Commentary for Chullin 80:7
לישמעינן זבח
It could have dealt with any offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the slaughterer intended to worship the idol only at the completion of the slaughtering, why did the Tanna of the 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.)');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Chullin 80:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.