Talking Talmud

A new mishnah! One who slaughters an animal in the name of worship of natural bodies (mountains, rivers, seas, etc.), then the slaughtering is not kosher shechitah. Even if two people are doing the slaughtering together and one of them has correct "kosher" intent, the shechitah is still not valid. But it's also not fully idolatry either - except for a beraita that presents comparable cases as being idolatry (with slight differences that make room to say they are different). Also, if one's animal is lying in front of idolatry, then the moment one cuts that animal, it's prohibited - because it smacks of idolatry, even if it was not intended as such (live, the animal isn't a concern of idolatry, or not until a physical act is done to it). But does that really work? To make another person's animal problematic? The distinction is drawn between a "zevach" (or a shelamim/peace-offering) and a "chatat" - sin-offering.

If one slaughters an animal with intent to use the blood for idolatrous purposes, is the rest of the animal forbidden for any benefit or not? Yes, it's a machloket. With hypothetical parallels to pigul. Unless you think nothing in the Temple can be used to infer halakhic details for that which does not pertain to the Temple service. Also, a husband who writes a bill of divorce that was written when he is healthy as a safeguard against the future, and then he dies -- but if he had no knowledge of that risk to his life, then his intent in writing the divorce is absent and the divorce is not a divorce. Conversely, one who inherits a contract of slaves cannot free them by protesting the ownership.

An animal that is close to death demonstrates its vitality by some form of movement. Of course, the degree and nature of movement is subject to dispute. Also, a new mishnah - if/when one slaughters an animal for a non-Jew, that shechitah should be kosher, depending on the idolatry factor.

A new mishnah! Establishing the category of an animal that is close to death (misukenet) -- in contrast to a treyfa, where it becomes clear that the animal had something wrong internally and would likely have died within the year. This case is an animal that is weak, not damaged internally. Thus, signs of vitality during shechitah become essential, to be certain that the animal didn't die of its own accord just prior to the shechitah. Also, how the Gemara ensures the distinction between a treyfa and an animal that is close to death already, with the prohibited fat (cheilev) as a key point.

Another baraita on the impact of blood on - in this case, a gourd of terumah - in terms of making it susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and Rabbi Hiyya have a debate about that. Of course, if there is blood and shechitah on the gourd throughout the process, that would render the gourd susceptible to impurity. But perhaps not if the process itself were interrupted. Also, Resh Lakish poses a question regarding a dry portion of a grain-offering - if/when would that become susceptible to impurity? Noting that it still would need to come in contact with water (or the other liquids) to achieve that. Note also the distinction between the impurity that comes from a dead body as compared to that from a creepy-crawly.