Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
What is the status of an animal slaughtered to items connected to the ground, like mountains, seas, rivers or deserts? The Mishna rules that the shechita is invalid, but the assumption from the Mishna is that it is not prohibited for benefit. The Gemara challenges this from a braita which states that such slaughter renders the animal an idolatrous sacrifice (zivchei meitim), which is forbidden for benefit. Abaye resolves this by distinguishing between slaughtering to the item itself – which only disqualifies the shechita – and slaughtering to the angel or deity of the landmark (gadda), which renders it forbidden from any benefit.
Can a person render someone else’s property forbidden by performing an act of idolatry with it? Rav Huna rules that if a friend’s animal is lying before an idol and someone slaughters one siman for the idol, the animal becomes forbidden. He relies on the principle of Ulla that while merely bowing to another’s animal does not forbid it, performing a physical action (ma’aseh) directly on the animal does forbid it.
A difficulty is raised against Rav Huna from a braita regarding one who slaughters a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple courtyard for an idol, who is held liable for three distinct sin offerings. If the animal becomes forbidden at the first siman, as per Rav Huna’s position, the completion of the slaughter should not trigger the liability for slaughtering outside the Temple, as it would merely be slaughtering a disqualified animal that would no longer be considered a sacrifice. The Gemara offers two resolutions – applying the case to a bird sin offering where the slaughterer specifies that his intent for idol worship will only take effect upon the completion of the slaughter, or in the shechita of a bird sin offering where half the windpipe was already slit, and in this case the shechita was completed in one small action.
Rav Nachman, Rav Avram, and Rav Yitzchak disagree with Rav Huna and reaffirm the established principle that a person cannot forbid something that is not theirs (ein adam oser davar she’eino shelo) even by performing an action on the item. A difficulty is raised against this position from the braita quoted above with the interpretation given above.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Chullin 40
שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשֵׁם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ וְאֶחָד לְשֵׁם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
If there were two people grasping a knife together and slaughtering an animal, one slaughtering for the sake of one of all those enumerated in the first clause of the mishna and one slaughtering for the sake of a legitimate matter, their slaughter is not valid.
גְּמָ׳ פְּסוּלָה – אִין, זִבְחֵי מֵתִים – לָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשׁוּם הָרִים, לְשׁוּם גְּבָעוֹת, לְשׁוּם נְהָרוֹת, לְשׁוּם מִדְבָּרוֹת, לְשׁוּם חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה, לְשׁוּם כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת, לְשׁוּם מִיכָאֵל הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל, לְשׁוּם שִׁילְשׁוּל קָטָן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים.
GEMARA: The mishna states that if one slaughters for the sake of mountains or other natural entities the slaughter is unfit. The Gemara infers: It is unfit, yes; with regard to offerings to the dead, i.e., to idols, it is not in that category. Apparently, the status of the animal is that of an unslaughtered carcass, from which benefit is permitted, and not that of an idolatrous offering, from which benefit is forbidden. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters for the sake of mountains, for the sake of hills, for the sake of rivers, for the sake of wildernesses, for the sake of the sun and moon, for the sake of stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael the great ministering angel, or even for the sake of a small worm, these are offerings to the dead, from which benefit is forbidden.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר לְהַר, הָא דְּאָמַר לְגַדָּא דְּהַר. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי דּוּמְיָא דְּמִיכָאֵל שַׂר הַגָּדוֹל, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Abaye said: The apparent contradiction between the mishna and the baraita is not difficult. This mishna that teaches that the slaughter is not valid but benefit is permitted is referring to a case where one says that he is slaughtering the animal for the sake of the mountain itself, which is not an idol. That baraita that teaches that the animal is an offering to the dead and benefit is forbidden is referring to a case where one says that he is slaughtering the animal for the sake of the angel of the mountain. The language of the baraita is also precise, as the mountain and the other natural entities are taught together with and therefore similar to Michael, the great ministering angel. Conclude from it that the tanna is referring to slaughter for the sake of a spiritual entity, not the mountain itself.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָיְתָה בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ רְבוּצָה לִפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד – אֲסָרָהּ. סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבֶהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא אֲסָרָהּ, עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה – אֲסָרָהּ.
Rav Huna says: If the animal of another was prone before an idol, once one cut one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, he rendered the animal forbidden. He holds in accordance with that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Although the Sages said that one who bows to the animal of another does not render it forbidden, if he performed a sacrificial rite upon it he renders it forbidden. The case cited by Rav Huna involves an action of that kind, cutting one siman; therefore, the animal is forbidden.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בְּשַׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד אֲסָרָהּ – אַשְּׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לָא לִיחַיַּיב,
Rav Naḥman raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: One who unwittingly slaughters an animal that was designated as a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple, for idol worship, is liable to bring three sin offerings: One for performing the prohibited labor of slaughtering on Shabbat, one for slaughtering a sacrificial animal outside the Temple, and one for slaughtering an animal for idol worship. And if you say that once he cuts one siman he renders the animal forbidden as an idolatrous offering, then let him not be liable to bring a sin offering for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard,
מְחַתֵּךְ בְּעָפָר הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף עָסְקִינַן, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי.
as it is as though he is merely chopping in dirt, since one is not liable for slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard a sacrificial animal unfit for sacrifice. Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with a bird sin offering, for which the requirement is to cut only one siman, and when cutting that siman, all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
מִכְּדֵי רַב הוּנָא כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּעוּלָּא, וְעוּלָּא מַעֲשֶׂה כֹּל דְּהוּ קָאָמַר.
The Gemara asks: Now in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Huna state his halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, who says: If he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal, he renders it forbidden. And Ulla says that a minimal action renders the animal forbidden, as his ruling applies even to cutting one siman. According to Ulla’s opinion, the moment that he begins the incision, the animal is forbidden and unfit to be sacrificed. Consequently, when he completes the slaughter outside the Temple, it is as though he is chopping dirt. Why then is he liable to bring a sin offering for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard?
אֶלָּא, בְּאוֹמֵר בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבְדָהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where one says prior to the slaughter that he is worshipping the idol only at the conclusion of the slaughter; therefore, only then is the animal rendered forbidden, and one is liable for all three sin offerings simultaneously.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא חַטָּאת? לַישְׁמְעִינַן זֶבַח!
The Gemara asks: If so, why does the tanna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a sin offering? Let him teach us the halakha with regard to any type of offering. According to Rav Pappa, by contrast, it is clear why the tanna taught the halakha with regard to a sin offering.
אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין.
The Gemara returns to Rav Pappa’s interpretation of the baraita as referring to the case of a bird sin offering. The previous difficulty then resurfaces, that the bird was rendered forbidden before the slaughter was completed, as according to Rav Huna and Ulla any minimal action renders the bird forbidden. Rather, Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: What are we dealing with here in the baraita? It is a case where half of the windpipe was deficient before the slaughter, and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it. The minority of the windpipe had been cut before the slaughterer cut it further, completing the act of slaughter. As in that case all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא סִימָן אֶחָד, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה? מַעֲשֶׂה רַבָּה.
Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rav Huna said that it is sufficient to cut one siman on the animal for idol worship to render it forbidden, the fact that the baraita mentions a sin offering specifically would not raise a difficulty for his opinion. In that case, one could explain: What is the action that renders the animal forbidden according to Ulla? It is a significant action, i.e., completion of the slaughter for idol worship, that renders the animal forbidden.
וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּידֵיהּ מָצֵי אָסַר, דְּחַבְרֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי אָסַר.
And Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rav Huna stated his halakha specifically with regard to the animal of another, the fact that the baraita mentions specifically a sin offering would not raise a difficulty for his opinion. One could then explain: What is the reason that the animal designated as a sin offering is not rendered forbidden at the beginning of the slaughter? It is due to the fact that one is able to render his animal forbidden, but one is not able to render the animal of another forbidden. It is the priests who are entitled to derive benefit from the flesh of a sin offering.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ לְכַפָּרָה – כְּדִידֵיהּ דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa needs to state this, lest you say that since one who brings a sin offering acquires the animal for his atonement, its status is like that of an animal that is his. Therefore, Rav Pappa teaches us that this does not suffice that the animal be considered his.
(נָעַ״ץ – סִימָן.) רַב נַחְמָן, וְרַב עַמְרָם, וְרַב יִצְחָק אָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין שֶׁלּוֹ.
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im who participate in the discussion that ensues: Nun, Rav Naḥman; ayin, Rav Amram; tzadi, Rav Yitzḥak. Rav Naḥman, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak all say: A person does not render forbidden an item that is not his.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בַּשַּׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאוֹקִימְנָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּבַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם. טַעְמָא דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף הוּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין,
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who unwittingly slaughters an animal that was designated as a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for idol worship is liable to bring three sin offerings. And we interpreted the baraita as being in the case of a bird sin offering, and in a case where half of the windpipe was deficient. The reason for the triple liability is that it is a bird sin offering, as then, all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Hullin 40: Not in the Name of the Mountain, the River, the Sea!
Hey, That’s Not Yours! Can You Render Someone Else’s Property Forbidden?
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
Chullin 40
Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
If there were two people grasping a knife together and slaughtering an animal, one slaughtering for the sake of one of all those enumerated in the first clause of the mishna and one slaughtering for the sake of a legitimate matter, their slaughter is not valid.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ.
GEMARA: The mishna states that if one slaughters for the sake of mountains or other natural entities the slaughter is unfit. The Gemara infers: It is unfit, yes; with regard to offerings to the dead, i.e., to idols, it is not in that category. Apparently, the status of the animal is that of an unslaughtered carcass, from which benefit is permitted, and not that of an idolatrous offering, from which benefit is forbidden. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters for the sake of mountains, for the sake of hills, for the sake of rivers, for the sake of wildernesses, for the sake of the sun and moon, for the sake of stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael the great ministering angel, or even for the sake of a small worm, these are offerings to the dead, from which benefit is forbidden.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨. ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ.
Abaye said: The apparent contradiction between the mishna and the baraita is not difficult. This mishna that teaches that the slaughter is not valid but benefit is permitted is referring to a case where one says that he is slaughtering the animal for the sake of the mountain itself, which is not an idol. That baraita that teaches that the animal is an offering to the dead and benefit is forbidden is referring to a case where one says that he is slaughtering the animal for the sake of the angel of the mountain. The language of the baraita is also precise, as the mountain and the other natural entities are taught together with and therefore similar to Michael, the great ministering angel. Conclude from it that the tanna is referring to slaughter for the sake of a spiritual entity, not the mountain itself.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ. Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ β ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ.
Rav Huna says: If the animal of another was prone before an idol, once one cut one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, he rendered the animal forbidden. He holds in accordance with that which Ulla says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: Although the Sages said that one who bows to the animal of another does not render it forbidden, if he performed a sacrificial rite upon it he renders it forbidden. The case cited by Rav Huna involves an action of that kind, cutting one siman; therefore, the animal is forbidden.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ,
Rav NaαΈ₯man raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: One who unwittingly slaughters an animal that was designated as a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple, for idol worship, is liable to bring three sin offerings: One for performing the prohibited labor of slaughtering on Shabbat, one for slaughtering a sacrificial animal outside the Temple, and one for slaughtering an animal for idol worship. And if you say that once he cuts one siman he renders the animal forbidden as an idolatrous offering, then let him not be liable to bring a sin offering for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard,
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ€ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ.
as it is as though he is merely chopping in dirt, since one is not liable for slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard a sacrificial animal unfit for sacrifice. Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with a bird sin offering, for which the requirement is to cut only one siman, and when cutting that siman, all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨.
The Gemara asks: Now in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Huna state his halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, who says: If he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal, he renders it forbidden. And Ulla says that a minimal action renders the animal forbidden, as his ruling applies even to cutting one siman. According to Ullaβs opinion, the moment that he begins the incision, the animal is forbidden and unfit to be sacrificed. Consequently, when he completes the slaughter outside the Temple, it is as though he is chopping dirt. Why then is he liable to bring a sin offering for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard?
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ.
The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where one says prior to the slaughter that he is worshipping the idol only at the conclusion of the slaughter; therefore, only then is the animal rendered forbidden, and one is liable for all three sin offerings simultaneously.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ? ΧΦ·ΧΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ!
The Gemara asks: If so, why does the tanna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a sin offering? Let him teach us the halakha with regard to any type of offering. According to Rav Pappa, by contrast, it is clear why the tanna taught the halakha with regard to a sin offering.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ£ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ.
The Gemara returns to Rav Pappaβs interpretation of the baraita as referring to the case of a bird sin offering. The previous difficulty then resurfaces, that the bird was rendered forbidden before the slaughter was completed, as according to Rav Huna and Ulla any minimal action renders the bird forbidden. Rather, Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: What are we dealing with here in the baraita? It is a case where half of the windpipe was deficient before the slaughter, and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it. The minority of the windpipe had been cut before the slaughterer cut it further, completing the act of slaughter. As in that case all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ? ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rav Huna said that it is sufficient to cut one siman on the animal for idol worship to render it forbidden, the fact that the baraita mentions a sin offering specifically would not raise a difficulty for his opinion. In that case, one could explain: What is the action that renders the animal forbidden according to Ulla? It is a significant action, i.e., completion of the slaughter for idol worship, that renders the animal forbidden.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ·Χ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ·Χ¨.
And Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rav Huna stated his halakha specifically with regard to the animal of another, the fact that the baraita mentions specifically a sin offering would not raise a difficulty for his opinion. One could then explain: What is the reason that the animal designated as a sin offering is not rendered forbidden at the beginning of the slaughter? It is due to the fact that one is able to render his animal forbidden, but one is not able to render the animal of another forbidden. It is the priests who are entitled to derive benefit from the flesh of a sin offering.
Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa needs to state this, lest you say that since one who brings a sin offering acquires the animal for his atonement, its status is like that of an animal that is his. Therefore, Rav Pappa teaches us that this does not suffice that the animal be considered his.
(Χ ΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ΄Χ₯ β Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.) Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉ.
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amoraβim who participate in the discussion that ensues: Nun, Rav NaαΈ₯man; ayin, Rav Amram; tzadi, Rav YitzαΈ₯ak. Rav NaαΈ₯man, and Rav Amram, and Rav YitzαΈ₯ak all say: A person does not render forbidden an item that is not his.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ,
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who unwittingly slaughters an animal that was designated as a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for idol worship is liable to bring three sin offerings. And we interpreted the baraita as being in the case of a bird sin offering, and in a case where half of the windpipe was deficient. The reason for the triple liability is that it is a bird sin offering, as then, all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
