The Fat, the Liver Lobe, and the Leftover Passover Lamb

"And the fat that is upon them" (Leviticus 3:4) and not the flesh that is upon them; "which is upon the flanks" - this is the fat upon the soft membrane, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: this comes to include the fat upon the rump. "And the lobe upon the liver" (Leviticus 3:4) - the matter is balanced: shall he take from the lobe along with the liver, or from the liver along with the lobe? When it says, "And the lobe from the liver, from the sin-offering, he turned to smoke upon the altar" (Leviticus 9:10), this teaches that he takes from the lobe along with part of the liver and not from the liver along with the lobe. He removes the lobe even though there are no kidneys; he removes the kidneys even though there is no lobe; he removes it even if there is only one kidney. "And they shall turn it to smoke" (Leviticus 3:5); "and he shall turn it to smoke"; "and he shall turn them to smoke" (Leviticus 3:16). What does "and they shall turn it to smoke" teach? That it must be fit and not unfit. "And he shall turn it to smoke" - that he shall not mix the fats of one offering with the fats of another. "And he shall turn them to smoke" - all of them as one. Here it says "a fire-offering" but not "bread," and below it says "bread" (Leviticus 3:11) but not "a pleasing aroma," and below it says "a pleasing aroma" but not "to the LORD." From where do we apply what is said of all of them to each one? Scripture says "a fire-offering," "a fire-offering," for a verbal analogy [gezeira shava - the repeated term links the verses]. "Peace-offerings from the flock" (Leviticus 3:6-7): what does Scripture teach by also saying "peace-offerings from the herd" (Leviticus 3:1)? Because there is in the herd-animal what is not in the flock-animal, and in the flock-animal what is not in the herd-animal. The flock-animal is lessened regarding libations; the flock-animal is increased regarding the public; and the herd-animal is lessened regarding the public. So because there is in the herd-animal what is not in the flock-animal, and in the flock-animal what is not in the herd-animal, Scripture must say "peace-offerings from the herd" and must say "peace-offerings from the flock." Our Rabbis taught: a Passover-offering in its proper time, offered for its own sake, is fit; not for its own sake, it is unfit. And during the rest of the days of the year, for its own sake it is unfit; not for its own sake it is fit. From where are these matters? The father of Samuel said: Scripture says, "And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings is from the flock" (Leviticus 3:6) - a thing that comes from the flock shall be for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. And from where do we know this is written about the surplus of the Passover-offering? Perhaps it is written about the surplus of the guilt-offering. Rava said: Scripture says "from the flock" - a thing common to all of the flock. [And it is asked:] everywhere "from" comes to exclude, yet here "from" comes to include? Rabbi Mani said: here too "from" comes to exclude - that it is not two years old and not a female. And can you say so, that when this was written it was written about the surplus of the Passover-offering? Since it is written "if a lamb" (Leviticus 3:7) and "and if a goat" (Leviticus 3:12), it is not written about the surplus of the Passover-offering. That verse is needed for what was taught: "lamb" comes to include the Passover-offering as to its fat tail; when it says "if a lamb," this comes to bring the Passover-offering whose year has passed, and the peace-offerings that come on account of the Passover-offering, to all the commandments of peace-offerings - that they require laying-on of hands, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh. When it says "and if a goat," it interrupted the matter, teaching about the goat that it does not require a fat tail. But does this matter come from here? It comes from the teaching of the father of Samuel, "and if his offering is from the flock" - a thing that comes from the flock shall be for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. And still, does it not come from Rav? From where that the surplus of the Passover-offering is offered as peace-offerings? As it says, "And you shall slaughter the Passover-offering to the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd" (Deuteronomy 16:2) - yet surely the Passover-offering comes only from lambs and goats; from here, that the surplus of the Passover-offering shall be for a thing that comes from the flock and from the herd, and what is that? Peace-offerings. Rather, three verses are written: one for where its time has passed and its year has passed; one for where its time has passed but its year has not passed; and one for where neither its time nor its year has passed. And they are all necessary. For if the Merciful One had written only one, I would have said: where its time and its year have passed, since it is wholly rejected from being a Passover-offering, it becomes peace-offerings; but where its time has passed and not its year, since it is still fit to be a Passover-offering, say it does not. And if the Merciful One had written these two, I would have said it is because they were rejected from their function; but where neither its time nor its year has passed, since it is fit to be a Passover-offering, say it does not. Therefore Scripture teaches us all three.