Chullin Daf 139 (חולין דף קל״ט)
Daf: 139 | Amudim: 139a – 139b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (139a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The 138b question completes: the bird is not yet sentenced and must be brought to court.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא, אֶלָּא דְּלָא גְּמַר דִּינֵיהּ, וּבָעֵי לְאֵתוֹיֵיהּ לְבֵי דִינָא וְקַיּוֹמֵי בֵּיהּ ״וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרַע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״.
English Translation:
how could it be free to rest on its eggs? It is subject to being killed and should have been executed. Rather, it must be a case where its verdict was not yet issued, and one is required to bring it to the court to fulfill through it the verse: “And you shall eradicate the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:6).
קלאוד על הדף:
The probe left hanging at the end of 138b resolves. Had sentence already been passed the bird would be dead, not brooding, so Ravina’s case must be one awaiting judgment — and the duty to produce it before the court, וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרַע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ, is already in force from the moment of the killing. That is what displaces שִׁילּוּחַ: the Torah has assigned this bird a destination, and it is not the open air.
Key Terms:
- גְּמַר דִּינֵיהּ = its verdict was concluded — sentence passed
- וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרַע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ = and you shall remove the evil from your midst (Devarim 13:6)
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
First attempt at the mishna’s muk’dashin case: a nest in his house that he consecrated.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנֵי מוּקְדָּשִׁין הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ קֵן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ – מִי מִיחַיַּיב? ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר״ – פְּרָט לִמְזוּמָּן.
English Translation:
§ With regard to the statement of the mishna that sacrificial birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of these sacrificial birds discussed in the mishna? If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where one had a nest in his house and consecrated it, is one obligated to send away even a non-sacred bird in such a case? The verse states: “If a bird’s nest happens before you on the way” (Deuteronomy 22:6), which excludes a nest readily available in one’s home.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna exempted consecrated birds, which presupposes a case where the mitzva would otherwise have applied — and the Gemara cannot find one. The first candidate fails at once: a nest already sitting in a man’s house is מְזוּמָּן, and כִּי יִקָּרֵא excludes it whether it is consecrated or not. An exemption that would hold anyway teaches nothing, so the mishna cannot mean this.
Key Terms:
- מוּקְדָּשִׁין = consecrated animals
- כִּי יִקָּרֵא = if it chances — the phrase excluding what is already at hand
- פְּרָט לִמְזוּמָּן = excluding what is readily available
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Second attempt: he consecrated a wild nest — but one cannot consecrate what one does not own.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא קֵן בְּעָלְמָא וְאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ, וּמִי קָדוֹשׁ? ״אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּשׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.
English Translation:
Rather, perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where one merely saw a nest that did not belong to him, and he consecrated it. But this, too, is problematic: Is the nest consecrated in such a case? But the Merciful One states: “When a man shall sanctify his house to be holy” (Leviticus 27:14), indicating that just as his house is in his possession when he consecrates it, so too, any item that one wishes to consecrate must be in his possession when consecrating it. If so, one cannot consecrate a nest that does not belong to him.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the nest is genuinely a chance find then it is nobody’s, and that is precisely why the consecration fails. אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּישׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ makes a man’s house the model for everything he may sanctify: מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, as his house is in his possession, so must anything else be. Declaring a wild nest holy is words without effect, so there is no consecrated bird here either.
Key Terms:
- אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּישׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ = when a man sanctifies his house (Vayikra 27:14)
- בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ = in his possession — the precondition for a valid consecration
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Third attempt: he lifted the chicks, consecrated them and returned them — but that exempts anyway.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא דְּאַגְבְּהִינְהוּ לְאֶפְרוֹחִים, וְאַקְדְּשִׁינְהוּ, וַהֲדַר אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ – הַאי אֲפִילּוּ בְּחוּלִּין נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב, דִּתְנָא: נָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחְזִירָן לַקֵּן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה הָאֵם עֲלֵיהֶן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted the chicks, taking possession of them, and then consecrated them, and then returned them to the nest. But this too cannot be, as even with regard to non-sacred birds one is not obligated to send the mother away in such a case, as is taught in a mishna (141a): If one sent the mother away and took the offspring and then returned them to the nest, and thereafter, the mother returned and rested upon them, one is exempt from sending the mother bird away, because he has acquired the offspring and they are now considered readily available.
קלאוד על הדף:
Acquiring the young first would solve the ownership problem, but it destroys the obligation in the process. The mishna at 141a rules that one who takes the offspring and puts them back is exempt even where nothing was consecrated, since lifting them made them his and the nest is no longer a chance encounter. Once again the consecration would be doing no work.
Key Terms:
- אַגְבְּהִינְהוּ = he lifted them — the act of acquisition by raising an object
- נָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחְזִירָן = he took the young and returned them — the exempting case of the mishna at 141a
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Fourth attempt: he lifted and consecrated the mother — but the obligation had already fallen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דְּאַגְבְּהַהּ לְאֵם, וְאַקְדְּשַׁהּ, וַהֲדַרָה. מֵעִיקָּרָא אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּשִׁילּוּחַ מִקַּמֵּי דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף אוֹמֵר: הִקְדִּישׁ חַיָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת, שְׁחָטָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכִסּוּי קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted the mother, taking possession of her, and then consecrated her, and thereafter returned her to the nest. The Gemara responds that this too cannot be, because he was initially obligated in the sending away of the mother bird before he consecrated her. Consequently, the consecration of the bird afterward cannot abrogate the requirement to send it away, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Yosef says: If one consecrated an undomesticated animal and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from covering its blood, because a consecrated animal is not subject to the obligation of covering the blood. But if he slaughtered it and then consecrated it, he is obligated to cover its blood, as he was already obligated in the mitzva of covering of the blood before it came into the possession of the Temple treasury.
קלאוד על הדף:
The last candidate fails on timing rather than ownership. Encountering the nest obligated him in shiluach on the spot, and a consecration that comes afterwards cannot dislodge a duty already in force. Rabbi Yochanan ben Yosef’s baraita states the principle for the neighbouring mitzva: consecrate a chaya and then slaughter it and there is no covering, but slaughter it and then consecrate it and the covering stands, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב. All four readings are now exhausted.
Key Terms:
- כִּסּוּי הַדָּם = covering the blood of a slaughtered wild animal or bird
- שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב = for he was already obligated — a prior duty is not displaced by later sanctity
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav and Shmuel supply the case: consecrated birds that escaped and nested in the wild.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ וּמָרְדוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.
English Translation:
Rather, Rav says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates the fruit, i.e., the chicks, of his dovecote for sacrifice on the altar, and they later rebelled and fled from the dovecote and nested elsewhere. The mishna teaches that although such birds are not considered readily available, one is exempt from sending away the mother because they are sacrificial birds. If they were non-sacred, one who finds them would be obligated to do so. And Shmuel says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken later rebelled and fled its owner’s home and established a nest elsewhere.
קלאוד על הדף:
Both answers turn on the same manoeuvre — the bird was consecrated while validly in its owner’s hands and then left them, so that sanctity and the chance encounter can coexist. Rav takes פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ, the dovecote’s produce dedicated to the altar; Shmuel takes a hen dedicated for the fabric of the Temple. The word מָרְדוּ, they rebelled, does the work in both: the birds are now found rather than held.
Key Terms:
- פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ = the produce of his dovecote — the young pigeons it yields
- מָרְדוּ = they rebelled — fled their owner’s keeping
- בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת = the upkeep of the Temple fabric, as against offerings on the altar
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Shmuel’s reading is the broader; why then does Rav not adopt it?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁמוּאֵל לֹא אָמַר כְּרַב, דְּקָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אֶלָּא רַב מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל?
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: Granted, Shmuel did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with that of Rav, since he interprets it as referring even to birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, which do not have inherent sanctity. Accordingly, the mishna teaches that all consecrated birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird. But what is the reason that Rav did not state his explanation in accordance with that of Shmuel?
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel’s case is the more generous, since a mishna framed around bedek habayit would exempt consecrated birds of every grade, while Rav’s covers only those destined for the altar. The Gemara therefore presses on Rav rather than Shmuel: a broader reading is ordinarily preferable, and Rav must have a reason for declining it.
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת = property consecrated for Temple maintenance — sanctity of value only
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted — conceding one side before pressing the other
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav’s reason: only קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף survives the flight; קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים lapses.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לְךָ רַב: דַּוְקָא קָפָטְרִי מִשִּׁילּוּחַ, כְּגוֹן פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ דְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נִינְהוּ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּקָדְשִׁי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף – לָא פָּקְעָה קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ, אֲבָל בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, דְּלָאו קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים בְּעָלְמָא הוּא – כֵּיוָן דִּמְרַדָה פְּקַעָה קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בְּשִׁילּוּחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: I specifically exempted one from sending the mother bird away in a case where the birds are the fruit of his dovecote, as they are consecrated for the altar. Since they are consecrated with inherent sanctity, their sanctity is not abrogated from them even when they flee from the dovecote. But in a case where one consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, where the chicken is not consecrated for the altar but merely has sanctity that inheres in its value, once it rebels its sanctity is abrogated, and it is obligated in, i.e., subject to, the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav’s distinction is one of the standard divisions of hekdesh. An animal designated for the altar carries קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, sanctity resident in the body itself, which nothing about its whereabouts can dislodge. A hen given for the Temple fabric carries only קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, a claim on its value — and Rav holds that once it has run off and cannot be realised, that claim lapses and the bird is again subject to shiluach. So the mishna must mean the altar case.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף = inherent sanctity — residing in the object itself
- קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים = sanctity of value — a monetary claim on the object
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא — wherever it is, it is in the Merciful One’s treasury.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ – בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וּמָרְדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמָּרְדָה פְּקַעָה לַיהּ קְדוּשְׁתַּהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתַאּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״.
English Translation:
And Shmuel could have said: Though it has rebelled, the chicken retains its sanctity, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury [bei gazza] of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof” (Psalms 24:1). And so Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the mishna is referring to a case where one consecrated his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken then rebelled. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: But once it rebels, its sanctity is abrogated. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan meet Rav’s objection by denying that a runaway bird has escaped anything. לַה’ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ makes the whole earth the treasury, so a hen in a thicket is as much in the gizbar’s keeping as one in the Temple court; there is nowhere for sanctity of value to lapse into. Reish Lakish presses the obvious point — surely rebellion voids it — and Rabbi Yochanan simply repeats the verse. The phrase will govern the rest of the sugya.
Key Terms:
- בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא = in the treasury of the Merciful One
- לַה’ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ = the earth is the Lord’s and all it holds (Tehillim 24:1)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
A double contradiction is announced: each of the two has argued both sides elsewhere.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִי דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּרְמִי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אַדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ.
English Translation:
And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan here and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan elsewhere, and the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish here and that of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish elsewhere.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pauses to flag what is coming rather than springing it. Both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish are on record in another sugya taking the position each has just opposed here, so neither can be left as he stands. Announcing the symmetry in advance signals that a single mechanism will not resolve both — and indeed the two are answered by quite different means.
Key Terms:
- וּרְמִי = and raise a contradiction — setting two statements of one authority against each other
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The other sugya: consecrated dinars stolen or lost, with the positions reversed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאִיתְּמַר: מָנֶה זֶה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ נֶאֶבְדוּ – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״. קַשְׁיָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
English Translation:
As it was stated: If one declares that these one hundred dinars are consecrated for Temple maintenance, and they were stolen or lost, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He bears responsibility for them until they come into the physical possession of the Temple treasurer [gizbar]. Consequently, he must pay one hundred dinars to the treasury. And Reish Lakish says: One is not required to replace the lost money, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.” Accordingly, the money is considered to have entered the possession of the treasury. If so, this statement of Reish Lakish poses a difficulty for the other statement of Reish Lakish, and this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan poses a difficulty for the other statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
קלאוד על הדף:
The parallel case is money declared for bedek habayit and then stolen. There Rabbi Yochanan holds the donor liable until the coins physically reach the gizbar, while Reish Lakish invokes בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא to say the treasury already has them. Each has now argued the opposite of his position on the hen, and the Gemara states both difficulties plainly before addressing them.
Key Terms:
- אַחְרָיוּת = responsibility — liability to replace what is lost
- גִּזְבָּר = the Temple treasurer
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish resolved chronologically: before and after he heard it from his teacher.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבֵּיהּ, הָא לְבָתַר דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and that statement of Reish Lakish is not difficult. This statement, that the sanctity of a consecrated chicken that rebelled is abrogated, was made before he heard the statement from Rabbi Yoḥanan, his teacher, that wherever it is, it is in God’s treasury. That statement, that one is not liable to replace the missing consecrated funds, was made after he heard that statement from Rabbi Yoḥanan his teacher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The simpler of the two answers concedes that Reish Lakish changed his mind. He argued that rebellion voids sanctity מִקַּמֵּי דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ, before he had heard the bei gazza principle from Rabbi Yochanan his master; once he had, he applied it to the stolen coins. An amora’s earlier position is not an embarrassment to be explained away but a stage in his learning.
Key Terms:
- מִקַּמֵּי דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ = before he heard it — dating a statement to before a teaching reached him
- רַבֵּיהּ = his teacher — Rabbi Yochanan was Reish Lakish’s master and brother-in-law
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yochanan resolved by formula: עָלַי creates a personal debt, הֲרֵי זוֹ does not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַשְׁיָא! דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, הָא דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But still, this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan poses a difficulty for that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is also not difficult. This statement, that one bears responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, is referring to a case where the consecrator said: It is incumbent upon me to bring one hundred dinars to the Temple treasury. In such a case, one bears responsibility for the money until it reaches the Temple treasurer. That statement, that a consecrated chicken that rebelled remains consecrated, is referring to a case where the consecrator said: This chicken is consecrated for Temple maintenance. In such a case, the sanctity is not abrogated even after the chicken flees, because wherever it is, it is in God’s treasury.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan cannot be dated in the same way, so the two statements are assigned to two different declarations. הֲרֵי זוֹ consecrates a specific object and nothing more, so the bei gazza principle governs and the owner owes nothing further. עָלַי undertakes a personal obligation to deliver, and an obligation of that kind is discharged only when the gizbar actually has the thing. The wording of the vow, not the fate of the object, fixes the liability.
Key Terms:
- עָלַי = upon me — a personal undertaking, creating אחריות
- הֲרֵי זוֹ = this is hereby — designating an object without personal liability
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
The implication for Reish Lakish: he exempts even one who said עָלַי.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, לָא מְחַיֵּיב?
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: If it is so that when Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one bears financial responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, he is referring to a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me, by inference one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that one does not bear responsibility for the money, one does not bear financial responsibility even though one said: It is incumbent upon me.
קלאוד על הדף:
Answers have consequences for the other side. If Rabbi Yochanan’s liability case is specifically עָלַי, then Reish Lakish, who exempts in that same case, must be exempting a man who accepted the obligation on himself — which looks impossible. The Gemara draws the inference rather than letting it pass, and the next segment produces the source it offends.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָל = by inference — deriving one view’s position from the terms of another’s answer
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
Kinnim 1:1 on נֶדֶר and נְדָבָה: the very distinction Reish Lakish seems to deny.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ נֶדֶר וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא נְדָבָה? נֶדֶר – הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״, נְדָבָה – הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה״. וּמָה בֵּין נֶדֶר לִנְדָבָה? נֶדֶר – מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה, חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ; נְדָבָה – מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.
English Translation:
But isn’t it taught in a mishna (Kinnim 1:1): Which is the case of a vow offering, and which is the case of a gift offering? A vow offering is where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering. A gift offering is where one says: This animal is a burnt offering. And what is the difference between a vow offering and a gift offering? With regard to a vow offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one bears financial responsibility for it. With regard to a gift offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna in Kinnim defines the two undertakings by exactly the formulae under discussion and attaches the liability to one of them. הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה is a נֶדֶר, and if the animal dies or is stolen or lost the man must bring another; הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה is a נְדָבָה, and its loss ends the matter. That עָלַי carries אחריות is thus settled tannaitic law, and Reish Lakish appears to contradict it.
Key Terms:
- נֶדֶר = a vow — an undertaking to bring an offering, carrying אחריות
- נְדָבָה = a freewill gift — designating a particular animal, without אחריות
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish confines the Kinnim rule to kodshei mizbe’ach, which are מְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דִּמְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה, אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, דְּלָאו מְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ – לָא מְחַיֵּיב.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds that Reish Lakish could have said to you: This statement, that one who says: It is incumbent upon me, bears financial responsibility, applies only to an item consecrated for the altar, since one vowed to sacrifice it as an offering and it has not yet been sacrificed. But with regard to an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which is not lacking sacrifice on the altar, even though one said: It is incumbent upon me, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer accepts the mishna and limits its scope. An altar offering is not discharged by designation alone — it is מְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה, still lacking its sacrifice — so a man who said עָלַי has undertaken something not yet done and must replace what is lost. Property for the Temple fabric needs no further act; the moment it is consecrated the undertaking is complete, and even עָלַי leaves nothing outstanding.
Key Terms:
- מְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה = lacking sacrifice — an offering still awaiting its rite
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Arakhin 20b: an ox or a house pledged with עָלַי does carry liability.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה״, ״בַּיִת זֶה קׇרְבָּן״ – מֵת הַשּׁוֹר, נָפַל הַבַּיִת – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן; ״שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״, ״בַּיִת זֶה עָלַי קׇרְבָּן״ – מֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Arakhin 20b) that in the case of one who says: This bull is consecrated as a burnt offering, or: This house is consecrated as an offering, and the bull died or the house collapsed, he does not bear financial responsibility for them; but in the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to give this bull as a burnt offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to give this house as an offering, if the bull died or the house collapsed, he is obligated to pay its value? Evidently, even with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, if one says: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna in Arakhin pairs an ox with a house, and a house is bedek habayit by definition — yet it rules that one who said שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי or בַּיִת זֶה עָלַי pays when the ox dies or the house falls. That is precisely the combination Reish Lakish has just declared impossible: sanctity of value, the formula עָלַי, and a liability to make good.
Key Terms:
- בַּיִת זֶה קׇרְבָּן = this house is an offering — consecrated for its value
- חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם = he is obligated to pay
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
The distinction: liability where the thing no longer exists, bei gazza where it does.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּמֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת, חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם, דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתַנְהוּ, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: With regard to this statement, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to give an item for Temple maintenance, he bears financial responsibility, that applies only where the bull died or the house collapsed. In such a case he is obligated to pay, since they no longer exist. But where they still exist, e.g., in the case of an item or sum of money that was lost or stolen, one applies the principle: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Arakhin cases are ones of destruction — מֵת הַשּׁוֹר, נָפַל הַבַּיִת — and there is nothing left anywhere for the treasury to hold, so the personal undertaking is all that remains and must be paid. Theft and loss are different in kind: the coins and the hen still exist somewhere on an earth that is לַה’ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ. The principle is not that hekdesh cannot be owed but that what still exists is not missing from God’s treasury.
Key Terms:
- דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ = that they are not — the object has ceased to exist
- דְּאִיתַנְהוּ = that they are — the object still exists somewhere
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Hamnuna on arachin: even עָלַי creates no liability, since the word is unavoidable.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּעֲרָכִין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ – לָא מִיחַיַּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא מִיתְּמַר לֵיהּ בְּלָא ״עָלַי״.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish as to the halakha about one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an item for Temple maintenance. With regard to this dispute, Rav Hamnuna says: Everyone concedes with regard to valuations that even if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my own valuation, and one set aside money that was then lost or stolen, one does not bear financial responsibility for it. What is the reason for this? It is because it cannot be stated by him without stating: Upon me. In other words, one cannot say: This is my valuation, since he has yet to accept upon himself any such obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Valuations are pledged in a fixed formula, and Rav Hamnuna argues that this drains עָלַי of significance there. A man cannot declare a valuation without saying on whom it falls — עֶרְכִּי alone or עֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי alone names a sum without naming a debtor — so the word appears of necessity rather than by choice, and cannot be read as an assumption of אחריות.
Key Terms:
- עֲרָכִין = valuations — the fixed sums of Vayikra 27 pledged for a person
- דְּלָא מִיתְּמַר לֵיהּ בְּלָא עָלַי = that it cannot be said without ‘upon me’
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Rava objects twice: the formula is avoidable, and Rabbi Natan’s baraita rules the other way.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי לֵימָא? לֵימָא ״עֶרְכִּי״ – אַמַּאן? לֵימָא ״עֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי״ – אַמַּאן?
English Translation:
Therefore, although one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, this is not considered an acceptance of financial responsibility. After all, how shall he say it without stating: It is incumbent upon me? Shall he say only: My own valuation, without: Is incumbent upon me? If so, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay the money? Or shall he say only: The valuation of so-and-so? Still, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay the money?
קלאוד על הדף:
The first objection is linguistic — הֲרֵינִי בְּעֶרְכִּי names both sum and debtor without the disputed word, so its use is a choice after all. The second is decisive and Rava introduces it as וְעוֹד: Rabbi Natan expounds וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ against the ordinary rule that redeemed hekdesh and ma’aser coins carry no אחריות. The baraita’s conclusion runs into the next amud.
Key Terms:
- הֲרֵינִי בְּעֶרְכִּי = I am hereby liable for my valuation — Rava’s alternative formula
- מִתְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת = they are redeemed onto coins — sanctity transferred to money
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Natan’s premise: redeemed hekdesh and ma’aser coins carry no liability if lost.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: לֵימָא ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעֶרְכִּי״, ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי״! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁמִּתְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין, נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ – אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן,
English Translation:
Rava objects to this: Let him say: I am encumbered with my own valuation, or: I am encumbered with the valuation of so-and-so. One need not say: Is incumbent upon me. Additionally, it is taught in a baraita with regard to the redemption of a purchased field that was consecrated that Rabbi Natan says about the verse: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year, and he shall give your valuation on that day, as a consecrated thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23): Why must the verse state: “And he shall give your valuation”? It could have stated simply: And he shall give it. It is necessary because we have found with regard to consecrated property and tithes that they can be desacralized by transferring their sanctity onto non-sacred money, and that if that money was stolen or lost, the owners do not bear financial responsibility for it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita sets up its derivation by stating the norm it will depart from. Sanctity transferred onto coins ordinarily travels with the coins, and if they are stolen the owner owes nothing further. Against that background וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ becomes a pointed redundancy, and what it teaches — that valuation money is different — completes at the head of 139b.
Key Terms:
- הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת = consecrated property and tithes — both redeemable onto coins
- אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן = they bear no responsibility for them
Amud Bet (139b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Natan’s conclusion: valuation money is חוּלִּין until it reaches the treasurer.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״ – חוּלִּין עַד שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר.
English Translation:
One might have thought that with regard to this valuation too, the halakha should be so, i.e., if money from a valuation is stolen or lost, the owner does not bear financial responsibility for it. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall give your valuation on that day,” indicating that the valuation money is non-sacred until it enters the possession of the Temple treasurer, and that the owner bears responsibility for it until that time. Evidently, even with regard to valuations, the consecrator bears financial responsibility, in contradiction to the statement of Rav Hamnuna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s point arrives. Against the norm just stated, וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ marks valuation money out: it remains non-sacred in the donor’s hand, and the transfer is complete only when the gizbar takes it. The donor therefore bears the loss, which is the opposite of what Rav Hamnuna reported as universally conceded.
Key Terms:
- וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ = and he shall give your valuation (Vayikra 27:23)
- עַד שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר = until they come into the treasurer’s hands
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Hamnuna’s statement is reissued inverted: even without עָלַי one is liable.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּעֲרָכִין, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָמַר ״עָלַי״ – מִיחַיַּיב, דִּכְתִיב ״וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ״, חוּלִּין הֵן בְּיָדְךָ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר.
English Translation:
Rather, if a statement was stated, this is what was stated: Rav Hamnuna says that everyone concedes with regard to valuations that even if one did not say: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for it, as it is written: “And he shall give your valuation,” indicating that the valuation money is non-sacred until it enters the possession of the Temple treasurer.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rather than qualify the ruling, the Gemara reverses it. אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר concedes that a tradition can reach the study house facing the wrong way, and repairs it by flipping the conclusion while keeping the form: all concede in arachin — but that liability holds even absent עָלַי, because the verse makes the money חוּלִּין הֵן בְּיָדְךָ until it is handed over. The word that mattered elsewhere is simply irrelevant here.
Key Terms:
- אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר = if it was stated, this is how it was stated — reversing a reported ruling
- חוּלִּין הֵן בְּיָדְךָ = they are non-sacred in your hand
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita opens on Devarim 22:6-7: what do all the verse’s details teach?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוֹמֶר בְּכִסּוּי וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother 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 the sending of the mother from the nest applies only to birds that are not readily available. With regard to the mitzva of sending away the mother, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “If a bird’s nest happens before you on the way, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, and the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall send the mother, but the young you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). What is the meaning when the verse states all the various details contained in it?
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya turns from hekdesh back to the mishna’s own subject, and does so through the fullest exposition of the shiluach verses in Shas. The framing question — מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר — treats the verse’s abundance of detail as deliberate: nest, bird, before you, on the way, in any tree, on the ground. Each clause will be made to yield a ruling, and the last of them will yield the principle organising all the rest.
Key Terms:
- כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ = if a bird’s nest chances before you (Devarim 22:6)
- מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = what does the verse come to teach
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
The mitzva need not be sought out: כִּי יִקָּרֵא, only what happens before you.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ״, יָכוֹל יַחְזוֹר בְּהָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְצָא קֵן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא״ – בִּמְאוֹרָע לְפָנֶיךָ.
English Translation:
Since it is stated: “You shall send [shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ] the mother, but the young you may take for yourself,” one might have thought that the doubled verb “shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ” indicates that one must search even in the mountains and hills in order to find a nest with which to perform this mitzva. Therefore, the verse states: “If a bird’s nest happens,” indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother only when it confronts you; one is not required to seek out a nest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The doubled verb שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח could have been read as an intensifier obliging a man to comb the hills for nests, and the baraita raises exactly that possibility before disposing of it. כִּי יִקָּרֵא makes the mitzva one of encounter — בִּמְאוֹרָע לְפָנֶיךָ, in what befalls you. A man who never meets a nest has not failed to perform anything, which sets shiluach apart from obligations one must actively arrange to fulfil.
Key Terms:
- שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח = you shall surely send — the doubled verb of Devarim 22:7
- בִּמְאוֹרָע לְפָנֶיךָ = in what chances before you — the mitzva of encounter
- יַחְזוֹר בְּהָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת = he should search the mountains and hills — the rejected reading
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה
Word by word: any nest, kosher birds, private ground, public road, trees, pits and caves.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״קַן״ – [קֵן] מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״צִפּוֹר״ – טְהוֹרָה וְלֹא טְמֵאָה, ״לְפָנֶיךָ״ – בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, ״בַּדֶּרֶךְ״ – בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בָּאִילָנוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּכׇל עֵץ״, בְּבוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: The word “nest” indicates that this mitzva applies in any case, even to a nest with only a single chick or egg. The word “bird’s” indicates that the mitzva applies only to kosher birds, and not to non-kosher birds. The term “before you” indicates that the mitzva applies to a nest that is on private property, e.g., an unguarded orchard or field, such that the owner’s property does not acquire the nest for him. The term “on the way” indicates that the mitzva also applies to a nest found in a public thoroughfare. From where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to nests found in trees? The verse states: “In any tree.” And with regard to nests found in pits, ditches, and caves, from where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to them? The verse states: “Or on the ground,” indicating that the mitzva applies to a nest on any type of ground.
קלאוד על הדף:
The exposition runs through the verse clause by clause and the effect is cumulative: קַן covers a nest holding even a single egg, צִפּוֹר restricts the mitzva to kosher birds, לְפָנֶיךָ reaches private ground and בַּדֶּרֶךְ the public road, while בְּכׇל עֵץ and אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ between them exhaust every place a nest can sit. Nothing about location is left to limit the mitzva, which is what makes the next question inevitable.
Key Terms:
- קֵן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם = a nest in any case — even one chick or one egg
- רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד / רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים = private domain / public domain
- בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת = pits, ditches and caves
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Why name ‘before you on the way’ at all? To require a nest not in your possession.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר, ״לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ״ לְמָה לִי? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדֶךָ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדֶךָ. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: יוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ וְיוֹנֵי עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בִּטְפִיחִין וּבְבִירוֹת, וַאֲוָוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס – חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ, אֲבָל קִנְּנוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְכֵן יוֹנֵי הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: And since, in the end, we will include everything, i.e., every location of the nest, from the verse: “In any tree or on the ground,” why do I need the earlier statement: “Before you on the way”? It is to say to you: Just as a nest on the way is a case in which the bird’s nest is not in your possession and is not readily available for you, so too, with regard to all other cases, one is obligated only when its nest is not in your possession. From here the Sages stated: With regard to pigeons of a dovecote or pigeons of an attic that nested in small wall niches or in buildings, and geese or chickens that nested in an orchard, one is obligated in the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, because such birds are not in one’s possession. But with regard to birds that nested inside the house, and likewise with regard to domesticated pigeons, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending the mother bird away.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having included every location, the baraita asks what the two named ones are still doing in the verse, and answers that they are not locations but a definition. מָה דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדֶךָ — the road is cited as the type of a place where the nest is not yours, and every other place is admitted only on that condition. The concrete rulings follow directly: dovecote and loft pigeons nesting in wall-jars and buildings are liable, birds nesting indoors and the domesticated pigeons are not.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדֶךָ = whose nest is not in your hand — the governing condition
- טְפִיחִין = narrow wall-jars used as nesting niches
- יוֹנֵי הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת = Herodian pigeons — domesticated doves, exempt
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
The Gemara audits the baraita: both derivations look redundant.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: מָה ״דֶּרֶךְ״ – שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדְךָ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין קִנּוֹ בְּיָדְךָ. הָא לְמָה לִי? מִ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא״ נָפְקָא, ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא״ פְּרָט לִמְזוּמָּן. וְעוֹד, ״לְפָנֶיךָ״ לְמָה לִּי?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara analyzes the above baraita: The Master said: Just as a nest on the way is a case in which the bird’s nest is not in your possession, so too, with regard to all other cases, one is obligated only when its nest is not in your possession. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this derivation? It may be derived from: “If a bird’s nest happens,” as it is taught: “If a bird’s nest happens” excludes a nest that is readily available. And furthermore, why do I need the term “before you” to include even a nest found on private property? It is already derived from the verse: “In any tree or on the ground.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The exposition is now examined rather than accepted. If כִּי יִקָּרֵא already excludes the מְזוּמָּן, the elaborate lesson drawn from דֶּרֶךְ adds nothing; and if בְּכׇל עֵץ אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ already covers every location, לְפָנֶיךָ is idle too. Two words are left without work, and the answer will find each of them a job the other clauses cannot do.
Key Terms:
- לְמָה לִי = why do I need it — the challenge to a redundant clause
- נָפְקָא = it is derived — the lesson is already available elsewhere
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
לְפָנֶיךָ includes birds that rebelled; בַּדֶּרֶךְ yields Rav’s nest at sea.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא ״לְפָנֶיךָ״, לְאֵתוֹיֵי שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ וּמָרְדוּ, ״בַּדֶּרֶךְ״ – כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מָצָא קֵן בַּיָּם חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ הַנּוֹתֵן בַּיָּם דָּרֶךְ וְגוֹ׳״.
English Translation:
Rather, the term “before you” is necessary to include a case where the birds were before you, i.e., they had an owner and were readily available to him, and they then rebelled and fled and nested elsewhere. “On the way” is necessary for that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one found a nest in the sea, e.g., in a case where a tree was washed out to sea with a nest in its branches, one is obligated in the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, as it is stated: “So said the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters” (Isaiah 43:16). The term “way” applies even to the sea.
קלאוד על הדף:
Both words are reassigned. לְפָנֶיךָ now covers birds that genuinely were before you — owned, at hand — and then fled, which is precisely the case Rav and Shmuel needed on 139a and which no other clause supplies. בַּדֶּרֶךְ yields Rav Yehuda’s report in Rav’s name that a nest found at sea is liable, since Yeshayahu calls the sea itself a דֶּרֶךְ. The verse’s apparent surplus turns out to hold the sugya’s two hardest cases.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ וּמָרְדוּ = that were before you and rebelled
- הַנּוֹתֵן בַּיָּם דָּרֶךְ = who makes a way in the sea (Yeshayahu 43:16)
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Then a nest in the sky? Rejected: that is an eagle’s way, not a way.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מָצָא קֵן בַּשָּׁמַיִם, דִּכְתִיב ״דֶּרֶךְ נֶשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן? ״דֶּרֶךְ נֶשֶׁר״ אִיקְּרִי, ״דֶּרֶךְ״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: If that is so, then if one found a nest in the sky, e.g., in a case where a bird carries the nest as it flies, about which it is written: “The way of an eagle in the sky” (Proverbs 30:19), one should also be obligated in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest. The Gemara responds: The sky is called “the way of an eagle,” but it is not called: A way, in an unspecified manner. The sea, by contrast, is referred to simply as: A way.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge tests Rav’s method by pushing it one step further, since Mishlei speaks of דֶּרֶךְ נֶשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם and a nest carried aloft would then qualify. The reply turns on how a word is used rather than whether it appears: the sky is called an eagle’s way, always in construct with its traveller, while the sea is called דֶּרֶךְ סְתָמָא, a way without qualification. A borrowed usage does not license a derivation.
Key Terms:
- דֶּרֶךְ נֶשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם = the way of an eagle in the sky (Mishlei 30:19)
- דֶּרֶךְ סְתָמָא = ‘a way’ without qualification
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
A nest on a person’s head, and the allusions to Moshe, from the men of Pappunya.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ פַּפּוּנָאֵי לְרַב מַתְנָה: מָצָא קֵן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מַהוּ? אֲמַר [לְהוּ]: ״וַאֲדָמָה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״. מֹשֶׁה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? ״בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָּשָׂר״.
English Translation:
§ The residents of Pappunya said to Rav Mattana: If one found a nest on the head of a person, what is the halakha with regard to the mitzva of sending away the mother? Is the nest considered to be on the ground, such that one is obligated in the mitzva? Rav Mattana said to them that one is obligated in the mitzva in such a case because the verse states: “And earth upon his head” (II Samuel 15:32), rather than: Dirt upon his head, indicating that one’s head is considered like the ground. They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah is the existence of Moses [Moshe] alluded to before his birth? He replied that the verse states: “For that he also [beshaggam] is flesh; therefore shall his days be one hundred and twenty years” (Genesis 6:3). The numerical value of beshaggam is the same as that of the Hebrew name Moshe, and it is known that Moses lived a total of 120 years (see Deuteronomy 34:7).
קלאוד על הדף:
The question about a head is not frivolous — if a head counts as אָרֶץ the nest is liable — and Rav Mattana answers from Chushai coming to Dovid with אֲדָמָה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, earth rather than mere dust, on his head. The exchange then turns into a session of scriptural allusion, and the first is the most famous: בְּשַׁגַּם carries the numerical value of מֹשֶׁה, and the verse that contains it fixes a lifespan of a hundred and twenty years, which was his.
Key Terms:
- פַּפּוּנָאֵי = the people of Pappunya, a Babylonian town
- וַאֲדָמָה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ = and earth upon his head (II Shmuel 15:32)
- בְּשַׁגַּם = ‘inasmuch as’ (Bereishit 6:3) — numerically equal to מֹשֶׁה, 345
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא
Haman from the Torah: הֲמִן הָעֵץ, the same letters, and a tree.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָמָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? ״הֲמִן הָעֵץ״.
English Translation:
They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the hanging of Haman? He replied: The verse states after Adam ate from the tree of knowledge: “Have you eaten of [hamin] the tree, about which I commanded you that you should not eat?” (Genesis 3:11). Hamin is spelled in the same manner as Haman: Heh, mem, nun.
קלאוד על הדף:
The question is where a figure of the Megilla is foreshadowed in the Chumash, and the answer works on two levels at once. הֲמִן is written with the identical letters of הָמָן, and the words are addressed to Adam about a tree — the instrument on which Haman would hang. The wit of the drasha is that the allusion is not merely to the name but to the end.
Key Terms:
- הֲמִן הָעֵץ = did you eat from the tree (Bereishit 3:11) — הֲמִן spelled as הָמָן
Segment 12
TYPE: אגדתא
Esther from וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר, and Mordechai from מׇר דְּרוֹר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶסְתֵּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? ״וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר״. מׇרְדֳּכַי מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? דִּכְתִיב: ״מׇר דְּרוֹר״, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן: ״מֵירָא דַּכְיָא״.
English Translation:
They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the events involving Esther? He replied to them that the verse states: “Then My anger shall be kindled against them on that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day: Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us? And I will hide [haster astir] My face on that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned to other gods” (Deuteronomy 31:17–18). They also asked him: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the greatness bestowed upon Mordecai? He replied: As it is written with regard to the anointing oil in the Tabernacle: “And you shall also take the chief spices, of flowing myrrh [mor deror]” (Exodus 30:23); and we translate mor deror into Aramaic as: Mira dakhya, which resembles the name Mordecai.
קלאוד על הדף:
Esther’s name is heard in הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר, I shall surely hide My face — an apt allusion to a book in which the Divine Name never appears and deliverance arrives through what looks like coincidence. Mordechai is found in the anointing oil’s chief spice, מׇר דְּרוֹר, which the Targum renders מֵירָא דַּכְיָא; the drasha reaches its name through the Aramaic rather than the Hebrew, and places him among the ingredients of sanctification.
Key Terms:
- וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר = and I shall surely hide My face (Devarim 31:18)
- מׇר דְּרוֹר = flowing myrrh (Shemot 30:23)
- מֵירָא דַּכְיָא = the Targum’s rendering, echoing מׇרְדֳּכַי
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
The pigeons’ name: after their place, or after Herod.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – חַד תָּנֵי ״הַדְּרָסִיָּאוֹת״, וְחַד תָּנֵי ״הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת״. מַאן דְּתָנֵי ״הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת״ – עַל שֵׁם הוֹרְדוֹס, וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״הַדְּרָסִיָּאוֹת״ – עַל שֵׁם מְקוֹמָן.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: And which are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard. But if the geese or chickens nested in the house, one is exempt from sending them away, and likewise with regard to domesticated pigeons. The Gemara relates: With regard to the correct name of the domesticated pigeons referred to in the mishna, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon disagree. One teaches that the correct name is yonei hadrisei’ot, and the other one teaches that the correct name is yonei hardisei’ot. According to the one who teaches that the correct name is yonei hardisei’ot, they are called so on account of King Herod, who was involved in breeding these pigeons; and according to the one who teaches that the correct name is yonei hadrisei’ot, they are called so on account of their location.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s obscure term is read two ways by two tannaim, and the difference is not merely orthographic. הַדְּרָסִיָּאוֹת would name the birds after wherever they were bred; הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת names them after הוֹרְדוֹס, who kept them. The second reading is what licenses the story that follows, since it makes the domesticated pigeon a creature of the Herodian court.
Key Terms:
- הוֹרְדוֹס = Herod, whose rebuilt Temple and reputation stand behind the name
Segment 14
TYPE: אגדתא
Rav Kahana’s pigeons in sixteen rows, and the one that would not call Herod master.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לְדִידִי חַזְיָין [לִי], וְקָיְימָן שִׁיתְּסַר דָּרֵי בִּפְתֵי מִילָא, (וַהֲוָה קָרָא) [וְאָמְרָן] ״קִירִי, קִירִי״, (הֲוָה חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ דְּלָא הֲוָה קָרֵי קִירִי קִירִי) [הֲוָות חֲדָא דְּלָא הֲוָות יָדְעָה לְמֵימַר], אֲמַרָה לַהּ חֲבֶרְתַּהּ: סוֹמָא, אֱמַרִי ״קִירִי, קִירִי״, אֲמַרָה: סוֹמָא, אֱמַרִי ״קִירִי כִּירִי״, אַתְיוּהָ וְשַׁחְטוּהָ.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana said: I myself saw these pigeons, and they were standing in sixteen rows, each a mil wide, and they were calling out: My master, my master. There was one of them who was not calling out: My master, my master. Another one said to it: Blind one, i.e., fool, say: My master, my master, so that you will not be punished for refusing to acknowledge the authority of the king. The pigeon said in response: Blind one, you should say: My master, my slave, as Herod is not a king but a slave. They brought that pigeon to a slaughterhouse and slaughtered it for speaking against the king.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana testifies as an eyewitness — לְדִידִי חַזְיָין לִי — to ranks of pigeons a mil wide calling קִירִי, קִירִי. The point of the story is the one bird that refuses, and her answer: not קִירִי but קִירִי כִּירִי, my master, my slave, since Herod was a slave who took a throne rather than a king who inherited one. That she is taken and slaughtered for it makes the passage a piece of political memory: the truth about Herod could be said aloud only by a bird, and not twice.
Key Terms:
- לְדִידִי חַזְיָין לִי = I myself saw them — the formula of eyewitness report
- קִירִי = kyrie — lord, master (Greek)
- כִּירִי = a play on קִירִי: my slave
- מִילָא = a mil, a measure of distance
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Chanina’s מִילִּין reread as בְּמִילִּין — by words of witchcraft.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי [רַבִּי] חֲנִינָא: מִילִּין. מִילִּין סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּמִילִּין.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Ḥanina said to me: This story is no more than mere words, as no such incident took place. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that Rabbi Ḥanina dismisses as mere words an incident reported by Rav Kahana? Rather, say that Rabbi Ḥanina said that those pigeons acted as described above through words of witchcraft.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi transmits a dismissal, and the Gemara declines to let it stand as one. מִילִּין סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ — it is not conceivable that Rabbi Chanina called an eyewitness report of Rav Kahana’s empty talk. The single letter added to make בְּמִילִּין converts a denial into an explanation: the birds did speak, but by incantation rather than nature, which preserves both the report and the reporter.
Key Terms:
- מִילִּין = words — read as ‘mere words’, an empty tale
- בְּמִילִּין = by means of words — through incantation
Segment 16
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Yitzchak on why non-kosher birds are exempt: the verse says צִפּוֹר, not עוֹף.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עוֹף טָמֵא פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא קֵן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ״, עוֹף מַשְׁמַע לַן בֵּין טָהוֹר בֵּין טָמֵא. ״צִפּוֹר״ – טָהוֹר אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאִיקְּרִי ״צִפּוֹר״, טָמֵא לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאִיקְּרִי ״צִפּוֹר״.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If one encounters a nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: As the verse states: “If a bird’s [tzippor] nest happens before you” (Deuteronomy 22:6), and not: If a bird’s [of ] nest happens before you. The word of indicates to us that all birds are included, whether kosher or non-kosher. But with regard to the word tzippor, we have found that a kosher bird is called a tzippor, but we have not found that a non-kosher bird is called a tzippor.
קלאוד על הדף:
The derivation rests on a choice of noun. עוֹף is the Torah’s general term and covers the permitted and forbidden alike, so had the verse used it the mitzva would extend to every bird. It says צִפּוֹר instead, and Rabbi Yitzchak’s claim is lexical: scripture is never found applying that word to a non-kosher bird. The next four exchanges test exactly that claim.
Key Terms:
- עוֹף = bird — the general term, covering kosher and non-kosher
- צִפּוֹר = bird — claimed to be used only of kosher species
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
First challenge: תַּבְנִית כׇּל צִפּוֹר כָּנָף, where צִפּוֹר seems to cover all birds.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״תַּבְנִית כׇּל צִפּוֹר כָּנָף״, מַאי לָאו ״צִפּוֹר״ – בֵּין טָהוֹר בֵּין טָמֵא, ״כָּנָף״ – חֲגָבִים? לָא, ״צִפּוֹר״ – טָהוֹר, ״כָּנָף״ – טָמֵא וַחֲגָבִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara attempts to reject the above assertion: Come and hear that which is stated in the verse with regard to the prohibition against fashioning idols: “The likeness of any winged bird [tzippor]” (Deuteronomy 4:17). What, is it not that the word “tzippor” is referring to any bird, whether kosher or non-kosher, and the word “winged” adds the likeness of grasshoppers to the prohibition? If so, we have found that a non-kosher bird is called a tzippor. The Gemara rejects this: No, the word “tzippor” means a kosher bird, while the word “winged” is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse forbidding images pairs צִפּוֹר with כָּנָף, and the natural reading takes the first word for birds of every kind and the second as extending the prohibition to winged creatures generally, grasshoppers included. That would put צִפּוֹר over non-kosher birds and destroy the derivation. The answer redistributes the two words — צִפּוֹר for the kosher, כָּנָף for the non-kosher and the grasshoppers together — and this same division will answer every remaining challenge.
Key Terms:
- תַּבְנִית כׇּל צִפּוֹר כָּנָף = the likeness of any winged bird (Devarim 4:17)
- חֲגָבִים = grasshoppers
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
Second challenge from Tehillim 148:10, answered identically.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הַחַיָּה וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה רֶמֶשׂ וְצִפּוֹר כָּנָף״, מַאי לָאו ״צִפּוֹר״ – בֵּין טָהוֹר בֵּין טָמֵא, וְ״כָנָף״ – חֲגָבִים? לָא, ״צִפּוֹר״ – טָהוֹר, ״כָּנָף״ – טָמֵא וַחֲגָבִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage describing how all of creation praises God: “The undomesticated animal and all domesticated animals, creeping things and winged birds [tzippor]” (Psalms 148:10). What, is it not that the word “tzippor” is referring to all birds, whether kosher or non-kosher, and the word “winged” is referring to grasshoppers? The Gemara rejects this: No, the word “tzippor” means a kosher bird, while the word “winged” is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The psalm’s roll-call of creatures that praise God pairs the same two words, and the challenge is put in the same form. The reply does not vary, and its repetition is the point: once a division of labour between צִפּוֹר and כָּנָף is available, every verse that pairs them can be read that way, and the burden shifts to finding a verse where צִפּוֹר stands alone over a forbidden bird.
Key Terms:
- רֶמֶשׂ = creeping things
- צִפּוֹר כָּנָף = winged bird — the recurring pairing under examination
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
Third challenge from the ark’s animals, Bereishit 7:14.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כׇּל צִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף״, מַאי לָאו כִּדְמַקְשִׁינַן? לָא, כְּדִמְשַׁנֵּינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the verse about the animals that entered Noah’s ark: “Every bird [tzippor] of every type of wing” (Genesis 7:14). What, is it not the same difficulty that we posed previously, that the word “tzippor” is referring to all birds, kosher and non-kosher, and the word “wing” is referring to grasshoppers? The Gemara rejects this as well: No, it is actually as we resolved it, that the word “tzippor” is referring only to kosher birds, and the word “wing” is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The narrative of the ark should be the strongest case, since every kind entered it and the verse’s כׇּל twice over seems designed to exclude nothing. But the phrase is again צִפּוֹר … כָּנָף, so the same reading applies and the Gemara’s reply shortens to כְּדִמְשַׁנֵּינַן, as we resolved it. The challenge is being answered by reference rather than repetition.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל צִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף = every bird of every wing (Bereishit 7:14)
- כְּדִמְשַׁנֵּינַן = as we have already resolved it
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Fourth challenge from Yechezkel’s war of Gog and Magog.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְאַתָּה בֶן אָדָם אֱמֹר לְצִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף״, מַאי לָאו כִּדְאַקְשִׁינַן? לָא, כִּדְשַׁנֵּינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage describing the war of Gog and Magog: “And you, son of man, so said the Lord God: Speak to the birds [tzippor] of every type of wing, and to every animal of the field: Assemble yourselves, and come” (Ezekiel 39:17). What, is it not the same difficulty that we posed previously? The Gemara responds: No, it is actually as we resolved it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The prophet summons the birds to feed on the fallen, and carrion-eaters are the least kosher birds imaginable — which is what gives this verse its force. Yet the wording is once more צִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף, and the established division absorbs it: the prophet addresses the kosher birds by name and the rest under כָּנָף. Four verses have now been offered and turned back the same way.
Key Terms:
- אֱמֹר לְצִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף = speak to the bird of every wing (Yechezkel 39:17)
- גּוֹג וּמָגוֹג = Gog and Magog — the prophesied final war
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא
A fifth תָּא שְׁמַע begins and the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע:
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is
קלאוד על הדף:
The page ends on the opening words of another challenge, without even its verse. The unbroken run of four rejections has established a pattern the reader now expects to hold, and the daf closes at the moment of maximum suspension — the objection raised, its content withheld. It is supplied at the head of 140a.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — the formula introducing a challenge from a source