Of the material, or flock-beast, which could be [the] pascha, the Lord prescribed three conditions (Exod. 12 v. 5). The first: that [it] be without blemish. Now the Translator calls “a blemish” every defect of the body which — in such a way that [the beast] could not be rightly immolated — made the beast unfit; for example, if [it] were mutilated, sick, scabby, and if [there were] anything similar. Therefore, in the Hebrew, [it] is said—
(col. 543 — left column; printed “550”)
—[Therefore, in the Hebrew, it is said] that [it be] “a whole, or perfect, beast” — in the Greek, τὸ τέλειον [to teleion], for which other Greeks render ἄμωμον [amōmon] — that is, [something] which cannot be blamed and rejected, which is free of every blemish and defect. For [it is] probable enough [that] this Greek [word], like many others, is drawn from the Hebrew מום mum, which is “a blemish” (Lev. 21:18; and elsewhere). But what blemishes or defects bar a beast from sacrifice, Moses explains (Lev. 22): “The man who shall offer a victim of peace-offerings to the Lord — either paying vows, or offering of [his own] accord, whether of oxen or of sheep — let him offer [it] immaculate, that it may be acceptable. There shall be no blemish in it. If [it] be blind, if broken, if [it] have a scar, if pustules, or scab, or ringworm, you shall not offer them to the Lord, nor in your land shall you do this at all.”
The second condition: that [it] be a male animal. But St. Augustine asks (quaest. 42 on Exod.), since a lamb cannot but be male, and likewise a kid, why is this condition prescribed? And because — as I was saying above (quaest. 18) — here he does not wish τὸ πρόβατον [to probaton] to be rendered “beast,” he reckons “male” is added for this [reason]: because that Greek [word] would [otherwise] have to be rendered “a ewe” [ovis]; but since [it] cannot be said “a female sheep,” or “a male [sheep],” [it is] said “a male lamb.” Namely, because in the Greek and Hebrew [there] is the word “male,” which is indeed added in both texts for this [reason]: because both the Hebrew and the Greek name signify both sexes. And unless [it] had been added, [it] would have been necessary to take, only from the genus of sheep and goats, a yearling animal — whether [it] were male or female. But now, only a male [is] permitted. But why, [it] will not be passed over below.
The third condition: that the same animal be a yearling [anniculum] — or, in Hebrew and Chaldee, “a son of a year.” This all take thus: [that it] neither exceed a year in age, nor be under the eighth day from its birth. For (Exod. 22 & Lev. 22) the Lord entirely wills [that] the newborn young pass seven days with [their] mothers before they can be immolated. But you might say [that] more than these three conditions are required. First: because in some Greek [copies], such as the Royal [ones], along with these three, [there] is added, as [it were], a different and fourth [condition], τὸ ἄμωμον [to amōmon, “without blemish”]. Secondly: because Lactantius (bk. 4 ch. 26) says [that] this lamb was “white [candidum].” I answer to the first, [that] several versions are joined in those Greek [copies], since — as I said above — τὸν τέλειον [ton teleion] and τὸ ἄμωμον [to amōmon] here mean entirely the same. To the second: “white” [candidus] in Lactantius is taken in the same way, for “whole,” and “least defective,” and [otherwise] “unfit for sacrifice.” And therefore, as [it were] for the sake of exposition, once and again he adds “without blemish”: “God had commanded,” he [Lactantius] says, “the Hebrews to immolate a white lamb without blemish. For the lamb [was] white, without blemish — that is, innocent, and just, and holy.” Thus he.