Chullin 39b

מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּחוּלִּין אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט.

then in a place where intent invalidates the slaughter in non-sacred animals slaughtered with intent for idol worship during performance of only two sacrificial rites, slaughter and sprinkling the blood, is it not right that everything should follow only the intent of the one who slaughters the animal?

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִזְרוֹק דָּמָהּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּלְהַקְטִיר חֶלְבָּהּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ – זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּקֵיסָרִי, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ בָּהּ לֹא אִיסּוּר וְלֹא הֶיתֵּר.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to one who slaughters an animal in order to sprinkle its blood for idol worship or to burn its fat for idol worship, the status of these animals is that of offerings to the dead, i.e., to idols, and the slaughter is not valid. If one slaughtered the animal and thereafter intended in its regard to sprinkle its blood or burn its fats for idol worship, that was the incident in Caesarea, and the Sages did not say anything with regard to the animal, neither prohibition nor permission.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא אָמְרוּ בָּהּ אִיסּוּר – מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדָן דְּרַבָּנַן. לֹא הֶיתֵּר – מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

Rav Ḥisda says in explanation of the conduct of the Sages that they did not say prohibition, due to the honor of the Rabbis in the mishna, who hold that the unspecified intent of a gentile, and presumably likewise of a Jew who worships idols, is not presumed to be directed to idol worship, and therefore his slaughter is valid. Nor did the Sages say permission, due to the honor of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the unspecified intent of a gentile, and presumably likewise of a Jew who worships idols, is presumed to be directed to idol worship.

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּלָא שְׁמַעְנֵאּ דְּחַשֵּׁיב, אֲבָל הָכָא דִּשְׁמַעְנֵאּ דְּחַשֵּׁיב – הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִלָּתוֹ!

The Gemara asks: From where is that conclusion drawn? Perhaps the Rabbis say that the slaughter is permitted only there in the mishna, because we did not hear explicitly that the gentile intends the slaughter for idol worship. But here in the case in the baraita , where we hear thereafter that he intends to sprinkle the blood or burn the fats for idol worship, perhaps his ultimate statement proves the nature of his original intent while performing the slaughter.

אִי נָמֵי, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי נׇכְרִי, דִּסְתָם מַחְשֶׁבֶת נׇכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל – הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִלָּתוֹ לָא אָמְרִינַן.

Alternatively, perhaps when Rabbi Eliezer states there in the mishna that slaughter performed on behalf of a gentile is not valid, this applies only with regard to an animal that is owned by a gentile, as the unspecified intent of a gentile is directed to idol worship. But in the case in the baraita where the animal belongs to a Jew, we do not say that his ultimate statement proves the nature of his original intent.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: לֹא אָמְרוּ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל?

Rather, Rav Sheizevi said that the Sages did not state permission with regard to the animal in the baraita due to the honor of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that one’s ultimate actions prove the nature of his original intent. The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel indicates that this is his opinion?

אִילֵּימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּגִיטִּין, דִּתְנַן: הַבָּרִיא שֶׁאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – רָצָה לְשַׂחֵק בָּהּ.

If we say that the reference is to the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to bills of divorce, this is difficult. As we learned in a mishna ( Gittin 66a) that if a dying man said to the people present: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, those people should write and deliver the bill of divorce to his wife. Although the delivery was not included in his command, that is clearly his intent. But a healthy man who says: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but did not say: Deliver it to her, presumably sought to mock her and not to designate his listeners as agents of delivery.

וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּבָרִיא שֶׁאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, וְעָלָה לַגָּג וְנָפַל וָמֵת. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אִם מֵעַצְמוֹ נָפַל, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, וְאִם הָרוּחַ דָּחַתּוּ, אֵינוֹ גֵּט.

The mishna continues: And there was an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and then ascended to the roof and fell, and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he fell at his own initiative, taking his own life, it is a valid bill of divorce, as it is clear that he anticipated his death, thereby rendering his halakhic status like that of a dying man. But if the wind forced him to fall and he died, it is not a valid bill of divorce, as there was no clear intent to give her the bill of divorce.

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר?

And we discussed the mishna: Did the tanna cite an incident to contradict that which was stated previously in the mishna? The tanna states unequivocally that when a healthy man says: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is not valid. The tanna then cites an incident indicating that under certain circumstances, when a healthy man says: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is valid.

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אִם הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִלָּתוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּבָרִיא שֶׁאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, וְעָלָה לַגָּג וְנָפַל וָמֵת. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אִם מֵעַצְמוֹ נָפַל – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, וְאִם הָרוּחַ דָּחַתּוּ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט.

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The healthy man who says: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but did not say: Deliver it to her, presumably sought to mock her. But if his ultimate actions prove the nature of his initial intent, that he seeks to give the bill of divorce because he is about to die, it is a valid bill of divorce. And there was an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and then ascended to the roof and fell, and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own initiative, it is a valid bill of divorce, but if the wind forced him to fall, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּקָאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ״.

The Gemara explains why this is not a proof: But perhaps the case cited there is different, as the husband initially says: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, indicating that he originally intended to fall from the roof. By contrast, in the case of slaughter, there is no indication of his original intent.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּהָכָא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים, וְאָמַר הַלָּה ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהֶן״, אִם הָיָה רַבּוֹ שֵׁנִי כֹּהֵן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר הַלָּה ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהֶן״ – כְּבָר זָכוּ בָּהֶן יוֹרְשִׁין.

Rather, Ravina said that the Sages did not state permission in the incident in Caesarea with regard to the animal due to the honor of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, to avoid contradicting the opinion that is cited here, as it is taught in a baraita : In a case of a person on his deathbed who wrote a document transferring his property to others, and there were slaves among his property, and that intended recipient says: I do not want to assume ownership of the slaves, if their second master, the intended recipient, was a priest, these slaves may partake of teruma , and his protest is ignored. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Once that intended recipient says: I do not want to assume ownership of the slaves, heirs of the original owner already acquired them.

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: לְתַנָּא קַמָּא, אֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֵד וְצוֹוֵחַ?

And we discussed the baraita : And according to the first tanna , does the intended recipient acquire the slaves even if he stands and shouts in protest that he does not want to assume ownership of the slaves? That is not reasonable.

אֲמַר רַבָּה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּצוֹוֵחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא קָנָה, בְּשׁוֹתֵק וּבַסּוֹף צוֹוֵחַ – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּקְנָה.

Rabba said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: In a case where he shouts in protest at the outset, while the owner is giving him the gift, everyone agrees that he did not acquire the slaves. In a case where he was silent at that moment and ultimately shouted his protest at a later opportunity, everyone agrees that he acquired the slaves.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי – שֶׁזִּיכָּה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר, וְשָׁתַק וּלְבַסּוֹף צָוַוח; תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מִדִּשְׁתֵיק – קְנָנְהוּ, וְהַאי דְּקָא צָוַוח – מִיהְדָּר קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ.

When they disagree it is in a case where the owner transferred ownership of the slaves to him through another person, and at that point the recipient was silent, and ultimately, when he actually received the slaves, he shouted in protest. The first tanna holds: Since he was initially silent, he acquired the slaves, and the fact that he is ultimately shouting indicates that he is retracting his initial acceptance of the gift. That retraction is ineffective, as acquisitions cannot be nullified in that manner.

וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִילָּתוֹ, וְהָא דְּלָא צְוַוח מֵעִיקָּרָא, סָבַר: כִּי לָא אָתֵי לִידִי אַמַּאי אֶצְוַוח.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: His ultimate actions prove the nature of his original intent. He never wanted the slaves and always intended to avoid assuming ownership of them. And the fact that he did not shout initially is because he thought: As the situation is that they did not yet enter my possession, why would I shout?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

§ The Gemara resumes discussion of the dispute in the mishna where Rabbi Yosei says that when a Jew slaughters an animal on behalf of a gentile, even if it is known that the intent of the gentile is for idol worship, the slaughter is valid, as it is only the intent of the slaughterer that is relevant. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

הָנְהוּ טַיָּיעֵי דַּאֲתוֹ לְצִיקוֹנְיָא, יְהוּב דִּיכְרֵי לְטַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲמַרוּ לְהוּ: דְּמָא וְתַרְבָּא לְדִידַן, מַשְׁכָּא וּבִישְׂרָא לְדִידְכוּ. שַׁלְחַהּ רַב טוֹבִי בַּר רַב מַתְנָה לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא מַאי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

The Gemara relates: There were these Arabs who came to Tzikuneya, and they gave rams to Jewish slaughterers. The Arabs said to them: The blood and the fat are for us, for use in our idol worship, and the hide and the flesh are for you. Rav Tuvi bar Rav Mattana sent a question to be asked before Rav Yosef: In a case like this, what is the halakha ? Rav Yosef sent to him: This is what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it is the intent of the slaughterer and not the intent of the owner that determines the validity of the slaughter.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, יְהֵיב לֵיהּ זוּזָא לְטַבָּח יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חָזֵינַן, אִי אִינִישׁ אַלָּמָא הוּא דְּלָא מָצֵי מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ – אָסוּר, וְאִי לָא – אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״רֵישָׁיךָ וְהַר״.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the mishna, that if a Jew slaughters an animal on behalf of a gentile the slaughter is not valid, if the gentile gave a dinar to a Jewish slaughterer in order to purchase a small amount of the meat, what is the halakha ? Does that small amount invalidate the entire slaughter? Rav Ashi said to him: We examine the situation. If this gentile is a violent man, and the Jew is unable to repudiate his offer and tell him to take his money, the entire animal is forbidden, because the slaughter was partially on behalf of the gentile. And if the gentile is not violent, the Jew can say to him: Go and arrange a collision between your head and a mountain, as I will not slaughter an animal on your behalf.

מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם הָרִים, לְשֵׁם גְּבָעוֹת, לְשֵׁם יַמִּים, לְשֵׁם נְהָרוֹת, לְשֵׁם מִדְבָּרוֹת – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal for the sake of, i.e., to worship, mountains, for the sake of hills, for the sake of seas, for the sake of rivers, or for the sake of wildernesses, his slaughter is not valid.