Chullin 138b

אַלְמָא מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ, הָכָא נָמֵי מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ. הִלְכָּךְ: שִׁיֵּיר הַמּוֹכֵר – מוֹכֵר חַיָּיב, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לוֹקֵחַ: ״מַתָּנָה דְּכֹהֵן גַּבָּךְ הִיא״. לֹא שִׁיֵּיר – לוֹקֵחַ חַיָּיב, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ מוֹכֵר: ״מַתָּנָה דְּכֹהֵן לָא זַבֵּנִי לָךְ״.

Evidently, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest, and therefore they are not included in the sale of the innards unless they were sold by weight. Here too, with regard to the first sheared wool, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest. Therefore, if the seller left wool in his possession, the seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool from the remaining wool for that which he sold, as the buyer can say to the seller: The gift of the priest is in your possession, since you did not sell me everything. If the seller did not leave any wool in his possession, the buyer is obligated to give the first sheared wool and he does not deduct its value from the price, as the seller can say to him: I did not sell the gift of the priest to you, i.e., there was no obligation to give the gifts to a priest when I sold the wool to you, and therefore the buyer is required to give the gifts to the priest.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.

MISHNA: The mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It applies to non-sacred birds, but it does not apply to sacrificial birds. There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals and birds that are readily available in one’s home, and to animals and birds that are not readily available and are hunted in the wild; and the sending of the mother bird from the nest applies only to birds, and applies only to birds that are not readily available.

מַתְנִי׳ שִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בְּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין. חוֹמֶר בְּכִסּוּי הַדָּם מִשִּׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן, שֶׁכִּסּוּי הַדָּם נוֹהֵג בַּחַיָּה וּבָעוֹף, בִּמְזוּמָּן וּבְשֶׁאֵין מְזוּמָּן, וְשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּעוֹף, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן.

What are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds, even domesticated, that may fly away at any time, such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard [ pardes ]. But if geese or chickens nested in the house, and likewise, with regard to domesticated pigeons [ yonei hardisei’ot ], one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. With regard to the nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. With regard to a male pheasant [ korei ], which is known to sit upon the eggs like the female of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send it away, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away.

אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן? כְּגוֹן אֲוָוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס, אֲבָל אִם קִנְּנוּ בַּבַּיִת, וְכֵן יוֹנֵי הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ. עוֹף טָמֵא – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְטָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. קוֹרֵא זָכָר – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

GEMARA: The mishna contains several phrases related to the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest that also appear in the first mishna of several other chapters of this tractate. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha made the following statements. One of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is stated needlessly, as those mitzvot are not related to land, such that there is no need to teach that they apply outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. This is true except for the mitzva of the first shearing of wool, which one must give to a priest. It was necessary to teach that that mitzva applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who said: The first shearing is in effect only in Eretz Yisrael.

גְּמָ׳ רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי מְיָישָׁא, חַד אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ״ שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי דְּאָמַר: ״רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ״.

And the other one said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, it is stated needlessly, as these mitzvot are requirements of the object itself, and there is no need to teach that they apply even after the destruction of the Temple. This is true except for the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day. It was necessary to teach that this mitzva applies even after the destruction of the Temple, because it might enter your mind to say: Since this prohibition is written in a passage in the Torah discussing the matter of sacrificial animals (see Leviticus, chapter 22), at a time when there are sacrificial animals, i.e., when the Temple is standing, we will abide by it, but at a time when there are no sacrificial animals, after the destruction of the Temple, we will not abide by it. Therefore, that mishna teaches us that this is not so.

וְחַד אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת״ – שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מֵ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָנָא דְּקָדָשִׁים כְּתִיב, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא קָדָשִׁים – נִנְהוֹג, בִּזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא קֳדָשִׁים – לָא נִנְהוֹג, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

And both of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both to non-sacred animals and to sacrificial animals, it is stated necessarily. This is the case except for the mishna discussing the sciatic nerve, as it is obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals as well. Can it enter one’s mind to say that because it was consecrated, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is abrogated from the animal?

וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ אָמְרִי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בְּחוּלִּין וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁים״ – לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיקַּדַּשׁ פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִינֵּיהּ?

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we establish that the mishna there (89b) is referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Without the mishna, one might have thought that since the offspring was already prohibited as a sacrificial animal before its sciatic nerve was even formed, the prohibition with regard to the latter does not take effect where the former prohibition already exists. If so, it was in fact necessary to teach this halakha .

וְלָאו אוֹקֵימְנָא בְּוַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים?

The Gemara responds: But what is the reason we interpreted that mishna as referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Is it not due to the fact that the question: Let the mishna not teach that the prohibition applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is difficult for us? It is in response to this question that Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha stated that even from the outset, this should not pose a difficulty for you. Rather, since the phrase: Applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is taught necessarily with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring, it is also taught needlessly with regard to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, to parallel the formula of the other mishna.

וּמַאי טַעְמָא אוֹקֵימְנָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לַן לָא לִיתְנֵי? מֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי לָא תִּקְשֵׁי לָךְ, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא לְצוֹרֶךְ, תְּנָא נָמֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ.

§ The mishna states that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies to non-sacred birds, but not to sacrificial birds. The Gemara asks: Why does this mitzva not apply to sacrificial birds? The Gemara responds: As the verse states: “You shall send the mother” (Deuteronomy 22:7). The verse refers only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, i.e., a non-sacred bird; that excludes this sacrificial bird, which you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to the custody of the Temple treasurer.

בְּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים. אַמַּאי לָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״ – בְּמִי שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאוֹ לִידֵי גִּזְבָּר.

Ravina says: Therefore, with regard to a kosher bird that killed a person and must now be executed, one is exempt from sending it away. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: “You shall send the mother.” The verse is referring only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, which excludes this bird that you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to court. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case, i.e., how is this bird that killed a person now resting on its eggs? If this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued,

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הִלְכָּךְ, עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ פָּטוּר מִשִּׁלּוּחַ, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״ – בְּמִי שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְבֵית דִּין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּגְמַר דִּינֵיהּ –