1)

(a)Rav Hamnuna states that, according to Rebbi Shimon, Oso v'es B'no does not apply to Kodshim - because Sh'chitas Kodshim is always a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, since the Korban cannot be eaten until Z'rikas Dam has taken place (like Rav Oshaya learned on the previous Amud).

(b)Rava queries Rav Hamnuna from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon says 'Kodshim ba'Chutz, Sheini be'Lo Sa'aseh', since initially, it was fit to be brought later (even though he is Patur from the Kareis of Shechutei Chutz). The Lo Sa'aseh he is referring to is that of - "Lo Sa'aseh ke'Chol asher Anachnu Osim Poh ha'Yom " (in Re'ei).

(c)According to the Rabbanan - any Shechutei Chutz which is not subject to Kareis, is not subject to a La'av either.

(d)Rava (or K'di) amends Rebbi Shimon's ruling to Sh'neihem Anushim Kareis - because, since the first animal is Shechutei Chutz, it is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, in which case the second animal is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, rendering it subject to Kareis for Shechutei Chutz.

2)

(a)'Echad ba'Chutz, ve'Echad bi'Fenim, le'Rabbanan Rishon Anush Kareis, Sheini Pasul u'Patur' (from Kareis because of Shechutei Chutz). The Tana does not mention that he is Chayav because of Oso ve'es B'no - because he is only concerned with Shechutei Chutz (just like the Tana of our Mishnah is only concerned with Oso v'es B'no).

(b)Rebbi Shimon - declares the second one Kasher (because the first one was a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, as we just explained).

(c)'Echad bi'Fenim, ve'Echad ba'Chutz Rebbi Shimon Omer Sheini be'Lo Sa'aseh' - with reference to the Lo Sa'aseh of Oso v'es B'no ...

(d)... a Kashya on Rav Hamnuna - in whose opinion Rebbi Shimon does not hold of Oso v'es B'no by Kodshim, in which case not only should he not be subject to a mere La'av, but he even ought to be Chayav Kareis for Shchutei Chutz.

3)

(a)Rava therefore amends Rav Hamnuna's statement to Ein Malkos Oso v'es B'no Noheg be'Kodshim - because, since the first Shechitah (followed by Z'rikas ha'Dam) was a valid Shechitah, the second animal is Pasul because of Oso v'es B'no, in which case the Shechitah, which cannot lead to Z'rikas ha'Dam, is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah (which is not subject to Malkos).

(b)According to our initial text, the reason that he is Patur is because it is Hasra'as Safek - even after the Shechitah, we are not sure that he has transgressed, because he might not perform the Z'rikas Dam (in which case, the Shechitah will turn out to be Pasul retroactively).

(c)We reject that text however - because, since (based on the fact that it is Pasul because of Oso v'es B'no and) its blood does not stand to be sprinkled, the Korban is invalid, and the Hasra'ah is not a Hasra'ah at all.

(d)In fact - we reject Rav Hoshaya's explanation (which we quoted on the previous Amud, and), who considers even the first Shechitah a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah according to Rebbi Shimon.

4)

(a)In a case where the mother is Chulin and the baby a Shelamim, Rava rules, assuming that one Shechted, on the same day, first ...

1. ... the mother and then the baby, that - he is Patur.

2. ... the baby bi'Fenim and then the mother ba'Chutz that - he is Chayav

(b)The reason for Rava's ...

1. ... first ruling is - because it is not a Hasra'ah, as we just explained (or according to the initial version, because it is a Hasra'as Safek).

2. ... second ruling is - because, since the Z'rikah took place, the first Shechitah was a Shechitah Re'uyah.

(c)Rava is speaking - according to Rebbi Shimon.

(d)In the equivalent case, but where the baby is an Olah rather than a Shelamim, Rava rules that either way (even there where one Shechts the mother after the baby) one is Patur from Oso v'es B'no - because, according to Rebbi Shimon, seeing as an Olah is not eaten, it is not considered a Shechitah Re'uyah.

(e)Rebbi Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" that - Achilas Mizbe'ach is also considered Achilah in the realm of Korbanos (as regards both Pigul and Oso v'es B'no).

5)

(a)Rebbi Shimon, in our Mishnah, rules that - Oso v'es B'no, there where the first animal ...

1. ... turns out to be a T'reifah, is Shechted to Avodah-Zarah ...

2. ... is a Parah Adumah, a Shor ha'Niskal or an Eglah Arufah (which are all Asur be'Hana'ah even whilst they are still alive) - does not apply.

(b)In all of these cases - the Rabbanan consider the second animal subject to Oso v'es B'no.

(c)The Rabbanan concede however, that the second animal is no longer subject to Oso v'es B'no - if the first one turns out to be a Neveilah, if it is simply cut open, or if one tears out the Simanim.

6)

(a)Resh Lakish confines the Rabbanan's ruling 'ha'Shochet la'Avodas-Kochavim, Chayav', to where the Shochet Shechted the first animal to Avodas-Kochavim, and the second one, for his own personal needs. In the reverse case, he maintains - they will concede to Rebbi Shimon that the second Shochet will be Patur, due to the principle Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih (Since he is Chayav Misah for Shechting to Avodah-Zarah, he cannot receive Malkos for Oso v'es B'no for the same action).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish statement - because he considers it obvious (since every child knows about Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih).

(c)According to him, what Resh Lakish ought to have said is that - even in a case where the Shochet Shechted the first animal for his own needs and the second one to Avodah-Zarah - he will be Chayav if witnesses warned him about Oso v'es B'no, but not about Avodah-Zarah (seeing as Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih no longer applies).

(d)Resh Lakish however, declined to say that - because he holds that Chayvei Misos Shog'gin are Patur (even though they are not actually sentenced to death).

7)

(a)When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that - Chayvei Misos or Chayvei Malkos Shog'gin ve'Davar Acher are Patur.

(b)Besides Malkos (in the case of Chayvei Misos Shog'gin), Davar Acher might be referring to - a Chiyuv Mamon (if one damaged someone else's property with the same stroke).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish found it necessary to repeat their Machlokes twice, because, had they argued ...

1. ... in our case (by Shechitah) - we would have confined Resh Lakish's ruling to a case of Malkos and Misah, since both being punishments that affect the body, the former is included in the latter, but in the case of Rav Dimi (that of Misah and Mamon), where one affects the body, and the other, one's property, he will concede to Rebbi Yochanan that the sinner is subject to both punishments (inasmuch as even where he does not receive the former, he will receive the latter).

2. ... in Rav Dimi's case, we would have thought that Rebbi Yochanan will concede to Resh Lakish in our case - where Malkos affects the body just like Misah, and he will be Patur from Malkos).