Parallel
חולין 40:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
for it is as though he were cutting earth? — R. Papa answered: We are dealing here with a sin-offering of a bird, so that all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously. But let us consider! R. Huna based his statement, did he not, upon Ulla's view? But Ulla refers to any act, however slight! — Rather [assume that] he expressly declared that he intended to worship the idol only at the completion of the slaughtering. If this is the case, why only ‘a sin-offering’? It could have dealt with any offering! — Rather, said Mar Zutra in the name of R. Papa: We are dealing here with the case where half of the windpipe [of the sin-offering of a bird] was mutilated, and this person merely added to it the smallest cut, thereby completing [the slaughtering]; and now all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously. R. Papa remarked: Had not R. Huna specifically mentioned one organ’, [the above Baraitha of the] ‘Sin-offering’ would never have presented any difficulty, for the expression ‘an act’ [used by Ulla] could mean a complete act [of idolatrous worship]. R. Papa further remarked: Had not R. Huna expressly said: ‘his neighbour's animal’, [the above Baraitha of the] ‘Sin-offering’ would not have presented any difficulty. Why? Because a man can only render prohibited [even by his slightest act] that which belongs to him, but not that which belongs to others. Is not this obvious? — It is not, for I might have said that since he received atonement through it it is regarded as his own; he therefore must state it. (Mnemonic Na ‘A.Z.) R. Nahman, R. ‘Amram and R. Isaac stated: A person cannot render prohibited that which does not belong to him. An objection was raised: [It was taught:] If a person [inadvertently] slaughtered on the Sabbath a sin-offering outside [the Temple court] as a sacrifice to an idol, he is liable to three sin-offerings. And we interpreted this Baraitha as referring to a sin-offering of a bird , half of whose windpipe was mutilated. Now the reason [for the ruling] is because it is a sin-offering of a bird in which case all [the prohibitions] arrive simultaneously.
—