Chullin Daf 40 (חולין דף מ׳)
Daf: 40 | Amudim: 40a – 40b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (40a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Conclusion of the mishna (begun on 39b): two people slaughter together, one with idolatrous intent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשֵׁם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ וְאֶחָד לְשֵׁם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the closing line of the mishna whose first clause appeared at the end of 39b (slaughter for mountains, hills, seas, rivers, wildernesses). The case here is two people gripping one knife and slaughtering together: one intends the slaughter for one of those forbidden objects of worship, the other intends it for a legitimate purpose. Because the disqualifying intent of even one participant taints the joint act, the whole slaughter is invalid — the improper intent is not “diluted” by the proper intent of his partner.
Key Terms:
- שניים אוחזין בסכין = two people holding the (one) knife together and slaughtering in a single act
- דבר כשר = a legitimate (kosher) purpose, i.e., ordinary slaughter for food
- שחיטתו פסולה = the slaughter is invalid (the meat may not be eaten as properly slaughtered)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
An inference from the mishna and a contradicting baraita — is the meat permitted in benefit or forbidden?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses on the precise wording of the mishna. It said the slaughter is merely “invalid” (פסולה) — not that it is “an offering to the dead” (זבחי מתים). The implication: the animal is only a nevelah (an unslaughtered carcass), from which benefit is still permitted, rather than a forbidden idolatrous offering. But a baraita lists nearly the same objects of worship — mountains, hills, rivers, deserts, sun, moon, stars, even Michael the great angel or a tiny worm — and calls them all זבחי מתים, forbidden in benefit. The two sources appear to contradict each other (רמינהי).
Key Terms:
- זבחי מתים = “sacrifices to the dead” (Psalms 106:28) — idolatrous offerings, forbidden in benefit
- רמינהי = “they raise a contradiction” — juxtaposing two sources that seem to conflict
- מיכאל השר הגדול = Michael, the great ministering angel — listed to show that worship of a heavenly power, not a physical object, is at issue
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye resolves the contradiction: the mountain itself vs. the “angel of the mountain”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר לְהַר, הָא דְּאָמַר לְגַדָּא דְּהַר. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי דּוּמְיָא דְּמִיכָאֵל שַׂר הַגָּדוֹל, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye dissolves the contradiction with a sharp distinction between the physical object and the spiritual power behind it. The mishna speaks of one who slaughters for the mountain itself (להר) — mere foolishness directed at inert rock, which is not idolatry, so the meat is only invalid and benefit remains permitted. The baraita speaks of one who slaughters for the angel/spiritual force of the mountain (לגדא דהר) — genuine idol worship of a heavenly power, hence זבחי מתים, forbidden in benefit. Abaye proves his reading from the baraita’s own structure (דיקא נמי): it lists the mountain alongside Michael the great angel, showing the whole list refers to spiritual powers.
Key Terms:
- גדא דהר = the gad / guardian angel or spiritual force of the mountain (an object of actual worship)
- דיקא נמי = “the inference is also precise” — the source’s own wording supports the proposed reading
- דומיא ד… = “similar to…” — items taught in one list are presumed to be of the same kind
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Huna: cutting one siman of another’s animal before an idol forbids it (citing Ulla/R’ Yoḥanan)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to a related question of idolatry law: when does worshipping someone else’s animal forbid it? Rav Huna rules that if another’s animal lies poised before an idol and a person slaughters even one siman (the windpipe or gullet) as an act of worship, that act alone forbids the animal. He bases this on Ulla in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: although merely bowing to another’s animal does not forbid it (since a person cannot forbid what is not his by speech or gesture alone), performing a physical sacrificial act (מעשה) upon it does forbid it. Cutting a siman is exactly such an act.
Key Terms:
- רבוצה לפני עבודה זרה = lying/crouched before an idol, ready to be offered
- סימן = a siman — one of the two organs (trachea/windpipe or esophagus/gullet) that must be severed in valid slaughter
- עשה בה מעשה = “he performed an act upon it” — a physical deed (as opposed to mere bowing), which can forbid even another’s animal
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Naḥman challenges Rav Huna: the triple-liability baraita should collapse if one siman already forbids
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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,
English Translation:
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,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman attacks Rav Huna from a baraita about a triple Shabbat violation: one who unwittingly slaughters a sin offering, on Shabbat, outside the Temple, for idol worship, owes three sin offerings — for Shabbat labor, for shechutei chutz (slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple), and for idolatrous slaughter. But on Rav Huna’s view, cutting the first siman already forbids the animal as an idol-offering, instantly rendering it unfit. By the time the slaughter is completed, the animal is no longer a valid offering at all — so the shechutei chutz liability should drop out (the case continues into 40b).
Key Terms:
- שחוטי חוץ = slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple courtyard — a Torah prohibition carrying karet/a sin offering
- שלש חטאות = three sin offerings, one for each simultaneous unwitting transgression
- איתיביה = “he raised an objection against him” — a challenge from an authoritative source
Amud Bet (40b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Completion of the objection, and Rav Pappa’s answer: a bird sin offering (one siman suffices)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְחַתֵּךְ בְּעָפָר הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף עָסְקִינַן, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection completes: once the animal is forbidden, finishing the slaughter is “chopping in dirt” (מחתך בעפר) — slaughtering a worthless, already-disqualified animal — for which there is no shechutei chutz liability. Rav Pappa answers by reading the baraita as a bird sin offering, whose slaughter (melikah’s analog here, ordinary shechita of a bird) requires cutting only one siman. Since the single cut simultaneously is the Shabbat labor, the outside-the-Temple slaughter, and the idolatrous act, all three liabilities land together (בהדי הדדי) in one stroke — no contradiction with Rav Huna.
Key Terms:
- מחתך בעפר = “chopping in dirt” — performing a meaningless cut on an animal already invalid, incurring no shechutei chutz liability
- חטאת העוף = a bird sin offering, valid with the cutting of just one siman
- בהדי הדדי קאתי = “they come together” — all three transgressions occur in the same instant
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Difficulty on Rav Pappa: even one siman of a bird should already forbid it (per Ulla)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּדֵי רַב הוּנָא כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּעוּלָּא, וְעוּלָּא מַעֲשֶׂה כֹּל דְּהוּ קָאָמַר.
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns Rav Pappa’s bird answer back on itself. Rav Huna’s whole ruling rests on Ulla, and Ulla holds that any minimal act (מעשה כל דהו) — even the start of a single cut — already forbids the animal. So even with a bird, the very beginning of the one siman would forbid it; by the time the cut is finished, the bird is already disqualified, and the final motion is again “chopping in dirt” with no shechutei chutz liability. Rav Pappa’s distinction has not yet escaped the difficulty.
Key Terms:
- כמאן אמרה לשמעתיה = “in accordance with whom did he say his teaching?” — identifying the authority an opinion relies on
- מעשה כל דהו = “any minimal act” — even the slightest deed suffices, per Ulla, to forbid the animal
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
A revised reading: he declares he worships the idol only at the slaughter’s completion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, בְּאוֹמֵר בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבְדָהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers a different escape: the man explicitly declares beforehand that his idolatrous worship will take effect only at the completion of the slaughter (בגמר זביחה), not at the first cut. On that stipulation, the animal is not forbidden mid-slaughter, so it remains a valid offering throughout — and the final stroke simultaneously completes the Shabbat labor, the outside-the-Temple slaughter, and the idolatrous act, triggering all three liabilities at once.
Key Terms:
- בגמר זביחה = at the conclusion of the slaughter — the moment the worshipper designates for the idolatrous effect to take hold
- עובדה = “he worships it” — the idolatrous act, here timed to the slaughter’s end
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Objection to the revised reading: then why specify a sin offering at all?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא חַטָּאת? לַישְׁמְעִינַן זֶבַח!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This revised reading proves too general. If the only mechanism is the worshipper’s stipulation that the idolatry takes effect at the slaughter’s end, then nothing depends on the offering being a sin offering — any consecrated animal (זבח) would yield the same triple liability. The baraita’s deliberate choice of חטאת (sin offering) must be meaningful, so this reading is inadequate. (By contrast, Rav Pappa’s bird-sin-offering reading explained the specificity — but it failed for a different reason above.)
Key Terms:
- מאי איריא = “why specifically (mention)…?” — objecting that a stated detail is unmotivated under the proposed reading
- לישמעינן זבח = “let him teach us (with) an [ordinary] offering” — the baraita should have used the broader term if the detail were irrelevant
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Mar Zutra (per Rav Pappa): a windpipe already half-cut, completed with a tiny final incision
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar Zutra, in Rav Pappa’s name, finds a precise case where the final cut both completes the slaughter and is itself the whole idolatrous act — leaving no earlier moment to “pre-forbid” the animal. The windpipe (קנה) was already deficient by half before this slaughter (not as worship), and now the slaughterer adds the tiniest further incision (כל שהוא) that completes a valid slaughter. Since the very stroke that finishes the slaughter is the first and only act done for idolatry, all three liabilities — Shabbat, shechutei chutz, and idolatry — arrive together, with nothing forbidding the animal beforehand.
Key Terms:
- חצי קנה פגום = a windpipe already deficient in half (cut earlier, not as part of this slaughter)
- הוסיף עליו כל שהוא וגמרו = he added the slightest incision and thereby completed the (valid) slaughter
- קנה = the trachea/windpipe (the siman cut in slaughtering a bird)
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa’s first reflection: Rav Huna’s “one siman” is what makes the baraita a difficulty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא סִימָן אֶחָד, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה? מַעֲשֶׂה רַבָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa now reflects on which of Rav Huna’s two specific claims actually generated the whole problem. Had Rav Huna not insisted that even one siman forbids the animal, the baraita would pose no difficulty: one could simply say Ulla’s forbidding “act” (מעשה) means a significant act (מעשה רבה) — the full completion of slaughter — not the first cut. Then nothing would forbid the animal mid-slaughter, and the triple liability would stand naturally. So it is Rav Huna’s “one siman” precision that forced the elaborate resolutions above.
Key Terms:
- תיובתיה = a (refuting) objection against his position
- מעשה רבה = a “great”/significant act — the complete slaughter, as opposed to a minimal first cut
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa’s second reflection: Rav Huna’s “another’s animal” is also load-bearing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּידֵיהּ מָצֵי אָסַר, דְּחַבְרֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי אָסַר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa’s parallel point about Rav Huna’s other precision — that he spoke of “another’s animal” (בהמת חברו). Had Rav Huna not limited his ruling to another’s animal, the baraita again would pose no difficulty: one could say a sin offering is never forbidden mid-slaughter by the worshipper, because its meat belongs to the priests, and a person can forbid only his own property, not another’s (דחבריה לא מצי אסר). Since it isn’t his to forbid, the offering stays valid until the slaughter completes — and the triple liability follows. Thus both of Rav Huna’s specifications (one siman; another’s animal) are essential to creating the puzzle.
Key Terms:
- דידיה מצי אסר, דחבריה לא מצי אסר = “one can forbid his own (item), but cannot forbid another’s” — a foundational rule of idolatry law
- בהמת חברו = another person’s animal — here, a sin offering whose meat is the priests’, not the slaughterer’s
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Defending the novelty: a sin offering owner might be thought to “own” it for atonement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ לְכַפָּרָה – כְּדִידֵיהּ דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara guards Rav Pappa’s second point against the charge that it is self-evident (פשיטא). One might have reasoned that a sin offering, since the owner “acquires” it for his atonement (קני ליה לכפרה), is effectively his — and so he could forbid it like his own property, collapsing the distinction. Rav Pappa’s teaching (קא משמע לן) is precisely that this acquisition-for-atonement does not make the meat his; ownership of the flesh stays with the priests, so he cannot forbid it. The point is therefore a genuine novelty, not obvious.
Key Terms:
- פשיטא = “it is obvious!” — an objection that a stated teaching adds nothing
- קני ליה לכפרה = “he acquires it for atonement” — the limited stake an offering’s owner has in his sacrifice
- קא משמע לן = “it teaches us” — the non-obvious point the statement comes to establish
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
A new principle (with mnemonic): a person cannot forbid what is not his
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(נָעַ״ץ – סִימָן.) רַב נַחְמָן, וְרַב עַמְרָם, וְרַב יִצְחָק אָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין שֶׁלּוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records, with a name-mnemonic (נע”ץ — Naḥman, Amram, Yitzḥak), a sweeping principle that three Amoraim affirm together: אין אדם אוסר דבר שאין שלו — a person cannot render forbidden, through idolatrous use, an item that does not belong to him. This generalizes the rule invoked just above (one can forbid only his own property) into a stated maxim, and it stands in tension with Rav Huna’s ruling that one can forbid another’s animal by performing an act upon it. The daf closes by raising an objection that tests this maxim.
Key Terms:
- נע”ץ סימן = a mnemonic device (nun-ayin-tzadi) to recall the three Amoraim’s names
- אין אדם אוסר דבר שאין שלו = “a person cannot forbid an item that is not his” — the new governing principle
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
An objection to the new maxim from the same triple-liability baraita (continues on 41a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בַּשַּׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאוֹקִימְנָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּבַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם. טַעְמָא דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף הוּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין,
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends by turning the same triple-liability baraita against the new maxim that “a person cannot forbid what is not his.” The baraita assumed the worshipper does forbid the sin offering (an animal not truly his) by slaughtering it for idolatry — otherwise its analysis (bird sin offering, half-deficient windpipe) would be unnecessary. This appears to refute Rav Naḥman, Rav Amram, and Rav Yitzḥak. The Gemara’s resolution unfolds on the next daf (41a); the sugya is left open here.
Key Terms:
- מיתיבי = “they raise an objection” — a challenge to a stated position from a tannaitic source
- ואוקימנא = “and we established it (as)…” — recalling the earlier interpretation of the baraita
- בהדי הדדי קאתיין = “they come together” — the three transgressions occurring simultaneously, the crux the baraita needs