Chullin 140b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

if so,

that we should learn from here to exempt a mother that is tereifa from sending away,

why do I need “a bird” to exclude an impure bird!?

For an impure bird, too, it can be learned in this manner: “you shall take for yourself”—and not for your dogs. For is an impure bird fit only for dogs as well? Rather, it is necessarily so that we do not derive the laws of the mother from the chicks.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: If the chicks are tereifa, he is obligated in sending away.

!?And it might enter your mind that the intention of the beraita is to say: “The mother of chicks that are tereifa is obligated in sending away.” And it is proven that we do not expound “you shall take for yourself,” and not for your dogs!?

Abaye said: This is what the

tannay in the beraita

is saying: A chick whose mother is tereifa is subject to the obligation of sending away.

Rav Hoshaya asks: If one extended his hand to the nest and slaughtered part of the distinguishing signs

of the chicks,

what is the law?

Do we say that, since if he were to leave them like this,

with part of their distinguishing signs cut,

they would become tereifa [ [נעשין טרפה]become tereifa],

he should be exempt, because

we require “for yourself,” and not for your dogs. Or perhaps, since it is in his power to complete the slaughter

and they will be fit for him to eat,

we read in regard to it, “you shall take for yourself,” and he is obligated in sending away.

And we conclude:

Let it stand.

Rabbi Yirmeya asks:

If there was

a cloth

between the mother and the chicks,

what is the law as to whether it constitutes an interposition

and he is exempt, since it is stated, “sitting upon the chicks,” implying without an interposition?

Detached feathers,

detached feathers,

what is the law as to whether they constitute an interposition?

Infertile eggs

from which chicks do not emerge,

what is the law

as to whether they constitute an interposition?

If you should say that infertile eggs constitute an interposition,

two rows of eggs

that are viable and were lying in the nest,

one atop the other,

and he wishes to take the lower row ,

what is the law

as to whether the upper row constitutes an interposition and he is exempt?

There was

a male [ [שאם הוא עצמו רובץ על הביצים - פטור משילוח]for if he himself sits upon the eggs, he is exempt from sending away]

which, if it alone is sitting on the eggs, is exempt from the mitzva of sending away]

upon eggs, and a female upon a male—what is the law

as to whether the male constitutes an interposition and he is exempt from sending away?

And we conclude:

Let it stand.

Rabbi Zeira asks:

If there was

a dove

sitting

upon the eggs of a tasil,

which is a pure bird resembling a dove,

what is the law?

And likewise, one must discuss a case in which there was

a tasil

sitting

upon the eggs of a dove—what is the law?

Abaye said: Come and hear: An impure bird

that

sits upon the eggs of a pure bird, and a pure bird

that

sits upon the eggs of an impure bird is exempt from sending away.

But a pure bird and a pure bird,

when a pure bird sits upon the eggs of another pure bird,

he is obligated!

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps it concerns a kore

specifically a female, since it is her way to sit upon the eggs of others, he is obligated to send her away. But a dove and a tasil, whose way it is not to sit upon the eggs of others, if they sit, their intention is disregarded, and he is exempt.

We learned in our Mishna:

“A male kore: Rabbi Eliezer obligates, and the Sages exempt.” Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer?

It comes

by means of a gzera shava,

“brooding, brooding.”

It is written here

concerning the kore

“The kore broods, but it does not hatch,” and it is written there

concerning an unspecified female bird that broods upon its own species,

“And she hatches and broods in its shadow.”

And we learn: Just as concerning a female bird it is considered complete brooding, so too concerning a kore it is considered complete brooding, and he is obligated.

Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute concerns a male kore, but concerning a female kore

that sits upon the eggs of another bird,

everyone agrees that he is obligated.

For it is included in

the verse “

“and the mother sits,” since this is her way.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious!

After all,

we learned “a male kore”?!

The Gemara answers:

It might enter your mind to say

that in truth

the Sages even

with a

female kore exempt. And the fact that it teaches “a male” is to inform you of the strength of Rabbi Eliezer,

who obligates even in the case of a male,

it informs us

that concerning a female kore everyone agrees that he is obligated.

And Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute concerns a male kore, but concerning an ordinary male

of other species of birds,

everyone agrees that he is exempt.

For “the mother sits” is written, and not “a male sits.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious!

After all,

“a male kore”

specifically

we learned?!

The Gemara answers:

It might enter your mind to say: Rabbi Eliezer obligates even an ordinary male. And the fact that it teaches “a male kore” is to inform you of the strength of the Sages,

who exempt from sending away even in the case of a kore, although this is its way.

It informs us

that Rabbi Eliezer agrees concerning an ordinary male.

It was also taught so: An ordinary male is exempt. A male kore: Rabbi Eliezer obligates, and the Sages exempt 7 .

Mishna:

If

the mother

is flying, when her wings touch the nest, he is obligated to send her away.

But if

her wings do not touch the nest, he is exempt from sending her away.

If there is not

in the nest

anything but one chick or one egg, he is obligated to send her away, for it is stated, “nest.”

And they expounded

“nest,” in every case,

even if there is only one in it.

If there were fledgling chicks,

that is, large ones that already know how to fly,

or infertile eggs

from which no chick hatches,

he is exempt from sending away 8 .

For it is stated, “and the mother sits upon the chicks or upon the eggs,” and it is expounded as follows:

Just as chicks are viable,

they are,

so too eggs

specifically

viable. Infertile eggs are excluded,

which are not viable, since no chick emerges from them.

And

they further expounded from this verse:

Just as eggs require their mother, so too chicks

specifically

require their mother. Fledglings are excluded,

since they do not require their mother.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated

“sitting,”

and they expounded: specifically sitting

and not flying.

One might have thought: Even when her wings touch the nest

he should be exempt?

The verse states: “sitting.”

What is the derivation?

What proof is there from the meaning of the verse “sitting” that if her wings touch the nest he is obligated?

The Gemara explains:

Because it did not write “sitting in place.”

It implies that even if she is not actually sitting, but her wings touch the nest, she is considered sitting, and he is obligated.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

If

the mother

was

sitting between two layers of a tree

above the nest,

we see: whenever, if she were to be pulled away

from the branches of the tree by moving the branches apart,

she would fall upon them [ [על האפרוחים]upon the chicks],

the chicks],

he is obligated to send her away. And if not, he is exempt.

An objection was raised: If she was sitting between them,

between the chicks in the nest,

he is exempt from sending her away

because it is necessary that she be “sitting upon the chicks,” and not between them.

It was sitting

on top of them, he is obligated to send it away.

It was flying—even if its wings were touching the nest, he is exempt from sending it away.

What, is “on top of them” not analogous to “between them”? What is [the case of] “between them,”

the case

that it touched them,

and nevertheless he is exempt,

so too, “on top of them,”

the case specifically

that it touched them.

And it implies,

but

sitting between

the layers of a tree

without touching them,

he is exempt?!

The Gemara answers:

No,

it is indeed possible that also when sitting between the layers of a tree he is obligated to send it away, and this is the derivation:

“On top of them,” analogous to “between them”: What is [the case of] “between them”? That it did not touch them

from above, but only from the side;

“so too, on top of them,” that it did not touch them. And that is the layers of a tree

which it does not touch from above.

And the Gemara proves:

This too is reasonable. For if it enters your mind that

between

the layers of a tree he is exempt, why, when it teaches: “It was flying—even if its wings were touching the nest, he is exempt from sending it away,” should it teach

“It was sitting between”

the layers of a tree

he is exempt from sending it away, even though it is sitting in its place, and we would know by

a fortiori

that for

flying

he is exempt, since it is not sitting at all!

The Gemara rejects: There is no proof from this. For

the case of flying was necessary for him to state,

to inform us

that even

if

its wings are touching the nest, he is exempt from sending it away.

And this cannot be learned from one sitting between the layers of a tree, because it does not touch the nest at all.

But the Gemara raises an objection against the beraita:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

When its wings are touching the nest, he is obligated to send it away?

Whereas in the beraita they said that when it is flying, even if its wings are touching the nest, he is exempt from sending it away?!

Rabbi Yirmeya said: When the beraita teaches [this], it is [speaking] when it touches from the side.

But if it touches from above, he is obligated to send it away.

There are those who say: Let us say that it supports

Rav from a beraita:

It was sitting between them, he is exempt from sending it away. On top of them, he is obligated to send it away.

It was flying—even if its wings were touching the nest, he is exempt from sending it away.

What, is “on top of them” not analogous to “between them”?

What is [the case of] “between them”? That it did not touch them

from above;

so too, “on top of them,” that it did not touch them

from above.

And that is

between

the layers of a tree,

and a proof for Rav!

And the Gemara rejected:

No.

It is indeed possible that when sitting between the layers of a tree, he is exempt from sending it away, and this is the derivation:

“On top of them,” analogous to “between them”: What is [the case of] “between them”? That it touched them; so too, “on top of them,”

specifically

that it touched them. But

between

the layers of a tree,

where it did not touch them at all,

he is exempt.

The Gemara asks:

If so, why, when it teaches in the latter clause: “It was flying—even if its wings were touching the nest, he is exempt”?