Previous daf

1)

(a) We query Rebbi Yitzchak (who learns that "Tzipor" refers to Tahor birds exclusively) from the Pasuk "Kol Tzipor Tehorah Tocheilu". "Tehorah" does not come to preclude Tamei birds (which would then be included in "Tzipor") - but birds that are Asur.

(b) 'Asur' in this context cannot mean Tereifos - because we already know that from the Pasuk in Emor "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal ... ".

(c) We accept the explanation that it comes to preclude the Shechutah of a Metzora, even though we already learn it from the Seifa "ve'Zeh Asher Lo Sochlu Meihem" - because whereas the latter teaches us a Lo Sa'aseh, our Pasuk adds an Asei to the prohibition.

(d) We cannot however, learn Tereifah from there, and say that we need the Pasuk to teach us an extra Asei - because the Pasuk is talking about a regular Shechutah (and 'Davar ha'Lameid mi'Inyano' is one of the thirteen principles through which the Torah is Darshened), and not a Tereifah.

(a) We query Rebbi Yitzchak further from the Pasuk "Sh'tei Tziparim Chayos", which we initially interpret as 'she'Chayos be'Ficha' - meaning a Tahor species, precluding Tamei species (which implies that "Tziparim" incorporates Tamei species).

(b) We refute the Kashya - by reinterpreting "Chayos" to mean that all the limbs are alive (to preclude one with missing limbs from being used for the Taharah of a Metzora).

(c) The problem with the 'Seifa' "Tehoros" is - that we can extrapolate from there that there are (Tziporim) Temei'os.

(d) We counter the answer that "Tehoros" comes to preclude Tereifos (and not Temei'os) - by referring to "Chayos", which already automatically precludes Tereifos (leaving the Kashya intact).

(e) And we uphold the Kashya - according to those who hold that Tereifos cannot live (but according to those who maintain that they can, "Tehoros could indeed come to preclude Tereifos and not Temei'os).

(a) In any event, we already know that the Tziprei Metzora are Pasul from Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who compares Machshir to Mechaper, ba'Chutz just like we compare them bi'Fenim. 'Machshir' and 'Mechaper ...

1. ... ba'Chutz' refer respectively - to Asham Metzora and Chatas Mechusrei Kaparah (which permit the Metzora and the Mechusrei Kaparah to eat Kodshim) and all other Chata'os and Ashamos.
2. ... bi'Fenim' are - the Tziprei Metzora which come to render him Tahor and the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which comes to atone.

(b) And Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael now learns Tziprei Metzora from Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach - with regard to disqualifying Tereifos.

(c) We know that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach cannot be a Tereifah - because, due to the fact that the two goats are chosen by Goral (lots), only a goat that is eligible for "la'Hashem" is eligible for Az'azel.

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore learns from "Sh'tei Tziparim ... Tehoros" to preclude the birds of an Ir ha'Nidachas. This can only pertain to the Shechutah, but not to the Meshulachas - because the Torah would not permit sending something that is Asur be'Hana'ah as a stumbling-block for anyone who catches it, and unaware that it is Asur, Shechts and eats it.

(a) Rava learns from "Tehoros" that one is not permitted to take the remaining bird from one Metzora to use for another Metzora. He can only be referring to taking the bird to pair off with the Shechutah of the second Metzora (but not with the Meshulachas) - seeing as it already requires sending away from the first time (in which case it is obvious that it cannot be Shechted now).

(b) So the Torah must be coming to teach us - that one cannot use one and the same bird as the Meshulachas of two Metzora'im.

(c) According to Rav Papa, the Pasuk is coming to preclude using a bird that one purchased in exchange for Avodah-Zarah - which (based on the Pasuk "Vehayisa Cherem Kamohu") is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(d) Rav Papa can only be talking about using it as the Shechutah, but not as the Meshulachas - because, as we just explained, we cannot send a bird that is Asur away to a place where people might catch and eat it.

(a) Finally, Ravina precludes from "Tehoros", a bird that killed someone. The Pasuk cannot be referring to one whose Din has already been concluded - since Beis-Din are obligated to put it to death.

(b) So the Pasuk must be referring to one whose Din has not yet been concluded, in which case it cannot be coming to preclude bringing it as the Meshulachas - since one is already obligated to bring it to Beis-Din in order to 'destroy the evil from your midst'.

(c) What we learn from "Tehoros" according to Ravina is - that one cannot perform the Mitzvah of "u'Vi'arta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha" by Shechting it as the Shechutah on behalf of a Metzora.

(d) Our Mishnah exempts ...

1. ... a Tamei bird that is sitting on the eggs of a Tahor bird from Shilu'ach - because the mother is not a Tzipor.
2. ... a Tahor bird that is sitting on the eggs of a Tamei one - because they are only fit to feed one's dogs, but not to eat oneself (as we shall now explain).

(a) Rav Kahana learns from the Pasuk "Tikach Lecha" - "Lecha", 've'Lo li'Kelavecha' that the Chiyuv only pertains to babies or eggs that arfe edible (as we just explained).

(b) And he bases this on a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that in a case where ...

1. ... the mother is a Tereifah - the Din of Shilu'ach nevertheless applies, but where ...
2. ... the babies are Tereifos - it does not.

(c) We ask on this that the Torah compares the mother to the babies (in which case, the Tana ought to have exempted the former case from Shilu'ach ha'Kein, too). And we answer - by citing the D'rashah "Tzipor", from which the Tana precludes Tamei (mother) birds from Shilu'ach, which would be superfluous if the mothers had to be edible.

(d) Abaye amends the Beraisa 'Eim Efrochim Tereifah Chayav be'Shilu'ach' (seemingly clashing with the previous Beraisa) to - 'Efro'ach, she'Iman Tereifah, Chayav be'Shilu'ach'.

7)

(a) Rav Hoshaya asks whether if someone Shechted a minority of the baby birds whilst they are still in the nest, he might be ...

1. ... Patur from Shilu'ach - because on the one hand, the bird stands to die, in which case we will apply the D'rashah "Tikach Lecha", 've'Lo li'Kelavecha'.
2. ... Chayav Shilu'ach - because on the other hand, it lies within his power to complete the Shechitah.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks what the Din will be if the mother is sitting on a cloth which divides between it and the babies - because when the Torah writes "ve'ha'Eim Rovetzes al ha'Banim', maybe the mother needs to sit on the babies and not on a cloth (which serves as a Chatzitzah).

(c) He then goes on to ask what the Din will be if 1. loose feathers, 2. ... eggs that will not hatch, 3. a row of regular eggs, 4. a male bird interrupt between the mother and the eggs. Each subsequent She'eilah holds - that in the previous one, it is considered a Chatzitzah, because in each progressive case, the object that is Chotzetz is more similar to the eggs that in the one before.

(d) The outcome of all these She'eilos is Teiku.

(a) And Rebbi Zeira asks what the Din will be if a T'sil (a species of dove) is sitting on the eggs of a dove, or vice-versa. Abaye tries to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah, which exempts a Tamei bird that is sitting on the eggs of a Tahor one, or v ice-versa, from Shilu'ach - implying that a Tahor bird on the eggs of a Tahor bird is Chayav.

(b) We refute Abaye's proof however - by restricting the implication to a female Korei, which is different than other birds, as we shall see shortly.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah includes a male Korei sitting on another bird's eggs in the Din of Shilu'ach. Rebbi Avuhu learns this from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Korei Dagar (meaning a bird's call) ve'Lo Yalad" from "u'Vak'ah ve'Dagrah be'Tzilah" - from which we learn that a male Korei is as attached to the birds in whichever nest it is sitting as the female Korei is to its own young.

(a) Rebbi Elazar states that in a case where ...

1. ... a *female* partridge (Korei) sits on the eggs of another bird - even the Rabbanan will agree that it is subject to Shilu'ach.
2. ... another male bird sits even on the eggs of its own species - that even Rebbi Eliezer will agree that it does not require Shilu'ach.

(b) Rebbi Elazar needs to make ...

1. ... the former statement, because we might have otherwise thought - that they really argue in both cases, and the Beraisa only mentions a male - to teach us that Rebbi Eliezer argues even there.
2. ... latter statement, because we might have otherwise thought - that they really argue in both cases, and the Beraisa mentions only a male *Korei* - to teach us that even there, the Rabbanan exempt the male from the Din of Shilu'ach (despite the fact that it is normal for it to do so).

(c) And we support this latter answer with a Beraisa, which rules - that a male bird is not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein, and it is only by a male Korei that the Tana'im argue.

(a) Our Mishnah exempts a mother bird which is hovering over the nest, from Shilu'ach - provided it is not touching it.

(b) We already learned from "Kan" that one is Chayav to send away the mother bird even for just one baby or one egg. He learns from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Eim ... al ha'Efrochim O al ha'Beitzim" where the Torah compares ...

1. ... the eggs to the fledglings - to exempt eggs that will not hatch.
2. ... the fledglings to the eggs - to exempt fledglings that can already fly and no longer need their mother.

(c) The Beraisa Darshens "Rovetzes", 've'Lo Me'ofefes'. And the Tana then learns that as long as the bird's wings are touching the nest, it is subject to Shilu'ach - because otherwise, the Torah ought to have written 'Yosheves'.

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that a bird whose wings are resting on two branches of a tree ('Sh'nei Rovdim') is subject to Shilu'ach (even though it is not actually touching the nest) - provided 1. if one were to move the branches aside, the bird would fall, and 2. the eggs are directly beneath it (so that it would actually fall on top of them).

(a) We query Rav Yehudah Amar Rav from a Beraisa, which exempts a mother bird who is sitting in between the eggs from Shilu'ach. The Tana rules that if the mother bird is ...

1. ... sitting above them - it is subject to Shilu'ach.
2. ... hovering over them (even if it is touching them) - it is Patur.

(b) Based on the assumption that 'Mah Beineihen de'Nag'ah Behu, Af al-Gabeihen de'Nag'ah Behu', we ask on Rav - that here we see that the mother must touch the nest in order to require Shilu'ach, whereas he maintains that the mother requires Shilu'ach, even if it is not.

(c) We cannot however, ask directly from our Mishnah, which requires the mother to be touching the nest - because the Mishnah is speaking about where the mother is hovering, in which case even Rav agrees that it must touch the nest.

(a) We answer by changing the comparison of al-Gabeihen to Beineihen - in that just as the latter case, the mother is not touching the top of the eggs, so too, does the former not need to (which conforms with Rav's ruling).

(b) We try to prove this from the Seifa, where the mother was hovering over the nest. Now if the mother resting on the branches would be Patur - then the Tana ought to mention that case, where the mother does not require Shilu'ach even though it is actually resting in the nest (which the hovering mother is not).

(c) We refute this proof however, on the grounds that, from another point of view, the case of hovering is a bigger Chidush - since it is Patur from Shilu'ach, even though it is actually touching the nest (which the resting bird is not).

(d) To reconcile the Seifa of the Beraisa with our Mishnah, which requires Shilu'ach, if the mother is only touching the nest - Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes the Beraisa when it is touching the eggs from the side and not on top (whereas the Torah writes "ve'ha'Eim Rovetzes *al* ha'Banim").

(a) In the second Lashon, we try to support Rav from the Beraisa by suggesting that 'Mah Beineihen de'Lo Nag'ah Alaihu, Af al-Gabeihen de'Lo Nag'ah Alaihu' (just like Rav). We refute this proof however - by switching the comparison to 'Mah Beineihen de'Nag'ah Behu, Af al-Gabeihen de'Nag'ah Behu' (which is even a Kashya on Rav, like we saw in the first Lashon).

(b) Nevertheless, the Seifa presents the case of where the bird was hovering over the nest (rather than that of Rovdei Ilan, where it does not require Shilu'ach, even though it is resting) - because it is a bigger Chidush, in that it does not need Shilu'ach even though it is actually touching the nest (which in the cased of Rovdei Ilan, it is not).

(c) And Rav Yehudah reconciles the Seifa of the Beraisa with our Mishnah, which requires Shilu'ach once the mother bird is touching the nest - by establishing it when it is touching the eggs from the side and not on top (as Rebbi Yirmiyah explained in the first Lashon).