Chullin 79

Chapter 79

א שנים אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין אחד לשם אחד מכל אלו ואחד לשם דבר כשר שחיטתו פסולה:
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.
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פסולה אין זבחי מתים לא
2 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It is only invalid but it is not regarded as a sacrifice of the dead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then it would not only be invalid but even forbidden for all uses and purposes; v. A.Z. 29b.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג ורמינהי
3 I will point out a contradiction.
ד השוחט לשום הרים לשום גבעות לשום נהרות לשום מדברות לשום חמה ולבנה לשום כוכבים ומזלות לשום מיכאל השר הגדול לשום שילשול קטן הרי אלו זבחי מתים
4 [It was taught:] If a man slaughtered [an animal] as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, river deserts, the sun, the moon, the stars and planets.
ה אמר אביי לא קשיא
5 Michael the Archangel, or a small worm, it is regarded as a sacrifice of the dead!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ps. CVI, 28.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ו הא דאמר להר הא דאמר לגדא דהר
6 - Abaye explained.
ז דיקא נמי דקתני דומיא דמיכאל שר הגדול ש"מ
7 It is no difficulty.
ח אמר רב הונא
8 Here [in our Mishnah] he declared it to be a sacrifice to the mountain itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mountains and other inanimate things the works of nature cannot, according to Deut. XII, 2, be in law regarded as idols; v. A.Z. 45a. Hence sacrifices unto them are not sacrifices unto idols, and therefore the animal is not forbidden for use; it is however forbidden to be eaten since it has the appearance of idol worship.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ט היתה בהמת חבירו רבוצה לפני עבודת כוכבים כיון ששחט בה סימן אחד אסרה
9 but there he declared it to be a sacrifice to the deity of the mountain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the spirit or angel of the mountain etc. This is real idolatry and the animal which is slaughtered as a sacrifice is absolutely forbidden.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
י סבר לה כי הא דאמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן
10 There is indeed support for this view, for [in the Baraitha quoted] they are all stated together with 'Michael the Archangel'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus indicating that it is the spirit or godhead of the mountain that is intended to be the object of worship, just as in the case of Michael it is an angel or spirit that is referred to.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
יא אע"פ שאמרו המשתחוה לבהמת חבירו לא אסרה עשה בה מעשה אסרה
11 This is conclusive.
יב איתיביה רב נחמן לרב הונא
12 R'Huna stated: If his neighbour's beast was lying in front of an idol, then as soon as he has cut one of th organs of the throat he has thereby rendered it prohibited.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The principle is that a person cannot render prohibited that which belongs to another merely by word of mouth but only by an act. It goes without saying that a man's own beast would be prohibited by this act.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
יג השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעבודת כוכבים חייב שלש חטאות
13 He is evidently in agreement with the dictum of Ulla reported in the name of R'Johanan viz.
יד ואי אמרת כיון ששחט בה סימן אחד אסרה אשחוטי חוץ לא ליחייב
14 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As e.g. by pouring wine between its horns. V. A.Z. 54a.');"><sup>7</sup></span> [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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (i) For breaking the Sabbath, (ii) for slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple court, and (iii) for slaughtering unto idols.');"><sup>8</sup></span> 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,