חולין קלט

חולין קלט

בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא, אֶלָּא דְּלָא גְּמַר דִּינֵיהּ, וּבָעֵי לְאֵתוֹיֵיהּ לְבֵי דִינָא וְקַיּוֹמֵי בֵּיהּ ״וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרַע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״.

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

הָנֵי מוּקְדָּשִׁין הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ קֵן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ – מִי מִיחַיַּיב? ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר״ – פְּרָט לִמְזוּמָּן.

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

אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא קֵן בְּעָלְמָא וְאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ, וּמִי קָדוֹשׁ? ״אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּשׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

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

אֶלָּא דְּאַגְבְּהִינְהוּ לְאֶפְרוֹחִים, וְאַקְדְּשִׁינְהוּ, וַהֲדַר אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ – הַאי אֲפִילּוּ בְּחוּלִּין נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב, דִּתְנָא: נָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחְזִירָן לַקֵּן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה הָאֵם עֲלֵיהֶן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.

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

אֶלָּא, דְּאַגְבְּהַהּ לְאֵם, וְאַקְדְּשַׁהּ, וַהֲדַרָה. מֵעִיקָּרָא אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּשִׁילּוּחַ מִקַּמֵּי דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף אוֹמֵר: הִקְדִּישׁ חַיָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת, שְׁחָטָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכִסּוּי קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

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

רַב אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ וּמָרְדוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

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

בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁמוּאֵל לֹא אָמַר כְּרַב, דְּקָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אֶלָּא רַב מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל?

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

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: דַּוְקָא קָפָטְרִי מִשִּׁילּוּחַ, כְּגוֹן פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ דְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נִינְהוּ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּקָדְשִׁי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף – לָא פָּקְעָה קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ, אֲבָל בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, דְּלָאו קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים בְּעָלְמָא הוּא – כֵּיוָן דִּמְרַדָה פְּקַעָה קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בְּשִׁילּוּחַ.

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

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ – בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וּמָרְדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמָּרְדָה פְּקַעָה לַיהּ קְדוּשְׁתַּהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתַאּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״.

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

וּרְמִי דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּרְמִי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אַדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan here and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan elsewhere, and the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish here and that of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish elsewhere.

דְּאִיתְּמַר: מָנֶה זֶה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ נֶאֶבְדוּ – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״. קַשְׁיָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

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

דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבֵּיהּ, הָא לְבָתַר דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבֵּיהּ.

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

אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַשְׁיָא! דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, הָא דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״.

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

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, לָא מְחַיֵּיב?

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

וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ נֶדֶר וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא נְדָבָה? נֶדֶר – הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״, נְדָבָה – הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה״. וּמָה בֵּין נֶדֶר לִנְדָבָה? נֶדֶר – מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה, חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ; נְדָבָה – מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

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

אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דִּמְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה, אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, דְּלָאו מְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ – לָא מְחַיֵּיב.

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

וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה״, ״בַּיִת זֶה קׇרְבָּן״ – מֵת הַשּׁוֹר, נָפַל הַבַּיִת – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן; ״שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״, ״בַּיִת זֶה עָלַי קׇרְבָּן״ – מֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם.

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

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּמֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת, חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם, דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתַנְהוּ, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״.

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

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּעֲרָכִין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ – לָא מִיחַיַּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא מִיתְּמַר לֵיהּ בְּלָא ״עָלַי״.

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

הֵיכִי לֵימָא? לֵימָא ״עֶרְכִּי״ – אַמַּאן? לֵימָא ״עֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי״ – אַמַּאן?

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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: לֵימָא ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעֶרְכִּי״, ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי״! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁמִּתְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין, נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ – אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן,

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

יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״ – חוּלִּין עַד שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר.

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

אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּעֲרָכִין, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָמַר ״עָלַי״ – מִיחַיַּיב, דִּכְתִיב ״וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ״, חוּלִּין הֵן בְּיָדְךָ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר.

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

חוֹמֶר בְּכִסּוּי וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

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

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ״, יָכוֹל יַחְזוֹר בְּהָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְצָא קֵן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא״ – בִּמְאוֹרָע לְפָנֶיךָ.

Since it is stated: “You shall send [shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ] the mother, but the young you may take for yourself,” one might have thought that the doubled verb “shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ” indicates that one must search even in the mountains and hills in order to find a nest with which to perform this mitzva. Therefore, the verse states: “If a bird’s nest happens,” indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother only when it confronts you; one is not required to seek out a nest.

״קַן״ – [קֵן] מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״צִפּוֹר״ – טְהוֹרָה וְלֹא טְמֵאָה, ״לְפָנֶיךָ״ – בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, ״בַּדֶּרֶךְ״ – בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בָּאִילָנוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּכׇל עֵץ״, בְּבוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.

The baraita continues: The word “nest” indicates that this mitzva applies in any case, even to a nest with only a single chick or egg. The word “bird’s” indicates that the mitzva applies only to kosher birds, and not to non-kosher birds. The term “before you” indicates that the mitzva applies to a nest that is on private property, e.g., an unguarded orchard or field, such that the owner’s property does not acquire the nest for him. The term “on the way” indicates that the mitzva also applies to a nest found in a public thoroughfare. From where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to nests found in trees? The verse states: “In any tree.” And with regard to nests found in pits, ditches, and caves, from where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to them? The verse states: “Or on the ground,” indicating that the mitzva applies to a nest on any type of ground.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר, ״לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ״ לְמָה לִי? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדֶךָ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדֶךָ. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: יוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ וְיוֹנֵי עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בִּטְפִיחִין וּבְבִירוֹת, וַאֲוָוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס – חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ, אֲבָל קִנְּנוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְכֵן יוֹנֵי הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ.

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

אָמַר מָר: מָה ״דֶּרֶךְ״ – שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדְךָ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדְךָ. הָא לְמָה לִי? מִ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא״ נָפְקָא, ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא״ פְּרָט לִמְזוּמָּן. וְעוֹד, ״לְפָנֶיךָ״ לְמָה לִּי?

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

אֶלָּא ״לְפָנֶיךָ״, לְאֵתוֹיֵי שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ וּמָרְדוּ, ״בַּדֶּרֶךְ״ – כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מָצָא קֵן בַּיָּם חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ הַנּוֹתֵן בַּיָּם דָּרֶךְ וְגוֹ׳״.

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

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מָצָא קֵן בַּשָּׁמַיִם, דִּכְתִיב ״דֶּרֶךְ נֶשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן? ״דֶּרֶךְ נֶשֶׁר״ אִיקְּרִי, ״דֶּרֶךְ״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרִי.

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

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ פַּפּוּנָאֵי לְרַב מַתְנָה: מָצָא קֵן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מַהוּ? אֲמַר [לְהוּ]: ״וַאֲדָמָה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״. מֹשֶׁה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? ״בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָּשָׂר״.

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

הָמָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? ״הֲמִן הָעֵץ״.

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

אֶסְתֵּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? ״וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר״. מׇרְדֳּכַי מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? דִּכְתִיב: ״מׇר דְּרוֹר״, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן: ״מֵירָא דַּכְיָא״.

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

וְאֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – חַד תָּנֵי ״הַדְּרָסִיָּאוֹת״, וְחַד תָּנֵי ״הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת״. מַאן דְּתָנֵי ״הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת״ – עַל שֵׁם הוֹרְדוֹס, וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״הַדְּרָסִיָּאוֹת״ – עַל שֵׁם מְקוֹמָן.

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

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לְדִידִי חַזְיָין [לִי], וְקָיְימָן שִׁיתְּסַר דָּרֵי בִּפְתֵי מִילָא, (וַהֲוָה קָרָא) [וְאָמְרָן] ״קִירִי, קִירִי״, (הֲוָה חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ דְּלָא הֲוָה קָרֵי קִירִי קִירִי) [הֲוָות חֲדָא דְּלָא הֲוָות יָדְעָה לְמֵימַר], אֲמַרָה לַהּ חֲבֶרְתַּהּ: סוֹמָא, אֱמַרִי ״קִירִי, קִירִי״, אֲמַרָה: סוֹמָא, אֱמַרִי ״קִירִי כִּירִי״, אַתְיוּהָ וְשַׁחְטוּהָ.

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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי [רַבִּי] חֲנִינָא: מִילִּין. מִילִּין סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּמִילִּין.

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

עוֹף טָמֵא פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא קֵן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ״, עוֹף מַשְׁמַע לַן בֵּין טָהוֹר בֵּין טָמֵא. ״צִפּוֹר״ – טָהוֹר אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאִיקְּרִי ״צִפּוֹר״, טָמֵא לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאִיקְּרִי ״צִפּוֹר״.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״תַּבְנִית כׇּל צִפּוֹר כָּנָף״, מַאי לָאו ״צִפּוֹר״ – בֵּין טָהוֹר בֵּין טָמֵא, ״כָּנָף״ – חֲגָבִים? לָא, ״צִפּוֹר״ – טָהוֹר, ״כָּנָף״ – טָמֵא וַחֲגָבִים.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הַחַיָּה וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה רֶמֶשׂ וְצִפּוֹר כָּנָף״, מַאי לָאו ״צִפּוֹר״ – בֵּין טָהוֹר בֵּין טָמֵא, וְ״כָנָף״ – חֲגָבִים? לָא, ״צִפּוֹר״ – טָהוֹר, ״כָּנָף״ – טָמֵא וַחֲגָבִים.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כׇּל צִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף״, מַאי לָאו כִּדְמַקְשִׁינַן? לָא, כְּדִמְשַׁנֵּינַן.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְאַתָּה בֶן אָדָם אֱמֹר לְצִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף״, מַאי לָאו כִּדְאַקְשִׁינַן? לָא, כִּדְשַׁנֵּינַן.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is