because it is likened to lamps. (1) But there too it is written, There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering at even [ba-’ereb]? (2) — 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] (3) are said be deferred after that in connection with which ben ha-’arbayim alone is said. (4) 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? (5) — Yes, for surely R. Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service. (6) Now, what is the purpose of ‘ben ha-’arbayim’ [at dusk] written in connection with incense and lamps? (7) Furthermore, [it was taught:] (8) Rabbi rebutted the words of R. Joshua on Ben Bathyra's view: That is not so, (9) 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, (10) then the whole of it is fit! (11) — 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]. (12) R. Abbahu sneered at this view: If so, how is it possible on Ben Bathyra's ruling for a Passover-offering to be fit? (13) If one separates it now, it is rejected ab initio; while if one separated it yesterday, it was eligible and rejected! (14) — Rather said R. Abbahu: It must be [that he separated it] after midday. (15) 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. (16) R. Papa said: You may even say [that one separates it] the [previous] evening: (17) 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. (18) 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; (19) 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], (19) 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. (20) R. Zera asked R. Abbahu: Must we say that R. Johanan holds that live animals can be [permanently] rejected? (21) — 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; (22) and it establishes [the sanctity of] a substitute, (23) and the substitute is as itself. (24) This proves three things: that live animals may be rendered [permanently] rejected; (25) that which is rejected ab initio is rejected; (26) and

---

(1). ↑ Since ‘at dusk’ refers to both, as stated in the preceding note.
(2). ↑ Deut. XVI, 6.
(3). ↑ E.V. at dusk.
(4). ↑ In connection with the Passover-offering both expressions are used (Ex. XII, 6; Deut. XVI, 6), while in connection with the daily-offering one only is stated (Num. XXVIII, 4). Hence the former is sacrificed after the latter.
(5). ↑ Until after the afternoon daily offering.
(6). ↑ On the Sabbath, festivals and New Moon there are three services, the morning service, the additional service and the afternoon service in that order (beside the evening service, which is recited the previous evening). The additional service must commence before the time of the afternoon service, which is from half an hour after noon until dusk. If one had not recited it by then, he must give precedence to the afternoon service. This is exactly analogous to our own case.
(7). ↑ Since its meaning must be elucidated through another text (supra 11b).
(8). ↑ In objection to R. Oshaia.
(9). ↑ Sc. that it is as though it was slaughtered on the thirteenth.
(10). ↑ That Ben Bathyra holds that the whole of the fourteenth is the proper time.
(11). ↑ And not only part!
(12). ↑ If slaughtered in its own name, it is invalid because the proper time is the afternoon. If not in its own name, it is invalid because part of that day is the proper time for it, and hence the law on 2a applies.
(13). ↑ Even if it is slaughtered at the proper time (in the afternoon of the fourteenth) and in its own name.
(14). ↑ If one separates the animal for a Passoveroffering on the morning of the fourteenth, it is fit for nothing at all then, neither for a Passoveroffering nor for a peace-offering. Thus from the very beginning it is ineligible (technically ‘rejected’), and R. Johanan holds infra that in such circumstances it can never be eligible again, even if conditions subsequently alter. Again, if one separated it the previous day, it was then eligible for a peace-offering, but on the following morning it was ‘rejected’ (became ineligible), and in the view of all Rabbis it then remains permanently rejected.
(15). ↑ When it is actually eligible. — The answer is obvious, and R. Abbahu's objection is probably only rhetorical, as a means of expressing the opinion that according to Ben Bathyra as interpreted by R. Johanan the animal cannot be separated for the Passover-offering until the afternoon.
(16). ↑ Where an animal becomes eligible for a particular purpose during the day, the earlier part of the same day is not regarded as premature, in the sense discussed here.
(17). ↑ Which is also the fourteenth of Nisan.
(18). ↑ An animal cannot he sacrificed before it is eight days old, and for the same reason when animals are to be tithed it does not enter the fold for the purpose. Yet if the tithing is taking place on the night of the eight day (it will be eight days old the next day) it does enter. This proves that prematureness does not apply to the night.
(19). ↑ Lev. XXII, 27.
(20). ↑ It can be sanctified on the night of the eighth but not ‘accepted’. i.e., sacrificed, until the following day.
(21). ↑ V. following notes. For otherwise you need not answer that one separates it after midday.
(22). ↑ Since it was not fit for offering originally, as the half belonging to the other partner was as yet secular. Hence it must now be sold, and an animal purchased with the money and sacrificed.
(23). ↑ The reference is to Lev. XXVII, 33: neither shall he change it (a consecrated animal): and if he change it, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy. Thus here, if one substitutes another animal for this one, the substitute too is holy.
(24). ↑ It may not be sacrificed, but must be sold.
(25). ↑ As here: the animal having been tendered ineligible when dedicated, since half remained secular, it remains so even when the other half too is dedicated. There is an opposing view that only a dead animal can become permanently ineligible, V. Yoma 64a.
(26). ↑ This animal was not eligible for dedication by a single partner from the very outset.