Chullin 161
דרבי אפטוריקי רמי כתיב
that is from the eighth day only, but not before; it is therefore a negative precept derived from a positive command which has only the force of a positive command.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of 'out of time', e.g., where the animal is not eight days old or where its dam was slaughtered on this same day, is modified in the Torah by the remedy stated, namely, keep it until it is eight days old, or slaughter it on the following day; hence the usual penalty for the transgression of a prohibition does not apply here (Rashi) ; v. infra 141a. Tosaf. interprets thus: the Torah has expressly singled out the disqualification of 'out of time' from all the other disqualifications stated in Scripture for which the usual penalty of stripes is in force, and has declared that the transgression of this prohibition is accounted as the none fulfilment of a positive precept.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אמר רב המנונא
On the night [following the seventh day] it is fit for consecration, but on the [eighth] day it is acceptable [a an offering]! - There is another verse to the same effect, viz. , Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen and thy sheep; [seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it Me].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 29');"><sup>3</sup></span>
שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה שחיטת קדשים נמי שחיטה שאינה ראויה היא
For since R'Simeon has stated that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering, the slaughtering of consecrated animals is [by itself] a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 448.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
מתיב רבא
Raba raised the following objection: If two persons slaughtered a dam and its young [on the same day], both being consecrated animals, outside the Sanctuary, [he who slaughtered] the second, says R'Simeon, has transgressed a negative command.
אותו ואת בנו קדשים בחוץ ר' שמעון אומר
For R'Simeon used to say: For [slaughtering outside the Sanctuary] any [consecrated] animal which is fit to be brought [as a sacrifice] at a later time, there is a negative command<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At present, however, it is 'out of time' or temporarily unfit, e.g., by reason of the slaughtering of the dam this same day. The negative command is indicated in Deut. XII. 8. V. Zeb. 114a.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
כל הראוי לבא לאחר זמן הרי הוא בלא תעשה ואין בו כרת
Now upon this was raised the following difficulty: [You say,] Where both were consecrated animals and they were slaughtered outside, [he who slaughtered] the second has transgressed a negative command [and nothing more]?
וחכמים אומרים
But surely, the first animal is merely regarded as 'killed' and the second would therefore be acceptable [as a sacrifice] within; consequently he [who slaughtered it] should also incur the penalty of Kareth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to R. Simeon the slaughtering of the dam in this case, in as much as it does not render the flesh thereof permitted to be eaten, is no slaughtering; consequently the young is fit for sacrifice and he who slaughters it outside the Sanctuary incurs the penalty of Kareth.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
וקשיא לן
answered: There is an omission here, and this is how it should read: If both animals were consecrated add [were slaughtered] outside [the Sanctuary]: according to the Rabbis, [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of Kareth, and the second [animal] is invalid but he [who slaughtered it] is not culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He has not incurred Kareth since it could not have been offered this day in the Sanctuary.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
קדשים בחוץ שני בלא תעשה
and according to R'Simeon, both incur the penalty of Kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the slaughtering of the first animal was no slaughtering the second was fit to be offered this day in the Sanctuary, accordingly the penalty of Kareth is incurred even in respect of the second animal.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
קמא מיקטל קטל שני מקבל בפנים הוא כרת נמי ליחייב
If both animals were consecrated and [were slaughtered], the first outside and the second inside [the Sanctuary], - according to the Rabbis, [he who slaughtered] the first has incurred the penalty of Kareth, and the second [animal] is invalid and he [who slaughtered it] is not culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is not liable for slaughtering it outside the Sanctuary since it was not fit to be offered within on the same day. It must he observed that the Tanna of this Baraitha does not take into consideration the transgression of the law of 'It and its young'.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ואמר רבא ואמרי לה כדי
according to R'Simeon, the second animal is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the slaughtering of the first animal was no slaughtering and the second animal was thus permitted to be slaughtered this day in the Sanctuary.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני
If the first [was slaughtered] inside and the second outside [the Sanctuary]: according to the Rabbis the first animal is valid and he [who slaughtered it] is not culpable, and the second is invalid and he [who slaughtered it] is likewise not culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 451, n. 4.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
קדשים שניהם בחוץ לרבנן ראשון ענוש כרת שני פסול ופטור מלאו דשחוטי חוץ
according to R'Simeon, he who slaughtered the second has transgressed a negative command.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kareth, however, is not incurred, for since the slaughtering of the first was a valid and proper slaughtering the second was not fit to be offered this day within the Sanctuary.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
לרבי שמעון שניהם ענושים כרת
Now if you are to assume that [according to R'Simeon] the law of 'It and its young' does not apply to consecrated animals, then why [is it stated that] he who slaughtered the second has transgressed a negative command and no more?
אחד בפנים ואחד בחוץ לרבנן ראשון כשר ופטור שני פסול ופטור
The punishment of stripes for the [transgression of the] law of 'It and its young' does not apply to consecrated animals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason being that the slaughtering of the first animal, having been performed according to all its rites, renders the second animal 'out of time', so that the slaughtering of the latter is no slaughtering and the punishment of stripes not incurred thereby (Rashi) .');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ואי סלקא דעתך
For in as much as the flesh is not permitted to be eaten so long as the blood has not been sprinkled, [the warning that is given to the slaughterer] while he is slaughtering is a dubious warning, and a dubious warning is no warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi suggests the deletion from the text of the last passage (from 'Why' to 'warning') on the ground that the argument is misleading and erroneous. For the reason why stripes are not incurred is not because of the dubious warning but simply because the slaughtering is no vyhja slaughtering (v. prec. n.) . V. however Tosaf. supra 80b, s.v. .');"><sup>15</sup></span>
כרת נמי ליחייב
For Raba said: If the dam was an unconsecrated animal and the young a peace-offering, and a man slaughtered first the unconsecrated animal and later [on the same day] the peace-offering, he is not culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For slaughtering 'it and its young', as the warning at the time of the commission of the wrongful act, i.e., when slaughtering the peace-offering, is a dubious warning, for if the blood of this sacrifice will not later be sprinkled upon the altar, the slaughtering is no slaughtering and no wrongful act will have been committed. This statement is obviously only in accordance with R. Simeon's view.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אלא אמר רבא הכי קא אמר רב המנונא
If he first slaughtered the peace-offering and then the unconsecrated animal, he is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The warning in this case before the slaughtering of the unconsecrated animal is a certain warning, for by the act of slaughtering alone the law is transgressed.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
אין מלקות אותו ואת בנו נוהג בקדשים
Raba also said: If the dam was an Unconsecrated animal and the young a burnt-offering, it goes without saying that if a man first slaughtered the unconsecrated animal and later [on the same day] the burnt-offering, he is not culpable;