Chullin 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

There were

two people holding a knife

one

and slaughtering; one

slaughtered

for the sake of one of all these, and the other

performed an ordinary slaughter, which was

for the sake of a permitted 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, like a nevela. But it is not regarded as

a sacrifice to the dead

. The reason is that the Torah said: “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations that 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 forbidden, even if they made them objects of idolatrous worship. And just as the mountains are not forbidden, so the offering made for their sake is not forbidden.

And we raise a contradiction

to 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

among all the creatures of the Holy One, blessed be He,

for the sake of a small

worm

among creatures—

these are sacrifices to the dead.

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

Abaye said: This

statement of the Mishna is referring to a case

where he said

that the slaughterer offers it

to the mountain

itself, in which case there is no prohibition of sacrifices to the dead ; but the Rabbis decreed that it is forbidden to eat it because this resembles sacrifices to the dead.

This

statement of the beraita is referring to a case

where he said

that he offers it

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 precise as well

that the beraita is speaking of angels,

as it teaches in a manner analogous to Michael the great minister. Infer from it

that the other things mentioned are also angels. And although we have a derivation from the Torah that living creatures are not rendered forbidden by the prohibition of idolatry , and angels are like living creatures, so that we might have permitted their offerings just as we permit offerings made for the sake of mountains, this is not so. For living creatures are called “gods” in the Torah, and therefore their offerings are forbidden, although the prohibition of idolatry itself does not apply to them; but mountains were excluded from the designation “god” .

The Gemara brings here a discussion dealing with the status of an offering to idolatry 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 performs an act involving them—for example, if he digs pits in the ground for idolatry and bows down to them—he renders them forbidden. [Avoda Zara 54b].

If a person bows down to an object belonging to another, he does not render it forbidden, for this is the general rule throughout the Torah , that a person cannot render forbidden an object that does not belong to him . The amoraim disagree in our discussion as to whether a person can render an object that does not belong to him forbidden through an act.

Rav Huna said: If another person’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 status of a living creature had not yet been removed from it—

he renders it forbidden

for benefit.

That

small act is sufficient to render living creatures forbidden under the prohibition of idolatry, and it is also sufficient to render forbidden even an object that does not belong to him.

And we say: Rav Huna

agrees with this

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

For Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Although they said

the Sages:

One who bows down to another person’s animal

does not render it forbidden,

and it is not even forbidden as an offering upon the altar , if he

performs an act with it

and slaughters it, he

renders it forbidden

even to a common person .

From Rabbi Yohanan’s words we learned that a person can render an object that does not belong to him forbidden through an act, and Rav Huna added that even if he slaughtered one sign and performed a minor act, he renders it forbidden.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna

from a beraita:

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

unwittingly—

is liable to three sin-offerings

for desecrating Shabbat and for slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple , and for idolatry, since for all three he is liable to karet when acting intentionally. And although the animal is forbidden for benefit, he is not exempt from desecrating Shabbat on the grounds that all those who cause deterioration are exempt on Shabbat, because he improves the animal for Noahides and permits the meat to them from the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal .

And Rav Naḥman asks:

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

for idolatry—

he renders it forbidden

419, he should not be liable for slaughtering outside the Temple

for a sin-offering, since once he rendered it forbidden through the prohibition of idolatry, its consecrated status is removed from the animal ,