Chullin 140b (קמ:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

If so,

that we should derive from here that if the mother is tereifa she is exempt from shiluach hakan,

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

After all, an impure bird can also be excluded in this manner: “You shall take for yourself”—but not for your dogs. For an impure bird is fit only for dogs as well. Rather, it is necessarily the case that we do not derive the laws concerning the mother from the chicks.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: If the chicks are tereifot, one is obligated in shiluach.

And it might have entered your mind that the beraita means: “If the mother of chicks that are tereifot is present, one is obligated in shiluach.” This proves that we do not expound “You shall take for yourself”—but not for your dogs!?

Abaye said: This is what the tanna means

in the beraita:

A chick whose mother is tereifa requires shiluach.

Rav Hoshaya raised a question: If one extended his hand to the nest and slaughtered part of the simanim

of the chicks,

what is the law?

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

with part of their simanim cut,

they would become tereifot [

that is, they would become tereifot], he is exempt, because

we require “for yourself,” but not for your dogs? Or perhaps, since he can complete the slaughter

and they will then be fit for him to eat,

we apply to them “You shall take for yourself,” and he is obligated in shiluach.

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question:

If there was

a cloth

between the mother and the chicks,

what is the law: does it constitute an interposition

and exempt him, since it is stated, “sitting upon the chicks,” which implies without an interposition?

Loose feathers,

plucked feathers,

what is the law: do they constitute an interposition?

Spoiled eggs,

from which no chicks emerge,

what is the law:

do they constitute an interposition?

If you say that spoiled eggs constitute an interposition,

two rows of eggs

that are viable and were lying in the nest

one on top of the other,

and he wishes to take the lower row ,

what is the law:

does the upper row constitute an interposition and exempt him?

If there was

a male [

that is, if he himself is sitting on the eggs, he is exempt from shiluach]

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

does the male constitute an interposition and exempt him from shiluach?

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

Rabbi Zeira raised a question:

If

a pigeon

was sitting

upon the eggs of a tasil,

which is a pure bird resembling a pigeon,

what is the law?

Similarly, one must consider the case in which

a tasil

was sitting

upon pigeon eggs—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 shiluach.

This implies that when both are pure,

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

one is obligated!

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps this refers specifically to a kore

that is a female. Since it is its nature to sit upon the eggs of other birds, one is obligated to send it away. But a pigeon and a tasil, whose nature is not to sit upon the eggs of other birds, if they do sit upon them, their act is disregarded, and one 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 is derived

through a gezeira shava

of “brooding, brooding.”

It is written here,

with regard to the kore,

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

with regard to an unspecified female bird that broods upon its own species,

“She hatches and broods in its shade.”

And we learn: Just as in the case of a female bird, brooding is considered complete brooding, so too in the case of a kore, it is considered complete brooding and one is obligated.

Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute concerns a male kore, but with regard to a female kore

that sits upon the eggs of another bird,

everyone agrees that one is obligated.

For she is included in

the verse “the mother sits,”

since it is her nature to do so.

The Gemara objects:

It is obvious!

We

learned specifically of a male kore?!

The Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind

that in fact

the Rabbis even

with regard to

a female kore exempt. And the reason that it teaches “male” is to convey the force of Rabbi Eliezer’s

opinion, who obligates even in the case of a male.

It therefore teaches us

that with regard to a female kore, everyone agrees that one is obligated .

And Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute concerns a male kore, but with regard to an ordinary male

of other species of birds,

everyone agrees that one is exempt.

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

The Gemara objects:

It is obvious!

We

learned specifically of a male

kore

?!

The Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind that Rabbi Eliezer obligates even in the case of an ordinary male. And the reason that it teaches “a male kore” is to convey the force of the Rabbis,

who exempt from shiluach even in the case of a kore, although it is its nature to do so.

It therefore teaches us

that Rabbi Eliezer agrees with regard to an ordinary male.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: An ordinary male is exempt. A male kore: Rabbi Eliezer obligates, and the Sages exempt 7 .

Mishna:

If

the mother was

flying, when her wings touch the nest, one must send her away.

But if

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

If there is nothing

in the nest

except one chick or one egg, one must send her away, as it is stated: “a nest.”

And they expounded:

“A nest”—in any case,

even if it contains only one.

If there are fledgling chicks,

that is, chicks that are already large and know how to fly,

or spoiled eggs

from which no chick hatches,

one is exempt from sending her away 8 .

As it is stated, “and the mother is sitting upon the chicks or upon the eggs,” and this is expounded as follows:

Just as chicks must be viable

in order to qualify,

so too eggs

must specifically be

viable. Spoiled eggs are excluded,

as they are not viable and no chick emerges from them.

And

they further expounded this verse:

Just as eggs require their mother, so too chicks

must specifically

require their mother. Fledgling chicks are excluded,

as they do not require their mother.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated

“sitting,”

and they expounded: specifically sitting

but not flying.

One might have thought that even when her wings touch the nest

she is exempt?

The verse states: “sitting.”

What is the basis for this derivation?

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

The Gemara explains:

Because it is not written “sitting down.”

This indicates that even if she is not actually seated, but her wings touch the nest, she is considered to be sitting, and one is obligated.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

If

the mother

was

sitting between two branches of a tree

above the nest,

we assess: Whenever, if one were to pull them apart,

that is, if the branches were moved away from each other,

she would fall upon them [

upon the chicks],

one must send her away. And if not, he is exempt.

The Gemara raises an objection: If she was sitting between them,

between the chicks in the nest,

one is exempt from sending her away,

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

If it was sitting

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

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

What, is it not that “on top of them” is analogous to “among them”? Just as, in the case of “among them,”

the case is one

where it touched them,

and nevertheless he is exempt,

so too, “on top of them,”

the case is specifically one

where it touched them.

This implies,

however,

that if it is sitting among

the branches of a tree

without touching them,

he is exempt?!

The Gemara answers:

No,

it is indeed possible that even when it is sitting among the branches of a tree, he is obligated to send it away. And this is the interpretation:

“On top of them,” analogous to “among them”: Just as, in the case of “among them,” it did not touch them

from above, but only from the side,

so too, in the case of “on top of them,” it did not touch them. And this is the case of the branches of a tree

without touching them from above.

The Gemara proves this:

This also stands to reason. For if it enters your mind

that when it is among

the branches of a tree he is exempt, then instead of teaching: “If it was flying, even if its wings were touching the nest, he is exempt from sending it away,” let it teach:

If it was sitting among

the branches 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 when it is

flying

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

The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from this, because

it was necessary for him to teach the case of flying,

to teach us

that even if

its

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

This cannot be learned from the case of its sitting among the branches of a tree, since there it is not touching the nest at all.

But the Gemara raises an objection to 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 referring to a case where it touched from the side.

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

Some say: Let us say that this supports

Rav from a beraita:

“If it was sitting among them, he is exempt from sending it away. If it was on top of them, he is obligated to send it away.”

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

What, is it not that “on top of them” is analogous to “among them”?

Just as, in the case of “among them,” it did not touch them

from above,

so too, in the case of “on top of them,” it did not touch them

from above.

And this is

the case of

the branches of a tree,

and a proof for Rav!

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

It is indeed possible that when it is sitting among the branches of a tree, he is exempt from sending it away. And this is the interpretation:

“On top of them,” analogous to “among them”: Just as, in the case of “among them,” it touched them, so too, in the case of “on top of them,”

specifically

when it touched them. But

when it is among

the branches of a tree

without touching them at all,

he is exempt.

The Gemara asks:

If so, then instead of teaching in the latter clause: “If it was flying, even if its wings were touching the nest, he is exempt,”