Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 15, 2019 | 讬壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 139

What is a case of sanctified birds that are exempt from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird? In what cases is the mitzva applicable and in which cases is it not and how is this derived from the verses in the Torah?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讙诪专 讚讬谞讬讛 讜讘注讬 诇讗转讜讬讬讛 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜拽讬讜诪讬 讘讬讛 讜讘注专转 讛专注 诪拽专讘讱

how could it be free to rest on its eggs? It is subject to being killed and should have been executed. Rather, it must be a case where its verdict was not yet issued, and one is required to bring it to the court to fulfill through it the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall eradicate the evil from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:6).

讛谞讬 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽谉 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讗拽讚砖讬讛 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讻讬 讬拽专讗 拽谉 爪驻讜专 驻专讟 诇诪讝讜诪谉

搂 With regard to the statement of the mishna that sacrificial birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of these sacrificial birds discussed in the mishna? If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where one had a nest in his house and consecrated it, is one obligated to send away even a non-sacred bird in such a case? The verse states: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens before you on the way鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), which excludes a nest readily available in one鈥檚 home.

讗诇讗 讚讞讝讗 拽谉 讘注诇诪讗 讜讗拽讚砖讬讛 讜诪讬 拽讚讜砖 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬拽讚砖 讗转 讘讬转讜 拽讚砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 讘讬转讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讗祝 讻诇 讘专砖讜转讜

Rather, perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where one merely saw a nest that did not belong to him, and he consecrated it. But this, too, is problematic: Is the nest consecrated in such a case? But the Merciful One states: 鈥淲hen a man shall sanctify his house to be holy鈥 (Leviticus 27:14), indicating that just as his house is in his possession when he consecrates it, so too, any item that one wishes to consecrate must be in his possession when consecrating it. If so, one cannot consecrate a nest that does not belong to him.

讗诇讗 讚讗讙讘讛讬谞讛讜 诇讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讜讗拽讚砖讬谞讛讜 讜讛讚专 讛讚专讬谞讛讜 讛讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讗 谞讟诇 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇拽谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞讝专讛 讛讗诐 注诇讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞

Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted the chicks, taking possession of them, and then consecrated them, and then returned them to the nest. But this too cannot be, as even with regard to non-sacred birds one is not obligated to send the mother away in such a case, as is taught in a mishna (141a): If one sent the mother away and took the offspring and then returned them to the nest, and thereafter, the mother returned and rested upon them, one is exempt from sending the mother bird away, because he has acquired the offspring and they are now considered readily available.

讗诇讗 讚讗讙讘讛讛 诇讗诐 讜讗拽讚砖讛 讜讛讚专讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘砖讬诇讜讞 诪拽诪讬 讚讗拽讚砖讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讛拽讚讬砖 讞讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 砖讞讟讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讻住讜讬 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara suggests: Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted the mother, taking possession of her, and then consecrated her, and thereafter returned her to the nest. The Gemara responds that this too cannot be, because he was initially obligated in the sending away of the mother bird before he consecrated her. Consequently, the consecration of the bird afterward cannot abrogate the requirement to send it away, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Yosef says: If one consecrated an undomesticated animal and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from covering its blood, because a consecrated animal is not subject to the obligation of covering the blood. But if he slaughtered it and then consecrated it, he is obligated to cover its blood, as he was already obligated in the mitzva of covering of the blood before it came into the possession of the Temple treasury.

专讘 讗诪专 讘诪拽讚讬砖 驻讬专讜转 砖讜讘讻讜 讜诪专讚讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘诪拽讚讬砖 转专谞讙讜诇转讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

Rather, Rav says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates the fruit, i.e., the chicks, of his dovecote for sacrifice on the altar, and they later rebelled and fled from the dovecote and nested elsewhere. The mishna teaches that although such birds are not considered readily available, one is exempt from sending away the mother because they are sacrificial birds. If they were non-sacred, one who finds them would be obligated to do so. And Shmuel says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken later rebelled and fled its owner鈥檚 home and established a nest elsewhere.

讘砖诇诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗诇讗 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara objects: Granted, Shmuel did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with that of Rav, since he interprets it as referring even to birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, which do not have inherent sanctity. Accordingly, the mishna teaches that all consecrated birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird. But what is the reason that Rav did not state his explanation in accordance with that of Shmuel?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚讜拽讗 拽驻讟专讬 诪砖讬诇讜讞 讻讙讜谉 驻讬专讜转 砖讜讘讻讜 讚拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚砖讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 驻拽注讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讚讬砖 转专谞讙讜诇转讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗讜 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讚拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪专讚讛 驻拽注讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讜讞讬讬讘转 讘砖讬诇讜讞

The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: I specifically exempted one from sending the mother bird away in a case where the birds are the fruit of his dovecote, as they are consecrated for the altar. Since they are consecrated with inherent sanctity, their sanctity is not abrogated from them even when they flee from the dovecote. But in a case where one consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, where the chicken is not consecrated for the altar but merely has sanctity that inheres in its value, once it rebels its sanctity is abrogated, and it is obligated in, i.e., subject to, the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讘讬 讙讝讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗讬转讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪拽讚讬砖 转专谞讙讜诇转讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讜诪专讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜讻讬讜谉 砖诪专讚讛 驻拽注讛 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讘讬 讙讝讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗讬转讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛

And Shmuel could have said: Though it has rebelled, the chicken retains its sanctity, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury [bei gazza] of the Merciful One, as it is written: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and its fullness thereof鈥 (Psalms 24:1). And so Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the mishna is referring to a case where one consecrated his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken then rebelled. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: But once it rebels, its sanctity is abrogated. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and its fullness thereof.鈥

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan here and that of Rabbi Yo岣nan elsewhere, and the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish here and that of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish elsewhere.

讚讗讬转诪专 诪谞讛 讝讛 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讜谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 谞讗讘讚讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讜讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讙讝讘专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讘讬 讙讝讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗讬转讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

As it was stated: If one declares that these one hundred dinars are consecrated for Temple maintenance, and they were stolen or lost, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He bears responsibility for them until they come into the physical possession of the Temple treasurer [gizbar]. Consequently, he must pay one hundred dinars to the treasury. And Reish Lakish says: One is not required to replace the lost money, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and its fullness.鈥 Accordingly, the money is considered to have entered the possession of the treasury. If so, this statement of Reish Lakish poses a difficulty for the other statement of Reish Lakish, and this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan poses a difficulty for the other statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚砖诪注讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬讛 讛讗 诇讘转专 讚砖诪注讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬讛

The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and that statement of Reish Lakish is not difficult. This statement, that the sanctity of a consecrated chicken that rebelled is abrogated, was made before he heard the statement from Rabbi Yo岣nan, his teacher, that wherever it is, it is in God鈥檚 treasury. That statement, that one is not liable to replace the missing consecrated funds, was made after he heard that statement from Rabbi Yo岣nan his teacher.

讗诇讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜

The Gemara objects: But still, this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan poses a difficulty for that statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and that statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan is also not difficult. This statement, that one bears responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, is referring to a case where the consecrator said: It is incumbent upon me to bring one hundred dinars to the Temple treasury. In such a case, one bears responsibility for the money until it reaches the Temple treasurer. That statement, that a consecrated chicken that rebelled remains consecrated, is referring to a case where the consecrator said: This chicken is consecrated for Temple maintenance. In such a case, the sanctity is not abrogated even after the chicken flees, because wherever it is, it is in God鈥檚 treasury.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara objects: If it is so that when Rabbi Yo岣nan says that one bears financial responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, he is referring to a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me, by inference one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that one does not bear responsibility for the money, one does not bear financial responsibility even though one said: It is incumbent upon me.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 谞讚专 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讚讘讛 谞讚专 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 谞讚讘讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 谞讚专 诇谞讚讘讛 谞讚专 诪转讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛 谞讚讘讛 诪转讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Kinnim 1:1): Which is the case of a vow offering, and which is the case of a gift offering? A vow offering is where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering. A gift offering is where one says: This animal is a burnt offering. And what is the difference between a vow offering and a gift offering? With regard to a vow offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one bears financial responsibility for it. With regard to a gift offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讚诪讞讜住专 讛拽专讘讛 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗讜 诪讞讜住专 讛拽专讘讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara responds that Reish Lakish could have said to you: This statement, that one who says: It is incumbent upon me, bears financial responsibility, applies only to an item consecrated for the altar, since one vowed to sacrifice it as an offering and it has not yet been sacrificed. But with regard to an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which is not lacking sacrifice on the altar, even though one said: It is incumbent upon me, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.

讜讛转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讘讬转 讝讛 拽专讘谉 诪转 讛砖讜专 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 砖讜专 讝讛 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讘讬转 讝讛 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诪转 讛砖讜专 讜谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐

The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Arakhin 20b) that in the case of one who says: This bull is consecrated as a burnt offering, or: This house is consecrated as an offering, and the bull died or the house collapsed, he does not bear financial responsibility for them; but in the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to give this bull as a burnt offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to give this house as an offering, if the bull died or the house collapsed, he is obligated to pay its value? Evidently, even with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, if one says: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for them.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪转 讛砖讜专 讜谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讘讬 讙讝讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗讬转讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛

The Gemara responds: With regard to this statement, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to give an item for Temple maintenance, he bears financial responsibility, that applies only where the bull died or the house collapsed. In such a case he is obligated to pay, since they no longer exist. But where they still exist, e.g., in the case of an item or sum of money that was lost or stolen, one applies the principle: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and its fullness thereof.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘注专讻讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪讬转诪专 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 注诇讬

搂 The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish as to the halakha about one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an item for Temple maintenance. With regard to this dispute, Rav Hamnuna says: Everyone concedes with regard to valuations that even if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my own valuation, and one set aside money that was then lost or stolen, one does not bear financial responsibility for it. What is the reason for this? It is because it cannot be stated by him without stating: Upon me. In other words, one cannot say: This is my valuation, since he has yet to accept upon himself any such obligation.

讛讬讻讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬诪讗 注专讻讬 讗诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 注专讱 驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪讗谉

Therefore, although one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, this is not considered an acceptance of financial responsibility. After all, how shall he say it without stating: It is incumbent upon me? Shall he say only: My own valuation, without: Is incumbent upon me? If so, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay the money? Or shall he say only: The valuation of so-and-so? Still, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay the money?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 讛专讬谞讬 讘注专讻讬 讛专讬谞讬 讘注专讱 驻诇讜谞讬 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讜谞转谉 讗转 讛注专讻讱 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘讛拽讚砖讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 砖诪转讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 砖讘讞讜诇讬谉 谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

Rava objects to this: Let him say: I am encumbered with my own valuation, or: I am encumbered with the valuation of so-and-so. One need not say: Is incumbent upon me. Additionally, it is taught in a baraita with regard to the redemption of a purchased field that was consecrated that Rabbi Natan says about the verse: 鈥淭hen the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year, and he shall give your valuation on that day, as a consecrated thing to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:23): Why must the verse state: 鈥淎nd he shall give your valuation鈥? It could have stated simply: And he shall give it. It is necessary because we have found with regard to consecrated property and tithes that they can be desacralized by transferring their sanctity onto non-sacred money, and that if that money was stolen or lost, the owners do not bear financial responsibility for it.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 讗转 讛注专讻讱 讜讙讜壮 讞讜诇讬谉 注讚 砖讬讘讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讙讝讘专

One might have thought that with regard to this valuation too, the halakha should be so, i.e., if money from a valuation is stolen or lost, the owner does not bear financial responsibility for it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall give your valuation on that day,鈥 indicating that the valuation money is non-sacred until it enters the possession of the Temple treasurer, and that the owner bears responsibility for it until that time. Evidently, even with regard to valuations, the consecrator bears financial responsibility, in contradiction to the statement of Rav Hamnuna.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘注专讻讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 注诇讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讗转 讛注专讻讱 讞讜诇讬谉 讛谉 讘讬讚讱 注讚 砖讬讘讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讙讝讘专

Rather, if a statement was stated, this is what was stated: Rav Hamnuna says that everyone concedes with regard to valuations that even if one did not say: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for it, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall give your valuation,鈥 indicating that the valuation money is non-sacred until it enters the possession of the Temple treasurer.

讞讜诪专 讘讻住讜讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讬拽专讗 拽谉 爪驻讜专 诇驻谞讬讱 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

搂 The mishna states: There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother from the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals and birds that are readily available in one鈥檚 home, and to animals and birds that are not readily available; and the sending of the mother from the nest applies only to birds that are not readily available. With regard to the mitzva of sending away the mother, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens before you on the way, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, and the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall send the mother, but the young you may take for yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6鈥7). What is the meaning when the verse states all the various details contained in it?

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 砖诇讞 转砖诇讞 讗转 讛讗诐 讜讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 转拽讞 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝讜专 讘讛专讬诐 讜讙讘注讜转 讻讚讬 砖讬诪爪讗 拽谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讬拽专讗 讘诪讗讜专注 诇驻谞讬讱

Since it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall send [shalle鈥檃岣 teshalla岣] the mother, but the young you may take for yourself,鈥 one might have thought that the doubled verb 鈥shalle鈥檃岣 teshalla岣鈥 indicates that one must search even in the mountains and hills in order to find a nest with which to perform this mitzva. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens,鈥 indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother only when it confronts you; one is not required to seek out a nest.

拽谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 爪驻讜专 讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讟诪讗讛 诇驻谞讬讱 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讚专讱 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讗讬诇谞讜转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 注抓 讘讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 注诇 讛讗专抓

The baraita continues: The word 鈥渘est鈥 indicates that this mitzva applies in any case, even to a nest with only a single chick or egg. The word 鈥渂ird鈥檚鈥 indicates that the mitzva applies only to kosher birds, and not to non-kosher birds. The term 鈥渂efore you鈥 indicates that the mitzva applies to a nest that is on private property, e.g., an unguarded orchard or field, such that the owner鈥檚 property does not acquire the nest for him. The term 鈥渙n the way鈥 indicates that the mitzva also applies to a nest found in a public thoroughfare. From where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to nests found in trees? The verse states: 鈥淚n any tree.鈥 And with regard to nests found in pits, ditches, and caves, from where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to them? The verse states: 鈥淥r on the ground,鈥 indicating that the mitzva applies to a nest on any type of ground.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖住讜驻谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 诇驻谞讬讱 讘讚专讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讚专讱 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讜 讘讬讚讱 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讜 讘讬讚讱 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 砖拽谞谞讜 讘讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讘讘讬专讜转 讜讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 砖拽谞谞讜 讘驻专讚住 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 讗讘诇 拽谞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讻谉 讬讜谞讬 讛专讚住讬讗讜转 驻讟讜专 诪砖讬诇讜讞

The baraita continues: And since, in the end, we will include everything, i.e., every location of the nest, from the verse: 鈥淚n any tree or on the ground,鈥 why do I need the earlier statement: 鈥淏efore you on the way鈥? It is to say to you: Just as a nest on the way is a case in which the bird鈥檚 nest is not in your possession and is not readily available for you, so too, with regard to all other cases, one is obligated only when its nest is not in your possession. From here the Sages stated: With regard to pigeons of a dovecote or pigeons of an attic that nested in small wall niches or in buildings, and geese or chickens that nested in an orchard, one is obligated in the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, because such birds are not in one鈥檚 possession. But with regard to birds that nested inside the house, and likewise with regard to domesticated pigeons, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending the mother bird away.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讛 讚专讱 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讜 讘讬讚讱 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讜 讘讬讚讱 讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讻讬 讬拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讻讬 讬拽专讗 驻专讟 诇诪讝讜诪谉 讜注讜讚 诇驻谞讬讱 诇诪讛 诇讬

搂 The Gemara analyzes the above baraita: The Master said: Just as a nest on the way is a case in which the bird鈥檚 nest is not in your possession, so too, with regard to all other cases, one is obligated only when its nest is not in your possession. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this derivation? It may be derived from: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens,鈥 as it is taught: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens鈥 excludes a nest that is readily available. And furthermore, why do I need the term 鈥渂efore you鈥 to include even a nest found on private property? It is already derived from the verse: 鈥淚n any tree or on the ground.鈥

讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬讱 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讱 讜诪专讚讜 讘讚专讱 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讗 拽谉 讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 砖谞讗诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讛谞讜转谉 讘讬诐 讚专讱 讜讙讜壮

Rather, the term 鈥渂efore you鈥 is necessary to include a case where the birds were before you, i.e., they had an owner and were readily available to him, and they then rebelled and fled and nested elsewhere. 鈥淥n the way鈥 is necessary for that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one found a nest in the sea, e.g., in a case where a tree was washed out to sea with a nest in its branches, one is obligated in the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, as it is stated: 鈥淪o said the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters鈥 (Isaiah 43:16). The term 鈥渨ay鈥 applies even to the sea.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪爪讗 拽谉 讘砖诪讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讚专讱 谞砖专 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 讛拽谉 讚专讱 谞砖专 讗讬拽专讬 讚专讱 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, then if one found a nest in the sky, e.g., in a case where a bird carries the nest as it flies, about which it is written: 鈥淭he way of an eagle in the sky鈥 (Proverbs 30:19), one should also be obligated in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest. The Gemara responds: The sky is called 鈥渢he way of an eagle,鈥 but it is not called: A way, in an unspecified manner. The sea, by contrast, is referred to simply as: A way.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 驻驻讜谞讗讬 诇专讘 诪转谞讛 诪爪讗 拽谉 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 讜讗讚诪讛 注诇 专讗砖讜 诪砖讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讘砖讙诐 讛讜讗 讘砖专

The residents of Pappunya said to Rav Mattana: If one found a nest on the head of a person, what is the halakha with regard to the mitzva of sending away the mother? Is the nest considered to be on the ground, such that one is obligated in the mitzva? Rav Mattana said to them that one is obligated in the mitzva in such a case because the verse states: 鈥淎nd earth upon his head鈥 (II聽Samuel 15:32), rather than: Dirt upon his head, indicating that one鈥檚 head is considered like the ground. They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah is the existence of Moses [Moshe] alluded to before his birth? He replied that the verse states: 鈥淔or that he also [beshaggam] is flesh; therefore shall his days be one hundred and twenty years鈥 (Genesis 6:3). The numerical value of beshaggam is the same as that of the Hebrew name Moshe, and it is known that Moses lived a total of 120 years (see Deuteronomy 34:7).

讛诪谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讛诪谉 讛注抓

They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the hanging of Haman? He replied: The verse states after Adam ate from the tree of knowledge: 鈥淗ave you eaten of [hamin] the tree, about which I commanded you that you should not eat?鈥 (Genesis 3:11). Hamin is spelled in the same manner as Haman: Heh, mem, nun.

讗住转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讜讗谞讻讬 讛住转专 讗住转讬专 诪专讚讻讬 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 诪专 讚专讜专 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 诪讬专讗 讚讻讬讗

They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the events involving Esther? He replied to them that the verse states: 鈥淭hen My anger shall be kindled against them on that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day: Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us? And I will hide [haster astir] My face on that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned to other gods鈥 (Deuteronomy 31:17鈥18). They also asked him: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the greatness bestowed upon Mordecai? He replied: As it is written with regard to the anointing oil in the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd you shall also take the chief spices, of flowing myrrh [mor deror]鈥 (Exodus 30:23); and we translate mor deror into Aramaic as: Mira dakhya, which resembles the name Mordecai.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讝讜诪谉 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞讚 转谞讬 讛讚专住讬讗讜转 讜讞讚 转谞讬 讛专讚住讬讗讜转 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讛专讚住讬讗讜转 注诇 砖诐 讛讜专讚讜住 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讛讚专住讬讗讜转 注诇 砖诐 诪拽讜诪谉

搂 The mishna states: And which are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard. But if the geese or chickens nested in the house, one is exempt from sending them away, and likewise with regard to domesticated pigeons. The Gemara relates: With regard to the correct name of the domesticated pigeons referred to in the mishna, Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon disagree. One teaches that the correct name is yonei hadrisei鈥檕t, and the other one teaches that the correct name is yonei hardisei鈥檕t. According to the one who teaches that the correct name is yonei hardisei鈥檕t, they are called so on account of King Herod, who was involved in breeding these pigeons; and according to the one who teaches that the correct name is yonei hadrisei鈥檕t, they are called so on account of their location.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬讬谉 讜拽讬讬诪谉 砖讬转住专 讚专讬 讘驻转讬 诪讬诇讗 讜讛讜讛 拽专讗 拽讬专讬 拽讬专讬 讛讜讛 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽专讬 拽讬专讬 拽讬专讬 讗诪专讛 诇讛 讞讘专转讛 住讜诪讗 讗诪专讬 拽讬专讬 拽讬专讬 讗诪专讛 住讜诪讗 讗诪专讬 拽讬专讬 讘讬专讬 讗转讬讜讛 讜砖讞讟讜讛

Rav Kahana said: I myself saw these pigeons, and they were standing in sixteen rows, each a mil wide, and they were calling out: My master, my master. There was one of them who was not calling out: My master, my master. Another one said to it: Blind one, i.e., fool, say: My master, my master, so that you will not be punished for refusing to acknowledge the authority of the king. The pigeon said in response: Blind one, you should say: My master, my slave, as Herod is not a king but a slave. They brought that pigeon to a slaughterhouse and slaughtered it for speaking against the king.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 [专讘讬] 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讬诇讬谉 诪讬诇讬谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘诪讬诇讬谉

Rav Ashi said: Rabbi 岣nina said to me: This story is no more than mere words, as no such incident took place. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that Rabbi 岣nina dismisses as mere words an incident reported by Rav Kahana? Rather, say that Rabbi 岣nina said that those pigeons acted as described above through words of witchcraft.

注讜祝 讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬拽专讗 拽谉 爪驻讜专 诇驻谞讬讱 注讜祝 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 讘讬谉 讟诪讗 爪驻讜专 讟讛讜专 讗砖讻讞谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 爪驻讜专 讟诪讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 爪驻讜专

搂 The mishna states: If one encounters a nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Yitz岣k said: As the verse states: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 [tzippor] nest happens before you鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), and not: If a bird鈥檚 [of ] nest happens before you. The word of indicates to us that all birds are included, whether kosher or non-kosher. But with regard to the word tzippor, we have found that a kosher bird is called a tzippor, but we have not found that a non-kosher bird is called a tzippor.

转讗 砖诪注 转讘谞讬转 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讻谞祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 爪驻讜专 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 讘讬谉 讟诪讗 讻谞祝 讞讙讘讬诐 诇讗 爪驻讜专 讟讛讜专 讻谞祝 讟诪讗 讜讞讙讘讬诐

The Gemara attempts to reject the above assertion: Come and hear that which is stated in the verse with regard to the prohibition against fashioning idols: 鈥淭he likeness of any winged bird [tzippor]鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:17). What, is it not that the word tzippor is referring to any bird, whether kosher or non-kosher, and the word 鈥渨inged鈥 adds the likeness of grasshoppers to the prohibition? If so, we have found that a non-kosher bird is called a tzippor. The Gemara rejects this: No, the word tzippor means a kosher bird, while the word 鈥渨inged鈥 is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讞讬讛 讜讻诇 讘讛诪讛 专诪砖 讜爪驻讜专 讻谞祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 爪驻讜专 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 讘讬谉 讟诪讗 讜讻谞祝 讞讙讘讬诐 诇讗 爪驻讜专 讟讛讜专 讻谞祝 讟诪讗 讜讞讙讘讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage describing how all of creation praises God: 鈥淭he undomesticated animal and all domesticated animals, creeping things and winged birds [tzippor]鈥 (Psalms 148:10). What, is it not that the word tzippor is referring to all birds, whether kosher or non-kosher, and the word 鈥渨inged鈥 is referring to grasshoppers? The Gemara rejects this: No, the word tzippor means a kosher bird, while the word 鈥渨inged鈥 is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.

转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讻诇 讻谞祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讚诪拽砖讬谞谉 诇讗 讻讚诪砖谞讬谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the verse about the animals that entered Noah鈥檚 ark: 鈥淓very bird [tzippor] of every type of wing鈥 (Genesis 7:14). What, is it not the same difficulty that we posed previously, that the word 鈥tzippor鈥 is referring to all birds, kosher and non-kosher, and the word 鈥渨ing鈥 is referring to grasshoppers? The Gemara rejects this as well: No, it is actually as we resolved it, that the word 鈥tzippor鈥 is referring only to kosher birds, and the word 鈥渨ing鈥 is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转讛 讘谉 讗讚诐 讗诪专 诇爪驻讜专 讻诇 讻谞祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讚讗拽砖讬谞谉 诇讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage describing the war of Gog and Magog: 鈥淎nd you, son of man, so said the Lord God: Speak to the birds [tzippor] of every type of wing, and to every animal of the field: Assemble yourselves, and come鈥 (Ezekiel 39:17). What, is it not the same difficulty that we posed previously? The Gemara responds: No, it is actually as we resolved it.

转讗 砖诪注

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 139

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 139

讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讙诪专 讚讬谞讬讛 讜讘注讬 诇讗转讜讬讬讛 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜拽讬讜诪讬 讘讬讛 讜讘注专转 讛专注 诪拽专讘讱

how could it be free to rest on its eggs? It is subject to being killed and should have been executed. Rather, it must be a case where its verdict was not yet issued, and one is required to bring it to the court to fulfill through it the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall eradicate the evil from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:6).

讛谞讬 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽谉 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讗拽讚砖讬讛 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讻讬 讬拽专讗 拽谉 爪驻讜专 驻专讟 诇诪讝讜诪谉

搂 With regard to the statement of the mishna that sacrificial birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of these sacrificial birds discussed in the mishna? If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where one had a nest in his house and consecrated it, is one obligated to send away even a non-sacred bird in such a case? The verse states: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens before you on the way鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), which excludes a nest readily available in one鈥檚 home.

讗诇讗 讚讞讝讗 拽谉 讘注诇诪讗 讜讗拽讚砖讬讛 讜诪讬 拽讚讜砖 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬拽讚砖 讗转 讘讬转讜 拽讚砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 讘讬转讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讗祝 讻诇 讘专砖讜转讜

Rather, perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where one merely saw a nest that did not belong to him, and he consecrated it. But this, too, is problematic: Is the nest consecrated in such a case? But the Merciful One states: 鈥淲hen a man shall sanctify his house to be holy鈥 (Leviticus 27:14), indicating that just as his house is in his possession when he consecrates it, so too, any item that one wishes to consecrate must be in his possession when consecrating it. If so, one cannot consecrate a nest that does not belong to him.

讗诇讗 讚讗讙讘讛讬谞讛讜 诇讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讜讗拽讚砖讬谞讛讜 讜讛讚专 讛讚专讬谞讛讜 讛讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讗 谞讟诇 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇拽谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞讝专讛 讛讗诐 注诇讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞

Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted the chicks, taking possession of them, and then consecrated them, and then returned them to the nest. But this too cannot be, as even with regard to non-sacred birds one is not obligated to send the mother away in such a case, as is taught in a mishna (141a): If one sent the mother away and took the offspring and then returned them to the nest, and thereafter, the mother returned and rested upon them, one is exempt from sending the mother bird away, because he has acquired the offspring and they are now considered readily available.

讗诇讗 讚讗讙讘讛讛 诇讗诐 讜讗拽讚砖讛 讜讛讚专讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘砖讬诇讜讞 诪拽诪讬 讚讗拽讚砖讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讛拽讚讬砖 讞讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 砖讞讟讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讻住讜讬 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara suggests: Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted the mother, taking possession of her, and then consecrated her, and thereafter returned her to the nest. The Gemara responds that this too cannot be, because he was initially obligated in the sending away of the mother bird before he consecrated her. Consequently, the consecration of the bird afterward cannot abrogate the requirement to send it away, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Yosef says: If one consecrated an undomesticated animal and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from covering its blood, because a consecrated animal is not subject to the obligation of covering the blood. But if he slaughtered it and then consecrated it, he is obligated to cover its blood, as he was already obligated in the mitzva of covering of the blood before it came into the possession of the Temple treasury.

专讘 讗诪专 讘诪拽讚讬砖 驻讬专讜转 砖讜讘讻讜 讜诪专讚讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘诪拽讚讬砖 转专谞讙讜诇转讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

Rather, Rav says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates the fruit, i.e., the chicks, of his dovecote for sacrifice on the altar, and they later rebelled and fled from the dovecote and nested elsewhere. The mishna teaches that although such birds are not considered readily available, one is exempt from sending away the mother because they are sacrificial birds. If they were non-sacred, one who finds them would be obligated to do so. And Shmuel says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken later rebelled and fled its owner鈥檚 home and established a nest elsewhere.

讘砖诇诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗诇讗 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara objects: Granted, Shmuel did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with that of Rav, since he interprets it as referring even to birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, which do not have inherent sanctity. Accordingly, the mishna teaches that all consecrated birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird. But what is the reason that Rav did not state his explanation in accordance with that of Shmuel?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚讜拽讗 拽驻讟专讬 诪砖讬诇讜讞 讻讙讜谉 驻讬专讜转 砖讜讘讻讜 讚拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚砖讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 驻拽注讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讚讬砖 转专谞讙讜诇转讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗讜 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讚拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪专讚讛 驻拽注讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讜讞讬讬讘转 讘砖讬诇讜讞

The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: I specifically exempted one from sending the mother bird away in a case where the birds are the fruit of his dovecote, as they are consecrated for the altar. Since they are consecrated with inherent sanctity, their sanctity is not abrogated from them even when they flee from the dovecote. But in a case where one consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, where the chicken is not consecrated for the altar but merely has sanctity that inheres in its value, once it rebels its sanctity is abrogated, and it is obligated in, i.e., subject to, the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讘讬 讙讝讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗讬转讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪拽讚讬砖 转专谞讙讜诇转讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讜诪专讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜讻讬讜谉 砖诪专讚讛 驻拽注讛 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讘讬 讙讝讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗讬转讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛

And Shmuel could have said: Though it has rebelled, the chicken retains its sanctity, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury [bei gazza] of the Merciful One, as it is written: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and its fullness thereof鈥 (Psalms 24:1). And so Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the mishna is referring to a case where one consecrated his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken then rebelled. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: But once it rebels, its sanctity is abrogated. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and its fullness thereof.鈥

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan here and that of Rabbi Yo岣nan elsewhere, and the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish here and that of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish elsewhere.

讚讗讬转诪专 诪谞讛 讝讛 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讜谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 谞讗讘讚讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讜讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讙讝讘专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讘讬 讙讝讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗讬转讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

As it was stated: If one declares that these one hundred dinars are consecrated for Temple maintenance, and they were stolen or lost, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He bears responsibility for them until they come into the physical possession of the Temple treasurer [gizbar]. Consequently, he must pay one hundred dinars to the treasury. And Reish Lakish says: One is not required to replace the lost money, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and its fullness.鈥 Accordingly, the money is considered to have entered the possession of the treasury. If so, this statement of Reish Lakish poses a difficulty for the other statement of Reish Lakish, and this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan poses a difficulty for the other statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚砖诪注讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬讛 讛讗 诇讘转专 讚砖诪注讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬讛

The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and that statement of Reish Lakish is not difficult. This statement, that the sanctity of a consecrated chicken that rebelled is abrogated, was made before he heard the statement from Rabbi Yo岣nan, his teacher, that wherever it is, it is in God鈥檚 treasury. That statement, that one is not liable to replace the missing consecrated funds, was made after he heard that statement from Rabbi Yo岣nan his teacher.

讗诇讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜

The Gemara objects: But still, this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan poses a difficulty for that statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and that statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan is also not difficult. This statement, that one bears responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, is referring to a case where the consecrator said: It is incumbent upon me to bring one hundred dinars to the Temple treasury. In such a case, one bears responsibility for the money until it reaches the Temple treasurer. That statement, that a consecrated chicken that rebelled remains consecrated, is referring to a case where the consecrator said: This chicken is consecrated for Temple maintenance. In such a case, the sanctity is not abrogated even after the chicken flees, because wherever it is, it is in God鈥檚 treasury.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara objects: If it is so that when Rabbi Yo岣nan says that one bears financial responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, he is referring to a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me, by inference one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that one does not bear responsibility for the money, one does not bear financial responsibility even though one said: It is incumbent upon me.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 谞讚专 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讚讘讛 谞讚专 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 谞讚讘讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 谞讚专 诇谞讚讘讛 谞讚专 诪转讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛 谞讚讘讛 诪转讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘讛 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Kinnim 1:1): Which is the case of a vow offering, and which is the case of a gift offering? A vow offering is where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering. A gift offering is where one says: This animal is a burnt offering. And what is the difference between a vow offering and a gift offering? With regard to a vow offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one bears financial responsibility for it. With regard to a gift offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讚诪讞讜住专 讛拽专讘讛 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗讜 诪讞讜住专 讛拽专讘讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara responds that Reish Lakish could have said to you: This statement, that one who says: It is incumbent upon me, bears financial responsibility, applies only to an item consecrated for the altar, since one vowed to sacrifice it as an offering and it has not yet been sacrificed. But with regard to an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which is not lacking sacrifice on the altar, even though one said: It is incumbent upon me, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.

讜讛转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讘讬转 讝讛 拽专讘谉 诪转 讛砖讜专 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 砖讜专 讝讛 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讘讬转 讝讛 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诪转 讛砖讜专 讜谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐

The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Arakhin 20b) that in the case of one who says: This bull is consecrated as a burnt offering, or: This house is consecrated as an offering, and the bull died or the house collapsed, he does not bear financial responsibility for them; but in the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to give this bull as a burnt offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to give this house as an offering, if the bull died or the house collapsed, he is obligated to pay its value? Evidently, even with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, if one says: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for them.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪转 讛砖讜专 讜谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讘讬 讙讝讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗讬转讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛

The Gemara responds: With regard to this statement, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to give an item for Temple maintenance, he bears financial responsibility, that applies only where the bull died or the house collapsed. In such a case he is obligated to pay, since they no longer exist. But where they still exist, e.g., in the case of an item or sum of money that was lost or stolen, one applies the principle: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and its fullness thereof.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘注专讻讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪讬转诪专 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 注诇讬

搂 The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish as to the halakha about one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an item for Temple maintenance. With regard to this dispute, Rav Hamnuna says: Everyone concedes with regard to valuations that even if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my own valuation, and one set aside money that was then lost or stolen, one does not bear financial responsibility for it. What is the reason for this? It is because it cannot be stated by him without stating: Upon me. In other words, one cannot say: This is my valuation, since he has yet to accept upon himself any such obligation.

讛讬讻讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬诪讗 注专讻讬 讗诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 注专讱 驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪讗谉

Therefore, although one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, this is not considered an acceptance of financial responsibility. After all, how shall he say it without stating: It is incumbent upon me? Shall he say only: My own valuation, without: Is incumbent upon me? If so, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay the money? Or shall he say only: The valuation of so-and-so? Still, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay the money?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 讛专讬谞讬 讘注专讻讬 讛专讬谞讬 讘注专讱 驻诇讜谞讬 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讜谞转谉 讗转 讛注专讻讱 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘讛拽讚砖讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 砖诪转讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 砖讘讞讜诇讬谉 谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

Rava objects to this: Let him say: I am encumbered with my own valuation, or: I am encumbered with the valuation of so-and-so. One need not say: Is incumbent upon me. Additionally, it is taught in a baraita with regard to the redemption of a purchased field that was consecrated that Rabbi Natan says about the verse: 鈥淭hen the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year, and he shall give your valuation on that day, as a consecrated thing to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:23): Why must the verse state: 鈥淎nd he shall give your valuation鈥? It could have stated simply: And he shall give it. It is necessary because we have found with regard to consecrated property and tithes that they can be desacralized by transferring their sanctity onto non-sacred money, and that if that money was stolen or lost, the owners do not bear financial responsibility for it.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 讗转 讛注专讻讱 讜讙讜壮 讞讜诇讬谉 注讚 砖讬讘讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讙讝讘专

One might have thought that with regard to this valuation too, the halakha should be so, i.e., if money from a valuation is stolen or lost, the owner does not bear financial responsibility for it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall give your valuation on that day,鈥 indicating that the valuation money is non-sacred until it enters the possession of the Temple treasurer, and that the owner bears responsibility for it until that time. Evidently, even with regard to valuations, the consecrator bears financial responsibility, in contradiction to the statement of Rav Hamnuna.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘注专讻讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 注诇讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讗转 讛注专讻讱 讞讜诇讬谉 讛谉 讘讬讚讱 注讚 砖讬讘讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讙讝讘专

Rather, if a statement was stated, this is what was stated: Rav Hamnuna says that everyone concedes with regard to valuations that even if one did not say: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for it, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall give your valuation,鈥 indicating that the valuation money is non-sacred until it enters the possession of the Temple treasurer.

讞讜诪专 讘讻住讜讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讬拽专讗 拽谉 爪驻讜专 诇驻谞讬讱 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

搂 The mishna states: There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother from the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals and birds that are readily available in one鈥檚 home, and to animals and birds that are not readily available; and the sending of the mother from the nest applies only to birds that are not readily available. With regard to the mitzva of sending away the mother, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens before you on the way, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, and the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall send the mother, but the young you may take for yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6鈥7). What is the meaning when the verse states all the various details contained in it?

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 砖诇讞 转砖诇讞 讗转 讛讗诐 讜讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 转拽讞 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝讜专 讘讛专讬诐 讜讙讘注讜转 讻讚讬 砖讬诪爪讗 拽谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讬拽专讗 讘诪讗讜专注 诇驻谞讬讱

Since it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall send [shalle鈥檃岣 teshalla岣] the mother, but the young you may take for yourself,鈥 one might have thought that the doubled verb 鈥shalle鈥檃岣 teshalla岣鈥 indicates that one must search even in the mountains and hills in order to find a nest with which to perform this mitzva. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens,鈥 indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother only when it confronts you; one is not required to seek out a nest.

拽谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 爪驻讜专 讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讟诪讗讛 诇驻谞讬讱 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讚专讱 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讗讬诇谞讜转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 注抓 讘讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 注诇 讛讗专抓

The baraita continues: The word 鈥渘est鈥 indicates that this mitzva applies in any case, even to a nest with only a single chick or egg. The word 鈥渂ird鈥檚鈥 indicates that the mitzva applies only to kosher birds, and not to non-kosher birds. The term 鈥渂efore you鈥 indicates that the mitzva applies to a nest that is on private property, e.g., an unguarded orchard or field, such that the owner鈥檚 property does not acquire the nest for him. The term 鈥渙n the way鈥 indicates that the mitzva also applies to a nest found in a public thoroughfare. From where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to nests found in trees? The verse states: 鈥淚n any tree.鈥 And with regard to nests found in pits, ditches, and caves, from where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to them? The verse states: 鈥淥r on the ground,鈥 indicating that the mitzva applies to a nest on any type of ground.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖住讜驻谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 诇驻谞讬讱 讘讚专讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讚专讱 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讜 讘讬讚讱 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讜 讘讬讚讱 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 砖拽谞谞讜 讘讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讘讘讬专讜转 讜讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 砖拽谞谞讜 讘驻专讚住 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 讗讘诇 拽谞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讻谉 讬讜谞讬 讛专讚住讬讗讜转 驻讟讜专 诪砖讬诇讜讞

The baraita continues: And since, in the end, we will include everything, i.e., every location of the nest, from the verse: 鈥淚n any tree or on the ground,鈥 why do I need the earlier statement: 鈥淏efore you on the way鈥? It is to say to you: Just as a nest on the way is a case in which the bird鈥檚 nest is not in your possession and is not readily available for you, so too, with regard to all other cases, one is obligated only when its nest is not in your possession. From here the Sages stated: With regard to pigeons of a dovecote or pigeons of an attic that nested in small wall niches or in buildings, and geese or chickens that nested in an orchard, one is obligated in the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, because such birds are not in one鈥檚 possession. But with regard to birds that nested inside the house, and likewise with regard to domesticated pigeons, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending the mother bird away.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讛 讚专讱 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讜 讘讬讚讱 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讜 讘讬讚讱 讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讻讬 讬拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讻讬 讬拽专讗 驻专讟 诇诪讝讜诪谉 讜注讜讚 诇驻谞讬讱 诇诪讛 诇讬

搂 The Gemara analyzes the above baraita: The Master said: Just as a nest on the way is a case in which the bird鈥檚 nest is not in your possession, so too, with regard to all other cases, one is obligated only when its nest is not in your possession. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this derivation? It may be derived from: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens,鈥 as it is taught: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens鈥 excludes a nest that is readily available. And furthermore, why do I need the term 鈥渂efore you鈥 to include even a nest found on private property? It is already derived from the verse: 鈥淚n any tree or on the ground.鈥

讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬讱 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讱 讜诪专讚讜 讘讚专讱 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讗 拽谉 讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 砖谞讗诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讛谞讜转谉 讘讬诐 讚专讱 讜讙讜壮

Rather, the term 鈥渂efore you鈥 is necessary to include a case where the birds were before you, i.e., they had an owner and were readily available to him, and they then rebelled and fled and nested elsewhere. 鈥淥n the way鈥 is necessary for that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one found a nest in the sea, e.g., in a case where a tree was washed out to sea with a nest in its branches, one is obligated in the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, as it is stated: 鈥淪o said the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters鈥 (Isaiah 43:16). The term 鈥渨ay鈥 applies even to the sea.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪爪讗 拽谉 讘砖诪讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讚专讱 谞砖专 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 讛拽谉 讚专讱 谞砖专 讗讬拽专讬 讚专讱 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, then if one found a nest in the sky, e.g., in a case where a bird carries the nest as it flies, about which it is written: 鈥淭he way of an eagle in the sky鈥 (Proverbs 30:19), one should also be obligated in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest. The Gemara responds: The sky is called 鈥渢he way of an eagle,鈥 but it is not called: A way, in an unspecified manner. The sea, by contrast, is referred to simply as: A way.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 驻驻讜谞讗讬 诇专讘 诪转谞讛 诪爪讗 拽谉 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 讜讗讚诪讛 注诇 专讗砖讜 诪砖讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讘砖讙诐 讛讜讗 讘砖专

The residents of Pappunya said to Rav Mattana: If one found a nest on the head of a person, what is the halakha with regard to the mitzva of sending away the mother? Is the nest considered to be on the ground, such that one is obligated in the mitzva? Rav Mattana said to them that one is obligated in the mitzva in such a case because the verse states: 鈥淎nd earth upon his head鈥 (II聽Samuel 15:32), rather than: Dirt upon his head, indicating that one鈥檚 head is considered like the ground. They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah is the existence of Moses [Moshe] alluded to before his birth? He replied that the verse states: 鈥淔or that he also [beshaggam] is flesh; therefore shall his days be one hundred and twenty years鈥 (Genesis 6:3). The numerical value of beshaggam is the same as that of the Hebrew name Moshe, and it is known that Moses lived a total of 120 years (see Deuteronomy 34:7).

讛诪谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讛诪谉 讛注抓

They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the hanging of Haman? He replied: The verse states after Adam ate from the tree of knowledge: 鈥淗ave you eaten of [hamin] the tree, about which I commanded you that you should not eat?鈥 (Genesis 3:11). Hamin is spelled in the same manner as Haman: Heh, mem, nun.

讗住转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讜讗谞讻讬 讛住转专 讗住转讬专 诪专讚讻讬 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 诪专 讚专讜专 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 诪讬专讗 讚讻讬讗

They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the events involving Esther? He replied to them that the verse states: 鈥淭hen My anger shall be kindled against them on that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day: Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us? And I will hide [haster astir] My face on that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned to other gods鈥 (Deuteronomy 31:17鈥18). They also asked him: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the greatness bestowed upon Mordecai? He replied: As it is written with regard to the anointing oil in the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd you shall also take the chief spices, of flowing myrrh [mor deror]鈥 (Exodus 30:23); and we translate mor deror into Aramaic as: Mira dakhya, which resembles the name Mordecai.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讝讜诪谉 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞讚 转谞讬 讛讚专住讬讗讜转 讜讞讚 转谞讬 讛专讚住讬讗讜转 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讛专讚住讬讗讜转 注诇 砖诐 讛讜专讚讜住 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讛讚专住讬讗讜转 注诇 砖诐 诪拽讜诪谉

搂 The mishna states: And which are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard. But if the geese or chickens nested in the house, one is exempt from sending them away, and likewise with regard to domesticated pigeons. The Gemara relates: With regard to the correct name of the domesticated pigeons referred to in the mishna, Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon disagree. One teaches that the correct name is yonei hadrisei鈥檕t, and the other one teaches that the correct name is yonei hardisei鈥檕t. According to the one who teaches that the correct name is yonei hardisei鈥檕t, they are called so on account of King Herod, who was involved in breeding these pigeons; and according to the one who teaches that the correct name is yonei hadrisei鈥檕t, they are called so on account of their location.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬讬谉 讜拽讬讬诪谉 砖讬转住专 讚专讬 讘驻转讬 诪讬诇讗 讜讛讜讛 拽专讗 拽讬专讬 拽讬专讬 讛讜讛 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽专讬 拽讬专讬 拽讬专讬 讗诪专讛 诇讛 讞讘专转讛 住讜诪讗 讗诪专讬 拽讬专讬 拽讬专讬 讗诪专讛 住讜诪讗 讗诪专讬 拽讬专讬 讘讬专讬 讗转讬讜讛 讜砖讞讟讜讛

Rav Kahana said: I myself saw these pigeons, and they were standing in sixteen rows, each a mil wide, and they were calling out: My master, my master. There was one of them who was not calling out: My master, my master. Another one said to it: Blind one, i.e., fool, say: My master, my master, so that you will not be punished for refusing to acknowledge the authority of the king. The pigeon said in response: Blind one, you should say: My master, my slave, as Herod is not a king but a slave. They brought that pigeon to a slaughterhouse and slaughtered it for speaking against the king.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 [专讘讬] 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讬诇讬谉 诪讬诇讬谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘诪讬诇讬谉

Rav Ashi said: Rabbi 岣nina said to me: This story is no more than mere words, as no such incident took place. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that Rabbi 岣nina dismisses as mere words an incident reported by Rav Kahana? Rather, say that Rabbi 岣nina said that those pigeons acted as described above through words of witchcraft.

注讜祝 讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬拽专讗 拽谉 爪驻讜专 诇驻谞讬讱 注讜祝 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 讘讬谉 讟诪讗 爪驻讜专 讟讛讜专 讗砖讻讞谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 爪驻讜专 讟诪讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 爪驻讜专

搂 The mishna states: If one encounters a nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Yitz岣k said: As the verse states: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 [tzippor] nest happens before you鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), and not: If a bird鈥檚 [of ] nest happens before you. The word of indicates to us that all birds are included, whether kosher or non-kosher. But with regard to the word tzippor, we have found that a kosher bird is called a tzippor, but we have not found that a non-kosher bird is called a tzippor.

转讗 砖诪注 转讘谞讬转 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讻谞祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 爪驻讜专 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 讘讬谉 讟诪讗 讻谞祝 讞讙讘讬诐 诇讗 爪驻讜专 讟讛讜专 讻谞祝 讟诪讗 讜讞讙讘讬诐

The Gemara attempts to reject the above assertion: Come and hear that which is stated in the verse with regard to the prohibition against fashioning idols: 鈥淭he likeness of any winged bird [tzippor]鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:17). What, is it not that the word tzippor is referring to any bird, whether kosher or non-kosher, and the word 鈥渨inged鈥 adds the likeness of grasshoppers to the prohibition? If so, we have found that a non-kosher bird is called a tzippor. The Gemara rejects this: No, the word tzippor means a kosher bird, while the word 鈥渨inged鈥 is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讞讬讛 讜讻诇 讘讛诪讛 专诪砖 讜爪驻讜专 讻谞祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 爪驻讜专 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 讘讬谉 讟诪讗 讜讻谞祝 讞讙讘讬诐 诇讗 爪驻讜专 讟讛讜专 讻谞祝 讟诪讗 讜讞讙讘讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage describing how all of creation praises God: 鈥淭he undomesticated animal and all domesticated animals, creeping things and winged birds [tzippor]鈥 (Psalms 148:10). What, is it not that the word tzippor is referring to all birds, whether kosher or non-kosher, and the word 鈥渨inged鈥 is referring to grasshoppers? The Gemara rejects this: No, the word tzippor means a kosher bird, while the word 鈥渨inged鈥 is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.

转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讻诇 讻谞祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讚诪拽砖讬谞谉 诇讗 讻讚诪砖谞讬谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the verse about the animals that entered Noah鈥檚 ark: 鈥淓very bird [tzippor] of every type of wing鈥 (Genesis 7:14). What, is it not the same difficulty that we posed previously, that the word 鈥tzippor鈥 is referring to all birds, kosher and non-kosher, and the word 鈥渨ing鈥 is referring to grasshoppers? The Gemara rejects this as well: No, it is actually as we resolved it, that the word 鈥tzippor鈥 is referring only to kosher birds, and the word 鈥渨ing鈥 is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转讛 讘谉 讗讚诐 讗诪专 诇爪驻讜专 讻诇 讻谞祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讚讗拽砖讬谞谉 诇讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage describing the war of Gog and Magog: 鈥淎nd you, son of man, so said the Lord God: Speak to the birds [tzippor] of every type of wing, and to every animal of the field: Assemble yourselves, and come鈥 (Ezekiel 39:17). What, is it not the same difficulty that we posed previously? The Gemara responds: No, it is actually as we resolved it.

转讗 砖诪注

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is

Scroll To Top