Chullin 80

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.');">¹</span>

אמר רב פפא

- R'Papa answered: We are dealing here with a sin-offering of a bird, so that all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the cutting of one organ outside the sanctuary in the case of a sin-offering of a bird renders one liable (v. supra 29b) ; therefore all the Prohibitions arrive simultaneously, i.e., after the cutting of the first organ.');">²</span>

הכא בחטאת העוף עסקינן דכולהו בהדי הדדי קאתי

But let us consider! R'Huna based his statement, did he not, upon Ulla's view?

מכדי רב הונא כמאן אמרה לשמעתיה כעולא ועולא מעשה כל דהו קאמר

But Ulla refers to any act, however slight!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not necessarily the cutting of one whole organ; accordingly the prohibition under the head of idolatry takes effect before the others, consequently the prohibition for slaughtering outside the sanctuary cannot arise.');">³</span>

אלא באומר בגמר זביחה הוא עובדה

- Rather [assume that] he expressly declared that he intended to worship the idol only at the completion of the slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When all the prohibitions arrive simultaneously. The Baraitha therefore need not be limited to a sin-offering of a bird but can refer to a sin-offering of cattle.');">⁴</span>

אי הכי מאי איריא חטאת

If this i the case, why only 'a sin-offering'?

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.)');">⁵</span>

אלא אמר מר זוטרא משמיה דרב פפא

- 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this small cut, although a slight act, constitutes the complete slaughtering.');">⁶</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיה חצי קנה פגום והוסיף עליו כל שהוא וגמרו דכולהו בהדי הדדי קאתיין

thereby completing [the slaughtering]; and now all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously.

אמר רב פפא

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the complete slaughtering. As R. Huna expressly mentions 'one organ' (which is something incomplete) , and he bases his view upon Ulla's statement, it is evident that Ulla refers to the slightest act of idolatrous worship.');">⁷</span>

אי לאו דאמר רב הונא סימן אחד לא הויא חטאת תיובתיה מאי מעשה

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.

מעשה רבה

Why?

ואמר רב פפא

Because a man can only render prohibited [even by his slightest act] that which belongs to him, but not that which belongs to others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a sin-offering belongs to the priests, save that the owner receives atonement through it.');">⁸</span>

אי לאו דאמר רב הונא בהמת חברו לא הויא חטאת תיובתיה מאי טעמא

Is not this obvious? - It is not, for I might have said that since he receive atonement through it it is regarded as his own; he therefore must state it.

דידיה מצי אסר דחבריה לא מצי אסר

<br>(Mnemonic Na 'A.

פשיטא

Z).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he stuck in'. The characteristic letters of the names of the three Rabbis, the authors of the following statement.');">⁹</span>

מהו דתימא

R'Nahman, R''Amram and R'Isaac stated: A person cannot render prohibited<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even by a complete act.');">¹⁰</span>

כיון דקני ליה לכפרה כדידיה דמיא קמ"ל

that which does not belong to him.

(נעץ סימן) רב נחמן ורב עמרם ורב יצחק אמרי

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.

אין אדם אוסר דבר שאין שלו

And we interpreted this Baraitha as referring to a sin-offering of a bird ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of the fact that the Baraitha speaks of a sin-offering and not of any other offering; for, granted that it could not have dealt with a peace-offering, as this offering is his, it could have dealt with a burnt-offering.');">¹¹</span>

מיתיבי

half of whose windpipe was mutilated.

השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעבודת כוכבים חייב שלש חטאות ואוקמינן בחטאת העוף ובחצי קנה פגום

Now the reason [for the ruling] is because it is a sin-offering of a bird in which case all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously.

טעמא דחטאת העוף הוא דכולהו בהדי הדדי קאתיין