Chullin 40b — the Talmud in English

And only then

he is cutting in dust, and the liability for slaughtering outside does not apply אלא when the slaughtering necessary to perform inside has been completed !

and liability for slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple applies only when the slaughter required for the Temple service has been completed!

Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with a bird sin-offering, whose law is with pinching one sign inside; and although outside one is liable for its slaughtering and not for its pinching , nevertheless, with the slaughtering of one sign he is already liable for its slaughtering outside, and it is found

that all of them

come together at the same time [that all the liabilities come at once]. On the contrary, according to Rav Huna it is explained why the beraita specified a sin-offering and not every offering, because every offering becomes prohibited with the prohibition of idolatry before the completion of its act, except for a bird sin-offering.

[that all the liabilities arise at once]. On the contrary, according to Rav Huna it becomes clear why the beraita specifically mentioned a sin-offering and not every sacrifice: every sacrifice becomes forbidden as an object of idolatrous worship before its own act of slaughter is completed, with the exception of a bird sin-offering.

And we raise an objection against Rav Pappa: His answer is built on the fact that Rav Huna said “one sign” specifically, and he admits that one who slaughters less than one sign for idolatry does not prohibit it, but

since

the matter is so,

as whom did Rav Huna state his teaching?

[In accordance with whose words did Rav Huna state his words?]

As Ulla; and Ulla said, “He performed an act with it—he prohibited it,” even

who said: “If one performs an act with it, he renders it forbidden,”

he said [that] any act whatsoever, even less than one sign. And although in Ulla’s own words it could be interpreted that one must perform a great and complete act, since Rav Huna said that a complete slaughtering is not required, but only one sign, and his words were stated as an addition to Ulla’s words , we are compelled to say that Ulla intended any act whatsoever; and since that is so, even a bird sin-offering becomes prohibited before the completion of its act !

even less than one organ. Although Ulla’s own words could have been understood as requiring a substantial and complete act, since Rav Huna said that a complete slaughter is not required, but only one organ, and his statement was added to Ulla’s statement, we are compelled to say that Ulla meant any act whatsoever. If so, even a bird sin-offering becomes forbidden before its act is completed!

And we answer for Rav Huna:

Rather, we find that the prohibition of idolatry does not apply before the completion of the slaughtering

by saying

that the slaughterer says that

the slaughterer

worships it at the completion of the slaughtering for idolatry; and throughout the entire slaughtering it is not for the sake of idolatry, and then the prohibitions take effect at the same time.

so that throughout the slaughter he is not acting for the sake of idolatrous worship. In that case, the prohibitions take effect simultaneously.

And we raise an objection to this answer:

If so, why specifically

[did the beraita specify]

“a sin-offering”? Let it teach us a sacrifice, a peace-offering, in which too it is possible to find the two liabilities coming at once, when he says that he worships it at the completion of the slaughtering!

This question is not difficult for the disputants of Rav Huna , who maintain that a person cannot prohibit something that is not his, even through an act, because in their view the beraita specified “a sin-offering” because it is most holy and is not eaten by its owners and is not theirs; therefore its owners cannot prohibit it and remove its sanctity, and the same applies to a burnt-offering. But with a peace-offering the owner can prohibit it, because it is the property of the owners ,

and the two liabilities will not come together in them.

Rather, Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: In truth, we are dealing specifically with a bird sin-offering and not with any other offering,

and

here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which he completed the slaughtering through an act of any amount, and the prohibition of idolatry did not apply before the completion of the slaughtering,

such as when

half of the windpipe was

of the bird

defective

before the slaughtering , and a perforation renders the windpipe tereifa only when most of the windpipe is affected, and a perforation does not render the windpipe tereifa except when most of the windpipe is affected,

and he added to it

through his slaughtering

any amount and completed it, for all of them come together at the same time.

Rav Pappa said: Had Rav Huna not said that even

even

one sign prohibits, and his entire novelty was only that a person prohibits something that is not his through an act, then not only would it not have been difficult for him from the very fact that the beraita makes one liable on account of slaughtering outside, because Rav Huna did not say that the prohibition of idolatry applies at the beginning of the slaughtering, but even

renders the animal forbidden, and his only novel point had been that a person can render something that does not belong to him forbidden through an act, then not only would he not have been challenged merely because the beraita imposes liability for slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple—for Rav Huna did not say that the prohibition of idolatrous worship takes effect at the beginning of the slaughter—but

the wording of the beraita, which specified

“a sin-offering”

would not have been a refutation of him, because this can be explained by saying that there is a great impediment to the prohibition taking effect on something that is not his, and one must perform a great act in order to prohibit his fellow’s animal; but with his own animal, a prohibition can take effect through a small act. And the beraita specified “a sin-offering” to exclude a peace-offering, which is the property of the owners and upon which the prohibition takes effect at the beginning of the slaughtering; and in them the prohibition of idolatry and the prohibition of slaughtering outside will not be found to occur simultaneously. And although Rav Huna follows Ulla, and in his words he mentioned not “slaughtering” but “act,” it should be explained:

because this could be explained as follows: It is very difficult for a prohibition to take effect on something that does not belong to the person, and he must perform a substantial act to render his fellow’s animal forbidden. With his own animal, however, a prohibition can take effect through a minor act. The beraita therefore mentioned “a sin-offering” to exclude a peace-offering, which is the owners’ property and on which the prohibition takes effect at the beginning of the slaughter; in that case, the prohibition of idolatrous worship and the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple will not arise simultaneously. Although Rav Huna follows Ulla’s opinion, and he did not mention “slaughter” in his statement but only “an act,” his words can be explained as follows:

What act? A great act.

And Rav Pappa said: Had Rav Huna not said that even

even

his fellow’s animal becomes prohibited through an act of any amount, and his entire novelty was only that through an act of any amount his own animal becomes prohibited, although an animal does not become prohibited when it is worshipped as idolatry without an act,

can be rendered forbidden through an act of any size, and his only novel point had been that his own animal becomes forbidden through an act of any size, although an animal does not become forbidden when it is worshipped as an object of idolatrous worship without an act,

“a sin-offering” would not have been a refutation of him, because the beraita specified a sin-offering, and the same law applies to all most holy offerings, in which their owners have no share; with them an act of any amount is not effective to prohibit them, and they do not become prohibited before the completion of the slaughtering.

because the beraita mentioned a sin-offering, and the same law applies to all most sacred offerings, in which their owners have no share. A minor act is ineffective to render them forbidden, and they do not become forbidden before the slaughter is completed.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious!

And we answer:

Lest you say: Since he acquires it for atonement—

it is considered like his, [since the offering is his with regard to the fact that he achieves atonement through it, it is considered his] even to prohibit it; and this is difficult against one who would say that with his own animal an act of any amount is sufficient

—

it teaches us Rav Pappa that this reasoning is not sufficiently strong to raise a question.

Rav Pappa’s ruling, that this reasoning is not strong enough to constitute a question.

But now, since Rav Huna says that a person can prohibit something belonging to his fellow even through an act of any amount, the beraita is difficult for him. And although the very law of the beraita can be answered by saying that it is speaking of one who says that he worships it at the completion of the slaughtering, nevertheless what the beraita specified, “a sin-offering,” is still not settled. And it is necessary to answer that it is speaking of a bird sin-offering and of half a defective windpipe. This possibility exists only with a sin-offering, because a bird burnt-offering requires the pinching of two signs, and one becomes liable for it on account of slaughtering outside with the slaughtering of two signs. Now it emerges that specifically according to Rav Huna what the beraita specified, “a sin-offering,” is better settled, because only with a bird sin-offering can it be conceived that the two prohibitions come at once.

Rav Naḥman, Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak say: A person cannot prohibit something that is not his ,

even through a great act .

They raised an objection to him: One who slaughters a sin-offering on Shabbat outside for idolatry—

is liable for three sin-offerings.

The very law of the beraita is understood according to Rav Naḥman, because in his view it is altogether impossible to prohibit something that is not his. Therefore he becomes liable both on account of slaughtering outside and on account of the prohibition of idolatry, for one who worships idolatry becomes liable for it even without prohibiting the object that is worshipped.

However, the question arises: Why did the beraita specify “a sin-offering”?

And we establish it: With a bird sin-offering and half a defective windpipe

in order to answer the question against Rav Huna.

And now we raise an objection against Rav Naḥman:

The reason is that it is a bird sin-offering,

therefore the slaughterer becomes liable both for idolatry and for slaughtering outside,

for all of them come at the same time.