• Rava: shechitah of kodashim is שחיטה ראויה, but not shechitah of עולה

Rav Hamnuna said that אותו ואת בנו does not apply to kodashim according to Rebbe Shimon, because shechitah of kodashim is always שחיטה שאינה ראויה (since it requires זריקה afterwards), like Rebbe Oshaya said on the previous Daf. However, Rava proves from a Baraisa that it is considered שחיטה ראויה (once זריקה is actually performed), and emends Rav Hamnuna’s statement to be that one never receives malkus for violating אותו ואת בנו of kodashim. Rashi explains that since the second korban is prohibited to be shechted that day because of אותו ואת בנו, its shechitah is invalid (as a מחוסר זמן). Similarly, Rava says that one who shechts a chullin animal and then its שלמים offspring is exempt, since the second שחיטה was invalid. However, if he shechted the שלמים first (and performed זריקה), he is liable for later shechting the chullin animal. Rava says that if one sacrifices an עולה, and then its chullin mother, he is not liable, because an עולה’s shechitah is not שחיטה בת אכילה – a shechitah fit for consumption, since it is completely burned on the מזבח. Rebbe Yochanan disagrees, and says אכילת מזבח שמה אכילה – the מזבח’s “consumption” is called consumption.

• Machlokes if שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה

The next Mishnah states that if one shechts an animal which is later found to be a tereifah, or shechts for idolatry, or a פרה אדומה, or a שור נסקל – ox condemned to be stoned, or an עגלה ערופה, and then shechts its parent or offspring that day, Rebbe Shimon exempts him from malkus for אותו ואת בנו, because he holds שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה – shechitah which is not fit (i.e., does not permit the animal to be eaten) is not considered “shechitah.” The Chochomim say he is liable, because they hold שחיטה שאינה ראויה is considered שחיטה. If one shechts improperly and it became a נבילה, or tears out the סימנים, all agree he would not be liable for אותו ואת בנו, since the shechitah was not legitimate. The Gemara later objects that Rebbe Shimon himself holds that פרה אדומה is not a case of שחיטה שאינה ראויה, because Rebbe Shimon says the meat of a פרה אדומה is subject to “food tumah,” since it had a שעת הכושר – moment of fitness to be eaten (because Rebbe Shimon holds the פרה אדומה can be redeemed and eaten after its shechitah)!? Therefore, Rebbe Yochanan said that "פרה אדומה" should be removed from the Mishnah’s text.

• Machlokes if חייבי מיתות שוגגין exempt other punishments

Reish Lakish says that if one shechted one animal for consumption, and its parent or offspring for idolatry, he is exempt from malkus for אותו ואת בנו, דקם ליה בדרבה מיניה – because he is liable for the greater [punishment], i.e., stoning for idolatry. Rebbe Yochanan said one would incur malkus, where they warned him that shechting the animal would violate אותו ואת בנו, but did not warn him about the idolatry violation. Since he is not executed for the idolatry, he does receive malkus. Reish Lakish disagrees: כיון דכי אתרו ביה פטור – since, had they warned him about the idolatry, he would be exempt from malkus, כי לא אתרו ביה נמי פטור – he is also exempt when they did not warn him about the idolatry. Rav Dimi quoted them arguing about this question elsewhere: חייבי מיתות שוגגין – [violations which incur] the death penalty but were performed inadvertently, וחייבי מלקות שוגגין – or [violations which incur] malkus but were performed inadvertently, ודבר אחר – and simultaneously incurred a lesser liability (e.g., malkus in the first case, or monetary obligation in the second case), Rebbe Yochanan says he is liable to the lesser obligation, and Reish Lakish exempts him.