Chullin Daf 40 צולין דַף 40

The next Mishnah states that if one shechts לשם הרים – for the sake of mountains (i.e., worshipping the mountains), or for the sake of hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, the shechitah is invalid. This implies that the shechitah is merely פסולה – invalid, but not זבחי מתים – “sacrifices of the dead,” i.e., forbidden in benefit as an idolatrous sacrifice. But this contradicts another Baraisa which states that if one shechts for the sake of mountains, etc., or the sun or the moon, for stars or constellations, for the sake of מיכאל השר הגדול, or even לשום שילשול קטן – for the sake of a tiny worm, the animal is prohibited as זבחי מתים!? Abaye answered that in the Mishnah’s case, he shechted להר – for the [sake of] the mountain itself, which is a fixed entity and cannot become an object of idolatry (so sacrifices to it are not considered idolatrous sacrifices, although the worshipper incurs the death penalty). [Still, the meat is forbidden in consumption מדרבנן, because it may be confused with idolatrous sacrifices.] The Baraisa’s case is where he shechted לגדא דהר – for the sake of the spirit of the mountain, which is a true object of idolatry, and the animal becomes fully forbidden in benefit.

Rav Huna says that if someone else’s animal was lying in front of an idol, כיון ששחט בה סימן אחד – as soon as one cuts one pipe for idol worship, he prohibits the animal in any benefit as an idolatrous sacrifice. Although designating live animals for idolatrous sacrifices does not prohibit them, performing a physical act of idolatry does. Furthermore, Rav Huna holds like Rebbe Yochanan, who said: אף על פי שאמרו המשתחוה לבהמת חבירו לא אסרה – even though they said that one who bows to his fellow’s animal does not prohibit it, because one cannot prohibit another person’s property, עשה בה מעשה אסרה – if he does an act of idolatry in it, he does prohibit it. Rashi adds that Rav Huna is teaching that even a minimal act is sufficient, and even cutting half a סימן would prohibit it. The Gemara later relates that Rav Nachman, Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzchak disagree and say אין אדם אוסר דבר שאין שלו – a person cannot prohibit something that is not his, even through a complete act of shechitah for idolatry.

Rav Huna is challenged from a Baraisa teaching that if one shechts a חטאת on Shabbos, בחוץ – outside the Mikdash, for the sake of avodah zarah, he is liable for three חטאות for these three transgressions. According to Rav Huna, that the animal becomes forbidden as soon as he cuts a single סימן, he should not be liable for shechting korbanos בחוץ, because once the animal is forbidden in benefit, מחתך בעפר הוא – cutting the second סימן is the equivalent of merely cutting earth, and not shechitah!? Even if we say the Baraisa is discussing a חטאת העוף, which only requires cutting one סימן, Rav Huna holds even a minimal act for idolatry prohibits it, so the initial cut will still prohibit it before most of the first סימן is cut, and he should not be liable for shechting בחוץ!? Mar Zutra ultimately answers that the Baraisa’s case is שהיה חצי קנה פגום – where half the trachea of the חטאת העוף was already [severed], and he added the slightest cut, thus completing the shechitah, דכולהו בהדי הדדי קאתיין – whereby all of them (the shechitah on Shabbos, the shechitah בחוץ, and the shechitah for idolatry) occurred simultaneously.