Parallel
חולין 140:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
It is written: And the zippor of the heaven dwelt in the branches thereof! — They are designated ‘the zippor of the heaven’, but not ‘zippor’ alone. Come and hear: It is written: Every zippor that is clean ye may eat; from which we may deduce that there is [a zippor] that is unclean! — No, we may deduce that there is [a zippor] that is forbidden. But which is that? If it is one that is trefah, but this is expressly stated [to be forbidden]. And if it is the slaughtered bird of the leper, but this is inferred from the next verse: And these are they of which ye shall not eat, which includes the slaughtered bird of the leper! — It is, in truth, the slaughtered bird of the leper, and [it is repeated so as to teach that] one infringes on that account a positive and also a negative precept. But why not say that it is a trefah bird [that is meant, and it teaches that] one infringes on that account a positive and also a negative precept? — ‘The meaning of a verse is to be deduced from its context’, and the context deals with those that are slaughtered. Come and hear: It is written: Two living zipparim. Now what is meant by ‘living’? It means, does it not, those that are fit for your mouth, and from which follows that there are also those [zipparim] that are not fit for your mouth? — No, by ‘living’ is meant those whose principal limbs are living. Come and hear from the next word [in the above verse]: Clean. Is not the inference that there are unclean [zipparim]? — No, the inference is that there are trefah [clean birds]. But are not trefah birds excluded by the term ‘living’? Of course this presents no difficulty to him who says that a trefah can continue to live, but according to him who says that a trefah cannot continue to live what can be said? Moreover, both according to him who says that a trefah can continue to live and him who says that it cannot continue to live, this is inferred from the teaching of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: There have been prescribed qualifying and atoning sacrifices within the Temple, and there have been prescribed qualifying and atoning sacrifices outside the Temple; just as with regard to the qualifying and atoning sacrifices prescribed within the Temple, the qualifying sacrifices are equal to the atoning sacrifices, so with regard to the qualifying and atoning sacrifices prescribed outside the Temple, the qualifying sacrifices are equal to the atoning sacrifices! — Rather said R. Nahman b. Isaac, [The expression ‘clean’] serves to exclude the birds of a beguiled city. But for which one? If for the one that must be set free, but surely the Torah would not enjoin to set it free if it would thereby lead to transgression! Rather it could serve for the one that must be slaughtered. Raba said, [The expression ‘clean’] serves to exclude [the following case]: that one may not use this bird before it is set free so as to make up the pair of birds [for the purification rites] of another leper. But for which one? If for the one that was to be slaughtered, but surely it must be set free! Rather it could serve for the one that was to be set free. R. Papa said, [The expression ‘clean’] serves to exclude birds that were obtained in exchange for an idol, for it is written: And become a devoted thing like unto it; whatever you bring into being from [the devoted thing] is to be treated like it. But for which one? If for the one that must be set free, but surely the Torah would not enjoin to set it free if it would thereby lead to transgression! Rather it could serve for the one that must be slaughtered, Rabina said: We are dealing here with a bird that had killed a man. But what are the circumstances? If it had already been condemned, then it must be put to death; we must therefore say that it had not yet been condemned. But for which one [of the leper's birds might this be used]? If for the one that must be set free, but surely it must be brought to the Beth din so as to carry into effect the verse: So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee! Rather it could serve for the one that must be slaughtered. IF AN UNCLEAN BIRD WAS SITTING ON THE EGGS OF A CLEAN BIRD . . . [ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET IT GO]. This is indeed clear of an unclean bird sitting on the eggs of a clean bird, for the law [of letting the dam go] applies only to a ‘zippor’, and this is not the case here; but why [is one not bound to let go] the clean bird that was sitting on the eggs of an unclean bird? It is a zippor, is it not? — As R. Kahana said [in another connection]. It is written, [But the young] thou mayest take for thyself, ‘for thyself’ but not for thy dogs; here too [we say the same], ‘Thou mayest take for thyself’, but not for thy dogs. In what connection was this statement of R. Kahana said? — In connection with the following Baraitha which was taught: If the dam is trefah, one is still bound to let it go; if the young ones are trefah, one is not bound to let the dam go. Whence is this derived? — R. Kahana said: It is written: ‘[But the young] thou mayest take for thyself’; ‘for thyself’ but not for thy dogs. But should we not regard a trefah dam on the same footing as [trefah] young ones, and as in the case of trefah young ones one is not bound to let the dam go so in the case of a trefah dam one is not bound to let it go?
—