1) FORBIDDING ANOTHER’S PROPERTY

(a) (Mishnah): If two people slaughter together, one intends to serve (a mountain, etc.), the other intends for proper slaughter – the slaughter is invalid. (The Mishnah does not distinguish whose animal it is – this shows that one can forbid another’s property!)
(b) Rejection: No – the case is, they are partners in the animal.
(c) (Mishnah): Reuven was Metamei Shimon’s Terumah or Kodshim, or mixed Shimon’s Chulin with Terumah, or was Menasech Shimon’s wine (poured it to be a libation to idolatry) – if he was Mezid, Reuven must pay; if not, he is exempt. (This shows that his Nisuch forbids Shimon’s wine!)
(d) Rejection: The case is, Reuven is a partner in the wine. (Directly, he only forbids his own share; however, Shimon’s share cannot be drunk, since it is mixed with Reuven’s.)
(e) Suggestion: Rav Huna argues with Rav Nachman just like the following Tana’im argue.
1. (Beraisa): If a Nochri was Menasech a Yisrael’s wine not in front of an idol, the wine is forbidden;
2. R. Yehudah ben Beseira and R. Yehudah ben Bava permit it for two reasons – Nisuch is only in front of an idol, and a person cannot forbid what is not his.
(f) Rejection: Rav Nachman can hold like the first Tana – only a Nochri forbids someone else’s property;
1. If a Yisrael was Menasech, we assume that he did not really intend for idolatry, rather to vex the owner of the wine.
(g) Question (Mishnah): If two people slaughter together, one intends to serve (a mountain, etc.), and the other intends for proper slaughter, the slaughter is invalid.
(h) Answer: The case is, the one with the bad intent is a Mumar (who has the law of a Nochri, he really would serve idolatry).
(i) Question (Mishnah): If Reuven was Metamei Shimon’s Terumah or Kodshim, or mixed Shimon’s Chulin with Terumah, or was Menasech Shimon’s wine:
1. If he was Mezid, Reuven must pay; if not, he is exempt.
(j) Answer: The case is, Reuven is a Mumar.
(k) Question (Rav Acha brei d’Rava): If Levi was warned just before he was Menasech Shimon’s wine, and he replied ‘I do so, accepting that I will be executed for this’, what is the law?
(l) Answer (Rav Ashi): The wine is forbidden – this is the ultimate case of a Mumar!
2) SLAUGHTER WHICH APPEARS TO BE FOR IDOLATRY
(a) (Mishnah): We do not slaughter above seas, rivers, or vessels;
1. One may slaughter into a pit of water, and on a ship one may slaughter onto a vessel (in a way that the blood will run off into the sea).
(b) We never slaughter above an (empty) pit; one may make a pit in his house in order that the blood will flow into it (this will be explained below);
1. This may not be done in Reshus ha’Rabim, lest it encourage Tzedukim (this is how they slaughter to idolatry).
41b—————————————41b

(c) (Gemara): We do not slaughter above…
(d) Question: Just like we may not slaughter above seas, lest people think he is serving the angel appointed over the sea, it should be forbidden to slaughter above a pit with water, lest people think he is serving his reflection!
(e) Answer (Rava): He may slaughter only above a pit of cloudy water (in which there is no reflection).
(f) (Mishnah): We never slaughter above an (empty) pit…
(g) Question: But the Mishnah continues, ‘one may make a pit in his house…’!
(h) Answer #1 (Abaye): ‘We never slaughter above an empty pit’ – in Reshus ha’Rabim.
(i) Objection (Rava): Since the end of the Mishnah says, ‘This may not be done in Reshus ha’Rabim, the beginning of the Mishnah does not discuss this!
(j) Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, the Mishnah means: We never slaughter above an (empty) pit; if one wants to keep his courtyard clean, he makes a furrow near the pit, and slaughters above the furrow, and the blood flows into the pit;
1. This may not be done in the Reshus ha’Rabim, lest it encourage the Tzedukim.
2. Support (Beraisa): If one is travelling on a ship, and does not have a place on the ship to slaughter, he sticks his hand outside the ship and slaughters; the blood runs down the sides of the ship;
3. We never slaughter above an (empty) pit; if one wants to keep his courtyard clean, he makes a furrow near the pit, and slaughters above the furrow, and the blood flows into the pit;
4. This may not be done in Reshus ha’Rabim – “Do not go in the ways (of idolaters)”.
i. If one did so, we investigate to see if he is an idolater.
3) ONE WHO CLAIMS TO SLAUGHTER A “KORBAN” OUTSIDE THE “MIKDASH”
(a) (Mishnah): If one slaughters a Chulin animal (outside the Mikdash), and says that it is an Olah, Shelamim, an Asham Taluy (guilt-offering brought for a doubtful sin), a Korban Pesach, or a Todah, the slaughter is invalid;
(b) R. Shimon says, it is valid.
1. If two people hold a knife and slaughter, one intends for one of the above, and the other for a proper slaughter, the slaughter is invalid.
(c) If one slaughters a Chulin animal, and says that it is a Chatas, an Asham Vadai (guilt-offering for a definite sin), a Bechor (firstborn), Ma’aser, or a Temurah (an animal which one was Makdish with intent that it take the place of a Korban), the slaughter is valid.
1. The rule is – if the Korban (which he says it is) can be brought voluntarily, the slaughter is invalid; if the Korban cannot be brought voluntarily, the slaughter is valid.
(d) (Gemara): If one slaughters and says that it is an Olah…
(e) Question: Can an Asham Taluy be brought voluntarily?
(f) Answer (R. Yochanan): The Mishnah is R. Eliezer, who permits bringing an Asham Taluy every day.
(g) Question: A Korban Pesach cannot be brought voluntarily, one may bring it only on Erev Pesach!
(h) Answer (R. Oshiya): One may designate an animal to be a Korban Pesach at any time (therefore, people may believe that this really was a Pesach).
(i) Opinion #1 (R.Yanai): The slaughter is invalid only if the animal is unblemished, but if it is blemished, no one will believe it is a Korban.
(j) Opinion #2 (R. Yochanan): The law applies even to blemished animals – sometimes, the blemish can be covered up, and people will not know that it has a blemish.
(k) (Mishnah): If he says that it is a Chatas…
(l) (R. Yochanan): It is valid only if he is not obligated to bring a Chatas – but if he must bring a Chatas, people will think that he slaughtered his Chatas.
(m) Question: But he did not say that it is *his* Chatas!
(n) Answer (R. Avahu): The case is, he said ‘It is my Chatas’.
(o) (Mishnah): …A Temurah.
(p) (R. Elazar): It is only valid if he does not have a Korban in his house – but if he has, people will think that this was a Temurah of his Korban!
(q) Question: But he did not say that it is a Temurah of *his* Korban!
(r) Answer (R. Avahu): The case is, he said ‘It is a Temurah of my Korban.’
4) OTHER CASES HINTED AT IN THE MISHNAH
(a) (Mishnah): The rule is (anything which can be brought voluntarily…)
(b) Question: What does this come to include?
(c) Answer: It includes the Olah of a Nazir.
1. One might have thought, since people know that he is not a Nazir, there is no concern;
2. The Mishnah teaches, this is not so – they may think that he accepted Nezirus in private.
i. If he says that it is a Korban which can be brought voluntarily, the slaughter is invalid; if the Korban cannot be brought voluntarily, the slaughter is valid.
(d) (Mishnah): Anything which cannot be brought voluntarily…
(e) Question: What does this come to include?
(f) Version #1 – Answer: It includes a man who brings the Olah of a Yoledes (woman that gave birth).
(g) (R. Elazar): It is valid only if he is single, but if he is married, people will think he is bringing it for his wife.
(h) Question: But he did not say that he is bringing it for her!
(i) Answer (R. Avahu): The case is, he said ‘It is Olas Yoledes, for my wife’.
(j) Question: If so, obviously we are concerned that people will think it is a Korban!
(k) Answer: One might have thought, births become known (since we did not hear that his wife gave birth, all will know that the animal is Chulin)!
1. The Mishnah teaches, this is not so – people will think that she had a miscarriage (that obligates a Korban).
(l) Version #2 – Answer: It includes Olas Yoledes.
1. One might have thought, we are concerned that people will think it is a Korban – the Mishnah teaches, this is not so, had she given birth, people would know about this.