(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Chulin 139

CHULIN 137-140 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dapim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Aval Lo be'Mukdashin'. The problem with that, assuming that the nest is ...
1. ... in one's house is - that it would then be 'prepared', and a 'prepared' nest is not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein.
2. ... outside is - that, based on the Pasuk "ve'Ish ki Yakdish es Beiso Kodesh" ('Mah Beiso bi'Reshuso ... '), seeing as he does not yet have the birds in his possession, Hekdesh will not take effect.
(b) Neither can we establish the case where he picked up ...
1. ... the baby birds outside his property, and after declaring them Hekdesh, he returned them to the nest - because in such a case, even if he had not declared them, there would be no obligation to send away the mother bird, as we learned in a Beraisa.
2. ... the mother, and after declaring it Hekdesh, he returned it to its nest - he would be Chayav, since the obligation to send away the mother bird preceded the declaration of Hekdesh ...
(c) ... as Rebbi Yochanan ben Yosef rules with regard to Kisuy ha'Dam, in a case where someone Shechted a Chayah and then declared it Hekdesh.

(d) Someone who Shechts a Chayah belonging to Hekdesh - is Patur from covering its blood - because it is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah (since it is not fit to eat).

(a) Rav establishes the case by 'Makdish Peiros Shovcho u'Mardu' - meaning that he declared the young doves in a nest in his domain, Olos Nedavah, and later, after they 'rebelled' and made a new nest outside his domain, he came across them again and wished to take them to bring on the Mizbe'ach. If they were Chulin, there would be no reason to exempt them from Shilu'ach ha'Kein ... .

(b) And the reason that Rav said specifically 'Peiros Shovcho' (and not just 'Shovcho') is - because it is only young doves that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Shmuel establishes the case - like Rav, only by chickens of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis that rebelled.

(d) Shmuel basically agrees with Rav and does not learn like him, in order to teach us that even Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are Patur from Shilu'ach ha'Kein. But Rav declines to learn like Shmuel - because in his opinion, the moment the Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis birds fly away, they lose their Kedushah.

(a) Whereas Shmuel holds - that Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis, like Kedushas Mizbe'ach, remains intact wherever it is ('Kol Heicha de'Isa, Bei Gaza de'Rachmana Isa'), as the Pasuk writes "la'Hashem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah".

(b) Rebbi Yochanan established the Mishnah like Shmuel. Resh Lakish asked him - why, once the birds fly away, they doe not lose their Kedushah?

(c) To which he replied - with the principle 'Kol Heicha de'Isa, Bei Gaza de'Rachmana Isa'.

(a) In a case where someone declares a Manah, Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, and it is subsequently stolen, Rebbi Yochanan considers the owner liable until it reaches the hand of the treasurer. Resh Lakish maintains that he is Patur - because 'Kol Heicha de'Isa, Bei Gaza de'Rachmana Isa'.

(b) The problem is - that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish seem to have switched their opinions.

(c) We answer that Resh Lakish retracted after hearing Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling - whereas Rebbi Yochanan (who spoke in the previous case about where the owner said 'Harei Zu') agrees here, where he said 'Harei Alai', that he is liable.

(a) Discussing Kodshei Mizbe'ach, the Beraisa defines a Neder - as 'Harei Alai' (where he remains responsible to keep his word should the animal get lost) and a Nedavah - as 'Harei Zu' (where he does not).

(b) Resh Lakish nevertheless disputes Rebbi Yochanan's ruling in the previous case (where the latter obligates someone who declared 'Harei Alai Manah le'Bedek ha'Bayis' to pay, if the money is stolen) - because he confines the Beraisa's ruling to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which lack 'Hakravah' on the Mizbe'ach, but Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are in Hekdesh's storehouse wherever they are (even if the owner said 'Harei Alai').

(c) The Mishnah in Erchin rules that if someone declares an ox an Olah, and a house, a Korban (to Bedek ha'Bayis) should the ox die or the house fall down, assuming he said ...

1. ... 'Shor Zeh Olah, Bayis Zeh Korban' - he is not obligated to replace them.
2. ... 'Shor Zeh Alai Olah, Bayis Zeh Alai Korban' - he is obligated.
(d) According to Resh Lakish, who holds that 'Harei Alai' is Patur even by Bedek ha'Bayis - that is only because the object is still in existence (and the S'vara 'Kol Heicha de'Isa ... ' is applicable), but not in this Mishnah, where the house has fallen down.
(a) Rav Hamnuna rules that if someone declares Hekdesh Erchin using the word 'Alai', and the money that he subsequently designates is stolen - he is Patur ...

(b) ... seeing as he had no option but to use the word 'Alai' (which can therefore no longer serve as an obligatory clause), because if he said 'Erchi' or 'Erko shel P'loni' we would not know whom he is obligating.

(c) Rava queries Rav Hamnuna's statement factually - since he could have said 'Hareini be'Erchi' or 'Hareini be'Erech P'loni'.

(d) He also queries him from Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa, who discusses the Pasuk "Ve'nasan es ha'Erk'cha ba'Yom ha'Hu" - which is written in connection with the redemption of a purchased field, which the purchaser declared Hekdesh.

(a) The Tana states that if one redeemed Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheini on Chulin money - they are redeemed even if the money got lost ...

(b) ... because the Torah (which writes "Veyasaf Chamishis Kesef Erk'cha Alav Vehayah Lo") does not use a Lashon of Nesinah.

(c) Rebbi Nasan now learns from the above Pasuk - which writes "Ve'nasan" that one remains responsible for Erchin, should the money get lost.

(d) Based on Rebbi Nasan's Beraisa, Rava presents Rav Hamnuna's revised statement as - 'ha'Kol Modim be'Erchin de'Af-al-Gav de'Lo Amar "Alai, Mechayev".




(a) The Beraisa discusses the Pasuk "Ki Yikarei Kan Tzipor Lefanecha". Following the Pasuk "*Shale'ach Teshalach* es ha'Eim ... ", the Pasuk needs to write "Ki Yikarei Kan Tzipor ... " to teach us - that it is not necessary to search the hills and the mountains for a bird's nest in order to fulfill the Mitzvah.

(b) And the Tana learns from the word ...

1. ... "Kan" - that one is Chayav even if the nest contains only one egg or fledgling.
2. ... "Tzipor" - that the Mitzvah is confined to Tahor birds.
3. ... "Lefanecha" - that it applies to a nest that one finds in the Reshus ha'Yachid.
4. ... "ba'Darech" - that it applies also to a nest in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(c) The Tana learns that the Mitzvah applies even if the nest is in a tree - from the Pasuk "be'Chol Eitz".

(d) And the Torah adds "O al ha'Aretz" - to teach us that it also applies to nests that one finds in pits, ditches and trenches.

(a) The Tana then retracts from its D'rashah "ba'Derech" (seeing as the Pasuk anyway includes wherever the nest is found), and precludes instead - a nest that the finder has acquired.

(b) Included in a nest that he has not acquired are doves in a dove-cot, doves in an attic and 'Tziporin she'Kanenu be'Tafichim u'va'Biros'. 'Tziporim she'Kanenu ...

1. ... be'Tafichin are - birds that nested inside earthenware pots that one placed in a wall for that purpose.
2. ... ba'Biros' are - birds which nested in mansions in the town.
(c) Geese and chickens are subject to Shilu'ach - when they nest in an orchard, but not when they nest in one's house.

(d) The Tana - exempts Yonei Hardesiyos (which will be discussed later) from Shilu'ach.

(a) We refute this Limud too however, on the grounds that we already know it all from "Ki Yikarei", 'P'rat li'Mezuman'. And we finally use "ba'Darech" to teach us the D'rashah of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav. Based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Koh Amar Hashem, ha'Nosen ba'Yam Derech", Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from "ba'Darech" - that a birds' nest in the sea is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein.

(b) And seeing as we already know the Din of Reshus ha'Yachid from the above, we learn from "Lefanecha" - that a bird that one acquired but that sub subsequently rebels, is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein too.

(c) In spite of the D'rashah from "ba'Darech", we cannot learn from the Pasuk "Derech Nesher ba'Shamayim", that a birds' nest that a bird is carrying in the sky is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein - because we can only prove from there that the sky is called the 'Derech' of an eagle, but not that it is called 'Derech' S'tam.

(a) The Papunai asked Rav Masna for a number of sources. From the Pasuk "va'Adamah al Rosho" - he proved that a bird's nest that is placed on somebody's head is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein.

(b) He cited them a Pasuk just before the great flood "be'sha'Gam Hu Basar", which hints at Moshe Rabeinu - a. because the word "be'sha'Gam" itself has the same numerical value as 'Moshe', and b. because the Pasuk continues "and his days will number a hundred and twenty years".

(c) He cited the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ha'Min ha'Eitz ... " - as a hint to Haman, who was hanged from a tree.
2. ... "ve'Anochi Hastir Astir Panai" - as a hint to Esther, during whose reign Hashem (initially) hid His Face from Yisrael.
3. ... "Mar D'ror" - as a hint to Mordechai, as Unklus' translation "Mari Dichi" (which spells 'Mordechai') indicates (particularly as Tzadikim are compared to spices, and this is the 'head of the spices', just as Mordechai was head of the Anshei K'neses ha'Gedolah).
(a) Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon (b'Rebbi?) argue over whether 'Yonei Hardesiyos' (which the Beraisa exempts from Shilu'ach ha'Kein) is spelt like that or as 'Yonei Hadresiyos. 'Yonei ...
1. ... Hadresiyos' are - doves from a place called 'Hadras'.
2. ... Hardesiyos are - the doves belonging to the nests of Hurdus (who was the first to rear nests of homing pigeons).
(b) Rav Kahana saw the remains of Hurdus dove-nests - of which there were sixteen, each a Mil (approximately one Kilometer) long.

(c) All the doves chirped 'Kiri Kiri' - meaning 'Master Master' (describing King Herod), except for one.

(a) When its friend said to it 'Blind one; say Kiri Kiri' (like us), the silent dove began to chirp - 'Blind one, say "Chiri Biri" (meaning slave, which is what Herod was).

(b) They took the poor dove - and Shechted it.

(c) Despite the fact that, as Rebbi Chanina commented to Rav Ashi, birds cannot speak, Rav Kahana nevertheless testified that he heard it - because these birds were made to speak by means of Kishuf (black-magic).

(a) The Beraisa precludes Tamei birds from Shilu'ach ha'Kein from the Pasuk "Kan Tzipor". Rebbi Yitzchak explains - that 'Of' can refer to either a Tahor bird or a Tamei one, whereas 'Tzipor' refers only to a Tahor one.

(b) We take for granted that that the Pasuk (in connection with the Isur of Avodah-Zarah) "Tavnis Kol Tzipor Kanaf" incorporates Tamei birds. "Kanaf" certainly comes to include grasshoppers in the Isur, and according to Rebbi Yitzchak - it incorporates Tamei birds too ...

(c) ... and the same applies to the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ha'Chayah ve'Chol Beheimah, Remes ve'Chol Tzipor Kanaf ... Yehalelu es Shem Hashem ... ", and to that of ...
2. ... "Kol Tzipor Kol Kanaf" (in connection with the creation).
(d) As for the Pasuk "u've'Anpohi Yeduran Tziprei Shemaya" (where 'Kanaf' is not mentioned) - Rebbi Yitzchak will agree that Tziprei Shemaya includes Tamei birds, as well.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,