Chullin

has stated it in the form of a positive command. How is this? For the verse says. From the eighth day and henceforth it may be accepted,1 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.2 But is not this verse required for R. Aptoriki's exposition? For R. Aptoriki pointed out a contradiction between verses. The verse says: It shall be seven days under the dam,1 accordingly on the night [following the seventh day] it is valid; and then it continues: From the eighth day and henceforth it may be accepted,1 that is only from the eighth day and henceforth but not on the night [following the seventh day]. How is this [to be reconciled]? On the night [following the seventh day] it is fit for consecration, but on the [eighth] day it is acceptable [as 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]. 3 R. Hamnuna said: R. Simeon used to say that the law of ‘It and its young’ does not apply to consecrated animals. Why? 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.4 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. 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 command5 but not the penalty of Kareth. The Sages, however, say: Where there is no penalty of Kareth there is neither [the transgression of] a negative command. 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]? 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!6 Whereupon Raba (others say: Kadi)7 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;8 and according to R. Simeon, both incur the penalty of Kareth.9 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;10 according to R. Simeon, the second animal is valid.11 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;12 according to R. Simeon, he who slaughtered the second has transgressed a negative command.13 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? He should also have incurred the penalty of Kareth! — Rather, said Raba. This is what R. Hamnuna meant to say. The punishment of stripes for the [transgression of the] law of ‘It and its young’ does not apply to consecrated animals.14 Why? 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.15 Raba is consistent in this view of his. 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.16 If he first slaughtered the peace-offering and then the unconsecrated animal, he is culpable.17 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; 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. day. The negative command is indicated in Deut. XII. 8. V. Zeb. 114a. 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. Sanctuary, accordingly the penalty of Kareth is incurred even in respect of the second animal. must he observed that the Tanna of this Baraitha does not take into consideration the transgression of the law of ‘It and its young’. slaughtered this day in the Sanctuary. second was not fit to be offered this day within the Sanctuary. 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). 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 slaughtering (v. prec. n.). V. however Tosaf. supra 80b, s.v. vyhja. 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. slaughtering alone the law is transgressed.