## Chullin Daf 81b

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

אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שָׁחַט עוֹלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט חוּלִּין – פָּטוּר, שְׁחִיטָה קַמַּיְיתָא לָאו שְׁחִיטָה בַּת אֲכִילָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But even** if one **slaughtered** the offspring as **a burnt offering** and sprinkled its blood, **and afterward slaughtered** the **non-sacred** mother, he is **exempt.** The reason is that **the slaughter** of the **first** animal **is not** an act of **slaughter subject to consumption,** as a burnt offering is entirely burned upon the altar, and according to Rabbi Shimon, it is an act of slaughter that is improper, in that it does not render the meat fit to be eaten, is not considered slaughter.


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

וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ שְׁמָהּ אֲכִילָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ya’akov says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** says: **Consumption by the altar is considered consumption. What is the reason?** The reason is **that the verse states** with regard to an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [*piggul*]: **“And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be at all eaten [*he’akhol ye’akhel*]** on the third day, it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18).


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

בִּשְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד אֲכִילַת אָדָם וְאֶחָד אֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The repetitive expression “*he’akhol ye’akhel*” teaches that **the verse is speaking of two** types of **consumption: One** is **human consumption, and** the other **one** is **consumption by the altar,** and both are considered consumption with regard to *piggul* and other matters. Therefore, the slaughter of a burnt offering is considered slaughter that is fit for consumption, and the slaughter of a mother animal and its offspring, one of which is sacrificed as a burnt offering on the same day as the slaughter of the other, renders one liable to receive lashes even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה, הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט פָּרַת חַטָּאת, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְחַיְּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who slaughters** an animal and its offspring **and** one of them **is discovered to be an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*]** and may not be eaten, or **one who slaughters** one of the animals **for** the sake of **idol worship,** from which deriving benefit is prohibited, **or one who slaughters the** red **heifer of purification, or an ox that** was **to** have been **stoned, or a heifer whose neck** was **to** have been **broken,** all of which are animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, **Rabbi Shimon deems** one who slaughters them **exempt** from lashes for the slaughter of a mother and its offspring, as in his opinion, slaughter that does not render the animal fit for consumption is not considered slaughter and does not violate the prohibition. **And the Rabbis deem** him **liable,** as the slaughter need not render the animal fit for consumption in order to violate the prohibition.


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

הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְנַבְּלָה בְּיָדוֹ, וְהַנּוֹחֵר, וְהַמְעַקֵּר – פָּטוּר מִשּׁוּם ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
All agree that **one who slaughters** an animal **and it becomes a carcass by his hand** because the slaughter was invalid, **or one who stabs** an animal, **or one who uproots** the windpipe and the gullet, is **exempt with regard to** the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring,** as it is written: “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), and in these cases, no ritual slaughter was performed.


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

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשֵׁנִי לְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ, אֲבָל רִאשׁוֹן לְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ וְשֵׁנִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – פָּטוּר, דְּקָם לֵיהּ בִּדְרַבָּה מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** The Rabbis in the mishna **taught** that one is liable when one of the animals is slaughtered for the sake of idol worship **only when he slaughtered** the **first** animal **for** the sake of **idol worship and** the **second** animal **for his** own **table. But** if he slaughtered the **first** animal **for his** own **table and** the **second** animal **for** the sake of **idol worship,** he is **exempt** from lashes for the second act of slaughter, **as he receives** only **the greater** punishment, that for idol worship, which is death.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן יוֹדְעִין אוֹתָהּ! אֶלָּא, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ שָׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן לְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ וְשֵׁנִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Even schoolchildren know this** *halakha*, that one who is liable to receive two punishments receives only the greater punishment. **Rather, sometimes, even if he slaughtered** the **first for his** own **table and** the **second for** the sake of **idol worship,** he is **liable** to receive lashes for the second act of slaughter.


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

כְּגוֹן דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ מִשּׁוּם ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״, וְלֹא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ מִשּׁוּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּכִי אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ – פָּטוּר, כִּי לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ נָמֵי – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This occurs, **for example, where** the witnesses **forewarned him** before the second act of slaughter **with regard to** the prohibition of: **Itself and its offspring, but** they **did not forewarn him with regard to idol worship.** Since he is not punished for performing idol worship, he receives lashes for the less severe transgression. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Since, had they forewarned him** with regard to idol worship he would have been **exempt** from lashes; therefore, even **if they did not forewarn him** with regard to idol worship, **he is also exempt** from lashes.


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

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת שׁוֹגְגִין, וְחַיָּיבֵי מַלְקוֹת שׁוֹגְגִין, וְדָבָר אַחֵר – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And they** each **follow their** known lines of **reasoning** in this matter. **As when Rav Dimi came** to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael **he said:** With regard to **those** who **unwittingly** performed a transgression for which one is **liable to** receive the **death** penalty if one performed it intentionally, **or those** who **unwittingly** performed a transgression for which one is **liable** to receive **lashes, and** that transgression also involved **another matter,** monetary payment, and they were forewarned with regard to the monetary penalty but not with regard to the lashes or the death penalty, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** He is **liable** to pay; **and Reish Lakish says:** He is **exempt.**


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

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב, דְּהָא לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ; וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: פָּטוּר, דְּכֵיוָן דְּכִי אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ פָּטוּר – כִּי לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ נָמֵי פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the rationales for their statements. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that he is **liable; since they did not forewarn him** with regard to the severe transgression, he sinned unwittingly, and he remains liable only to pay the monetary payment. **And Reish Lakish says** that he is **exempt; since had they forewarned him** with regard to the severe transgression, he would have been **exempt** from the monetary payment, **when they did not forewarn him,** he is **also exempt.**


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

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, אֲבָל בְּהָא – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And it is necessary** to state their disagreement with regard to both of these cases. **As, if it were taught to us** only **about this** case where one slaughters the mother for his private use and afterward slaughters its offspring for idol worship, perhaps only **in this** case involving the death penalty and lashes **does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say** that even if they did not forewarn the transgressor with regard to idol worship, he is still exempt from lashes for the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, because the death penalty and lashes are similar in that they are both corporal punishments, and so the obligation of lashes does not take effect at all when the death penalty is potentially applicable. **But in that** case, involving the death penalty or lashes together with a monetary payment, **say that he agrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan** that the transgressor is liable to pay the monetary payment.


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

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the disagreement **was stated** only **with regard to that** case, where one unwittingly performed a transgression involving the death penalty or lashes together with a transgression bearing a monetary payment, perhaps only **in that** case **does Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that he is liable to pay the monetary payment. **But in this** case, where one slaughtered an animal and its offspring, and the second animal was slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, which involves the death penalty and lashes, but without a forewarning with regard to the death penalty, **say that he agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** that one is exempt from lashes. Therefore, it is **necessary** to state their disagreement with regard to both cases.


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

וּפָרַת חַטָּאת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה הִיא? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: פָּרָה מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems one who slaughters the red heifer of purification exempt from punishment for the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, as that act of slaughter does not render the animal fit for consumption. The Gemara asks: **And** is the slaughter of **the** red **heifer of purification** considered an act of **slaughter that is unfit** for consumption? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon says:** A red **heifer,** even if it has been slaughtered and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from it, **is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since it had a time in which it was fit** for consumption?