Chullin — Daf 141b

רבי חייא ובי רבי אושעיא משבשתא היא ולא תותבו מינה בי מדרשא דלמא אינה בכלל מלקות ארבעים תניא

ת"ש דתני ר' אושעיא ור' חייא (דברים כד, יט) לא תשוב ושב (ויקרא יט, ט) לא תכלה וכלה ישנן בכלל מלקות ארבעים דברי רבי יהודה

שמע מינה טעמיה דרבי יהודה משום דקסבר לאו שניתק לעשה לוקין עליו

דלמא התם היינו טעם דקסבר תעזוב מעיקרא משמע

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ת"ש (שמות יב, י) לא תותירו ממנו עד בקר וגו' באש תשרופו בא הכתוב ליתן עשה אחר לא תעשה לומר לך שאין לוקין עליו דברי ר' יהודה

ש"מ טעמא דר' יהודה משום דקסבר שלח מעיקרא משמע ש"מ

א"ל רב אידי לרב אשי מתני' נמי דיקא דקתני הנוטל אם על הבנים ר' יהודה אומר לוקה ואין משלח ואי ס"ד טעמא דר' יהודה לאו שניתק לעשה לוקין עליו לוקה ומשלח מבעי ליה

ודלמא הכי קאמר במתני' אין נפטר עד דמלקין ליה

עד כמה משלחה אמר רב יהודה כדי שתצא מתחת ידו במה משלחה רב הונא אמר ברגליה רב יהודה אמר באגפיה רב הונא אמר ברגליה דכתיב (ישעיהו לב, כ) משלחי רגל השור והחמור רב יהודה אמר באגפיה דהא כנפיה נינהו

ההוא דגזינהו לגפה ושלחה ואח"כ תפשה נגדיה רב יהודה א"ל זיל רבי לה גדפיה ושלחה

כמאן אי כר' יהודה לוקה ואין משלח אי כרבנן משלח ואין לוקה לעולם כרבנן ומכת מרדות מדרבנן

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל תימה מהו אמר לא ידע האי גברא דעוף טהור חייב לשלוחי אמר ליה דילמא חדא ביעתא הוא דרמיא אמר ליה האי ידעי לך מתניתין היא אין שם אלא אפרוח אחד או ביצה אחת חייב לשלח

שלחה ואהדר לה רבא פרסתקי ותפסה וליחוש לחשדא כלאחר יד

ת"ר יוני שובך ויוני עלייה חייבות בשלוח ואסורות משום גזל מפני דרכי שלום

ואי איתא להא דאמר ר' יוסי בר ר' חנינא חצרו של אדם קונה לו שלא מדעתו קרי כאן כי יקרא פרט למזומן

אמר רב ביצה עם יציאת רובה הוא דאחייב בשלוח מקנא לא קני עד דתפול לחצרו וכי קתני חייבות בשלוח מקמי דתפול לחצרו

אי הכי אמאי אסורות משום גזל אאמם ואיבעית אימא לעולם אביצה וביצה כיון דנפיק ליה רובא דעתיה עליה

והשתא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסור לזכות בביצים שהאם רובצת עליהן שנאמר שלח את האם והדר הבנים תקח לך אפי' תימא אע"ג דנפל לחצרו כל היכא דאיהו מצי זכי חצרו נמי זכיא וכל היכא דאיהו לא מצי זכי חצרו נמי לא זכיא ליה

אי הכי אמאי אסורות מפני דרכי שלום אי דשלחה גזל מעליא הוא אי דלא שלחה שלוחי בעי

בקטן קטן בר דרכי שלום הוא הכי קאמר אביו של קטן חייב להחזיר לו מפני דרכי שלום

לוי בר סימון אקני פירות שובכו לרב יהודה אתא לקמיה דשמואל א"ל זיל טרוף אקן דליתגבהו וקנינהו

למאי אי למקנא לקנינהו ליה בסודר אי ביום טוב

R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia1 is not authentic, and that you should not put it forward as a refutation in the Beth Hamidrash? Perhaps it was taught thus: [A thief and a robber] are not subject to the penalty of forty stripes. Come and hear: R. Oshaia and R. Hiyya taught: [It is written,] Thou shall not go back [to fetch it],2 but if a man went back [and gathered the forgotten sheaf] — [It is written,] Thou shalt not wholly reap,3 but if a man did reap the whole field — he is subject to the penalty of forty stripes;4 so R. Judah. You may infer from this that the reason for R. Judah's view is that he is of the opinion that [for the transgression of] a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act [of the transgressor] one incurs stripes! — Perhaps the reason here is that he maintains that the precept of leaving [the gleanings etc. for the poor] was intended only in the first instance.5 Rabina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: [It is written,] And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; [and that which remaineth of it until the morning] ye shall burn with fire.6 Scripture here came and provided a positive precept as a remedy for7 the [disregarded] prohibition, to indicate that the prohibition is not punishable by stripes; so R. Judah. You may then infer from this that the reason for R. Judah's view [in our Mishnah] is that he maintains that the precept of letting [the dam] go was intended only in the first instance. This indeed proves it.8 R. Idi b. Abin said to R. Ashi: Our Mishnah also proves it, for it states: IF A MAN TOOK THE DAM WITH THE YOUNG, R. JUDAH SAYS, HE HAS INCURRED [FORTY] STRIPES, AND HE NEED NOT NOW LET HER GO. Now if you were to say that the reason for R. Judah's view is that he is of the opinion that [for the transgression of] a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act [of the transgressor] one incurs guilt,9 then it should have stated: ‘He has incurred [forty] stripes and must also let her go’! — Perhaps the Mishnah is to be interpreted thus: He has not cleared himself [by merely letting her go] until he has suffered stripes.10 How far must he let it go? — Rab Judah said, until it is out of his reach. 11 How should he let it go? — R. Huna said: With its feet.12 Rab Judah said: With its wings.13 ‘R. Huna said: With its feet’, for it is written: That let go freely the feet of the ox and the ass.14 ‘Rab Judah said: With its wings’, for its wings are also [regarded as feet].15 A man once clipped the wings [of the dam before letting it go], let it go and then caught it again. Rab Judah had him flogged and ordered him: ‘Go, keep it until it grows its wing feathers again and then let it go’. But whose view did he adopt? For according to R. Judah he suffers stripes but need not let it go, and according to the Sages he must let it go but does not suffer stripes? — In truth he adopted the view of the Sages, but [the flogging] was chastisement of the Rabbis.16 A man once came to Raba and asked: What is the law with regard to the Temah?17 Said [Raba to himself]: Does not this man know that one is bound to let go a clean bird? He [Raba] then said to him: Perhaps [you enquire because] there was [in the nest] but one young bird or one egg? He replied: That is so.18 Then said [Raba] to him: This surely should not give rise to any doubt;18 it is expressly stated in our Mishnah: If there was but one young bird or one egg [in the nest], one is still bound to let [the dam] go. The other then sent it away; whereupon Raba set snares for it and caught it. But is there not ground here for suspicion?19 — He acted in an indirect manner20 [as did not give rise to suspicion]. Our Rabbis taught:21 [Wild] doves of the dove-cote,22 and doves22 of the loft, are subject to the law of letting [the dam] go, and are forbidden as [coming within the category of] theft in the interest of peace.23 Now if the dictum of R. Jose b. Hanina,24 that a man's courtyard acquires [property] for him even without his knowledge, is correct, then apply to this case the verse: If a bird's nest chance to be before thee, which excludes that which is always at one's disposal!25 — Raba26 said: As soon as the greater part of the egg has emerged [from the body of the bird] the law of letting [the dam] go applies, whereas [the owner of the dovecote] does not acquire it until it falls into his courtyard; therefore the ruling: ‘Are subject to the law of letting [the dam] go’ means, before it falls into his courtyard.27 If so, why are they forbidden as theft?28 — That refers to the mother-bird.29 Alternatively, you may say, it refers indeed to the eggs, for when the greater part of the egg has emerged his mind is set upon it.30 But now that Rab Judah has said in Rab's name that it is forbidden to take the eggs so long as the dam is sitting on them, for it is written: Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go,31 and then only: Thou mayest take the young to thee,31 — you may even say that it [the egg] fell into his courtyard, [nevertheless the law of letting the dam go applies], for whenever he himself may acquire it his courtyard acquires it for him, but whenever he himself may not acquire it his courtyard cannot acquire it for him either.32 If so, why are they forbidden as theft in the interests of peace? If he33 let the dam go, then [to take the eggs] is actual theft,34 and if he did not let it go, then he is bound to let it go?35 — We are referring to a minor.36 But is a minor subject to provisions enacted in the interests of peace? — It means this: The father of the minor must return [the eggs]37 in the interests of peace. Levi b. Simon assigned to Rab Judah the young of his dovecote. When the latter came before Samuel he advised him: ‘Go, knock on the nest so that [the brooding birds] shall rise up, and then take possession’. But why was this necessary?38 If in order to take possession of them;39 but surely he could have acquired them by means of a ‘cloth’.40 And if for the purpose of the Festival,41 the poor and the stranger. leave’ is not a remedial act. which can be remedied by a subsequent act of the transgressor one does not incur stripes. even though he may have injured its wings so that it cannot fly away. Aliter: he must get hold of it with its feet and set it free. the loft. has set his mind on them, recognized his right to them as against all others. disposal; and therefore it is subject to the law of sending away. of the dove-cote has no doubt been looking forward to acquire this bird, since it has nested from time to time in his dove-cote, and it would therefore be wrong to deprive him of it. Similarly to take the egg, inasmuch as it has not wholly emerged from the mother-bird but is deemed a part thereof, would also constitute theft (Rashi). Cf. however Tosaf. B.M. 102a, s.v. ht. he has been looking forward; but in respect of the mother-bird he has no better claim than a stranger. And on the other hand, so long as the egg has not actually been laid the law of letting the dam go still applies. so that it is not at his disposal, and therefore the law of letting the dam go applies. transaction. V. B.M. 47a. Cf. Ruth IV, 7. regarded as mukzeh, i.e., laid aside and not to be used on the Festival. The knocking on the nest would therefore be regarded as setting them in readiness for the Festival.