## Chullin Daf 41a

###### Chullin 41a:1
[Chullin 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:1)

אֲבָל זֶבַח לָא. וְאִי אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, מַאי אִרְיָא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? אֲפִילּוּ חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּקַנְיָא לֵיהּ לְכַפָּרָה כְּדִידֵיהּ דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in the case of an animal **offering** there is **no** way in which one can violate all three prohibitions simultaneously. **But if a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his, why** must the *tanna* teach the *halakha* **specifically** with regard to **a bird sin offering?** The same *halakha* would apply **even** in the case of **an animal sin offering.** This is because cutting one *siman* for idolatry does not render the animal forbidden, as the priest has the exclusive right to derive benefit from it, so it does not belong to the owner anymore. Therefore, one would violate the three prohibitions simultaneously. The Gemara answers: **Since** one who brings a sin offering **acquires** the animal **for his atonement,** its status is **like** that of an animal that **is his,** and he renders it forbidden with the first cut at the beginning of the slaughter.


###### Chullin 41a:2
[Chullin 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשׁוּם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ, וְאֶחָד לְשׁוּם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּאִית לֵיהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת בְּגַוַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another objection from the mishna: If there were **two** people **grasping a knife** together **and slaughtering** an animal, **one** slaughtering **for the sake of one of all those** enumerated in the first clause of the mishna **and one** slaughtering **for the sake of a legitimate matter,** their **slaughter is not valid.** Based on the formulation of the mishna, the one slaughtering with improper intent is not necessarily the owner of the animal. How, then, can he render the animal forbidden? Apparently, one can render forbidden an item that is not his. The Gemara answers: **What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the one with improper intent **has a partnership** share **in** the animal, so he is rendering his own animal forbidden.


###### Chullin 41a:3
[Chullin 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְטַמֵּא, וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ – בְּשׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר, בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּיב. הָכָא נָמֵי דְּאִית לֵיהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת בְּגַוַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another objection from a mishna (*Gittin* 52b): With regard to **one who renders** another’s food **impure, and one who mixes** *teruma* with another’s non-sacred produce, **and one who pours** another’s wine as a libation before an idol, if he did so **unwittingly,** he is **exempt** from payment of damages, even though he caused the other monetary loss. If he did so **intentionally,** he is **liable** to pay damages. Apparently, one can render forbidden an item that is not his. The Gemara answers: **Here too** it is a case **where** the one who caused the damage **has a partnership** share **in** the produce.


###### Chullin 41a:4
[Chullin 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:4)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: גּוֹי שֶׁנִּיסֵּךְ יֵינוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – אֲסָרוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא מַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים: אֶחָד – שֶׁאֵין מְנַסְּכִין יַיִן אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאֶחָד – שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״לֹא כׇּל הֵימֶנָּךְ שֶׁתֶּאֱסֹר יֵינִי לְאוֹנְסִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that the dispute whether one who slaughters another’s animal for idol worship renders the animal forbidden, in accordance with Rav Huna, or does not render it forbidden, in accordance with Rav Naḥman, Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak, is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a gentile who poured a Jew’s wine** as an idolatrous **libation,** but **not in the presence of** an object of **idol worship, he has rendered** the wine **forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava permit** drinking the wine **due to two factors: One** is **that** the presumption is that idol worshippers **pour wine as** an idolatrous **libation only in the presence of** an object of **idol worship. And** the other **one** is **that** even if the gentile poured the wine as an idolatrous libation, the Jew **can say to** the gentile: It is **not within your** power **to render my wine forbidden against my will.**


###### Chullin 41a:5
[Chullin 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:5)

וְרַב נַחְמָן וְרַב עַמְרָם וְרַב יִצְחָק אָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי גּוֹי, אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְצַעוֹרֵיהּ קָא מִיכַּוֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak say:** Although Rav Huna’s opinion is compatible only with the opinion of the first *tanna* in the *baraita* and not with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, we can state our opinion **even according to the one who says** that **a person renders forbidden an item that is not his,** e.g., by pouring his wine as a libation or slaughtering his animal for idol worship. **This statement** applies only in a case where **a gentile** pours the libation or slaughters the animal. **But** if **a Jew** pours the wine or slaughters the animal, presumably **he intends to torment** that other person, and not to engage in idol worship. Therefore, a Jew does not render the animal forbidden.


###### Chullin 41a:6
[Chullin 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשׁוּם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ וְאֶחָד לְשׁוּם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a contradiction to that distinction from the mishna: If there were **two** people **grasping a knife** together **and slaughtering** an animal, **one** slaughtering **for the sake of one of all those** enumerated in the first clause of the mishna **and one** slaughtering **for the sake of a legitimate matter,** their **slaughter is not valid.** As the mishna is discussing a case involving Jews, this indicates that even a Jew who slaughters an animal for idol worship renders it forbidden. The Gemara answers: **What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with the case **of a Jewish transgressor** whose intent when declaring that his slaughter is for the sake of mountains, hills, or other natural entities is for idol worship.


###### Chullin 41a:7
[Chullin 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – פָּטוּר, בְּמֵזִיד – חַיָּיב. הָכָא נָמֵי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a contradiction to the distinction between a Jew and gentile from a mishna (*Gittin* 52b): With regard to **one who renders** another’s food **impure, and one who mixes** *teruma* with another’s non-sacred produce, **and one who pours** another’s wine as a libation before an idol, if he did so **unwittingly,** he is **exempt** from payment of damages, even though he caused the other monetary loss. If he did so **intentionally,** he is **liable** to pay damages. Apparently, a Jew who pours wine as a libation for idolatry renders wine that is not his forbidden. The Gemara answers: **Here too** the reference is **to an apostate Jew** whose intent is for idol worship.


###### Chullin 41a:8
[Chullin 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הִתְרוּ בּוֹ וְקִבֵּל עָלָיו הַתְרָאָה, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הִתִּיר עַצְמוֹ לְמִיתָה קָאָמְרַתְּ? אֵין לָךְ מְשׁוּמָּד גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:** With regard to a Jew who is not a transgressor but declared that he is slaughtering another’s animal for idolatry, if those who heard his declaration **forewarned him** that doing so is prohibited by Torah law and is punishable by death, **and he acknowledged the forewarning** and said: It is in full knowledge of the prohibition and the punishment that I do so, **what** is the *halakha*? Does he render the animal forbidden in that case? Rav Ashi **said to him: Are you saying** a case where **he subjected himself to death** by acknowledging the forewarning? **You have no transgressor greater than that,** and he certainly renders the animal forbidden.


###### Chullin 41a:9
[Chullin 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לֹא לְתוֹךְ יַמִּים, וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ נְהָרוֹת, וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ כֵּלִים, אֲבָל שׁוֹחֵט הוּא לְתוֹךְ עוּגָה שֶׁל מַיִם. וּבִסְפִינָה, עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים. אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לַגּוּמָּא כׇּל עִיקָּר, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה גּוּמָּא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס הַדָּם לְתוֹכָהּ. וּבַשּׁוּק לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כֵּן, שֶׁלֹּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One may not slaughter** an animal and have its blood flow, **neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels,** as in all those cases it appears that he is slaughtering the animal in the manner of idolaters. **But one may slaughter** an animal and have its blood flow **into a round excavation** containing **water. And on a ship,** one may slaughter an animal **onto vessels** as it is clear that his objective is to avoid sullying the ship. **One may not slaughter** an animal and have its blood flow **into a small hole** in the ground **at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. And in the marketplace one may not do so,** so **that** he will **not**