Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 7, 2019 | ืืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 41


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืื‘ืœ ื–ื‘ื— ืœื ื•ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ืžืื™ ืืจื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœื›ืคืจื” ื›ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ืžื™ื

But in the case of an animal offering there is no way in which one can violate all three prohibitions simultaneously. But if a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his, why must the tanna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a bird sin offering? The same halakha would apply even in the case of an animal sin offering. This is because cutting one siman for idolatry does not render the animal forbidden, as the priest has the exclusive right to derive benefit from it, so it does not belong to the owner anymore. Therefore, one would violate the three prohibitions simultaneously. The Gemara answers: Since one who brings a sin offering acquires the animal for his atonement, its status is like that of an animal that is his, and he renders it forbidden with the first cut at the beginning of the slaughter.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ื—ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช ื‘ื’ื•ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another objection from the mishna: 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. Based on the formulation of the mishna, the one slaughtering with improper intent is not necessarily the owner of the animal. How, then, can he render the animal forbidden? Apparently, one can render forbidden an item that is not his. The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where the one with improper intent has a partnership share in the animal, so he is rendering his own animal forbidden.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื˜ืžื ื•ื”ืžื“ืžืข ื•ื”ืžื ืกืš ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช ื‘ื’ื•ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another objection from a mishna (Gittin 52b): With regard to one who renders anotherโ€™s food impure, and one who mixes teruma with anotherโ€™s non-sacred produce, and one who pours anotherโ€™s wine as a libation before an idol, if he did so unwittingly, he is exempt from payment of damages, even though he caused the other monetary loss. If he did so intentionally, he is liable to pay damages. Apparently, one can render forbidden an item that is not his. The Gemara answers: Here too it is a case where the one who caused the damage has a partnership share in the produce.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ื’ื•ื™ ืฉื ื™ืกืš ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืืกืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื ืžืชื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื™ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ืš ืฉืชืืกืจ ื™ื™ื ื™ ืœืื•ื ืกื™

The Gemara notes that the dispute whether one who slaughters anotherโ€™s animal for idol worship renders the animal forbidden, in accordance with Rav Huna, or does not render it forbidden, in accordance with Rav Naแธฅman, Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzแธฅak, is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who poured a Jewโ€™s wine as an idolatrous libation, but not in the presence of an object of idol worship, he has rendered the wine forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava permit drinking the wine due to two factors: One is that the presumption is that idol worshippers pour wine as an idolatrous libation only in the presence of an object of idol worship. And the other one is that even if the gentile poured the wine as an idolatrous libation, the Jew can say to the gentile: It is not within your power to render my wine forbidden against my will.

ื•ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ื•ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื’ื•ื™ ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืฆืขื•ืจื™ื” ืงื ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ

And Rav Naแธฅman, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzแธฅak say: Although Rav Hunaโ€™s opinion is compatible only with the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita and not with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, we can state our opinion even according to the one who says that a person renders forbidden an item that is not his, e.g., by pouring his wine as a libation or slaughtering his animal for idol worship. This statement applies only in a case where a gentile pours the libation or slaughters the animal. But if a Jew pours the wine or slaughters the animal, presumably he intends to torment that other person, and not to engage in idol worship. Therefore, a Jew does not render the animal forbidden.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ื—ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฉื•ืžื“

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a contradiction to that distinction from the mishna: 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. As the mishna is discussing a case involving Jews, this indicates that even a Jew who slaughters an animal for idol worship renders it forbidden. The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the case of a Jewish transgressor whose intent when declaring that his slaughter is for the sake of mountains, hills, or other natural entities is for idol worship.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื˜ืžื ื•ื”ืžื“ืžืข ื•ื”ืžื ืกืš ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฉื•ืžื“

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a contradiction to the distinction between a Jew and gentile from a mishna (Gittin 52b): With regard to one who renders anotherโ€™s food impure, and one who mixes teruma with anotherโ€™s non-sacred produce, and one who pours anotherโ€™s wine as a libation before an idol, if he did so unwittingly, he is exempt from payment of damages, even though he caused the other monetary loss. If he did so intentionally, he is liable to pay damages. Apparently, a Jew who pours wine as a libation for idolatry renders wine that is not his forbidden. The Gemara answers: Here too the reference is to an apostate Jew whose intent is for idol worship.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืชืจื• ื‘ื• ื•ืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืชืจืื” ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื™ืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœืžื™ืชื” ืงืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ืžืฉื•ืžื“ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžื–ื”

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to a Jew who is not a transgressor but declared that he is slaughtering anotherโ€™s animal for idolatry, if those who heard his declaration forewarned him that doing so is prohibited by Torah law and is punishable by death, and he acknowledged the forewarning and said: It is in full knowledge of the prohibition and the punishment that I do so, what is the halakha? Does he render the animal forbidden in that case? Rav Ashi said to him: Are you saying a case where he subjected himself to death by acknowledging the forewarning? You have no transgressor greater than that, and he certainly renders the animal forbidden.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื ืœืชื•ืš ื™ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ืœืชื•ืš ื ื”ืจื•ืช ื•ืœื ืœืชื•ืš ื›ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื”ื•ื ืœืชื•ืš ืขื•ื’ื” ืฉืœ ืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื” ื’ื•ืžื ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืฉื™ื›ื ืก ื”ื“ื ืœืชื•ื›ื” ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืฉืœื

MISHNA: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, as in all those cases it appears that he is slaughtering the animal in the manner of idolaters. But one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. And on a ship, one may slaughter an animal onto vessels as it is clear that his objective is to avoid sullying the ship. One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not

ื™ื—ืงื” ืืช ื”ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ

appear to emulate [yeแธฅakkeh] the heretics.

ื’ืžืณ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื ืœืชื•ืš ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืœืชื•ืš ื™ืžื™ื ื“ืœื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœืฉืจื ื“ื™ืžื ืงื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ืœืชื•ืš ืขื•ื’ื” ืฉืœ ืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ ืœื‘ื‘ื•ืื” ืงื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ื•

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, but one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. The Gemara asks: What is different about slaughter into seas? Is it that one may not perform it, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to the angel of the sea? If so, slaughter into a round excavation containing water should also be prohibited, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to his reflection [bavua], which is also similar to idolatry. Rava said: The tannaโ€™im taught that halakha in the case of murky water, in which no reflection can be seen.

ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื›ืœืœ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื’ื•ืžื ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง

ยง The mishna states: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. The Gemara asks: How is it permitted to slaughter and have the blood flow into a hole inside his house? But didnโ€™t you initially say that one may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all? Abaye said: The first clause of the mishna, where there is a blanket prohibition against having the blood flow into a small hole, is referring to a small hole that is in the marketplace.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื•ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ

Rava said to him: But isnโ€™t it so that from the fact that the latter clause teaches: And in the marketplace one may not do so, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with the marketplace?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ื•ื”ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื ืงืจ ื—ืฆืจื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื“ื ืฉื•ืชืช ื•ื™ื•ืจื“ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ื—ืงื” ืืช ื”ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ

Rather, Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all. And one who wishes to clean his courtyard and ensure that it will not be sullied in blood, how does he do so? He fashions a place with an incline or a furrow outside the small hole, and slaughters the animal there, and the blood flows and descends into the hole. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not appear to emulate the heretics.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ื™ื” ืžื”ืœืš ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื“ื• ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื“ื ืฉื•ืชืช ื•ื™ื•ืจื“ ืขืœ ื“ื•ืคื ื™ ื”ืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one was traveling on a ship and he has no place on the ship to slaughter an animal, he extends his hand with a knife, holds the head of the animal outside the walls of the ship, and slaughters the animal there; and the blood flows and descends down the sides of the ship. He may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow directly into the sea. And one may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all.

ื•ื”ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื ืงืจ ื—ืฆืจื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื“ื ืฉื•ืชืช ื•ื™ื•ืจื“ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ื”ื ืœื ืชืœื›ื• ื•ืื ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืื—ืจื™ื•

And one who wishes to clean his courtyard and ensure that it will not be sullied with blood, how does he do so? He fashions a place with an incline or a furrow outside the small hole, and slaughters the animal there, and the blood flows and descends into the hole. And in the marketplace, one may not do so, as it is stated: โ€œNeither shall you follow their statutesโ€ (Leviticus 18:3). And if he did so, he requires examination after his actions to ascertain whether he is a heretic.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉื ืขื•ืœื” ืœืฉื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืœืฉื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืœืฉื ืคืกื— ืœืฉื ืชื•ื“ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering, or for the sake of a thanks offering, his slaughter is not valid, as it appears that he is consecrating animals and slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple. And Rabbi Shimon deems his slaughter valid.

ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ื—ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืฉื ืืฉื ื•ื“ืื™ ืœืฉื ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœืฉื ืžืขืฉืจ ืœืฉื ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

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. With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of a sin offering, for the sake of a guilt offering for a definite transgression, for the sake of the offering of a firstborn, for the sake of the offering of animal tithe, or for the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, his slaughter is valid. All of these offerings may be brought only as obligations and not as gifts. Therefore, there is no concern that he consecrated the animals.

ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉืžื• ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉืžื• ื›ืฉืจ

This is the principle: For any item, i.e., offering, which is consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is forbidden. And for any offering that is not consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift but is an obligation that is incumbent upon him, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is permitted.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉื ืขื•ืœื” ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ืจ ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืชื ื“ื‘ ืื“ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering, or for the sake of a thanks offering, the slaughter is not valid. This is because one who slaughters for the sake of any type of offering that is consecrated as a vow or as a gift renders the animal forbidden. The Gemara asks: Is a provisional guilt offering fit to be consecrated as a vow or as a gift? A provisional guilt offering is brought only when one is obligated to do so due to uncertainty whether or not he is liable to bring a sin offering. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says in a mishna (Karetot 25a): A person donates a provisional guilt offering every day if he chooses, due to concern that perhaps he violated a prohibition.

ืคืกื— ื‘ืจ ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื•ื ื™ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ื–ืžื ื ืงื‘ื™ืขื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืฉืื ื™ ืคืกื— ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ืคืจืฉืชื• ื›ืœ ื”ืฉื ื” ื›ื•ืœื”

The Gemara asks: Is a Paschal offering fit to be consecrated as a vow or as a gift? The time is fixed for its offering on Passover eve, when bringing it is an obligation, and it may not be brought on any other day. Rabbi Oshaya said: The Paschal offering is different, since although the date for bringing and slaughtering it is the fourteenth of Nisan, its designation can be performed throughout the entire year.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ืข ื™ื“ื™ืข ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ืืžื•ืžื ื•ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืข

Rabbi Yannai says: The Sages taught that slaughter of an animal for the sake of an offering is not valid only if the animals were unblemished. But with regard to animals with blemishes, the slaughterer knows that they are blemished and disqualified from sacrifice. Therefore, despite his declaration, there is no concern that his actual intent was to slaughter the animal for that purpose. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Slaughter of an animal for the sake of an offering is not valid even if the animals were blemished as well, as there are times that an item is cast over the blemish and covers it, and he does not know that the animal is blemished.

ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื—ื•ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ืื‘ืœ ืžื—ื•ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ืžื ืœืฉื•ื ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืชื™

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of a sin offering, his slaughter is valid, as, since one cannot voluntarily contribute a sin offering, there is no concern that the onlookers will draw the wrong conclusion. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The Sages taught that slaughter of an animal for the sake of a sin offering is valid only with regard to a slaughterer who is not liable to bring a sin offering. But a slaughterer who knows that he is liable to bring a sin offering, his slaughter is not valid. Say that he is performing consecration and slaughter for the sake of his sin offering. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of a sin offering, and he did not say: For the sake of my sin offering? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of my sin offering.

ืœืฉื ืชืžื•ืจื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ืื™ืžื ืืžื•ืจื™ ืืžื™ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืœืฉื ืชืžื•ืจืช ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ืชืžื•ืจืช ื–ื‘ื—ื™

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who slaughters for the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, his slaughter is valid. Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught that the slaughter is valid only in a case where he does not have an animal consecrated as an offering inside his house for which it can be the substitute, but if he has an animal consecrated as an offering in his house, say that he is substituting this animal for it, and the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, and he did not say: For the sake of a substitute for my animal consecrated as an offering? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of a substitute for my animal consecrated as an offering.

ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืขื•ืœืช ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ืœื ื ื“ืจ ืื™ืžืจ ื ื“ืจ ื‘ืฆื™ื ืขื

The mishna states that this is the principle: For any offering that is consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake, the animal is forbidden. The Gemara asks: What case does this clause add? The list in the mishna appears to be comprehensive. The Gemara answers: The clause serves to add the burnt offering of a nazirite. As, lest you say there is no concern in that case, as that person did not vow to become a nazirite and could not possibly be obligated to bring that offering, therefore, the tanna teaches that there is a concern if he said he was slaughtering for the sake of the burnt offering of a nazirite. Say that perhaps he vowed to become a nazirite in private, and no one else was aware of it.

ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืขื•ืœืช ื™ื•ืœื“ืช

The Gemara asks: What is added by the second half of the principle: And for any offering that is not consecrated as a voluntary vow or as a gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is permitted? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of a burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, the slaughter is valid, as it is an obligation.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืืฉื” ืื™ืžืจ ืœืฉืžื” ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืœืฉื ืขื•ืœืช ืืฉืชื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ืขื•ืœืช ืืฉืชื™

Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught that the slaughter is valid only in a case where he does not have a wife. But if he has a wife, say that he performs consecration and slaughter of the animal for her sake and therefore the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, and he did not say: For the sake of the burnt offering of my wife after childbirth? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of the burnt offering of my wife after childbirth.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื

The Gemara objects: This is obvious. Clearly, if he explicitly declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth the slaughter is not valid.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 41

ืื‘ืœ ื–ื‘ื— ืœื ื•ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ืžืื™ ืืจื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœื›ืคืจื” ื›ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ืžื™ื

But in the case of an animal offering there is no way in which one can violate all three prohibitions simultaneously. But if a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his, why must the tanna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a bird sin offering? The same halakha would apply even in the case of an animal sin offering. This is because cutting one siman for idolatry does not render the animal forbidden, as the priest has the exclusive right to derive benefit from it, so it does not belong to the owner anymore. Therefore, one would violate the three prohibitions simultaneously. The Gemara answers: Since one who brings a sin offering acquires the animal for his atonement, its status is like that of an animal that is his, and he renders it forbidden with the first cut at the beginning of the slaughter.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ื—ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช ื‘ื’ื•ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another objection from the mishna: 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. Based on the formulation of the mishna, the one slaughtering with improper intent is not necessarily the owner of the animal. How, then, can he render the animal forbidden? Apparently, one can render forbidden an item that is not his. The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where the one with improper intent has a partnership share in the animal, so he is rendering his own animal forbidden.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื˜ืžื ื•ื”ืžื“ืžืข ื•ื”ืžื ืกืš ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช ื‘ื’ื•ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another objection from a mishna (Gittin 52b): With regard to one who renders anotherโ€™s food impure, and one who mixes teruma with anotherโ€™s non-sacred produce, and one who pours anotherโ€™s wine as a libation before an idol, if he did so unwittingly, he is exempt from payment of damages, even though he caused the other monetary loss. If he did so intentionally, he is liable to pay damages. Apparently, one can render forbidden an item that is not his. The Gemara answers: Here too it is a case where the one who caused the damage has a partnership share in the produce.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ื’ื•ื™ ืฉื ื™ืกืš ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืืกืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื ืžืชื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื™ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ืš ืฉืชืืกืจ ื™ื™ื ื™ ืœืื•ื ืกื™

The Gemara notes that the dispute whether one who slaughters anotherโ€™s animal for idol worship renders the animal forbidden, in accordance with Rav Huna, or does not render it forbidden, in accordance with Rav Naแธฅman, Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzแธฅak, is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who poured a Jewโ€™s wine as an idolatrous libation, but not in the presence of an object of idol worship, he has rendered the wine forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava permit drinking the wine due to two factors: One is that the presumption is that idol worshippers pour wine as an idolatrous libation only in the presence of an object of idol worship. And the other one is that even if the gentile poured the wine as an idolatrous libation, the Jew can say to the gentile: It is not within your power to render my wine forbidden against my will.

ื•ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ื•ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื’ื•ื™ ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืฆืขื•ืจื™ื” ืงื ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ

And Rav Naแธฅman, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzแธฅak say: Although Rav Hunaโ€™s opinion is compatible only with the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita and not with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, we can state our opinion even according to the one who says that a person renders forbidden an item that is not his, e.g., by pouring his wine as a libation or slaughtering his animal for idol worship. This statement applies only in a case where a gentile pours the libation or slaughters the animal. But if a Jew pours the wine or slaughters the animal, presumably he intends to torment that other person, and not to engage in idol worship. Therefore, a Jew does not render the animal forbidden.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ื—ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฉื•ืžื“

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a contradiction to that distinction from the mishna: 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. As the mishna is discussing a case involving Jews, this indicates that even a Jew who slaughters an animal for idol worship renders it forbidden. The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the case of a Jewish transgressor whose intent when declaring that his slaughter is for the sake of mountains, hills, or other natural entities is for idol worship.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื˜ืžื ื•ื”ืžื“ืžืข ื•ื”ืžื ืกืš ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฉื•ืžื“

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a contradiction to the distinction between a Jew and gentile from a mishna (Gittin 52b): With regard to one who renders anotherโ€™s food impure, and one who mixes teruma with anotherโ€™s non-sacred produce, and one who pours anotherโ€™s wine as a libation before an idol, if he did so unwittingly, he is exempt from payment of damages, even though he caused the other monetary loss. If he did so intentionally, he is liable to pay damages. Apparently, a Jew who pours wine as a libation for idolatry renders wine that is not his forbidden. The Gemara answers: Here too the reference is to an apostate Jew whose intent is for idol worship.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืชืจื• ื‘ื• ื•ืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืชืจืื” ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื™ืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœืžื™ืชื” ืงืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ืžืฉื•ืžื“ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžื–ื”

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to a Jew who is not a transgressor but declared that he is slaughtering anotherโ€™s animal for idolatry, if those who heard his declaration forewarned him that doing so is prohibited by Torah law and is punishable by death, and he acknowledged the forewarning and said: It is in full knowledge of the prohibition and the punishment that I do so, what is the halakha? Does he render the animal forbidden in that case? Rav Ashi said to him: Are you saying a case where he subjected himself to death by acknowledging the forewarning? You have no transgressor greater than that, and he certainly renders the animal forbidden.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื ืœืชื•ืš ื™ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ืœืชื•ืš ื ื”ืจื•ืช ื•ืœื ืœืชื•ืš ื›ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื”ื•ื ืœืชื•ืš ืขื•ื’ื” ืฉืœ ืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื” ื’ื•ืžื ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืฉื™ื›ื ืก ื”ื“ื ืœืชื•ื›ื” ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืฉืœื

MISHNA: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, as in all those cases it appears that he is slaughtering the animal in the manner of idolaters. But one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. And on a ship, one may slaughter an animal onto vessels as it is clear that his objective is to avoid sullying the ship. One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not

ื™ื—ืงื” ืืช ื”ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ

appear to emulate [yeแธฅakkeh] the heretics.

ื’ืžืณ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื ืœืชื•ืš ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืœืชื•ืš ื™ืžื™ื ื“ืœื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœืฉืจื ื“ื™ืžื ืงื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ืœืชื•ืš ืขื•ื’ื” ืฉืœ ืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ ืœื‘ื‘ื•ืื” ืงื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ื•

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, but one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. The Gemara asks: What is different about slaughter into seas? Is it that one may not perform it, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to the angel of the sea? If so, slaughter into a round excavation containing water should also be prohibited, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to his reflection [bavua], which is also similar to idolatry. Rava said: The tannaโ€™im taught that halakha in the case of murky water, in which no reflection can be seen.

ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื›ืœืœ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื’ื•ืžื ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง

ยง The mishna states: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. The Gemara asks: How is it permitted to slaughter and have the blood flow into a hole inside his house? But didnโ€™t you initially say that one may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all? Abaye said: The first clause of the mishna, where there is a blanket prohibition against having the blood flow into a small hole, is referring to a small hole that is in the marketplace.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื•ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ

Rava said to him: But isnโ€™t it so that from the fact that the latter clause teaches: And in the marketplace one may not do so, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with the marketplace?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ื•ื”ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื ืงืจ ื—ืฆืจื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื“ื ืฉื•ืชืช ื•ื™ื•ืจื“ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ื—ืงื” ืืช ื”ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ

Rather, Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all. And one who wishes to clean his courtyard and ensure that it will not be sullied in blood, how does he do so? He fashions a place with an incline or a furrow outside the small hole, and slaughters the animal there, and the blood flows and descends into the hole. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not appear to emulate the heretics.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ื™ื” ืžื”ืœืš ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื“ื• ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื“ื ืฉื•ืชืช ื•ื™ื•ืจื“ ืขืœ ื“ื•ืคื ื™ ื”ืกืคื™ื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one was traveling on a ship and he has no place on the ship to slaughter an animal, he extends his hand with a knife, holds the head of the animal outside the walls of the ship, and slaughters the animal there; and the blood flows and descends down the sides of the ship. He may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow directly into the sea. And one may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all.

ื•ื”ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื ืงืจ ื—ืฆืจื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื“ื ืฉื•ืชืช ื•ื™ื•ืจื“ ืœื’ื•ืžื ื•ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ื”ื ืœื ืชืœื›ื• ื•ืื ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืื—ืจื™ื•

And one who wishes to clean his courtyard and ensure that it will not be sullied with blood, how does he do so? He fashions a place with an incline or a furrow outside the small hole, and slaughters the animal there, and the blood flows and descends into the hole. And in the marketplace, one may not do so, as it is stated: โ€œNeither shall you follow their statutesโ€ (Leviticus 18:3). And if he did so, he requires examination after his actions to ascertain whether he is a heretic.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉื ืขื•ืœื” ืœืฉื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืœืฉื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืœืฉื ืคืกื— ืœืฉื ืชื•ื“ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering, or for the sake of a thanks offering, his slaughter is not valid, as it appears that he is consecrating animals and slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple. And Rabbi Shimon deems his slaughter valid.

ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ื—ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืฉื ืืฉื ื•ื“ืื™ ืœืฉื ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœืฉื ืžืขืฉืจ ืœืฉื ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

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. With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of a sin offering, for the sake of a guilt offering for a definite transgression, for the sake of the offering of a firstborn, for the sake of the offering of animal tithe, or for the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, his slaughter is valid. All of these offerings may be brought only as obligations and not as gifts. Therefore, there is no concern that he consecrated the animals.

ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉืžื• ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉืžื• ื›ืฉืจ

This is the principle: For any item, i.e., offering, which is consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is forbidden. And for any offering that is not consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift but is an obligation that is incumbent upon him, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is permitted.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉื ืขื•ืœื” ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ืจ ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืชื ื“ื‘ ืื“ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering, or for the sake of a thanks offering, the slaughter is not valid. This is because one who slaughters for the sake of any type of offering that is consecrated as a vow or as a gift renders the animal forbidden. The Gemara asks: Is a provisional guilt offering fit to be consecrated as a vow or as a gift? A provisional guilt offering is brought only when one is obligated to do so due to uncertainty whether or not he is liable to bring a sin offering. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says in a mishna (Karetot 25a): A person donates a provisional guilt offering every day if he chooses, due to concern that perhaps he violated a prohibition.

ืคืกื— ื‘ืจ ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื•ื ื™ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ื–ืžื ื ืงื‘ื™ืขื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืฉืื ื™ ืคืกื— ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ืคืจืฉืชื• ื›ืœ ื”ืฉื ื” ื›ื•ืœื”

The Gemara asks: Is a Paschal offering fit to be consecrated as a vow or as a gift? The time is fixed for its offering on Passover eve, when bringing it is an obligation, and it may not be brought on any other day. Rabbi Oshaya said: The Paschal offering is different, since although the date for bringing and slaughtering it is the fourteenth of Nisan, its designation can be performed throughout the entire year.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ืข ื™ื“ื™ืข ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ืืžื•ืžื ื•ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืข

Rabbi Yannai says: The Sages taught that slaughter of an animal for the sake of an offering is not valid only if the animals were unblemished. But with regard to animals with blemishes, the slaughterer knows that they are blemished and disqualified from sacrifice. Therefore, despite his declaration, there is no concern that his actual intent was to slaughter the animal for that purpose. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Slaughter of an animal for the sake of an offering is not valid even if the animals were blemished as well, as there are times that an item is cast over the blemish and covers it, and he does not know that the animal is blemished.

ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื—ื•ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ืื‘ืœ ืžื—ื•ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ืžื ืœืฉื•ื ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืชื™

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of a sin offering, his slaughter is valid, as, since one cannot voluntarily contribute a sin offering, there is no concern that the onlookers will draw the wrong conclusion. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The Sages taught that slaughter of an animal for the sake of a sin offering is valid only with regard to a slaughterer who is not liable to bring a sin offering. But a slaughterer who knows that he is liable to bring a sin offering, his slaughter is not valid. Say that he is performing consecration and slaughter for the sake of his sin offering. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of a sin offering, and he did not say: For the sake of my sin offering? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of my sin offering.

ืœืฉื ืชืžื•ืจื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ืื™ืžื ืืžื•ืจื™ ืืžื™ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืœืฉื ืชืžื•ืจืช ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ืชืžื•ืจืช ื–ื‘ื—ื™

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who slaughters for the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, his slaughter is valid. Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught that the slaughter is valid only in a case where he does not have an animal consecrated as an offering inside his house for which it can be the substitute, but if he has an animal consecrated as an offering in his house, say that he is substituting this animal for it, and the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, and he did not say: For the sake of a substitute for my animal consecrated as an offering? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of a substitute for my animal consecrated as an offering.

ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืขื•ืœืช ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ืœื ื ื“ืจ ืื™ืžืจ ื ื“ืจ ื‘ืฆื™ื ืขื

The mishna states that this is the principle: For any offering that is consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake, the animal is forbidden. The Gemara asks: What case does this clause add? The list in the mishna appears to be comprehensive. The Gemara answers: The clause serves to add the burnt offering of a nazirite. As, lest you say there is no concern in that case, as that person did not vow to become a nazirite and could not possibly be obligated to bring that offering, therefore, the tanna teaches that there is a concern if he said he was slaughtering for the sake of the burnt offering of a nazirite. Say that perhaps he vowed to become a nazirite in private, and no one else was aware of it.

ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืขื•ืœืช ื™ื•ืœื“ืช

The Gemara asks: What is added by the second half of the principle: And for any offering that is not consecrated as a voluntary vow or as a gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is permitted? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of a burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, the slaughter is valid, as it is an obligation.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืืฉื” ืื™ืžืจ ืœืฉืžื” ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืœืฉื ืขื•ืœืช ืืฉืชื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉื ืขื•ืœืช ืืฉืชื™

Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught that the slaughter is valid only in a case where he does not have a wife. But if he has a wife, say that he performs consecration and slaughter of the animal for her sake and therefore the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, and he did not say: For the sake of the burnt offering of my wife after childbirth? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of the burnt offering of my wife after childbirth.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื

The Gemara objects: This is obvious. Clearly, if he explicitly declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth the slaughter is not valid.

Scroll To Top