(a) Why does Rav Hamnuna say that, according to Rebbi Shimon, Oso v'es B'no does not apply to Kodshim?

(b) Rava queries Rav Hamnuna from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon says 'Kodshim ba'Chutz, Sheini be'Lo Sa'aseh', since initially, it would have been fit to be brought later (even though he is Patur from the Kareis of Sh'chutei Chutz). Which Lo Sa'aseh is he referring to?

(c) What do the Rabbanan say?

(d) What forces Rava (or K'di) to amend Rebbi Shimon's ruling to 'Sh'neihem Anushim Kareis'? Why must the second Shochet be Chayav Kareis too?

(a) 'Echad ba'Chutz, ve'Echad bi'Fenim, le'Rabbanan Rishon Anush Kareis, Sheini Pasul u'Patur' (from Kareis because of Sh'chutei Chutz). Why does the Tana not mention that he is Chayav on the second one because of Oso v'es B'no?

(b) What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) 'Echad bi'Fenim, ve'Echad ba'Chutz Rebbi Shimon Omer Sheini be'Lo Sa'aseh'. Which Lo Sa'aseh?

(d) What Kashya does this pose on Rav Hamnuna? What ought Rebbi Shimon to have said, according to him?

(a) On what grounds does Rava therefore amend Rav Hamnuna's statement to 'Ein Malkos Oso v'es B'no Noheg be'Kodshim'?

(b) According to our initial text, the reason that he is Patur is because it is Hasra'as Safek. What does this mean?

(c) On what grounds do we reject the original text?

(d) How do we reconcile this with Rav Hoshaya, who considers even the first Sh'chitah a Sh'chitah she'Einah Re'uyah, according to Rebbi Shimon?

(a) In a case where the mother is Chulin and the child a Shelamim, what does Rava rule, assuming that one Shechted, on the same day, first ...

1. ... the mother and then the child? Why is that?

2. ... the child bi'Fenim and then the mother ba'Chutz?

(b) What is the reason for Rava's ...

1. ... first ruling?

2. ... second ruling?

(c) According to which Tana is Rava speaking?

(d) Why, in the equivalent case, where the child is an Olah, rather than a Sh'lamim, does Rava rule that either way (even there where one Shechts the mother after the child) one is Patur?

(e) Rebbi Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. What does he learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with Pigul) "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav"?

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon, in our Mishnah, say about Oso v'es B'no, there where the first animal ...

1. ... turns out to be a Tereifah, or is Shechted to Avodah-Zarah?

2. ... is a Parah Adumah, a Shor ha'Niskal or an Eglah Arufah?

(b) What do the Rabbanan say in all of these cases?

(c) In which two cases, besides where the first animal turns out to be a Neveilah, do the Rabbanan concede that the second animal is no longer subject to Oso v'es B'no?

(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. What does he say about the reverse case?

(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan query Resh Lakish's statement?

(c) What should Resh Lakish have said (even in a case where the Shochet Shechted the first one for his own needs and the second one to Avodah-Zarah), according to him?

(d) Why did Resh Lakish decline to say that?

(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, what did he say about Chayvei Misos or Chayvei Malkos Shog'gin ve'Davar Acher)?

(b) Besides Malkos (in the case of Chayvei Misos Shog'gin), what might 'Davar Acher' be referring to?

(c) Why did Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish find it necessary to repeat their Machlokes twice? Had they argued ...

1. ... in our case (by Sh'chitah), why would we have thought that Resh Lakish will concede to Rebbi Yochanan in the case of Rav Dimi?

2. ... in Rav Dimi's case, why would we have thought that Rebbi Yochanan will concede to Resh Lakish in our case?