Chullin 140a (קמ.) — the Talmud in English

Ta shma:

from the words written in Daniel, chapter 4:

“And among its branches

of the tree

the birds of the sky will dwell,”

and certainly impure birds also gather and dwell in trees. This proves that impure birds are also included in the designation “bird”?!

The Gemara rejects this:

“The birds of the sky are called

also the impure ones, but

“birds” unqualified,

without an accompanying designation,

are not called

impure ones, but only pure ones.

Ta shma:

from the verse in the passage concerning the signs of purity and impurity in animals and birds, Deuteronomy 14:11:

“Every pure bird

you may eat.” Since the verse had to say “pure bird,” rather than simply “bird,”

it follows that there are

also

impure

birds, and it was necessary to teach that only a pure bird may be eaten, but not an impure one.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

do not infer this. Rather,

it follows that there is

another bird

that is prohibited,

and that one may not eat; but the reference is not to an impure bird.

The Gemara asks:

What is

that bird which the verse had to prohibit?

If it is a tereifa,

then

it is explicitly written

that it is prohibited for consumption, as it is stated: “An animal carcass or a tereifa he shall not eat.”

And if it is

a

slaughtered

bird

of a leper,

which is prohibited for benefit, then

it is derived from the latter part of the verse,

as an additional phrase is stated in the passage concerning the signs of purity, there, verse 12:

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

to include the slaughtered bird of a leper.

But the bird of the leper that is sent away is certainly permitted for consumption, since if it were not permitted, the Torah would not have instructed that it be sent away, as people who find it might stumble through eating it, unaware that it was the bird sent away by the leper.

The Gemara explains:

Actually, it is referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, and

the verse had to state an additional verse to prohibit it in order

to transgress both a positive mitzva and a prohibition.

For from the verse “And this is what you shall not eat of them,” we learned only a prohibition. But the first part of the verse teaches that it also involves a prohibition derived from a positive mitzva. For from the positive mitzva “Every pure bird you may eat,” it follows that one may eat specifically a pure bird, but may not eat an impure one; and a prohibition derived from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva.

The Gemara asks: If so, why did they interpret the verse as referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper?

Let us establish it as referring to a tereifa, and

explain that an additional verse was necessary because although the prohibition against a tereifa is stated explicitly in the Torah, the verse comes to teach

that one transgresses both a positive mitzva and a prohibition?!

The Gemara answers: Since it is an obscure verse, and we do not know whether it is referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper or to 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 a slaughtered bird.

For it is stated in the passage concerning a pure bird that may be eaten, and that is a bird for which slaughter is permitted. Therefore, it is interpreted as coming to prohibit the slaughtered bird of a leper, which is included in the category of “a slaughtered bird,” and not a tereifa, which is not slaughtered.

Ta shma: Since it is written

concerning the birds of a leper,

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

meaning that they are permitted for consumption, i.e., 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 meant by “living”? That their limbs are intact.

The verse comes to exclude birds missing a limb, so that the leper may not take such birds for his purification.

Ta shma from the latter part

of the verse:

“Pure.” It follows that there are

birds that are

impure!

The Gemara rejects this:

No. It follows that there are

birds that are

terefot.

The verse comes to say that they are unfit to serve as the slaughtered bird of a leper, even though it is slaughtered outside the camp and is not a sacrifice. And they are certainly unfit to serve as the bird sent away, since the Torah would not instruct one to send away something that could cause a mishap.

But the Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to exclude

terefot?!

It follows

from

the fact that it is written

“living”!

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

and therefore a tereifa was not excluded by the verse “living,” since a tereifa is also alive.

But according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, what can be said?

Furthermore, according to both the one who says that a tereifa can live and the one who says that it cannot live,

it follows

from what was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael

that a tereifa is disqualified for the birds of a leper!

For it was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: “One that enables,”

the guilt-offering of a leper and the sin-offerings of a man with a discharge and of a woman after childbirth, which enable one to eat consecrated food,

and “one that atones,”

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

inside

the Temple courtyard.

And it is stated “one that enables,”

the birds of a leper, which come to effect purification,

and “one that atones,”

the scapegoat, which are performed

outside. Just as with “one that enables” and “one that atones” stated with regard to the inside, the category of “one that enables” is treated like “one that atones,”

as even the sacrificial portions of offerings that enable are brought on the altar, as with offerings that atone.

The “one that enables” and “one that atones” stated with regard to the outside is likewise treated as the category of “one that atones.”

Just as a tereifa scapegoat is disqualified, since both goats must be fit to be offered to God before the lot is cast upon them—one for an offering to God and the other for Azazel—so too a tereifa is disqualified for the birds of a leper.

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

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

“Pure” is stated

to exclude the birds of an idolatrous city.

The Gemara explains:

For what purpose?

With regard to which bird among the birds of the leper is an exclusion needed in order to disqualify the birds of an idolatrous city?

If it is with regard to the bird sent away,

so that one may not take a bird from an idolatrous city for the leper’s bird that is sent away, this is obvious!

For

the Torah did not say “send away” in a manner that causes a mishap!

If one sends away a bird from an idolatrous city, someone might capture it after it is sent away, not knowing that it was the bird sent away by a leper, and stumble by eating it, since it is prohibited for benefit!

Rather,

certainly

with regard to slaughter.

The exclusion is needed to teach that one may not take it as the slaughtered bird, which involves no danger of a mishap, since he can burn it after slaughtering it.

Rava said: This

“pure”

comes to exclude pairing with it

the living bird that is sent away for this leper after he becomes pure, by taking

another

bird for another leper

before the first one has been sent away.

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

The Gemara explains:

For what purpose,

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

If for slaughter,

it is obvious that he may not pair it with the second leper’s bird that is sent away, because

it requires sending away

on account of the first leper?!

Rather, for sending away.

One might have thought that he could send it away a second time for another leper, and therefore the verse had to teach that he may not take it from the first leper’s birds.

Rav Pappa said:

“Pure” comes

to

exclude

birds that were exchanged

for them

for idolatry,

where one sold an idol to a gentile idolater and received the birds in exchange for it. They are prohibited because

it is written: “And you shall become a banned thing like it,”

and we derive:

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,

then

the Torah did not say “send away” in a manner that causes a mishap,

and this bird is prohibited for benefit?!

Rather, for slaughter,

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

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances?

If its verdict has been completed

in court, then

it is liable for execution!

If so, it is obvious that it is unfit for either sending away or slaughter, since its sentence is stoning.

Rather,

it must be referring to

before its verdict has been completed.

And for what purpose

does the leper wish to use this bird?

If for sending away,

then

he must bring

the bird

to the court and fulfill

with it

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

so how could he send it away free?!

Rather,

necessarily, he needs it

for slaughter.

One might have thought that he could fulfill “And you shall eradicate the evil from your midst” with it by slaughtering it for the sake of the leper, since in any event it is eradicated from the world; the verse therefore teaches that this is prohibited.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

The Gemara asks:

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

he is exempt from sending it away, because

we require “bird”—

and there is none,

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

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

why is he exempt from sending it away?

Is it not a “bird”?

The Gemara answers:

As Rav Kahana said

in another context, deriving the verse: “And the young

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

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

And where was Rav Kahana’s statement said?

With regard to that which was taught:

if the

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

But if the

chicks are terefot, he is exempt from sending away.

From where are these matters derived?

Rav Kahana said: The verse states: “You shall take for yourself,” and not for your dogs.

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

But let us analogically compare a tereifa mother to the chicks,

and derive as follows:

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

should be

exempt from being sent away?!