- שחטו שלא לאוכליו בשבת חייב
Rav Huna bar Chinana said to his son that when he goes before Rebbe Zerika he should ask the following question: According to the one who says, מקלקל בחבורה פטור – one who acts destructively on Shabbos is patur, how can the Mishnah rule, שחטו שלא לאוכליו חייב מאי תיקן – "one who shechts a pesach on Shabbos for those that cannot eat it, is chayav", what improvement did he effect? This is a purely destructive act, which he should not be chayav for according to this opinion? The Gemara answered, תיקן עם עלו לא ירדו – He improved the animal insofar that once its emurim have gone up onto the mizbeyach they should not go down. Therefore, the shechitah has served a constructive purpose.
- אשם שניתק לרעיה ושחטו סתם כשר לעולה
When the owner of an asham dies, or attains kaparah through another asham, the asham is sent out to pasture to develop a mum (blemish), upon which it is sold, and its proceeds are used to purchase olos which are to be offered when there are no communal or individual korbanos and the mizbayach is idle. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, אשם שניתק לרעיה– If an asham had been consigned to grazing, ושחטו סתם כשר לעולה – and then someone shechted it (before it had developed a blemish) with no specific intention, it is kasher as an olah. The Gemara asks that since we see that Rav holds, לא בעי עקירה – that an offerings designation does not require a conscious akirah, rather its designation changes automatically, as Rashi explains that since it now stands to be used for the purposes of an olah, there is no need to eliminate its previous status of an asham, then even if the animal had not yet been consigned to grazing it should be valid as an olah? The Gemara answers, גזירה לאחר כפרה אטו לפני כפרה – It is a d’Rabbonon gezeirah that if an asham is shechted after the owner has received kaparah but before it is consigned to grazing, it is not fit as an olah, because otherwise people might think it can be offered as an olah even before the owner received kaparah.
- ישרף מיד בחול
Rav Chisdah challenged Rav’s view that a korban does not require עקירה, based on the Mishnah that states that if one shechted the pesach on Shabbos and it then became known that the owners had withdrawn from it, he is not liable to bring a chatas for being mechallel Shabbos, and a Baraisa was taught in reference to the Mishnah, that if there was a case like that on a weekday, ישרף מיד – the animal should be burned immediately. Rav Chisda said that this din makes sense if you say that an offerings designation requires akirah, and that it does not change automatically. In this case, the korban is still a pesach and since it has no owners, פסולו בגופו – its disqualification is in the offering itself and that it is why it requires immediate burning. But if you say that a korban does not require akirah, then at the moment the owners withdrew, it was a shelamim and the reason for its disqualification is because of an external factor, that it was shechted after the תמיד של בין ערביים. If that is the case, the korban requires a change of appearance, meaning time should pass so that the meat looks different from losing its moisture, and it should not be brought immediately. The Gemara will bring a number of attempts to resolve the contradiction between Rav and the Baraisa.