Chullin 281:1

ליתני רובדי אילן וכ"ש מעופפת

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]! - 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.

מעופפת איצטריך ליה דאפי' כנפיה נוגעות בקן פטור מלשלח

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in MS.M. and also in the first version supra; cur. edd. 'Rab Judah'.');">¹</span>

והאנן תנן

answered: The Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So according to MSS, and Maharsha (q.v.) ; in the text 'The Mishnah'. The latter, however, in all probability, was the text before Maim. and Tur. loc. cit.; v. D.S. a.l.');">²</span>

בזמן שכנפיה נוגעות בקן חייב לשלח

deals with the case where her wings touch the side of the nest.

אמר רב יהודה

IF THERE WAS BUT ONE YOUNG BIRD OR ONE EGG etc. A certain Rabbi said to Raba: Perhaps it should be the reverse, thus if there was but one young bird or one egg [in the nest], one is not bound to let the dam go, for according to the verse there must be young or eggs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6. The verse states these nouns in the plural, i.e., several young or several eggs.');">³</span>

כי קתני מתניתין בנוגע מן הצד:

which is not the case here; and if there were there young birds able to fly or addled eggs, one is bound to let the dam go, for it is written, a nest, that is, any nest whatsoever! [He replied,] If that were so, the verse should have stated: 'And the dam sitting upon them'; why is it written: And the dam sitting upon the young or upon the eggs?

אין שם אפרוח וכו':

To compare the young with the eggs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as eggs need the care of the dam so the young must be such as need the care of the dam, thus excluding such as can fly.');">⁴</span>

א"ל ההוא מרבנן לרבא

and the eggs with the young.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as the young are living beings so the eggs must be such as can produce living beings, thus addled eggs are excluded, v. Mishnah supra. Consequently the expression 'a nest', signifying any nest whatsoever, includes a nest that has but one young or one egg in it.');">⁵</span>

אימא איפכא אין שם אפרוח אלא אחד או ביצה אחת פטור מלשלח דבעינן אפרוחים או ביצים וליכא

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN LET [THE DAM] GO AND SHE RETURNED, EVEN FOUR OF FIVE TIMES, HE IS STILL BOUND [TO LET HER GO AGAIN], FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE LET THE DAM GO.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. Lit., 'letting go thou shalt let go'; i.e., as often as necessary. V. Gemara infra.');">⁶</span>

היו שם אפרוחים מפריחים או ביצים מוזרות חייב לשלח שנאמר קן קן מכל מקום

IF A MAN SAID, 'I WILL TAKE THE DAM AND LET THE YOUNG GO', HE IS STILL BOUND [TO LET HER GO], FOR IT IS WRITTEN, 'THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE LET THE DAM GO'.

אם כן נכתוב קרא והאם רובצת עליהם מאי (דברים כב, ו) והאם רובצת על האפרוחים או על הביצים לאקושי אפרוחים לביצים וביצים לאפרוחים:

IF A MAN TOOK THE YOUNG<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having already let the dam go.');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שלחה וחזרה אפי' ארבעה וחמשה פעמים חייב שנאמר (דברים כב, ז) שלח תשלח את האם

AND BROUGHT THEM BACK AGAIN TO THE NEST, AND AFTERWARDS THE DAM RETURNED TO THEM, HE IS NOT BOUND TO LET HER GO.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this man has acquired possession of the young ones, and they are now always at his disposal, consequently the law no longer applies. jka');">⁸</span>

אמר הריני נוטל את האם ומשלח את הבנים חייב שנאמר שלח תשלח את האם

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>A certain Rabbi said to Raba: Perhaps 'shalleah'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , 'to let go', the infinitive of the verb. jka,');">⁹</span>

נטל את הבנים והחזירן לה ואח"כ חזרה האם עליהן פטור מלשלח:

means once, and 'teshallah'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , 'thou shalt let go', the imperfect of the verb.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ל ההוא מרבנן לרבא ואימא

twice? - He replied: 'Shalleah' implies even a hundred times; and as for 'teshallah', [it is required for the following teaching:] I only know [this law in the case where the dam is required] for matters of choice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for one's own purposes, either for food or for breeding.');">¹¹</span>

שלח חדא זימנא תשלח תרי זימנין

whence do I know [that this law applies even when it is required] for the fulfilment of a precept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., for the leper's sacrifice (Lev. XIV, 4) or for the sacrifice of a woman after childbirth (ibid. XII, 8) . Whence do I know that even for these religious purposes it is not permitted to take the dam?');">¹²</span>

א"ל

The text therefore states: 'teshallah', [thou shalt let her go] under all circumstances.

שלח אפילו מאה פעמים תשלח אין לי אלא לדבר הרשות לדבר מצוה מנין

R'Abba the son of R'Joseph B'Raba said to R'Kahana: Then the only reason [for this] is that the Divine Law stated 'teshallah', but otherwise I should have said that [where one required the dam] for the fulfilment of a precept, the law did not apply.

ת"ל תשלח מכל מקום

But there is here, is there not, both a positive and a negative precept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The negative precept Thou shalt not take the dam, and the positive precept Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go.');">¹³</span>

א"ל ר' אבא בריה דרב יוסף בר רבא לרב כהנא

And [it is established law that] a positive precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the fulfilment of which the bird is required, v. n. 3.');">¹⁴</span>

אלא טעמא דכתב רחמנא תשלח הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא לדבר מצוה לא

cannot override a positive and negative precept! - It is necessary for the case where one had transgressed and had taken the dam.

עשה ולא תעשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה

Now he has already transgressed the negative precept, and there remains only the positive precept; and one might suppose that now a positive precept can override this [remaining] positive precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the positive precept of offering birds for the leper's sacrifice should override the positive precept of letting the dam go.');">¹⁵</span>

לא צריכא דעבר ושקלה לאם דלאו עבריה עשה הוא דאיכא ליתי עשה ולידחי עשה קמ"ל

[Scripture] therefore teaches us [that it i not so].

הניחא למאן דתני קיימו ולא קיימו אלא למאן דתני בטלו ולא בטלו כמה דלא שחטה לא עבריה ללאו

This is in order, however, according to him who teaches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mak. 15a, 16a.');">¹⁶</span>

ותו לר' יהודה דאמר שלח מעיקרא משמע אפי' עשה נמי ליכא

that it depends upon whether he has fulfilled or not fulfilled [the positive precept],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all prohibitions the transgression of which can be rectified by a subsequent act of the transgressor - e.g., the prohibition: Thou shalt not rob (Lev. XIX, 13) , can after the transgression thereof be rectified by the remedial precept: He shall restore that which he took by robbery (ibid. V, 23) - the transgressor is not liable to forty stripes unless after the transgression he does not immediately (or, at the Court's bidding, v. Rashi, tjhbv Mak. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי

but according to him who teaches that it depends upon whether he has nullified or not nullified [the positive precept],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the transgressor does not incur the penalty of stripes for the infringement of the negative precept unless he has also nullified his chances of performing the remedial precept, e.g., here if he slaughtered the dam. But so long as he has not nullified the remedial precept, even though he defers it to some later date, he is not liable to stripes.');">¹⁸</span>

כגון שנטלה על מנת לשלח דלאו ליכא עשה הוא דאיכא וליתי עשה ולידחי עשה

then so long as this man has not slaughtered the dam he has not transgressed the negative precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It cannot therefore be suggested that the positive precept of the leper's sacrifice should override the law of letting the dam go for the latter still involves a positive and a negative precept; accordingly the verse stated above to exclude this is now superfluous.');">¹⁹</span>

מאי אולמיה דהאי עשה מהאי עשה

Moreover, according to R'Judah who maintains that the precept of letting [the dam] go was intended only in the first instance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on finding a bird's nest a man should immediately let the dam go, for as soon as he takes up the dam he thereby transgresses the law for which he incurs forty stripes (v. next Mishnah) . Thereafter he is not obliged to let her go at all, but may use it for any purpose.');">²⁰</span>

סלקא דעתך הואיל ואמר מר

there is now [after the transgression of the law] not even a positive precept!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It, therefore, cannot be suggested that the man had transgressed the law and taken the dam, for then according to R. Judah it may be used for all purposes.');">²¹</span>

גדול שלום שבין איש לאשתו שהרי אמרה תורה

- Rather, said Mar son of R'Ashi, we suppose the case where a man took up the dam in order to let it go, in which case there is no infringement of the negative precept; there is, however, a positive precept and [it might be suggested that] the positive precept [of the leper's offering] should override this positive precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By taking the dam he has not infringed the negative precept, since he took it for the purpose of letting it go, and even if he does not let it go it cannot be said that he has transgressed this negative precept retroactively. There now remains incumbent upon him the positive precept of letting it go, but this would be overridden if he were to retain it for the fulfilment of the positive precept of the leper's offering. The verse is therefore necessary to exclude this possibility.');">²²</span>

שמו של הקב"ה שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים והאי מצורע כיון דכמה דלא מטהר אסור בתשמיש המטה דכתיב (ויקרא יד, ח) וישב מחוץ לאהלו שבעת ימים אהלו זו אשתו מכאן שאסור בתשמיש המטה

But in what way is this positive precept more potent than that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should the precept of the leper's offering be considered more important so as to override the precept of letting the dam go?');">²³</span>

מהו דתימא

- Because one might argue: since a Master has said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. ');">²⁴</span>

כיון דאסור בתשמיש המטה ליתי עשה דידיה ולידחי עשה דשלוח הקן קמ"ל:

Great is the peace between man and wife, for the Torah has permitted the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is to be written in all sanctity, to be washed away in the waters of bitterness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. V, 23.');">²⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הנוטל אם על הבנים ר' יהודה אומר

and since a leper so long as he has not been cleansed is forbidden marital intercourse, (for it is written: And he shall dwell outside his tent seven days;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 8.');">²⁶</span>

לוקה ואינו משלח וחכמים אומרים

'his tent' signifies his wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. V, 27: Go say to them: Return to your tents, which was a permission to resume marital relations.');">²⁷</span>

משלח ואינו לוקה

hence he is forbidden marital intercourse) - one might therefore argue, since he is forbidden marital intercourse, the positive precept in his case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the offering of birds which brings about the leper's purification and also the restoration of conjugal relationships.');">²⁸</span>

זה הכלל

should override the positive precept of letting the dam go, we are therefore taught [that it is not so].

כל מצות לא תעשה שיש בה קום עשה אין לוקין עליה:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN TOOK THE DAM WITH THE YOUNG, R'JUDAH SAYS, HE HAS INCURRED [FORTY] STRIPES, AND HE NEED NOT NOW LET HER GO.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בעי רבי אבא בר ממל

BUT THE SAGES SAY, HE MUST LET HER GO, AND HE DOES NOT INCUR STRIPES.

טעמא דרבי יהודה משום דסבר לאו שניתק לעשה לוקין עליו

THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: [FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF] ANY NEGATIVE PRECEPT WHICH ADMITS OF A REMEDY BY THE SUBSEQUENT FULFILMENT OF A POSITIVE COMMAND,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in which there is (the command,) Rise and do'.');">²⁹</span>

או דלמא

ONE DOES NOT INCUR STRIPES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided one fulfilled the, remedial positive act immediately according to one view above, or one did not nullify the chances of performing the remedial act according to the other view above. V. supra p. 815, n. 8 and p. 816, n. 1, notes 5 and 6, and Mak. 15b.');">³⁰</span>

בעלמא סבר לאו שניתק לעשה אין לוקין עליו והכא היינו טעמא משום דקסבר שלח מעיקרא משמע

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Abba B'Memel raised the question: Is the reason for R'Judah's view [in the Mishnah] that he is of the opinion that [for the transgression of] a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act [of the transgressor] one incurs stripes, or is it that elsewhere he is of the opinion that [for the transgressi of] a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act one does not incur stripes, but here the reason is that he maintains that the precept of letting [the dam] go was intended only in the first instance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore once the dam has been taken both the negative and positive precepts have been infringed, and one is no longer obliged to send it away. V. p. 816, n. 3.');">³¹</span>

תא שמע

- Come and hear: A thief and a robber are subject to the penalty of stripes; so R'Judah.

גנב וגזלן ישנן בכלל מלקות דברי רבי יהודה

Now is not this a case of a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act,for the Divine Law says: Thou shalt not rob,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 13.');">³²</span>

והא הכא דלאו שניתק לעשה הוא דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא יט, יג) לא תגזול (ויקרא ה, כג) והשיב את הגזלה שמע מינה

and also: He shall restore that which he took by robbery?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. V, 23. This precept obviously can only be taken as a remedial act for the preceding prohibition; nevertheless according to R. Judah the robber incurs the penalty of stripes.');">³³</span>

טעמא דר' יהודה משום דקסבר לאו שניתק לעשה לוקין עליו

You can therefore infer from this that the reason for R'Judah's view [in our Mishnah] is that he is of the opinion that [for the transgression of] a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act [of the transgressor] one incurs stripes.

אמר ליה ר' זירא

Thereupon R'Zera said to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in MS.M. 'To them', i.e., to the students in the Beth Hamidrash (House of Study) who quoted the foregoing teaching. Cur. edd. 'to him'.');">³⁴</span>

לאו אמינא לכו כל מתניתא דלא תניא בי

Have I not told you that every Baraitha that was not taught in the school of