Chullin 160

קמא מיקטל קטליה שני מתקבל בפנים הוא כרת נמי ליחייב

Accordingly as the first [animal] was merely killed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the slaughtering of a consecrated animal outside the Sanctuary, although involving the penalty of Kareth, is not regarded as a slaughtering but a killing, its young may be slaughtered on the same day; consequently the second consecrated animal was fit for a sacrifice, and he who slaughtered it outside the Sanctuary should indeed have incurred Kareth. inz rxujn');">¹</span>

חולין בפנים שניהם פסולין והשני סופג את הארבעים

the second is acceptable [as an offering] within, and he [who slaughtered it] should also incur the penalty of Kareth.

מכדי שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דאמר

Moreover, it reads: IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE UNCONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, BOTH ANIMALS ARE INVALID, AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES.

שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה קמא מיקטל קטליה שני אמאי סופג את הארבעים

Let us consider.

קדשים בפנים הראשון כשר ופטור והשני סופג את הארבעי' ופסול

We know that according to R'Simeon a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering.

מכדי שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דאמר

Accordingly the first [animal] was merely killed; why then should [he who slaughtered] the second have incurred forty stripes?

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

Further, it reads: IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, THE FIRST IS VALID AND HE [WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT HE WHO SLAUGHTERED THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES AND IT IS INVALID.

אלא שמע מינה דלא כרבי שמעון

Let us consider.

פשיטא דהכי איתא

We know that according to R'Simeon, a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering.

שחיטת קדשים איצטריכא ליה

Now the slaughtering of a consecrated animal is [by itself] a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit, for so long as the blood has not been sprinkled the flesh is not permitted to be eaten.

סלקא דעתך אמינא

Why is it then that [he who slaughtered] the second has incurred forty stripes?

שחיטת קדשים שחיטה ראויה היא דהא אי נחר וזריק דם לא מישתרי בשר וכי שחט מישתרי בשר ושחיטה ראויה היא קמ"ל

and why is it invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the slaughtering of the first animal was no slaughtering, the second is not under the disability of , 'too young', and it is valid for sacrifice, and he who slaughters it most certainly does not incur stripes.');">²</span>

ולילקי נמי משום לאו דמחוסר זמן דתניא

Indeed you may conclude that it is not in agreement with R'Simeon, Is it not obvious it is so? - It was only necessary [to have said it] on account of the clause dealing with the slaughtering of consecrated animals.

מנין לכל הפסולין שבשור ושבשה שהוא בלא ירצה

For you might have submitted that the slaughtering of a consecrated animal is [by itself] a slaughtering which renders fit, for if one were to stab the animal and sprinkle its blood, the flesh would not thereby be permitted to be eaten, whereas if one were to slaughter it, the flesh would thereby be permitted to be eaten, consequently it is a slaughtering which renders the animal fit.

ת"ל

He therefore teaches us [that it is not so].

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

Should he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one who slaughtered the second consecrated animal in the Sanctuary.');">³</span>

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

not have incurred stripes also on account of the prohibition of 'out of time'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one animal has been slaughtered the second is 'out of time' and unfit for a sacrifice on that day, and he who slaughters as a sacrifice that which is unfit for a sacrifice incurs the penalty of stripes. V. Tem. 6b.');">⁴</span>

ולא

For it was taught: Whence do we know that [the offering of] a bullock or a sheep that has any disqualifying defect is a transgression of the prohibition of 'It shall not be accepted'?

והא קדשים בחוץ דלאוי נוכראי נינהו וקא חשיב

From the verse: Either a bullock or a lamb that hath anything too long or too short.

דקתני

it shall not be accepted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 23.');">⁵</span>

קדשים בחוץ הראשון חייב כרת ושניהם סופגין את הארבעים

implying, that [the offering of] a bullock or sheep that has a disqualifying defect is a transgression of the prohibition of 'It shall not be accepted'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which the penalty of stripes is incurred.');">⁶</span>

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

- He [the Tanna in our Mishnah] only reckons the prohibition of 'It and its young', but not other prohibitions.

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

Surely it is not so! For is not the slaughtering of a consecrated animal outside the Sanctuary another prohibition nevertheless he reckons it?

רבי זירא אמר

For it says.

הנח למחוסר זמן דהכתוב

IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY, [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE FIRST INCURS THE PENALTY OF KARETH, AND EACH INCURS FORTY STRIPES. The second one, I grant you, on account of the prohibition of 'It and its young'; but why does the first one incur forty stripes if not on accou of the prohibition of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Sanctuary? - Wherever there is no prohibition of 'It and its young' he then reckons other prohibitions, but wherever there is a prohibition of 'It and its young' he does not reckon other prohibitions. R'Zera answered: Leave alone the prohibition of 'Out of time', for Scripture