מְחַתֵּךְ בְּעָפָר הוּא! אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: 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 אֲמַרָהּ לִשְׁמַעֲתֵיהּ – כְּעוּלָּא, וְעוּלָּא מַעֲשֶׂה כָּל 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? לִישְׁמַעִינַן 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 אֲמַר מַר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כָּל 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.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: אִי לָאו דַּאֲמַר רַב הוּנָא סִימָן אֶחָד, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵיהּ, 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.

וַאֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: אִי לָאו דַּאֲמַר רַב הוּנָא בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ, לָא הָוְיָא חַטָּאת תְּיוּבְתֵיהּ, 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 לָן.

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.

(נע״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.

מֵיתִיבֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בְּשַׁבָּת בַּחוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, וְאוֹקְמִינַן 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.