Chullin 138b (קלח:) — the Talmud in English

Thus,

it is proven from the first clause that

a person does not sell the koen’s gifts.

For the seller does not wish to divest himself of his mitzva to give the gifts.

Here too,

with regard to the gift of the first shearing,

a person does not sell the koen’s gifts.

And it is reasonable to assume that he also left the “first shearing” in his possession, even with regard to the fleece belonging to the purchaser.

Therefore,

if

the seller left some behind,

the

seller is liable, as the purchaser says to him: The koen’s gift

is in your possession,

and I did not purchase it from you.

If he did not leave any behind,

the purchaser is liable,

for he purchased the entire flock together with the first shearing. And he cannot demand that the seller return to him money equivalent to the value of the first shearing,

as the seller says to him: I did not sell you the koen’s gift!

All your money was payment for the remaining fleece.

We shall return to you, chapter “The First Shearing.”

Mishna:

Sending away

the nest

applies in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael, whether the Temple is standing,

when the Temple is in existence,

or when it is not standing.

And it applies specifically to unconsecrated animals,

but

not to consecrated animals.

There is a stringency

in the mitzva of covering the blood compared with sending away the nest:

there is

covering the blood with regard to wild animals and birds, whether they are available to him or are not available to him

[as will be explained below in the Mishna],

whereas sending away the nest applies only to birds

and not to wild animals,

and applies only when the bird is not available to him.

What is an example of a bird that is not available to him? For example, geese and chickens that

fled from the house and

nested in an orchard,

and do not return from there on their own. Since they can flee from there, they are not considered available to him, and he is obligated to send away the mother.

But if they nested in a house, and likewise the birds of the dovecotes

[this will be explained in the Gemara], which are accustomed to growing up among human beings—

he is exempt from sending away the mother,

because they are considered available to him.

In the case of an impure bird—

he is exempt from sending away the mother,

as the Gemara derives.

In the case of an impure bird

that is

crouching over the eggs of a pure bird, and

likewise when a

pure bird is crouching over the eggs of an impure bird—

he is exempt from sending away the mother,

as the Gemara derives.

A male kuk,

which is a pure bird and is accustomed to crouching over the eggs of other birds—

Rabbi Eliezer obligates

one to send it away,

but the Sages exempt him.

The reason is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha

interpret the following Mishnayot concerning covering the blood, an animal and its offspring, the sciatic nerve, the foreleg, cheeks, and maw, the first shearing, and sending away the nest, as follows:

One

of them

said: Wherever we learned

in these Mishnayot that the mitzva applies

in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael—

it is unnecessary,

for these mitzvot are not obligations dependent upon the land but obligations incumbent upon the person, so from where would one derive that they are exempt outside Eretz Yisrael?

Except for the first shearing,

for in that case there is a novelty:

to exclude the view of Rabbi Ela'i, who said

that

the first shearing applies only in Eretz Yisrael,

as he derives it from teruma. [The same applies to the Mishna concerning the gifts to the priest, which was taught for a purpose, since it derives its law from the first shearing.]

And one said: Wherever we learned

in these Mishnayot that the mitzva applies

both when the Temple is standing and when it is not standing—

it is unnecessary,

for it is obvious,

except for

the Mishna concerning

an animal and its offspring,

for in this case there is a novelty:

it might enter your mind to say: Since the law of an animal and its offspring is written in the context of consecrated animals,

let us say:

When consecrated animals exist—

let us observe

this law, but

when consecrated animals do not exist—

let us not observe it; the Mishna therefore teaches us that this is not so.

And both of them,

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha,

said: Wherever we learned

in these Mishnayot that the mitzva applies

to unconsecrated and consecrated animals, it was taught for a purpose.

Except for the sciatic nerve,

since

it is obvious

that it applies to consecrated animals as well. It is self-evident for the following reason:

Is it because it became consecrated that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve was revoked

—

the prohibition that had applied to it previously—

from it!?

And we raise an objection:

But

why?

Did we not establish

that the Mishna stating that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies even to consecrated animals is referring

to the offspring of consecrated animals,

with regard to which it might enter your mind to say that since the prohibition of consecrated animals preceded it—for the creation of the offspring precedes the creation of its sinews—we might say that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not take effect upon the prohibition of consecrated animals, since one prohibition does not take effect upon another. The Mishna therefore teaches us that nevertheless the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies.

If so, was it not necessary to state that it applies to consecrated animals?

And we answer:

And for what reason did we establish

that it refers to the offspring of consecrated animals?

Is it not

because

it was difficult for us: Why should the Mishna not teach it,

since it was unnecessary?!

And concerning this Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha said:

From the outset as well, it should not be difficult for you.

Since there are many matters that a tanna teaches unnecessarily by association with one matter that is taught for a purpose, here too,

since he taught

“to unconsecrated and consecrated animals”

for a purpose,

he also taught it with regard to the sciatic nerve, although there it was unnecessary.

We learned in our Mishna:

“To unconsecrated animals, but not to consecrated animals.”

We inquire concerning this:

Why not

observe the mitzva of sending away the nest in the case of consecrated animals? We explain:

The verse states: “You shall surely send away the mother”—

with regard to one whom you are commanded to send away

only;

this excludes this one,

the consecrated bird,

which you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to the treasurer.

Ravina said: Therefore, in the case of a pure bird

that had been in a house

and killed a person,

and afterward escaped and was found in a nest along the way,

he is exempt from sending it away. What is the reason? For the verse states: “You shall surely send away the mother”—

Page 139a

with regard to one whom you are commanded to send away. This excludes this one, which killed a person, for you are not commanded to send it away, but rather to bring it to the court!