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

Daf Yomi

April 16, 2019 | 讬状讗 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Chullin 140

Does the word used in the Torah – tzipor聽– really mean only kosher birds? Why is one exempt if only the chicks are not kosher? Is one obligated if there is a barrier between the mother and the eggs? What if the mother is flying and not sitting? What if it is perched on branches but hovering over the eggs?


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

讜讘注谞驻讜讛讬 讬讚讜专谉 爪驻专讬 砖诪讬讗 爪驻专讬 砖诪讬讗 讗讬拽专讜 爪驻专讬 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜


stated in the verse describing a tree: 鈥淎nd in its branches will dwell the birds [tzipparei] of the heaven鈥 (Daniel 4:9). The verse states only: 鈥淭he birds [tzipparei],鈥 and not: The birds of any type of wing. Accordingly, the term 鈥渢he birds [tzipparei]鈥 must be referring to all birds, whether kosher or non-kosher, since all birds dwell in tree branches. The Gemara rejects this: Non-kosher birds are called: Birds [tzipparei] of the heaven, but they are not called: Tzipparei, in an unspecified manner.


转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讟讛专讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讗住讜专讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing kosher and non-kosher animals: 鈥淓very kosher bird [tzippor] you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:11). Since it was necessary for the verse to specify that it is referring to a kosher bird [tzippor], by inference, one may conclude that there is a non-kosher bird [tzippor], in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k. The Gemara rejects this: No, this is not the correct inference. Rather, by inference one may conclude that there is a tzippor that is prohibited for consumption, despite its being a kosher bird.


诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬 讟专驻讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬 讘砖讞讜讟讛 讚诪爪讜专注 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讜讝讛 讗砖专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪讛诐 诇专讘讜转 砖讞讜讟转 诪爪讜专注


The Gemara asks: What is this kosher bird whose prohibition must be derived from this verse? If it is a bird with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], that would be superfluous, as that is written explicitly in the verse: 鈥淎n unslaughtered animal carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat鈥 (Leviticus 22:8). And if it is referring to the slaughtered bird from the purification ritual of a leper, which is prohibited for consumption despite being kosher, that would also be superfluous, since it is derived from the latter clause of the verse in Deuteronomy, as the verse states: 鈥淏ut these are they of which you shall not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:12), which serves to include the slaughtered bird of the leper.


诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讞讜讟讛 讚诪爪讜专注 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讜诇讜拽诪讛 讘讟专驻讛 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬谞讜 讜讘注谞讬谞讗 讚砖讞讜讟讛 讻转讬讘


The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse: 鈥淓very kosher bird you may eat,鈥 is referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, and the verse indicates that one transgresses the positive mitzva of: 鈥淵ou may eat,鈥 in addition to the prohibition of: 鈥淏ut these are they of which you shall not eat,鈥 on account of it. The Gemara objects: But why not interpret the verse as referring to a tereifa, and explain that the verse teaches that one transgresses a positive mitzva and a prohibition on account of it? The Gemara responds: The verse should be interpreted as referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, since it is a matter derived from its context, as that verse is written in the context of a slaughtered bird. By contrast, a tereifa is not properly slaughtered, and interpreting the verse in that manner does not fit the context.


转讗 砖诪注 砖转讬 爪驻专讬诐 讞讬讜转 诪讗讬 讞讬讜转 诇讗讜 砖讞讬讜转 讘驻讬讱 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讗讜 砖讞讬讜转 讘驻讬讱 诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讜转 砖讞讬讬谉 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖诇讛谉


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing the purification ritual of a leper: 鈥淭hen shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two living birds [tzipporim] that are kosher鈥 (Leviticus 14:4). Since the birds are obviously alive before the purification ritual begins, what is the meaning of the word 鈥渓iving鈥? Is it not that they are living in your mouth, i.e., permitted for consumption? If so, by inference, one may conclude that there are birds [tzipporim] that are not living in your mouth, i.e., that are not kosher. The Gemara rejects this: No, that is not its meaning. Rather, what is the meaning of the word 鈥渓iving鈥? It means that their extremities are living, i.e., attached to their bodies. The verse indicates that the kosher birds must have all their limbs attached to their bodies in order to be used in the purification ritual.


转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讟讛专讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讟诪讗讜转 诇讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讟专驻讜转


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the latter clause of that verse: 鈥淭wo living birds [tzipporim] that are kosher.鈥 Since it was necessary for the verse to specify that it is referring to kosher birds, by inference one may conclude that there are non-kosher birds, in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k. The Gemara rejects this: No, that is not the correct inference. Rather, by inference one may conclude that there are other birds of kosher species that may not be used for this ritual, i.e., tereifot.


讟专驻讜转 诪讞讬讜转 谞驻拽讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜注讜讚 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诪讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞驻拽讗


The Gemara objects: But the disqualification of tereifot is already derived from the word 鈥渓iving鈥 in that verse. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa can live (see 42a); it is therefore necessary for the verse to state 鈥渒osher鈥 to exclude tereifot, because one could not have derived it from the word 鈥渓iving.鈥 But according to the one who says that a tereifa animal cannot live, what is there to say? Let it be derived from the word 鈥渓iving.鈥 And furthermore, whether according to the one who says that a tereifa can live or according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, it is not necessary to derive the exclusion of tereifot from the word 鈥渒osher,鈥 since it is derived from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.


讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘讞讜抓


As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: It is stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the sin offering of a woman who has given birth or the guilt offering of a leper, and there are offerings that atone, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, all of which are brought inside the Temple. And it is also stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the birds of a leper鈥檚 purification ritual, and offerings that atone, e.g., the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, that are brought outside the Temple.


诪讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻谞讬诐 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜抓 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专


The baraita continues: Therefore, the offerings brought outside the Temple are compared to those offered inside: Just as with regard to the offerings that enable or atone stated in the Torah that are offered inside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables like the offering that atones, as even the former has portions of it that are burned on the altar, so too, with regard to offerings that enable or atone stated in the Torah that are offered outside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables like the offering that atones. Accordingly, just as the scapegoat must not be a tereifa, so too, the birds of a leper鈥檚 purification ritual must not be tereifot. If so, there is no need to derive the exclusion of tereifa birds from the word 鈥渒osher.鈥


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪驻讜专讬 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讬诇讜讞 诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 砖诇讞 诇转拽诇讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讞讬讟讛


Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The word 鈥渒osher鈥 serves to exclude birds from an idolatrous city. Such a city must be burned to the ground, and it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any of its contents. The verse indicates that such a bird is unfit for use in the leper鈥檚 purification ritual. The Gemara asks: For what function are such birds rendered unfit by the word 鈥渒osher鈥? If the verse means to render them unfit for sending away as part of the ritual, this is unnecessary, since the Torah did not say to send a bird only to create a stumbling block. It is obvious that any bird prohibited for consumption is unfit for sending, since the Torah would not allow for the possibility that the bird sent away will be trapped and consumed by unwitting individuals. Rather, the verse means to render them unfit for use as the bird intended for slaughter.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖诇讗 诇讝讜讜讙 诇讛 讗讞专转 拽讜讚诐 砖诇讜讞讬讛 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讛讗 讘注讬讗 砖讬诇讜讞 讗诇讗 诇砖讬诇讜讞


Rava said: The word 鈥渒osher鈥 serves to exclude the repeated use of a bird, i.e., a leper may not pair a bird with another bird from a previous leper, before its being sent away. The Gemara asks: For what function does the word 鈥渒osher鈥 indicate that a bird may not be reused? If it means to indicate that the bird intended for being sent away by the first leper may not be used for slaughter by the second leper, the verse is unnecessary, as this bird requires being sent away as part of the first leper鈥檚 purification ritual. Rather, the verse means to indicate that the bird intended for being sent away by the first leper may not be used for sending simultaneously by the second leper.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇爪驻讜专讬诐 砖讛讞诇讬驻讜 讘爪驻讜专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讬转 讞专诐 讻诪讛讜 讻诇 诪讛 砖讗转讛 诪讛讬讬讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讻诪讜讛讜 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讬诇讜讞 诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 砖诇讞 诇转拽诇讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讞讬讟讛


Rav Pappa said: The word 鈥渒osher鈥 serves to exclude the use of birds that were exchanged for birds of idol worship, i.e., a gentile paid a Jew for his idol by giving the Jew birds. Such birds are prohibited from use in the leper鈥檚 ritual, as it is written about objects of idol worship: 鈥淎nd you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and become [vahayita] accursed like it鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26), indicating that anything that you generate [mehayye] from it, e.g., through exchange, is prohibited like it. The Gemara asks: For what function does the word 鈥渒osher鈥 indicate that such birds are prohibited? If it serves to exclude such birds from being sent away, this is unnecessary, because the Torah did not say: Send it away, if doing so could lead to a mishap. If the bird were prohibited, the Torah would not have commanded one to send it away, as others might eat it unwittingly. Rather, the word 鈥渒osher鈥 serves to disqualify such birds for slaughter.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘注讜祝 砖讛专讙 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讙诪专 讚讬谞讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 拽讜讚诐 讙诪专 讚讬谞讗 讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讬诇讜讞 讘注讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜拽讬讜诪讬 讜讘注专转 讛专注 诪拽专讘讱 讗诇讗 诇砖讞讬讟讛


Ravina said: Here we are dealing with a bird that killed a person and is therefore subject to being killed. The verse indicates that such a bird is unfit for use in the leper鈥檚 ritual. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued, then it is subject to being killed, and there is no need for the verse to teach that it cannot be used in the ritual. Rather, it must be referring to a bird before its verdict of execution was issued. And for what function does the verse exclude such a bird? If it serves to exclude the bird from sending away, this is unnecessary, since one is required to bring it to the court to fulfill the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall eradicate the evil from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:6). Obviously, one may not send it away. Rather, the verse serves to disqualify such a bird for slaughter.


注讜祝 讟诪讗 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜祝 讟诪讗 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 讟讛讜专 讘注讬谞谉 爪驻讜专 讜诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗 讛讗 爪驻讜专 讛讜讗


搂 The mishna states: If a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. The Gemara objects: Granted, it is understandable that one is exempt in a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, since we require a kosher bird, as the verse uses the word tzippor (Deuteronomy 22:6) in this context, which the Gemara earlier (139b) interpreted as a reference to a kosher bird, and this bird is not kosher. But in a case where a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, it is a tzippor, a kosher bird, and one should be required to send it away.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 转拽讞 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转拽讞 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬讱


The Gemara responds that this is in accordance with that which Rav Kahana said in a different context: The verse states: 鈥淏ut the young you may take for yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:7), indicating that one is required to send away the mother only if the eggs are fit for consumption, but not if they are fit only for your dog. Here too, with regard to non-kosher eggs, the mitzva applies only if you may take for yourself, but not if they are fit only for your dog because they are not kosher.


讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诐 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讟专驻讜转 驻讟讜专 诪砖讬诇讜讞 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 转拽讞 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬讱


The Gemara asks: And where was this statement of Rav Kahana stated? The Gemara answers that it was stated with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: Even if the mother bird is a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother from the nest. But if the fledglings are tereifot, one is exempt from sending away the mother. From where is this matter derived? Rav Kahana said: As the verse states: 鈥淵ou may take for yourself,鈥 indicating that you are required to send away the mother only if the fledglings are fit for consumption, but not if they are fit only for your dog because they are tereifot.


讜诇讛拽讬砖 讗诐 讟专驻讛 诇讗驻专讜讞讬诐 诪讛 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讟专驻讜转 驻讟讜专 诪砖讬诇讜讞 讗祝 讗诐 讟专驻讛 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞


The Gemara objects: But why not compare a tereifa mother bird to tereifa fledglings and say: Just as with regard to tereifa fledglings one is exempt from sending away the mother, so too, with regard to a tereifa mother one should also be exempt from sending her away.


讗诐 讻谉 爪驻讜专 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara responds: If so, that the mother should be compared to the fledglings, then why do I need the word tzippor鈥 to exclude a non-kosher bird? One could simply derive it from the fact that one is exempt from the mitzva in the case of non-kosher fledglings, since they are not fit for consumption. Rather, since it was necessary for the verse to teach that non-kosher birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother, it must be that no such comparison is to be drawn.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 讗驻专讜讞讬谉 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻专讜讞 砖讗诪谉 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞


The Gemara questions the statement of Rav Kahana that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest does not apply in the case of fledglings unfit for consumption: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a mother of fledglings, in the case of a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the nest? The baraita appears to teach that even if the fledglings themselves are tereifot, one is obligated in the mitzva. Abaye said in response: The word tereifa is not referring to the fledglings. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of a fledgling whose mother is a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. This baraita, then, is in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana.


讘注讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇拽谉 讜砖讞讟 诪讬注讜讟 住讬诪谞讬诐 诪讛讜


搂 With regard to the statement of Rav Kahana above, Rav Hoshaya raises a dilemma: If one stretched his hand into a nest containing a mother bird and its fledglings and slaughtered, i.e., severed, a minority of the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, of the fledglings,what is the halakha with regard to sending away the mother bird?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 诪讟专驻讬 讘注讬谞谉 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讬讚讜 诇诪讙诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 转拽讞 诇讱 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 转讬拽讜


The two sides of the dilemma are explained: Do we say: Since if those fledglings are left as they are, with only partially severed simanim, they will eventually be rendered tereifot, one is therefore exempt from sending away the mother because we require that the fledglings be taken 鈥渇or yourself,鈥 and not for your dog? Or perhaps, since it is in his power to complete the act of slaughter, thereby permitting the fledglings for consumption, we may call this case: 鈥淭ake for yourself,鈥 and one is obligated to send away the mother bird. Since no answer is given, the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讟诇讬转 诪讛讜 砖转讞讜抓 讻谞驻讬诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讞讜爪讜


Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a case where a rag is lying in the nest between the mother bird and the eggs, what is the halakha? Does it interposebetween them,such that the mother is not considered to be resting upon the eggs? If so, one would be exempt from sending away the mother. Similarly, if feathers are detached from a bird鈥檚 wings and are lying between the mother bird and the eggs, what is the halakha? Do they interpose between the eggs and the mother?


讘讬爪讬诐 诪讜讝专讜转 诪讛讜 砖谞讬 住讚专讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 诪讛讜 讝讻专 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讜谞拽讘讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讝讻专 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


Rabbi Yirmeya continues: If unfertilized [muzarot] eggs separate between the mother bird and fertilized eggs, what is the halakha? Additionally, in a case where two sets of fertilized eggs are lying one on top of the other, what is the halakha? Does the upper set of eggs interpose between the mother and the lower set? Furthermore, what is the halakha in a case where a male bird is resting on top of the eggs and a female bird is resting on top of the male? Does the male bird interpose between the female and the eggs? No answers are given, so the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved in all of these cases.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬讜谞讛 注诇 讘讬爪讬 转住讬诇 诪讛讜 转住讬诇 注诇 讘讬爪讬 讬讜谞讛 诪讛讜


Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If a pigeon is resting upon the eggs of a tasil, a kosher bird resembling a pigeon, what is the halakha with regard to sending away the mother bird from the nest? Likewise, if a tasil is resting upon the eggs of a pigeon, what is the halakha?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 注讜祝 讟诪讗 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜讟讛讜专 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪砖讬诇讜讞 讛讗 讟讛讜专 讜讟讛讜专 讞讬讬讘 讚诇诪讗 讘拽讜专讗


Abaye said: Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. One may infer from the mishna that in a case involving a kosher bird and kosher eggs, e.g., a tasil resting on the eggs of a pigeon, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps this inference applies only to the case of a female pheasant, which normally rests upon the eggs of other birds. Since this is its normal behavior, one is obligated to send it away even if it rests upon the eggs of another kosher bird. This may not be the case with regard to a tasil or pigeon.


拽讜专讗 讝讻专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗转讬讗 讚讙讬专讛 讚讙讬专讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 拽讜专讗 讚讙专 讜诇讗 讬诇讚 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讘拽注讛 讜讚讙专讛 讘爪诇讛


搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of a male pheasant that rests upon the eggs of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send away the pheasant, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away. With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? According to Rabbi Eliezer, a verbal analogy between brooding stated with regard to a male pheasant and brooding with regard to a female bird comes to indicate that the resting of a male pheasant upon its eggs is considered an effective resting. It is written here: 鈥淎s the pheasant that broods over young that he has not brought forth鈥 (Jeremiah 17:11), and it is written elsewhere about a female bird: 鈥淭here shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and brood under her shadow鈥 (Isaiah 34:15). Just as a female bird broods over its nest, so too, a male pheasant broods over a nest. Therefore, one is required to send away the male bird from the nest as well.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽讜专讗 讝讻专 讗讘诇 讘拽讜专讗 谞拽讘讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 驻砖讬讟讗 拽讜专讗 讝讻专 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讜专讗 谞拽讘讛 驻讟专讬 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讝讻专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


With regard to this dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, Rabbi Elazar says: Their dispute is only with regard to a male pheasant, but with regard to a female pheasant all agree that one is obligated to send away the bird. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, given that we learned in the mishna: A male pheasant? The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the Rabbis deem one exempt from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird even in the case of a female pheasant, and as for that which the mishna teaches the dispute in the case of a male pheasant, the reason is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, in that he requires one to send away even a male pheasant, therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that the Rabbis agree that one must send away a female pheasant.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽讜专讗 讝讻专 讗讘诇 讘讝讻专 讚注诇诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 拽讜专讗 讝讻专 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讝讻专 讚注诇诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 拽讜专讗 讝讻专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


And Rabbi Elazar also says: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is only with regard to a male pheasant, but with regard to male birds in general, all agree that one is exempt from the mitzva of sending away the bird from the nest. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, given that we learned in the mishna: A male pheasant? The Gemara responds: Lest you say that Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send away even male birds in general, and that which the mishna teaches: A male pheasant, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, in that they also deem one exempt from sending a male pheasant, therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that even according to Rabbi Eliezer, one is exempt from sending away male birds in general.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝讻专 讚注诇诪讗 驻讟讜专 拽讜专讗 讝讻专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉


The Gemara notes: This explanation of Rabbi Elazar is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a male bird in general, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending it away, but with regard to a male pheasant, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send it away from the nest, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讘讝诪谉 砖讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讗讬谉 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讗驻专讜讞 讗讞讚 讗讜 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 砖谞讗诪专 拽谉 拽谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


MISHNA: If the mother bird was hovering over the eggs or fledglings in the nest, when its wings are touching the eggs or fledglings in the nest, one is obligated to send away the mother. When its wings are not touching the eggs or fledglings in the nest, one is exempt from sending away the mother. Even if there is only one fledgling or one egg, one is obligated to send away the mother, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens before you鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the nest in any case.


讛讬讜 砖诐 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 诪驻专讬讞讬诐 讗讜 讘讬爪讬诐 诪讜讝专讜转 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讗诐 专讘爪转 注诇 讛讗驻专讞讬诐 讗讜 注诇 讛讘讬爪讬诐 诪讛 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讘谞讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讗祝 讘讬爪讬诐 讘谞讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讬爪讗讜 诪讜讝专讜转 讜诪讛 讛讘讬爪讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讗诪谉 讗祝 讛讗驻专讜讞讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讗诪谉 讬爪讗讜 诪驻专讬讞讬谉


If there were fledglings capable of flying, or unfertilized eggs from which a fledgling will not hatch, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird from the nest, as it is stated in the same verse: 鈥淎nd the mother is resting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs.鈥 From the juxtaposition of the fledglings and the eggs one derives: Just as the fledglings are living, so too, the eggs must be capable of producing living fledglings. This excludes unfertilized eggs, which cannot produce a living fledgling. And furthermore, just as the eggs need their mothers to hatch them, so too, the fledglings must be those that need their mothers. This excludes fledglings that are capable of flying.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讘爪转 讜诇讗 诪注讜驻驻转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讘爪转 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 诪讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讬讜砖讘转


GEMARA: The mishna discusses the case of a mother bird that hovers over the nest. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse teaches that one is obligated to send away the mother bird only when it is at rest, as it states: 鈥淎nd the mother is resting upon the fledglings鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), and not when it is hovering. One might have thought that one is exempt even if the mother is hovering and its wings are touching the nest. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淩esting,鈥 indicating that in fact one is obligated in the mitzva in such a case. The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation, i.e., how is this derived from the word 鈥渞esting鈥? The Gemara responds: It is derived from the fact that the word sitting is not written in the verse. Although a bird whose wings are touching the nest is not sitting upon it, such a bird is considered to be resting upon it.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 专讜讗讬诐 讻诇 砖讗诐 转砖诪讟 谞讜驻诇转 注诇讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专


Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If the mother bird was sitting above the eggs or fledglings between two tree branches, one looks at the following factor in order to determine whether the obligation to send away the mother applies: In any case where if the branches were to separate, the bird would slip between them and fall upon the eggs or fledglings, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. And if the bird would not fall upon them, but to the sides, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞


The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav from that which was taught in a baraita: If the mother bird was sitting among the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), i.e., upon and not among. If it was sitting above them, one is obligated to send it away. If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚谞讙注讛 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚谞讙注讛 讘讛讜 讗讘诇 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 驻讟讜专


What, is it not that the case of sitting above them is similar to the case of sitting between them? The Gemara elaborates: Just as in the case of sitting between them one is exempt where she is touching them, so too, in the case of sitting above them one is obligated where she is touching them. If so, conclude from this baraita that one is obligated only if the bird is touching the fledglings or eggs, but if it is sitting between two tree branches above the eggs or fledglings without touching them, one is exempt from sending her away.


诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚诇讗 谞讙注讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚诇讗 谞讙注讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉


The Gemara rejects this: No; actually, the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is not touching them from above, but from the side, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is not touching them from above. Accordingly, the baraita teaches that one is obligated to send away the bird if it is resting on branches above the nest, even though it is not touching the eggs or fledglings. And that is the case where the mother is sitting between two tree branches.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 驻讟讜专 讗讚转谞讬 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 诇讬转谞讬 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪注讜驻驻转


The Gemara notes: This, too, stands to reason, that one is obligated to send away a mother bird that is sitting between two tree branches above the nest. As, if it should enter your mind that one is exempt when the mother bird is sitting between two tree branches, then one may ask: Rather than teaching that if it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away, let the baraita teach that one is exempt in the case of a mother bird that is sitting between two tree branches, and all the more so if the mother is hovering.


诪注讜驻驻转 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞


The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one is exempt from sending the mother bird if it is resting between two tree branches. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the tanna to teach the case of a hovering bird, in order to teach that even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. Had the tanna taught the exemption in a case of a bird resting between two tree branches, one might have thought that this is because the bird鈥檚 wings are not touching the nest.


讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘谞讜讙注 诪谉 讛爪讚


The Gemara now questions the baraita itself: How can the baraita state that even if the hovering bird鈥檚 wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending the bird away? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: When its wings are touching the nest, one is obligated to send away the mother? Rabbi Yirmeya said: When the case of the hovering mother bird is taught in the baraita, it is referring to a bird touching the nest from the side. In such a case, one is exempt because its wings are not touching the nest from above. By contrast, the mishna is referring to a case where the bird is hovering directly above the nest and touching the nest with its wings from above.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞


There are those who say that the discussion proceeded as follows: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav: If the mother bird was sitting among the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away. If it was sitting above them, one is obligated to send it away. If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚诇讗 谞讙注讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚诇讗 谞讙注讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉


What, is it not that the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is not touching them from above but from the side, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is not touching them from above? If so, the baraita teaches that if the bird rests on branches over the eggs or fledglings without touching them, one is obligated in the mitzva. And that is the case where the mother is sitting between two tree branches.


诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚谞讙注讛 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚谞讙注讛 讘讛讜 讗讘诇 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 驻讟讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专


The Gemara rejects this: No, the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is touching them, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is touching them. Accordingly, one is obligated only if the bird is touching the nest from above; but if it is sitting between two tree branches without touching the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away. The Gemara objects: If that is so, rather than teaching in the last clause: If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away,


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 140

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 140

讜讘注谞驻讜讛讬 讬讚讜专谉 爪驻专讬 砖诪讬讗 爪驻专讬 砖诪讬讗 讗讬拽专讜 爪驻专讬 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜


stated in the verse describing a tree: 鈥淎nd in its branches will dwell the birds [tzipparei] of the heaven鈥 (Daniel 4:9). The verse states only: 鈥淭he birds [tzipparei],鈥 and not: The birds of any type of wing. Accordingly, the term 鈥渢he birds [tzipparei]鈥 must be referring to all birds, whether kosher or non-kosher, since all birds dwell in tree branches. The Gemara rejects this: Non-kosher birds are called: Birds [tzipparei] of the heaven, but they are not called: Tzipparei, in an unspecified manner.


转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讟讛专讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讗住讜专讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing kosher and non-kosher animals: 鈥淓very kosher bird [tzippor] you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:11). Since it was necessary for the verse to specify that it is referring to a kosher bird [tzippor], by inference, one may conclude that there is a non-kosher bird [tzippor], in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k. The Gemara rejects this: No, this is not the correct inference. Rather, by inference one may conclude that there is a tzippor that is prohibited for consumption, despite its being a kosher bird.


诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬 讟专驻讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬 讘砖讞讜讟讛 讚诪爪讜专注 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讜讝讛 讗砖专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪讛诐 诇专讘讜转 砖讞讜讟转 诪爪讜专注


The Gemara asks: What is this kosher bird whose prohibition must be derived from this verse? If it is a bird with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], that would be superfluous, as that is written explicitly in the verse: 鈥淎n unslaughtered animal carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat鈥 (Leviticus 22:8). And if it is referring to the slaughtered bird from the purification ritual of a leper, which is prohibited for consumption despite being kosher, that would also be superfluous, since it is derived from the latter clause of the verse in Deuteronomy, as the verse states: 鈥淏ut these are they of which you shall not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:12), which serves to include the slaughtered bird of the leper.


诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讞讜讟讛 讚诪爪讜专注 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讜诇讜拽诪讛 讘讟专驻讛 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬谞讜 讜讘注谞讬谞讗 讚砖讞讜讟讛 讻转讬讘


The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse: 鈥淓very kosher bird you may eat,鈥 is referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, and the verse indicates that one transgresses the positive mitzva of: 鈥淵ou may eat,鈥 in addition to the prohibition of: 鈥淏ut these are they of which you shall not eat,鈥 on account of it. The Gemara objects: But why not interpret the verse as referring to a tereifa, and explain that the verse teaches that one transgresses a positive mitzva and a prohibition on account of it? The Gemara responds: The verse should be interpreted as referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, since it is a matter derived from its context, as that verse is written in the context of a slaughtered bird. By contrast, a tereifa is not properly slaughtered, and interpreting the verse in that manner does not fit the context.


转讗 砖诪注 砖转讬 爪驻专讬诐 讞讬讜转 诪讗讬 讞讬讜转 诇讗讜 砖讞讬讜转 讘驻讬讱 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讗讜 砖讞讬讜转 讘驻讬讱 诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讜转 砖讞讬讬谉 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖诇讛谉


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing the purification ritual of a leper: 鈥淭hen shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two living birds [tzipporim] that are kosher鈥 (Leviticus 14:4). Since the birds are obviously alive before the purification ritual begins, what is the meaning of the word 鈥渓iving鈥? Is it not that they are living in your mouth, i.e., permitted for consumption? If so, by inference, one may conclude that there are birds [tzipporim] that are not living in your mouth, i.e., that are not kosher. The Gemara rejects this: No, that is not its meaning. Rather, what is the meaning of the word 鈥渓iving鈥? It means that their extremities are living, i.e., attached to their bodies. The verse indicates that the kosher birds must have all their limbs attached to their bodies in order to be used in the purification ritual.


转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讟讛专讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讟诪讗讜转 诇讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讟专驻讜转


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the latter clause of that verse: 鈥淭wo living birds [tzipporim] that are kosher.鈥 Since it was necessary for the verse to specify that it is referring to kosher birds, by inference one may conclude that there are non-kosher birds, in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k. The Gemara rejects this: No, that is not the correct inference. Rather, by inference one may conclude that there are other birds of kosher species that may not be used for this ritual, i.e., tereifot.


讟专驻讜转 诪讞讬讜转 谞驻拽讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜注讜讚 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诪讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞驻拽讗


The Gemara objects: But the disqualification of tereifot is already derived from the word 鈥渓iving鈥 in that verse. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa can live (see 42a); it is therefore necessary for the verse to state 鈥渒osher鈥 to exclude tereifot, because one could not have derived it from the word 鈥渓iving.鈥 But according to the one who says that a tereifa animal cannot live, what is there to say? Let it be derived from the word 鈥渓iving.鈥 And furthermore, whether according to the one who says that a tereifa can live or according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, it is not necessary to derive the exclusion of tereifot from the word 鈥渒osher,鈥 since it is derived from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.


讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘讞讜抓


As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: It is stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the sin offering of a woman who has given birth or the guilt offering of a leper, and there are offerings that atone, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, all of which are brought inside the Temple. And it is also stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the birds of a leper鈥檚 purification ritual, and offerings that atone, e.g., the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, that are brought outside the Temple.


诪讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻谞讬诐 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜抓 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专


The baraita continues: Therefore, the offerings brought outside the Temple are compared to those offered inside: Just as with regard to the offerings that enable or atone stated in the Torah that are offered inside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables like the offering that atones, as even the former has portions of it that are burned on the altar, so too, with regard to offerings that enable or atone stated in the Torah that are offered outside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables like the offering that atones. Accordingly, just as the scapegoat must not be a tereifa, so too, the birds of a leper鈥檚 purification ritual must not be tereifot. If so, there is no need to derive the exclusion of tereifa birds from the word 鈥渒osher.鈥


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪驻讜专讬 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讬诇讜讞 诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 砖诇讞 诇转拽诇讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讞讬讟讛


Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The word 鈥渒osher鈥 serves to exclude birds from an idolatrous city. Such a city must be burned to the ground, and it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any of its contents. The verse indicates that such a bird is unfit for use in the leper鈥檚 purification ritual. The Gemara asks: For what function are such birds rendered unfit by the word 鈥渒osher鈥? If the verse means to render them unfit for sending away as part of the ritual, this is unnecessary, since the Torah did not say to send a bird only to create a stumbling block. It is obvious that any bird prohibited for consumption is unfit for sending, since the Torah would not allow for the possibility that the bird sent away will be trapped and consumed by unwitting individuals. Rather, the verse means to render them unfit for use as the bird intended for slaughter.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖诇讗 诇讝讜讜讙 诇讛 讗讞专转 拽讜讚诐 砖诇讜讞讬讛 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讛讗 讘注讬讗 砖讬诇讜讞 讗诇讗 诇砖讬诇讜讞


Rava said: The word 鈥渒osher鈥 serves to exclude the repeated use of a bird, i.e., a leper may not pair a bird with another bird from a previous leper, before its being sent away. The Gemara asks: For what function does the word 鈥渒osher鈥 indicate that a bird may not be reused? If it means to indicate that the bird intended for being sent away by the first leper may not be used for slaughter by the second leper, the verse is unnecessary, as this bird requires being sent away as part of the first leper鈥檚 purification ritual. Rather, the verse means to indicate that the bird intended for being sent away by the first leper may not be used for sending simultaneously by the second leper.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇爪驻讜专讬诐 砖讛讞诇讬驻讜 讘爪驻讜专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讬转 讞专诐 讻诪讛讜 讻诇 诪讛 砖讗转讛 诪讛讬讬讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讻诪讜讛讜 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讬诇讜讞 诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 砖诇讞 诇转拽诇讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讞讬讟讛


Rav Pappa said: The word 鈥渒osher鈥 serves to exclude the use of birds that were exchanged for birds of idol worship, i.e., a gentile paid a Jew for his idol by giving the Jew birds. Such birds are prohibited from use in the leper鈥檚 ritual, as it is written about objects of idol worship: 鈥淎nd you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and become [vahayita] accursed like it鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26), indicating that anything that you generate [mehayye] from it, e.g., through exchange, is prohibited like it. The Gemara asks: For what function does the word 鈥渒osher鈥 indicate that such birds are prohibited? If it serves to exclude such birds from being sent away, this is unnecessary, because the Torah did not say: Send it away, if doing so could lead to a mishap. If the bird were prohibited, the Torah would not have commanded one to send it away, as others might eat it unwittingly. Rather, the word 鈥渒osher鈥 serves to disqualify such birds for slaughter.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘注讜祝 砖讛专讙 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讙诪专 讚讬谞讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 拽讜讚诐 讙诪专 讚讬谞讗 讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讬诇讜讞 讘注讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜拽讬讜诪讬 讜讘注专转 讛专注 诪拽专讘讱 讗诇讗 诇砖讞讬讟讛


Ravina said: Here we are dealing with a bird that killed a person and is therefore subject to being killed. The verse indicates that such a bird is unfit for use in the leper鈥檚 ritual. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued, then it is subject to being killed, and there is no need for the verse to teach that it cannot be used in the ritual. Rather, it must be referring to a bird before its verdict of execution was issued. And for what function does the verse exclude such a bird? If it serves to exclude the bird from sending away, this is unnecessary, since one is required to bring it to the court to fulfill the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall eradicate the evil from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:6). Obviously, one may not send it away. Rather, the verse serves to disqualify such a bird for slaughter.


注讜祝 讟诪讗 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜祝 讟诪讗 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 讟讛讜专 讘注讬谞谉 爪驻讜专 讜诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗 讛讗 爪驻讜专 讛讜讗


搂 The mishna states: If a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. The Gemara objects: Granted, it is understandable that one is exempt in a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, since we require a kosher bird, as the verse uses the word tzippor (Deuteronomy 22:6) in this context, which the Gemara earlier (139b) interpreted as a reference to a kosher bird, and this bird is not kosher. But in a case where a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, it is a tzippor, a kosher bird, and one should be required to send it away.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 转拽讞 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转拽讞 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬讱


The Gemara responds that this is in accordance with that which Rav Kahana said in a different context: The verse states: 鈥淏ut the young you may take for yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:7), indicating that one is required to send away the mother only if the eggs are fit for consumption, but not if they are fit only for your dog. Here too, with regard to non-kosher eggs, the mitzva applies only if you may take for yourself, but not if they are fit only for your dog because they are not kosher.


讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诐 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讟专驻讜转 驻讟讜专 诪砖讬诇讜讞 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 转拽讞 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬讱


The Gemara asks: And where was this statement of Rav Kahana stated? The Gemara answers that it was stated with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: Even if the mother bird is a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother from the nest. But if the fledglings are tereifot, one is exempt from sending away the mother. From where is this matter derived? Rav Kahana said: As the verse states: 鈥淵ou may take for yourself,鈥 indicating that you are required to send away the mother only if the fledglings are fit for consumption, but not if they are fit only for your dog because they are tereifot.


讜诇讛拽讬砖 讗诐 讟专驻讛 诇讗驻专讜讞讬诐 诪讛 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讟专驻讜转 驻讟讜专 诪砖讬诇讜讞 讗祝 讗诐 讟专驻讛 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞


The Gemara objects: But why not compare a tereifa mother bird to tereifa fledglings and say: Just as with regard to tereifa fledglings one is exempt from sending away the mother, so too, with regard to a tereifa mother one should also be exempt from sending her away.


讗诐 讻谉 爪驻讜专 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara responds: If so, that the mother should be compared to the fledglings, then why do I need the word tzippor鈥 to exclude a non-kosher bird? One could simply derive it from the fact that one is exempt from the mitzva in the case of non-kosher fledglings, since they are not fit for consumption. Rather, since it was necessary for the verse to teach that non-kosher birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother, it must be that no such comparison is to be drawn.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 讗驻专讜讞讬谉 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻专讜讞 砖讗诪谉 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞


The Gemara questions the statement of Rav Kahana that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest does not apply in the case of fledglings unfit for consumption: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a mother of fledglings, in the case of a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the nest? The baraita appears to teach that even if the fledglings themselves are tereifot, one is obligated in the mitzva. Abaye said in response: The word tereifa is not referring to the fledglings. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of a fledgling whose mother is a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. This baraita, then, is in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana.


讘注讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇拽谉 讜砖讞讟 诪讬注讜讟 住讬诪谞讬诐 诪讛讜


搂 With regard to the statement of Rav Kahana above, Rav Hoshaya raises a dilemma: If one stretched his hand into a nest containing a mother bird and its fledglings and slaughtered, i.e., severed, a minority of the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, of the fledglings,what is the halakha with regard to sending away the mother bird?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 诪讟专驻讬 讘注讬谞谉 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讬讚讜 诇诪讙诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 转拽讞 诇讱 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘砖讬诇讜讞 转讬拽讜


The two sides of the dilemma are explained: Do we say: Since if those fledglings are left as they are, with only partially severed simanim, they will eventually be rendered tereifot, one is therefore exempt from sending away the mother because we require that the fledglings be taken 鈥渇or yourself,鈥 and not for your dog? Or perhaps, since it is in his power to complete the act of slaughter, thereby permitting the fledglings for consumption, we may call this case: 鈥淭ake for yourself,鈥 and one is obligated to send away the mother bird. Since no answer is given, the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讟诇讬转 诪讛讜 砖转讞讜抓 讻谞驻讬诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讞讜爪讜


Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a case where a rag is lying in the nest between the mother bird and the eggs, what is the halakha? Does it interposebetween them,such that the mother is not considered to be resting upon the eggs? If so, one would be exempt from sending away the mother. Similarly, if feathers are detached from a bird鈥檚 wings and are lying between the mother bird and the eggs, what is the halakha? Do they interpose between the eggs and the mother?


讘讬爪讬诐 诪讜讝专讜转 诪讛讜 砖谞讬 住讚专讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 诪讛讜 讝讻专 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讜谞拽讘讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讝讻专 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


Rabbi Yirmeya continues: If unfertilized [muzarot] eggs separate between the mother bird and fertilized eggs, what is the halakha? Additionally, in a case where two sets of fertilized eggs are lying one on top of the other, what is the halakha? Does the upper set of eggs interpose between the mother and the lower set? Furthermore, what is the halakha in a case where a male bird is resting on top of the eggs and a female bird is resting on top of the male? Does the male bird interpose between the female and the eggs? No answers are given, so the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved in all of these cases.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬讜谞讛 注诇 讘讬爪讬 转住讬诇 诪讛讜 转住讬诇 注诇 讘讬爪讬 讬讜谞讛 诪讛讜


Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If a pigeon is resting upon the eggs of a tasil, a kosher bird resembling a pigeon, what is the halakha with regard to sending away the mother bird from the nest? Likewise, if a tasil is resting upon the eggs of a pigeon, what is the halakha?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 注讜祝 讟诪讗 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜讟讛讜专 专讜讘抓 注诇 讘讬爪讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪砖讬诇讜讞 讛讗 讟讛讜专 讜讟讛讜专 讞讬讬讘 讚诇诪讗 讘拽讜专讗


Abaye said: Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. One may infer from the mishna that in a case involving a kosher bird and kosher eggs, e.g., a tasil resting on the eggs of a pigeon, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps this inference applies only to the case of a female pheasant, which normally rests upon the eggs of other birds. Since this is its normal behavior, one is obligated to send it away even if it rests upon the eggs of another kosher bird. This may not be the case with regard to a tasil or pigeon.


拽讜专讗 讝讻专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗转讬讗 讚讙讬专讛 讚讙讬专讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 拽讜专讗 讚讙专 讜诇讗 讬诇讚 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讘拽注讛 讜讚讙专讛 讘爪诇讛


搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of a male pheasant that rests upon the eggs of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send away the pheasant, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away. With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? According to Rabbi Eliezer, a verbal analogy between brooding stated with regard to a male pheasant and brooding with regard to a female bird comes to indicate that the resting of a male pheasant upon its eggs is considered an effective resting. It is written here: 鈥淎s the pheasant that broods over young that he has not brought forth鈥 (Jeremiah 17:11), and it is written elsewhere about a female bird: 鈥淭here shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and brood under her shadow鈥 (Isaiah 34:15). Just as a female bird broods over its nest, so too, a male pheasant broods over a nest. Therefore, one is required to send away the male bird from the nest as well.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽讜专讗 讝讻专 讗讘诇 讘拽讜专讗 谞拽讘讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 驻砖讬讟讗 拽讜专讗 讝讻专 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讜专讗 谞拽讘讛 驻讟专讬 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讝讻专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


With regard to this dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, Rabbi Elazar says: Their dispute is only with regard to a male pheasant, but with regard to a female pheasant all agree that one is obligated to send away the bird. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, given that we learned in the mishna: A male pheasant? The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the Rabbis deem one exempt from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird even in the case of a female pheasant, and as for that which the mishna teaches the dispute in the case of a male pheasant, the reason is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, in that he requires one to send away even a male pheasant, therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that the Rabbis agree that one must send away a female pheasant.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽讜专讗 讝讻专 讗讘诇 讘讝讻专 讚注诇诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 拽讜专讗 讝讻专 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讝讻专 讚注诇诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 拽讜专讗 讝讻专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


And Rabbi Elazar also says: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is only with regard to a male pheasant, but with regard to male birds in general, all agree that one is exempt from the mitzva of sending away the bird from the nest. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, given that we learned in the mishna: A male pheasant? The Gemara responds: Lest you say that Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send away even male birds in general, and that which the mishna teaches: A male pheasant, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, in that they also deem one exempt from sending a male pheasant, therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that even according to Rabbi Eliezer, one is exempt from sending away male birds in general.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝讻专 讚注诇诪讗 驻讟讜专 拽讜专讗 讝讻专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉


The Gemara notes: This explanation of Rabbi Elazar is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a male bird in general, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending it away, but with regard to a male pheasant, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send it away from the nest, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讘讝诪谉 砖讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讗讬谉 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讗驻专讜讞 讗讞讚 讗讜 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 砖谞讗诪专 拽谉 拽谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


MISHNA: If the mother bird was hovering over the eggs or fledglings in the nest, when its wings are touching the eggs or fledglings in the nest, one is obligated to send away the mother. When its wings are not touching the eggs or fledglings in the nest, one is exempt from sending away the mother. Even if there is only one fledgling or one egg, one is obligated to send away the mother, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a bird鈥檚 nest happens before you鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the nest in any case.


讛讬讜 砖诐 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 诪驻专讬讞讬诐 讗讜 讘讬爪讬诐 诪讜讝专讜转 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讗诐 专讘爪转 注诇 讛讗驻专讞讬诐 讗讜 注诇 讛讘讬爪讬诐 诪讛 讗驻专讜讞讬诐 讘谞讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讗祝 讘讬爪讬诐 讘谞讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讬爪讗讜 诪讜讝专讜转 讜诪讛 讛讘讬爪讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讗诪谉 讗祝 讛讗驻专讜讞讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讗诪谉 讬爪讗讜 诪驻专讬讞讬谉


If there were fledglings capable of flying, or unfertilized eggs from which a fledgling will not hatch, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird from the nest, as it is stated in the same verse: 鈥淎nd the mother is resting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs.鈥 From the juxtaposition of the fledglings and the eggs one derives: Just as the fledglings are living, so too, the eggs must be capable of producing living fledglings. This excludes unfertilized eggs, which cannot produce a living fledgling. And furthermore, just as the eggs need their mothers to hatch them, so too, the fledglings must be those that need their mothers. This excludes fledglings that are capable of flying.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讘爪转 讜诇讗 诪注讜驻驻转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讘爪转 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 诪讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讬讜砖讘转


GEMARA: The mishna discusses the case of a mother bird that hovers over the nest. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse teaches that one is obligated to send away the mother bird only when it is at rest, as it states: 鈥淎nd the mother is resting upon the fledglings鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), and not when it is hovering. One might have thought that one is exempt even if the mother is hovering and its wings are touching the nest. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淩esting,鈥 indicating that in fact one is obligated in the mitzva in such a case. The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation, i.e., how is this derived from the word 鈥渞esting鈥? The Gemara responds: It is derived from the fact that the word sitting is not written in the verse. Although a bird whose wings are touching the nest is not sitting upon it, such a bird is considered to be resting upon it.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 专讜讗讬诐 讻诇 砖讗诐 转砖诪讟 谞讜驻诇转 注诇讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专


Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If the mother bird was sitting above the eggs or fledglings between two tree branches, one looks at the following factor in order to determine whether the obligation to send away the mother applies: In any case where if the branches were to separate, the bird would slip between them and fall upon the eggs or fledglings, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. And if the bird would not fall upon them, but to the sides, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞


The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav from that which was taught in a baraita: If the mother bird was sitting among the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), i.e., upon and not among. If it was sitting above them, one is obligated to send it away. If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚谞讙注讛 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚谞讙注讛 讘讛讜 讗讘诇 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 驻讟讜专


What, is it not that the case of sitting above them is similar to the case of sitting between them? The Gemara elaborates: Just as in the case of sitting between them one is exempt where she is touching them, so too, in the case of sitting above them one is obligated where she is touching them. If so, conclude from this baraita that one is obligated only if the bird is touching the fledglings or eggs, but if it is sitting between two tree branches above the eggs or fledglings without touching them, one is exempt from sending her away.


诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚诇讗 谞讙注讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚诇讗 谞讙注讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉


The Gemara rejects this: No; actually, the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is not touching them from above, but from the side, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is not touching them from above. Accordingly, the baraita teaches that one is obligated to send away the bird if it is resting on branches above the nest, even though it is not touching the eggs or fledglings. And that is the case where the mother is sitting between two tree branches.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 驻讟讜专 讗讚转谞讬 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 诇讬转谞讬 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪注讜驻驻转


The Gemara notes: This, too, stands to reason, that one is obligated to send away a mother bird that is sitting between two tree branches above the nest. As, if it should enter your mind that one is exempt when the mother bird is sitting between two tree branches, then one may ask: Rather than teaching that if it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away, let the baraita teach that one is exempt in the case of a mother bird that is sitting between two tree branches, and all the more so if the mother is hovering.


诪注讜驻驻转 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞


The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one is exempt from sending the mother bird if it is resting between two tree branches. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the tanna to teach the case of a hovering bird, in order to teach that even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. Had the tanna taught the exemption in a case of a bird resting between two tree branches, one might have thought that this is because the bird鈥檚 wings are not touching the nest.


讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘谞讜讙注 诪谉 讛爪讚


The Gemara now questions the baraita itself: How can the baraita state that even if the hovering bird鈥檚 wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending the bird away? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: When its wings are touching the nest, one is obligated to send away the mother? Rabbi Yirmeya said: When the case of the hovering mother bird is taught in the baraita, it is referring to a bird touching the nest from the side. In such a case, one is exempt because its wings are not touching the nest from above. By contrast, the mishna is referring to a case where the bird is hovering directly above the nest and touching the nest with its wings from above.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇讞 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇讞


There are those who say that the discussion proceeded as follows: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav: If the mother bird was sitting among the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away. If it was sitting above them, one is obligated to send it away. If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚诇讗 谞讙注讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚诇讗 谞讙注讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉


What, is it not that the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is not touching them from above but from the side, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is not touching them from above? If so, the baraita teaches that if the bird rests on branches over the eggs or fledglings without touching them, one is obligated in the mitzva. And that is the case where the mother is sitting between two tree branches.


诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚谞讙注讛 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚谞讙注讛 讘讛讜 讗讘诇 专讜讘讚讬 讗讬诇谉 驻讟讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讬转讛 诪注讜驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讛 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽谉 驻讟讜专


The Gemara rejects this: No, the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is touching them, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is touching them. Accordingly, one is obligated only if the bird is touching the nest from above; but if it is sitting between two tree branches without touching the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away. The Gemara objects: If that is so, rather than teaching in the last clause: If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away,


Scroll To Top