Chullin

but with regard to other sacrifices it would not be so. If then you say that a person cannot render prohibited that which does not belong to him, why must [the Baraitha] be interpreted a referring to the sin-offering of a bird? It can just as well refer to the sin-offering of an animal?1 — Since he receives atonement through it it is regarded as his own. 2 Come and hear: 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!3 — We must suppose that he4 had a share in it. Come and hear: If a person rendered unclean [another's food], or if he mixed terumah [with another's common food], or if he offered unto an idol [another's wine], then if he did so inadvertently, he is not liable [for the damage], but if deliberately, he is liable?5 — We must suppose also here that he had a share in it. This6 is disputed by Tannaim. [It was taught:] If a gentile offered the wine of an Israelite as a libation, even though not in the presence of an idol, he has rendered it prohibited.7 R. Judah b. Bathyra and R. Judah b. Baba declare it permitted for two reasons, first because a wine libation is offered only in the presence of the idol, and secondly, because he [the owner] can say to the gentile. ‘You have no right to render my wine prohibited against my will’ — R. Nahman, R. ‘Amram and R. Isaac, however, will say that8 even the Tanna who holds that a person can render prohibited that which does not belong to him maintains this view only in the case of a gentile, but [not in the case of an Israelite, for] the Israelite merely intended to vex his fellow. 9 Come and hear: 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! — We must suppose that he was an Israelite apostate.10 Come and hear: If a person rendered unclean [another's food], or if he mixed terumah [with another's common food], or if he offered unto an idol [another's wine], then if he did so inadvertently, he is not liable [for the damage], but if deliberately, he is liable? — We must suppose also here that he was an Israelite apostate. R. Aha the son of Raba asked R. Ashi: What is the law if an Israelite, [about to slaughter another's beast as a sacrifice to idols], was warned against it and he accepted the warning?11 — He replied: You speak, do you not, of one who has surrendered himself to death? Surely no one is more of an apostate than he!12 MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER [IN SUCH MANNER THAT THE BLOOD RUNS] INTO THE SEA.13 OR INTO RIVERS, OR INTO VESSELS;13 BUT ONE MAY SLAUGHTER INTO A POOL OF WATER. OR WHEN ON BOARD SHIP ON TO THE BACKS OF VESSELS.14 ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER AT ALL INTO A PIT;15 YET A PERSON MAY DIG A PIT IN HIS OWN HOUSE FOR THE BLOOD TO RUN INTO. IN THE STREET, HOWEVER, HE SHOULD NOT DO SO LEST HE APPEAR Rabbis, since a sin-offering belongs to the priests; consequently the offering remains consecrated, and the slaughterer therefore is liable to three sin-offerings as stated. For although he does not render the beast prohibited, he himself is nevertheless liable for his idolatrous worship. arise. The Baraitha therefore can only refer to the case of a sin-offering of a bird and in the circumstances stated above. another unclean or unfit. Rabbinic law, however, a person who caused this sort of damage deliberately was held liable to make good the loss. In this case his liability to pay will in no wise be affected by reason of the fact that he will suffer the death penalty on account of idolatrous worship. V. Cit. 52b. therefore like a gentile he would render prohibited even that which belonged to another. acting in defiance thereof be considered as an Israelite apostate? like a gentile, would render prohibited that which belonged to another. is collected in a vessel it might appear as though it were being kept for an idolatrous purpose. fouling the ship.