Chullin 141b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

But

did I not tell you

that

every beraita that was not taught in the academy of ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

of Rabbi Hiyya and in the academy of Rabbi Oshaya,

for they arranged the beraitot and scrutinized the words of every tannai, to repeat them as he said them,

is corrupt, and should you bring proof from it in the beit-midrash?!

And this beraita, too, was not taught in the academies of Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Oshaya. If so, it is possible that it is corrupt and was not taught in this manner, but rather

“It is not included among those liable for forty lashes” was taught!

And because Rabbi Yehuda concedes that one is lashed for a prohibition whose fulfillment is set apart for a positive commandment.

Come and hear: for Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Hiyya taught:

It is written concerning forgotten produce:

“You shall not return

to take it,”

and

he violated the prohibition and returned and took the forgotten produce. And similarly concerning the corner of the field, for it is written:

“You shall not finish

the corner of your field,”

and

he

finished

the corner of his field—

they are included among those liable for forty lashes,

even though they were set apart for a positive commandment, for it is written concerning them, “For the poor and the stranger you shall leave them”—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Learn from this

that

the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is because he holds that one is lashed for a prohibition whose fulfillment is set apart for a positive commandment!

The Gemara rejects: It is possible that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is not lashed for a prohibition whose fulfillment is set apart for a positive commandment, but

there the reason

that Rabbi Yehuda says that one is lashed is because

he holds

that the verse “For the poor and the stranger

you shall leave”

means from the outset,

and this is the Torah’s intention: “You shall not return” and “You shall not finish,” but rather “For the poor and the stranger you shall leave them.” Thus, there is no prohibition whose fulfillment is set apart for a positive commandment, but rather a description of the manner of fulfilling the commandment.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear:

It is written concerning the Paschal offering:

“You shall not leave any of it until morning, etc.,

and whatever remains, etc.,

you shall burn in fire.” The verse came to place a positive commandment after a prohibition, to tell you that one is not lashed for it, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And it is proven that according to him, one is not lashed for a prohibition whose fulfillment is set apart for a positive commandment!

Learn from this

that

the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

for the mother bird is lashed is

because he holds that “send away” means from the outset!

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

Rav Idi said to Rav Ashi: The Mishna also indicates

that the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is because “send away” means from the outset;

for it teaches: One who takes the mother with the young, Rabbi Yehuda says: He is lashed and does not send her. And if it should enter your mind

that

the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

is because in his view

one is lashed for a prohibition whose fulfillment is set apart for a positive commandment,

and not because “send away” means from the outset, it follows that the intention of the verse “send away” is after taking her; if so,

it should have said: He is lashed and sends her!

And

we reject:

Perhaps this is what the Mishna is saying:

In truth, he is still obligated to send her, because “send away” means after taking her; but he

is not exempt until they have administered lashes to him.

The Gemara discusses:

How far must he send her

if he transgressed and took her in his hand?

Rav Yehuda said: So that she leaves his possession,

and even though he can return and seize her, it is permitted.

With what does he send her,

how should he act so that it will be considered sending her?

Rav Huna said:

Even if he plucked her wing so that she could not fly and sent her, since she can walk

on her feet

two or three steps, it is considered sending.

Rav Yehuda said:

He must send her

with her wings [

with her wings] specifically, so that she can fly in her usual manner; therefore it is forbidden to pluck her wing and send her.

The Gemara explains their reasons:

Rav Huna said: On her feet, for it is written, “Those who send forth the foot of the ox and the donkey.”

And it implies that sending by foot is considered sending.

Rav Yehuda said: With her wings, for

her feet of the bird

are its wings,

since the bird’s primary movement from place to place is performed by its wings and not by its feet.

There was a certain man who cut off the wing of the mother

and

sent her, and afterward seized her. Rav Yehuda gave him lashes.

[He lashed him]

Rav Yehuda.

And

he said to him: Go and let her wing grow [

wait for her wing to grow],

and send her!

The Gemara discusses:

According to whom

did Rav Yehuda state this law?

If it is according to Rabbi Yehuda,

for according to him it says,

“He is lashed and does not send her.”

Why, then, did he tell him to send her?

If it is according to the Rabbis,

they

say: He sends her and is not lashed,

and if so, why did Rav Yehuda lash him?

The Gemara answers:

In truth, it is according to the Rabbis, and

he lashed him only

with makkat mardut, by rabbinic enactment,

for they administer lashes as admonition so that he will not return to transgress; they have no fixed measure. He lashed him, but by Torah law he is not liable for lashes.

There was a certain man who came before Rava. He said to him: A teima [

a pure bird]

what is it

with regard to sending?

He said

Rava in his heart: Surely

this man does not know that a pure bird requires one to send the mother,

and what is his doubt?!

He said to him

to the person asking:

Perhaps it is one egg [

one egg]

that was lying [

was lying in the nest], and your doubt is whether in such a case the commandment of sending applies to you; and the basis for exemption is that it says “chicks or eggs,” in the plural.

Rava said to him

Rava:

This I know

to answer

you,

for

it is a Mishna.

For we learned:

If there is nothing there but one chick or one egg—

he is obligated to send! He sent

that person who was asking, to that bird.

And Rava spread traps for it [

brought them back upon it]

and seized it.

excluding a prepared situation,

because in this case as well the situation is considered “prepared”: the dovecote or upper chamber acquired the nest for him without his knowledge.

The Gemara asks: How did Rava do this,

and should we not be concerned about suspicion,

lest the one who sent her say that Rava obligated him to send her so that he could return and seize her?!

The Gemara answers:

With one hand.

That is, Rava spread the trap from a distance, so that the one who sent her did not see that he seized her.

The Sages taught: The pigeons of a dovecote and the pigeons of an upper room are subject to the obligation of sending. And they are forbidden because of robbery—

because of the ways of peace 6 .

before they fell into his courtyard, so that he is obligated to send away the mother but has not yet acquired them. The Gemara asks:

The Gemara discusses:

If that which Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said is so: A person’s courtyard acquires for him without his knowledge, here you have “when it happens,”—

excluding what is prepared,

for even in this case it is considered “prepared,” since the dovecote and the upper room acquired the nest for him without his knowledge?!

Rav said:

An egg, when most of it has emerged

from the body of its mother, is what becomes subject to the obligation of sending; the courtyard does not acquire it

for him

until it falls into his courtyard [

that is, the dovecote or the upper room].

And when it teaches: They are subject to the obligation of sending,

it is when he found them

before they fell into his courtyard,

when he is then obligated in sending and has not yet acquired them.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

that we are dealing with a case in which the egg has not yet emerged,

why are they forbidden because of robbery

even because of the ways of peace? They are still part of the mother’s body, and when it is inside the mother’s womb itself there is no prohibition at all against taking it, because since it is not convenient to seize it, the owner of the dovecote does not have his mind on it and does not quarrel with the one who seizes it?!

The Gemara answers what they said, that they “are forbidden because of robbery,” applies even

to the mother,

for although full robbery does not apply to her, as stated above, she is forbidden because of the ways of peace.

And if you wish, say: In truth, “they are forbidden because of robbery” applies only

his courtyard also acquires it

to the egg,

and the reason is that

once most of the egg has emerged—

his mind

of the owner of the dovecote

is upon it

to take it; and even though his courtyard has not yet acquired it for him, it is forbidden because of the ways of peace. But with regard to the mother, there is not even a prohibition because of the ways of peace.

And now that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is forbidden to acquire the eggs

at the time

when the mother is sitting upon them, as it is stated, “You shall surely send away the mother,” and afterward, “You may take the young for yourself”—even say: Although

the case is

that it fell into his courtyard,

as long as the mother has not risen from them, the courtyard has not acquired them for him and they are not considered prepared. For

wherever he can acquire—

his courtyard also acquires

for him.

And wherever he cannot acquire,

such as in this case, where he cannot acquire them while the mother is sitting upon them,

his courtyard also does not acquire them for him,

and therefore they are subject to the obligation of sending.

The Gemara asks:

If so, why are they forbidden

only

because of the ways of peace? If he sent away

the mother—for his courtyard immediately acquired it for the owner of the dovecote, and

it is outright robbery

to take the eggs. And

if he did not send it away—

how can he take the eggs before he sent away the mother? After all,

sending is required

as Rav Yehuda said!

The Gemara answers: Here it is speaking

of a minor,

who is not obligated to send them away; and in such a case, they are forbidden to take because of the ways of peace .

The Gemara asks: Is a minor

subject to the ways of peace

—is the prohibition in the Mishna stated with regard to a minor, that he should not take [them] because of the ways of peace?

The Gemara explains:

This is what it is saying: The father of the minor is obligated to return them to him

to the owner of the dovecote—

because of the ways of peace.

Levi bar Simon acquired [A0026]the

the

produce of his dovecote,

the chicks and the eggs,

for Rav Yehuda.

He came before Shmuel [A0031][and below it explains for what purpose he came before him].

[and below the Gemara explains why he came before him].

He said to him: Go, strike the nest [A0033][strike the nest], so that

[strike the nest] so that

they will rise up

the chicks out of fear of you,

and acquire them 11 .

And the Gemara explains:

For what purpose,

for what need did he tell him to lift them?

If it was in order to acquire

them so that Levi bar Simon would not be able to retract, why did Rav Yehuda ask Shmuel how he should acquire them?

Let him acquire them for him

Levi bar Simon

with

an acquisition

of a cloth?!