Chullin 40a — the Talmud in English

There were

two holding a knife

one

and slaughtering, one

slaughtered

for the sake of one of all these, and one

slaughtered an ordinary slaughter, which was

for the sake of a valid matter,

his slaughter is invalid .

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One who slaughters for the sake of mountains—his slaughter is invalid.

And we infer:

Invalid, yes,

and it is forbidden to eat, according to the law of carrion. But

as an offering to the dead, no,

it is not considered. And the reason for the matter is that the Torah said: “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you are dispossessing served their gods, upon the mountains” [Deuteronomy 12:2]. And they expound that only the idols upon the mountains are forbidden, but the mountains themselves are not, even if they made them into idolatry; and just as the mountains are not rendered forbidden, so the offering made for their sake is not forbidden.

And he raises a contradiction

against this from what we learned:

One who slaughters for the sake of mountains, for the sake of hills, for the sake of seas, for the sake of rivers, for the sake of deserts, for the sake of the sun and the moon, for the sake of stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael the great minister,

who is among all the creations of the Holy One, blessed is He,

for the sake of a small worm

a worm

small

among the creations,

these are offerings to the dead.

And it is demonstrated from the beraita that the prohibition of offerings to the dead applies even when he offers for the sake of mountains!

Abaye said: This

of the Mishna is when he

says

that the slaughterer offers

to the mountain

itself, in which case there is no prohibition of offerings to the dead , and the Sages decreed a prohibition of eating in the matter because it resembles offerings to the dead.

This

of the beraita is when he

says

that he offers

to the deity of the mountain

the angel appointed over the mountains. And the entire beraita is speaking of one who slaughters for the angels of the things mentioned .

It is also precise:

that the beraita is dealing with angels,

for it teaches in the manner of Michael the great minister. Infer from it

that the other things too are angels. And although we have a teaching from the Torah that living creatures are not rendered forbidden by the prohibition of idolatry , and the angels are like living creatures, and we should have permitted their offerings just like the offering of mountains, this is not so, because living creatures are called by the name “gods” in the Torah, and therefore their offerings are forbidden, even though the prohibition of idolatry does not apply to them; but mountains were excluded from the designation of divinity .

The Gemara brings here a discussion dealing with the law of an idolatrous offering that does not belong to the owner of the offering.

Mountains and living creatures are not rendered forbidden by the prohibition of idolatry when their owner bows down to them.

However, if he performed an act with them, such as digging pits in the ground for idolatry and bowing down to them—he rendered them forbidden. [Avodah Zarah 54b].

A person who bows down to an object belonging to another does not render it forbidden, for this is the rule throughout the Torah , that a person cannot render forbidden an object that is not his. The amoraim disagreed in our discussion whether a person renders forbidden an object that is not his through an act.

Rav Huna said: If his fellow’s animal was crouching before idolatry,

and he came to offer it to idolatry, even though he had not lifted it and had not performed even an act of acquisition through robbery ,

once he slaughtered one sign with it

even though the designation of living creature had not yet departed from it—

he rendered it forbidden

for benefit,

it is enough

with this small act to render living creatures forbidden through the prohibition of idolatry, and it is even sufficient to render forbidden an object that is not his.

And we say: Rav Huna

agrees with this

of Rabbi Yohanan, and there is an additional novelty in his words.

For Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Even though they said

the Sages:

One who bows down to his fellow’s animal—

does not render it forbidden,

and it does not even have the prohibition of offering upon the altar , if he

performed an act with it

and slaughtered it—

he rendered it forbidden

even for an ordinary person .

From Rabbi Yohanan’s words we learned that a person renders forbidden an object that is not his through an act, and Rav Huna added that even if he slaughtered one sign and performed a small act, he renders it forbidden.

Rav Nahman raised an objection to Rav Huna

from a beraita:

One who slaughters a sin-offering on Shabbat outside [the Temple] for idolatry

unintentionally—

is liable for three sin-offerings

for violating Shabbat and for slaughtering consecrated offerings outside [the Temple] , and for idolatry, for in all three he is liable to excision when performed intentionally; and although the animal is forbidden for benefit, he is not exempt from violating Shabbat on account of the rule that all destructive acts are exempt on Shabbat, because he improves matters for the sons of Noah and permits the meat to them from the prohibition of a limb from a living animal .

And Rav Nahman asks:

And if you say: Once he slaughtered one sign with it

for idolatry—

he rendered it forbidden

419 , he should not be liable for slaughtering outside

for a sin-offering, since from the moment he rendered it forbidden through the prohibition of idolatry, the sanctity departed from the animal ,