מחתך בעפר הוא
for it is as though he were cutting earth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as it becomes prohibited on account of idolatry i.e., after the cutting of the first organ, it is no longer 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.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
And they also made many distancings about the matter of wine, as it was the main [source] for the joy of the offering; and also since the Torah mentioned its prohibition explicitly, as it is written in Parshat Haazinu (Deuteronomy 32:38), "drank the wine of their libations." And hence they, may their memory be blessed, were stringent and said (Avodah Zarah 58a) - in order to distance the matter - that even the wine of a Jew when it is touched by a gentile is immediately prohibited, even to benefit from it. And do not let it be difficult to you, how is it that a gentile can forbid the wine of an Israelite, since we have it established that a person can not bring a prohibition to something that is not his (Chullin 40b). As this is not said except in a case such as if he bows down to his friend's animal, where he did not do an act to the body of the thing. But anytime he does an act to the body of the thing - and even a minor act, like this of touching - he has the power to forbid a thing that is not his, rabbinically. However it is not [forbidden] by Torah writ until he does a major act, such as slaughtering his animal, which is a major act; and so [too,] if he poured wine in front of the actual idol, that is also a major act. But regarding touching the wine not in front of the idol, it is a minor act. And since it is minor and the prohibition is only rabbinic, they, may their memory be blessed, permitted (Avodah Zarah 59b) one to take repayment from the one who made it forbidden for that which he made forbidden. And even though they were stringent about the body of the thing to forbid its benefit, they were not stringent about its payment; as payment [here] is only a type of repayment for damage. And [so] he does not benefit from the forbidden thing, but rather takes payment for his damage from the one who made it forbidden.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
