חולין 40 — parallel

40:1

IF TWO PERSONS HELD ONE KNIFE AND SLAUGHTERED [AN ANIMAL], ONE INTENDING IT AS A SACRIFICE TO ONE OF THESE THINGS AND THE OTHER FOR A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID. GEMARA. It is only invalid but it is not regarded as a sacrifice of the dead. I will point out a contradiction. [It was taught:] If a man slaughtered [an animal] as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, rivers, deserts, the sun, the moon, the stars and planets. Michael the Archangel, or a small worm, it is regarded as a sacrifice of the dead! — Abaye explained. It is no difficulty. Here [in our Mishnah] he declared it to be a sacrifice to the mountain itself, but there he declared it to be a sacrifice to the deity of the mountain. There is indeed support for this view, for [in the Baraitha quoted] they are all stated together with ‘Michael the Archangel’. This is conclusive. R. Huna stated: If his neighbour's beast was lying in front of an idol, then as soon as he has cut one of the organs of the throat he has thereby rendered it prohibited. He is evidently in agreement with the dictum of Ulla reported in the name of R. Johanan viz.. Although the Rabbis have declared that he who bowed down to his neighbour's beast has not rendered it prohibited, nevertheless if he performed on it an act [of idolatrous worship], he has thereby rendered it prohibited. R. Nahman raised this objection against R. Huna, [It was taught:] If a person [inadvertently] slaughtered on the Sabbath a sin-offering outside [the Temple Court] as a sacrifice to an idol, he is liable to three sin-offerings. Now if you say that as soon as he has cut one organ only he has rendered it prohibited, then he should not be liable on account of slaughtering outside,

—

40:2

for it is as though he were cutting earth? — R. Papa answered: We are dealing here with a sin-offering of a bird, so that all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously. But let us consider! R. Huna based his statement, did he not, upon Ulla's view? But Ulla refers to any act, however slight! — Rather [assume that] he expressly declared that he intended to worship the idol only at the completion of the slaughtering. If this is the case, why only ‘a sin-offering’? It could have dealt with any offering! — Rather, said Mar Zutra in the name of R. Papa: We are dealing here with the case where half of the windpipe [of the sin-offering of a bird] was mutilated, and this person merely added to it the smallest cut, thereby completing [the slaughtering]; and now all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously. R. Papa remarked: Had not R. Huna specifically mentioned one organ’, [the above Baraitha of the] ‘Sin-offering’ would never have presented any difficulty, for the expression ‘an act’ [used by Ulla] could mean a complete act [of idolatrous worship]. R. Papa further remarked: Had not R. Huna expressly said: ‘his neighbour's animal’, [the above Baraitha of the] ‘Sin-offering’ would not have presented any difficulty. Why? Because a man can only render prohibited [even by his slightest act] that which belongs to him, but not that which belongs to others. Is not this obvious? — It is not, for I might have said that since he received atonement through it it is regarded as his own; he therefore must state it. (Mnemonic Na ‘A.Z.) R. Nahman, R. ‘Amram and R. Isaac stated: A person cannot render prohibited that which does not belong to him. An objection was raised: [It was taught:] If a person [inadvertently] slaughtered on the Sabbath a sin-offering outside [the Temple court] as a sacrifice to an idol, he is liable to three sin-offerings. And we interpreted this Baraitha as referring to a sin-offering of a bird , half of whose windpipe was mutilated. Now the reason [for the ruling] is because it is a sin-offering of a bird in which case all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously.

—