Chullin 280

אם כן צפור למעוטי עוף טמא ל"ל

- If that were so, then the teaching that the term zippor' excludes an unclean bird is superfluous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if by making this comparison a trefah dam is excluded, then in like manner an unclean bird would also be excluded, thus rendering the interpretation derived from the term 'zippor' unnecessary.');">¹</span>

והתניא

But it has been taught: The dam of young that is trefah, one is bound to let go!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that the Baraitha means this: if the young ones were trefah and the dam was not, one is bound to let the dam go; thus in conflict with R. Kahana.');">²</span>

אם אפרוחין טרפה חייב בשילוח

- Abaye answered: It is to be explained thus: If the dam of the young is trefah, one is bound to let it go.

אמר אביי

R'Hoshaia raised the question: What is the law if a man put his hand into a nest and cut through a small part of the throat organs [of the young ones]?

הכי קאמר אפרוח שאמן טרפה חייב בשילוח

Should we say that, since if he were to leave off cutting at this point they would become trefah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of birds the slaughtering is valid only when the greater portion of one organ of the throat has been cut, and to leave off before this requisite amount has been cut through would render the bird trefah. It must, however, be assumed here that the partly-cut organ was the gullet, for a partly-cut windpipe does not render trefah (v. supra 29a) ; v. Shak, Yoreh De'ah c. 292, sec. 15; and Glosses of R. Bezalel Regensburg a.l.');">³</span>

בעי רב הושעיא

the rule '"Thou mayest take for thyself" but not for thy dog' applies;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly one is not bound to let the dam go.');">⁴</span>

הושיט ידו לקן ושחט מיעוט סימנים מהו

or rather, since it is within his power to finish cutting, we still say [of these young ones] 'Thou mayest take for thyself', and he is therefore bound to let the dam go? - This question remains unanswered.

מי אמרינן כיון דאילו שביק להו מטרפי בעינן לך ולא לכלביך או דלמא

R'Jeremiah raised the question: Would a cloth be regarded as an interposition or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a cloth was spread over the eggs in the nest and the mother-bird was sitting on it, does the law of sending away apply or not? The doubt arises through a strict literal interpretation of the verse: And the dam sitting upon the young or upon the eggs (Deut. XXII, 6) , which would exclude every case where some extraneous object interposed between the dam and the eggs.');">⁵</span>

כיון דבידו למגמר שחיטה תקח לך קרינא ביה וחייב בשילוח

Would [loose] feathers be an interposition or not?

תיקו

Would addled eggs be an interposition or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law does not apply where there are only addled eggs in the nest (i.e., rotten eggs, incapable of producing a chicken; v. Mishnah infra) , if these addled eggs formed a layer over ordinary eggs, interposing between the dam and the ordinary eggs, are they regarded as an interposition, in which case the law of letting the dam go does not apply, or not?');">⁶</span>

בעי ר' ירמיה

What if there were two layers of eggs, one above the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does the upper layer serve as an interposition, so that one may take away the eggs of the lower layer without first letting the dam go, or not?');">⁷</span>

מטלית מהו שתחוץ

What if the male bird was upon the eggs and the dam was upon the male?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law of letting the dam go does not apply to a male bird sitting on the eggs (v. supra) , is the male bird deemed an interposition between the dam and the eggs, or not? khx,');">⁸</span>

כנפים מהו שיחוצו

- These questions remain unanswered.

ביצים מוזרות מהו

R'Zera raised the question: What is the law if a dove was sitting on a tasil's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' a clean bird, resembling a dove; cf. supra 62a.');">⁹</span>

שני סדרי ביצים זו על גב זו מהו

eggs, or if a tasil was sitting on dove's eggs?

זכר על גבי ביצים ונקבה על גבי זכר מהו

Abaye said: Come and hear: 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.

תיקו

It follows, does it not, that if a clean [bird was sitting upon the eggs of another] clean bird, one is bound to let it go? - Perhaps this is so only with a hen partridge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the inference which Abaye makes from the statement of the Mishnah, that where one clean bird sits upon the eggs of another clean bird the law applies, may be restricted only to the case of the hen partridge which habitually broods over other birds' eggs.');">¹⁰</span>

בעי ר' זירא

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

יונה על ביצי תסיל מהו

R'Abbahu said: What is the reason of R'Eliezer? - He draws an analogy between the expressions 'brood'; for it is written here: As the partridge broodeth over young which he has not brought forth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XVII, 11. This verse clearly refers to the cock partridge because of the masculine form of the verb 'he has not brought forth'.');">¹¹</span>

תסיל על ביצי יונה מהו

and it is written there: She shall hatch and brood under her shadow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XXXIV, 15. The comparison is between the brooding by the dam in this verse and the brooding by the male bird in the previous verse; in each case it is a proper brooding.');">¹²</span>

אמר אביי ת"ש

R'Eleazar said: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer and the Rabbis.');">¹³</span>

עוף טמא רובץ על ביצי עוף טהור וטהור רובץ על ביצי עוף טמא פטור משילוח הא טהור וטהור חייב

differ only with regard to a cock partridge, but as for a hen partridge all agree tha one is bound to let it go.

דלמא בקורא:

Is not this obvious?

קורא זכר רבי אליעזר מחייב וחכמים פוטרין:

for the Mishnah expressly says: A COCK PARTRIDGE! - One might have thought that even the hen partridge the Rabbis exempt [from letting go], but the reason why the cock partridge was stated [in the Mishnah] was to set forth the extent of R'Eliezer's view; we are therefore taught [that it is not so].

אמר רבי אבהו

R'Eleazar also said: They differ only with regard to a cock partridge, but as for the male of any other [bird] all agree that one is exempt [from letting it go].

מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר אתיא דגירה דגירה כתיב הכא (ירמיהו יז, יא) קורא דגר ולא ילד וכתיב התם (ישעיהו לד, טו) ובקעה ודגרה בצלה

Is not this obvious?

אמר ר"א

For the Mishnah expressly says: AS TO A COCK PARTRIDGE? - One might have thought that even the male of any other bird R'Eliezer declares one bound [to let go], but the reason why the cock partridge was stated was to set forth the extent of the Rabbis'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages.');">¹⁴</span>

מחלוקת בקורא זכר אבל בקורא נקבה דברי הכל חייב

view; we are therefore taught [that it is not so].

פשיטא קורא זכר תנן

There has also been taught [a Baraitha] to thi effect: The male of any other bird one is not bound [to let go]; as to a cock partridge.

מהו דתימא

R'Eliezer declares one bound [to let it go], but the Sages say one is not bound.

רבנן אפילו קורא נקבה פטרי והא דקתני זכר להודיעך כחו דרבי אליעזר קמשמע לן

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE DAM WAS HOVERING [OVER THE NEST] AND HER WINGS TOUCH THE NEST, ONE IS BOUND TO LET HER GO; IF HER WINGS DO NOT TOUCH THE NEST, ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET HER GO.

ואמר רבי אלעזר

IF THERE WAS BUT ONE YOUNG BIRD OR ONE EGG [IN THE NEST], ONE IS STILL BOUND TO LET THE DAM GO, FOR IT IS WRITTEN: A NEST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6.');">¹⁵</span>

מחלוקת בקורא זכר אבל בזכר דעלמא דברי הכל פטור

THAT IS, ANY NEST WHATSOEVER'IF THERE WERE THERE YOUNG BIRDS ABLE TO FLY OR ADDLED EGGS, ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET [THE DAM] GO, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND THE DAM SITTING UP ON THE YOUNG OR UPON THE EGGS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6.');">¹⁵</span>

פשיטא קורא זכר תנן

AS THE YOUNG ARE LIVING BEINGS SO THE EGGS MUST BE SUCH AS [WOULD PRODUCE] LIVING BEINGS; HENCE ADDLED EGGS ARE EXCLUDED.

מהו דתימא

AND AS THE EGGS NEED THE CARE OF THE DAM SO THE YOUNG MUST BE SUCH AS NEED THE CARE OF THE DAM; HENCE THOSE THAT ARE ABLE TO FLY ARE EXCLUDED.

רבי אליעזר אפי' זכר דעלמא מחייב והאי דקתני קורא זכר להודיעך כחן דרבנן קמ"ל

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: It is written: Sitting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6.');">¹⁵</span>

תניא נמי הכי

but not hovering.

זכר דעלמא פטור קורא זכר ר"א מחייב וחכמים פוטרין:

I might then Suppose that even when her wings touch the nest [the law does not apply], the text therefore stated: 'Sitting'.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> היתה מעופפת בזמן שכנפיה נוגעות בקן חייב לשלח אין כנפיה נוגעות בקן פטור מלשלח

How is this implied? - Because it is not written 'brooding'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would signify constantly sitting upon the eggs.');">¹⁶</span>

אין שם אלא אפרוח אחד או ביצה אחת חייב לשלח שנאמר קן קן מכל מקום

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Throughout this passage 'she' refers to the dam and 'them' to the young or the eggs.');">¹⁷</span>

היו שם אפרוחים מפריחים או ביצים מוזרות פטור מלשלח שנאמר (דברים כב, ו) והאם רובצת על האפרוחים או על הביצים

was perched upon two branches of a tree, we must consider, if when the branches slip away from each other she would fall upon them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 821, n. 4.');">¹⁸</span>

מה אפרוחים בני קיימא אף ביצים בני קיימא יצאו מוזרות

one is bound to let her go, but if not, one is not bound [to let her go].

ומה הביצים צריכין לאמן אף האפרוחין צריכין לאמן יצאו מפריחין:

An objection was raised.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן

[It was taught:] If she was sitting among them, one is not bound to let her go, if upon them, one is bound to let her go; if she was hovering over the nest, even though her wings touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go.

רובצת ולא מעופפת יכול אפי' כנפיה נוגעות בקן

Now presumably the expression 'upon them' bears the same meaning as 'among them', and just as 'among them' means that she is actually touching them so 'upon them' also means that she is actually touching them; it follows, however, that if she was upon the branches of a tree, one is not bound [to let her go]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she does not actually touch them; contrary to Rab Judah's ruling.');">¹⁹</span>

ת"ל רובצת מאי תלמודא

- No, the expression 'upon them' bears the same meaning as 'among them', and just as 'among them' clearly means that she is not touching them from above so 'upon them' also means that she is not touching them from above, and that must be the case where she was upon the branches of a tree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since she is directly above them, even though she does not touch them, the law of 'letting the dam go' applies.');">²⁰</span>

מדלא כתיב יושבת

It is indeed more logical to argue thus, for if you were to hold that when perched upon the branches of a tree one is not bound [to let her go], then the Tanna, in place of the case 'If she was hovering over the nest, even though her wings touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go', should rather have taught the case where she was perched upon the branches of a tree, and it would go without saying that where she was hovering [over the nest one is not bound to let her go!]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If where she was perched the whole time directly over the nest the law of 'letting the dam go' does not apply, how much less where she was hovering over the nest!');">²¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב

- [This argument is not conclusive for] he wished to state the case where she was hovering [over the nest] to teach that, even though her wings actually touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go.

היתה יושבת בין שני רובדי אילן רואים כל שאם תשמט נופלת עליהם חייב לשלח ואם לאו פטור

But have we not learnt: IF THE DAM WAS HOVERING OVER THE NEST, AND HER WINGS TOUCH THE NEST, ONE IS BOUND TO LET HER GO? - R'Jeremiah answered, The Baraitha deals with the case where her wings touch the side of the nest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in our Mishnah the case is that the wings touch the nest from above, thus actually touching the young birds or the eggs, and therefore one is bound to let the dam go. V. however, Maim. Yad, Shechitah, XIII, 13; and Tur, Yoreh De'ah, c. 292.');">²²</span>

מיתיבי

Another version reads as follows: Shall we say that the following [Baraitha] is a support for his view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's view, as quoted by Rab Judah.');">²³</span>

היתה יושבת ביניהן פטור מלשלח על גביהן חייב לשלח

For it was taught: If she was sitting among them, one is not bound to let her go, if upon them, one is bound to let her go; if she was hovering over the nest, even though her wings touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go.

היתה מעופפת אפי' כנפיה נוגעות בקן פטור מלשלח

Now presumably the expression 'upon them' bears the same meaning as 'among them', and just as 'among them' clearly means that she is not touching them from above so 'upon them' also means that she is not touching them from above, and that must be the case where she was upon the branches of a tree! - No, the expression 'upon them' bears the same meaning as 'among them', and just as 'among them' means that she is actually touching them so 'upon them' also means that she is actually touching them, but if she was perched upon the branches of a tree one would not be bound [to let her go].

מאי לאו על גביהן דומיא דביניהן מה ביניהן דנגעה בהו אף על גביהן דנגעה בהו אבל רובדי אילן פטור

But if so, [the Tanna] in place of the last case 'If she was hovering over the nest, even though her wings touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go',

לא על גביהן דומיא דביניהן מה ביניהן דלא נגעה עלייהו אף על גביהן דלא נגעה עלייהו והיינו רובדי אילן

ה"נ מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך רובדי אילן פטור אדתני היתה מעופפת אפי' כנפיה נוגעות בקן פטור מלשלח ליתני רובדי אילן וכ"ש מעופפת

מעופפת איצטריך ליה דאפי' כנפיה נוגעות בקן פטור מלשלח

והאנן תנן

בזמן שכנפיה נוגעות בקן חייב לשלח

אמר ר' ירמיה

כי קתני מתניתא בנוגע מן הצד

איכא דאמרי לימא מסייע ליה

היתה יושבת ביניהן פטור מלשלח על גביהן חייב לשלח היתה מעופפת אפי' כנפיה נוגעות בקן פטור מלשלח מאי לאו על גביהן דומיא דביניהן מה ביניהן דלא נגעה עלייהו אף על גביהן דלא נגעה עלייהו והיינו רובדי אילן

לא על גביהן דומיא דביניהן מה ביניהן דנגעה בהו אף על גביהן דנגעה בהו אבל רובדי אילן פטור

אי הכי אדקתני סיפא היתה מעופפת אפי' כנפיה נוגעות בקן פטור