Chullin 41aחולין מ״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 41a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
41aמ״א א

אבל זבח לא ואי אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו מאי אריא חטאת העוף אפי' חטאת בהמה נמי כיון דקניא ליה לכפרה כדידיה דמיא

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.

ת"ש ב' אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין אחד לשום אחד מכל אלו ואחד לשום דבר כשר שחיטתו פסולה הכא במאי עסקינן דאית ליה שותפות בגוה

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.

ת"ש המטמא והמדמע והמנסך בשוגג פטור במזיד חייב הכא נמי דאית ליה שותפות בגוה

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another objection from a mishna (Gittin 52b): With regard to one who renders another’s food impure, and one who mixes teruma with another’s non-sacred produce, and one who pours another’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.

כתנאי עובד כוכבים שניסך יינו של ישראל שלא בפני עבודת כוכבים אסרו ר' יהודה בן בתירא ור' יהודה בן בבא מתירין אותו מפני שני דברים אחד שאין מנסכין יין אלא בפני עבודת כוכבים ואחד שיכול לומר לו לא כל הימנך שתאסר ייני לאונסי

The Gemara notes that the dispute whether one who slaughters another’s animal for idol worship renders the animal forbidden, in accordance with Rav Huna, or does not render it forbidden, in accordance with Rav Naḥman, Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak, is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who poured a Jew’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.

ורב נחמן ורב עמרם ורב יצחק אמרי אפי' למ"ד אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו ה"מ כותי אבל ישראל לצעוריה קא מיכוין

And Rav Naḥman, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak say: Although Rav Huna’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.

ת"ש ב' אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין אחד לשום אחד מכל אלו ואחד לשום דבר כשר שחיטתו פסולה הכא במאי עסקינן בישראל מומר

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.

ת"ש המטמא והמדמע והמנסך בשוגג פטור במזיד חייב הכא נמי בישראל מומר

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 another’s food impure, and one who mixes teruma with another’s non-sacred produce, and one who pours another’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.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי התרו בו וקבל עליו התראה מאי אמר ליה התיר עצמו למיתה קאמרת אין לך מומר גדול מזה:

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to a Jew who is not a transgressor but declared that he is slaughtering another’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.

מתני׳ אין שוחטין לא לתוך ימים ולא לתוך נהרות ולא לתוך כלים אבל שוחט הוא לתוך עוגה של מים ובספינה על גבי כלים אין שוחטין לגומא כל עיקר אבל עושה גומא בתוך ביתו בשביל שיכנס הדם לתוכה ובשוק לא יעשה כן שלא

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