Parallel
זבחים 12:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
because it is likened to lamps. But there too it is written, There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering at even [ba-’ereb]? — That comes to teach deferment. For it was taught: Let that in connection with which ba-’ereb [at even] and ben ha-’arbayim [between the evenings] are said be deferred after that in connection with which ben ha-’arbayim alone is said. Now can there be a case where if he slaughtered it in the morning you say that it is its proper time, yet when afternoon arrives you say that it should be deferred? — Yes, for surely R. Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service. Now, what is the purpose of ‘ben ha-’arbayim’ [at dusk] written in connection with incense and lamps? Furthermore, [it was taught:] Rabbi rebutted the words of R. Joshua on Ben Bathyra's view: That is not so, If you speak of the thirteenth, where no part of it is fit, will you speak [thus] of the fourteenth ,where part of it is fit? Now if this is correct, then the whole of it is fit! — Rather said R. Johanan: Ben Bathyra declared unfit a Passover-offering which one slaughtered in the morning of the fourteenth, whether in its own or in a different name, since part of it is fit [for the slaughtering]. R. Abbahu sneered at this view: If so, how is it possible on Ben Bathyra's ruling for a Passover-offering to be fit? If one separates it now, it is rejected ab initio; while if one separated it yesterday, it was eligible and rejected! — Rather said R. Abbahu: It must be [that he separated it] after midday. Abaye said: You may even say [that one separates it] in the morning, [because the disqualification of] prematureness does not apply to the same day. R. Papa said: You may even say [that one separates it] the [previous] evening: prematureness does not apply to the night. For R. Ishmael taught: On the night of the eighth day it enters the fold to be tithed. And [this is] in accordance with R. Aftoriki. For R. Aftoriki pointed out a contradiction, It is written, Then it shall be seven days under its dam; hence on the [following] night it is eligible. Yet it is written, But from the eighth day and thenceforth it may be accepted [for an offering], whence it follows that it was not eligible the [previous] evening. How is this [to be reconciled]? The night for sanctification and the day for acceptance. R. Zera asked R. Abbahu: Must we say that R. Johanan holds that live animals can be [permanently] rejected? — Even so, replied he. For R. Johanan said: [With regard to] an animal belonging to two partners; if one [of them] dedicates half, and then purchases [the other] half and dedicates it, it is holy, yet cannot be offered up; and it establishes [the sanctity of] a substitute, and the substitute is as itself. This proves three things: that live animals may be rendered [permanently] rejected; that which is rejected ab initio is rejected; and
—