Chullin 140a — the Talmud in English

ta shma

from the words of Scripture in Daniel [chapter 4]:

"And in its branches

of the tree

the birds of the heavens shall dwell,"

and surely impure birds also gather and dwell in trees. And it is proven that impure birds are also included under the name “bird”?!

The Gemara rejects this:

“Birds of the heavens are called

also the impure ones, but

“birds” without qualification

without an accompanying designation

are not called

impure ones, but only pure ones.

ta shma:

from what is written in the passage of the signs of purity and impurity in animals and birds [Deuteronomy 14:11]:

“Every pure bird

you shall eat.” And from the fact that Scripture had to say “pure bird,” and did not say merely “bird,”

it follows that there are

also birds

impure,

and it had to teach that specifically a pure bird may you eat, but not an impure one.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

do not infer this. Rather,

it follows that there are

other birds

forbidden,

and those you shall not eat, but the intention is not an impure bird.

The Gemara analyzes:

What is it?

That bird which Scripture had to forbid?

If it is a bird with a tereifa,

behold,

it is written explicitly

that it is forbidden to eat, as it is stated: “Carrion and a tereifa he shall not eat.”

And if it is a

bird

of

the birds

of the leper

that is forbidden in benefit, behold,

it is derived from the end of the verse,

for an extra expression is stated in the passage of the signs of purity [there, verse 12]:

“And this is what you shall not eat from them”—

to include the slaughtered bird of the leper.

But the sent-away bird of the leper is certainly permitted to eat, for if it were not permitted, the Torah would not have said to send it away, since people who found it could stumble through it, not knowing that it was the leper’s sent-away bird, and eat it.

The Gemara explains:

It is indeed referring to the slaughtered bird of the leper, and

Scripture had to state an additional verse to forbid it, in order

to transgress it through a positive commandment and a prohibition,

for from the verse “And this is what you shall not eat from them,” we heard only a prohibition. Whereas the beginning of the verse teaches that there is also a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. For from the positive commandment of “Every pure bird you shall eat,” it follows that specifically a pure one shall you eat, but an impure one you shall not eat; and a prohibition derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment.

And the Gemara asks: If so, why did they establish the verse as referring to the slaughtered bird of the leper?

Let us establish it as referring to a tereifa, and

explain that it had to state an additional verse, because although the prohibition of a tereifa is stated explicitly in the Torah, Scripture came to teach

that one transgresses it through a positive commandment and a prohibition?!

And the Gemara answers: Since it is an obscure verse, and we do not know what it is speaking about, whether about the slaughtered bird of the leper or about a tereifa, it is

“a matter learned from its context,”

that is, from the subject in which it is written,

and

this verse

is written in the context of the slaughtered bird.

For it is stated in the passage of a pure bird that is eaten, and it is a bird permitted through slaughter. Therefore it is expounded as coming to forbid the slaughtered bird of the leper, which is included in “the slaughtered bird,” and not a tereifa, which is not slaughtered.

ta shma: From what is written

concerning the birds of the leper,

“two living birds.” What is “living”? Is it not that they are “living in your mouth,”

permitted to your mouth, that is, pure?

It follows that there are

species of birds that are

“not living in your mouth,”

but are impure?!

The Gemara rejects this:

No. What is “living”? That their principal limbs are whole.

And Scripture came to exclude the possibility that the leper take birds lacking a limb for his purification.

ta shma from the end

of the verse:

“Pure.” It follows that there are

birds

impure!

The Gemara rejects this:

No. It follows that there are

birds

with a tereifa.

And Scripture came to say that they are not fit for the slaughtered bird of the leper, even though it is slaughtered outside the camp and is not a sacrifice [and for the sent-away bird they are certainly not fit, for the Torah did not say, “Send away,” to cause a stumbling].

But the Gemara wonders: Why is it necessary to exclude

birds with a tereifa?!

For

from

what is written,

“living,” it is derived!

This works well according to the one who says that a tereifa can live,

and therefore a tereifa was not excluded by the verse “living,” because a tereifa too is living.

But according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, what is there to say?

And furthermore, whether according to the one who says that a tereifa can live, or according to the one who says that it cannot live,

behold,

it is derived from what was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael

to disqualify a tereifa for the birds of the leper!

For it was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: “That which makes fit”

was said concerning the guilt-offering of the leper and the sin-offerings of those with a flux and of women after childbirth, which come to make one fit to eat sacred food,

and “that which atones,”

the sin-offerings and guilt-offerings that come to atone, which are performed

inside

the courtyard.

And “that which makes fit”

was said concerning the birds of the leper that come to purify,

and “that which atones,”

the sent-away goat, which are performed

outside. Just as that which makes fit and that which atones stated concerning inside, make that which makes fit like that which atones,

for the sacrificial portions of those that make fit are also offered like those that atone.

That which makes fit and that which atones stated concerning outside, make that which makes fit like that which atones.

And just as a tereifa sent-away goat is disqualified, because both goats must be fit as sacrifices for the Lord before the lot is cast upon them [which one is for a sacrifice for the Lord and which one is for Azazel], so too a tereifa is disqualified for the birds of the leper.

If so, there is no need for an additional verse to exclude a tereifa among the birds of the leper?!

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “Pure” was stated

to exclude

the birds of an apostate city.

The Gemara explains:

For what purpose?

For which bird among the birds of the leper is an exclusion needed in order to disqualify the birds of an apostate city?

If for the sending away,

that he should not take a bird of an apostate city for the leper’s sent-away bird, this is obvious!

For

the Torah did not say “send away” to cause a stumbling!

And if he sends away a bird of an apostate city, perhaps it will be caught after it is sent away, and they will not know that it is the leper’s sent-away bird, and they will stumble through eating it, for it is forbidden in benefit!

Rather,

certainly

for slaughter.

The exclusion is needed so that he should not take it as the slaughtered bird, in which there is no stumbling block, since he can burn it after slaughter.

Rava said: This

“pure” comes

to exclude pairing another one with it

for this leper’s living sent-away bird after he became pure, a bird

different

for another leper

before the sending away of the first one.

For this is the meaning of the verse: “Pure”; it follows that there are forbidden ones. And these are: the sent-away bird of a leper.

The Gemara explains:

For what purpose,

what use can the second leper make of the first one’s bird?

If for slaughter,

it is obvious that it is forbidden to pair it with the second one’s sent-away bird, because

this one requires sending away

on account of the first leper?!

Rather, for sending away.

And it entered one’s mind that he could send it away a second time for another leper, and therefore Scripture had to teach that he should not take from the first one’s birds.

Rav Pappa said: “Pure” comes

to

exclude

that were exchanged

birds that they exchanged

them

for idolatry,

who sold idolatry to a gentile idolater and received the birds in exchange for it. And they are forbidden because

it is written: “And you shall be an accursed thing like it,”

and we expound:

Everything that you derive from it,

from idolatry, shall be

like it.

The Gemara explains:

For what purpose

does he wish to use these birds,

if for sending away,

behold,

the Torah did not say “send away” to cause a stumbling,

and this bird is forbidden in benefit?!

Rather, for slaughter,

and concerning this the verse was stated to teach that it is forbidden to slaughter this bird as the slaughtered bird of the leper.

Ravina said: Here, with what are we dealing? With a bird that killed a person,

and the verse teaches that it is disqualified for the birds of the leper.

The Gemara analyzes:

What are the circumstances?

If its judgment had been completed

in court that it should be killed, behold,

it is liable to execution!

And if so, it is obvious that it is fit neither for sending away nor for slaughter, for its law is stoning?

Rather,

it must be speaking

before completion of its judgment.

And for what purpose

does the leper wish to use this bird?

If for sending away,

behold,

he must bring

the bird

to the court and fulfill

in it

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

so how could he send it away free?!

Rather,

necessarily, he needs it

for slaughter.

And it entered one’s mind that he could fulfill “And you shall remove the evil from your midst” through slaughtering it for the leper, for in the end it is removed from the world; concerning this Scripture said that it is forbidden.

We learned in our Mishna:

An impure bird crouching upon the eggs of a pure bird.

The Gemara asks:

Granted, an impure bird crouching upon the eggs of a pure bird,

he is exempt from sending away, because

we require “a bird”—

and there is none,

for an impure bird is not called “a bird.”

But a pure bird crouching upon the eggs of an impure bird,

why is he exempt from sending away?

Is it not “a bird”?!

The Gemara answers:

As Rav Kahana said

in another matter, that they expounded: “And the young

you shall take for yourself,” and not for your dog! Here too, “you shall take for yourself,” and not for dogs.

And the eggs of an impure bird are fit for him only for his dogs.

And where was Rav Kahana’s statement said?

About this, as it was taught:

If the

mother was a tereifa, he is obligated in sending away.

But if the

chicks are tereifot, he is exempt from sending away.

From where are these words [derived]?

Rav Kahana said: For Scripture says, “You shall take for yourself,” and not for your dogs.

And chicks of a tereifa are fit only for his dogs.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And let us compare a tereifa mother to the chicks,

and learn as follows:

Just as tereifa chicks are exempt from sending away, so too a tereifa mother

shall be

exempt from sending away?!