Chullin Daf 141 (חולין דף קמ״א)
Daf: 141 | Amudim: 141a – 141b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (141a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The 140b argument closes: the hovering clause was needed for its counterintuitive detail.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לִיתְנֵי רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מְעוֹפֶפֶת? מְעוֹפֶפֶת אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
let the baraita teach that one is exempt in a case where the bird is sitting between two tree branches, which resembles a case where the bird is resting upon the nest itself in that the bird is sitting in both cases, and it would be clear all the more so that one is exempt if the mother is hovering. The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the baraita 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 baraita 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 from the end of 140b is answered here. Teaching the branch case would indeed have yielded the hovering case all the more, but it would have left the reader assuming that contact is what matters. The hovering clause is chosen precisely because it carries אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת — exempt even though she touches — which no ruling about branches could convey.
Key Terms:
- אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ = it was necessary for him — justifying an apparently weaker case
- כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן = all the more so
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yehuda distinguishes touching from the side from touching above.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: בִּזְמַן שֶׁכְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כִּי קָתָנֵי מַתְנִיתִין – 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? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: When its wings are touching the nest, one is obligated to send away the mother? Rav Yehuda 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 exemption for a hovering bird whose wings touch collides with the mishna’s obligation in what looks like the same case, and the resolution is directional. The baraita speaks of a wing brushing מִן הַצַּד, from the side; the mishna has her hovering over the nest with her wings touching from above. The vertical criterion that governed the perched bird governs the hovering one too. Note that on 140b this same resolution was reported in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya.
Key Terms:
- נוֹגֵעַ מִן הַצַּד = touching from the side, as against from above
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
A Sage challenges Rava: why not read the mishna’s two rulings in reverse?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין שָׁם אֶפְרוֹחַ וְכוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אֵימָא אִיפְּכָא, אֵין שָׁם אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶלָּא אֶחָד אוֹ בֵּיצָה אַחַת – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, דְּבָעֵינַן ״אֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים״ וְלֵיכָּא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: 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 the mother bird away from the nest in any case. Additionally, if there were fledglings capable of flying or unfertilized eggs, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird, 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 that the eggs or fledglings must be capable of living and they must require their mothers. With regard to this, one of the Sages said to Rava: Say the opposite, that if there is only one fledgling or one egg, one is exempt from sending away the mother, since we require that the mother be “resting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs,” and this condition is not fulfilled with fewer than two.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge is a neat inversion of the mishna’s own derivations. Since the verse says אֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים in the plural, a single egg should fall short and exempt; and since קַן means a nest of any kind, unfertilized eggs and fledged chicks should be included rather than excluded. Each of the mishna’s two words is redirected against the ruling it was cited to support, which forces Rava to say what the plural nouns are actually doing.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָא אִיפְּכָא = say the opposite — reversing a derivation’s direction
- בָּעֵינַן אֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים = we require fledglings or eggs — read as a plural requirement
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: had the verse meant merely ‘upon them’ it would have written עֲלֵיהֶם.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָיוּ שָׁם אֶפְרוֹחִים מַפְרִיחִים אוֹ בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת, חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״קַן״ – קֵן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״וְהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת עֲלֵיהֶם״, מַאי ״וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים״? לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי אֶפְרוֹחִים לְבֵיצִים וּבֵיצִים לְאֶפְרוֹחִים.
English Translation:
Additionally, if there were fledglings capable of flying or unfertilized eggs in the nest, say that one is obligated to send the mother bird away, as it is stated in that verse: “Nest,” indicating that one is obligated to send the mother bird away from the nest in any case. Rava responds: If so, let the verse write: And the mother is resting upon them. For what reason does the verse state: “And the mother is resting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs”? It is to compare the fledglings to the eggs and the eggs to the fledglings, i.e., to indicate that the eggs or fledglings must be capable of living and must require their mothers. Fledglings that can fly and unfertilized eggs are therefore not included in the mitzva. Consequently, the word “nest” serves to indicate that one is obligated to send away the mother bird even if there is only one egg or fledgling in the nest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava answers from a word the Torah declined to use. עֲלֵיהֶם would have said everything a plural requirement needs, and the decision to spell out עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים must therefore serve a different purpose — לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי, to set each noun against the other so that viability and dependence are required of both. Once the plural is spoken for, קַן is free to teach that even a single egg makes a nest, and the mishna’s two rulings stand as stated.
Key Terms:
- לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי = to juxtapose, to compare — making two terms define each other
- קֵן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם = a nest in any case — even one egg or one fledgling
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: repeated sending, the refused substitution, and the returned young.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שִׁלְּחָהּ וְחָזְרָה, אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְּעָמִים – חַיָּיב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״. אָמַר: הֲרֵינִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֵם וּמְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הַבָּנִים – חַיָּיב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״. נָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחְזִירָן לָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה הָאֵם עֲלֵיהֶן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If one sent away the mother bird and it returned to rest on the eggs, even if it returned four or five times, one is obligated to send it away again, as it is stated: “You shall send [shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ] the mother” (Deuteronomy 22:7). The doubled verb indicates that one must send away the mother bird multiple times if needed. If one said: I am hereby taking the mother and sending away the offspring, he is still obligated to send away the mother even if he sent away the offspring, as it is stated: “You shall send the mother.” If one sent away the mother and took the offspring and then returned them to the mother’s nest, and thereafter the mother returned and rested upon them, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three rulings, each testing a different way of narrowing the mitzva. Sending her once does not discharge it if she returns — four or five times makes no difference. Offering to keep the mother and release the young instead is refused outright, since the verse names which bird is sent. But taking the young and putting them back does exempt, because lifting them made them his, and a nest of his own eggs is no longer a chance encounter.
Key Terms:
- שִׁלְּחָהּ וְחָזְרָה = he sent her away and she returned
- הֲרֵינִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֵם = I am hereby taking the mother — the refused substitution
- נָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחְזִירָן = he took the young and returned them
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
A Sage asks Rava whether the doubled verb means once and then twice.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא, וְאֵימָא: ״שַׁלֵּחַ״ – חֲדָא זִימְנָא, ״תְּשַׁלַּח״ – תְּרֵי זִימְנִין.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the mother bird returned to rest on the eggs, even if it returned four or five times, one is obligated to send it away again, as it is stated: “You shall send [shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ].” With regard to this, one of the Sages said to Rava: But say instead that the word “shalle’aḥ” indicates that one must send away the mother once, and the word “teshallaḥ” indicates that one must do so twice, and beyond that there is no obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
A doubled verb is ordinarily read as intensification, but the questioner proposes a numerical reading instead: שַׁלֵּחַ for one sending, תְּשַׁלַּח for a second, and nothing beyond. The suggestion is not frivolous, since it would give each word a discrete job and cap an otherwise unbounded obligation. Rava’s answer will keep the unbounded reading and find the second word entirely different work.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא זִימְנָא / תְּרֵי זִימְנִין = one time / two times — the proposed numerical reading
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: שַׁלֵּחַ alone means a hundred times; תְּשַׁלַּח covers the case of a mitzva.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״שַׁלֵּחַ״ – אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים, ״תְּשַׁלַּח״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת, לִדְבַר מִצְוָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תְּשַׁלַּח״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
English Translation:
Rava said to him: Actually, the halakha that one must send away the mother multiple times is not derived from the phrase “shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ.” Rather, the word “shalle’aḥ” indicates that one must send away the mother bird even one hundred times, and the word “teshallaḥ” teaches another matter: I have derived only the obligation to send away the mother bird in a case where one takes the eggs or the fledglings and wants to take the mother bird for a discretionary purpose, e.g., to eat it. In a case where one takes the eggs or the fledglings and needs the mother bird for a matter involving a mitzva, e.g., the purification of a leper, from where is the halakha that he must send away the mother derived? The verse states: “Teshallaḥ,” to teach that in any case one must send away the mother bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava separates the two words rather than adding them. The first, unqualified, already obliges repetition without limit — אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים. The second answers a question the first leaves open: a man may want the mother not for his table but for a mitzva, the two birds of the metzora’s purification, and one might have supposed the mitzva excuses him. תְּשַׁלַּח מִכׇּל מָקוֹם says it does not.
Key Terms:
- לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת = for a discretionary purpose — taking the bird to eat
- לִדְבַר מִצְוָה = for the purpose of a mitzva — here the metzora’s birds
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Abba objects: no verse should be needed, since a positive cannot override a lav plus aseh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר רָבָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּשַׁלַּח״, הָא לָאו הָכִי, הָוֵה אָמֵינָא: לִדְבַר מִצְוָה לָא? עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה הוּא, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה!
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba, son of Rav Yosef bar Rava, said to Rav Kahana: But according to this explanation, the only reason that one must send away the mother bird even when needed for a matter involving a mitzva is that the Merciful One wrote: “Teshallaḥ”; but if not for this, I would say that when the mother is needed for a matter involving a mitzva, one is not obligated to send her away. But this is difficult, as the sending of the mother bird is both a positive mitzva and a prohibition, as the verse states: “You shall not take the mother with the young; you shall send the mother” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7), and there is a principle that a positive mitzva cannot override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is that Rava’s derivation solves a problem that could not arise. Shiluach is not a bare positive command: לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם is a prohibition and שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח the positive attached to it, and the settled rule is אֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. The metzora’s positive was never a candidate to override the pair, so a verse teaching that it does not is superfluous.
Key Terms:
- אֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה = a positive commandment does not override a prohibition together with a positive
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Kahana: the case is one who already took her, so only the positive remains.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּעֲבַר וְשַׁקְלַהּ לְאֵם, דְּלָאו עַבְרֵיהּ, עֲשֵׂה הוּא דְּאִיכָּא, לֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלִידְחֵי עֲשֵׂה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana replied: No, the word “teshallaḥ” is necessary for a case where one transgressed and took the mother with the fledglings. In such a case, he has already transgressed the prohibition, and there is now only a positive mitzva to send away the mother. Perhaps one might say: Let the positive mitzva performed with the mother, e.g., the purification of the leper, come and override the positive mitzva of sending away the mother. Therefore, the word “teshallaḥ” teaches us that this is not so, and one is obligated to send away the mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana narrows the verse to a man who has already transgressed. The prohibition is spent — לָאו עַבְרֵיהּ — and what stands is the residual duty to release her, a bare עֲשֵׂה. Against a bare positive the metzora’s positive is an even match, and לֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלִידְחֵי עֲשֵׂה becomes a live proposal. It is that proposal, and only that, which תְּשַׁלַּח comes to refuse.
Key Terms:
- דַּעֲבַר וְשַׁקְלַהּ = that he transgressed and took her
- לֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלִידְחֵי עֲשֵׂה = let a positive come and override a positive
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
This works for the view that lashes turn on קִיְּימוֹ, whether he fulfilled the positive.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּתָנֵי קִיְּימוֹ וְלֹא קִיְּימוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the one who teaches that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged for violating a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva is whether he fulfilled the mitzva immediately afterward or did not fulfill it. If he does not fulfill the mitzva immediately, he is flogged when he fails to do so. Consequently, if one does not send away the mother bird immediately after taking her with the fledglings, he has immediately violated the prohibition, and only the requirement to fulfill the positive mitzva remains.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana’s answer presupposes that the prohibition is already exhausted, and that depends on how a לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה is measured. On the קִיְּימוֹ וְלֹא קִיְּימוֹ view, failure to perform the positive at once completes the violation, so the moment he takes her without releasing her the lav is behind him and only the aseh remains. Read that way the answer holds.
Key Terms:
- לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה = a prohibition remedied by a positive commandment
- קִיְּימוֹ וְלֹא קִיְּימוֹ = whether he fulfilled it or did not — one measure of when lashes attach
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
But on the בִּטְּלוֹ view the prohibition is not yet spent, and the answer fails.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּתָנֵי בִּטְּלוֹ וְלֹא בִּטְּלוֹ, כַּמָּה דְּלָא שַׁחְטַהּ – לָא עַבְרֵיהּ לְלָאו.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: But according to the one who teaches that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged in that case is whether he negated the possibility of fulfilling the positive mitzva or did not negate it, and one is flogged only if he performed an action that renders it impossible to fulfill the mitzva, this explanation does not work out well. After all, as long as one has not slaughtered the mother bird, he has not transgressed the prohibition, since he may still send her away. Consequently, even if one takes the mother, as long as he has not slaughtered her, the prohibition remains in addition to the positive mitzva. If so, there is no need for the Torah to teach that the obligation to send away the mother bird applies in the case of a mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The competing measure asks whether the man has made performance impossible. Until he slaughters the mother he can still release her, so on that view the lav has not been transgressed at all and stands alongside the aseh — which restores exactly the pair Rabbi Abba said no positive can override. Rav Kahana’s reading therefore works only on one of the two accounts of ניתק לעשה.
Key Terms:
- בִּטְּלוֹ וְלֹא בִּטְּלוֹ = whether he nullified it or did not — lashes only where performance was made impossible
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
And on Rabbi Yehuda’s reading not even the positive survives.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתוּ, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר ״שַׁלֵּחַ״ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע, אֲפִילּוּ עֲשֵׂה נָמֵי לֵיכָּא!
English Translation:
And furthermore, one may ask: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the word “shalle’aḥ” indicates that the mitzva to send away the mother bird applies only at the outset, i.e., before taking the fledglings, one who takes the mother together with the fledglings violates both the prohibition and the positive mitzva associated with it, such that even a positive mitzva does not remain.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second objection comes from the other end. Rabbi Yehuda holds שַׁלֵּחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע, that the command to release applies only before one takes her; on that reading a man who has taken the mother has neither prohibition nor positive left, and there is nothing for the metzora’s mitzva to override. Rav Kahana’s case dissolves entirely, and a new one is needed.
Key Terms:
- מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע = it indicates from the outset — the positive applies only before the taking
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Mar bar Rav Ashi: he took her עַל מְנָת לְשַׁלֵּחַ, intending to release her.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּטָלָהּ עַל מְנָת לְשַׁלֵּחַ, דְּלָאו לֵיכָּא, עֲשֵׂה הוּא דְּאִיכָּא, וְלֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלִידְחֵי עֲשֵׂה.
English Translation:
Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: The word “teshallaḥ” is necessary to indicate that the mitzva to send away the mother bird applies in a case where one took her in order to send her away immediately. In such a case, there is no prohibition, as one intends to send her away, but there is still a positive mitzva to send her away. And therefore, one might have said: Let another positive mitzva, e.g., taking the mother for the purification of a leper, come and override the positive mitzva of sending the mother. Therefore, the word “teshallaḥ” indicates that the mitzva of sending the mother bird applies even in such a case.
קלאוד על הדף:
The replacement case avoids both objections by avoiding the transgression. A man who lifts the mother meaning to send her at once has not violated the prohibition at all, since the prohibition is on taking her to keep; what he has is an unperformed positive. Now the confrontation Rav Kahana wanted is genuine and clean — one bare positive against another — and תְּשַׁלַּח tells us which prevails.
Key Terms:
- עַל מְנָת לְשַׁלֵּחַ = on condition of sending her away — taking her without intent to keep
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Why would the metzora’s mitzva be the stronger? גָּדוֹל שָׁלוֹם שֶׁבֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּהַאי עֲשֵׂה מֵהַאי עֲשֵׂה? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר מָר: גָּדוֹל שָׁלוֹם שֶׁבֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the strength of that other positive mitzva over this positive mitzva of sending away the mother bird? Why might the former override the latter? The Gemara responds: It might enter your mind to say that since the Master said: Great is peace between a man and his wife, as the Torah said that the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, which is written in sanctity, shall be erased on the waters as part of the ritual of a woman suspected by her husband of adultery (see Numbers 5:23) in order to clear her from suspicion and restore peace between her and her husband, therefore, perhaps the halakha should be more lenient with regard to the leper.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what could give one positive precedence over another, and the answer reaches for the most striking measure of value in the Torah. שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם — the Divine Name, written in holiness, is dissolved into the sotah’s water so that a marriage may be settled. If the Torah will spend that for peace between a husband and wife, the argument runs, it may spend a bird for it too.
Key Terms:
- גָּדוֹל שָׁלוֹם שֶׁבֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ = great is the peace between a man and his wife
- סוֹטָה = the wife accused of infidelity, whose ordeal requires erasing the Name
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
The metzora is barred from his wife until purified — yet תְּשַׁלַּח still governs.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַאי מְצוֹרָע, כֵּיוָן דְּכַמָּה דְּלָא מִטַּהַר, אָסוּר בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָשַׁב מִחוּץ לְאׇהֳלוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״, ״אׇהֳלוֹ״ – זוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, מִכָּאן שֶׁאָסוּר בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאָסוּר בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, לֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה דִּידֵיהּ וְלִידְחֵי עֲשֵׂה דְּשִׁלּוּחַ הַקֵּן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: And with regard to this leper, since as long as he is not purified he is prohibited from engaging in marital relations, as it is written: “But he shall dwell outside his tent seven days” (Leviticus 14:8), and when the verse states: “His tent,” this is referring to his wife, such that one may derive from here that a leper is prohibited from engaging in marital relations, perhaps his purification ceremony should take precedence. This is because perhaps you will say: Since he is prohibited from engaging in marital relations, let his positive mitzva of purification come and override the positive mitzva of the sending away of the mother bird from the nest. Therefore, the word “teshallaḥ” teaches us that even so, one may not take the mother bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
The connection is completed. וְיָשַׁב מִחוּץ לְאׇהֳלוֹ is read with אׇהֳלוֹ as his wife, so the affliction separates a husband from his household and the purification is what restores it. The metzora’s rite is therefore not merely his own cleansing but a matter of שָׁלוֹם בַּיִת, which is why one might have let it override. תְּשַׁלַּח answers that even so the mother goes free first — the value is real and does not license taking her.
Key Terms:
- אׇהֳלוֹ זוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ = his tent — this is his wife (Vayikra 14:8)
- מְצוֹרָע = one afflicted with tzaraat, dwelling outside the camp until purified
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: one who took the mother — lashes, or sending?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹטֵל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּחַ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה – אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: With regard to one who takes the mother bird with its fledglings, Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and he does not send away the mother. And the Rabbis say: He sends away the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, one is not flogged for its violation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The perek’s central legal dispute. Rabbi Yehuda has him flogged and holds the sending is over; the Rabbis have him send her and spare him the lashes, and they state a general principle to explain why — כׇּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ. A prohibition that comes with its own remedy is not punished by lashes, because the Torah has supplied a way to undo it.
Key Terms:
- קוּם עֲשֵׂה = arise and do — a positive remedy attached to a prohibition
- אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ = one is not flogged for it
Segment 17
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Abba bar Memel’s dilemma about what Rabbi Yehuda actually holds.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ בָּעֵי רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה לוֹקִין עָלָיו.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda, one who takes the mother with the offspring is flogged. With regard to this, Rabbi Abba bar Memel raises a dilemma: Is the reasoning for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda that he holds that one is flogged for violation of a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva? Accordingly, one is flogged for transgressing the prohibition: “You shall not take the mother with the young,” which entails the fulfillment of: “You shall send the mother.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Two very different positions would produce the same ruling. Rabbi Yehuda may hold that a לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה carries lashes as a general matter, in which case our mishna is a straightforward application. Or he may accept the general exemption and deny that this case belongs to it. Which he holds determines a great deal beyond birds, and the rest of the sugya is spent trying to settle it.
Key Terms:
- טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה = the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda — what underlies a stated ruling
Segment 18
TYPE: בעיא
The second horn: he may hold the positive applies only at the outset.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּעָלְמָא סָבַר, לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר ״שַׁלֵּחַ״ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע.
English Translation:
The second possibility is now presented: Or perhaps in general Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is not flogged for violation of a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva; and here, this is the reason one is flogged for taking the mother: It is because he holds that when the verse states: “You shall send the mother [shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ]” (Deuteronomy 22:7), the word “shalle’aḥ” indicates that the mitzva to sending the mother bird applies only at the outset, i.e., when encountering the nest. Accordingly, this is not a case of a prohibition that entails the performance of a positive mitzva, but an independent prohibition, for which one is liable to receive lashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
On this reading Rabbi Yehuda agrees with everyone that a remedied prohibition carries no lashes, and rules as he does only because שַׁלֵּחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע — the command to release attaches before the taking, not after it. Once the man has taken her there is no remedy left, so the prohibition is a plain one and lashes follow. The dilemma is now sharply framed and awaits evidence.
Key Terms:
- בְּעָלְמָא סָבַר = he holds in general — as a matter of principle beyond this case
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
A first proof from a baraita on the thief and the robber.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: גַּנָּב וְגַזְלָן יֶשְׁנָן בִּכְלַל מַלְקוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״לֹא תִגְזוֹל״ ״וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה לוֹקִין עָלָיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which is taught: A thief and a robber are included among those who are liable to receive lashes by Torah law. A thief violates the prohibition of: “You shall not steal” (Leviticus 19:11), and a robber violates the prohibition of: “You shall not rob” (Leviticus 19:13); this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara continues: But here, the prohibition against robbing is a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva, as the Merciful One states: “You shall not rob” (Leviticus 19:13), and: “And he shall restore the robbed item” (Leviticus 5:23). And nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable to receive lashes for transgressing the prohibition against robbing. Therefore, conclude from it that the reasoning of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is that he holds that one is flogged for violation of a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
Robbery is the textbook לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה, since לֹא תִגְזוֹל is paired with וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה. If a baraita has Rabbi Yehuda flogging a robber, he must hold that such prohibitions carry lashes, and the first horn of the dilemma is established. The proof looks decisive, which is what makes Rabbi Zeira’s response so consequential.
Key Terms:
- גַּנָּב וְגַזְלָן = a thief and a robber
- וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה = and he shall return the stolen object (Vayikra 5:23)
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Zeira begins his rule about which baraitot may be cited; it runs into 141b.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: לָאו אָמֵינָא לְכוּ, כֹּל מַתְנִיתָא דְּלָא תַּנְיָא בֵּי
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said to him: Didn’t I already tell you that any baraita that is not taught in the study hall
קלאוד על הדף:
Rather than answer the proof, Rabbi Zeira disqualifies the source, and with a complaint that he has said this before — לָאו אָמֵינָא לְכוּ. The criterion he is about to state concerns the academies through which a baraita was transmitted, and it is one of the Talmud’s clearest statements about textual reliability. The sentence breaks off at the page’s end and completes at the head of 141b.
Key Terms:
- לָאו אָמֵינָא לְכוּ = did I not tell you — a teacher repeating a standing instruction
- מַתְנִיתָא = a baraita, a tannaitic teaching outside the Mishna
Amud Bet (141b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Zeira’s rule: a baraita not from Rabbi Chiyya or Rabbi Oshaya may not be cited.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי חִיָּיא וּבֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא מְשַׁבַּשְׁתָּא הִיא, וְלָא תּוֹתְבוּ מִינַּהּ בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, דִּלְמָא אֵינָהּ בִּכְלַל מַלְקוֹת אַרְבָּעִים תַּנְיָא.
English Translation:
of Rabbi Ḥiyya or the study hall of Rabbi Oshaya, who were precise in the formulation of their baraitot, is corrupted, and you may not raise objections based upon it in the study hall? Since this baraita was not taught in either of the aforementioned study halls, you may not cite it as proof. After all, perhaps the phrase: Are not included among those who are liable to receive forty lashes by Torah law, was taught by Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita, but the text was corrupted. It is therefore possible that according to Rabbi Yehuda, one is not flogged for violation of a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and his reasoning of his ruling in the mishna is that the word “shalle’aḥ” indicates that the mitzva to send away the mother bird applies only at the outset.
קלאוד על הדף:
The criterion is transmission rather than content. The academies of Rabbi Chiyya and Rabbi Oshaya were exacting in the wording of the beraitot they preserved, and a text from elsewhere may be מְשַׁבַּשְׁתָּא — corrupted — and so inadmissible for raising objections. The danger is made concrete: perhaps this baraita originally read אֵינָהּ בִּכְלַל מַלְקוֹת, are not liable to lashes, in which case a single dropped word has reversed Rabbi Yehuda’s position.
Key Terms:
- מְשַׁבַּשְׁתָּא = corrupted, garbled — an unreliable textual tradition
- לָא תּוֹתְבוּ מִינַּהּ = do not raise objections from it
- בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא = the study hall
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
A second attempt, from a baraita that does carry their imprimatur: leket and pe’a.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״לֹא תָשׁוּב״ וְשָׁב, ״לֹא תְכַלֶּה״ וְכִלָּה – יֶשְׁנָן בִּכְלַל מַלְקוֹת אַרְבָּעִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in a baraita by Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Ḥiyya: It is written with regard to forgotten sheaves left for the poor: “When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not return to fetch it” (Deuteronomy 24:19). If one transgressed this prohibition and one returned to fetch it, he is liable to receive lashes. Likewise, it is written with regard to produce in the corner of the field [pe’a], which is given to the poor: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 19:9). If one transgressed this prohibition and reaped the corner of his field, such individuals are included among those who are liable to receive lashes by Torah law. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
This source cannot be dismissed the same way, since Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiyya taught it themselves. It has Rabbi Yehuda imposing lashes on one who returns for a forgotten sheaf and on one who reaps the corner of his field — both prohibitions with a positive attached, since לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם supplies the remedy in each case. If he flogs there, the first horn of the dilemma is established.
Key Terms:
- לֹא תָשׁוּב = you shall not return (Devarim 24:19) — the forgotten sheaf
- לֹא תְכַלֶּה = you shall not finish reaping (Vayikra 19:9) — pe’a
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The inference drawn: Rabbi Yehuda flogs for a remedied prohibition.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes the resolution: Since the mitzvot of leaving pe’a and forgotten sheaves are prohibitions that entail fulfillment of a positive mitzva, as the verse states with regard to both of them: “For the poor and for the stranger you shall leave them” (Leviticus 19:10), conclude from the baraita that the reasoning of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is that he holds that one is flogged for violation of a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The step is spelled out because the baraita does not say it. Both mitzvot are remedied by תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם, so if lashes attach to them Rabbi Yehuda must reject the general exemption for a לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה. Stating the inference explicitly is what allows the next segment to attack it precisely.
Key Terms:
- לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם = for the poor and the stranger you shall leave them (Vayikra 19:10)
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Deflected: perhaps תַּעֲזוֹב too applies only at the outset.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּלְמָא הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעַם, דְּקָסָבַר ״תַּעֲזוֹב״ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps there, with regard to pe’a and forgotten sheaves, this is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable to receive lashes: Because he holds that the positive mitzva: “For the poor and for the stranger you shall leave them,” indicates that these mitzvot apply only at the outset. Accordingly, these are not cases of prohibitions that entail fulfillment of a positive mitzva, but of independent prohibitions. Similarly, it is possible that the reasoning of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is that the mitzva of the sending away of the mother bird applies only at the outset.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same move that was available in the mishna is available here. If תַּעֲזוֹב obliges the farmer to leave the corner standing from the start rather than to restore it afterwards, then leket and pe’a are not remedied prohibitions at all and their lashes prove nothing about the general rule. The proof is neutralised without Rabbi Yehuda’s view on either case being settled.
Key Terms:
- תַּעֲזוֹב מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע = ‘you shall leave’ indicates from the outset
Segment 5
TYPE: ראיה
Ravina’s decisive proof from לֹא תוֹתִירוּ: Rabbi Yehuda’s own words.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר וְגוֹ׳ בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ״ – בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר לָךְ שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn in fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to position the positive mitzva of burning the leftover meat after the prohibition against leaving over the meat, in order to say that one is not flogged for its violation; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The strength of this source is that Rabbi Yehuda is not being inferred from but quoted. On the leftover meat of the Pesach offering he says outright that the Torah placed בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ after לֹא תוֹתִירוּ לוֹמַר לָךְ שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו — to tell you there are no lashes. A man who explains the exemption cannot be holding that such prohibitions carry lashes, and the first horn of the dilemma falls.
Key Terms:
- לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר = you shall leave none of it until morning (Shemot 12:10)
- לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה = to place a positive after a prohibition
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The conclusion: Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is שַׁלֵּחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר ״שַׁלֵּחַ״ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
Ravina continued: Conclude from the baraita that according to Rabbi Yehuda, one is not flogged for violation of a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and that the reasoning of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is that he holds that the word “shalle’aḥ” indicates that the mitzva to send away the mother applies only at the outset. Consequently, the prohibition against taking the mother with the offspring is not one that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva, but an independent prohibition that is punishable by lashes. The Gemara concedes: Conclude from it that this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
With the general principle conceded to the Rabbis, the mishna’s ruling must rest on the narrower ground. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the command to release attaches before the taking, so a man who has taken the mother has violated a prohibition with no remedy left standing — an ordinary lav, and lashes follow. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ closes a dilemma that has run across the amud break.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = conclude from it — a resolved inference
Segment 7
TYPE: ראיה
Rav Idi’s corroboration from the mishna’s wording, לוֹקֶה וְאֵין מְשַׁלֵּחַ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אִידִי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: הַנּוֹטֵל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לוֹקֶה וְאֵין מְשַׁלֵּחַ, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה לוֹקִין עָלָיו, ״לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּחַ״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
Rav Idi said to Rav Ashi: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: With regard to one who takes the mother with the offspring, Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged and there is no longer a mitzva to send away the mother. But if it enters your mind to say that the reasoning of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is that one is flogged for violation of a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva, then Rabbi Yehuda should have said: He is flogged and sends away the mother. Rather, conclude that according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is not a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Idi reads the mishna’s phrasing as evidence for the conclusion just reached. Had Rabbi Yehuda held that a remedied prohibition carries lashes, both consequences would survive and he should have said לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּחַ, flogged and still sending. That he denies the sending altogether suggests he thinks nothing remains to be performed — which is the מֵעִיקָּרָא reading.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא = the mishna’s language is also precise — corroboration from wording
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
The inference deflected: perhaps he means only that flogging does not wait.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר בְּמַתְנִיתִין: אֵין נִפְטָר עַד דְּמַלְקִין לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this: One cannot infer anything from the language of the mishna, since perhaps this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying in the mishna: There is still a mitzva to send away the mother, but one is not absolved of guilt for transgressing the prohibition against taking the mother until the court flogs him.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second reading of the same words removes their evidential force. אֵין נִפְטָר עַד דְּמַלְקִין לֵיהּ would have Rabbi Yehuda saying that the duty to send does survive, but that the man is not cleared of his transgression until the court has flogged him. The wording then reports the order of events rather than the disappearance of the mitzva, and proves nothing.
Key Terms:
- אֵין נִפְטָר = he is not absolved — of liability for the transgression
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Practical questions: how far, and by which limb.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד כַּמָּה מְשַׁלְּחָהּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. בַּמֶּה מְשַׁלְּחָהּ? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: בְּרַגְלֶיהָ, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בַּאֲגַפֶּיהָ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר בְּרַגְלֶיהָ, דִּכְתִיב: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר בַּאֲגַפֶּיהָ, דְּהָא כְּנָפֶיהָ נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that according to the Rabbis, if one transgressed the mitzva and took the mother bird with the young, one must send away the mother. The Gemara asks: How far from the nest must he send her? Rav Yehuda says: Far enough that she leaves his grasp and can no longer be caught immediately. The Gemara asks: In what manner does he send her away? Rav Huna says: He holds the mother by her feet and sends her away. Rav Yehuda says: He holds her by her wings [baagappeha] and sends her away. The Gemara elaborates: Rav Huna says that one holds the mother by her feet, as it is written: “That send forth freely the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20), indicating that the sending of an animal is associated with its feet. Rav Yehuda says that one holds her by her wings, because the feet of the mother bird are her wings, as it is by means of her wings that she moves about.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya turns from liability to performance. Rav Yehuda fixes the distance functionally rather than by measure — כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, far enough to be out of his reach. On the manner, Rav Huna holds her by the feet on the strength of מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל, where sending is associated with feet, and Rav Yehuda by the wings, on the observation that for a bird the wings are what the feet are for an ox.
Key Terms:
- כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ = enough that she leaves his hand
- אֲגַפֶּיהָ = her wings
- מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר = who send forth the foot of the ox and the donkey (Yeshayahu 32:20)
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה
The man who clipped the wings, released her, and caught her again.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַהוּא דְּגַזִּינְהוּ לְגַפַּהּ, וְשַׁלְּחַהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ תַּפְשַׂהּ. נַגְּדֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל רַבִּי לַהּ גַּדְפַיהּ, וְשַׁלְּחַהּ!
English Translation:
§ The Gemara relates: A certain person clipped a mother bird’s wing and sent it away and thereafter caught it. Rav Yehuda flogged him for transgressing the prohibition: “You shall not take the mother with the young” (Deuteronomy 22:6). Rav Yehuda also said to him: Go and let its wings grow back and then send it away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The case is one of formal compliance emptied of content. Clipping the wings turns the release into theatre, since a bird that cannot fly has not been sent anywhere, and the man’s recapture confirms what the clipping was for. Rav Yehuda flogs him and orders the only remedy that would restore the mitzva — keep her until the feathers regrow, then send her properly.
Key Terms:
- גַּזִּינְהוּ לְגַפַּהּ = he clipped her wing
- רַבִּי לַהּ גַּדְפַיהּ = let her wings grow
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Whose view was that? Neither — so: the Rabbis, with מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – לוֹקֶה וְאֵין מְשַׁלֵּחַ, אִי כְּרַבָּנַן – מְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאֵין לוֹקֶה! לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבָּנַן, וּמַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Yehuda act in this case? If he acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then there was no need to send away the mother, because according to Rabbi Yehuda, he is flogged for taking the mother bird, and he does not send away the mother. If he acted in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then he should not have flogged this individual, since according to the Rabbis, he sends away the mother and is not flogged. The Gemara responds: Actually, he acted in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the lashes administered by Rav Yehuda were not for transgressing a Torah prohibition; rather, they were rabbinic lashes for rebelliousness [makkat mardut], as this individual acted inappropriately.
קלאוד על הדף:
The ruling fits no opinion in the mishna, since Rabbi Yehuda would not require the sending and the Rabbis would not impose lashes. The resolution splits the two components: the halacha follows the Rabbis, so the sending stands, and the flogging was not the Torah’s malkot but מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת, the rabbinic lashes a court may impose for conduct that defies the law’s purpose while evading its letter.
Key Terms:
- מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת = lashes for rebelliousness — a rabbinic penalty, not Torah malkot
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה
The man who asked Rava about a תֵּימָה bird, and the doubt beneath the question.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תֵּימָה מַהוּ? אָמַר: לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא דְּעוֹף טָהוֹר חַיָּיב לְשַׁלּוֹחֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּילְמָא חֲדָא בֵּיעֲתָא הוּא דְּרַמְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: (הַאי יָדְעִי) [אִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי] לָךְ? מַתְנִיתִין הִיא: אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶחָד אוֹ בֵיצָה אַחַת – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that a certain man came before Rava and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to a certain kosher bird known as the teima? Is it included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest? Rava said: Doesn’t this man know that with regard to any kosher bird one is obligated to send away the mother? The man responded: Nevertheless, I am uncertain with regard to the halakha. Rava said to him: Perhaps you are uncertain about a case where a single egg is placed in the nest, since the Torah states: “Upon the fledglings or upon the eggs” (Deuteronomy 22:6). The man replied in the affirmative. Rava said to him: That too should be known to you, as it is stated in the mishna (140b): Even if there is only one fledgling or one egg, one is obligated to send away the mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s first reaction treats the question as ignorance — does the man not know that every kosher bird is included? — but he does not leave it there. Pressing further, he finds that the real uncertainty concerned a nest holding a single egg, since the verse speaks of eggs in the plural, and answers it from the mishna of 140b. The exchange is a small lesson in hearing the question a questioner has not managed to ask.
Key Terms:
- תֵּימָה = a species of kosher bird
- חֲדָא בֵּיעֲתָא = a single egg — the questioner’s actual doubt
Segment 13
TYPE: מעשה
Rava sets nets and recaptures the bird; the concern for appearances answered.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שַׁלְחַהּ, וְאַהְדַּר לַהּ רָבָא פְּרִסְתָּקֵי וְתַפְסַהּ. וְלֵיחוּשׁ לַחֲשָׁדָא? כִּלְאַחַר יָד.
English Translation:
The man sent away the bird, and Rava then surrounded her with nets [perastekei] and caught her. The Gemara asks: But shouldn’t Rava be concerned about arousing suspicion that he required the sending away of the bird only so that he might catch it for himself? The Gemara responds: The nets were positioned far from the nest in an unusual manner that did not arouse suspicion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having ruled that the man must send her, Rava takes her himself once she is free — which is permitted, since the mitzva is discharged by the release and the bird then belongs to no one. The Gemara nonetheless raises חֲשָׁדָא, the suspicion that the ruling was self-serving, and answers that the nets were set כִּלְאַחַר יָד, in an unusual manner away from the nest. That the question is asked at all is the notable part.
Key Terms:
- פְּרִסְתָּקֵי = nets or snares
- חֲשָׁדָא = suspicion — concern for how an act appears
- כִּלְאַחַר יָד = in an unusual manner, indirectly
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא
Dovecote pigeons: obligated in shiluach, yet protected as gezel מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ וְיוֹנֵי עֲלִיָּיה – חַיָּיבוֹת בְּשִׁלּוּחַ, וַאֲסוּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Pigeons of a dovecote and pigeons of an attic are subject to the obligation of sending away the mother bird, because they are ownerless and therefore not considered readily available. But nevertheless, they are subject to the prohibition of robbery due to a rabbinic ordinance to maintain the ways of peace.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita pairs two rulings that pull in opposite directions. Obligation in shiluach means the birds are not the owner’s, since the mitzva requires a chance encounter; yet others may not take them, on a rabbinic ordinance enacted מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. The Sages protected an interest that falls short of ownership, and the tension between the two clauses drives the rest of the daf.
Key Terms:
- יוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ = dovecote pigeons
- מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם = for the sake of the ways of peace — a rabbinic protection short of ownership
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
But a courtyard acquires without its owner’s knowledge, so the eggs are מְזוּמָּן.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אִיתָא לְהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, חֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, קְרִי כָּאן ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא״ – פְּרָט לִמְזוּמָּן!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But if it is so that this ruling is correct that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says, i.e., that a person’s courtyard effects acquisition for him of an item placed in it even without his knowledge, then a dovecote or attic will effect acquisition for its owner of any eggs inside them. Accordingly, one should apply here the principle that the mitzva to send away the mother bird from the nest applies only in the case described in the verse: “If a bird’s nest happens before you” (Deuteronomy 22:6), which excludes from the mitzva a bird or egg readily available in one’s home. Yet the baraita rules that the mitzva does apply in this case.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Chanina’s rule is that a man’s חָצֵר acquires for him שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, without his knowledge. A dovecote is such a domain, so its eggs should already be his, and eggs already his are מְזוּמָּן — which כִּי יִקָּרֵא excludes from the mitzva outright. The baraita’s first clause would then be wrong.
Key Terms:
- חֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ = a person’s courtyard acquires for him
- שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ = without his knowledge
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbah prises apart two moments: liability at רוּבָּהּ, acquisition on falling.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר (רב) [רַבָּה]: בֵּיצָה – עִם יְצִיאַת רוּבָּהּ הוּא דְּאִחַיַּיב בְּשִׁלּוּחַ, מִקְנָא לָא קָנֵי עַד דְּתִפּוֹל לַחֲצֵרוֹ, וְכִי קָתָנֵי חַיָּיבוֹת בְּשִׁלּוּחַ – מִקַּמֵּי דְּתִפּוֹל לַחֲצֵרוֹ.
English Translation:
Rav says: It is from the time of the emergence of the majority of an egg from a mother bird’s body that one becomes obligated to send away the mother from the nest. On the other hand, the owner of a courtyard does not acquire the egg until it fully emerges and falls into his courtyard. And therefore, when the baraita teaches that in the case of the pigeons in a dovecote or an attic, they are subject to the obligation of sending away the mother bird, it is referring to a time before the egg falls into his courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is a matter of timing. Shiluach attaches עִם יְצִיאַת רוּבָּהּ, once most of the egg has emerged from the bird, while the courtyard cannot acquire until the egg has fallen into it. Between those two instants the egg is subject to the mitzva and unowned, and the baraita is speaking of precisely that interval.
Key Terms:
- עִם יְצִיאַת רוּבָּהּ = upon the emergence of the majority of it
- עַד דְּתִפּוֹל לַחֲצֵרוֹ = until it falls into his courtyard
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Then why is taking them robbery? Two answers.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אֲסוּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל? אַאִמָּם. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם אַבֵּיצָה, וּבֵיצָה כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ רוּבָּא – דַּעְתֵּיהּ עֲלֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the baraita is referring to a case where the egg has not fully emerged, why does the baraita rule that the eggs are forbidden by rabbinic law for others to take due to the prohibition of robbery? The eggs have not yet been acquired by the owner of the courtyard. The Gemara answers: That ruling of the baraita is referring to their mother, i.e., the mother bird. Or, if you wish, say instead: Actually, that ruling is referring to the egg. And the reason the Sages rendered it prohibited to take the eggs due to the prohibition of robbery is that once the majority of an egg emerges from the body of the mother bird, the owner’s mind is upon the eggs to acquire them, although technically he will not acquire them until they fully emerge.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the eggs are unowned in that interval, the second clause needs explaining. Either the robbery ruling concerns the mother rather than the eggs, or it concerns the eggs and rests on expectation rather than title — כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ רוּבָּא דַּעְתֵּיהּ עֲלֵיהּ, once most has emerged the owner’s mind is already on them, and the Sages protected that.
Key Terms:
- דַּעְתֵּיהּ עֲלֵיהּ = his mind is upon it — expectation short of legal acquisition
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Rav’s rule of order: one may not acquire eggs while the mother broods.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לִזְכּוֹת בְּבֵיצִים שֶׁהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת עֲלֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הָאֵם״ וַהֲדַר ״הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ״. אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אַף עַל גַּב דִּנְפַל לַחֲצֵרוֹ, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיהוּ מָצֵי זָכֵי – חֲצֵרוֹ נָמֵי זָכְיָא, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאִיהוּ לָא מָצֵי זָכֵי – חֲצֵרוֹ נָמֵי לָא זָכְיָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: And now that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is prohibited to acquire eggs whose mother is resting upon them, as it is stated: “You shall send the mother,” and only then: “The young you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:7), you may even say: Even though the eggs fully emerged and fell into his courtyard, he must still send away the mother bird. This is because in any case in which a courtyard owner is capable of acquiring an item by himself, his courtyard can also effect acquisition of it for him. But in any case in which he is incapable of acquiring an item by himself, his courtyard cannot effect acquisition of it for him either. Since one is incapable of acquiring the eggs so long as the mother bird is resting upon them, one’s property does not acquire the eggs for him even if they have already fallen into it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav derives a prohibition from the sequence of the verse rather than from any of its words: שַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הָאֵם comes first and וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ second, so acquisition before release is forbidden. The mitzva is not merely a condition on taking the young but a bar on acquiring them at all while she sits, which changes what the courtyard can do.
Key Terms:
- אָסוּר לִזְכּוֹת = it is forbidden to acquire
- שֶׁהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת עֲלֵיהֶן = upon which the mother is brooding
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
The chatzer principle: a courtyard acquires only what its owner could acquire.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אֲסוּרוֹת מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם? אִי דְּשַׁלְּחַהּ – גָּזֵל מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, אִי דְּלָא שַׁלְּחַהּ – שַׁלּוֹחֵי בָּעֵי!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the baraita is referring to a case where the courtyard cannot effect acquisition of the eggs for him, why does the baraita rule: They are subject to the prohibition only due to the rabbinic ordinance to maintain the ways of peace? If one sent away the mother bird before taking the eggs, then it is full-fledged robbery by Torah law, since the courtyard has effected acquisition of the eggs on behalf of its owner, and if one did not send away the mother bird, he needs to send her away before it is permitted to take the eggs. Either way, one will have transgressed Torah law and not a rabbinic prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav’s rule yields a general truth about acquisition by domain. A courtyard is not an independent agent but an extension of its owner’s own capacity — כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיהוּ מָצֵי זָכֵי חֲצֵרוֹ נָמֵי זָכְיָא, and where he could not acquire, neither can it. Since a man may not take brooded eggs, his courtyard cannot take them for him, and they remain unowned even after falling in.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיהוּ לָא מָצֵי זָכֵי = wherever he himself cannot acquire
- חֲצֵרוֹ נָמֵי לָא זָכְיָא = his courtyard likewise does not acquire
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Then the robbery should be full Torah robbery, or else he must simply send.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּקָטָן. קָטָן בַּר דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם הוּא? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָבִיו שֶׁל קָטָן חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where a minor took the eggs without sending away the mother. A minor is not obligated in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird. The Gemara asks: Is a minor subject to a rabbinic ordinance concerning robbery enacted to maintain the ways of peace? The Gemara responds: This is what the latter clause of the baraita is saying: The father of a minor who took such eggs is obligated to return them to the owner of the dovecote or attic, due to the rabbinic prohibition concerning robbery instituted to maintain the ways of peace.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection tests the new reading against the baraita’s modest language. If he sent the mother, the eggs became his by Torah law and taking them is גָּזֵל מְעַלְּיָא, outright robbery; if he did not send her, the taker’s problem is not robbery at all but an unperformed mitzva. Neither branch leaves room for a merely rabbinic ordinance about the ways of peace.
Key Terms:
- גָּזֵל מְעַלְּיָא = full-fledged robbery, by Torah law
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ
The case is a minor — and the ruling addresses his father.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵוִי בַּר סִימוֹן אַקְנִי פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ לְרַב יְהוּדָה. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל טְרוֹף אַקַּן, דְּלִיתְגַּבְהוּ וּקְנִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara relates an additional incident with regard to pigeons of a dovecote that were discussed above: Levi bar Simon transferred ownership of the produce of his dovecote, i.e., the fledglings and the eggs contained in it, to Rav Yehuda. Rav Yehuda came before Shmuel and told him of his acquisition. Shmuel said to him: Go, bang on the nest, i.e., the dovecote, so that the fledglings will rise up and you will acquire them.
קלאוד על הדף:
A קָטָן is outside both horns: not obligated in shiluach, and not a subject of the Sages’ ordinances. That solves the objection but creates another, since darkei shalom cannot bind him either. The reading is therefore shifted one generation — the baraita means that the child’s father must return what the child took, so the ordinance operates on a person capable of bearing it.
Key Terms:
- קָטָן = a minor, below the age of obligation
- אָבִיו שֶׁל קָטָן = the father of the minor — on whom the duty of restoration falls
Segment 22
TYPE: מעשה
Levi bar Simon’s dovecote and Shmuel’s instruction; the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי? אִי לְמִקְנֵא – לַקְנִינְהוּ לֵיהּ בְּסוּדָר! אִי בְּיוֹם טוֹב –
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: For what purpose did Shmuel tell Rav Yehuda to do this? If he meant for Rav Yehuda to finalize the acquisition so that Levi bar Simon could not retract, let him do so through acquisition by means of a cloth. There is no need for him to bang on the dovecote. If this incident occurred on the eve of a Festival, and Rav Yehuda came to ask what action to take in order to render the birds permitted for slaughter on the Festival, then banging on the dovecote should not be necessary,
קלאוד על הדף:
Levi bar Simon transferred the dovecote’s produce to Rav Yehuda, and Shmuel told him to go and bang on the nest so the birds would start upward and be acquired. The Gemara cannot see what the act achieves: a kinyan sudar would finalise a sale, and if the concern were preparing the birds for slaughter on Yom Tov something else would be required. The question is unfinished when the page ends, and continues on 142a.
Key Terms:
- אַקְנִי פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ = he transferred the produce of his dovecote
- טְרוֹף אַקַּן = bang on the nest — so the birds rise and are acquired
- קִנְיַן סוּדָר = acquisition by means of a cloth