This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Chullin 40
שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשֵׁם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ וְאֶחָד לְשֵׁם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
If there were two people grasping a knife together and slaughtering an animal, one slaughtering for the sake of one of all those enumerated in the first clause of the mishna and one slaughtering for the sake of a legitimate matter, their slaughter is not valid.
גְּמָ׳ פְּסוּלָה – אִין, זִבְחֵי מֵתִים – לָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשׁוּם הָרִים, לְשׁוּם גְּבָעוֹת, לְשׁוּם נְהָרוֹת, לְשׁוּם מִדְבָּרוֹת, לְשׁוּם חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה, לְשׁוּם כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת, לְשׁוּם מִיכָאֵל הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל, לְשׁוּם שִׁילְשׁוּל קָטָן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים.
GEMARA: The mishna states that if one slaughters for the sake of mountains or other natural entities the slaughter is unfit. The Gemara infers: It is unfit, yes; with regard to offerings to the dead, i.e., to idols, it is not in that category. Apparently, the status of the animal is that of an unslaughtered carcass, from which benefit is permitted, and not that of an idolatrous offering, from which benefit is forbidden. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters for the sake of mountains, for the sake of hills, for the sake of rivers, for the sake of wildernesses, for the sake of the sun and moon, for the sake of stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael the great ministering angel, or even for the sake of a small worm, these are offerings to the dead, from which benefit is forbidden.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר לְהַר, הָא דְּאָמַר לְגַדָּא דְּהַר. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי דּוּמְיָא דְּמִיכָאֵל שַׂר הַגָּדוֹל, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Abaye said: The apparent contradiction between the mishna and the baraita is not difficult. This mishna that teaches that the slaughter is not valid but benefit is permitted is referring to a case where one says that he is slaughtering the animal for the sake of the mountain itself, which is not an idol. That baraita that teaches that the animal is an offering to the dead and benefit is forbidden is referring to a case where one says that he is slaughtering the animal for the sake of the angel of the mountain. The language of the baraita is also precise, as the mountain and the other natural entities are taught together with and therefore similar to Michael, the great ministering angel. Conclude from it that the tanna is referring to slaughter for the sake of a spiritual entity, not the mountain itself.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָיְתָה בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ רְבוּצָה לִפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד – אֲסָרָהּ. סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבֶהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא אֲסָרָהּ, עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה – אֲסָרָהּ.
Rav Huna says: If the animal of another was prone before an idol, once one cut one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, he rendered the animal forbidden. He holds in accordance with that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Although the Sages said that one who bows to the animal of another does not render it forbidden, if he performed a sacrificial rite upon it he renders it forbidden. The case cited by Rav Huna involves an action of that kind, cutting one siman; therefore, the animal is forbidden.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בְּשַׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד אֲסָרָהּ – אַשְּׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לָא לִיחַיַּיב,
Rav Naḥman raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: One who unwittingly slaughters an animal that was designated as a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple, for idol worship, is liable to bring three sin offerings: One for performing the prohibited labor of slaughtering on Shabbat, one for slaughtering a sacrificial animal outside the Temple, and one for slaughtering an animal for idol worship. And if you say that once he cuts one siman he renders the animal forbidden as an idolatrous offering, then let him not be liable to bring a sin offering for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard,
מְחַתֵּךְ בְּעָפָר הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף עָסְקִינַן, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי.
as it is as though he is merely chopping in dirt, since one is not liable for slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard a sacrificial animal unfit for sacrifice. Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with a bird sin offering, for which the requirement is to cut only one siman, and when cutting that siman, all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
מִכְּדֵי רַב הוּנָא כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּעוּלָּא, וְעוּלָּא מַעֲשֶׂה כֹּל דְּהוּ קָאָמַר.
The Gemara asks: Now in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Huna state his halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, who says: If he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal, he renders it forbidden. And Ulla says that a minimal action renders the animal forbidden, as his ruling applies even to cutting one siman. According to Ulla’s opinion, the moment that he begins the incision, the animal is forbidden and unfit to be sacrificed. Consequently, when he completes the slaughter outside the Temple, it is as though he is chopping dirt. Why then is he liable to bring a sin offering for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard?
אֶלָּא, בְּאוֹמֵר בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבְדָהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where one says prior to the slaughter that he is worshipping the idol only at the conclusion of the slaughter; therefore, only then is the animal rendered forbidden, and one is liable for all three sin offerings simultaneously.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא חַטָּאת? לַישְׁמְעִינַן זֶבַח!
The Gemara asks: If so, why does the tanna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a sin offering? Let him teach us the halakha with regard to any type of offering. According to Rav Pappa, by contrast, it is clear why the tanna taught the halakha with regard to a sin offering.
אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין.
The Gemara returns to Rav Pappa’s interpretation of the baraita as referring to the case of a bird sin offering. The previous difficulty then resurfaces, that the bird was rendered forbidden before the slaughter was completed, as according to Rav Huna and Ulla any minimal action renders the bird forbidden. Rather, Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: What are we dealing with here in the baraita? It is a case where half of the windpipe was deficient before the slaughter, and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it. The minority of the windpipe had been cut before the slaughterer cut it further, completing the act of slaughter. As in that case all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא סִימָן אֶחָד, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה? מַעֲשֶׂה רַבָּה.
Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rav Huna said that it is sufficient to cut one siman on the animal for idol worship to render it forbidden, the fact that the baraita mentions a sin offering specifically would not raise a difficulty for his opinion. In that case, one could explain: What is the action that renders the animal forbidden according to Ulla? It is a significant action, i.e., completion of the slaughter for idol worship, that renders the animal forbidden.
וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּידֵיהּ מָצֵי אָסַר, דְּחַבְרֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי אָסַר.
And Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rav Huna stated his halakha specifically with regard to the animal of another, the fact that the baraita mentions specifically a sin offering would not raise a difficulty for his opinion. One could then explain: What is the reason that the animal designated as a sin offering is not rendered forbidden at the beginning of the slaughter? It is due to the fact that one is able to render his animal forbidden, but one is not able to render the animal of another forbidden. It is the priests who are entitled to derive benefit from the flesh of a sin offering.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ לְכַפָּרָה – כְּדִידֵיהּ דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa needs to state this, lest you say that since one who brings a sin offering acquires the animal for his atonement, its status is like that of an animal that is his. Therefore, Rav Pappa teaches us that this does not suffice that the animal be considered his.
(נָעַ״ץ – סִימָן.) רַב נַחְמָן, וְרַב עַמְרָם, וְרַב יִצְחָק אָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין שֶׁלּוֹ.
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im who participate in the discussion that ensues: Nun, Rav Naḥman; ayin, Rav Amram; tzadi, Rav Yitzḥak. Rav Naḥman, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak all say: A person does not render forbidden an item that is not his.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בַּשַּׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאוֹקִימְנָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּבַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם. טַעְמָא דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף הוּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין,
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who unwittingly slaughters an animal that was designated as a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for idol worship is liable to bring three sin offerings. And we interpreted the baraita as being in the case of a bird sin offering, and in a case where half of the windpipe was deficient. The reason for the triple liability is that it is a bird sin offering, as then, all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
Ontario, Canada
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
New York, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
Raanana, Israel
Chullin 40
שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשֵׁם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ וְאֶחָד לְשֵׁם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
If there were two people grasping a knife together and slaughtering an animal, one slaughtering for the sake of one of all those enumerated in the first clause of the mishna and one slaughtering for the sake of a legitimate matter, their slaughter is not valid.
גְּמָ׳ פְּסוּלָה – אִין, זִבְחֵי מֵתִים – לָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשׁוּם הָרִים, לְשׁוּם גְּבָעוֹת, לְשׁוּם נְהָרוֹת, לְשׁוּם מִדְבָּרוֹת, לְשׁוּם חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה, לְשׁוּם כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת, לְשׁוּם מִיכָאֵל הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל, לְשׁוּם שִׁילְשׁוּל קָטָן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים.
GEMARA: The mishna states that if one slaughters for the sake of mountains or other natural entities the slaughter is unfit. The Gemara infers: It is unfit, yes; with regard to offerings to the dead, i.e., to idols, it is not in that category. Apparently, the status of the animal is that of an unslaughtered carcass, from which benefit is permitted, and not that of an idolatrous offering, from which benefit is forbidden. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters for the sake of mountains, for the sake of hills, for the sake of rivers, for the sake of wildernesses, for the sake of the sun and moon, for the sake of stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael the great ministering angel, or even for the sake of a small worm, these are offerings to the dead, from which benefit is forbidden.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר לְהַר, הָא דְּאָמַר לְגַדָּא דְּהַר. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי דּוּמְיָא דְּמִיכָאֵל שַׂר הַגָּדוֹל, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Abaye said: The apparent contradiction between the mishna and the baraita is not difficult. This mishna that teaches that the slaughter is not valid but benefit is permitted is referring to a case where one says that he is slaughtering the animal for the sake of the mountain itself, which is not an idol. That baraita that teaches that the animal is an offering to the dead and benefit is forbidden is referring to a case where one says that he is slaughtering the animal for the sake of the angel of the mountain. The language of the baraita is also precise, as the mountain and the other natural entities are taught together with and therefore similar to Michael, the great ministering angel. Conclude from it that the tanna is referring to slaughter for the sake of a spiritual entity, not the mountain itself.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָיְתָה בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ רְבוּצָה לִפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד – אֲסָרָהּ. סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבֶהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא אֲסָרָהּ, עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה – אֲסָרָהּ.
Rav Huna says: If the animal of another was prone before an idol, once one cut one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, he rendered the animal forbidden. He holds in accordance with that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Although the Sages said that one who bows to the animal of another does not render it forbidden, if he performed a sacrificial rite upon it he renders it forbidden. The case cited by Rav Huna involves an action of that kind, cutting one siman; therefore, the animal is forbidden.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בְּשַׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד אֲסָרָהּ – אַשְּׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לָא לִיחַיַּיב,
Rav Naḥman raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: One who unwittingly slaughters an animal that was designated as a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple, for idol worship, is liable to bring three sin offerings: One for performing the prohibited labor of slaughtering on Shabbat, one for slaughtering a sacrificial animal outside the Temple, and one for slaughtering an animal for idol worship. And if you say that once he cuts one siman he renders the animal forbidden as an idolatrous offering, then let him not be liable to bring a sin offering for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard,
מְחַתֵּךְ בְּעָפָר הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף עָסְקִינַן, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי.
as it is as though he is merely chopping in dirt, since one is not liable for slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard a sacrificial animal unfit for sacrifice. Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with a bird sin offering, for which the requirement is to cut only one siman, and when cutting that siman, all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
מִכְּדֵי רַב הוּנָא כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּעוּלָּא, וְעוּלָּא מַעֲשֶׂה כֹּל דְּהוּ קָאָמַר.
The Gemara asks: Now in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Huna state his halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, who says: If he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal, he renders it forbidden. And Ulla says that a minimal action renders the animal forbidden, as his ruling applies even to cutting one siman. According to Ulla’s opinion, the moment that he begins the incision, the animal is forbidden and unfit to be sacrificed. Consequently, when he completes the slaughter outside the Temple, it is as though he is chopping dirt. Why then is he liable to bring a sin offering for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard?
אֶלָּא, בְּאוֹמֵר בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבְדָהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where one says prior to the slaughter that he is worshipping the idol only at the conclusion of the slaughter; therefore, only then is the animal rendered forbidden, and one is liable for all three sin offerings simultaneously.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא חַטָּאת? לַישְׁמְעִינַן זֶבַח!
The Gemara asks: If so, why does the tanna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a sin offering? Let him teach us the halakha with regard to any type of offering. According to Rav Pappa, by contrast, it is clear why the tanna taught the halakha with regard to a sin offering.
אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין.
The Gemara returns to Rav Pappa’s interpretation of the baraita as referring to the case of a bird sin offering. The previous difficulty then resurfaces, that the bird was rendered forbidden before the slaughter was completed, as according to Rav Huna and Ulla any minimal action renders the bird forbidden. Rather, Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: What are we dealing with here in the baraita? It is a case where half of the windpipe was deficient before the slaughter, and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it. The minority of the windpipe had been cut before the slaughterer cut it further, completing the act of slaughter. As in that case all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא סִימָן אֶחָד, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה? מַעֲשֶׂה רַבָּה.
Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rav Huna said that it is sufficient to cut one siman on the animal for idol worship to render it forbidden, the fact that the baraita mentions a sin offering specifically would not raise a difficulty for his opinion. In that case, one could explain: What is the action that renders the animal forbidden according to Ulla? It is a significant action, i.e., completion of the slaughter for idol worship, that renders the animal forbidden.
וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּידֵיהּ מָצֵי אָסַר, דְּחַבְרֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי אָסַר.
And Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rav Huna stated his halakha specifically with regard to the animal of another, the fact that the baraita mentions specifically a sin offering would not raise a difficulty for his opinion. One could then explain: What is the reason that the animal designated as a sin offering is not rendered forbidden at the beginning of the slaughter? It is due to the fact that one is able to render his animal forbidden, but one is not able to render the animal of another forbidden. It is the priests who are entitled to derive benefit from the flesh of a sin offering.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ לְכַפָּרָה – כְּדִידֵיהּ דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa needs to state this, lest you say that since one who brings a sin offering acquires the animal for his atonement, its status is like that of an animal that is his. Therefore, Rav Pappa teaches us that this does not suffice that the animal be considered his.
(נָעַ״ץ – סִימָן.) רַב נַחְמָן, וְרַב עַמְרָם, וְרַב יִצְחָק אָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין שֶׁלּוֹ.
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im who participate in the discussion that ensues: Nun, Rav Naḥman; ayin, Rav Amram; tzadi, Rav Yitzḥak. Rav Naḥman, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak all say: A person does not render forbidden an item that is not his.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בַּשַּׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאוֹקִימְנָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּבַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם. טַעְמָא דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף הוּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין,
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who unwittingly slaughters an animal that was designated as a sin offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for idol worship is liable to bring three sin offerings. And we interpreted the baraita as being in the case of a bird sin offering, and in a case where half of the windpipe was deficient. The reason for the triple liability is that it is a bird sin offering, as then, all of the three prohibitions come to be violated simultaneously.
