Chullin 276:1

אלמא מתנות דכהן לא מזבין איניש הכא נמי מתנות דכהן לא מזבין איניש

Hence it is clear that no man sells the priestly dues; here, too, the priest's due no man sells.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore whenever the seller keeps back anything for himself it is to be presumed that he has kept back the priest's due, for that he certainly would not sell.');">¹</span>

הלכך

Therefore, if the seller kept back [some fleece for himself] the seller is solely liable [to give the first of the fleece], for th buyer can say to him, 'The priest's due still remains with you'.

שייר המוכר מוכר חייב דאמר ליה לוקח

If he did not keep back anything for himself the buyer is liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not because the obligation rests upon the buyer, but because at the sale the priestly dues were not intended to pass from the seller to the buyer.');">²</span>

מתנה דכהן גבך היא

for the seller can say to him, 'I never sold you the priest's due'.

לא שייר לוקח חייב דאמר ליה מוכר

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE LAW OF LETTING [THE DAM] GO FROM THE NEST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6, 7.');">³</span>

מתנה דכהן לא זבני לך:

IS IN FORCE BOTH WITHIN THE HOLY LAND AND OUTSIDE IT, BOTH DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE AND AFTER IT, IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED BIRDS BUT NOT CONSECRATED BIRDS.

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך ראשית הגז</strong></big><br><br>

THE LAW OF COVERING UP THE BLOOD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 13.');">⁴</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>שילוח</strong></big> הקן נוהג בארץ ובחו"ל בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית בחולין אבל לא במוקדשין

IS OF WIDER APPLICATION THAN THE LAW OF LETTING THE DAM GO; FOR THE LAW OF COVERING UP THE BLOOD APPLIES TO WILD ANIMALS AS WELL AS BIRDS, WHETHER THEY ARE AT ONE'S DISPOSAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., always ready at hand for one's purpose and use.');">⁵</span>

חומר בכסוי הדם משילוח הקן שכסוי הדם נוהג בחיה ובעוף במזומן ובשאין מזומן ושילוח הקן אינו נוהג אלא בעוף ואינו נוהג אלא בשאינו מזומן

OR NOT, WHEREAS THE LAW OF LETTING [THE DAM] GO FROM THE NEST APPLIES ONLY TO BIRDS AND ONLY TO THOSE WHICH ARE NOT AT ONE'S DISPOSAL.

איזהו שאינו מזומן

WHICH ARE THEY THAT ARE NOT AT ONE'S DISPOSAL?

כגון אווזין ותרנגולים שקננו בפרדס אבל אם קננו בבית וכן יוני הרדסיאות פטור משילוח

SUCH AS GEESE AND FOWLS THAT MADE THEIR NESTS IN THE OPEN FIELD;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although geese and fowls are usually domesticated, if they became wild and broke loose and nested in the open field the law of letting the dam go applies. ,uthxrsv');">⁶</span>

עוף טמא פטור מלשלח

BUT IF THEY MADE THEIR NESTS WITHIN A HOUSE OR IN THE CASE OF HERODIAN DOVES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A special breed of doves favoured by Herod; or, as some read , doves from a particular locality. These doves are quite domesticated. V. infra 139b.');">⁷</span>

עוף טמא רובץ על ביצי עוף טהור וטהור רובץ על ביצי עוף טמא פטור מלשלח

ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET [THE DAM] GO.

קורא זכר רבי אליעזר מחייב וחכמים פוטרין:

AN UNCLEAN BIRD ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET GO.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> רבי אבין ור' מיישא חד אמר

IF AN UNCLEAN BIRD WAS SITTING ON THE EGGS OF A CLEAN BIRD, OR A CLEAN BIRD ON THE EGGS OF AN UNCLEAN BIRD, ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET IT GO.

כל היכא דתנן בארץ ובחו"ל שלא לצורך לבד מראשית הגז

AS TO A COCK PARTRIDGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which like the hen partridge broods upon eggs of other birds; cf. Jer. XVII, 11.');">⁸</span>

לאפוקי מדר' אלעאי דאמר

R'ELIEZER SAYS ONE IS BOUND TO LET IT GO, BUT THE SAGES SAY ONE IS NOT BOUND.

ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא בארץ

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Abin and R'Meyasha [taught the following:] One said that the expression 'both within the Holy Land and outside it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stated in the opening Mishnah of Chap. V, VI, VII, X, XI, XII.');">⁹</span>

וחד אמר

was in every case unnecessary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since every precept which is not dependent upon the land obtains both within the Land of Israel and outside it; v. Kid. 36b.');">¹⁰</span>

כל היכא דתנן בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית שלא לצורך לבד מאותו ואת בנו

except in [the Mishnah of] 'The first of the fleece',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And also the Mishnah dealing with the Priestly dues, (supra Chap. X) the law of which is derived from that of the 'first of the fleece'. (Rashi, Tosaf.) .');">¹¹</span>

סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובענינא דקדשים כתיב בזמן דאיכא קדשים ננהוג בזמן דליכא קדשים לא ננהוג קמ"ל

[where it had to be stated] in order to exclude the view of R'Ila'i, who holds that the law of the fi of the fleece obtains only in the Land of Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 136b.');">¹²</span>

ותרוייהו אמרי

The other said, the expression 'both during the existence of the Temple and after it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stated in the opening Mishnah of Chap. V, VI, VII, X, XI, XII.');">⁹</span>

כל היכא דתנן בחולין ובמוקדשים לצורך לבד מגיד הנשה

was in every case unnecessary, except in [the Mishnah of] 'It and its young', [where it had to be stated,] for I might have argued that, since that law is stated in connection with laws concerning sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of 'It and its young' (Lev. XXII, 28) is immediately preceded and followed by laws concerning sacrifices.');">¹³</span>

פשיטא

it is in force only as long as sacrifices continue but it is not in force once sacrifices are no mo [the Tanna] therefore found it necessary to teach us [that it is binding for all time].

משום דאיקדש פקע ליה איסור גיד הנשה מיניה

Furthermore both said that the expression 'in respect of unconsecrated and consecrated animals',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stated in the opening Mishnah of Chap. V and VII.');">¹⁴</span>

ולאו אוקימנא בולדות קדשים

was in every case necessary except in [the Mishnah of] 'The sciatic nerve',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the opening of Chap. VII.');">¹⁵</span>

ומאי טעמא אוקימנא לאו משום דקשיא לן לא ליתני מעיקרא נמי לא תקשי לך איידי דתנא לצורך תנא נמי שלא לצורך:

for it is obvious that the prohibition of the nerve has not vanished merely because the animal has been consecrated.

בחולין אבל לא במוקדשים:

But did we not establish [that Mishnah] as dealing with the young of consecrated animals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 89b. The case therefore is not obvious, for it teaches that the prohibition of the nerve can be superimposed upon the existing prohibition of consecrated things.');">¹⁶</span>

אמאי לא

- Yes, but why did we establish [the Mishnah] in that way?

דאמר קרא

Was it not because we were faced with the difficulty: 'Why did [the Tanna] state it'?

(דברים כב, ז) שלח תשלח את האם במי שאתה מצווה לשלחו יצא זה שאי אתה מצווה לשלחו אלא להביאו לידי גזבר

In reality however<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the view of R. Abin and R. Meyasha.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבינא

this at the very outset should offer no difficulty, for since this expression was stated in one Mishnah where it was necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the opening of Chap. V.');">¹⁸</span>

הלכך עוף טהור שהרג את הנפש פטור משלוח

it was also stated in the other where it was not necessary at all.

מ"ט

IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED BIRDS BUT NOT CONSECRATED BIRDS.

דאמר קרא שלח תשלח את האם במי שאתה מצווה לשלחו יצא זה שאי אתה מצווה לשלחו אלא להביאו לב"ד

Why not? - Because the verse: Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 7.');">¹⁹</span>

היכי דמי

clearly refers only to such as you are bound to let go, excluding such as you are not bound to let go but rather to bring to the Temple treasurer.

אי דגמר דיניה

Rabina said: It follows, therefore, that if a clean bird killed a man, one is not bound to let it go,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If found in the nest sitting upon its young ones.');">²⁰</span> because the verse: 'Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go', clearly refers only to such as you are bound to let go, excluding such as you are not bound to let go but rather to bring to the Beth din.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Court, to be put to death.');">²¹</span> But what are the circumstances here? If it had already been condemned,