Chullin Daf 140 (חולין דף ק״מ)
Daf: 140 | Amudim: 140a – 140b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (140a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
The fifth challenge completes: צִפְּרֵי שְׁמַיָּא in Daniel, and its rejection.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וּבְעַנְפוֹהִי יְדוּרָן צִפְּרֵי שְׁמַיָּא״ – ״צִפְּרֵי שְׁמַיָּא״ אִיקְּרוֹ, ״צִפְּרֵי״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרוֹ.
English Translation:
stated in the verse describing a tree: “And in its branches will dwell the birds [tzipparei] of the heaven” (Daniel 4:9). The verse states only: “The birds [tzipparei],” and not: The birds of any type of wing. Accordingly, the term “the birds [tzipparei]” must be referring to all birds, whether kosher or non-kosher, since all birds dwell in tree branches. The Gemara rejects this: Non-kosher birds are called: Birds [tzipparei] of the heaven, but they are not called: Tzipparei, in an unspecified manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge broken off at the end of 139b lands. Nevuchadnetzar’s tree shelters צִפְּרֵי שְׁמַיָּא in its branches, and every kind of bird nests in trees, so the word seems to reach the forbidden species. The reply refines the claim rather than abandoning it: the phrase is a construct, birds of the heaven, and Rabbi Yitzchak never denied that צִפּוֹר can be qualified into breadth. What he denied is that it is used absolutely, סְתָמָא, of a non-kosher bird — and Daniel’s verse does not supply that.
Key Terms:
- צִפְּרֵי שְׁמַיָּא = the birds of the heaven (Daniel 4:9)
- סְתָמָא = absolutely, without qualification — the sense Rabbi Yitzchak’s claim requires
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Sixth challenge: כׇּל צִפּוֹר טְהוֹרָה implies an unclean tzippor exists.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כׇּל צִפּוֹר טְהוֹרָה״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא טְמֵאָה? לָא, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא אֲסוּרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing kosher and non-kosher animals: “Every kosher bird [tzippor] you may eat” (Deuteronomy 14:11). Since it was necessary for the verse to specify that it is referring to a kosher bird [tzippor], by inference, one may conclude that there is a non-kosher bird [tzippor], in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. The Gemara rejects this: No, this is not the correct inference. Rather, by inference one may conclude that there is a tzippor that is prohibited for consumption, despite its being a kosher bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse permitting כׇּל צִפּוֹר טְהוֹרָה seems decisive, since the adjective would be idle unless there were a צִפּוֹר that is not טְהוֹרָה. The Gemara concedes the inference and redirects it: what the qualifier excludes need not be a non-kosher species but a bird of a kosher species that is nonetheless forbidden to eat. The next segment will be spent identifying which bird that is.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל צִפּוֹר טְהוֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ = every clean bird you may eat (Devarim 14:11)
- מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא = by implication there exists — reasoning from a qualifier to what it excludes
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Which forbidden kosher bird? Neither the tereifa nor the metzora’s bird seems to need the verse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הִיא? אִי טְרֵפָה – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב! וְאִי בִּשְׁחוּטָה דִּמְצוֹרָע – מִסֵּיפָא דִּקְרָא נָפְקָא, ״וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׁחוּטַת מְצוֹרָע.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is this kosher bird whose prohibition must be derived from this verse? If it is a bird with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], that would be superfluous, as that is written explicitly in the verse: “An unslaughtered animal carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat” (Leviticus 22:8). And if it is referring to the slaughtered bird from the purification ritual of a leper, which is prohibited for consumption despite being kosher, that would also be superfluous, since it is derived from the latter clause of the verse in Deuteronomy, as the verse states: “But these are they of which you shall not eat” (Deuteronomy 14:12), which serves to include the slaughtered bird of the leper.
קלאוד על הדף:
Both candidates are already covered elsewhere. A tereifa is forbidden in an explicit verse, and the slaughtered bird of the metzora is excluded by the continuation of this very passage, וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם. If the qualifier טְהוֹרָה is to teach anything it must add something to a prohibition that already exists, and the answer will locate that addition not in a new object but in a second layer of liability.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה = an animal with a fatal defect, forbidden even if slaughtered
- שְׁחוּטַת מְצוֹרָע = the slaughtered bird of the metzora’s purification, forbidden in benefit and consumption
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
It is the metzora’s bird, adding a positive commandment to the prohibition — fixed by context.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם בִּשְׁחוּטָה דִּמְצוֹרָע, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וּבְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְלוֹקְמַהּ בִּטְרֵפָה, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ, וּבְעִנְיָנָא דִּשְׁחוּטָה כְּתִיב.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse: “Every kosher bird you may eat,” is referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, and the verse indicates that one transgresses the positive mitzva of: “You may eat,” in addition to the prohibition of: “But these are they of which you shall not eat,” on account of it. The Gemara objects: But why not interpret the verse as referring to a tereifa, and explain that the verse teaches that one transgresses a positive mitzva and a prohibition on account of it? The Gemara responds: The verse should be interpreted as referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, since it is a matter derived from its context, as that verse is written in the context of a slaughtered bird. By contrast, a tereifa is not properly slaughtered, and interpreting the verse in that manner does not fit the context.
קלאוד על הדף:
The qualifier is read as generating an עֲשֵׂה alongside the לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה: since only a clean bird may be eaten, eating the metzora’s slaughtered bird violates the permission as well as the prohibition. Why not say the same of a tereifa? Because דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ — a word is read from its neighbourhood, and this passage speaks of birds properly slaughtered. A tereifa is precisely a bird whose slaughter did not avail, so it does not belong to the context the verse establishes.
Key Terms:
- עֲשֵׂה = a positive commandment — here, the permission read as a requirement
- דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ = a matter learned from its context — one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Seventh challenge: does חַיּוֹת in the metzora verse mean ‘alive in your mouth’?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים חַיּוֹת״, מַאי ״חַיּוֹת״? לָאו שֶׁחַיּוֹת בְּפִיךְ? מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא לָאו שֶׁחַיּוֹת בְּפִיךְ! לָא, מַאי ״חַיּוֹת״? שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים שֶׁלָּהֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage discussing the purification ritual of a leper: “Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two living birds [tzipporim] that are kosher” (Leviticus 14:4). Since the birds are obviously alive before the purification ritual begins, what is the meaning of the word “living”? Is it not that they are living in your mouth, i.e., permitted for consumption? If so, by inference, one may conclude that there are birds [tzipporim] that are not living in your mouth, i.e., that are not kosher. The Gemara rejects this: No, that is not its meaning. Rather, what is the meaning of the word “living”? It means that their extremities are living, i.e., attached to their bodies. The verse indicates that the kosher birds must have all their limbs attached to their bodies in order to be used in the purification ritual.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the two birds of the ritual must be חַיּוֹת and the word means permitted for eating, then its opposite exists and the term צִפּוֹר reaches the forbidden. The Gemara refuses the idiom and reads the word physically: the birds must have their רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים intact, their extremities whole and living rather than maimed. The ritual requires an unmutilated creature, and חַיּוֹת describes its body rather than its status on a table.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים חַיּוֹת טְהֹרוֹת = two living clean birds (Vayikra 14:4)
- רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים = the extremities of the limbs — required to be whole
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Eighth challenge from טְהוֹרוֹת in the same verse; answered as excluding tereifot.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא: ״טְהוֹרוֹת״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא טְמֵאוֹת? לָא, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא טְרֵפוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the latter clause of that verse: “Two living birds [tzipporim] that are kosher.” Since it was necessary for the verse to specify that it is referring to kosher birds, by inference one may conclude that there are non-kosher birds, in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. The Gemara rejects this: No, that is not the correct inference. Rather, by inference one may conclude that there are other birds of kosher species that may not be used for this ritual, i.e., tereifot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same argument is now run on the second adjective. If the birds must be טְהוֹרוֹת there must be birds that are not, and again the Gemara answers that the excluded class lies within the kosher species: tereifot, birds of a permitted kind rendered unfit. The reply keeps צִפּוֹר clean, but it will immediately be tested on whether that exclusion was needed at all.
Key Terms:
- טְהוֹרוֹת = clean, kosher — the second qualifier of Vayikra 14:4
- טְרֵפוֹת = birds with fatal defects
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
But tereifot are excluded twice already — by חַיּוֹת, and by the school of Rabbi Yishmael.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טְרֵפוֹת מֵ״חַיּוֹת״ נָפְקָא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? וְעוֹד, בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, מִדְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָפְקָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But the disqualification of tereifot is already derived from the word “living” in that verse. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa can live (see 42a); it is therefore necessary for the verse to state “kosher” to exclude tereifot, because one could not have derived it from the word “living.” But according to the one who says that a tereifa animal cannot live, what is there to say? Let it be derived from the word “living.” And furthermore, whether according to the one who says that a tereifa can live or according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, it is not necessary to derive the exclusion of tereifot from the word “kosher,” since it is derived from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer of segment 6 is now shown to be redundant. חַיּוֹת would already exclude a tereifa on the view that a tereifa cannot live, so the qualifier is superfluous at least for that opinion. And the objection is then made general with וְעוֹד: whichever view one holds on that question, the school of Rabbi Yishmael’s analogy excludes tereifot independently. Some other disqualification must therefore be what טְהוֹרוֹת teaches.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה חַיָּה / אֵינָהּ חַיָּה = whether a tereifa can survive — the dispute at 42a
- וְעוֹד = and furthermore — adding an objection independent of the first
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
The school of Rabbi Yishmael: enabling and atoning offerings, inside the Temple and outside.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר בִּפְנִים, וְנֶאֱמַר מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר בַּחוּץ.
English Translation:
As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: It is stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the sin offering of a woman who has given birth or the guilt offering of a leper, and there are offerings that atone, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, all of which are brought inside the Temple. And it is also stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the birds of a leper’s purification ritual, and offerings that atone, e.g., the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, that are brought outside the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita sets up a four-cornered comparison. Inside the Temple there are offerings that atone and offerings that merely enable a person to eat consecrated food or rejoin the camp; outside the Temple there are likewise both, the scapegoat atoning and the metzora’s birds enabling. Naming the two pairs is the whole of the setup; the inference drawn from their symmetry follows in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- מַכְשִׁיר = an offering that enables — restoring eligibility rather than atoning
- מְכַפֵּר = an offering that atones
- שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ = the scapegoat of Yom Kippur — an atoning rite performed outside
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
The analogy: as inside the enabler is treated like the atoner, so outside.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר הָאָמוּר בִּפְנִים – עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר, אַף מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר הָאָמוּר בַּחוּץ – עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Therefore, the offerings brought outside the Temple are compared to those offered inside: Just as with regard to the offerings that enable or atone stated in the Torah that are offered inside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables like the offering that atones, as even the former has portions of it that are burned on the altar, so too, with regard to offerings that enable or atone stated in the Torah that are offered outside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables like the offering that atones. Accordingly, just as the scapegoat must not be a tereifa, so too, the birds of a leper’s purification ritual must not be tereifot. If so, there is no need to derive the exclusion of tereifa birds from the word “kosher.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Within the Temple the Torah imposed the same standards on the enabling offering as on the atoning one, burning portions of each on the altar. The baraita transfers that equivalence outdoors: the metzora’s birds must meet whatever standard the scapegoat meets, and a tereifa is disqualified for the scapegoat. The exclusion of tereifot from the ritual is therefore already secured, which is why the four amoraim must now find טְהוֹרוֹת a different job.
Key Terms:
- עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר = he made the enabler like the atoner — the operative equation
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: birds of an עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, disqualified for slaughter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְמַעוֹטֵי צִפּוֹרֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. לְמַאי? אִי לְשִׁילּוּחַ – לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שַׁלַּח לְתַקָּלָה, אֶלָּא לִשְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The word “kosher” serves to exclude birds from an idolatrous city. Such a city must be burned to the ground, and it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any of its contents. The verse indicates that such a bird is unfit for use in the leper’s purification ritual. The Gemara asks: For what function are such birds rendered unfit by the word “kosher”? If the verse means to render them unfit for sending away as part of the ritual, this is unnecessary, since the Torah did not say to send a bird only to create a stumbling block. It is obvious that any bird prohibited for consumption is unfit for sending, since the Torah would not allow for the possibility that the bird sent away will be trapped and consumed by unwitting individuals. Rather, the verse means to render them unfit for use as the bird intended for slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first of four answers assigns טְהוֹרוֹת to birds from a city condemned for idolatry, whose property must be destroyed and from which no benefit may be taken. The Gemara then applies the test it will use on every answer: which of the two birds is meant? Not the one released, because לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שַׁלַּח לְתַקָּלָה — the Torah does not issue a command whose performance sets a trap for whoever later catches the bird. So the verse disqualifies it for slaughter.
Key Terms:
- עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת = a city led into idolatry, whose property is destroyed
- לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שַׁלַּח לְתַקָּלָה = the Torah did not say ‘send away’ so as to create a stumbling block
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: a bird already designated by another metzora may not be paired again before its release.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְזַוֵּוג לָהּ אַחֶרֶת קוֹדֶם שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ. לְמַאי? אִי לִשְׁחִיטָה – הָא בָּעֲיָא שִׁילּוּחַ! אֶלָּא לְשִׁילּוּחַ.
English Translation:
Rava said: The word “kosher” serves to exclude the repeated use of a bird, i.e., a leper may not pair a bird with another bird from a previous leper, before its being sent away. The Gemara asks: For what function does the word “kosher” indicate that a bird may not be reused? If it means to indicate that the bird intended for being sent away by the first leper may not be used for slaughter by the second leper, the verse is unnecessary, as this bird requires being sent away as part of the first leper’s purification ritual. Rather, the verse means to indicate that the bird intended for being sent away by the first leper may not be used for sending simultaneously by the second leper.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s disqualification concerns reuse rather than the bird’s own status. A bird set aside as the one to be released is committed to that role, and cannot meanwhile be enlisted into a second metzora’s pair. The test runs the other way here: it cannot mean the bird is unfit for slaughter, since it was never destined for slaughter — so טְהוֹרוֹת is disqualifying it for a second שִׁילּוּחַ.
Key Terms:
- לְזַוֵּוג = to pair — joining two birds into the set the ritual requires
- קוֹדֶם שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ = before its sending — while the first designation is still live
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa: birds taken in exchange for an idol, from וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְצִפֳּרִים (שֶׁהֶחְלִיפוּ) [שֶׁהֶחְלִיפָן] בְּצִפֳּרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ״, כׇּל מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה מְהַיֶּיה הֵימֶנּוּ כָּמוֹהוּ. לְמַאי? אִי לְשִׁילּוּחַ – לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שַׁלַּח לְתַקָּלָה, אֶלָּא לִשְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said: The word “kosher” serves to exclude the use of birds that were exchanged for birds of idol worship, i.e., a gentile paid a Jew for his idol by giving the Jew birds. Such birds are prohibited from use in the leper’s ritual, as it is written about objects of idol worship: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and become [vahayita] accursed like it” (Deuteronomy 7:26), indicating that anything that you generate [mehayye] from it, e.g., through exchange, is prohibited like it. The Gemara asks: For what function does the word “kosher” indicate that such birds are prohibited? If it serves to exclude such birds from being sent away, this is unnecessary, because the Torah did not say: Send it away, if doing so could lead to a mishap. If the bird were prohibited, the Torah would not have commanded one to send it away, as others might eat it unwittingly. Rather, the word “kosher” serves to disqualify such birds for slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa extends the prohibition of idolatry through a transaction. The verse warns that one who brings an abomination home becomes חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ, accursed like it, and the drasha hears in וְהָיִיתָ the root of מְהַיֶּיה: whatever you generate from it carries its status. Birds received as payment for an idol are therefore forbidden, and by the stumbling-block principle the disqualification must attach to the slaughtered bird rather than the released one.
Key Terms:
- וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ = and you shall be accursed like it (Devarim 7:26)
- מְהַיֶּיה = that which you generate — the wordplay yielding the rule of exchange
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Ravina: a bird that killed a person, disqualified for slaughter before sentence.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּעוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּגְמַר דִּינֵהּ – בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא! אֶלָּא קוֹדֶם גְּמַר דִּינֵאּ, וּלְמַאי? אִי לְשִׁילּוּחַ – בָּעֵי לְאֵתוֹיֵי לְבֵי דִינָא וְקַיּוֹמֵי ״וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרַע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״! אֶלָּא לִשְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
Ravina said: Here we are dealing with a bird that killed a person and is therefore subject to being killed. The verse indicates that such a bird is unfit for use in the leper’s ritual. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued, then it is subject to being killed, and there is no need for the verse to teach that it cannot be used in the ritual. Rather, it must be referring to a bird before its verdict of execution was issued. And for what function does the verse exclude such a bird? If it serves to exclude the bird from sending away, this is unnecessary, since one is required to bring it to the court to fulfill the verse: “And you shall eradicate the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:6). Obviously, one may not send it away. Rather, the verse serves to disqualify such a bird for slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina returns to the case he raised on 138b and applies it here. After sentence the bird is simply dead and needs no verse; before sentence it is owed to the court, so it cannot be the released bird, and לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שַׁלַּח לְתַקָּלָה would block that in any case. What טְהוֹרוֹת teaches is that such a bird may not serve as the one slaughtered — the fourth answer, and the last.
Key Terms:
- עוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ = a bird that killed a person
- וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרַע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ = and you shall remove the evil from your midst — the duty to produce it in court
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Back to the mishna: a kosher bird on non-kosher eggs is a צִפּוֹר, so why exempt?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר. בִּשְׁלָמָא עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי טָהוֹר – בָּעֵינַן ״צִפּוֹר״ וְלֵיכָּא, אֶלָּא עוֹף טָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא – הָא ״צִפּוֹר״ הוּא!
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If 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. The Gemara objects: Granted, it is understandable that one is exempt in a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, since we require a kosher bird, as the verse uses the word “tzippor” (Deuteronomy 22:6) in this context, which the Gemara earlier (139b) interpreted as a reference to a kosher bird, and this bird is not kosher. But in a case where a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, it is a tzippor, a kosher bird, and one should be required to send it away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara accepts half the mishna’s ruling immediately — a non-kosher mother fails the requirement of צִפּוֹר — and presses on the other half. Where the brooding bird is kosher the verse’s own term is satisfied, and the eggs beneath her are not what the word describes. The exemption must therefore rest on something other than the identity of the bird.
Key Terms:
- רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי = brooding upon the eggs of — the mismatched cases of the mishna
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Kahana: תִּקַּח לָךְ וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ — the young must be fit for you.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״תִּקַּח לָךְ״ – וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ, הָכָא נָמֵי: ״תִּקַּח לָךְ״ – וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds that this is in accordance with that which Rav Kahana said in a different context: The verse states: “But the young you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:7), indicating that one is required to send away the mother only if the eggs are fit for consumption, but not if they are fit only for your dog. Here too, with regard to non-kosher eggs, the mitzva applies only if you may take for yourself, but not if they are fit only for your dog because they are not kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer shifts the criterion from the mother to the nest’s contents. וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ is read restrictively — for yourself, and not for your dogs — so the mitzva engages only where the young are something a person may actually take and eat. Non-kosher eggs fail that test however kosher the bird sitting on them, and the exemption is secured without disturbing the meaning of צִפּוֹר.
Key Terms:
- תִּקַּח לָךְ = you shall take for yourself (Devarim 22:7)
- וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ = and not for your dogs — the young must be fit for human consumption
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
Where Rav Kahana’s rule was first stated: tereifa mother obligated, tereifa fledglings exempt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא? אַהָא דְּתַנְיָא: אִם טְרֵפָה – חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ, אֶפְרוֹחִים טְרֵפוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״תִּקַּח לָךְ״ – וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And where was this statement of Rav Kahana stated? The Gemara answers that it was stated with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: Even if the mother bird is a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother from the nest. But if the fledglings are tereifot, one is exempt from sending away the mother. From where is this matter derived? Rav Kahana said: As the verse states: “You may take for yourself,” indicating that you are required to send away the mother only if the fledglings are fit for consumption, but not if they are fit only for your dog because they are tereifot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rule is now traced to its original setting, and that setting reveals its logic. A mother who is herself a tereifa still carries the obligation, because she is not what the finder takes; fledglings that are tereifot exempt him, because they are. תִּקַּח לָךְ governs the object of taking, not the bird sent away, and the asymmetry between mother and young follows directly.
Key Terms:
- אֶפְרוֹחִים = fledglings, the young birds in the nest
- אִם טְרֵפָה חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ = if she is a tereifa he is obligated to send her
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Why not compare the tereifa mother to the tereifa fledglings and exempt her too?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְהַקִּישׁ אֵם טְרֵפָה לְאֶפְרוֹחִים, מָה אֶפְרוֹחִים טְרֵפוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ, אַף אֵם טְרֵפָה נָמֵי – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But why not compare a tereifa mother bird to tereifa fledglings and say: Just as with regard to tereifa fledglings one is exempt from sending away the mother, so too, with regard to a tereifa mother one should also be exempt from sending her away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection presses for symmetry: the verse mentions mother and young in a single clause, and an exemption established for one might be expected to travel to the other. If tereifa young dissolve the obligation, a tereifa mother might equally be thought to. The answer, which turns on what would then be left for the word צִפּוֹר to teach, runs over into 140b.
Key Terms:
- לְהַקִּישׁ = to compare, to juxtapose — deriving one case from an adjacent one
Amud Bet (140b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
The comparison is refused: it would leave צִפּוֹר with nothing to exclude.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן, ״צִפּוֹר״ לְמַעוֹטֵי עוֹף טָמֵא לְמָה לִי?
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: If so, that the mother should be compared to the fledglings, then why do I need the word “tzippor” to exclude a non-kosher bird? One could simply derive it from the fact that one is exempt from the mitzva in the case of non-kosher fledglings, since they are not fit for consumption. Rather, since it was necessary for the verse to teach that non-kosher birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother, it must be that no such comparison is to be drawn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer works backwards from a word the Torah spent. If a tereifa mother were exempt because her young would be, then a non-kosher mother would be exempt for the same reason, since non-kosher young are equally unfit to take — and the term צִפּוֹר, which the whole of 139b was devoted to reading as an exclusion, would be teaching nothing. Since it plainly does teach, no such comparison may be drawn, and the asymmetry between mother and young stands.
Key Terms:
- לְמַעוֹטֵי עוֹף טָמֵא = to exclude a non-kosher bird — the job the word צִפּוֹר already does
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
A baraita seems to obligate for tereifa fledglings; Abaye rereads its subject.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵם אֶפְרוֹחִין טְרֵפָה – חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר – אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁאִמָּן טְרֵפָה חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara questions the statement of Rav Kahana that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest does not apply in the case of fledglings unfit for consumption: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a mother of fledglings, in the case of a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the nest? The baraita appears to teach that even if the fledglings themselves are tereifot, one is obligated in the mitzva. Abaye said in response: The word tereifa is not referring to the fledglings. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of a fledgling whose mother is a tereifa, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. This baraita, then, is in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s אֵם אֶפְרוֹחִין טְרֵפָה is ambiguous about which noun the adjective governs, and read one way it flatly contradicts Rav Kahana. Abaye takes the other reading: the tereifa is the mother, and the baraita teaches that a fledgling whose mother is unfit still obligates her sending. The clause is repunctuated rather than rejected, and Rav Kahana’s rule is left intact.
Key Terms:
- אֵם אֶפְרוֹחִין טְרֵפָה = the mother of fledglings, a tereifa — the ambiguous phrase
- הָכִי קָאָמַר = this is what it means — reinterpreting rather than rejecting a source
Segment 3
TYPE: בעיא
Rav Hoshaya’s question: fledglings whose simanim were only partly severed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לַקֵּן, וְשָׁחַט מִיעוּט סִימָנִים, מַהוּ?
English Translation:
§ With regard to the statement of Rav Kahana above, Rav Hoshaya raises a dilemma: If one stretched his hand into a nest containing a mother bird and its fledglings and slaughtered, i.e., severed, a minority of the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, of the fledglings, what is the halakha with regard to sending away the mother bird?
קלאוד על הדף:
The case is built to sit exactly on the line Rav Kahana drew. A partial cut has not made the birds fit and, if left, will make them tereifot — so at this instant they are not something to take לָךְ. The question is whether the mitzva is measured against the present state of the young or against what the finder can still bring about, and the segment poses it without yet weighing either side.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִים = the windpipe and gullet, which shechitah must sever
- מִיעוּט סִימָנִים = a minority of the simanim — an incomplete cut
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא
Both sides stated, and the question left תֵּיקוּ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ שָׁבֵיק לְהוּ מִטַּרְפִי, בָּעֵינַן ״לָךְ וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ״, אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּבְיָדוֹ לְמִגְמַר שְׁחִיטָה, ״תִּקַּח לָךְ״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ, וְחַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
The two sides of the dilemma are explained: Do we say: Since if those fledglings are left as they are, with only partially severed simanim, they will eventually be rendered tereifot, one is therefore exempt from sending away the mother because we require that the fledglings be taken “for yourself,” and not for your dog? Or perhaps, since it is in his power to complete the act of slaughter, thereby permitting the fledglings for consumption, we may call this case: “Take for yourself,” and one is obligated to send away the mother bird. Since no answer is given, the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two readings are set out with unusual symmetry. On one side, אִילּוּ שָׁבֵיק לְהוּ מִטַּרְפִי — leave them and they become tereifot, so the young are already destined for the dogs. On the other, בְּיָדוֹ לְמִגְמַר שְׁחִיטָה — completing the slaughter is within his power, and a thing one can render fit may count as fit. The Gemara declines to choose, and תֵּיקוּ leaves the case standing as a permanent illustration of how finely the criterion of לָךְ can be pressed.
Key Terms:
- בְּיָדוֹ = it is in his power — potential fitness as against present state
- תֵּיקוּ = let it stand — an unresolved question
Segment 5
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Yirmeya on interposition: a rag, and detached feathers, between mother and eggs.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מַטְלֵית מַהוּ שֶׁתָּחוֹץ? כְּנָפַיִם מַהוּ שֶׁיָּחוֹצּוּ?
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a case where a rag is lying in the nest between the mother bird and the eggs, what is the halakha? Does it interpose between them, such that the mother is not considered to be resting upon the eggs? If so, one would be exempt from sending away the mother. Similarly, if feathers are detached from a bird’s wings and are lying between the mother bird and the eggs, what is the halakha? Do they interpose between the eggs and the mother?
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna requires the mother to be רוֹבֶצֶת עַל the young, and Rabbi Yirmeya asks what may come between without breaking that contact. A rag is foreign to the nest; loose feathers are of the bird’s own kind but detached from her. The pair is chosen to probe whether חֲצִיצָה here depends on the interposing material’s origin or simply on its presence.
Key Terms:
- חֲצִיצָה = interposition — a barrier preventing required contact
- מַטְלֵית = a rag or patch of cloth
Segment 6
TYPE: בעיא
Three further cases: unfertilized eggs, stacked eggs, and a male beneath the female.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת, מַהוּ? שְׁנֵי סִדְרֵי בֵיצִים זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ, מַהוּ? זָכָר עַל גַּבֵּי בֵיצִים וּנְקֵבָה עַל גַּבֵּי זָכָר, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya continues: If unfertilized [muzarot] eggs separate between the mother bird and fertilized eggs, what is the halakha? Additionally, in a case where two sets of fertilized eggs are lying one on top of the other, what is the halakha? Does the upper set of eggs interpose between the mother and the lower set? Furthermore, what is the halakha in a case where a male bird is resting on top of the eggs and a female bird is resting on top of the male? Does the male bird interpose between the female and the eggs? No answers are given, so the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved in all of these cases.
קלאוד על הדף:
The series escalates from foreign matter to the nest’s own contents. מוּזָרוֹת are eggs that will never hatch and are themselves outside the mitzva, so they may function as a barrier; a second tier of viable eggs raises whether things that are themselves obligated can interpose; and the last case is the sharpest, a male brooding with the female above him, where the barrier is another bird performing the very act in question. All five stand תֵּיקוּ.
Key Terms:
- בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת = unfertilized eggs, from which nothing will hatch
- שְׁנֵי סִדְרֵי בֵיצִים = two tiers of eggs, one above the other
Segment 7
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Zeira: a pigeon on a tasil’s eggs, and the reverse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: יוֹנָה עַל בֵּיצֵי תָסִיל, מַהוּ? תָּסִיל עַל בֵּיצֵי יוֹנָה, מַהוּ?
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If a pigeon is resting upon the eggs of a tasil, a kosher bird resembling a pigeon, what is the halakha with regard to sending away the mother bird from the nest? Likewise, if a tasil is resting upon the eggs of a pigeon, what is the halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
Both birds are kosher, so צִפּוֹר is satisfied and תִּקַּח לָךְ is satisfied; what is in doubt is whether the mitzva requires the mother to be brooding on young of her own kind. The tasil is chosen because it resembles a pigeon closely, which makes the case realistic rather than merely theoretical — a finder might not know whose eggs he had found.
Key Terms:
- תָּסִיל = a kosher bird resembling a pigeon
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye’s proof from the mishna, deflected by the case of the קוֹרֵא.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תָּא שְׁמַע, עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְטָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ. הָא טָהוֹר וְטָהוֹר – חַיָּיב! דִּלְמָא בְּקוֹרֵא.
English Translation:
Abaye said: Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: 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. One may infer from the mishna that in a case involving a kosher bird and kosher eggs, e.g., a tasil resting on the eggs of a pigeon, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps this inference applies only to the case of a female pheasant, which normally rests upon the eggs of other birds. Since this is its normal behavior, one is obligated to send it away even if it rests upon the eggs of another kosher bird. This may not be the case with regard to a tasil or pigeon.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye reasons from what the mishna exempts to what it must obligate: only the mismatched kosher-and-non-kosher pairings are excused, so a kosher bird on another kosher species’ eggs should be liable. The deflection is that the mishna’s obligating case may be the קוֹרֵא alone, a bird whose nature is to brood on eggs not its own — for such a bird sitting on strangers’ eggs is its own manner, and nothing follows for a pigeon.
Key Terms:
- הָא טָהוֹר וְטָהוֹר חַיָּיב = but kosher upon kosher is obligated — the inference Abaye draws
- דִּלְמָא בְּקוֹרֵא = perhaps it refers to the pheasant — limiting the inference
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Abbahu on Rabbi Eliezer’s source: a gezeira shava on דְּגִירָה.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קוֹרֵא זָכָר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָתְיָא ״דְּגִירָה״ ״דְּגִירָה״, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״קוֹרֵא דָגַר וְלֹא יָלָד״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״וּבָקְעָה וְדָגְרָה בְצִלָּהּ״.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of a male pheasant that rests upon the eggs of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send away the pheasant, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away. With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? According to Rabbi Eliezer, a verbal analogy between brooding stated with regard to a male pheasant and brooding with regard to a female bird comes to indicate that the resting of a male pheasant upon its eggs is considered an effective resting. It is written here: “As the pheasant that broods over young that he has not brought forth” (Jeremiah 17:11), and it is written elsewhere about a female bird: “There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and brood under her shadow” (Isaiah 34:15). Just as a female bird broods over its nest, so too, a male pheasant broods over a nest. Therefore, one is required to send away the male bird from the nest as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer’s obligation of a brooding male needs a source, since the verse says הָאֵם. Rabbi Abbahu supplies a verbal analogy on the root דגר: Yirmiyahu’s קוֹרֵא דָגַר וְלֹא יָלָד describes the pheasant brooding over young it did not bear, and Yeshayahu’s וּבָקְעָה וְדָגְרָה בְצִלָּהּ describes a female doing the same. The shared word makes the male’s brooding a brooding in the verse’s own sense.
Key Terms:
- קוֹרֵא דָגַר וְלֹא יָלָד = a pheasant broods over what it did not bear (Yirmiyahu 17:11)
- וּבָקְעָה וְדָגְרָה בְצִלָּהּ = and hatched and brooded in her shadow (Yeshayahu 34:15)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Elazar narrows the dispute: a female pheasant all agree is obligated.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּקוֹרֵא זָכָר, אֲבָל בְּקוֹרֵא נְקֵבָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״קוֹרֵא זָכָר״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא רַבָּנַן אֲפִילּוּ קוֹרֵא נְקֵבָה פָּטְרִי, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״זָכָר״ – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
With regard to this dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, Rabbi Elazar says: Their dispute is only with regard to a male pheasant, but with regard to a female pheasant all agree that one is obligated to send away the bird. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, given that we learned in the mishna: A male pheasant? The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the Rabbis deem one exempt from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird even in the case of a female pheasant, and as for that which the mishna teaches the dispute in the case of a male pheasant, the reason is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, in that he requires one to send away even a male pheasant, therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that the Rabbis agree that one must send away a female pheasant.
קלאוד על הדף:
The clarification looks superfluous, since the mishna said זָכָר, and the Gemara says so — פְּשִׁיטָא. The answer invokes a standard caution about how mishnayot are worded: a tanna may state an extreme case precisely to display the reach of one opinion, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, in which case the Rabbis might have exempted even a female. Rabbi Elazar forecloses that reading.
Key Terms:
- פְּשִׁיטָא = it is obvious — the challenge to a seemingly redundant statement
- לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ = to inform you of the force of his view — why an extreme case may be stated
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
And the mirror clarification: ordinary males all agree are exempt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּקוֹרֵא זָכָר, אֲבָל בְּזָכָר דְּעָלְמָא – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״קוֹרֵא זָכָר״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֲפִילּוּ זָכָר דְּעָלְמָא מְחַיֵּיב, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״קוֹרֵא זָכָר״ – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Elazar also says: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is only with regard to a male pheasant, but with regard to male birds in general, all agree that one is exempt from the mitzva of sending away the bird from the nest. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, given that we learned in the mishna: A male pheasant? The Gemara responds: Lest you say that Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send away even male birds in general, and that which the mishna teaches: A male pheasant, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, in that they also deem one exempt from sending a male pheasant, therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that even according to Rabbi Eliezer, one is exempt from sending away male birds in general.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same move is made from the other side, and answered by the same principle pointed the other way — the mishna might have named the pheasant to display the reach of the Rabbis, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, leaving open that Rabbi Eliezer obligates every brooding male. Rabbi Elazar confines him to the koreh, so the dispute occupies exactly one case and no more.
Key Terms:
- זָכָר דְּעָלְמָא = a male bird in general, as against the pheasant specifically
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita confirms Rabbi Elazar’s delimitation on both sides.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: זָכָר דְּעָלְמָא – פָּטוּר, קוֹרֵא זָכָר – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: This explanation of Rabbi Elazar is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a male bird in general, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending it away, but with regard to a male pheasant, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send it away from the nest, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The tannaitic source states the three positions in the order Rabbi Elazar’s two clarifications require: an ordinary male exempt without dispute, and the koreh alone the subject of the machloket. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי closes the sugya by showing that his reading of the mishna was already the tradition’s own.
Key Terms:
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = it is likewise taught in a baraita — tannaitic confirmation of an amoraic reading
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: the hovering mother, and a nest of even one egg or fledgling.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁכְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, אֵין כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶחָד אוֹ בֵּיצָה אַחַת – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״קַן״, קֵן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If the mother bird was hovering over the eggs or fledglings in the nest, when its wings are touching the eggs or fledglings in the nest, one is obligated to send away the mother. When its wings are not touching the eggs or fledglings in the nest, one is exempt from sending away the mother. Even if there is only one fledgling or one egg, one is obligated to send away the mother, as it is stated: “If a bird’s nest happens before you” (Deuteronomy 22:6), indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the nest in any case.
קלאוד על הדף:
The perek’s second mishna moves from who the bird is to how she sits. A hovering mother obligates only if her wings touch the nest, which makes contact rather than posture the criterion. The clause that follows is generous in the other direction: קֵן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, a nest is a nest, and a single egg or a single chick is enough to bring the mitzva into force.
Key Terms:
- מְעוֹפֶפֶת = hovering, beating her wings above the nest
- קֵן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם = a nest in any case — even one egg or one fledgling
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה
Fledglings that can fly and unfertilized eggs are exempt, by mutual derivation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָיוּ שָׁם אֶפְרוֹחִים מַפְרִיחִים, אוֹ בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים״, מָה אֶפְרוֹחִים בְּנֵי קַיָּימָא, אַף בֵּיצִים בְּנֵי קַיָּימָא, יָצְאוּ מוּזָרוֹת. וּמָה הַבֵּיצִים צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן, אַף הָאֶפְרוֹחִין צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן, יָצְאוּ מַפְרִיחִין.
English Translation:
If there were fledglings capable of flying, or unfertilized eggs from which a fledgling will not hatch, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird from the nest, as it is stated in the same verse: “And the mother is resting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs.” From the juxtaposition of the fledglings and the eggs one derives: Just as the fledglings are living, so too, the eggs must be capable of producing living fledglings. This excludes unfertilized eggs, which cannot produce a living fledgling. And furthermore, just as the eggs need their mothers to hatch them, so too, the fledglings must be those that need their mothers. This excludes fledglings that are capable of flying.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna reads the verse’s pairing of אֶפְרֹחִים and בֵּיצִים as making each term define the other. Because fledglings are viable, the eggs must be viable too, which excludes מוּזָרוֹת; because eggs still depend on their mother, the fledglings must still depend on theirs, which excludes מַפְרִיחִים. The mitzva is bounded at both ends by the same clause, and what it protects is a mother still needed by young that are still capable of life.
Key Terms:
- מַפְרִיחִים = fledglings able to fly, no longer needing the mother
- בְּנֵי קַיָּימָא = viable, capable of living
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
The Gemara’s baraita: רוֹבֶצֶת excludes hovering, yet admits touching wings.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״רוֹבֶצֶת״ – וְלֹא מְעוֹפֶפֶת. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״רוֹבֶצֶת״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? מִדְּלָא כְּתִיב ״יוֹשֶׁבֶת״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna discusses the case of a mother bird that hovers over the nest. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse teaches that one is obligated to send away the mother bird only when it is at rest, as it states: “And the mother is resting upon the fledglings” (Deuteronomy 22:6), and not when it is hovering. One might have thought that one is exempt even if the mother is hovering and its wings are touching the nest. Therefore, the verse states: “Resting,” indicating that in fact one is obligated in the mitzva in such a case. The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation, i.e., how is this derived from the word “resting”? The Gemara responds: It is derived from the fact that the word sitting is not written in the verse. Although a bird whose wings are touching the nest is not sitting upon it, such a bird is considered to be resting upon it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita takes both halves of the mishna’s ruling out of one word. רוֹבֶצֶת excludes a bird merely beating the air, and yet the same word is made to include one whose wings brush the nest. The derivation is put as a question — מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא — and answered from the word not chosen: had the Torah written יוֹשֶׁבֶת it would have required settled sitting, and רוֹבֶצֶת is the looser term that a touching wing can satisfy.
Key Terms:
- רוֹבֶצֶת = resting, crouching — the verse’s chosen term
- יוֹשֶׁבֶת = sitting — the stricter word the verse avoided
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Rav’s test for a mother between two branches above the nest.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּין שְׁנֵי רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן – רוֹאִים, כֹּל שֶׁאִם תִּשָּׁמֵט נוֹפֶלֶת עֲלֵיהֶם – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, וְאִם לָאו – פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If the mother bird was sitting above the eggs or fledglings between two tree branches, one looks at the following factor in order to determine whether the obligation to send away the mother applies: In any case where if the branches were to separate, the bird would slip between them and fall upon the eggs or fledglings, one is obligated to send away the mother bird. And if the bird would not fall upon them, but to the sides, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav supplies a criterion for a case the mishna does not address, where the bird sits not on the nest but on branches over it. The test is counterfactual and physical: אִם תִּשָּׁמֵט נוֹפֶלֶת עֲלֵיהֶם, would she drop onto the young if the branches gave way. If she would, her position counts as רוֹבֶצֶת עַל them even without contact; if she would fall clear, it does not. Contact is replaced by a line of gravity.
Key Terms:
- רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן = layers or tiers of a tree’s branches
- אִם תִּשָּׁמֵט = if she were to slip — the counterfactual test
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
A baraita is raised against Rav: among, above, and hovering.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav from that which was taught in a baraita: If the mother bird was sitting among the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away, as the verse states: “And the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs” (Deuteronomy 22:6), i.e., upon and not among. If it was sitting above them, one is obligated to send it away. If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s three clauses look like a complete scheme — exempt among the eggs, obligated above them, exempt hovering even with wings touching — and it is brought as a refutation because the middle clause may mean obligation only where she touches. If so there is no room for Rav’s branches, where she touches nothing at all. The force of the objection depends entirely on how עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן is read.
Key Terms:
- מֵיתִיבִי = an objection is raised — from a tannaitic source against an amora
- בֵּינֵיהֶן / עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן = among them / above them
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
The objection stated: ‘above’ resembles ‘among’ in that she touches.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי לָאו עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, דּוּמְיָא דְּבֵינֵיהֶן: מָה בֵּינֵיהֶן – דְּנָגְעָה בְּהוּ, אַף עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – דְּנָגְעָה בְּהוּ, אֲבָל רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן – פָּטוּר?
English Translation:
What, is it not that the case of sitting above them is similar to the case of sitting between them? The Gemara elaborates: Just as in the case of sitting between them one is exempt where she is touching them, so too, in the case of sitting above them one is obligated where she is touching them. If so, conclude from this baraita that one is obligated only if the bird is touching the fledglings or eggs, but if it is sitting between two tree branches above the eggs or fledglings without touching them, one is exempt from sending her away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The argument is one of דּוּמְיָא, likeness between adjacent clauses of a single baraita. If sitting among the eggs means sitting in contact with them, then sitting above them should mean the same, and the obligation would require touching from above. Rav’s branch-sitting bird, contactless, would then be exempt and his ruling refuted.
Key Terms:
- דּוּמְיָא = similar to — reading parallel clauses on the same pattern
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
The likeness is inverted: ‘among’ means not touching from above, and so does ‘above’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא, עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דּוּמְיָא דְּבֵינֵיהֶן: מָה בֵּינֵיהֶן – דְּלֹא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, אַף עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – דְּלֹא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, וְהַיְינוּ רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this: No; actually, the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is not touching them from above, but from the side, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is not touching them from above. Accordingly, the baraita teaches that one is obligated to send away the bird if it is resting on branches above the nest, even though it is not touching the eggs or fledglings. And that is the case where the mother is sitting between two tree branches.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer accepts the principle of דּוּמְיָא and reverses its content. A bird among the eggs touches them from the side rather than from above, so the shared feature of the two clauses is the absence of contact from above — and the obligating clause therefore covers a bird positioned over the nest without resting on it. That is precisely Rav’s case, and the baraita now supports rather than refutes him.
Key Terms:
- דְּלֹא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ = that she does not touch them from above
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
A supporting argument from the baraita’s economy of teaching.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן פָּטוּר – אַדְּתָנֵי: הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, לִיתְנֵי רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מְעוֹפֶפֶת!
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: This, too, stands to reason, that one is obligated to send away a mother bird that is sitting between two tree branches above the nest. As, if it should enter your mind that one is exempt when the mother bird is sitting between two tree branches, then one may ask: Rather than teaching that if it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away, let the baraita teach that one is exempt in the case of a mother bird that is sitting between two tree branches, and all the more so if the mother is hovering.
קלאוד על הדף:
If a bird on branches were exempt, the baraita chose the wrong case to make its final point. Teaching the exemption for branches would have yielded the hovering case כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן, all the more so, since a hovering bird is further from resting than a perched one. That it teaches the weaker case instead suggests the stronger one is not exempt at all — an argument from what a tanna did not bother to say.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן = all the more so — an a fortiori inference
- אַדְּתָנֵי = rather than teaching — questioning a source’s choice of case
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
The support is deflected: the hovering clause has its own point to make.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְעוֹפֶפֶת אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one is exempt from sending the mother bird if it is resting between two tree branches. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the tanna to teach the case of a hovering bird, in order to teach that even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. Had the tanna taught the exemption in a case of a bird resting between two tree branches, one might have thought that this is because the bird’s wings are not touching the nest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The economy argument is answered by finding the hovering clause a lesson the branch case could not carry. Its force lies in אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת — exempt even though her wings do touch — and a ruling about branches, where nothing touches, would have left the reader assuming that contact was what mattered. The clause is chosen for its counterintuitive detail rather than for its strength.
Key Terms:
- אִיצְטְרִיךְ = it was necessary — justifying an apparently weaker formulation
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
But the mishna obligates a hovering bird whose wings touch; Rabbi Yirmeya resolves it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: בִּזְמַן שֶׁכְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כִּי קָתָנֵי מַתְנִיתָא בְּנוֹגֵעַ מִן הַצַּד.
English Translation:
The Gemara now questions the baraita itself: How can the baraita state that even if the hovering bird’s wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending the bird away? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: When its wings are touching the nest, one is obligated to send away the mother? Rabbi Yirmeya said: When the case of the hovering mother bird is taught in the baraita, it is referring to a bird touching the nest from the side. In such a case, one is exempt because its wings are not touching the nest from above. By contrast, the mishna is referring to a case where the bird is hovering directly above the nest and touching the nest with its wings from above.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s last clause now collides with the mishna, which obligates precisely where the hovering bird’s wings touch the nest. Rabbi Yirmeya separates them by direction of contact: the baraita speaks of a wing brushing מִן הַצַּד, from the side, while the mishna has her hovering directly above with her wings touching from over the nest. The criterion established for perched birds — what lies above — governs hovering ones too.
Key Terms:
- נוֹגֵעַ מִן הַצַּד = touching from the side, as against from above
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
An אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי recension: the same baraita cited to support Rav.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
There are those who say that the discussion proceeded as follows: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav: If the mother bird was sitting among the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away. If it was sitting above them, one is obligated to send it away. If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now preserves a second version of the entire exchange, in which the baraita is introduced not as a refutation but as לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע, a possible support. The words quoted are identical; only the direction of argument changes. Preserving both is characteristic — the sugya records how the discussion could have run as well as how it did.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי = there are those who say — an alternative recension of a discussion
- לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ = shall we say it supports him
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
The support proposed on the reading that ‘above’ means without contact.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי לָאו עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, דּוּמְיָא דְּבֵינֵיהֶן: מָה בֵּינֵיהֶן – דְּלָא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, אַף עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – דְּלָא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, וְהַיְינוּ רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן?
English Translation:
What, is it not that the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is not touching them from above but from the side, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is not touching them from above? If so, the baraita teaches that if the bird rests on branches over the eggs or fledglings without touching them, one is obligated in the mitzva. And that is the case where the mother is sitting between two tree branches.
קלאוד על הדף:
In this version the reading that answered the objection is offered first, as the natural sense: among them means touching from the side and not above, so above them likewise means without contact from above, and the obligating clause is Rav’s branch case exactly. What was a rescue in the first recension is the opening move in the second.
Key Terms:
- וְהַיְינוּ רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן = and this is the case of the tree’s branches
Segment 25
TYPE: גמרא
The support deflected by the other reading; the daf breaks off mid-objection.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דּוּמְיָא דְּבֵינֵיהֶן: מָה בֵּינֵיהֶן – דְּנָגְעָה בְּהוּ, אַף עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – דְּנָגְעָה בְּהוּ. אֲבָל רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן – פָּטוּר. אִי הָכִי, אַדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר,
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this: No, the case of sitting above them is similar to that of sitting between them in the following manner: Just as the case of sitting between them is one where she is touching them, so too, the case of sitting above them is one where she is touching them. Accordingly, one is obligated only if the bird is touching the nest from above; but if it is sitting between two tree branches without touching the eggs or the fledglings, one is exempt from sending it away. The Gemara objects: If that is so, rather than teaching in the last clause: If it was hovering, even if its wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending it away,
קלאוד על הדף:
The deflection restores the contact reading — among and above alike mean touching — which would leave a bird on branches exempt and Rav unsupported. The Gemara then begins to object from the baraita’s final clause once more, אִי הָכִי אַדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא, and the page ends inside that sentence. The second recension is left mid-argument, to be completed on 141a.
Key Terms:
- סֵיפָא = the latter clause of a source
- אִי הָכִי = if so — introducing the difficulty a proposed reading creates