One might have thought that even a substitute Paschal lamb that was found before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb should have the same status, and it should be permitted to sacrifice such a lamb as a peace-offering. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” to emphasize that it, a valid Paschal lamb, is sacrificed, and the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed.

What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say it is a case in which the lamb is found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution before the slaughter of the replacement, it is obvious; why do I need a specific verse to teach this halakha? Rather, is it not addressing a case in which the original lamb was found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution after the slaughter of the replacement, and the baraita ruled that the substitute lamb may not be sacrificed as a peace-offering, in opposition to the ruling of Rava? The Gemara concludes that the refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his opinion is rejected according to this version.

Shmuel stated a principle pertaining to the halakhot of offerings: With regard to any animal that was consecrated as an offering and becomes unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition would be placed in isolation for it to die, meaning that it would be caused to die, if it is a Paschal lamb in that condition it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And with regard to any animal that becomes unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition is left to graze until it develops a blemish, if it is a Paschal lamb it is also left to graze. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when the lost lamb was found after the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, but if it was found before the slaughter, there is no instance in which it is brought as a peace-offering.

Rav Yosef strongly objects to Shmuel’s statement: Is that an established principle in every possible circumstance? Isn’t there the case of a sin-offering whose first year has passed and is therefore no longer fit to be offered as a sin-offering, which goes to graze until it develops a blemish? As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A sin-offering whose first year has passed, it is viewed as though it were standing in a cemetery where a priest may not enter in order to retrieve it; therefore, it grazes until it develops a blemish. The animal is then sold and its sanctity transferred to the proceeds of the sale, which are used to purchase an animal for a peace-offering.

However, a Paschal lamb in a case like this is sacrificed as a peace-offering, as it was taught in a baraita: The word “lamb” comes to include the Paschal lamb in the requirement that the fat tail be sacrificed on the altar. When it says: “If he brings a lamb,” it comes to include a lamb consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed and peace-offerings that come due to a Paschal lamb. These are considered peace-offerings rather than Paschal lambs, and they are included in all the laws of peace-offerings in that they require leaning and libations and the waving of the breast and thigh. When it says later: “And if his offering is a she-goat” (Leviticus 3:12), it interrupted the previous matter of the halakhot of sheep brought as peace-offerings and began a new discussion in order to teach that the offering of a she-goat does not require the fat tail to be offered on the altar. This baraita teaches that an animal consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed is offered as a peace-offering and is not left to graze until it develops a blemish.

He said to him: When Shmuel stated his principle, it was specifically with regard to Paschal lambs that were lost; he did not state his principle with regard to Paschal lambs that were deferred because they had become unfit for use.

The Gemara continues its line of questioning: With regard to lost sacrifices do you find Shmuel’s principle to be correct? But what about the case of a sin-offering that was already lost at the time of the separation of a replacement to take its place, and the original animal was found before the second was sacrificed? According to the Rabbis, this animal goes for grazing, as we learned in a mishna: If one separated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place and the first was found, and therefore both are available, then one of them, whichever he chooses, is sacrificed, as he may bring only one offering, and the second shall be caused to die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: A sin-offering is caused to die only when it is found after the owners gained atonement through another offering. Therefore, according to the Rabbis, if the animal was found before the owners gained atonement, it grazes.

And yet with regard to the Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is found after midday before the slaughter, it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Consequently, Shmuel’s principle is not correct even with regard to offerings that were lost. The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a lost sin-offering is put into isolation and goes to its death.

The Gemara asks: But every lost sin-offering is placed in isolation and left to die according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas with regard to the Paschal lamb, when it was lost before midday and then found before midday but after a replacement animal had been separated, it grazes. The Gemara responds: A Paschal lamb lost before midday is not considered lost, in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: A sin-offering lost at night and found by the morning is not called lost, and the halakhot of lost sin-offerings do not apply because a sin-offering cannot be sacrificed at night in any case. Similarly, if a Paschal lamb is lost before midday on the eve of Passover, since it could not be sacrificed at that time, it does not attain the status of a lost sacrifice even if one separates a replacement. In such a case, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would concede that the original animal would be left to graze rather than being left to die.

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, under what circumstances can the case of a sin-offering that is left to graze be found? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that every lost sin-offering is left to die and none is left to graze; therefore, there is no significance to Shmuel’s ruling with regard to any sin-offering that is left to graze.