Chullin 141a — the Talmud in English

Let it teach:

if she is sitting between

the layers of a tree

—he is exempt, even though she is sitting in her place.

And

from this we would know by

a fortiori

to exempt

one flying

, who is not sitting at all!

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary for him to state the case of one flying

to teach us

that even if her wings touch the nest, he is exempt from sending her away.

This is not so with one sitting between the layers of a tree, for which he is exempt, because she does not touch at all; and one cannot derive the law of one flying from it.

The Gemara objects:

But we learned in the Mishna: When her wings touch the nest

—

he is obligated to send her away; how, then, did you say in the beraita that even if her wings touch, he is exempt?

Rav Yehuda said: When the Mishna teaches

that he is exempt, it is

when she touches from the side.

We learned in our Mishna:

“There is no chick there, etc.”

One of the Sages said to Rava

:

But say the opposite: If there is only one chick or one egg there, he is exempt from sending her away, for we require “chicks or eggs,”

that is, more than one,

and there is not.

But if

there were fledgling chicks or spoiled eggs there, he is obligated to send her away, as it is stated, “a nest.” A nest, in any event!

He said to him:

If so, let the verse write, “and the mother is crouching over them,”

and

why

did the verse need to state

“and the mother is crouching over the chicks or over the eggs”?

Necessarily, it is

to compare chicks to eggs and eggs to chicks,

to teach the law explained in our Mishna, that for spoiled eggs and fledgling chicks one is exempt from sending her away. But if you expound it in the opposite manner, there is no need to compare chicks to eggs and eggs to chicks, and it would be difficult why both were written in the verse.

Mishna:

If he sent her away and she returned,

and he sent her away again and she returned, and

even

if he did so

four or five times, he is obligated

to send her away, and he may not take the mother together with the young.

As it is stated: “You shall surely send away the mother.”

And the repetition of the expression “you shall surely send away” comes to teach that he is obligated to send her away even several times.

He said: “I am taking the mother and sending away the young!”

He may not do so. Rather, he is

obligated

to send away the mother.

As it is stated: “You shall surely send away the mother.”

2. If he took the young and returned them to her,

to the nest,

and afterward the mother returned to them, he is exempt from sending her away

again, and he may take the mother together with the young. Since he had already taken the young, it is considered a “prepared nest,” and he is exempt.

Gemara:

One of the Sages said to Rava:

From where is it known that he is obligated to send her away even four or five times?

But say that “send away”

means one time;

“you shall send away”

comes to include that even

two times

he is obligated to send her away, but we still have no source for how we know that a person is obligated to send her away more than two times?

He said to him

Rava: The source of the obligation is not learned from the repetition of the expression “you shall surely send away,” but from the implication of the expression

“send away,”

from which they learned that

even one hundred times

he is obligated to send her away.

Whereas

“you shall send away”

was written for another exposition:

I have only

that he is obligated to send her away

but

when he wishes to take the mother together with the young

for an optional matter,

for his own need. But if we require her

for a mitzva matter,

such as the nest of a woman who has given birth and the birds of a leper’s purification,

from where

is it known that he is obligated to send her away?

The verse states: “You shall send away”—in any event,

even for a mitzva matter.

Rabbi Abba, son of Rav Yosef bar Rava, said to Rav Kahana: “It is only because the Merciful One wrote ‘you shall send away,’

that they learned from it that he is obligated to send her away even for a mitzva matter.

If not for this, I would have said

that

for a mitzva matter he is not

obligated to send her away?! But sending away

is a positive commandment and a negative commandment:

“You shall not take the mother together with the young” is the negative commandment, whereas “You shall surely send away the mother” is the positive commandment.

And does the positive commandment

of “and he shall take for the one being purified,” stated concerning the birds of a leper,

override

the

negative and positive commandments

of the mitzva of sending away?!

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary

to speak of a case

where he transgressed

the negative commandment

and took the mother, for the negative commandment—he has transgressed it [it has already been transgressed], and only

and only

the positive commandment

of “you shall surely send away”

is present.

And it might have entered your mind to say:

Let the positive commandment

of the leper

come and override the positive commandment

of sending away, and he need not return and send away the mother.

It teaches us

that the positive commandment of the leper does not override the positive commandment of sending away, and he must return and send her away.

The Gemara objects:

This works according to the one who teaches

that wherever there is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment, the matter depends upon whether

“he fulfilled it and did not fulfill it,”

that is, if they warned him not to take the mother, and he transgressed their words and took her, then if he “fulfilled” the positive commandment of “you shall surely send away” within the time needed to speak after the warning, he did not violate the negative commandment at all, for that is why the verse rectified it through a positive commandment. And if he “did not fulfill it” within the time needed to speak, he violated the negative commandment and is obligated to perform the positive commandment of “you shall surely send away”; if so, it follows that in sending away there is only a positive commandment, without a negative commandment.

But according to the one who teaches, “he nullified it and did not nullify it,”

only if he completely nullified the positive commandment did he transgress the prohibition, such as in the sending away of the nest, which he nullifies only by slaughtering the mother, for then certainly he can no longer send her away; but as long as he has not completely nullified the positive commandment, he has not transgressed the prohibition. If so,

as long as he has not slaughtered

the mother, even though he has taken her,

he has not transgressed the prohibition,

for he can still send her away; and if so, there are in it a prohibition and a positive commandment, so how can the positive commandment of the metzora override it?!

Furthermore, according to Rabbi Judah, who says

below that

“send away”

indicates from the outset,

the meaning of the verse is as follows: “You shall not take the mother together with the young, but you shall send her away before you take the young.” If so, if he transgressed and took her, he transgressed both the prohibition and the positive commandment, since he did not send her away from the outset; and

there is not even a positive commandment,

for the positive commandment did not come in order to rectify the prohibition?!

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

here it is speaking

of a case where he took

the mother

in order to send her away

immediately.

There is no prohibition,

for he is about to send her away; only

a positive commandment is present,

for the positive commandment “you shall surely send away the mother” rests upon him,

and

it might have entered your mind

that the positive commandment

of the metzora

should override the positive commandment

of sending away the nest. The verse “you shall send away” teaches us that it does not override it.

The Gemara asks:

What is the superiority of this positive commandment

of the metzora

over that positive commandment

of sending away, and why might it have entered your mind that it should override it?!

And it explains:

It might have entered your mind: since the Master said, “Great is the peace between a man and his wife,” for the Torah said: The Name of the Holy One, blessed is He, which was written in sanctity, may be erased upon the water

in order to make peace between a man and his wife. For the scroll of the suspected woman, in which the Name of God is written, is erased upon the water in order to purify her for her husband.

And this metzora, since as long as he has not purified himself

from his impurity,

he is forbidden marital relations, as it is written

concerning the metzora,

“And he shall sit outside his tent for seven days,”

and they expounded:

“His tent”—this is his wife. From here that

the metzora

is forbidden marital relations.

What might one have said? Since he is forbidden marital relations

until he becomes pure,

let his positive commandment override the positive commandment of sending away the nest

in order to purify a man for his wife.

It teaches us

that the verse [teaches] that it does not override it.

Mishna:

One who takes the mother together with the young, Rabbi Judah says: He receives lashes

since he transgressed the prohibition,

and he does not send her away

any longer.

And the Sages say: He sends her away

now, the mother,

and he does not receive lashes.

This is the general rule

the Sages said:

Every negative commandment in which there is

a command of

active performance,

such as sending away the nest, in which there is the negative commandment “You shall not take the mother together with the young,” and in which there is the active commandment “You shall surely send away the mother,”

one does not receive lashes for it.

Rather, he fulfills the positive commandment and is exempt.

Gemara:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised a question:

whether

the reason of Rabbi Judah

that “he receives lashes and does not send her away” is

because he holds that for a prohibition disconnected from a positive commandment one receives lashes. Or perhaps, ordinarily

in truth

Rabbi Judah holds

that

for a prohibition disconnected from a positive commandment one does not receive lashes. But here, this is the reason: because he holds that “send away” indicates from the outset.

For this is the meaning of the verse: “You shall not take the mother together with the young, but send her away beforehand.” If so, if he took her, he has already transgressed both the prohibition and the positive commandment.

Come and hear: A thief and a robber are included in [the law of] lashes,

for they receive lashes for the prohibition “You shall not steal” and “You shall not rob,”

the words of Rabbi Judah.

But here, it is a prohibition disconnected from a positive commandment, for the Merciful One said, “You shall not rob,”

and disconnected it to a positive commandment,

“And he shall return the stolen object.”

Learn from this: The reason of Rabbi Judah is because he holds that for a prohibition disconnected from a positive commandment one receives lashes!

For it is impossible to say that “and he shall return” indicates from the outset, since it is impossible to return the stolen object before he robbed it.