## Chullin Daf 80b

###### Chullin 80b:1
[Chullin 80b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:1)

קַמָּא מִיקְטָל קַטְלֵיהּ, שֵׁנִי מִתְקַבֵּל בִּפְנִים הוּא, כָּרֵת נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Chullin 80b:2
[Chullin 80b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:2)

חוּלִּין בִּפְנִים – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין, וְהַשֵּׁנִי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. מִכְּדֵי שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה – לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, קַמָּא מִיקְטָל קַטְלֵיהּ, שֵׁנִי אַמַּאי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 80b:3
[Chullin 80b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:3)

קָדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים – הָרִאשׁוֹן כָּשֵׁר וּפָטוּר, וְהַשֵּׁנִי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, וּפָסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 80b:4
[Chullin 80b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:4)

מִכְּדֵי שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, שְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה הִיא, דְּכַמָּה דְּלָא זָרֵיק דָּם – לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי בָּשָׂר. שֵׁנִי אַמַּאי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, וּפָסוּל? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 80b:5
[Chullin 80b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:5)

פְּשִׁיטָא דְּהָכִי אִיתַהּ? שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים שְׁחִיטָה רְאוּיָה הִיא, דְּהָא אִי נָחַר וְזָרֵיק דָּם – לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי בָּשָׂר, וְכִי שָׁחַט – מִישְׁתְּרֵי בָּשָׂר, וּשְׁחִיטָה רְאוּיָה הִיא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 80b:6
[Chullin 80b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:6)

וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם לָאו דִּמְחוּסַּר זְמַן, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְכׇל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁבַּשּׁוֹר וְשֶׁבַּשֶּׂה שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Chullin 80b:7
[Chullin 80b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:7)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט וְגוֹ׳״, לִימֵּד עַל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁבַּשּׁוֹר וְשֶׁבַּשֶּׂה, שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 80b:8
[Chullin 80b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:8)

כִּי קָא חָשֵׁיב לָאוֵי דְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ – לָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 80b:9
[Chullin 80b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:9)

וְלָא? וְהָא קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, דְּלָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי נִינְהוּ, וְקָא חָשֵׁיב, דְּקָתָנֵי: קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ – הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב כָּרֵת, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם סוֹפְגִין אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 80b:10
[Chullin 80b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא שֵׁנִי, מִשּׁוּם לָאו דְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״, אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן אַמַּאי סוֹפֵג? לָאו מִשּׁוּם לָאו דִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 80b:11
[Chullin 80b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:11)

כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא לָאו דְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ – חָשֵׁיב לָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לָאו דְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ – לָא חָשֵׁיב לָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 80b:12
[Chullin 80b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80b:12)

רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: הַנַּח לִמְחוּסַּר זְמַן, דְּהַכָּתוּב

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said: Leave** the prohibition against sacrificing an animal **whose time has not yet** arrived, **as the verse**