Pesachim 146
ותני עלה בחול כי האי גונא ישרף מיד אי אמרת בשלמא בעי עקירה האי פסח הוא וכיון דלית ליה בעלים הוה ליה פסולו בגופו אמטו להכי ישרף מיד
<br> Now it ways taught thereon: During the week in such circumstances it must be burnt immediately. Now it is well if you say that it requires abrogation: this is a Passover, and since it has no owners, its disqualification is in itself, [and] for that reason it must be burnt immediately. But if you say that it does not require abrogation [then] from the beginning it is a peace-offering; On account of what [then] is its disqualification? [Presumably] on account of something extraneous, viz., that he slaughtered it after the evening tamid! [But] then it requires disfigurement? For it was taught, This is the general rule: Wherever its disqualification is in itself, it must be burnt immediately; [if it is] in the blood or in its owner, [the flesh] must become disfigured and [then] it goes out to the place of burning - Rather, do not say, 'if he slaughtered it without specifying its purpose, it is fit as a burnt-offering,' but say, If he slaughtered it for the purpose of a burnt-offering, it is fit. This proves that it requires [express] abrogation.
אלא אי אמרת לא בעי עקירה מרישא הוה ליה שלמים פסולו משום מאי משום דבר אחר דקא שחיט ליה אחר תמיד של בין הערבים עיבור צורה בעי
Then according to R, Hiyya b. Gamada, who said: It was thrown out from the mouth of the company and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g.. that its owners were unclean through a dead body and relegated to the second Passover: [thus] only this requires abrogation, but in general abrogation is not required, what can be said? - Rather, said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, what are we discussing here? E.g., if he separated it [for a Passover] before midday, and the owner died after midday, so that it was eligible and then rejected, and whatever was eligible and then rejected cannot be eligible again. - Is then our reasoning [required] for any but Rab, - surely Rab said: Live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected? Rather, said R. Papa, the author of this is R. Eliezer, who maintained: Similarly, if he slaughters other [sacrifices] for the sake of the Passover, they are unfit,] so that its disqualification is in itself. But if it is [according to] R. Eliezer, he would rule him liable to a sin-offering, since R. Eliezer rejects [the view that] he who errs in the matter of a precept is exempt! - R. Joseph the son of R. Salla the Pious explained it before R. Papa: The author of this is R. Joseph b. Honai. For we learned, R. Joseph b. Honai said: Those [other sacrifices] which are slaughtered for the purpose of a Passover or for the purpose of a sin-offering are unfit. This proves that its disqualification is in itself, and for that [reason] it must be burnt immediately; while in the matter of non-culpability he agrees with R. Joshua. <br>
דתניא זה הכלל כל שפסולו בגופו ישרף מיד בדם ובבעלים תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה
R. Ashi said, Rab ruled in accordance with R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah. For it was taught, R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: If there was sufficient time in the day to ascertain whether the owners had withdrawn their hands or died or become defiled, he is liable, and it [the sacrifice] must become disfigured and [then] go out to the place of burning.
אלא לא תימא שחטו סתם כשר לשום עולה אלא אימא שחטו לשום עולה כשר אלמא בעי עקירה
he slaughtered it without a specified purpose, express abrogation not being necessary. But the reason in the Baraitha is a different one, as stated. Thus: at midday the owner was still alive and therefore it was immediately eligible for a Passover offering; the owner's death disqualified it from that purpose, and he holds that it can never be eligible again in such circumstances. What is the reason? Is it not because it does not require abrogation? - Whence [does this follow]: perhaps it is because he agrees with the tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha, who said: Even piggul too requires disfigurement, because we learn the meaning of 'iniquity' from nothar. For if you should not say thus, where the owners become defiled, what can be said, for surely that certainly requires abrogation, for R. Hiyya b. Gamada said, it was thrown out from the mouth of the company and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g.. that its owners were unclean through a dead body and relegated to the second Passover? Hence it is clear as we answered at first: this is [in accordance with] R. Joseph b. Honai.