Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Hamnuna states that, according to Rebbi Shimon, Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to Kodshim - because Shechitas Kodshim is always a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, since the Korban cannot be eaten until Zerikas Dam has taken place (like Rav Oshaya learned on the previous Amud).

(b) Rava queries Rav Hamnuna from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon says 'Kodshim ba'Chutz, Sheini be'Lo Sa'aseh', since initially, it was fit to be brought later (even though he is Patur from the Kareis of Shechutei Chutz). The Lo Sa'aseh he is referring to is - that of "Lo Sa'aseh ke'Chol Asher Anachnu Osim Poh ... " (Re'ei).

(c) According to the Rabbanan - any Shechutei Chutz which is not subject to Kareis, is not subject to a La'av either.

(d) Rava (or K'di) amends Rebbi Shimon's ruling to 'Sheneihem Anushim Kareis' - because since the first animal is Shechutei Chutz, it is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, in which case the second animal is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, rendering it subject to Kareis for Shechutei Chutz.

(a) 'Echad ba'Chutz, ve'Echad bi'Fenim, le'Rabbanan Rishon Anush Kareis, She ini Pasul u'Patur' (from Kareis because of Shechutei Chutz). The Tana does not mention that he is Chayav because of Oso v'Es Beno - because he is only concerned with Shechutei Chutz (just like the Tana of our Mishnah is only concerned with Oso v'Es Beno).

(b) Rebbi Shimon - declares the second one Kasher (because the first one was a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, because of Shechutei Chutz).

(c) 'Echad bi'Fenim, ve'Echad ba'Chutz Rebbi Shimon Omer Sheini be'Lo Sa'aseh' - with reference to the Lo Sa'aseh of Oso v'Es Beno ...

(d) ... a Kashya on Rav Hamnuna - in whose opinion Rebbi Shimon does not hold of Oso v'Es Beno by Kodshim, in which case not only should he not be subject to a mere La'av, but he even ought to be Chayav Kareis.

(a) Rava therefore amends Rav Hamnuna's statement to 'Ein Malkos Oso v'Es Beno Noheg be'Kodshim' - because, since the first Shechitah (followed by Zerikas ha'Dam) was a Shechitah Kesheirah, the second animal is Pasul because of Oso v'Es Beno, in which case the Shechitah, which cannot lead to Zerikas ha'Dam, is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah (which is not subject to Malkos).

(b) According to our initial text, the reason that he is Patur is because it is Hasra'as Safek, meaning - that even after the Shechitah, we are not sure that he will have transgressed, because he might not perform the Zerikas Dam (in which case, the Shechitah will turn out to be Pasul retroactively).

(c) We reject - that text however, on the grounds that, since (based on the fact that it is Pasul because of Oso v'Es Beno and), its blood does not stand to be sprinkled, the Korban is invalid, and the Hasra'ah is not a Hasra'ah at all.

(d) In fact - we reject Rav Hoshaya (whom we quoted on the previous Amud, and), who considers even the first Shechitah a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(a) In a case where the mother is Chulin and the child a Shelamim, Rava rules, assuming that one Shechted, on the same day, first ...

1. ... the mother and then the child - that he is Patur, because it is not a Hasra'ah, as we just explained (or according to the initial version, because it is Hasra'as Safek).
2. ... the child (bi'Fenim) and then the mother (ba'Chutz) - that he is Chayav (seeing as, since the Zerikah took place, the first Shechitah was a Shechitah Re'uyah).

(b) Rava is speaking - according to Rebbi Shimon.

(c) In the equivalent case, but where the child is an Olah, rather than a Shelamim, Rava rules that either way (even there where one Shechts the mother after the child) one is Patur from Oso v'Es Beno - because according to Rebbi Shimon, seeing as an Olah is not eaten, it is not considered a Shechitah Re'uyah.

(d) Rebbi Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" - that Achilas Mizbe'ach is also considered Achilah in the realm of Korbanos (both as regards Pigul and Oso v'Es Beno).

5)

(a) Rebbi Shimon, in our Mishnah, rules - that Oso v'Es Beno, there where the first animal ...

1. ... turns out to be a Tereifah, or is Shechted to Avodah-Zarah - does not apply. Neither does it apply to a case where it ...
2. ... is a Parah Adumah, a Shor ha'Niskal or an Eglah Arufah (which are all Asur be'Hana'ah even whilst they are still alive).

(b) In all of these cases, the Rabbanan - consider the second animal subject to Oso v'Es Beno.

(c) The Rabbanan concede however, that the second animal is no longer subject to Oso v'Es Beno - if the first animal turns out to be a Neveilah, if it is simply cut open, or if one tears out the Simanim.

(a) Resh Lakish confines the Rabbanan's ruling 'ha'Shochet la'Avodas-Kochavim, Chayav', to where the Shochet Shechted the first animal to Avodas-Kochavim, and the second one, for his own personal needs. In the reverse case, he maintains - they will concede to Rebbi Shimon that the second Shochet will be Patur, because of 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' (since he is Chayav Misah for Shechting to Avodah-Zarah, he cannot receive Malkos for Oso v'Es Beno for the same action).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish statement - because he considers it obvious (since every child knows about 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih').

(c) According to him, what Resh Lakish have said is - that even in a case where the Shochet Shechted the first one for his own needs and the second one to Avodah-Zarah - he will be Chayav there where witnesses warned him about Oso v'Es Beno, but not about Avodah-Zarah (seeing as 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' no longer applies).

(d) Resh Lakish however, declined to say that - because he holds that Chayvei Misos Shogegin are Patur (even though they are not actually sentenced to death).

(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said - that Chayvei Misos Shogegin or Chayvei Malkos Shogegin ve'Davar Acher are Patur.

(b) Besides Malkos (in the case of Chayvei Misos Shogegin), 'Davar Acher' might be referring to - a Chiyuv Mamon (e.g. if one damaged someone else's property with the same stroke).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish found it necessary to repeat their Machlokes twice, because, had they argued ...

1. ... in our case (by Shechitah) - we would have confined Resh Lakish's ruling to a case of Malkos and Misah, since both being punishments that affect the body, the former is included in the latter, but in the case of Rav Dimi (i.e. that of Misah and Mamon), where one affects the body, and the other, one's property, he will concede to Rebbi Yochanan, that the sinner is subject to both punishments (inasmuch as where he does not receive the former, he will receive the latter).
2. ... in Rav Dimi's case, we would have thought that Rebbi Yochanan would concede to Resh Lakish in our case - where Malkos affects the body just like Misah, that the former is included in the latter, and he will be Patur in all cases.