Chullin 139a — the Talmud in English

What are the circumstances? If its judgment had been completed,

if the judgment of this bird had been completed that it was to be killed, then—

the bird

is liable to execution,

so how did it escape!?

Rather,

you are compelled to say that the case is

where its judgment had not been completed, and it must be brought to the court,

in order to

fulfill in it

“And you shall remove the evil from your midst.”

And we consider it:

These consecrated animals—what are their circumstances?

If you say that he had

this man

a nest inside his house, and he consecrated it, is he obligated

in shiluach ha-ken, even when it is unconsecrated in such a case? But it is written:

“When a bird’s nest happens before you,” excluding that which is prepared.

And this one is prepared inside his house!3a

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it is speaking of a case

where he saw a nest in general,

in a place that was not acquired by him,

and he consecrated it. And is it consecrated

in such a case? But

the Merciful One said: “When a man consecrates his house as holy.”

And we expound:

Just as “his house”

is something that is

in his possession, so everything

that a person consecrates, he can consecrate only if it is

in his possession.

But this nest is not in his possession?!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it is speaking of a case

where he lifted them

before

the nestlings and consecrated them, and afterward returned them

to the nest, in which case he is exempt from shiluach because the nestlings are consecrated.

But in

such

a case,

he would not be obligated even with unconsecrated ones?!

For we learned: If he took the young and returned them to the nest, and afterward the mother returned to them, he is exempt from sending her away.

Since he acquired them, they are considered prepared.

And

rather,

perhaps you will say that it is speaking of a case

where he lifted the mother

first,

and consecrated her. And afterward he returned her

to the nest.

But

at the outset,

when he found them,

he became obligated in shiluach before he consecrated her,

and he was not exempted from the obligation by consecrating her?!

And the proof that the taking effect of consecration upon an object does not remove from it a mitzva in which one had already become obligated is:

For it was taught: Rabbi Yochanan ben Yosef says: If one consecrated a wild animal and afterward slaughtered it, he is exempt from covering

the blood. For the blood of a consecrated wild animal is not obligated in covering [as we say above, 83b, since it is an unfit slaughter, for it is prohibited to benefit from it]. But if he

slaughtered it

beforehand

and afterward consecrated it, he is obligated to cover, for

he

had already become obligated in covering before it came to the status of consecration 7.

And since he had already become obligated with regard to the mother in shiluach, and is not exempted from it by consecration, the difficulty returns: in what manner is our Mishna speaking?

Rav said: It is in the case of one who consecrated the offspring

[the fledglings]

of his dovecote

for the sake of the altar, as a voluntary burnt offering.

And

afterward, when those fledglings grew,

they rebelled,

and left and nested in another place. From then on they are not prepared. And if they were unconsecrated in such a case, he would indeed be obligated in shiluach; but because they are consecrated, he is exempt.

And Shmuel said: It is in the case of one who consecrated his hen for the repair of the Temple,

and it rebelled and nested in another place; we are dealing with this.

And the Gemara asks:

Granted, Shmuel did not say in accordance with Rav,

because

he establishes it

even

with consecrated property for the repair of the Temple,

and he comes to teach that even consecration of value exempts from shiluach, because “you are commanded to bring it to the treasurer”.

Rather, Rav: What is the reason that he did not say in accordance with Shmuel?

Rav could say to you: It is specifically the nest of the

young

such as the offspring of his dovecote, which are consecrated as offerings for the altar, for since they are consecrated

with

the sanctity of the body, their sanctity does not lapse from them

even though they rebelled.

But with one who consecrated his hen for the repair of the Temple, which is not the sanctity of the altar, for

it is

merely consecration of value, since she rebelled, their sanctity lapses, and she is obligated in shiluach 9.

And Shmuel said:

Her sanctity does not lapse, because

wherever it is found,

this hen

is in the treasuries

[in the treasuries]

of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that fills it.”

And likewise Rabbi Yochanan said: It is in the case of one who consecrated his hen for the repair of the Temple and she rebelled

the Mishna is speaking.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: And since she rebelled,

then

her sanctity has lapsed from her?!

He said to him:

Wherever she is,

she is in the treasuries of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that fills it.”

And they raise a contradiction between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yochanan, and they raise a contradiction between Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

For it was stated:

If a person said:

“This maneh

that is lying before me shall be

for the repair of the Temple,” and it was stolen

the money

or was lost—

Rabbi Yochanan said: The consecrator is liable

the one who consecrated it

for its responsibility until it comes into the hands of the treasurer,

and therefore, if it was stolen before it came into the treasurer’s hands, he is liable.

And Reish Lakish said: Wherever it is,

wherever the money is found from the time its consecration took effect, the matter is considered as though it is

in the treasuries

in His treasuries

of the Merciful One; it is there. As it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that fills it,”

and wherever consecrated property is found, it is as though it is present in the possession of consecrated property, which is the possession of property belonging to the Most High.

And for this reason he is exempt, for they are in the possession of consecrated property, and his vow has already been fulfilled.

The difficulty is with Reish Lakish against Reish Lakish,

for above he did not accept this reasoning, that wherever it is found it is in the treasuries of the Merciful One; and

the difficulty

also

is with Rabbi Yochanan against Rabbi Yochanan,

for above he accepted this reasoning, whereas here he does not accept it?!

Granted,

Rish Lakish to Rish Lakish is not difficult.

For it can be said:

this

is the one in which it was clear to him that, once it rebelled, its sanctity lapsed,

before he heard this teaching from Rabbi Yohanan, his teacher,

“To the Lord belongs the earth and its fullness.” But

this

in which he said, “Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One,”

he said after he heard it from Rabbi Yohanan, his teacher,

for he retracted his position.

But Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Yohanan—is it difficult?!

And we said:

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Yohanan, too, is not difficult.

This statement that he said,

that what he said, “I am obligated for their responsibility,” is speaking of one who says, “Behold,

upon me

a maneh for hekdesh,”

for then, although it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, nevertheless he has not fulfilled his vow, since he has not brought it into the possession of hekdesh. And

this

in which he is not obligated for their responsibility is

when he says, “Behold, this.” 11 .

And we ask:

Does it follow that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

holds

that even though he says “Behold,

upon

me,” he is not obligated

if they were stolen or lost?!

And it was taught in a beraita: What is a vow and what is a donation? A vow

is

one who says, “Behold, this is a burnt offering.” And what is the difference between a vow and a donation? A vow

is that if it

dies, or is stolen, or is lost, he is obligated for its responsibility,

which is not the case with

a donation:

if it

dies, or is stolen, or is lost, he is not obligated for its responsibility.

And it is proven that one who says “Behold, upon me” is not equivalent to one who says “Behold, this”?!

Rish Lakish can say to you: These words

—that one who says “Behold, upon me” is obligated for their responsibility—are

in sacrificial sancta, for

he vowed to bring it to the Temple courtyard as an offering , and although it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, nevertheless it is

lacking the offering.

But with sancta for Temple maintenance, which do not lack an offering, even though he says “Behold,

upon

me”—

he is not obligated!

For through his setting it aside he fulfilled his vow.

And we challenge: Are sancta for Temple maintenance different from sacrificial sancta?!

For we learned in the Mishna: One who says, “This ox is a burnt offering,”

or who said

“This house is an offering”

[he is speaking of Temple maintenance, for even Temple maintenance is called an offering, as it is written: “And we brought the offering of the Lord, each man who found a gold vessel, and so forth”], if

the ox dies

or if

the house collapses, he is not obligated for their responsibility.

But if he said

“This ox is upon me as a burnt offering,”

or he said

“This house is upon me as an offering,” the ox dies, and

or

the house collapses, he must pay.

And here, after all, we are dealing with sancta for Temple maintenance, and we see that even in this case, if he said “Behold, upon me,” he is obligated!

And we answer:

These words apply where

they no longer exist, as in that case,

where the ox died and the house collapsed;

there, specifically, he is

obligated to pay,

for it cannot be said, “Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One,”

for

this

does not exist

anywhere.

But where they exist,

as in this case, where they were stolen or lost,

wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written, “To the Lord belongs the earth and its fullness.”

Rav Hamnuna said: Everyone agrees with regard to valuations

that

even though he says “My valuation is

upon

me,” he is not obligated

for the responsibility of the money if it was stolen or lost.

What is the reason?

Because

it cannot be expressed

[for he cannot say it in the wording “Behold, this”]

without

the wording

“upon me.”

For

how should he say it?

Should he say, “My valuation”

without “upon me”? “My valuation”—

upon whom!?

Upon whom does the obligation to pay the valuation of this person rest?!

Should he say, “The valuation of so-and-so”? Upon whom!?

Upon whom does the obligation to pay the valuation of this person rest?!

Rava raised an objection to this:

And what is the difficulty?

Let him say, “Here I am, with my valuation,”

or

“Here I am, with the valuation of so-and-so,”

and he is obligated to pay even if he did not say “upon me”!?

Moreover,

this

was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says:

It is written concerning one who redeems a field of acquisition from hekdesh,

“And he shall give its valuation on that day, holy to the Lord.”

And Scripture could have said, “And he shall give it,” or “And he shall give it.”

If so, “its valuation,”

what does it come to teach?

It indicates that the verse refers to valuations. And this is

because we find that consecrated property and tithes are redeemed with unconsecrated money,

and their law is that if

the money is stolen

or

lost, they are not subject to responsibility

[for the wording of giving is not written concerning them, so that we could say that the sanctity does not take effect until it reaches the possession of hekdesh; rather, once he sets them aside, they become hekdesh, and the consecrated property and the tithe become unconsecrated property].