1) LASHES FOR “OSO V’ES BENO” (cont.)

(a) Answer #3 (R. Zeira): One is not lashed for slaughtering Kodshim prematurely, because the Lav was uprooted, it is only an Isur Ase:
1. “From the eighth day and onwards it will be acceptable” – but not before this.
2. A Lav derived from a Mitzvas Ase is considered an Ase.
(b) Question: But this verse is needed for R. Aftoriki’s law!
1. (R. Aftoriki): “Seven days it will be by its mother” – this implies, the following night it may be offered!
2. Contradiction: “From the eighth day and onwards it will be acceptable” – but not the night before!
3. Answer (R. Aftoriki): One may Mekadesh it on the night of the eighth (or later), it may be offered on the eighth day.
(c) Answer: “So you will do to your cattle and flock”, is extra, allowing us to learn both laws.
1) “OSO V’ES BENO” OF “KODSHIM”
(a) (Rav Hamnuna): R. Shimon holds that Oso v’Es Beno does not apply to Kodshim.
1. This is because he holds that slaughter that does not permit is not considered slaughter; slaughter of Kodshim does not (alone or immediately) permit the animal.
(b) Question (Rava – Beraisa – R. Shimon): If Oso v’Es Beno of Kodshim were slaughtered outside, the second slaughterer transgresses a Lav;
1. R. Shimon holds, if one slaughters any Korban that is now unacceptable but will become acceptable he transgresses a Lav, he is not Chayav Kares;
2. Chachamim say, if he is not Chayav Kares (because it is unacceptable now), he does not transgress a Lav.
3. (Summation of question): Why does R. Shimon exempt the second slaughterer from Kares?
i. Since the first slaughter was invalid, it is as if the animal was killed (not slaughtered) – the second animal is Kosher for a Korban that same day!
(c) Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is abbreviated; it means as follows:
1. If Kodshim were slaughtered outside, Chachamim Mechayev the first slaughterer Kares, the second Korban is Pasul, the second slaughterer is exempt (for Shechutei Chutz);
i. R. Shimon says, both are Chayav Kares;
2. If they were slaughtered outside and inside (in this order), Chachamim Mechayev the first slaughterer Kares, the second Korban is Pasul, the second slaughterer is exempt;
i. R. Shimon is Machshir the second Korban;
3. If they were slaughtered inside and outside, Chachamim Machshir the first Korban, Posel the second Korban, both slaughterers are exempt;
i. R. Shimon says, the second slaughterer transgresses a Lav.
4. Objection: If R. Shimon holds that Oso v’Es Beno does not apply to Kodshim, the second slaughterer should be Chayav Kares!
(d) Correction (Rava): Rav Hamnuna meant that R. Shimon holds that one is not lashed for Oso v’Es Beno of Kodshim.
1. A Korban may not be eaten until Zerikah; at the time of slaughter, it is not known if Zerikah will be done, retroactively making the slaughter valid.
2. Any Hasra’ah (warning) given to the slaughterer is doubtful (he transgresses only if Zerikah will be done); such Hasra’ah is invalid.
(e) (Rava): If one slaughters Chulin and (then) Shelamim (Oso v’Es Beno), he is exempt; if he slaughtered the Shelamim first, he is liable;
(f) (Rava): If the mother is Chulin, and the child is an Olah:
1. He is exempt not only if he slaughters the Chulin first, but even if he slaughters the Olah first;
81b—————————————81b

2. This is because slaughter of an Olah does not permit the meat to be eaten (so it is not considered slaughter);
(g) (R. Yakov): What is burned on the Mizbe’ach is considered like being eaten (so slaughter of an Olah is considered slaughter);
1. “V’Im He’achol Ye’achel mi’Bsar Zevach Shelamav” – the Torah discusses two eatings, of people and of the Mizbe’ach.
2) IMPROPER SLAUGHTERS
(a) (Mishnah – R. Shimon): One is not liable (for Oso v’Es Beno) in the following cases (since they are not considered slaughter):
1. The animal was found to be Treifah;
2. Slaughter for idolatry;
3. Slaughter of the Parah Adumah, an animal sentenced to be stoned, or Eglah Arufah (a calf that is beheaded to atone for a murder);
(b) Chachamim say, all of these are considered slaughter.
(c) One is not liable if it was slaughtered improperly (i.e. and became a Nevelah), whether the Pesul was intentional or unintentional.
(d) (Gemara – Reish Lakish): Regarding idolatry, Chachamim Mechayev (for Oso v’Es Beno) only if the second animal was slaughtered with proper intention;
1. But if the second animal was slaughtered for idolatry, even if the first was slaughtered properly, since he is liable to death (for the second slaughter), he is exempt for Oso v’Es Beno.
(e) R. Yochanan: Even children know that!
(f) (R. Yochanan): Sometimes, even if the second animal was slaughtered for idolatry, he is liable for Oso v’Es Beno;
1. The case is, he was warned not to slaughter Oso v’Es Beno, but was not warned about idolatry.
2. Reish Lakish holds, since he would be exempt for Oso v’Es Beno had he been warned about idolatry, he is exempt even if he was not warned.
3) DOUBLE LIABILTY
(a) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with their opinions in a related case.
(b) (Rav Dimi): If a person transgressed (b’Shogeg) an Isur punishable by death or lashes (if done b’Mezid), and simultaneously did something for which one must pay, R. Yochanan obligates him to pay, Reish Lakish exempts.
1. R. Yochanan obligates, since he will not be killed or lashed;
2. Reish Lakish exempts – since he would be exempt had he sinned (b’Mezid) with Hasra’ah, he is exempt even if he was not warned.
(c) The argument must be taught in both cases:
1. Version #1 (Rashi): If we only heard that Reish Lakish exempts regarding Oso v’Es Beno, one might have thought this is because we do not administer two bodily punishments, but he would not exempt from paying money;
2. If we only heard that R. Yochanan obligates money, one might have thought that since we do not administer two bodily punishments, even when one is not killed for idolatry, he is exempt for Oso v’Es Beno.
3. Version #2 (Tosfos): If we only heard that Reish Lakish exempts from paying, one might have thought this is learned from a verse, but lashes are given;
4. If we only heard that R. Yochanan obligates lashes, one might have thought that he agrees that one is exempt from paying (like Tana d’Vei Chizkiyah learns from a verse.)