Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 6, 2019 | 讻状讟 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 40


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖谞讬诐 讗讜讞讝讬谉 讘住讻讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讞讚 诇砖诐 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇砖诐 讚讘专 讻砖专 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖讜诐 讛专讬诐 诇砖讜诐 讙讘注讜转 诇砖讜诐 谞讛专讜转 诇砖讜诐 诪讚讘专讜转 诇砖讜诐 讞诪讛 讜诇讘谞讛 诇砖讜诐 讻讜讻讘讬诐 讜诪讝诇讜转 诇砖讜诐 诪讬讻讗诇 讛砖专 讛讙讚讜诇 诇砖讜诐 砖讬诇砖讜诇 拽讟谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讙讚讗 讚讛专 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪讬讻讗诇 砖专 讛讙讚讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 专讘讜爪讛 诇驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讞讟 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 讗住专讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛诪砖转讞讜讛 诇讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讗住专讛 注砖讛 讘讛 诪注砖讛 讗住专讛

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讟讗转 讘砖讘转 讘讞讜抓 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讞讟 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 讗住专讛 讗砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘

Rav Na岣an 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,

诪讞转讱 讘注驻专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬

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.

诪讻讚讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻注讜诇讗 讜注讜诇讗 诪注砖讛 讻诇 讚讛讜 拽讗诪专

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鈥檚 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?

讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讘讙诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讛

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讟讗转 诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讝讘讞

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讜讛讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讙诪专讜 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬讬谉

The Gemara returns to Rav Pappa鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讞讟讗转 转讬讜讘转讬讛 诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 诪注砖讛 专讘讛

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讛诪转 讞讘专讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讞讟讗转 转讬讜讘转讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诪爪讬 讗住专 讚讞讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗住专

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讻驻专讛 讻讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

(谞注抓 住讬诪谉) 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 注诪专诐 讜专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 砖诇讜

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora鈥檌m who participate in the discussion that ensues: Nun, Rav Na岣an; ayin, Rav Amram; tzadi, Rav Yitz岣k. Rav Na岣an, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitz岣k all say: A person does not render forbidden an item that is not his.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讟讗转 讘砖讘转 讘讞讜抓 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讘讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讟注诪讗 讚讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讛讜讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬讬谉

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 40

砖谞讬诐 讗讜讞讝讬谉 讘住讻讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讞讚 诇砖诐 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇砖诐 讚讘专 讻砖专 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖讜诐 讛专讬诐 诇砖讜诐 讙讘注讜转 诇砖讜诐 谞讛专讜转 诇砖讜诐 诪讚讘专讜转 诇砖讜诐 讞诪讛 讜诇讘谞讛 诇砖讜诐 讻讜讻讘讬诐 讜诪讝诇讜转 诇砖讜诐 诪讬讻讗诇 讛砖专 讛讙讚讜诇 诇砖讜诐 砖讬诇砖讜诇 拽讟谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讙讚讗 讚讛专 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪讬讻讗诇 砖专 讛讙讚讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 专讘讜爪讛 诇驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讞讟 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 讗住专讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛诪砖转讞讜讛 诇讘讛诪转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讗住专讛 注砖讛 讘讛 诪注砖讛 讗住专讛

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讟讗转 讘砖讘转 讘讞讜抓 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讞讟 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 讗住专讛 讗砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘

Rav Na岣an 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,

诪讞转讱 讘注驻专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬

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.

诪讻讚讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻注讜诇讗 讜注讜诇讗 诪注砖讛 讻诇 讚讛讜 拽讗诪专

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鈥檚 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?

讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讘讙诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讛

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讟讗转 诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讝讘讞

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讜讛讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讙诪专讜 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬讬谉

The Gemara returns to Rav Pappa鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讞讟讗转 转讬讜讘转讬讛 诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 诪注砖讛 专讘讛

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讛诪转 讞讘专讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讞讟讗转 转讬讜讘转讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诪爪讬 讗住专 讚讞讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗住专

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讻驻专讛 讻讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

(谞注抓 住讬诪谉) 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 注诪专诐 讜专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 砖诇讜

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora鈥檌m who participate in the discussion that ensues: Nun, Rav Na岣an; ayin, Rav Amram; tzadi, Rav Yitz岣k. Rav Na岣an, and Rav Amram, and Rav Yitz岣k all say: A person does not render forbidden an item that is not his.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讟讗转 讘砖讘转 讘讞讜抓 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讘讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讟注诪讗 讚讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讛讜讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬讬谉

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.

Scroll To Top