## Chullin Daf 40b

###### Chullin 40b:1
[Chullin 40b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:1)

מְחַתֵּךְ בְּעָפָר הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף עָסְקִינַן, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 40b:2
[Chullin 40b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:2)

מִכְּדֵי רַב הוּנָא כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּעוּלָּא, וְעוּלָּא מַעֲשֶׂה כֹּל דְּהוּ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 40b:3
[Chullin 40b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:3)

אֶלָּא, בְּאוֹמֵר בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבְדָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 40b:4
[Chullin 40b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:4)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא חַטָּאת? לַישְׁמְעִינַן זֶבַח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 40b:5
[Chullin 40b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 40b:6
[Chullin 40b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:6)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא סִימָן אֶחָד, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה? מַעֲשֶׂה רַבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 40b:7
[Chullin 40b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:7)

וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּידֵיהּ מָצֵי אָסַר, דְּחַבְרֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי אָסַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 40b:8
[Chullin 40b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:8)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ לְכַפָּרָה – כְּדִידֵיהּ דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 40b:9
[Chullin 40b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:9)

(נָעַ״ץ – סִימָן.) רַב נַחְמָן, וְרַב עַמְרָם, וְרַב יִצְחָק אָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 40b:10
[Chullin 40b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/40b:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בַּשַּׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאוֹקִימְנָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּבַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם. טַעְמָא דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף הוּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**