Chullin 142a (קמב.) — the Talmud in English

And

if

it is speaking

of the

eve of

a Festival,

and Rav Yehuda came to ask Shmuel what he should do so that they would not be muktze on the Festival, for

if he stands and says, “This one and this one,”

this egg or this chick,

“I will take”

tomorrow,

that is sufficient.

For through this they are not muktze.

The Gemara explains: Those

eggs

were newly laid,

as the mother had never yet stood over them.

Levi bar Simon's himself had not acquired them,

since it is forbidden to acquire them as long as the mother is upon them.

And this is what

Shmuel said to him:

Go and knock on the nest, so that

the mothers will rise,

and

then

Levi bar Simon should acquire

the eggs.

And afterward,

Levi bar Simon should acquire them

for you through

a kinyan

of a cloth.

Mishna:

A person may not take the mother together with the young, even

in order

to purify a leper.

And if, concerning a minor mitzva worth only an issar,

which involves no significant monetary loss, only a small amount such as an issar,

the Torah says, “So that it will be good for you and you will prolong your days,” how much more so with regard to the stringent mitzvot of the Torah

.

And the Tosefta added that he should not take it to purify a leper because a transgression was performed with it, and in the Hazon Yeḥezkel, he explained that this reason means that even if he took it after the fact, it is not effective for purifying the leper. This is as explained above: only the mitzva of sending away the mother bird can remove from it the prohibition of “anything that I have deemed abhorrent,” since the Torah did not say, “Send away” in a manner that leads to a failure. But if he sent it away only as part of the procedure involving the bird of a leper, it follows that he sent away a bird forbidden for consumption, which is unfit to purify a leper. Gemara:

It was taught: The school of Rabbi Yaakov says: There is no mitzva whatsoever in the Torah for which

it is

written that its reward is stated alongside it,

meaning that immediately adjacent to its commandment in the Torah, its reward is also stated,

for which the resurrection of the dead is not dependent upon it.

And he explained its source in the Torah: For

with regard to honoring one’s father and mother it is written, “So that your days may be lengthened and so that it may be good for you,” and with regard to sending away the mother bird it is written, “So that it may be good for you and you will prolong your days.”

Thus, with regard to these two mitzvot, their reward is stated alongside them.

If a father said to his son: “Climb to the upper chamber

a large building

and bring me fledglings,”

and the son went

and climbed

to the upper chamber,

and sent away the mother and took the young,

he has fulfilled two mitzvot whose reward is stated alongside them,

and

it happened that

on his return he fell and died. Where is the longevity of this one, and where is the good of this one?

Rather,

the verse must mean as follows:

“So that your days may be lengthened”—in the world that is entirely long. “And so that it may be good for you”—in the world that is entirely good.

That is, after the resurrection of the dead, when there will be neither harm nor suffering, but only goodness .

The Gemara considers:

Perhaps

“So that it may be good for you and you will prolong your days” refers to this world, and in fact there

was never

such an incident in which a person fulfilled the mitzvot of honoring his father and mother and sending away the mother bird and died on his return?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yaakov

such an incident

saw

himself, and for this reason he proved that the verse refers to the World to Come .

The Gemara asks:

Perhaps he was contemplating a transgression,

and that is why he died?

The Gemara rejects this:

The Holy One, blessed be He, does not combine an evil thought with an action,

and he is not considered to have committed a transgression.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

Perhaps he was contemplating idolatry, as it is written: “In order to seize the House of Israel in their heart.” And Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: This refers to the thought of idolatry!

For the Holy One, blessed be He, combines it with an action, and it is considered as though he worshipped idolatry?!

The Gemara explains:

This is what

Rabbi Yaakov meant:

If it is so that there is reward for mitzvot in this world, the mitzva should have benefited him

the mitzva

and protected him, preventing him from coming to contemplation and

through contemplation of a transgression

being harmed!

Rather, you must conclude:

There is no reward for mitzvot in this world.

The reward stated in the Torah refers to the World to Come.

The Gemara asks: How did that son die,

when Rabbi Elazar said: Those sent to perform a mitzva are not harmed?

For he was an emissary of a mitzva.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar’s statement that they are not harmed was said only regarding their going to perform the mitzva.

However,

on their return

from performing the mitzva,

the matter is different,

as they can then be harmed.

The Gemara asks:

We find that Rabbi Elazar said his statement even with regard to those returning, for

Rabbi Elazar said: Those sent to perform a mitzva are not harmed, neither on their way nor on their return.

The Gemara explains: The ladder on which that son climbed to bring down the fledglings

was a rickety ladder

that was liable to cause one to fall from it.

And when harm is

common in a fixed place,

the matter is different, as it is written:

When God commanded Samuel to go and anoint David as king,

“And Samuel said: How can I go? Saul will hear and kill me.”

This proves that although Samuel went as an emissary of God and was an emissary of a mitzva, he feared that he might be killed because harm was common in that situation, since Saul would certainly want to kill him for anointing another man as king.

Rav Yosef said: Had “Aḥer” not expounded this verse

“So that it may be good for you and so that your days may be lengthened”

in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov, his daughter’s son, he would not have sinned.

What did

Aḥer see?

Some say: He saw an incident such as this one,

in which the son died on his return.

And some say: He saw the

tongue

of Rabbi Hutzpit the Interpreter,

who was killed by the government,

and he saw it lying in a garbage dump.

Aḥer said:

“A mouth that uttered pearls should lick dust?!”

But he did not know

the true meaning of the verse,

that “So that it may be good for you” refers to the world that is entirely good, and “So that your days may be lengthened” refers to the world that is entirely long.

We shall return to you, chapter “Sending Away the Mother Bird,” and tractate Hullin is concluded.