חולין מ

חולין מ

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.