## Chullin Daf 81a

###### Chullin 81a:1
[Chullin 81a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:1)

נִתְּקוֹ לַעֲשֵׂה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה״ – מִיּוֹם הַשְׁמִינִי אִין, מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא. לָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה – עֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**transmuted it** from the standard prohibition of: It shall not be accepted, which is violated in the case of the other disqualifications, **into** a prohibition that stems from **a positive mitzva. What is the reasoning** by which this is derived? It is derived from that **which the verse states: “From the eighth day and forward it may be accepted** for an offering” (Leviticus 22:27), which teaches that **from the eighth day** after its birth, **yes,** it may be sacrificed as an offering, but **initially,** before the eighth day, **no,** it may not be sacrificed. Therefore, this is **a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva,** which is not considered a negative prohibition for which one is flogged, but rather **a positive mitzva.**


###### Chullin 81a:2
[Chullin 81a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:2)

וְהָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי אַפְטוֹרִיקִי, דְּרַבִּי אַפְטוֹרִיקִי רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ״, הָא לַיְלָה חֲזֵי, וּכְתִיב ״מִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה״ – מִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה אִין, לַיְלָה לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But this** verse **is required for** the statement **of Rabbi Aptoriki, as Rabbi Aptoriki raises a contradiction: It is written: “Then it shall be seven days with its mother”** (Leviticus 22:27), indicating that on **the night** after the seventh day it is already **fit** to be sacrificed. **But it is** also **written** in that verse: **“From the eighth day and forward it may be accepted,”** indicating that **from the eighth day forward, yes,** it is fit, but on **the night** before it is **not.**


###### Chullin 81a:3
[Chullin 81a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:3)

הָא כֵּיצַד? לַיְלָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה, יוֹם לְהַרְצָאָה. כְּתִיב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשֹׁרְךָ לְצֹאנֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How** can **these** texts be reconciled? **The night** after the seventh day is fit **for consecration,** which is permitted at that time, while **the** eighth **day** is fit **for effecting acceptance,** and only then may it be sacrificed on the altar. The Gemara answers that **another verse is** also **written** that specifies this positive mitzva: **“So shall you do with your ox and with your sheep;** seven days shall it be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:29).


###### Chullin 81a:4
[Chullin 81a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:4)

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵין אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּקׇדָשִׁים, מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, שְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discussing Rabbi Shimon’s opinion with regard to slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. **Rav Hamnuna says** that **Rabbi Shimon would say:** The prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring does not apply to sacrificial** animals. **What is the reason?** The reason is that **since Rabbi Shimon says** that an act of **slaughter that is unfit** to permit consumption **is not considered** to have the halakhic status of an act of **slaughter,** the prohibition will not apply here. This case of **slaughtering sacrificial** animals **is also** considered **slaughter that is unfit,** in that the flesh may not be burned upon the altar or eaten until the blood has been presented.


###### Chullin 81a:5
[Chullin 81a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:5)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שֵׁנִי בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָבֹא לְאַחַר זְמַן – הֲרֵי הוּא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת – אֵינוֹ בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If one slaughtered an animal **itself and its offspring** and both animals were **sacrificial** animals slaughtered **outside** the Temple courtyard, **Rabbi Shimon says:** For slaughtering the **second** animal he transgresses **a prohibition** in slaughtering it outside the Temple, **as Rabbi Shimon would say:** With regard to **any** offering **that is fit to come** to the altar **after** a certain amount of **time** and is offered outside the Temple before that time, **he** who slaughters it transgresses **a prohibition, but there is no** liability to receive ***karet*. And the Rabbis say:** With regard to **any** offering slaughtered outside of the Temple **for which there is no** liability to receive ***karet*** because it is unfit to be an offering at that time, he who sacrifices it also **does not** transgress **a prohibition.**


###### Chullin 81a:6
[Chullin 81a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:6)

וְקַשְׁיָא לַן: קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, שֵׁנִי בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? קַמָּא מִיקְטָל קְטַל, שֵׁנִי מִתְקַבֵּל בִּפְנִים הוּא, כָּרֵת נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this statement in the *baraita* is **difficult for us:** If both animals were **sacrificial** animals slaughtered **outside** the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon says: For slaughtering the **second** animal he transgresses **a prohibition** for slaughtering outside the Temple. According to Rabbi Shimon, slaughter that is unfit for consumption is not considered slaughter. Therefore, with regard to **the first** animal, it is as if **he has killed** it without ritual slaughter, since its slaughter was unfit, and the **second** animal **would be accepted inside** the Temple upon the altar. Therefore, **let** one who slaughters it outside of the Temple **be liable** to receive ***karet* as well.**


###### Chullin 81a:7
[Chullin 81a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:7)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: קָדָשִׁים שְׁנֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ, לְרַבָּנַן – רִאשׁוֹן עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, שֵׁנִי פָּסוּל וּפָטוּר מִלָּאו דִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said, and some say it unattributed:** The *baraita* **is incomplete and this is what** it is **teaching:** If one slaughters an animal and its offspring that are both **sacrificial** animals, and **both of them** are slaughtered **outside** the Temple courtyard, **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** the slaughter of **the first** animal **is punishable by *karet*,** while the **second** animal **is disqualified** as its time has not yet arrived, **and** therefore, for its slaughter one is **exempt from** punishment for violating **the prohibition of** offerings **slaughtered outside** the Temple.


###### Chullin 81a:8
[Chullin 81a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:8)

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲנוּשִׁים כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** the slaughter of **both of them,** including the second one alone, is **punishable by *karet*.** This is because the slaughter of the first is not considered slaughter, and therefore it does not disqualify the second through the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring.


###### Chullin 81a:9
[Chullin 81a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:9)

אֶחָד בַּחוּץ וְאֶחָד בִּפְנִים: לְרַבָּנַן – רִאשׁוֹן עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, שֵׁנִי פָּסוּל וּפָטוּר; לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – שֵׁנִי כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If an animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals are slaughtered, the first **one outside** the Temple courtyard, **and** the second **one inside** the Temple courtyard, **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** the slaughter of the **first is punishable by *karet*,** while the **second** animal **is disqualified** as its time has not yet arrived, **and** its slaughterer is **exempt** from punishment for its slaughter outside the Temple, because he slaughtered it inside the Temple. **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** the **second** animal is **fit** for the altar, and it is sacrificed, as the slaughter of the first animal is not considered slaughter, and therefore the slaughter of the second does not violate the prohibition of a mother and its offspring.


###### Chullin 81a:10
[Chullin 81a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:10)

אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ: לְרַבָּנַן – רִאשׁוֹן כָּשֵׁר וּפָטוּר, שֵׁנִי פָּסוּל וּפָטוּר, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – שֵׁנִי בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If an animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals are slaughtered, the first **one inside** the Temple courtyard **and** the second **one outside** the Temple courtyard, **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** the **first** animal **is fit** for the altar, **and** one who slaughters it **is exempt** from any punishment, as its slaughter is perfectly legitimate. The **second is unfit** for the altar, as it was slaughtered outside the Temple, **but** its slaughterer is **exempt** from punishment for its slaughter outside the Temple because it is unfit for the altar, as its time has not yet arrived. **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** for slaughtering the **second** animal outside the Temple one transgresses **a prohibition,** as he holds that an offering whose time has not yet arrived that was slaughtered outside the Temple violates a prohibition.


###### Chullin 81a:11
[Chullin 81a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:11)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֵין ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בְּקָדָשִׁים, שֵׁנִי אַמַּאי בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְתוּ לָא? כָּרֵת נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava now explains his objection: **And if it enters your mind** that the prohibition of: **Itself and its offspring,** does **not apply to sacrificial** animals, then with regard to slaughtering the **second** animal outside the Temple, **why** does one transgress only **a prohibition and nothing more? Let him be liable** to receive ***karet* as well,** as since its slaughter does not violate the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, it would fit to be sacrificed inside the Temple. Therefore, it is clear that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, does apply to sacrificial animals.


###### Chullin 81a:12
[Chullin 81a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אֵין מַלְקוֹת ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בְּקָדָשִׁים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: This is what Rav Hamnuna is saying:** Though the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, does apply to sacrificial animals, the administering of **lashes for** violating the prohibition of: **Itself and its offspring, does not apply to sacrificial animals.**


###### Chullin 81a:13
[Chullin 81a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:13)

כֵּיוָן דְּכַמָּה דְּלָא זָרֵיק דָּם – לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי בָּשָׂר, מֵעִידָּנָא דְּקָא שָׁחֵיט הָוֵאי הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק, וְהַתְרָאַת סָפֵק – לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is that **since as long as one has not sprinkled the blood, the flesh is not permitted** to be burned on the altar or eaten, **at the time that one slaughters** the second animal, when he receives a forewarning that his action violates the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, **it is an uncertain forewarning,** because if the blood will not be sprinkled, the flesh will not be permitted, sparing him from violating the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. **And an uncertain forewarning is not considered** a valid **forewarning** that renders one liable to receive lashes.


###### Chullin 81a:14
[Chullin 81a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:14)

וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הִיא חוּלִּין וּבְנָהּ שְׁלָמִים, שָׁחַט חוּלִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט שְׁלָמִים – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava follows his** line of **reasoning, as Rava says:** According to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one does not incur punishment for the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, for a slaughtering that is unfit, if **she,** the mother, **is non-sacred, and her offspring is a peace offering,** and one **slaughtered** the **non-sacred** mother, **and afterward** one **slaughtered** her offspring that is **a peace offering** on the same day, he is **exempt** for slaughtering the offspring. This is because the forewarning for slaughtering the offspring is uncertain as its blood might not be sprinkled, rendering the slaughter unfit.


###### Chullin 81a:15
[Chullin 81a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/81a:15)

שְׁלָמִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוּלִּין – חַיָּיב, וְאָמַר רָבָא: הִיא חוּלִּין וּבְנָהּ עוֹלָה, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא שָׁחַט חוּלִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט עוֹלָה דְּפָטוּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if one slaughtered the offspring that is **a peace offering** first and sprinkled its blood, **and afterward** he slaughtered the **non-sacred** mother, he is **liable** to receive lashes for slaughtering the mother. Once the non-sacred mother is slaughtered, the meat is fit; therefore, the forewarning is definite. **And Rava says:** If **she,** the mother, **is non-sacred, and her offspring is** sacrificed as **a burnt offering,** and both are slaughtered on the same day, **it is not necessary** to state that if one **slaughtered** the **non-sacred** mother, **and afterward** he **slaughtered** her offspring as **a burnt offering, that** he is **exempt.**