During the second perek we learn about situations where shechita is invalid because of what it appears the person is doing. One case (2:10) is where a person takes a regular animal and slaughters it for the sake of an olah. In truth the animal was not sanctified for the purpose of a korban. Consequently, the animal is not considered a shechutei chutz – a korban slaughtered outside the Beit HaMikdash – and there is nothing wrong with the shechita. However, the Chachamim were concerned that one might think the owner sanctified the animal there and then. If the meat were permitted, they might think that the consumption of korbanot slaughtered outside the Beit HaMikdash is permitted. The Chachamim therefore forbad the meat.
An interesting case that follows is if two people perform shechita together and one of them performs it for the sake of an olah. We have learnt (2:2) that shechita performed by two people together is valid. In ths case, even though only one of them acted incorrectly, the shechita is invalid.
Note that the shechita was performed correctly – the issue is with the intention of one of the people involved. The Beit Yosef(YD 5:3) cites the Rambam that explains that for the shechita to be invalid, the offending slaughter must have had a financial share in the animal itself. The reason is that we have a principle of “ein adam me’israel oser davar she’eino shelo” – one cannot cause another person’s property to become assur.
The Beit Yosef raises a difficult since the Rosh maintains that even if one has a financial interest the principle of ein adam oser davar she’eino shelo still applies. The Mishnah should present a difficulty for the Rosh’s position.
The Beit Yosef suggests that the Rosh understand that ein adam oser davar she’eino shelo only applies when the issur is fundamental – min ha’din. Only in such cases can we say that the person true intent was to cause his friend anguish. In this case, since the issue is external – it is an issue of marit ayin – the ownership of the animal is not relevant. The same concern of perception will still apply irrespective of who truly owns the animal.
Rav Soloveitchik (Shiurei HaRav 21) takes the answer of the Beit Yosef for the Rosh and turns it into a question on the Rambam. If the issue is marit ayin, why does the Rambam require at least partial ownership?
He explains that there are two ways to understand the law that slaughter for the sake of kodshim is invalid. The first is that issue of marit ayin causes the act of shechita itself to become invalid. If so, it is as if shechita was not performed and the animal became a neveila in the hands of the shochet (slaughterer). Alternatively a valid shechita was indeed performed. Nevertheless the Chachamim forbad the meat from consumption due to the concerns of marit ayin. According to the first understanding, the person caused the animal to become invalid in his slaughter. Yet according to the second way, the animal became pasul by itself.
The Rav understands that the Rosh maintains the second understanding; the animal was rendered invalid on its own. Consequently partial ownership is not required. The Rambam however adopts the first understanding. Therefore, even though the issue arises because of marit ayin, since the issue arises through the action of the offending shochet the principle of ein adam oser davar she’eino shelo applies.
Receive our publication with an in depth article and revision questions.
Listen to the new Mishnah Shiurim by Yisrael Bankier