מפת הסוגיא — חולין מ׳Sugya map — Chullin 40

הגמרא מדייקת מן המשנה: ״פסולה״ — כן, אבל לא זבחי מתים, כלומר הבהמה אינה נאסרת בהנאה כתקרובת עבודה זרה. ומקשים סתירה מברייתא: השוחט לשם הרים, גבעות, נהרות, מדברות, חמה ולבנה, כוכבים ומזלות, מיכאל השר הגדול, ואפילו לשם תולעת קטנה — הרי אלו זבחי מתים, ואסורים בהנאה!

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.

אמר אביי: אין סתירה — המשנה עוסקת באומר ששוחט להר עצמו, שאינו נחשב נעבד; הברייתא — באומר ששוחט לשרו של ההר (״גדא דהר״), שהוא ישות רוחנית. והלשון מדויקת: ההרים נשנו בברייתא יחד עם מיכאל השר הגדול — שמע מינה.

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.

אמר רב הונא: הייתה בהמת חברו רבוצה לפני עבודה זרה, כיוון ששחט בה סימן אחד (קנה או ושט) — אסר אותה בהנאה. רב הונא סובר כדברי עולא בשם רבי יוחנן: אף על פי שאמרו שהמשתחווה לבהמת חברו לא אסרהּ — אם עשה בה מעשה, אסרהּ.

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.

הקשה רב נחמן לרב הונא מברייתא: השוחט בשוגג בהמת חטאת בשבת, מחוץ למקדש, לשם עבודה זרה — חייב שלוש חטאות (על שבת, על שחוטי חוץ ועל עבודה זרה). ואם לדבריך כיוון ששחט בה סימן אחד אסרהּ — על שחוטי חוץ לא יתחייב,

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,

שהרי משעת הסימן הראשון הבהמה כבר נאסרה ונפסלה להקרבה, וכשגומר את השחיטה בחוץ הריהו כ״מחתך בעפר״! אמר רב פפא: כאן מדובר בחטאת העוף, שדי לה בסימן אחד — וכל שלושת האיסורים באים בבת אחת.

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.

ומקשים: הרי רב הונא אמר את דינו בשיטת עולא, ועולא אמר שכל מעשה כלשהו אוסר — אם כן גם בעוף, מתחילת החיתוך כבר נאסר, ושוב אין חיוב על שחוטי חוץ!

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?

אלא: מדובר באומר מראש ש״בגמר הזביחה הוא עובדהּ״ — שאין הבהמה נאסרת אלא בסוף השחיטה, ואז הכל בא כאחד.

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.

ומקשים: אם כך, מדוע נקט התנא דווקא חטאת? שישמיע לנו את הדין בכל זבח!

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.

אלא אמר מר זוטרא משמו של רב פפא: כאן מדובר כגון שהיה חצי הקנה פגום (חתוך) מקודם, והוסיף עליו חיתוך כלשהו וגמרוֹ — שבחיתוך זעיר זה נשלמת השחיטה, וכל שלושת האיסורים באים בבת אחת.

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.

אמר רב פפא: אלמלא אמר רב הונא ״סימן אחד״, לא הייתה הברייתא של החטאת קושיה עליו — שהיה אפשר לומר: מהו ה״מעשה״ שאוסר לדעת עולא? מעשה גדול, כלומר גמר השחיטה.

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.

ועוד אמר רב פפא: אלמלא אמר רב הונא ״בהמת חברו״, לא הייתה החטאת קושיה עליו — שהיה אפשר לומר: מה הטעם? את שלו אדם יכול לאסור, אבל את של חברו אינו יכול לאסור — והחטאת אינה שלו, שהרי הכוהנים זכאים בבשרה.

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.

ושואלים: פשיטא! ומשיבים: הוצרך רב פפא לומר זאת — שלא תאמר: כיוון שקנה את החטאת לכפרתו, הריהי כשלו ויכול לאוסרה; קא משמע לן שאין די בכך.

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.

(נע״ץ — סימן לזכירת שמות החכמים: נחמן, עמרם, יצחק.) רב נחמן, רב עמרם ורב יצחק אומרים: אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו.

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.

מקשים מהברייתא: השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעבודה זרה חייב שלוש חטאות — והעמדנו אותה בחטאת העוף ובחצי קנה פגום. משמע: הטעם הוא דווקא בחטאת העוף, שכל האיסורים באים בה כאחד,

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.

אבל זבח בהמה — לא. ואם אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, מדוע דווקא חטאת העוף? אפילו חטאת בהמה — שהרי אינה שלו, אין הסימן הראשון אוסרהּ, והכל יבוא כאחד! ומשיבים: כיוון שקנאהּ לכפרתו — כשלו היא נחשבת, והסימן הראשון אוסרהּ.

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.

תא שמע ממשנתנו: שניים אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין, אחד מתכוון לשם אחד מכל אלו ואחד לשם דבר כשר — שחיטתם פסולה; והרי השוחט בכוונה פסולה אינו בהכרח בעל הבהמה — משמע שאדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו! ומשיבים: כאן מדובר שיש לו שותפות בבהמה.

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.

תא שמע ממשנה (גיטין): המטמא (טהרות של חברו), והמדמע (מערב תרומה בחולין של חברו), והמנסך (יין של חברו לעבודה זרה) — בשוגג פטור מתשלום, במזיד חייב; משמע שמעשהו אוסר את של חברו! ומשיבים: כאן נמי — שיש לו שותפות בו.

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.

מחלוקת זו — כמחלוקת תנאים: גוי שניסך את יינו של ישראל שלא בפני עבודה זרה — אסרוֹ; רבי יהודה בן בתירא ורבי יהודה בן בבא מתירין אותו משני טעמים: האחד — שאין מנסכים יין אלא בפני עבודה זרה, והשני — שיכול לומר לו: ״אין בכוחך לאסור את ייני בעל כורחי״.

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, רב עמרם ורב יצחק אומרים: אפילו לדעת האומר שאדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו — דברים אלו אמורים בגוי, אבל ישראל השוחט או המנסך את של חברו — אינו מתכוון אלא לצערו, ואינו אוסר.

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.

תא שמע ממשנתנו: שניים אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין, אחד לשם אחד מכל אלו ואחד לשם דבר כשר — שחיטתם פסולה; והרי במשנה מדובר בישראל, ומשמע שגם ישראל אוסר! ומשיבים: כאן מדובר בישראל משומד, שכוונתו באמת לעבודה זרה.

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.

תא שמע: המטמא והמדמע והמנסך — בשוגג פטור, במזיד חייב; והרי מדובר בישראל! ומשיבים: כאן נמי — בישראל משומד.

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 לו רב אחא בנו של רבא לרב אשי: ישראל שאינו משומד ששחט בהמת חברו לעבודה זרה, והתרו בו וקיבל עליו את ההתראה — מהו? אמר לו: ״התיר עצמו למיתה״ אתה אומר? אין לך משומד גדול מזה — וודאי אוסר.

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.