Chullin

for it is as though he were cutting earth?1 — R. Papa answered: We are dealing here with a sin-offering of a bird, so that all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously.2 But let us consider! R. Huna based his statement, did he not, upon Ulla's view? But Ulla refers to any act, however slight!3 — Rather [assume that] he expressly declared that he intended to worship the idol only at the completion of the slaughtering.4 If this is the case, why only ‘a sin-offering’? It could have dealt with any offering!5 — 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,6 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].7 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.8 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.)9 R. Nahman, R. ‘Amram and R. Isaac stated: A person cannot render prohibited10 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 ,11 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. regarded as consecrated, therefore the prohibition against slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple court does not arise. And although it has been taught above (supra 29b), that even where only one organ of a consecrated animal was slaughtered outside the sanctuary there is liability under this head, that is so only where the second organ was cut within, and the animal thus retained its sanctity from beginning to end, so that there was all the time a proper slaughtering. In our case, however, once it is forbidden on account of idolatry it is no longer sacred; it is, as it were, a clod of earth, and there is no proper slaughtering. 29b); therefore all the Prohibitions arrive simultaneously, i.e., after the cutting of the first organ. effect before the others, consequently the prohibition for slaughtering outside the sanctuary cannot arise. but can refer to a sin-offering of cattle. Baraitha limit his case to a sin-offering, which is distinctive in that it does not belong to the slaughterer (i.e., the offerer) but to the priests? He could have dealt with any offering, even a peace-offering which belongs to the offerer, and yet he would be liable on the three counts, since he intended to worship the idol only at the completion of the slaughtering, when the three prohibitions arise simultaneously. Since the Tanna limited his case to a sin-offering it is clear that the slaughterer intended to worship the idol at the beginning of the slaughtering, and the reason why the three prohibitions are incurred is because he cannot render prohibited by his idolatrous intent another's animal (sc. the sin-offering, which is the priests’) with a slight act but only with a complete act. The Baraitha is thus in conflict with R. Huna who ruled that a slight act of idolatry (sc. the cutting of only one organ) renders another's animal prohibited. (Rashi's second interpretation.) bases his view upon Ulla's statement, it is evident that Ulla refers to the slightest act of idolatrous worship. could not have dealt with a peace-offering, as this offering is his, it could have dealt with a burnt-offering.