Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SLAUGHTER FOR IDOL-WORSHIP

(a) (Mishnah): If one slaughters to serve mountains, hills, seas, rivers or the wilderness - the slaughter is invalid;
(b) If two people slaughter together, one intends to serve one of these things, the other intends for proper slaughter - the slaughter is invalid.
(c) (Gemara) Inference: The slaughter is only invalid, it is not Takroves.
(d) Contradiction (Beraisa): One who slaughters to serve mountains, hills, seas, rivers, the wilderness, the sun, moon, stars, constellations, Micha'el (the great ministering angel), or the angel that oversees a worm - this is Takroves.
(e) Answer (Abaye): Our Mishnah discusses slaughter to serve the mountain (or sea...) itself; the Beraisa discusses slaughter to serve its overseeing angel.

1. Support: Presumably, all cases of the Beraisa resemble Micha'el, an angel.

(a) (Rav Huna): Shimon's animal was crouched before an idol; once Reuven slaughters one Siman, he makes it forbidden.
(b) This is like Ula.

1. (Ula): Even though Reuven cannot forbid Shimon's cow by bowing to it, if he did an action to it, he forbids it.

(c) Question (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): If one slaughters a Chatas outside the Mikdash, for idolatry, on Shabbos (all b'Shogeg), he brings three Chata'os to atone for this.

1. If the animal becomes forbidden after slaughtering one Siman, he should not be liable for Shechutei Chutz (slaughtering a Korban outside the Mikdash), for the cutting of the second Siman is like cutting dirt (since the animal is already forbidden - Shechutei Chutz only applies to Kosher Korbanos)!

(d) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): The Beraisa discusses Chatas ha'Of - since only one Siman need be cut, the liabilities come simultaneously (when the Siman is cut).
(e) Question: But Rav Huna holds like Ula, who says that even a small action makes the animal forbidden (i.e. once a *fragment* of the Siman is cut)!
(f) Answer #2: Rather, the case is, he said that he does not intend to serve idolatry until he completes the slaughter.
(g) Question: If so, why does the Beraisa discuss a Chatas - the same applies to any Korban!
(h) Answer #3 (Mar Zutra): The Beraisa discusses Chatas ha'Of in which exactly half of the Kaneh was already cut. The moment he adds to this cut, the slaughter is completed, the liabilities come simultaneously.
(i) (Rav Papa): Had Rav Huna not said that the animal is forbidden once one Siman is cut, we could not have challenged him from the Beraisa.

1. He could say like Ula, that a (*major*) action (i.e. complete slaughter) to another's animal forbids it. (Since the animal is not forbidden until the slaughter is completed, he is (also) liable for Shechutei Chutz.)

(j) (Rav Papa): Had Rav Huna not said that one can forbid another's animal through an action, we could not have challenged him from the Beraisa.

1. He could say that a person cannot forbid a Chatas, for it is not considered *his* animal (the meat goes to the Kohanim). (Since his slaughter for idolatry does not forbid the animal, he is liable for Shechutei Chutz.)

(k) Question: This is obvious - what is Rav Papa's Chidush?
(l) Answer: One might have thought, since a person gets atonement from a Chatas, it is considered his animal - he teaches that this is not so.
(m) (Rav Nachman, Rav Amram, R. Yitzchak): A person cannot forbid another person's property (Rashi - even through a major action).
(n) Question (Beraisa): If one slaughtered a Chatas outside the Mikdash, for idolatry, on Shabbos, he brings three Chata'os.

1. We established that the case to be Chatas ha'Of in which exactly half of the Kaneh was already cut.
2. Inference: He is only liable for all three in this case, because the liabilities come simultaneously - if the Korban was an animal, he would not be liable for Shechutei Chutz (because the animal becomes forbidden in mid-slaughter, even though he does not really own his Korban)!
3. If a person cannot forbid property that is not his, we could even establish the Beraisa to discuss Chatas Behemah, since he cannot forbid it!

(o) Answer: Since a person gets atonement from a Chatas, it is considered his, he can forbid it.