At the very bottom of yesterday’s daf, a mishnah laid out what kinds of intentions would invalidate an otherwise kosher animal slaughter.
One who slaughters in the name of mountains, in the name of hills, in the name of seas, in the name of rivers or in the name of wildernesses — his slaughter is invalid.
We don’t usually think of chicken purchased at the supermarket as having been slaughtered in the name of something other than dinner. But in antiquity, slaughter was routinely done by hand and with dedicated intention. Because this isn’t a sacrifice, Rashi explains, a slaughterer does not necessarily need to have in mind that their slaughter is for the sake of God, but they certainly shouldn’t be dedicating their slaughter to some other entity. The Talmud on today’s daf explains:
It is unfit, yes. But it is not an offering to the dead.
According to this reading, the animal slaughtered in the name of mountains or rivers is forbidden to be eaten by Jews. However, it doesn’t have the status of an offering to the dead. That is, it is not considered idolatrous. This distinction matters because anything dedicated to idolatry is not only unkosher to eat, it cannot be used for any kind of benefit. So, for instance, it cannot be sold to non-Jews. This is a much more limiting rule. Not everyone agrees with this assessment. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a beraita:
One who slaughters in the name of mountains, in the name of hills, in the name of rivers, in the name of wildernesses, in the name of the sun and moon, in the name of stars and constellations, in the name of Michael the great ministering angel, or even in the name of a small worm — these are offerings to the dead.
A competing early rabbinic tradition classes slaughters done in the name of mountains, rivers and deserts as idolatrous. How do we square these two early traditions, the mishnah and the beraita? After all, they appear to directly contradict each other.
Abaye said: It is not difficult. This (the mishnah) is concerned with a situation in which one says “in the name of the mountain.” That (the beraita) is concerned with a situation in which one says “for the angel of the mountain.” The language of the beraita is also precise as they (the mountain, etc.) are taught (together with and therefore) similar to Michael, the great ministering angel. Conclude from it.
Abaye notes that both the mishnah and the beraita mention mountains, hills, rivers and deserts. But the beraita also mentions celestial bodies, a small worm and — most importantly to Abaye — the great ministering angel, Michael. For Abaye, the mention of Michael is the key to unlocking the different foci of the mishnah and the beraita. The mishnah permits benefit from animals slaughtered for actual natural phenomena. The beraita forbids benefit from animals slaughtered to the angels appointed to oversee those natural phenomena. Slaughtering in the name of mountains and trees is one thing. Slaughtering in the name of angels is something else entirely.
Today’s daf reminds us of the importance of correct spiritual intentions when performing a wide range of ritual acts. It also reminds us that the rabbis’ world was more theologically rich than those of us who grew up in the wake of Maimonides’ strict monotheistic rationalism assume. Their world was filled with a wide range of invisible forces: Not only God and the ministering angels, but also forces relating to natural phenomena, from mighty mountains to the lowliest worm. And as today’s daf makes clear, this understanding of the world had halakhic implications for Jewish life, all the way down to the mundane and bloody questions of kosher slaughter.
Read all of Chullin 40 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 9, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
