Chullin 138b — the Talmud in English

This proves,

as is evident from the first clause, that

one does not sell a priestly gift.

The seller does not want to divest himself of the mitzva of giving the priestly gifts.

Here too,

with regard to the gift of the first shearing,

one does not sell a priestly gift.

And it is reasonable to assume that he retained the “first shearing” in his possession, including the shearing from the buyer’s sheep.

Therefore,

if

the seller retained it,

the

seller is obligated, for the buyer can say to him: The priestly gift

is in your possession

and I did not purchase it from you.

If he did not retain it,

the buyer is obligated,

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

. For the seller can say to him: I did not sell you the priestly gift!

All your money was payment for the remaining wool.

We have completed the chapter “The First Shearing.”

Mishna:

Sending away

the nest

applies in the Land and outside the Land, before the Temple,

at the time when the Temple is standing,

and not before the Temple.

And it applies

to non-sacred animals

specifically, but

not to consecrated animals.

There is a stringency

in

covering the blood over sending away the nest, for covering the blood applies to a wild animal and to a bird, to one that is prepared and to one that is not prepared

as will be explained below in the Mishna,

whereas sending away the nest applies only to a bird

and not to a wild animal,

and applies only to one that is not prepared.

What is one that is not prepared? For example, geese and chickens that

fled from the house and

made their nests in an orchard,

and do not return from there on their own; and since they are able to flee from there, they are not considered prepared for him, and he is obligated.

But if they made their nests in the house, and likewise the pigeons of the lofts

whose manner is to grow up with human beings—

he is exempt from sending away,

because it is considered prepared.

An impure bird—

he is exempt from sending it away,

as the Gemara derives.

An impure bird

that is

sitting upon the eggs of a pure bird, and a

pure bird likewise

sitting upon the eggs of an impure bird—

he is exempt from sending it away,

as the Gemara derives.

A male korai,

which is a pure bird, and whose manner is to sit upon the eggs of other birds—

Rabbi Eliezer obligates

in sending away,

and the Sages exempt.

The reason is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha

explain those Mishnayot of covering the blood, [the prohibition of slaughtering] it and its young, the sciatic nerve, the foreleg, the cheeks, the first shearing, and sending away the nest, as follows:

One

of them

said: Wherever we learned

in these Mishnayot that they apply

in the Land and outside the Land—

it is unnecessary,

for they are not obligations dependent upon the Land but obligations of the person; and from where would it occur to exempt outside the Land?

Except for the first shearing,

for in this there is a novelty:

to exclude Rabbi Ilai, who said

that

the first shearing applies only in the Land,

as he derives it from teruma [and likewise the Mishna of the gifts was taught for a purpose, since it derives it from the first shearing].

And one said: Wherever we learned

in these Mishnayot that they apply

before the Temple and not before the Temple—

it is unnecessary,

itself,

except for

the Mishna of

it and its young,

for in this there is a novelty, since

it might have entered your mind to say: Since the law of it and its young is written in the section of consecrated offerings,

let us say:

when consecrated offerings exist—

let us apply

this law, but

when consecrated offerings do not exist—

let us not apply it; it teaches us otherwise.

And both of them,

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha,

said: Wherever we learned

in these Mishnayot that they apply

to non-sacred and consecrated animals, it is for a purpose.

It is necessary.

Except for the sciatic nerve,

for

it is obvious,

it is a simple matter that it applies to consecrated animals, for this reason:

just because it was consecrated, did the prohibition of the sciatic nerve that had been upon it become removed

from it beforehand

!?

And we object:

And

is it not so that

we established

that Mishna which says that the sciatic nerve applies even to consecrated animals

with the offspring of consecrated animals,

concerning which it might have entered your mind to say that since the prohibition of consecrated animals preceded it, because the formation of the offspring precedes the formation of the sinews, one might have said that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not take effect upon the prohibition of consecrated animals, because one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition; it teaches us that nevertheless it applies.

And if so, is it necessary to say that it applies to consecrated animals?

And we answer:

And for what reason did we establish

with the offspring of consecrated animals?

Is it not

because

it was difficult for us: Let it not teach

it, since it is unnecessary?!

And concerning this Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha said that

from the outset also it should not be difficult for you.

Since there are many matters that it teaches unnecessarily on account of one matter that is necessary, here too,

since it taught

“to non-sacred and consecrated animals”

for a purpose,

it also taught it concerning the sciatic nerve, even though it is unnecessary.

We learned in our Mishna:

To non-sacred animals, but not to consecrated animals.

And we consider it:

Why not

apply the mitzva of sending away the nest to consecrated animals? And we explain:

For Scripture says, “You shall surely send away the mother”—

with one whom you are commanded to send away

specifically;

this one is excluded,

the consecrated bird,

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

Ravina said: Therefore, a pure bird that was in a house,

which killed a person,

and afterward fled and was found in a nest on the road,

is exempt from sending away. What is the reason? For Scripture says, “You shall surely send away the mother”—

with one whom you are commanded to send away. This one is excluded, for it killed a person, and you are not commanded to send it away, but to bring it to the court!

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!