## Chullin Daf 23a

###### Chullin 23a:1
[Chullin 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23a:1)

כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי נִרְבָּע וְנֶעֱבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **When** the phrase in **the verse** “of doves or of young pigeons” **was necessary,** it was **to exclude** a bird **that was the object of bestiality or** a bird that **was worshipped** as a deity.


###### Chullin 23a:2
[Chullin 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23a:2)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הַשְׁחָתָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As it could **enter your mind to say: Since it is written** with regard to the *halakhot* of disqualified offerings: **“Because their corruption [*moshḥatam*] is in them, there is a blemish in them”** (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, **and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that** the term **corruption [*hashḥata*] is stated, it is** referring to **nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship.** The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to **matters of licentiousness, as it is written: “For all flesh had corrupted [*hishḥit*] their way upon the earth”** (Genesis 6:12); the word “way” alludes to sexual intercourse.


###### Chullin 23a:3
[Chullin 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23a:3)

עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּן תַּשְׁחִתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל״, כֹּל שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – אֵין דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. וְהָנֵי עוֹפוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְלָא פָּסֵיל בְּהוּ מוּמָא, דְּאָמַר מָר: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת, אֵימָא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי לָא לִפְסוֹל בְּהוּ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Corruption is also referring to **idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly [*tashḥitun*], and make you a graven image”** (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: **Any** type of offering **that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any** type of offering **that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And** with regard to **these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says:** There is a requirement of **an unblemished state and male gender in** a sacrificial **animal and there is no** requirement of **an unblemished state and male gender in** sacrificial **birds, say** that **matters of licentiousness and idol worship** should **also not disqualify** the birds. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us** from the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.


###### Chullin 23a:4
[Chullin 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23a:4)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה מִן הָאַיִל אוֹ מִן הַכֶּבֶשׂ״, וְהֵבִיא פַּלְגָּס, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. **Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma:** With regard to **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **an animal burnt offering of a ram,** which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, **or of a lamb,** which is up to one year old, **and he brought a *palges*,** which is between one year and thirteen months old, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Chullin 23a:5
[Chullin 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23a:5)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּאָמַר בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי, דִּתְנַן: הִקְרִיבוֹ – מֵבִיא עָלָיו נִסְכֵּי אַיִל, וְאֵין עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִזִּבְחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **According to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says** that a *palges* **is an entity in and of itself, as we learned** in a mishna (*Para* 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he **sacrificed** a *palges*, **he brings with it** the meal offering and **the libations of a ram** offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four *log* of oil, and a libation of four *log* of wine, **but it does not fulfill his** obligation to bring **his offering.**


###### Chullin 23a:6
[Chullin 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23a:6)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹ לָאַיִל״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפַּלְגָּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: **“Or for a ram,** you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a *hin* of oil” (Numbers 15:6); that serves **to include the *palges*,** whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the *palges*.


###### Chullin 23a:7
[Chullin 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23a:7)

כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּבַר פְּדָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When you raise a dilemma,** it is **according to** the opinion **of bar Padda,** who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,