Parallel
חולין 139
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
then surely it would have been put to death! Rather we must say that it had not yet been condemned, in which case one is bound to bring it to the Beth din so as to carry into effect the verse: So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. What are the circumstances with regard to consecrated birds? If you say that a man had a nest in his home and consecrated it, but in that case the law does not apply, for the verse: If a bird's nest chance to be before thee, excludes what is at one's disposal. You will say then that a man saw a nest somewhere and consecrated it, but in that case would it become consecrated? Does not the Divine Law say. And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy, [from which we conclude that] just as his house is in his possession so must everything [that he may wish to sanctify] be in his possession? You will then say that a man lifted up the young ones, consecrated them, and put them back again; but in such a case, even though they were not consecrated, the law would not apply, for we have learnt: If a man took the young and brought them back again into the nest, and afterwards the dam returned to them, he is not bound to let it go. You will therefore say that he lifted up the dam, consecrated it, and put it back again; but in that case at the very outset, even before he consecrated it, he was bound to let it go, for it was taught: R. Johanan b. Joseph says: If a man consecrated a wild animal and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from covering up [the blood]; if he slaughtered it and afterwards consecrated it, he is bound to cover up [the blood], since he was already bound to cover up [the blood] before it was consecrated! Rab suggested the case where a man consecrated the young of his dovecote and they later broke lose. Samuel suggested the case where a man consecrated his hen to the Temple treasury. Now one can understand why Samuel does not suggest the case of Rab; it is because he wishes to state the law even in respect of that which is consecrated to the Temple treasury only. But why does not Rab suggest the case of Samuel? — Rab would answer thus: It is only in the case where a man consecrated the young of his dove-cote that one is not bound to let the dam go, for they are consecrated for the altar; and inasmuch as they are themselves consecrated for an offering, [even though they break loose,] their sanctity has not gone. But where a man consecrated his hen to the Temple treasury, inasmuch as it was not consecrated for the altar but only for its value, as soon as it breaks loose its sanctity has gone, and the law of letting the dam go applies. But Samuel says: Wherever it happens to be it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is written: The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. And so, too, did R. Johanan say: It is a case where a man consecrated his hen to the Temple treasury, and afterwards it broke loose. Thereupon R. Simeon b. Lakish said to him: Surely as soon as it breaks loose its sanctity has gone! — He replied: Wherever it happens to be it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is written: ‘The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof’. I can point out a contradiction between the words of R. Johanan [here] and the words of R. Johanan [elsewhere]; and I can point out a contradiction between the words of Resh Lakish [here] and the words of Resh Lakish [elsewhere]. For it has been stated: [If a man said], ‘Let this maneh be for the Temple treasury’, and it was stolen or lost, R. Johanan says: He is responsible for it until it reaches the hands of the Temple treasurer; but Resh Lakish says: Wherever it is it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is Written, ‘The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof’. Hence there is a contradiction between R. Johanan's statements, and between Resh Lakish's statements. [I concede that] there is not necessarily a contradiction between Resh Lakish's statements, for this [the former] view he expressed before he had learnt the true view from his master R. Johanan, whilst that [the latter] view he expressed after he had learnt it from his master R. Johanan. But surely there is a contradiction between the statements of R. Johanan! — There is no contradiction even between the statements of R. Johanan, for in one case the man said: ‘I take upon myself [an offering]’ and in the other case he said: ‘Let this be [an offering]’. It follows then that, according to Resh Lakish, a man is not responsible [for his offering] even though he said: ‘I take upon myself’. But we have learnt: What is a votive-offering and what a freewill-offering? It is a votive-offering when a man says: ‘I take upon myself a burnt-offering’; it is a freewill-offering when a man says: ‘Let this be a burnt-offering’. And wherein do votive-offerings differ from freewill-offerings? With a votive-offering if it dies or is stolen or lost, he is responsible for it [and must replace it]; but with a freewill-offering, if it dies or is stolen or lost he is not responsible for it. — Resh Lakish can answer thus: That is so only with regard to what is consecrated for the altar, since it still needs to be offered as a sacrifice; but with regard to what is consecrated to the Temple treasury, since it has not to be offered as a sacrifice, he is not responsible for it even though he said ‘I take upon myself’. But we have learnt: If a man said: ‘Let this ox be a burnt-offering’, or, ‘Let this house be an offering’, and the ox died or the house fell down, he is not bound to make restitution; but if he said: ‘I take upon myself [to offer] this ox for a burnt-offering’, or, ‘I take upon myself [to present] this house as an offering’, and the ox died or the house fell down, he must make restitution! — That is so only where the ox died or the house fell down, then indeed he must make restitution, since they are no more in existence; but where they are in existence, wherever they happen to be, they are still within the Lord's treasury, for it is written: ‘The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof’. R. Hamnuna said: All agree that regarding vows of valuation, even though a man said: ‘I take upon myself’, he is not bound to make restitution, for these cannot be expressed without the formula ‘I take upon myself’. For how else can they be expressed? If he were only to say: ‘My valuation’, then [we do not know] upon whom [lies this obligation]; and if he were to say: ‘The valuation of So-and-So’, [we still do not know] upon whom [lies the obligation]. Raba demurred: But surely he can say: ‘Here is my valuation’, or, ‘Here is the valuation of So-and-so’. Moreover it has been taught: R. Nathan says: It is written: And he shall give thy valuation in that day, as a holy thing unto the Lord. What does Scripture teach thereby? But inasmuch as we find that, with regard to consecrated things and second tithe, if a man exchanged them for unconsecrated money and the money was stolen or lost, he is not liable to make restitution,
—
I might say that it is the same with regard to this too; the text therefore states: ‘And he shall give thy valuation in that day as a holy thing unto the Lord’; that is to say, it is still consecrated [in thy hand] until it reaches the hand of the Temple treasurer. — Rather if this statement was reported it must have been reported as follows: R. Hamnuna said: All agree that regarding vows of valuation, even though a man did not say ‘I take upon myself’, he is bound to make restitution, for it is written: ‘And he shall give thy valuation etc.’, that is to say, it is still consecrated in thy hand until it reaches the hand of the Temple treasurer. THE LAW OF COVERING UP THE BLOOD IS OF WIDER APPLICATION etc. Our Rabbis taught: It is written: If a bird's nest chance to be before thee [in the way, in any tree or on the ground]. What does Scripture teach thereby? But because it is also written: Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself, I might suppose that one should go searching over mountains and hills to find a nest, the text therefore states: ‘chance to be’, that is, if it happens to be before you. ‘A nest’, that is, any nest whatsoever. ‘A bird's’, that is, of a clean but not of an unclean bird. ‘Before thee’, that is, in a private domain. ‘In the way’, that is, in a public place. Whence do I know even [if found] on trees? The text states: ‘In any tree’. Whence do I know even [if found] in cisterns, ditches or caverns? The text states: ‘Or on the ground’. But since in the end we include everything, wherefore [does Scripture say], ‘Before thee in the way’? To teach you, just as on the way the nest cannot be said to be ready at your hand, so everywhere the nest must not be ready at your hand; hence they said, [Wild] doves of the dove-cote, and doves of the loft, and birds which made their nests in the cornices [in the walls] in large houses, and geese and fowls that made their nests in the open field, one is bound to let the dam go; but if they made their nests within a house, or in the case of Herodian doves, one is not bound to let the dam go. The Master said: ‘Just as on the way the nest cannot be said to be ready at your hand, so everywhere the nest must not be ready at your hand’. Is this [teaching] necessary? It is surely inferred from the expression ‘chance to be’ thus, ‘chance to be’, but not what is at one's disposal! Moreover, what is the significance of the expression ‘before thee’? — Rather we must say: The expression ‘before thee’ serves to include those birds that were once before you and which later broke loose; and the expression ‘in the way’ points to the teaching of Rab Judah in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If a man found a nest in the sea he is bound to let the dam go, since it is written: Thus saith the Lord, who maketh a way in the sea. Then, in like manner, if a man found a nest in the sky, inasmuch as it is written: The way of an eagle in the sky, he should also, should he not, be bound to let the dam go? — It [the sky] is referred to as ‘the way of an eagle’, but never simply as ‘way’. The Papunians asked of R. Mattenah: What if one found a nest upon a man's head? — He replied, lt is written: And earth upon his head. Where is Moses indicated in the Torah? [they asked]. — In the verse: For that he also is flesh. Where is Haman indicated in the Torah? — In the verse: Is it [hamin] from the tree? Where is Esther indicated in the Torah? — [In the verse,] And I will surely hide [asthir] my face. Where is Mordecai indicated in the Torah? — In the verse: Flowing myrrh, which the Targum renders as mira dakia. WHICH ARE THEY THAT ARE ‘NOT AT ONE'S DISPOSAL’? etc. R. Hiyya and R. Simeon [b. Rabbi differ]: One reads [in the Mishnah] ‘Hadresioth’, and the other reads ‘Hardesioth’. He who reads ‘Hardesioth’ derives the word from the name of Herod; and he who reads ‘Hadresioth’ derives it from their place of origin. R. Kahana said: ‘I once saw them, and there were sixteen rows of them, each row extending over one mil, and they were calling out, kiri kiri. One, however, did not call out kiri kiri, and its neighbour said to it, ‘You blind fool, call out kiri kiri’. The other replied: ‘You blind fool, call out rather kiri keri’. Straightway she was taken and slaughtered. R. Ashi said: R. Hanina told me that all this was empty words. Empty words! surely not! — Say, rather: All this [conversation] was effected by magic spells. AN UNCLEAN BIRD ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET GO. Whence is this derived? — R. Isaac said: From the verse: If a nest of a bird [zippor] chance to be before thee. Now the term ‘ ‘of’ applies both to clean and unclean birds, but as for the term ‘zippor’, we find clean birds referred to as zippor but not unclean birds. Come and hear: It is written: The likeness of any winged zippor. Surely ‘zippor’ includes both clean and unclean birds, and ‘winged’ includes locusts! — No, ‘zippor’ refers only to clean birds, and ‘winged’ includes both unclean birds and locusts. Come and hear: It is written: Beasts and all cattle, creeping things and winged zippor. Surely ‘zippor’ includes both clean and unclean birds, and ‘winged’ includes locusts. — No, ‘zippor’ refers only to clean birds, and ‘winged’ includes both unclean birds and locusts. Come and hear: It is written: Every zippor of every sort. Surely the interpretation is as suggested in the above objection! — No, it is as suggested in the above reply. Come and hear: It is written: And thou, son of man, [thus saith the Lord God]: Speak unto the zippor of every sort. Surely the interpretation is as suggested in the above objection! — No, it is as suggested in the above reply. Come and hear:
—