(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 141



(a) A certain Talmid-Chacham asked Rava why, based on the Pasuk "Efrochim O Beitzim", our Mishnah does not exempt a nest containing only one egg from the Mitzvah of Shilu'ach, and the Tana would then learn from "Kan" - that the mother is subject to Shilu'ach even if the fledglings can already fly, or the eggs will not hatch.

(b) Rava answers - that if that were so, the Pasuk could have written "ve'ha'Eim Rovetzes Aleihem" (dispensing with "Efrochim O Beitzim" altogether).

(a) Our Mishnah appears to learn from the double Lashon "Shale'ach Teshalach" - that one remains Chayav to send the mother bird away each time it returns to the nest (even a hundred times).

(b) The Tana rules that if someone ...

1. ... wishes to take the mother and send away the babies - he may not do so, because the moment he picks up the mother bird, he becomes obligated to send it away.
2. ... returns the babies or the eggs to the nest and then the mother returns to the nest - he is Patur.
(c) A certain Talmid-Chacham asked Rava why "Shale'ach Teshalach" does not imply a maximum of two times, and no more. To which Rava replied - in fact "Shalei'ach" alone implies even a hundred times ...

(d) And from "Teshalach", we include - birds that one needs to obligate sending the mother bird away, even if it is needed for a Mitzvah, such as the birds for the Korban of a Yoledes (see Rashash) or the Taharah of a Metzora.

(a) Rebbi Aba b'rei de'Rav Yosef bar Rava asked Rav Kahana why we need a special Pasuk to include a D'var Mitzvah in the Din of Shilu'ach ha'Kein. What he meant was - that seeing as Shilu'ach ha'Kein is both an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh, it is obvious that the Asei of Taharas Metzora cannot override them both (in which case the Pasuk appears superfluous).

(b) Rav Kahana answered him that we need the Pasuk for where one has already taken the mother - in which case the Lo Sa'aseh no longer applies, only the Asei. Consequently, we would have thought that the Asei of Taharas Metzora will override that of Shilu'ach ha'Kein (as we will explain shortly).

(c) This answer is not valid however, according to all opinions in 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' - a Lo Sa'aseh that can be rectified by performing the Asei that the Torah gave together with it.

(d) In fact it is only valid according to those who hold 'Kiymo, ve'Lo Kiymo' - which means that having transgressed the Lo Sa'aseh, one can rectify it by fulfilling the Asei (of sending away the bird that he is holding) 'Toch K'dei Dibur' (immediately, to all intents and purposes). Failing that, he has negated the La'av and receives Malkos, leaving him with just the Asei to fulfil.

(a) The Kashya will not be answered however, according to those who hold 'Bitlo, ve'Lo Bitlo' - meaning that as long as one does not actually negate the possibility of fulfilling the Asei (such as by killing the mother bird), the La'av remains intact and he will not receive Malkos. In any event, it is obvious that the Asei of Taharas Metzora will not override the La'av and Asei of Shilu'ach ha'Kein.

(b) And what's more, according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Shale'ach Me'ikara Mashma', the Kashya is not answered at all - because according to him, the Asei does not come to rectify the La'av, but to fulfil before transgressing it. Having failed to do so, and taken the mother bird, he has transgressed the La'av, and the Asei is no longer applicable.

(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi therefore amends the answer to - where the Metzora actually took the mother bird in order to send it away, and then decided to keep it for his Taharah. Consequently, he has not transgressed a La'av, and is left with only the Asei (even according to Rebbi Yehudah).

(b) And the Torah writes "Teshalach" to nevertheless forbid using the bird for Taharah Metzora. And the reason that if not for the Pasuk, the Asei of Taharas Metzora would override that of Shilu'ach ha'Kein is - because of the principle of 'Gadol ha'Shalom', which is attached to it.

(c) This applies to the Metzora - according to those who forbid a Metzora Muchlat (a definite Metzora) to indulge in marital relations, until he has completed the purification process.

(d) The precedent for this principle lies in the Parshah of Sotah - where the Kohen writes the Parshah of Sotah (containing the Name of Hashem a number of times) and throws it, still wet, into the cup of water, where the writing will become erased, in the hope that this will create Shalom Bayis between the Sotah and her husband.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, once someone has taken the mother bird, he receives Malkos and is no longer obligated to send it away (as we just learned). The Chachamim hold - that he still has the Mitzvah of sending the mother away, in which case he will be Patur from Malkos.

(b) They add the K'lal 'Kol Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh she'Yesh Bah Kum Asei, Ein Lokin Alav'.

(c) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asks whether Rebbi Yehudah's reason is as we just learned it, or whether it is - because he simply does not hold of the Chachamim's K'lal.

(a) And he tries to resolve his She'eilah with a Beraisa that discusses Ganav and Gazlan - which both have the Asei of 'Ve'heishiv es ha'Gezeilah' (Vayikra).

(b) He therefore tries to prove, via the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that Ganav and Gazlan are subject to Malkos - that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei, Chayav'.

(c) Rebbi Zeira discounts the Beraisa the way it stands - because it was not written by Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshaya (and which is therefore not authentic).

(d) So he amends it to read (not 'Lokin Alav', but) 'Einah bi'Chelal Malkos Arba'im'.




(a) The Torah in Kedoshim inserts the La'av of "Lo Sashuv Lekachto" (Shikchah) and that of "Lo Sechaleh" (Pe'ah), adding the Asei of - "le'Ani ve'la'Ger Ta'azov Osam".

(b) Rebbi Yehudah rules in a Beraisa (cited by Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshaya) that someone who contravenes the two La'avin receives Malkos. We repudiate the proof from there that Rebbi Yehudah does not hold of the P'tur of 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' - by establishing the Asei of "Ta'azov" as being 'Me'ikara', before having transgressed the La'av (but not afterwards).

(c) Ravina cites a third Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah discusses the La'av of "Lo Sosiru Mimenu ad Boker", which is accompanies by the Asei of - 've'ha'Nosar Mimenu ad Boker, ba'Eish Tisrofu".

(d) Ravina finally proves from Rebbi Yehudah, who exmepts someone who transgresses them from Malkos - that he clearly concedes to the K'lal of 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei, Ein Lokin Alav', in which cased, his reason in our Mishnah must be because he holds that ''Shale'ach" means 'Me'ikara'.

(a) Rav Idi tries to support Ravina from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yehudah says 'Lokeh ve'Eino Meshale'ach'. If he held 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei, Lokin Alav', he ought to have said 'Lokeh u'Meshale'ach'.

(b) Rav Ashi refutes Rav Idi's proof however, by interpreting the 'Eino Meshale'ach' of Rebbi Yehudah to mean - that Shilu'ach doesn't help to exempt him from Malkus ('Ein Niftar ad de'Malkin Leih').

(c) According to Rav Yehudah, one must send the mother bird away - until it has left one's hand completely, after which ...

(d) ... he is permitted to retake it if he can.

(a) According to our initial understanding of Rav Huna, he requires that one sends the mother away by its legs. Rav Yehudah says - by its wings.

(b) Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "Meshalchei Regel ha'Shor ve'ha'Chamor", Rav Yehudah learns from the same Pasuk, only he holds that the wings are the equivalent to the forelegs of an animal (see Maharsha).

(c) The problem with Rav Huna's source, according to this explanation is - that the Pasuk is talking about the animal walking with its legs, whereas Rav Huna is talking about holding it by its legs.

(d) When ...

1. ... Rav Huna says 'be'Raglehah', he therefore means - that as long as the bird walks away on foot, one has fulfilled the Mitzvah, even though he clipped its wings so that it cannot fly.
2. ... Rav Yehudah says 'bi'Chanfehah' - he means that it must be able to fly away (and that consequently, if he clipped its wings, he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah).
(a) When someone clipped the wings of the mother bird before sending it away, Rav Yehudah gave him Malkos - before ordering him to wait for the wings to regrow before sending the bird away.

(b) The problem with this is - that according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - the Malkos was justifiable, but the ruling to send away the mother was not.
2. ... the Rabbanan - the ruling to send away the mother bird was justifiable, but the Malkos was not.
(c) We conclude that Rav Yehudah rules like the Rabbanan - and the Malkos was Makas Mardus (mi-de'Rabbanan) ...

(d) ... which is not fixed, and is administered until such time as the culprit undertakes to obey the Chachamim's instructions.

(a) When someone asked Rava about the Mitzvah of Shilu'ach ha'Kein regarding a Teimah (a Tahor bird) ...
1. ... he thought to himself that it is not possible for the questioner never to have heard that every Tahor bird is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein.
2. ... assumed that he was probably asking because the bird in question only laid one egg at a time, and he must have thought that, based on the Pasuk "Efrochim O Beitzim", it is not subject to Shilu'ach.
(b) When, following his ruling, the questioner sent the mother away - Rava set traps and caught it.

(c) The problem with that is - that once a Rav has been issued a ruling involving money matters, he should refrain from obtaining the article on which he ruled, so as to avoid 'Chashad' (suspicion that he permitted the article for his own benefit), much in the same way as Rav Chisda (Rava's father-in-law), refrained from purchasing a Bechor with a blemish that he had permitted.

(d) We justify Rava's actions however - by stressing that he caught the bird some distance away from where the man sent it away, in which nobody would suspect him.

(a) The Beraisa includes doves of a dovecot and doves in an attic in the Din of Shilu'ach, adding - that it is Asur for anyone else to acquire them because of Darkei Shalom.

(b) The problem on the earlier statement is that, based on a ruling of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who says - that a person's Chatzer acquires for him even without his knowledge, the eggs that hatch are Mezuman (prepared), in which case the owner of the Chatzer ought to be Patur from Shilu'ach.

(c) Rava answers by distinguishing between Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's Din - which only takes effect once the Hefker object actually lands on the ground, and the obligation to send the mother away, which takes effect from the moment the majority of the egg has left the chicken's body (at which time it is not yet Mezuman).

(a) In the first Lashon, 'Asurin Mishum Gezel' therefore refers to the mother. The second Lashon holds - that even though at the point that the egg becomes subject to Shilu'ach, one has not yet acquired it (as we just explained), it is nevertheless subject to Gezel because of Darkei Shalom, because the owner intends to acquire it from that moment on ...

(b) ... which he does not do with regard to the mother, since it is difficult to catch (which is why Darkei Shalom does not apply to it).

(c) Alternatively, following a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar, who forbids taking the egg from under the chicken (as long as the latter continues to sit on it) - we establish the Beraisa even after the egg fell into the Chatzer, because, since he is not permitted to acquire it, it is not considered 'Mezuman' ...

(d) ... since his Chatzer does not acquire the egg either - because whatever the owner cannot acquire personally, his Chatzer cannot acquire for himb.

(a) The Seifa ('va'Asuros ... Mishim Darkei Shalom') cannot be speaking after the owner already sent the mother bird away - because then he would acquire the egg mi'd'Oraysa, and not just because of Darkei Shalom.

(b) And the problem with establishing it before he did so - is how he can possibly take the egg for himself without first sending the mother away.

(c) And we answer that 'Asuros Mishum Gezel' refers to a Katan Katan (who is not Chayav Mitzvos). True, he is not subject to Darkei Shalom either - but his father is.

(d) We do not establish the Beraisa when even a Gadol took the eggs from under the chicken (in spite of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav) - because we prefer to establish the Beraisa be Heter, where no sin was performed).

Next daf


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