as it is juxtaposed with the lighting of the lamps (see Exodus 30:8). Evidently, it is burned in the afternoon as well.
התם נמי כתיב (דברים טז, ו) שם תזבח את הפסח בערב
The Gemara asks: Just as it is written explicitly that the Candelabrum must be lit in the evening, there too, with regard to a Paschal offering, it is written: “There you shall sacrifice the Passover offering at evening” (Deuteronomy 16:6). How can ben Beteira claim that it may be sacrificed all day long?
ההוא ליאוחר דבר הוא דאתא דתניא יאוחר דבר שנאמר בו בערב ובין הערבים לדבר שלא נאמר בו אלא בין הערבים בלבד
The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach a different halakha, that a certain item should be sacrificed after another item. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the order of precedence between the Paschal offering and the daily afternoon offering: An item, i.e., the Paschal offering, with regard to which both the expressions: “In the evening,” and: “Bein ha’arbayim,” are stated, should be sacrificed after an item, the daily afternoon offering, with regard to which only “bein ha’arbayim” is stated.
ומי איכא מידי דאילו שחיט ליה מצפרא אמרת זימניה הוא וכי מטי בין הערבים אמרת יאוחר דבר
The Gemara asks: But is there anything comparable to ben Beteira’s suggestion, that if one slaughters it in the morning, you say that it is its designated time and it is fit; but when afternoon comes, you say that the item should be sacrificed only after the daily afternoon offering?
אין דהא"ר יוחנן הלכה מתפלל של מנחה ואח"כ מתפלל של מוספין
The Gemara answers: Yes, there is a precedent; as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one did not recite the additional prayers of Shabbat, the New Moon, or a Festival, which should be recited in the morning, until it is time for the afternoon prayer, the halakha is that he should first recite the afternoon prayer, and recite the additional prayers thereafter.
ובין הערבים דכתיב גבי קטרת ונרות למה לי
The Gemara asks: But if the term “bein ha’arbayim” is referring to the entire day, as ben Beteira maintains, why do I need those instances of the expression that are written with regard to burning incense and lighting the lamps, which are not performed all day?
ועוד השיב רבי תחת בן בתירא לדברי רבי יהושע לא אם אמרת בשלשה עשר שאין מקצתו ראוי תאמר בארבעה עשר שמקצתו ראוי
Furthermore, this interpretation of the opinion of ben Beteira is difficult, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded on behalf of ben Beteira to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua that a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its sake on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan is fit, as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to the thirteenth, as no part of the day is fit for sacrificing the Paschal offering, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the fourteenth, part of which is fit for sacrificing the Paschal offering? Since it can be sacrificed in the afternoon of the fourteenth, if it is slaughtered in the morning not for its sake, it is disqualified.
ואם איתא כולו ראוי הוא
The Gemara concludes: And if it is so that a Paschal offering can be sacrificed throughout the day of the fourteenth, all of it is fit, not only part of it.
אלא א"ר יוחנן פוסל היה בן בתירא בפסח ששחטו בארבעה עשר שחרית בין לשמו בין שלא לשמו הואיל ומקצתו ראוי
Rather, Rabbi Oshaya’s interpretation of ben Beteira’s opinion is rejected. Instead, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the fourteenth in the morning, ben Beteira would deem it unfit, whether it was slaughtered for its sake or not for its sake. It is unfit even if it was slaughtered not for its sake, since part of the day is fit for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering.
מגדף בה רבי אבהו א"כ פסח כשר לבן בתירא היכי משכחת לה אי דאפרשיה האידנא דחוי מעיקרו הוא ואי דאפרשינהו מאתמול נראה ונדחה הוא
Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed [megaddef ] this interpretation: If so, how can you find a fit Paschal offering according to ben Beteira? If its owner designated an animal now, on the morning of the fourteenth, as a Paschal offering, it is disqualified from the outset, as it cannot be sacrificed at all, either for its sake or not for its sake. And even if its owner designated it the previous day, when it was fit to be sacrificed not for its sake, it was fit and then disqualified the next morning, when it was no longer fit to be sacrificed until the afternoon. Once an offering is disqualified, it can no longer become fit.
אלא אמר רבי אבהו תהא לאחר חצות
Rather, Rabbi Abbahu says: Let the Paschal offering be fit when it is designated on the fourteenth after noon, when it may already be sacrificed as a Paschal offering.
אביי אמר אפילו תימא מצפרא אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום
Abaye says: You may even say that it is fit if designated in the morning, as an offering is not disqualified due to the fact that it is an offering whose time has not yet arrived if its time will arrive on that same day.
רב פפא אמר אפילו תימא מאורתא לילה אין מחוסר זמן דתני דבי ר' ישמעאל ליל שמיני נכנס לדיר להתעשר
Rav Pappa says: You may even say that it is fit if designated from the previous night, as an offering that was designated at night and may be sacrificed the following day is not considered an offering whose time has not yet arrived, as it is taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Although an animal is unfit for sacrifice until its eighth day, on the night before its eighth day it may already enter the den to be tithed.
וכדרבי אפטוריקי דרבי אפטוריקי רמי כתיב (ויקרא כב, כז) והיה שבעת ימים תחת אמו הא לילה חזי וכתיב (ויקרא כב, כז) ומיום השמיני והלאה ירצה הא לילה לא חזי
And this is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Appetoriki, as Rabbi Appetoriki raises a contradiction: It is written: “When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, then it shall be seven days with its mother” (Leviticus 22:27); consequently, on the following night, i.e., the night before the eighth day, it is fit for sacrifice. And it is written subsequently in that verse: “But from the eighth day and on it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord”; consequently, on the previous night, i.e., the night before the eighth day, it is not yet fit.
הא כיצד לילה לקדושה ויום להרצאה
How can these texts be reconciled? At night it is fit for consecration, and the following day it is fit for effecting acceptance, i.e., for sacrifice. Apparently, an offering that may be sacrificed the following day can be consecrated the previous night, even though it may not be sacrificed at night, and it is not considered an offering whose time has not yet arrived.
א"ל רבי זירא לרבי אבהו לימא קסבר רבי יוחנן בעלי חיים נדחין
§ Rabbi Abbahu presumes that an animal consecrated before it may be sacrificed is disqualified. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Shall we say that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that consecrated animals that cannot be sacrificed at any given moment are disqualified from ever being sacrificed?
אמר ליה אין דא"ר יוחנן בהמה של שני שותפין הקדיש חציה וחזר ולקח חציה והקדישה קדושה ואינה קריבה
Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Yes, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an animal belonging to two partners, if one of them consecrated the half of it that belongs to him, and then purchased the other half of it from his partner and consecrated it, it is consecrated, despite the fact that it was consecrated piecemeal. But it may not be sacrificed, since when he first consecrated it, the consecration did not extend to his partner’s half. Since the animal was not fit to be sacrificed then, it is disqualified permanently.
ועושה תמורה ותמורתה כיוצא בה
But as it is consecrated now, it can render consecrated as a substitute a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it. If the owner substitutes a non-sacred animal for this one, the second animal becomes consecrated as well. And yet its substitute is like it; it too is consecrated but cannot be sacrificed.
ושמע מינה תלת שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחין וש"מ דחוי מעיקרא הוה דחוי וש"מ
And one can conclude three points from this statement: Conclude from it that animals that cannot be sacrificed are permanently disqualified; and conclude from it that disqualification from the outset, i.e., from the time the offering is consecrated, is permanent disqualification; and conclude from it that