Chullin 80bחולין פ׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 80b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
80bפ׳ ב

קמא מיקטל קטליה שני מתקבל בפנים הוא כרת נמי ליחייב

Therefore, when one slaughters a mother and its offspring that are both sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard, with regard to the first, it is as if he has simply killed it without ritual slaughter, since being slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard renders it unfit. Accordingly, the second would have been fit to be accepted within the Temple, and there would have been no prohibition against slaughtering it on that day. If so, when he slaughtered it outside the courtyard, why is he liable only to receive lashes? Let him also be liable to receive karet.

חולין בפנים שניהם פסולין והשני סופג את הארבעים מכדי שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה קמא מיקטל קטליה שני אמאי סופג את הארבעים

Likewise, the same question may be asked with regard to what is taught in the mishna: If both animals were non-sacred and they were slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, both of them are unfit for sacrifice. And for the slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes. Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon says: An act of slaughter that is unfit is not considered to have the halakhic status of an act of slaughter, with regard to the first animal, it is as if he has simply killed it without ritual slaughter, since a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is rendered unfit, as deriving benefit from it is prohibited. If so, why, for the slaughter of the second animal, does one incur the forty lashes?

קדשים בפנים הראשון כשר ופטור והשני סופג את הארבעי' ופסול

Similarly, the mishna teaches: If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacrifice, and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. But for the slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for the slaughter of an animal and its offspring on a single day, and it is unfit for sacrifice.

מכדי שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה שחיטת קדשים נמי שחיטה שאינה ראויה היא דכמה דלא זריק דם לא מישתרי בשר שני אמאי סופג את הארבעים ופסול אלא שמע מינה דלא כרבי שמעון

Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon says: An act of slaughter that is unfit to permit consumption of the animal is not considered to have the halakhic status of an act of slaughter. One can then raise the question: An act of slaughter of sacrificial animals is also considered an act of slaughter that is unfit, because as long as one has not sprinkled the blood, the meat is not permitted to be burned on the altar or eaten. Since slaughtering the first animal is not considered slaughtering, why, for slaughtering the second animal, does one incur the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day, and why is it unfit? Rather, conclude from this analysis that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

פשיטא דהכי איתא שחיטת קדשים איצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא שחיטת קדשים שחיטה ראויה היא דהא אי נחר וזריק דם לא מישתרי בשר וכי שחט מישתרי בשר ושחיטה ראויה היא קמ"ל

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that this is so? There is no need for this long analysis. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Oshaya to mention that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon due to the case of slaughtering an animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals inside the Temple courtyard. This is because it may enter your mind to say that slaughtering sacrificial animals is considered an act of slaughtering that is fit, because if he stabbed the animal to death and sprinkled its blood, the meat is not permitted, but if he slaughtered it, the meat is permitted and it is considered slaughtering that is fit according to Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, he teaches us that it is not fit.

ולילקי נמי משום לאו דמחוסר זמן דתניא מנין לכל הפסולין שבשור ושבשה שהוא בלא ירצה

§ With regard to the ruling that one who slaughters an animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals inside the Temple courtyard receives lashes for violating the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, when slaughtering the second animal, the Gemara suggests: And let him be flogged also for violating the prohibition against sacrificing an animal whose time has not yet arrived, since it is forbidden to sacrifice it until the next day. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to all of the disqualifications of the bull, i.e., any feature that disqualifies cattle brought as offerings, and of the lamb, i.e., sheep brought as offerings, that if one consecrates, slaughters, or burns on the altar an animal so disqualified, he violates the prohibition of: It shall not be accepted, and is flogged?

ת"ל (ויקרא כב, כג) ושור ושה שרוע וקלוט וגו' לימד על הפסולין שבשור ושבשה שהוא בלא ירצה

It is derived from the fact that, in the middle of the passage prohibiting blemished animals from being sacrificed upon the altar, the verse states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short…but for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23). Since this passage is already discussing a bull and lamb, it is unnecessary to mention them. Rather, this verse taught about all of the disqualifications of the bull and of the lamb, including that of an animal whose time has not yet arrived, that if one offers an animal with one of those disqualifications, he violates the prohibition of: It shall not be accepted.

כי קא חשיב לאוי דאותו ואת בנו לאוי נוכראי לא קא חשיב

The Gemara answers: He receives lashes for violating that prohibition as well, but when the mishna lists the prohibitions violated by the actions described, it lists only prohibitions related to the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, but it does not list unrelated prohibitions.

ולא והא קדשים בחוץ דלאוי נוכראי נינהו וקא חשיב דקתני קדשים בחוץ הראשון חייב כרת ושניהם סופגין את הארבעים

The Gemara asks: And does the mishna not list unrelated prohibitions? But there are prohibitions with regard to sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, which are unrelated prohibitions, and it lists them. As it teaches: If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, then for slaughtering the first animal, one is liable to receive karet. And both animals are disqualified for use as offerings, and for the slaughter of both of them one incurs forty lashes apiece.

בשלמא שני משום לאו דאותו ואת בנו אלא ראשון אמאי סופג לאו משום לאו דשחוטי חוץ

Granted, with regard to the second animal one is flogged due to the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. But with regard to the first animal, why does he incur the forty lashes? Isn’t it due to the prohibition of consecrated animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard? Therefore, with regard to the case of sacrificial animals slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the mishna should also have mentioned the unrelated prohibition of: It shall not be accepted.

כל היכא דליכא לאו דאותו ואת בנו חשיב לאוי נוכראי וכל היכא דאיכא לאו דאותו ואת בנו לא חשיב לאוי נוכראי

The Gemara answers: Wherever there is no violation of the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, for slaughtering an animal, the mishna lists unrelated prohibitions, but wherever there is a violation of the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, the mishna does not list unrelated prohibitions, but only the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring.

רבי זירא אמר הנח למחוסר זמן דהכתוב

Rabbi Zeira said: Leave the prohibition against sacrificing an animal whose time has not yet arrived, as the verse