Chullin Daf 138 (חולין דף קל״ח)
Daf: 138 | Amudim: 138a – 138b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (138a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The 137b sentence completes: Rav’s maneh is forty sela. Is such a maneh attested?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְתָנֵי תַּנָּא: מָנֶה בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים סְלָעִים. אִין! וְהָתְנַן: חֵמֶת חֲדָשָׁה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּקַבֶּלֶת רִמּוֹנִים – טְהוֹרָה.
English Translation:
equivalent to the weight of sixty sela, as stated by Rav Dimi. The Gemara asks: But does a tanna teach that a maneh is of forty sela? The Gemara answers: Yes; and we learned in the Tosefta (Kelim, Bava Metzia 6:2): With regard to a new leather flask that is not yet completely sewn together, even though it can contain pomegranates, nevertheless, because it cannot contain liquids it is considered unfinished and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The words broken off at the foot of 137b land here. Reckoning Rav’s מָנֶה at forty sela rather than a hundred dinars makes his מָנֶה וּפְרָס come to sixty, exactly the figure Rav Dimi reported in his name, and the contradiction dissolves. But the revaluation is convenient enough to need corroboration, and the Gemara reaches for one in an unlikely place — a Tosefta in Kelim about a leather flask, quoted first for its own sake so that its measure can be produced in the next line.
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים סְלָעִים = a maneh of forty sela — as against the standard hundred dinars
- חֵמֶת = a leather flask or skin, used for liquids
- טְהוֹרָה = ritually pure — here, not susceptible to impurity, since an unfinished vessel is no vessel
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s balls of warp thread attest the forty-sela maneh explicitly.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּפָרָהּ וְנִקְרְעָה – שִׁיעוּרָהּ כְּמוֹצִיא רִמּוֹנִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כְּפַקְעִיּוֹת שֶׁל שְׁתִי, אַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע, בְּמָנֶה בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים סְלָעִים.
English Translation:
If one sewed the flask together and it tore, the measure of the tear that renders the flask no longer susceptible to impurity is a hole large enough to enable pomegranates to go out, as then it ceases to serve as a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The tear must be like the measure of balls of a warp, the weight of each of which is one-quarter of a maneh of forty sela. This tanna explicitly mentions a maneh of forty sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Tosefta’s own measure for a disqualifying tear is a hole that would let pomegranates through, but Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov gives a different one — the size of the balls of warp thread weavers used, each a quarter of a מָנֶה בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים סְלָעִים. He states the unit outright, which is all the Gemara needed. A tanna does reckon a maneh at forty sela, so Rav may be read that way, and the reconciliation of 137b stands.
Key Terms:
- פַּקְעִיּוֹת שֶׁל שְׁתִי = balls of warp thread — a weaver’s standard bundle
- כְּמוֹצִיא רִמּוֹנִים = large enough to let pomegranates out — the usual measure for a vessel’s disqualifying hole
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
The mishna’s ‘laundered’ five sela is measured after the kohen washes it, not before.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה נוֹתֵן לוֹ כּוּ׳. תָּנָא – לֹא שֶׁיְּלַבְּנֶנּוּ וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁיְּלַבְּנֶנּוּ כֹּהֵן וְיַעֲמוֹד עַל חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: And how much of the sheared wool does one give to the priest? One gives him the weight of five sela in Judea, which are ten sela in the Galilee, once laundered and not when sullied. The Sages taught: The mishna does not mean that one must launder the wool and then give it to the priest; rather, the meaning is that one must give him enough wool for the priest to launder it and it will amount to five sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna at 135a fixed the gift at five sela מְלוּבָּן, laundered, and the natural reading would put the labour on the owner. The baraita rejects it: he hands over the fleece as it comes off the sheep, in a quantity calculated so that when the kohen has washed out the grease and dirt, five sela remain. The owner owes wool, not work, and the shiur is measured at the far end of the process rather than the near one.
Key Terms:
- מְלוּבָּן = laundered, whitened — wool cleaned of its natural grease
- וְיַעֲמוֹד עַל חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים = and it will come to five sela — the measure taken after washing
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi again on לַעֲמֹד לְשָׁרֵת: the shiur is the size of an avnet.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת בֶּגֶד קָטָן. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אָמַר קְרָא ״לַעֲמֹד לְשָׁרֵת״ – דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְשֵׁירוּת. מַאי נִיהוּ? אַבְנֵט.
English Translation:
The mishna states: The measure that must be given to the priest is enough to fashion a small garment from it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse that follows the mention of the first sheared wool states: “For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons forever” (Deuteronomy 18:5). The term “to serve” indicates that the first sheared wool given to the priest must be a matter that is fitting for service in the Temple, i.e., an amount of wool sufficient to fashion one of the priestly garments. What is the garment in question? It is the belt, which is made from wool weighing five sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same derivation that confined the mitzva to sheep on 137a now fixes its quantity. דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְשֵׁירוּת means the wool must suffice for an actual priestly garment, and the mishna’s בֶּגֶד קָטָן is identified as the אַבְנֵט, whose wool weighs five sela. One phrase in Devarim 18:5 has now yielded both the species and the amount — which is a fair measure of how much weight the Gemara has placed on it.
Key Terms:
- בֶּגֶד קָטָן = a small garment — the mishna’s measure for the gift
- אַבְנֵט = the belt, one of the four garments worn by every kohen
- דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְשֵׁירוּת = a thing fit for the Temple service
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Why not the far larger מְעִיל? תָּפַשְׂתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַשְׂתָּ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא מְעִיל! תָּפַשְׂתָּ מְרוּבֶּה – לֹא תָּפַשְׂתָּ, תָּפַשְׂתָּ מוּעָט – תָּפַשְׂתָּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is the garment in question necessarily the belt? Say that it is the robe, which is fashioned from a far greater amount of wool. The Gemara answers: This inference is based on the principle that if you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a little, you grasped something. Since a belt meets the condition of “to serve,” as it is one of the priestly vestments, one cannot say that the obligation is any greater than the amount of wool needed to fashion a belt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse names no garment, so any of them might set the measure — and the robe would raise the obligation enormously. The reply is a general rule of construction rather than an argument about robes: where a text underdetermines a quantity, the smaller candidate is the one you can be certain of. תָּפַשְׂתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַשְׂתָּ — grasp the lesser and you have grasped something; reach for the greater and you hold nothing secure.
Key Terms:
- מְעִיל = the robe of the Kohen Gadol, worn beneath the ephod
- תָּפַשְׂתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַשְׂתָּ = if you grasped the larger you have grasped nothing — take the minimum a vague text supports
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Then take the smaller still — the woolen cap beneath the tzitz.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא כִּיפָּה שֶׁל צֶמֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: כִּיפָּה שֶׁל צֶמֶר הָיְתָה מוּנַּחַת בְּרֹאשׁ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְעָלֶיהָ צִיץ נָתוּן, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשַׂמְתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת״.
English Translation:
But say that the garment in question is the cap of wool that the High Priest wears, which is smaller than the belt. As it is taught in a baraita: A cap of wool was placed on the High Priest’s head, and the frontplate was placed upon it, to fulfill that which is stated with regard to the frontplate: “And you shall put it on a thread of sky blue, and it shall be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be” (Exodus 28:37). The term “thread of sky blue” is referring to the cap of sky-blue wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rule just invoked cuts both ways. If the smallest qualifying garment sets the shiur, the כִּיפָּה שֶׁל צֶמֶר is smaller than a belt, and the baraita establishes it as a real garment of the service: it sat on the Kohen Gadol’s head with the tzitz fastened over it, and it is what Shemot 28:37 means by פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת. On the Gemara’s own logic the measure should drop to the cap.
Key Terms:
- כִּיפָּה שֶׁל צֶמֶר = a cap of wool worn by the Kohen Gadol beneath the tzitz
- צִיץ = the golden frontplate worn on the High Priest’s forehead
- פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת = a thread of sky-blue — read here as the blue woolen cap
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
הוּא וּבָנָיו — the garment must be one shared by Aharon and his sons.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא ״הוּא וּבָנָיו״, דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that the verse states: “To stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons” (Deuteronomy 18:5), which indicates that the verse is referring to a matter, i.e., a garment, that is equal for Aaron and for his sons. The wool given to the priest must be of sufficient size for fashioning a garment worn both by the High Priest and by common priests, whereas the woolen cap is worn only by the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same verse that supplied the criterion supplies its limit. Devarim 18:5 speaks of the kohen standing to serve הוּא וּבָנָיו, he and his sons, so the garment that fixes the measure must belong to the service of both the High Priest and the ordinary kohen. The cap is worn by the Kohen Gadol alone and drops out, leaving the belt as the smallest garment common to all.
Key Terms:
- הוּא וּבָנָיו = he and his sons — the phrase requiring a garment common to all kohanim
- דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו = a thing equal for Aharon and for his sons
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
But the belt is not shared either — unless the Yom Kippur belt differs from the ordinary one.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבְנֵט נָמֵי לָא שָׁוֵי. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַבְנֵטוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא זֶהוּ אַבְנֵטוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט – שַׁפִּיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But the belt is also not equal for all priests. The Gemara elaborates: This works out well according to the one who said that the linen belt of the High Priest worn on Yom Kippur is not the same as the belt of an ordinary priest. According to this opinion, both the belt of common priests and the belt worn by the High Priest during the rest of the year were fashioned from a mixture of wool and linen. This belt is therefore equal for all priests, and it works out well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection turns the new criterion on the answer that produced it. There is a dispute over the Kohen Gadol’s linen belt on Yom Kippur, and on one view it is a different garment from the ordinary kohen’s, which leaves the wool-and-linen belt worn by everyone the rest of the year genuinely shared. On that view the answer of segment 7 holds without strain.
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט = an ordinary priest, as distinct from the Kohen Gadol
- הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר = this works out well according to the one who says — isolating the view an answer depends on
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
שֵׁם אַבְנֵט בָּעוֹלָם — the name belt is shared even if the garments differ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זֶהוּ אַבְנֵטוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? שֵׁם אַבְנֵט בָּעוֹלָם.
English Translation:
But according to the one who said that the linen belt worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur is the same as the belt of an ordinary priest, what can be said? According to this opinion, the belt fashioned from wool and linen is worn only by the High Priest during the rest of the year. The Gemara answers: Although the belts are different, the term belt in general applies to all priests, whereas no type of cap is worn by common priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
On the competing view the wool-and-linen belt belongs to the Kohen Gadol alone, and the sharing requirement seems to fail again. The answer relaxes what sharing means: it is enough that every kohen wears something called an avnet, whatever its fabric. The contrast with the cap is the point — no ordinary kohen wears any headpiece of that kind at all, so the category itself is missing there, while for the belt only the specification differs.
Key Terms:
- שֵׁם אַבְנֵט בָּעוֹלָם = the name ‘belt’ exists across the board — shared as a category, not as a specific garment
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
גָּזַז וּמָכַר: shearing and selling one sheep at a time. Rav Chisda obligates, Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya exempts.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתְּנוֹ וְכוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר: גָּזַז וּמָכַר רִאשׁוֹנָה, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest until he dyed it, he is exempt from the obligation of giving the first sheared wool. The mishna further teaches that one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool. It was stated that amora’im disagreed with regard to one who owned five sheep and he sheared and sold the first sheep before shearing the second, and in this manner sold each sheep after shearing it. When he finished shearing he owned the requisite five fleeces, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, but he no longer owned the sheep. Rav Ḥisda says: He is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool; and Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says: He is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
The case is built to separate two moments that normally coincide. A man shears a sheep, sells it, shears the next, sells it, and so on, so that when the fifth fleece comes off he owns five fleeces and no sheep. Rav Chisda looks at the act — דְּהָא גָּזַז, he did the shearing, and each sheep was his when he did it. The dispute is over whether an obligation like this attaches to a sequence of acts or only at the instant a threshold is crossed.
Key Terms:
- גָּזַז וּמָכַר רִאשׁוֹנָה = he sheared and sold the first — the staggered case
- צֹאנְךָ = your flock (Devarim 18:4) — the possessive on which the exemption turns
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The reasoning spelled out: the shiur’s completion is the moment ownership must hold.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב חִסְדָּא אֲמַר חַיָּיב, דְּהָא גָּזַז. רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר פָּטוּר, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּקָא מָלֵא שִׁיעוּרָא בָּעֵינַן ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֵיכָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Rav Ḥisda says that he is obligated, as he sheared five sheep that he owned at the time of shearing, and therefore the term: “Your flock” (Deuteronomy 18:4), applies to this case. Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says that he is exempt, as at the time that the measure of five fleeces is completed, we require the term “your flock” to apply, since the obligation takes effect at that stage, and in this case it does not apply.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya’s position is stated with precision: בְּעִידָּנָא דְּקָא מָלֵא שִׁיעוּרָא, at the moment the measure fills, the wool must answer to צֹאנְךָ. Four fleeces obligate nobody; the fifth is what creates the duty, and it must find a flock in the owner’s hand when it does. On his reading the earlier shearings are legally inert until the last one gathers them, and by then the sheep are gone.
Key Terms:
- בְּעִידָּנָא דְּקָא מָלֵא שִׁיעוּרָא = at the time the measure is completed — when the obligation crystallises
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
The mishna implies buying a gentile’s sheep to shear obligates — but each leaves his hand.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי, פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. הָא צֹאנוֹ לִגְזוֹז – חַיָּיב. אַמַּאי? כֹּל חַד וְחַד בָּתַר גִּיזָּה נָפְקָא לַהּ מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a challenge: We learned in the mishna (135a): One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool, as he purchased only the fleece but not the sheep. One can infer from here that if he purchased the gentile’s sheep themselves in order to shear them and then return them to the gentile, he is obligated, because the sheep belonged to him at the time of shearing. But why is he obligated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya? Each and every one of the sheep, after the shearing is completed, leaves his possession, and when he has sheared five sheep, the term “your flock” no longer applies to them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna at 135a exempts one who buys a gentile’s fleece, and the exemption is worded so as to imply that buying the sheep themselves would obligate. But that case has the same structure as Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya’s: a man who buys sheep in order to shear and return them does not hold them once the shearing is done, so כֹּל חַד וְחַד בָּתַר גִּיזָּה נָפְקָא לַהּ מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ and the shiur completes on wool from sheep no longer his.
Key Terms:
- הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי = one who buys the shearing of a gentile’s flock — exempt, since he bought wool and not sheep
- נָפְקָא לַהּ מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ = it leaves his domain — ownership lapses before the measure fills
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Chisda saves his opponent’s view: ownership was transferred for the full thirty days.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּרְגְּמַאּ רַב חִסְדָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְנָן לוֹ כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda interpreted the mishna according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya: The mishna is referring to a case where the gentile transferred ownership to him for the entire period of thirty days during which the Jew sheared the sheep. Therefore, he retained ownership after he completed shearing, and the term “your flock” does apply to the sheep at the time when the obligation of the first sheared wool took effect.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda answers on behalf of the position he rejects, which is a common enough courtesy in the Gemara and here a necessary one, since the mishna would otherwise refute Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya outright. Read the purchase as covering the whole thirty-day shearing season rather than the act of shearing alone, and the sheep are still the buyer’s when the fifth fleece completes the measure. The mishna’s implied obligation survives, and so does the exemption in the staggered case.
Key Terms:
- אַלִּיבָּא דְּ = according to the view of — answering on another’s behalf
- שֶׁהִקְנָן לוֹ כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם = that he transferred them to him for the full thirty days
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Who is the tanna behind the mishna’s rule that a retaining seller bears the obligation?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ כּוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא דְּהֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שִׁיּוּרָא גַּבֵּי מוֹכֵר, בָּתַר מוֹכֵר אָזְלִינַן?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another Jew, if the seller kept some of the wool, then he is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priest. If the seller did not keep any of the wool, the buyer is obligated to give it. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that in a case where there is residual wool in the possession of the seller, we follow the seller in determining who is obligated in the mitzva of first sheared wool?
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna at 135a divides liability by what the seller kept back: retain some wool and the obligation is yours, sell the lot and it passes to the buyer. That is a curious rule, since the buyer holds the wool either way, and the Gemara wants a tanna who reasons that residue in the seller’s hand keeps the duty with him. The search for a parallel opens the last sugya of the perek.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיּוּרָא = residue — what the seller kept back from the sale
- בָּתַר מוֹכֵר אָזְלִינַן = we follow the seller — assigning the obligation by what he retained
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
Rav Chisda proposes Rabbi Yehuda, from the Pe’a mishna on selling tree-stalks.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר קִלְחֵי אִילָן בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ – נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said: The tanna who taught the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 3:5): With regard to one who sells a few fruit-bearing tree stalks within his field, without selling the field itself, for the buyer to uproot them and plant them in his own field, the buyer gives separate pe’a for each and every one of the trees. The field does not combine the trees into a single unit for pe’a, as the land is not owned by the buyer.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna in Pe’a concerns a man who sells trees standing in his field without the ground beneath them. The buyer owns trees but no field, so nothing unifies them and he must leave pe’a from each separately. Rav Chisda’s interest is in what Rabbi Yehuda adds to that case in the next line, which turns on precisely the factor the wool mishna uses.
Key Terms:
- קִלְחֵי אִילָן = tree-stalks — trees sold for uprooting and replanting elsewhere
- פֵּאָה = the corner of the field left standing for the poor
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Yehuda: if the field’s owner kept trees back, he gives pe’a for all of them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיֵּיר בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲבָל שִׁיֵּיר בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה – נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה עַל הַכֹּל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda said: When is it the buyer’s obligation to give pe’a? It is when the owner of the field did not leave any of the trees in his possession. But if the owner of the field left some of the trees in his possession, the owner gives pe’a for all the trees. Just as in the case of pe’a, if the seller left trees for himself then the obligation applies to him, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, if the seller left some of the wool for himself, the obligation applies to him.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda qualifies the anonymous ruling with the same distinction the wool mishna draws. Where the seller retained nothing the buyer bears the obligation; where he kept some trees, the field remains his in a legally operative sense and he gives pe’a for the whole. Retention by the seller keeps the duty with the seller in both cases, and Rav Chisda proposes that this is one tanna’s principle appearing twice.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָתַי = when? — the formula by which a tanna qualifies a preceding ruling
- נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה עַל הַכֹּל = he gives pe’a for the whole — the retaining seller covers everything
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Rava turns Rav Chisda’s own qualification against him: the owner must have begun reaping.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר, וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְחִיל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה לִקְצוֹר!
English Translation:
Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: But wasn’t it you, Master, who said with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that the owner gives pe’a for all the trees: This is the halakha only when the owner of the field began to harvest the fruit before he sold the trees, as the obligation to give pe’a had already applied to him. By contrast, with regard to the first sheared wool, the obligation came into effect only after he sold his sheep.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s objection is that Rav Chisda has elsewhere restricted Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling to a seller who had already started harvesting, so that the obligation had fastened on him before the sale. That restriction is fatal to the analogy: in the wool case the seller’s duty had not yet arisen when he sold, since the shiur was not complete, and there is nothing already attached to him for the sale to leave behind.
Key Terms:
- וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְחִיל לִקְצוֹר = and that is where he had begun to reap — Rav Chisda’s own qualification
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
The parallel repair fails: beginning to reap obligates the whole field, beginning to shear does not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְחִיל לִגְזוֹז – בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, ״וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם״ כְּתִיב, מֵעִידָּנָא דְּאַתְחֵיל לִקְצוֹר מִיחַיַּיב בְּכוּלַּהּ שָׂדֶה, אֶלָּא הָכָא, מֵעִידָּנָא דְּאַתְחֵיל לְמֵיגַז לָא מִיחַיַּיב בְּכוּלֵּיהּ עֶדְרֵיהּ!
English Translation:
And if you would say that so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, this halakha that the seller gives the first sheared wool applies only if the seller began to shear the sheep before he sold them, that explanation is difficult. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, there, with regard to pe’a, it is written: “And when you reap the harvest of your land” (Leviticus 19:9), which indicates that from the time that he began to harvest he is obligated in the mitzva of pe’a with regard to the entire field. But here, in the case of the first sheared wool, he is not obligated with regard to the entire flock from the time that he began to shear his sheep. Therefore, even if he began shearing before he sold the sheep, the obligation to give the first sheared wool should not apply to the seller.
קלאוד על הדף:
One might rescue the analogy by requiring that the seller had begun shearing, matching the pe’a condition. Rava blocks it on the wording of the verses. וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם makes the first cut obligate the entire field at once, so a harvest begun is a harvest owed. No such clause governs the shearing, where the duty waits on the fifth fleece and not on the first, so beginning to shear leaves the flock unencumbered.
Key Terms:
- וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם = and when you reap the harvest of your land (Vayikra 19:9)
- מִיחַיַּיב בְּכוּלַּהּ שָׂדֶה = he becomes obligated in the whole field — from the first act of reaping
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s replacement source: the mishna at 132a on buying a cow’s innards.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דִּתְנַן: אָמַר לוֹ ״מְכוֹר לִי בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל פָּרָה זוֹ״, וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן מַתָּנוֹת – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וְאֵין מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים. לָקַח מִמֶּנּוּ בְּמִשְׁקָל – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן וּמְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים.
English Translation:
Rather, Rava said: It is this tanna who taught the mishna, as we learned in a different mishna (132a): If one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of this cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included in them, i.e., the maw, the purchaser must give them to the priest, and he may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays the butcher, as it is assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, the buyer must give the gifts to a priest and he may deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays the butcher. If the priestly gifts have not yet been separated from the animal, the price by weight includes the price of these gifts. But since the priests had the right to their gifts from the time of the slaughter, the buyer does not need to pay for them and may therefore deduct their value from his payment.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava relocates the mishna’s tanna from the agricultural laws to the priestly gifts themselves. In the innards case, a buyer who bought them as innards gives the maw to the kohen and may not deduct its value, because the gift was never part of what was sold; a buyer who bought by weight may deduct, since the price was struck on a quantity that included what the kohen was already owed. The principle that will close the perek is being set up in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ = the innards of an animal
- מַתָּנוֹת = the priestly gifts — here the קֵיבָה, the maw, found among the innards
- מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים = he deducts it from the price
Amud Bet (138b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ — the principle that closes the perek.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלְמָא מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ, הָכָא נָמֵי מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ. הִלְכָּךְ: שִׁיֵּיר הַמּוֹכֵר – מוֹכֵר חַיָּיב, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לוֹקֵחַ: ״מַתָּנָה דְּכֹהֵן גַּבָּךְ הִיא״. לֹא שִׁיֵּיר – לוֹקֵחַ חַיָּיב, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ מוֹכֵר: ״מַתָּנָה דְּכֹהֵן לָא זַבֵּנִי לָךְ״.
English Translation:
Evidently, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest, and therefore they are not included in the sale of the innards unless they were sold by weight. Here too, with regard to the first sheared wool, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest. Therefore, if the seller left wool in his possession, the seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool from the remaining wool for that which he sold, as the buyer can say to the seller: The gift of the priest is in your possession, since you did not sell me everything. If the seller did not leave any wool in his possession, the buyer is obligated to give the first sheared wool and he does not deduct its value from the price, as the seller can say to him: I did not sell the gift of the priest to you, i.e., there was no obligation to give the gifts to a priest when I sold the wool to you, and therefore the buyer is required to give the gifts to the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The innards mishna is generalised into a rule about what a sale can contain: a man does not sell the kohen’s gift, because it was never his to price. Both halves of the wool mishna then follow without further argument. Where the seller kept wool back, the buyer answers מַתָּנָה דְּכֹהֵן גַּבָּךְ הִיא, the gift is with you; where he sold everything, the seller answers מַתָּנָה דְּכֹהֵן לָא זַבֵּנִי לָךְ, I never sold it to you. The liability follows the wool rather than the contract, and the perek ends on that.
Key Terms:
- מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ = a person does not sell the gifts of the kohen
- שִׁיֵּיר = he retained — kept part of the wool back from the sale
הדרן עלך ראשית הגז
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.
English Translation:
Hadran alach Reishit HaGez — we shall return to you, the perek of The First of the Shearing.
קלאוד על הדף:
With these words the perek Reishit HaGez closes — the eleventh of the twelve perakim of Chullin. It opened on daf 135a with the mishna listing where the first shearing applies and to whom, and it ends here on a principle of ownership rather than of measure: מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ, a man does not sell what already belongs to the kohen. The hadran is not a legal statement but a formula of parting and return — hadran alach, we shall come back to you — expressing the learner’s intention that a perek completed is not a perek finished with. The masechet now turns to its final perek, Shiluach HaKen, which begins on this very amud and runs to daf 142a.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alach) = we shall return to you — the formula marking the completion of a perek
- רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז = The First of the Shearing — the name of the eleventh perek, after its opening words
פרק שילוח הקן — Perek Shiluach HaKen
The twelfth and final perek of Chullin, on the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest (Devarim 22:6-7). It begins here on 138b and runs to daf 142a.
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
The opening mishna of Shiluach HaKen, with the standard triple formula and the kisui hadam comparison.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בְּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין. חוֹמֶר בְּכִסּוּי הַדָּם מִשִּׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן, שֶׁכִּסּוּי הַדָּם נוֹהֵג בַּחַיָּה וּבָעוֹף, בִּמְזוּמָּן וּבְשֶׁאֵין מְזוּמָּן, וְשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּעוֹף, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It applies to non-sacred birds, but it does not apply to sacrificial birds. There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals and birds that are readily available in one’s home, and to animals and birds that are not readily available and are hunted in the wild; and the sending of the mother bird from the nest applies only to birds, and applies only to birds that are not readily available.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final perek opens in the masechet’s habitual manner, surveying the mitzva’s scope before any of its details: the Land and outside it, Temple or no Temple, chullin but not muk’dashin. It then sets shiluach haken against kisui hadam and finds it the narrower of the two on both axes — covering the blood reaches wild animals as well as birds and applies to the מְזוּמָּן and the שֶׁאֵין מְזוּמָּן alike, while sending the mother reaches only birds, and only those not already at hand. Both restrictions will be worked out in the Gemara.
Key Terms:
- שִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן = sending away the mother bird from the nest (Devarim 22:6-7)
- כִּסּוּי הַדָּם = covering the blood of a slaughtered wild animal or bird
- מְזוּמָּן = readily available — already at one’s disposal, as against found in the wild
- מוּקְדָּשִׁין = consecrated animals, as against חוּלִּין, non-sacred
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Which birds count as not readily available, the disqualified nests, and the male pheasant.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן? כְּגוֹן אֲוָוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס, אֲבָל אִם קִנְּנוּ בַּבַּיִת, וְכֵן יוֹנֵי הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ. עוֹף טָמֵא – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְטָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. קוֹרֵא זָכָר – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.
English Translation:
What are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds, even domesticated, that may fly away at any time, such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard [pardes]. But if geese or chickens nested in the house, and likewise, with regard to domesticated pigeons [yonei hardisei’ot], one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. With regard to the nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. With regard to a male pheasant [korei], which is known to sit upon the eggs like the female of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send it away, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna makes מְזוּמָּן concrete, and the test turns out to be the nest rather than the species: geese and chickens are domestic birds, but ones that nested out in the orchard are not at their owner’s disposal, while the same birds nesting indoors are. Two mismatches then follow — a non-kosher bird brooding on kosher eggs, or the reverse — both exempt, since mother and young must belong to one permitted kind. The perek’s first dispute closes the mishna: the קוֹרֵא זָכָר broods as the female does, and Rabbi Eliezer obligates while the Rabbis hold that הָאֵם means a mother.
Key Terms:
- פַּרְדֵּס = an orchard — open ground where domestic birds are nonetheless not at hand
- יוֹנֵי הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת = Herodian pigeons — domesticated doves kept in cotes
- קוֹרֵא זָכָר = a male pheasant, which sits on the eggs like the female
- עוֹף טָמֵא = a non-kosher bird
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha: בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ is redundant except at reishit hagez.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי מְיָישָׁא, חַד אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ״ שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי דְּאָמַר: ״רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna contains several phrases related to the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest that also appear in the first mishna of several other chapters of this tractate. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha made the following statements. One of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is stated needlessly, as those mitzvot are not related to land, such that there is no need to teach that they apply outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. This is true except for the mitzva of the first shearing of wool, which one must give to a priest. It was necessary to teach that that mitzva applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who said: The first shearing is in effect only in Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens not on birds but on the masechet’s editorial habits. Mitzvot unconnected to the soil obviously apply outside the Land, so the clause is ordinarily שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ — with one exception, and it is the perek just closed. There the clause is polemical, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, aimed at the view met on 136b that the first shearing is confined to Eretz Yisrael. The formula that looks like boilerplate turns out, in one place, to be taking a side.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ = not out of necessity — taught without adding anything
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּ = to exclude the view of — a clause aimed at a specific opinion
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The second clause: בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת is redundant except at אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחַד אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת״ – שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מֵ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָנָא דְּקָדָשִׁים כְּתִיב, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא קָדָשִׁים – נִנְהוֹג, בִּזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא קֳדָשִׁים – לָא נִנְהוֹג, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
And the other one said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, it is stated needlessly, as these mitzvot are requirements of the object itself, and there is no need to teach that they apply even after the destruction of the Temple. This is true except for the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day. It was necessary to teach that this mitzva applies even after the destruction of the Temple, because it might enter your mind to say: Since this prohibition is written in a passage in the Torah discussing the matter of sacrificial animals (see Leviticus, chapter 22), at a time when there are sacrificial animals, i.e., when the Temple is standing, we will abide by it, but at a time when there are no sacrificial animals, after the destruction of the Temple, we will not abide by it. Therefore, that mishna teaches us that this is not so.
קלאוד על הדף:
The other of the pair treats the Temple clause the same way. Obligations inhering in the object itself plainly survive the churban, so saying so teaches nothing — except where the reader has a reason to think otherwise. The prohibition on slaughtering an animal and its young sits in Vayikra among the laws of offerings, and the setting alone might suggest it lapsed with them. The clause forestalls the inference.
Key Terms:
- אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ = it and its young — the prohibition on slaughtering both in one day (Vayikra 22:28)
- בְּעִנְיָנָא דְּקָדָשִׁים כְּתִיב = it is written in a passage concerning consecrated animals
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The third clause is always necessary — except at gid hanasheh, where it is obvious.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ אָמְרִי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בְּחוּלִּין וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁים״ – לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיקַּדַּשׁ פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִינֵּיהּ?
English Translation:
And both of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both to non-sacred animals and to sacrificial animals, it is stated necessarily. This is the case except for the mishna discussing the sciatic nerve, as it is obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals as well. Can it enter one’s mind to say that because it was consecrated, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is abrogated from the animal?
קלאוד על הדף:
On the third formula the two agree, and the exception runs the other way: בְּחוּלִּין וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁים normally does real work, but at the sciatic nerve it states the obvious. Consecration adds prohibitions; it does not repeal them, and no one would suppose that dedicating an animal releases its gid. The clause there looks like pure surplus.
Key Terms:
- גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה = the sciatic nerve, forbidden since Yaakov’s struggle (Bereishit 32:33)
- פְּשִׁיטָא = it is obvious — the objection that a teaching states nothing new
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
But that mishna was established as speaking of וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים, which makes it necessary.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָאו אוֹקֵימְנָא בְּוַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we establish that the mishna there (89b) is referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Without the mishna, one might have thought that since the offspring was already prohibited as a sacrificial animal before its sciatic nerve was even formed, the prohibition with regard to the latter does not take effect where the former prohibition already exists. If so, it was in fact necessary to teach this halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection recalls the sugya at 89b, where the mishna’s clause was read as covering the offspring of consecrated animals. There the sanctity precedes the nerve’s very formation, and one might have argued that a prohibition cannot settle on what an earlier prohibition already holds. On that reading the clause is indispensable, and calling it obvious ignores the interpretation the Gemara itself adopted.
Key Terms:
- וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים = offspring of consecrated animals — sanctified from conception
- אוֹקֵימְנָא = we established it as — the Gemara’s own earlier interpretation
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
We read it that way only to relieve the redundancy — which never needed relieving.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי טַעְמָא אוֹקֵימְנָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לַן לָא לִיתְנֵי? מֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי לָא תִּקְשֵׁי לָךְ, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא לְצוֹרֶךְ, תְּנָא נָמֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: But what is the reason we interpreted that mishna as referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Is it not due to the fact that the question: Let the mishna not teach that the prohibition applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is difficult for us? It is in response to this question that Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha stated that even from the outset, this should not pose a difficulty for you. Rather, since the phrase: Applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is taught necessarily with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring, it is also taught needlessly with regard to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, to parallel the formula of the other mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer withdraws the premise of the earlier sugya rather than the claim here. Why was 89b driven to the offspring reading at all? Because the redundancy troubled it. Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha remove the pressure: a formula established where it is needed gets repeated where it is not, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא לְצוֹרֶךְ תְּנָא נָמֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, simply so the mishnayot read alike. Redundancy is a feature of the Mishna’s style, not a defect requiring interpretation.
Key Terms:
- אַיְּידֵי = since, in consequence of — introducing a stylistic rather than substantive explanation
- אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא לְצוֹרֶךְ תְּנָא נָמֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ = since it was taught where necessary, it was taught also where unnecessary
Segment 9
TYPE: דרשה
Why muk’dashin are excluded: שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח — one you are commanded to send, not to deliver.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים. אַמַּאי לָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״ – בְּמִי שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאוֹ לִידֵי גִּזְבָּר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies to non-sacred birds, but not to sacrificial birds. The Gemara asks: Why does this mitzva not apply to sacrificial birds? The Gemara responds: As the verse states: “You shall send the mother” (Deuteronomy 22:7). The verse refers only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, i.e., a non-sacred bird; that excludes this sacrificial bird, which you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to the custody of the Temple treasurer.
קלאוד על הדף:
The exclusion is read out of the verb itself. שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח describes a bird whose prescribed disposition is release, and a consecrated bird has a different one — לַהֲבִיאוֹ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר, to be brought into the treasurer’s hands. The two destinations are incompatible, so the mitzva never engages. What excludes the bird is not its sanctity as such but the fact that the Torah has already told you where it is going.
Key Terms:
- שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם = you shall surely send away the mother (Devarim 22:7)
- גִּזְבָּר = the Temple treasurer, to whom consecrated property is delivered
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Ravina extends the reading to a bird that killed a person; the daf breaks off mid-inquiry.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבִינָא: הִלְכָּךְ, עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ פָּטוּר מִשִּׁלּוּחַ, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״ – בְּמִי שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְבֵית דִּין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּגְמַר דִּינֵיהּ –
English Translation:
Ravina says: Therefore, with regard to a kosher bird that killed a person and must now be executed, one is exempt from sending it away. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: “You shall send the mother.” The verse is referring only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, which excludes this bird that you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to court. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case, i.e., how is this bird that killed a person now resting on its eggs? If this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued,
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina’s הִלְכָּךְ shows that the derivation was general rather than a rule about kodashim: any bird the Torah directs elsewhere is outside the mitzva, and a bird that has killed is owed to בֵּית דִּין. The Gemara then turns to the mechanics — הֵיכִי דָמֵי, how is such a bird still brooding, and has sentence already been passed? — and the page runs out inside the question. The answer, and the perek proper, continue on 139a.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכָּךְ = therefore — extending a derivation to a fresh case
- עוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ = a bird that killed a person, liable to death by the court
- גְּמַר דִּינֵיהּ = its verdict was concluded — the point at which the daf breaks off