Chullin 139b (קלט:) — the Talmud in English

Could this too,

in the case of Arakhin, be

so,

that he would be exempt from liability from the time he set aside the money?

The verse states: “And he shall give the valuation, etc.” In the case of non-sacred property,

they

remain non-sacred until they come into the possession of the treasurer.

For the word “and he shall give” implies that he becomes exempt only from the time of giving.

We see, then, that one is also liable for the money of Arakhin!

Rather, if the statement

of Rav Hamnuna

was transmitted, it was transmitted as follows:

this is how it was transmitted:

Rav Hamnuna said: Everyone agrees with regard to Arakhin that although he did not say

“Behold

it is incumbent upon me,”

he is liable for it.

What is the reason?

As it is written: “And he shall give the valuation.”

This implies:

It remains non-sacred in your possession until it comes into the possession of the treasurer.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The stringency of covering the blood, etc.”

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“When a bird’s nest happens before you

etc.”

What does the verse come to teach

[what does this verse teach us]?

Since it is stated: “You shall surely send away the mother, and the young you may take for yourself.”

Seemingly, from the repetition “you shall surely send away,”

one might

think that every person is commanded to

search

[look]

through the mountains and hills in order to find a nest

to fulfill the mitzva.

The verse states: “When it happens,” meaning an occurrence

that happens

before you

specifically, and not that one should search for it.

“Nest”—

in any event,

even if there is only one fledgling or one egg in the nest, one is obligated [as in the following Mishna].

And from the word

“bird”

we derive that specifically a

pure

bird requires sending away

and not

an

impure

[as the Gemara will explain below].

“Before you”—

this includes a nest found

in private property,

such as in an orchard and in an unguarded courtyard, where it is not considered “readily available.”

“On the way”—

this includes

a nest found

in the public domain 4 .

A nest found

in trees

—from where do we know that one is obligated to send away the mother?

The verse states: “In every tree.”

A nest found

in pits, trenches, and caves—from where do we know this? The verse states: “Or upon the ground.”

And we raise an objection:

But once we ultimately include every circumstance,

as it is written, “in every tree or upon the ground,” why do we need the verse

“before you, on the way”?

We explain: This verse comes

to tell you: Just as a way is one whose nest is not in your possession,

meaning that it is not readily available and does not belong to you, but is in an ownerless domain,

so too every

case

requires that its nest not be in your possession. From here they said: Dovecote pigeons and attic pigeons that nested in niches

[places in a wall in which small bowls are set]

and in towers

[dwellings and city towers],

and geese and chickens

that became wild and

nested in an orchard—

one is obligated to send away the mother,

since the nest is now not in his possession.

But if they nested inside the house, and likewise in the case of Herod’s pigeons

[this will be explained below]—

one is exempt from sending away the mother 5 .

The master said: Just as a way is one whose nest is not in your possession, so too every case is one whose nest is not in your possession.

And we raise an objection:

Now

what do we need the verse “on the way”

for?

Now

from “when it happens” we derive

this exposition

“when it happens”—

excluding a readily available nest!

Furthermore,

what do we need the verse

“before you” for?

Rather,

the verse

“before you” comes to include a case where they were before you,

that is, they belonged to him,

and

afterward

became wild.

And the verse

“on the way”

comes to teach

the principle stated by Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One who finds a nest in the sea,

for example, the sea swept away a tree, and there was a nest at the top of the tree —

is obligated to send away the mother. As it is stated: “So said the Lord, Who makes a way in the sea, etc.,”

we see from this verse that the sea is called a way.

The Gemara objects:

If that is so, if one finds a nest in the sky,

that is, a bird carrying a nest—and the sky is also called a way,

as it is written: “The way of an eagle in the heavens”—would he likewise be obligated to send away the mother?

The Gemara answers: The sky

is called “the way of an eagle,”

but

“way” without qualification

it is not called.

The people of Papunya said to Rav Mattana: If one finds a nest on a person’s head, what is the law?

Is he obligated to send away the mother or not?

He said

to them: It is written:

“And ground upon his head.”

The wording of the verse implies that it says “ground” and not “dust,” because although it is on a person’s head and not on the ground, it is considered attached to the ground, since a person too is considered earth.

The people of Papunya further asked Rav Mattana:

“Moses—from where is he [hinted at] in the Torah,”

that is, where is it hinted that Moses our teacher would eventually arise, before this is explicitly stated in Scripture?

He said to them: It is written [Genesis 6:5]:

“Beshagam he is flesh.”

“Beshagam” has the numerical value 345, the same as “Moshe.” It is also written there: “And his days shall be 120 years,” a hint to a person who would come and live 120 years.

They further asked him: A hint to the event involving

Haman—from where is he [hinted at] in the Torah?

He said to them: For it is written:

“Haman—from the tree”—

a hint that he would be hanged on the tree.

A hint to the event involving

Esther—from where is she [hinted at] in the Torah?

He said to them: From that which is written:

“And I shall surely conceal.”

This hints that in the days of Esther there would be concealment of the Divine countenance.

A hint to the greatness of

Mordecai—from where is he [hinted at] in the Torah?

As it is written: “Pure myrrh,”

which is the foremost of the spices in the incense,

and we translate it: “mira dakhya.”

“Mira dakhya” resembles “Mordecai,” a hint to his greatness, for he was foremost among the righteous and the members of the Great Assembly.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And which is not readily available, etc.”

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon: one

of them

taught “the Herodsiot,” and one

of them

taught “the Hardusiot.”

And we explain:

The one who taught “the Hardusiot”—

they were called by the name of their place

and were so called because of it.

And the one who taught “the Herodsiot”—

they were called by the name of Herod

because he was involved in raising them.

Rav Kahana said: I myself saw them—

I saw the descendants of those pigeons of Herod—

and they stood

[they were standing]

sixteen rows

[sixteen rows]

at the entrance of Me’ilah

[each row was a mil wide].

And they would call

[they were calling]

“kiri kiri”

[“my master, my master”].

There was one among them that did not call

[that did not call]

“kiri kiri”

like her companions.

Her companion said to her: “Blind one”

[a fool lacking sight],

say

you too

“kiri kiri”

like us!

She said to her,

that pigeon:

“Blind one! Say

you

‘kiri biri’

[slave]!” For Herod was initially a slave, and afterward rebelled.

Slaves who remained from Herod’s slaves came,

brought

that pigeon

and slaughtered it.

Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Hanina said to me:

As for what Rav Kahana said, that he saw those pigeons act in this manner—

it is mere

[idle] talk! For it is impossible that the pigeons spoke in this way.

The Gemara objects:

Would it enter your mind to say “talk”?

But Rav Kahana said that he saw this event, and if so, he certainly saw it as he described it!

Rather, say: through incantations

the pigeons spoke in this manner.

We learned in our Mishna:

“An impure bird is exempt from being sent away.”

From where are these words derived?

Rabbi Yitzhak said: As the verse states: “When a bird’s nest happens to be before you.” “Bird” teaches us that it includes both pure and impure birds,

but

with regard to “bird,” we find that a pure bird is called a bird, whereas an impure bird

we do not find called a bird.

And since the term “bird” is stated here, this indicates that specifically a pure bird is subject to the obligation of sending away the mother, but an impure bird is not .

Ta shma:

From the verse: “Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves...”

a form of any winged bird,”

and this verse also refers to an impure bird, since surely the Torah prohibited making a form of an impure bird as well.

Is it not

that the verse is expounded as follows:

“Bird”—

both pure and impure; “wing”—

to include

locusts!

And we reject this:

No. “Bird”

specifically means a pure bird,

as stated above.

“Wing”

to include an

impure bird and locusts.

Ta shma: From what is written: “

Praise the Lord from the earth...”

the beast and every animal, creeping creature and winged bird.”

And this verse certainly refers also to an impure bird, since an impure bird also praises the Lord.

Is it not that “bird”

means both pure and impure

?

And “wing”

to include

locusts,

which proves that “bird” also refers to an impure bird!

And we reject this:

No. “Bird”

specifically means a pure bird.

as indicated.

“Wing”

to include an

impure bird and locusts.

Ta shma

from the words of the verse concerning the animals that came into the ark:

“Every bird, every wing.” Is it not as we challenged,

that “bird” also refers to an impure bird, since impure birds also came into the ark, and “wing” serves to include locusts?!

And we reject this:

No. As we answered,

that it is from “wing” that we derive the inclusion of an impure bird and locusts.

Ta shma:

As it is written concerning Gog and Magog:

“And you, son of man, say to every winged bird: ‘

Gather yourselves from all around to My sacrificial feast that I am sacrificing for you... and you shall eat flesh and drink blood.’”

Is it not as we challenged,

that “bird” refers even to impure birds, since surely he also summoned the impure birds, and “wing” serves to include locusts?

And we reject this:

No. As we answered,

that it is from “wing” that we include impure birds and locusts.