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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 16, 2019 | ื™ืดื ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 140

Does the word used in the Torah – tziporย – 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"

ื•ื‘ืขื ืคื•ื”ื™ ื™ื“ื•ืจืŸ ืฆืคืจื™ ืฉืžื™ื ืฆืคืจื™ ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืงืจื• ืฆืคืจื™ ืกืชืžื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื•

stated in the verse describing a tree: โ€œAnd in its branches will dwell the birds [tzipparei] of the heavenโ€ (Daniel 4:9). The verse states only: โ€œThe birds [tzipparei],โ€ and not: The birds of any type of wing. Accordingly, the term โ€œthe birds [tzipparei]โ€ 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื›ืœ ืฆืคื•ืจ ื˜ื”ืจื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืืกื•ืจื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing kosher and non-kosher animals: โ€œEvery kosher bird [tzippor] you may eatโ€ (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 Yitzแธฅak. 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.

ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืื™ ื˜ืจืคื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื™ ื‘ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื“ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืžืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืจื ื ืคืงื ื•ื–ื” ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืื›ืœื• ืžื”ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื—ื•ื˜ืช ืžืฆื•ืจืข

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: โ€œAn unslaughtered animal carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eatโ€ (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: โ€œBut these are they of which you shall not eatโ€ (Deuteronomy 14:12), which serves to include the slaughtered bird of the leper.

ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื“ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื•ืœืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืขืฉื” ื•ื‘ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืœื•ืงืžื” ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ืœืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืขืฉื” ื•ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœืžื“ ืžืขื ื™ื ื• ื•ื‘ืขื ื™ื ื ื“ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse: โ€œEvery kosher bird you may eat,โ€ is referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, and the verse indicates that one transgresses the positive mitzva of: โ€œYou may eat,โ€ in addition to the prohibition of: โ€œBut these are they of which you shall not eat,โ€ 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉืชื™ ืฆืคืจื™ื ื—ื™ื•ืช ืžืื™ ื—ื™ื•ืช ืœืื• ืฉื—ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืคื™ืš ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืื• ืฉื—ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืคื™ืš ืœื ืžืื™ ื—ื™ื•ืช ืฉื—ื™ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื™ ืื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืœื”ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing the purification ritual of a leper: โ€œThen shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two living birds [tzipporim] that are kosherโ€ (Leviticus 14:4). Since the birds are obviously alive before the purification ritual begins, what is the meaning of the word โ€œlivingโ€? 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 โ€œlivingโ€? 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžืกื™ืคื ื˜ื”ืจื•ืช ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื˜ืžืื•ืช ืœื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื˜ืจืคื•ืช

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the latter clause of that verse: โ€œTwo living birds [tzipporim] that are kosher.โ€ 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 Yitzแธฅak. 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.

ื˜ืจืคื•ืช ืžื—ื™ื•ืช ื ืคืงื ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื” ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ืื™ื ื” ื—ื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื™ื” ืžื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื ืคืงื

The Gemara objects: But the disqualification of tereifot is already derived from the word โ€œlivingโ€ 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 โ€œkosherโ€ to exclude tereifot, because one could not have derived it from the word โ€œliving.โ€ 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 โ€œliving.โ€ 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 โ€œkosher,โ€ since it is derived from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.

ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื›ืคืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื›ืคืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ

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 leperโ€™s purification ritual, and offerings that atone, e.g., the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, that are brought outside the Temple.

ืžื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื›ืคืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื›ืžื›ืคืจ ืืฃ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื›ืคืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื›ืžื›ืคืจ

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 leperโ€™s purification ritual must not be tereifot. If so, there is no need to derive the exclusion of tereifa birds from the word โ€œkosher.โ€

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืขื™ืจ ื”ื ื“ื—ืช ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืœื ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืฉืœื— ืœืชืงืœื” ืืœื ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

Rather, Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: The word โ€œkosherโ€ 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 leperโ€™s purification ritual. The Gemara asks: For what function are such birds rendered unfit by the word โ€œkosherโ€? 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.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืฉืœื ืœื–ื•ื•ื’ ืœื” ืื—ืจืช ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ื” ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืืœื ืœืฉื™ืœื•ื—

Rava said: The word โ€œkosherโ€ 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 โ€œkosherโ€ 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 leperโ€™s 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.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืœืฆืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื—ืœื™ืคื• ื‘ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื™ืช ื—ืจื ื›ืžื”ื• ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉืืชื” ืžื”ื™ื™ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืœื ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืฉืœื— ืœืชืงืœื” ืืœื ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

Rav Pappa said: The word โ€œkosherโ€ 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 leperโ€™s ritual, as it is written about objects of idol worship: โ€œAnd you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and become [vahayita] accursed like itโ€ (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 โ€œkosherโ€ 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 โ€œkosherโ€ serves to disqualify such birds for slaughter.

ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ืฉื”ืจื’ ืืช ื”ื ืคืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ื’ืžืจ ื“ื™ื ื ื‘ืจ ืงื˜ืœื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืงื•ื“ื ื’ืžืจ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื‘ืขื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืงื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ื‘ืขืจืช ื”ืจืข ืžืงืจื‘ืš ืืœื ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

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 leperโ€™s 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: โ€œAnd you shall eradicate the evil from your midstโ€ (Deuteronomy 13:6). Obviously, one may not send it away. Rather, the verse serves to disqualify such a bird for slaughter.

ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆืคื•ืจ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืืœื ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ื”ื ืฆืคื•ืจ ื”ื•ื

ยง 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 โ€œtzipporโ€ (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.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืชืงื— ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ืš ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืชืงื— ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ืš

The Gemara responds that this is in accordance with that which Rav Kahana said in a different context: The verse states: โ€œBut the young you may take for yourselfโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ื˜ืจืคื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืชืงื— ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ืš

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: โ€œYou may take for yourself,โ€ 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.

ื•ืœื”ืงื™ืฉ ืื ื˜ืจืคื” ืœืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ืžื” ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ื˜ืจืคื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืืฃ ืื ื˜ืจืคื” ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื—

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.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืฆืคื•ืจ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara responds: If so, that the mother should be compared to the fledglings, then why do I need the word โ€œtzipporโ€ 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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืื ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืคืจื•ื— ืฉืืžืŸ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื•ื—

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 isnโ€™t 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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื”ื•ืฉื™ื˜ ื™ื“ื• ืœืงืŸ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ืžื”ื•

ยง 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?

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืœื• ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืœื”ื• ืžื˜ืจืคื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ืš ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœืžื’ืžืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืชืงื— ืœืš ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืชื™ืงื•

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 โ€œfor yourself,โ€ 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: โ€œTake for yourself,โ€ and one is obligated to send away the mother bird. Since no answer is given, the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื˜ืœื™ืช ืžื”ื• ืฉืชื—ื•ืฅ ื›ื ืคื™ื ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื•ืฆื•

ยง 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 birdโ€™s wings and are lying between the mother bird and the eggs, what is the halakha? Do they interpose between the eggs and the mother?

ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžื•ื–ืจื•ืช ืžื”ื• ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื–ื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื–ื• ืžื”ื• ื–ื›ืจ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื•ื ืงื‘ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื–ื›ืจ ืžื”ื• ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื™ื•ื ื” ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืชืกื™ืœ ืžื”ื• ืชืกื™ืœ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืžื”ื•

ยง 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?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื”ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืงื•ืจื

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.

ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืชื™ื ื“ื’ื™ืจื” ื“ื’ื™ืจื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืงื•ืจื ื“ื’ืจ ื•ืœื ื™ืœื“ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ื•ื‘ืงืขื” ื•ื“ื’ืจื” ื‘ืฆืœื”

ยง 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: โ€œAs the pheasant that broods over young that he has not brought forthโ€ (Jeremiah 17:11), and it is written elsewhere about a female bird: โ€œThere shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and brood under her shadowโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงื•ืจื ื ืงื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืชื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื•ืจื ื ืงื‘ื” ืคื˜ืจื™ ื•ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื–ื›ืจ ืœื”ื•ื“ื™ืขืš ื›ื—ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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: Isnโ€™t 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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื–ื›ืจ ื“ืขืœืžื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืชื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ื›ืจ ื“ืขืœืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืœื”ื•ื“ื™ืขืš ื›ื—ืŸ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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: Isnโ€™t 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.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื–ื›ืจ ื“ืขืœืžื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ืื™ืŸ ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืœื ืืคืจื•ื— ืื—ื“ ืื• ื‘ื™ืฆื” ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ืฉื ืืžืจ ืงืŸ ืงืŸ ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

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: โ€œIf a birdโ€™s nest happens before youโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:6), indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the nest in any case.

ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ืžืคืจื™ื—ื™ื ืื• ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžื•ื–ืจื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืื ืจื‘ืฆืช ืขืœ ื”ืืคืจื—ื™ื ืื• ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžื” ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืงื™ื™ืžื ืืฃ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืงื™ื™ืžื ื™ืฆืื• ืžื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืžื” ื”ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืืžืŸ ืืฃ ื”ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืืžืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ืžืคืจื™ื—ื™ืŸ

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: โ€œAnd the mother is resting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs.โ€ 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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจื‘ืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจื‘ืฆืช ืžืื™ ืชืœืžื•ื“ื ืžื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช

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: โ€œAnd the mother is resting upon the fledglingsโ€ (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: โ€œResting,โ€ 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 โ€œrestingโ€? 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ืจื•ืื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืื ืชืฉืžื˜ ื ื•ืคืœืช ืขืœื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ื•ืื ืœืื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ

ยง 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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื—

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: โ€œAnd the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggsโ€ (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.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื ื’ืขื” ื‘ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื ื’ืขื” ื‘ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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.

ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ

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.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื“ืชื ื™ ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืขื•ืคืคืช

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.

ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื—

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 birdโ€™s wings are not touching the nest.

ื•ื”ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื‘ื ื•ื’ืข ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“

The Gemara now questions the baraita itself: How can the baraita state that even if the hovering birdโ€™s wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending the bird away? But didnโ€™t 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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ืžื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื—

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.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ

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.

ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื ื’ืขื” ื‘ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื ื’ืขื” ื‘ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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 Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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

ื•ื‘ืขื ืคื•ื”ื™ ื™ื“ื•ืจืŸ ืฆืคืจื™ ืฉืžื™ื ืฆืคืจื™ ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืงืจื• ืฆืคืจื™ ืกืชืžื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื•

stated in the verse describing a tree: โ€œAnd in its branches will dwell the birds [tzipparei] of the heavenโ€ (Daniel 4:9). The verse states only: โ€œThe birds [tzipparei],โ€ and not: The birds of any type of wing. Accordingly, the term โ€œthe birds [tzipparei]โ€ 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื›ืœ ืฆืคื•ืจ ื˜ื”ืจื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืืกื•ืจื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing kosher and non-kosher animals: โ€œEvery kosher bird [tzippor] you may eatโ€ (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 Yitzแธฅak. 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.

ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืื™ ื˜ืจืคื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื™ ื‘ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื“ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืžืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืจื ื ืคืงื ื•ื–ื” ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืื›ืœื• ืžื”ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื—ื•ื˜ืช ืžืฆื•ืจืข

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: โ€œAn unslaughtered animal carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eatโ€ (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: โ€œBut these are they of which you shall not eatโ€ (Deuteronomy 14:12), which serves to include the slaughtered bird of the leper.

ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื“ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื•ืœืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืขืฉื” ื•ื‘ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืœื•ืงืžื” ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ืœืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืขืฉื” ื•ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœืžื“ ืžืขื ื™ื ื• ื•ื‘ืขื ื™ื ื ื“ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse: โ€œEvery kosher bird you may eat,โ€ is referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, and the verse indicates that one transgresses the positive mitzva of: โ€œYou may eat,โ€ in addition to the prohibition of: โ€œBut these are they of which you shall not eat,โ€ 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉืชื™ ืฆืคืจื™ื ื—ื™ื•ืช ืžืื™ ื—ื™ื•ืช ืœืื• ืฉื—ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืคื™ืš ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืื• ืฉื—ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืคื™ืš ืœื ืžืื™ ื—ื™ื•ืช ืฉื—ื™ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื™ ืื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืœื”ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing the purification ritual of a leper: โ€œThen shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two living birds [tzipporim] that are kosherโ€ (Leviticus 14:4). Since the birds are obviously alive before the purification ritual begins, what is the meaning of the word โ€œlivingโ€? 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 โ€œlivingโ€? 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžืกื™ืคื ื˜ื”ืจื•ืช ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื˜ืžืื•ืช ืœื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื˜ืจืคื•ืช

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the latter clause of that verse: โ€œTwo living birds [tzipporim] that are kosher.โ€ 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 Yitzแธฅak. 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.

ื˜ืจืคื•ืช ืžื—ื™ื•ืช ื ืคืงื ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื” ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ืื™ื ื” ื—ื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื™ื” ืžื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื ืคืงื

The Gemara objects: But the disqualification of tereifot is already derived from the word โ€œlivingโ€ 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 โ€œkosherโ€ to exclude tereifot, because one could not have derived it from the word โ€œliving.โ€ 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 โ€œliving.โ€ 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 โ€œkosher,โ€ since it is derived from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.

ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื›ืคืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื›ืคืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ

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 leperโ€™s purification ritual, and offerings that atone, e.g., the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, that are brought outside the Temple.

ืžื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื›ืคืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื›ืžื›ืคืจ ืืฃ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื›ืคืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื›ืžื›ืคืจ

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 leperโ€™s purification ritual must not be tereifot. If so, there is no need to derive the exclusion of tereifa birds from the word โ€œkosher.โ€

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืขื™ืจ ื”ื ื“ื—ืช ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืœื ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืฉืœื— ืœืชืงืœื” ืืœื ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

Rather, Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: The word โ€œkosherโ€ 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 leperโ€™s purification ritual. The Gemara asks: For what function are such birds rendered unfit by the word โ€œkosherโ€? 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.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืฉืœื ืœื–ื•ื•ื’ ืœื” ืื—ืจืช ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ื” ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืืœื ืœืฉื™ืœื•ื—

Rava said: The word โ€œkosherโ€ 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 โ€œkosherโ€ 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 leperโ€™s 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.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืœืฆืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื—ืœื™ืคื• ื‘ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื™ืช ื—ืจื ื›ืžื”ื• ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉืืชื” ืžื”ื™ื™ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืœื ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืฉืœื— ืœืชืงืœื” ืืœื ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

Rav Pappa said: The word โ€œkosherโ€ 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 leperโ€™s ritual, as it is written about objects of idol worship: โ€œAnd you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and become [vahayita] accursed like itโ€ (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 โ€œkosherโ€ 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 โ€œkosherโ€ serves to disqualify such birds for slaughter.

ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ืฉื”ืจื’ ืืช ื”ื ืคืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ื’ืžืจ ื“ื™ื ื ื‘ืจ ืงื˜ืœื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืงื•ื“ื ื’ืžืจ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื‘ืขื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืงื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ื‘ืขืจืช ื”ืจืข ืžืงืจื‘ืš ืืœื ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

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 leperโ€™s 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: โ€œAnd you shall eradicate the evil from your midstโ€ (Deuteronomy 13:6). Obviously, one may not send it away. Rather, the verse serves to disqualify such a bird for slaughter.

ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆืคื•ืจ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืืœื ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ื”ื ืฆืคื•ืจ ื”ื•ื

ยง 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 โ€œtzipporโ€ (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.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืชืงื— ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ืš ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืชืงื— ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ืš

The Gemara responds that this is in accordance with that which Rav Kahana said in a different context: The verse states: โ€œBut the young you may take for yourselfโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ื˜ืจืคื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืชืงื— ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ืš

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: โ€œYou may take for yourself,โ€ 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.

ื•ืœื”ืงื™ืฉ ืื ื˜ืจืคื” ืœืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ืžื” ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ื˜ืจืคื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืืฃ ืื ื˜ืจืคื” ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื—

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.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืฆืคื•ืจ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara responds: If so, that the mother should be compared to the fledglings, then why do I need the word โ€œtzipporโ€ 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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืื ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืคืจื•ื— ืฉืืžืŸ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื•ื—

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 isnโ€™t 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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื”ื•ืฉื™ื˜ ื™ื“ื• ืœืงืŸ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ืžื”ื•

ยง 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?

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืœื• ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืœื”ื• ืžื˜ืจืคื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ืš ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœืžื’ืžืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืชืงื— ืœืš ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืชื™ืงื•

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 โ€œfor yourself,โ€ 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: โ€œTake for yourself,โ€ and one is obligated to send away the mother bird. Since no answer is given, the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื˜ืœื™ืช ืžื”ื• ืฉืชื—ื•ืฅ ื›ื ืคื™ื ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื•ืฆื•

ยง 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 birdโ€™s wings and are lying between the mother bird and the eggs, what is the halakha? Do they interpose between the eggs and the mother?

ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžื•ื–ืจื•ืช ืžื”ื• ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื–ื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื–ื• ืžื”ื• ื–ื›ืจ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื•ื ืงื‘ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื–ื›ืจ ืžื”ื• ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื™ื•ื ื” ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืชืกื™ืœ ืžื”ื• ืชืกื™ืœ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืžื”ื•

ยง 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?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื”ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืงื•ืจื

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.

ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืชื™ื ื“ื’ื™ืจื” ื“ื’ื™ืจื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืงื•ืจื ื“ื’ืจ ื•ืœื ื™ืœื“ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ื•ื‘ืงืขื” ื•ื“ื’ืจื” ื‘ืฆืœื”

ยง 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: โ€œAs the pheasant that broods over young that he has not brought forthโ€ (Jeremiah 17:11), and it is written elsewhere about a female bird: โ€œThere shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and brood under her shadowโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงื•ืจื ื ืงื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืชื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื•ืจื ื ืงื‘ื” ืคื˜ืจื™ ื•ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื–ื›ืจ ืœื”ื•ื“ื™ืขืš ื›ื—ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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: Isnโ€™t 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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื–ื›ืจ ื“ืขืœืžื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืชื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ื›ืจ ื“ืขืœืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืœื”ื•ื“ื™ืขืš ื›ื—ืŸ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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: Isnโ€™t 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.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื–ื›ืจ ื“ืขืœืžื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ืื™ืŸ ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืœื ืืคืจื•ื— ืื—ื“ ืื• ื‘ื™ืฆื” ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ืฉื ืืžืจ ืงืŸ ืงืŸ ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

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: โ€œIf a birdโ€™s nest happens before youโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:6), indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the nest in any case.

ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ืžืคืจื™ื—ื™ื ืื• ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžื•ื–ืจื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืื ืจื‘ืฆืช ืขืœ ื”ืืคืจื—ื™ื ืื• ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžื” ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืงื™ื™ืžื ืืฃ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืงื™ื™ืžื ื™ืฆืื• ืžื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืžื” ื”ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืืžืŸ ืืฃ ื”ืืคืจื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืืžืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ืžืคืจื™ื—ื™ืŸ

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: โ€œAnd the mother is resting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs.โ€ 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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจื‘ืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจื‘ืฆืช ืžืื™ ืชืœืžื•ื“ื ืžื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช

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: โ€œAnd the mother is resting upon the fledglingsโ€ (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: โ€œResting,โ€ 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 โ€œrestingโ€? 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ืจื•ืื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืื ืชืฉืžื˜ ื ื•ืคืœืช ืขืœื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ื•ืื ืœืื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ

ยง 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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื—

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: โ€œAnd the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggsโ€ (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.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื ื’ืขื” ื‘ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื ื’ืขื” ื‘ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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.

ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ

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.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื“ืชื ื™ ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืขื•ืคืคืช

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.

ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื—

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 birdโ€™s wings are not touching the nest.

ื•ื”ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื‘ื ื•ื’ืข ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“

The Gemara now questions the baraita itself: How can the baraita state that even if the hovering birdโ€™s wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending the bird away? But didnโ€™t 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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ืžื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉืœื— ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื—

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.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื” ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ

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.

ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื ื’ืขื” ื‘ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื ื’ืขื” ื‘ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ืจื•ื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืขื•ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื” ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ื‘ืงืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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