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.”
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.”
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.
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.
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
See video
Raanana, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, 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
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
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 began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, 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
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
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.
