Answer #3 (R. Zeira): One is not lashed for slaughtering Kodshim prematurely, because the Lav was uprooted. It is only an Isur Aseh;

"From the eighth day and onwards it will be acceptable", but not before this.

A Lav derived from a Mitzvas Aseh is considered an Aseh.

Question: This verse is needed for R. Aftoriki's law!

(R. Aftoriki): "Seven days it will be with its mother" implies that the following night it may be offered!

Contradiction: "From the eighth day and onwards it will be acceptable", but not the night before!

Answer (R. Aftoriki): One may be Mekadesh it on the night of the eighth (or later). It may be offered on the eighth day.

Answer: "So you will do to your cattle and flock" is extra, so we can learn both laws.

(Rav Hamnuna): R. Shimon holds that Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to Kodshim.

This is because he holds that Shechitah that does not permit is not considered Shechitah. Shechitah of Kodshim does not (alone or immediately) permit the animal.

Question (Rava - Beraisa - R. Shimon): If Oso v'Es Beno of Kodshim were slaughtered outside, the second Shochet transgresses a Lav;

R. Shimon holds that if one slaughters any Korban that is now unacceptable, but will become acceptable, he transgresses a Lav. He is not Chayav Kares;

Chachamim say, if he is not Chayav Kares (because it is unacceptable now), he does not transgress a Lav.

(Summation of question): Why does R. Shimon exempt the second Shochet from Kares?

Since the first Shechitah was invalid, it is as if the animal was killed (not slaughtered). The second animal is Kosher for a Korban that same day!

Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as follows:

If Kodshim were slaughtered outside, Chachamim are Mechayev the first Shochet Kares. The second Korban is Pasul, and the second Shochet is exempt (for Shechutei Chutz);

R. Shimon says, both are Chayav Kares;

If they were slaughtered outside and inside (in this order), Chachamim are Mechayev the first Shochet Kares, and the second Korban is Pasul. The second Shochet is exempt;

R. Shimon is Machshir the second Korban;

If they were slaughtered inside and outside, Chachamim are Machshir the first Korban, disqualify the second Korban, and both Shochtim are exempt;

R. Shimon says, the second Shochet transgresses a Lav.

Objection: If R. Shimon holds that Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to Kodshim, the second Shochet should be Chayav Kares!

Correction (Rava): Rav Hamnuna meant that R. Shimon holds that one is not lashed for Oso v'Es Beno of Kodshim.

One may not eat a Korban before Zerikah. At the time of Shechitah, it is not known if Zerikah will be done and retroactively validate the Shechitah.

Any Hasra'ah (warning) given to the Shochet is doubtful. (He transgresses only if Zerikah will be done.) Such Hasra'ah is invalid.

(Rava): If one slaughters Chulin and (then) Shelamim (Oso v'Es Beno), he is exempt. If he slaughtered the Shelamim first, he is liable;

(Rava): If the mother is Chulin, and the child is an Olah, he is exempt not only if he slaughters the Chulin first, rather, even if he slaughters the Olah first;

This is because Shechitah of an Olah does not permit the meat to be eaten. (Therefore, it is not considered Shechitah.)

(R. Yakov): What is burned on the Mizbe'ach is considered like being eaten (so Shechitah of an Olah is considered Shechitah);

"V'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Bsar Zevach Shelamav" discusses two eatings, of people and of the Mizbe'ach.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): One is not liable (for Oso v'Es Beno) in the following cases (since they are not considered Shechitah):

The animal was found to be Terefah;

Shechitah for idolatry;

Shechitah of the Parah Adumah, an animal sentenced to be stoned, or Eglah Arufah (a calf that is beheaded to atone for a murder);

Chachamim say, all of these are considered Shechitah.

One is not liable if it was slaughtered improperly (i.e. and became a Nevelah), whether the Pesul was intentional or unintentional.

(Gemara - Reish Lakish): Regarding idolatry, Chachamim are Mechayev (for Oso v'Es Beno) only if the second animal was slaughtered with proper intention;

If the second animal was slaughtered for idolatry, even if the first was slaughtered properly, since he is liable to death (for the second Shechitah), he is exempt for Oso v'Es Beno.

R. Yochanan: Even children know that!

(R. Yochanan): Sometimes, even if the second animal was slaughtered for idolatry, he is liable for Oso v'Es Beno;

The case is, he was warned not to slaughter Oso v'Es Beno, but he was not warned about idolatry.

Reish Lakish holds that since he would be exempt for Oso v'Es Beno had he been warned about idolatry, he is exempt even if he was not warned.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with their opinions in a related case.

(Rav Dimi): If one transgressed (b'Shogeg) an Isur punishable by death or lashes (if done b'Mezid), and simultaneously did something for which one must pay, R. Yochanan obligates him to pay, and Reish Lakish exempts.

R. Yochanan obligates, since he will not be killed or lashed;

Reish Lakish exempts. Since he would be exempt had he sinned (b'Mezid) with Hasra'ah, he is exempt even if he was not warned.

The argument must be taught in both cases;

Version #1 (Rashi): Had we heard only that Reish Lakish exempts regarding Oso v'Es Beno, one might have thought this is because we do not administer two bodily punishments, but he would not exempt from paying money;

Had we heard only that R. Yochanan obligates money, one might have thought that since we do not administer two bodily punishments, even when one is not killed for idolatry, he is exempt for Oso v'Es Beno.

Version #2 (Tosfos): Had we heard only that Reish Lakish exempts from paying, one might have thought this is learned from a verse, but lashes are given;

Had we heard only that R. Yochanan obligates lashes, one might have thought that he agrees that one is exempt from paying (like Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah learns from a verse).