Chullin

Hence it is clear that no man sells the priestly dues; here, too, the priest's due no man sells.1 Therefore, if the seller kept back [some fleece for himself] the seller is solely liable [to give the first of the fleece], for the buyer can say to him, ‘The priest's due still remains with you’. If he did not keep back anything for himself the buyer is liable,2 for the seller can say to him, ‘I never sold you the priest's due’. MISHNAH. THE LAW OF LETTING [THE DAM] GO FROM THE NEST3 IS IN FORCE BOTH WITHIN THE HOLY LAND AND OUTSIDE IT, BOTH DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE AND AFTER IT, IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED BIRDS BUT NOT CONSECRATED BIRDS. THE LAW OF COVERING UP THE BLOOD4 IS OF WIDER APPLICATION THAN THE LAW OF LETTING THE DAM GO; FOR THE LAW OF COVERING UP THE BLOOD APPLIES TO WILD ANIMALS AS WELL AS BIRDS, WHETHER THEY ARE AT ONE'S DISPOSAL5 OR NOT, WHEREAS THE LAW OF LETTING [THE DAM] GO FROM THE NEST APPLIES ONLY TO BIRDS AND ONLY TO THOSE WHICH ARE NOT AT ONE'S DISPOSAL. WHICH ARE THEY THAT ARE NOT AT ONE'S DISPOSAL? SUCH AS GEESE AND FOWLS THAT MADE THEIR NESTS IN THE OPEN FIELD;6 BUT IF THEY MADE THEIR NESTS WITHIN A HOUSE OR IN THE CASE OF HERODIAN DOVES,7 ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET [THE DAM] GO. AN UNCLEAN BIRD ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET GO. IF AN UNCLEAN BIRD WAS SITTING ON THE EGGS OF A CLEAN BIRD, OR A CLEAN BIRD ON THE EGGS OF AN UNCLEAN BIRD, ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET IT GO. AS TO A COCK PARTRIDGE,8 R. ELIEZER SAYS ONE IS BOUND TO LET IT GO, BUT THE SAGES SAY ONE IS NOT BOUND. GEMARA. R. Abin and R. Meyasha [taught the following:] One said that the expression ‘both within the Holy Land and outside it’9 was in every case unnecessary,10 except in [the Mishnah of] ‘The first of the fleece’,11 [where it had to be stated] in order to exclude the view of R. Ila'i, who holds that the law of the first of the fleece obtains only in the Land of Israel.12 The other said, the expression ‘both during the existence of the Temple and after it’9 was in every case unnecessary, except in [the Mishnah of] ‘It and its young’, [where it had to be stated,] for I might have argued that, since that law is stated in connection with laws concerning sacrifices,13 it is in force only as long as sacrifices continue but it is not in force once sacrifices are no more, [the Tanna] therefore found it necessary to teach us [that it is binding for all time]. Furthermore both said that the expression ‘in respect of unconsecrated and consecrated animals’,14 was in every case necessary except in [the Mishnah of] ‘The sciatic nerve’,15 for it is obvious that the prohibition of the nerve has not vanished merely because the animal has been consecrated. But did we not establish [that Mishnah] as dealing with the young of consecrated animals?16 — Yes, but why did we establish [the Mishnah] in that way? Was it not because we were faced with the difficulty: ‘Why did [the Tanna] state it’? In reality however17 this at the very outset should offer no difficulty, for since this expression was stated in one Mishnah where it was necessary18 it was also stated in the other where it was not necessary at all. IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED BIRDS BUT NOT CONSECRATED BIRDS. Why not? — Because the verse: Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go,19 clearly refers only to such as you are bound to let go, excluding such as you are not bound to let go but rather to bring to the Temple treasurer. Rabina said: It follows, therefore, that if a clean bird killed a man, one is not bound to let it go,20 because the verse: ‘Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go’, clearly refers only to such as you are bound to let go, excluding such as you are not bound to let go but rather to bring to the Beth din.21 But what are the circumstances here? If it had already been condemned, priest's due, for that he certainly would not sell. from the seller to the buyer. the law of letting the dam go applies. doves are quite domesticated. V. infra 139b. Kid. 36b. ‘first of the fleece’. (Rashi, Tosaf.). upon the existing prohibition of consecrated things.