say? In that case it certainly requires uprooting, for Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the issue: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Pesaḥ and they were pushed off to the second Pesaḥ. Since their offering is presumably set to be used on the second Pesaḥ, explicit change of the offering’s status is required.

Rather, it is clear that it is as he answered at the beginning, that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ḥonai. Therefore, on weekdays the offering is burned immediately, and on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, one does not become liable to bring a sin-offering.