Chullin

— If that were so, then the teaching that the term zippor’ excludes an unclean bird is superfluous.1 But it has been taught: The dam of young that is trefah, one is bound to let go!2 — Abaye answered: It is to be explained thus: If the dam of the young is trefah, one is bound to let it go. R. Hoshaia raised the question: What is the law if a man put his hand into a nest and cut through a small part of the throat organs [of the young ones]? Should we say that, since if he were to leave off cutting at this point they would become trefah,3 the rule ‘"Thou mayest take for thyself" but not for thy dog’ applies;4 or rather, since it is within his power to finish cutting, we still say [of these young ones] ‘Thou mayest take for thyself’, and he is therefore bound to let the dam go? — This question remains unanswered. R. Jeremiah raised the question: Would a cloth be regarded as an interposition or not?5 Would [loose] feathers be an interposition or not? Would addled eggs be an interposition or not?6 What if there were two layers of eggs, one above the other?7 What if the male bird was upon the eggs and the dam was upon the male?8 — These questions remain unanswered. R. Zera raised the question: What is the law if a dove was sitting on a tasil's9 eggs, or if a tasil was sitting on dove's eggs? Abaye said: Come and hear: 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. It follows, does it not, that if a clean [bird was sitting upon the eggs of another] clean bird, one is bound to let it go? — Perhaps this is so only with a hen partridge. 10 AS TO A COCK PARTRIDGE, R. ELIEZER SAYS ONE IS BOUND TO LET IT GO, BUT THE SAGES SAY ONE IS NOT BOUND. R. Abbahu said: What is the reason of R. Eliezer? — He draws an analogy between the expressions ‘brood’; for it is written here: As the partridge broodeth over young which he has not brought forth,11 and it is written there: She shall hatch and brood under her shadow.12 R. Eleazar said: They13 differ only with regard to a cock partridge, but as for a hen partridge all agree that one is bound to let it go. Is not this obvious? for the Mishnah expressly says: A COCK PARTRIDGE! — One might have thought that even the hen partridge the Rabbis exempt [from letting go], but the reason why the cock partridge was stated [in the Mishnah] was to set forth the extent of R. Eliezer's view; we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. R. Eleazar also said: They differ only with regard to a cock partridge, but as for the male of any other [bird] all agree that one is exempt [from letting it go]. Is not this obvious? For the Mishnah expressly says: AS TO A COCK PARTRIDGE? — One might have thought that even the male of any other bird R. Eliezer declares one bound [to let go], but the reason why the cock partridge was stated was to set forth the extent of the Rabbis’14 view; we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. There has also been taught [a Baraitha] to this effect: The male of any other bird one is not bound [to let go]; as to a cock partridge. R. Eliezer declares one bound [to let it go], but the Sages say one is not bound. MISHNAH. IF THE DAM WAS HOVERING [OVER THE NEST] AND HER WINGS TOUCH THE NEST, ONE IS BOUND TO LET HER GO; IF HER WINGS DO NOT TOUCH THE NEST, ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET HER GO. IF THERE WAS BUT ONE YOUNG BIRD OR ONE EGG [IN THE NEST], ONE IS STILL BOUND TO LET THE DAM GO, FOR IT IS WRITTEN: A NEST,15 THAT IS, ANY NEST WHATSOEVER. IF THERE WERE THERE YOUNG BIRDS ABLE TO FLY OR ADDLED EGGS, ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET [THE DAM] GO, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND THE DAM SITTING UP ON THE YOUNG OR UPON THE EGGS;15 AS THE YOUNG ARE LIVING BEINGS SO THE EGGS MUST BE SUCH AS [WOULD PRODUCE] LIVING BEINGS; HENCE ADDLED EGGS ARE EXCLUDED. AND AS THE EGGS NEED THE CARE OF THE DAM SO THE YOUNG MUST BE SUCH AS NEED THE CARE OF THE DAM; HENCE THOSE THAT ARE ABLE TO FLY ARE EXCLUDED. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: It is written: Sitting,15 but not hovering. I might then Suppose that even when her wings touch the nest [the law does not apply], the text therefore stated: ‘Sitting’. How is this implied? — Because it is not written ‘brooding’. 16 Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If she17 was perched upon two branches of a tree, we must consider, if when the branches slip away from each other she would fall upon them,18 one is bound to let her go, but if not, one is not bound [to let her go]. An objection was raised. [It was taught:] If she was sitting among them, one is not bound to let her go, if upon them, one is bound to let her go; if she was hovering over the nest, even though her wings touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go. Now presumably the expression ‘upon them’ bears the same meaning as ‘among them’, and just as ‘among them’ means that she is actually touching them so ‘upon them’ also means that she is actually touching them; it follows, however, that if she was upon the branches of a tree, one is not bound [to let her go]!19 — No, the expression ‘upon them’ bears the same meaning as ‘among them’, and just as ‘among them’ clearly means that she is not touching them from above so ‘upon them’ also means that she is not touching them from above, and that must be the case where she was upon the branches of a tree.20 It is indeed more logical to argue thus, for if you were to hold that when perched upon the branches of a tree one is not bound [to let her go], then the Tanna, in place of the case ‘If she was hovering over the nest, even though her wings touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go’, should rather have taught the case where she was perched upon the branches of a tree, and it would go without saying that where she was hovering [over the nest one is not bound to let her go!]21 — [This argument is not conclusive for] he wished to state the case where she was hovering [over the nest] to teach that, even though her wings actually touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go. But have we not learnt: IF THE DAM WAS HOVERING OVER THE NEST, AND HER WINGS TOUCH THE NEST, ONE IS BOUND TO LET HER GO? — R. Jeremiah answered, The Baraitha deals with the case where her wings touch the side of the nest.22 Another version reads as follows: Shall we say that the following [Baraitha] is a support for his view?23 For it was taught: If she was sitting among them, one is not bound to let her go, if upon them, one is bound to let her go; if she was hovering over the nest, even though her wings touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go. Now presumably the expression ‘upon them’ bears the same meaning as ‘among them’, and just as ‘among them’ clearly means that she is not touching them from above so ‘upon them’ also means that she is not touching them from above, and that must be the case where she was upon the branches of a tree! — No, the expression ‘upon them’ bears the same meaning as ‘among them’, and just as ‘among them’ means that she is actually touching them so ‘upon them’ also means that she is actually touching them, but if she was perched upon the branches of a tree one would not be bound [to let her go]. But if so, [the Tanna] in place of the last case ‘If she was hovering over the nest, even though her wings touch the nest, one is not bound to let her go’, excluded, thus rendering the interpretation derived from the term ‘zippor’ unnecessary. dam go; thus in conflict with R. Kahana. and to leave off before this requisite amount has been cut through would render the bird trefah. It must, however, be assumed here that the partly-cut organ was the gullet, for a partly-cut windpipe does not render trefah (v. supra 29a); v. Shak, Yoreh De'ah c. 292, sec. 15; and Glosses of R. Bezalel Regensburg a.l. apply or not? The doubt arises through a strict literal interpretation of the verse: And the dam sitting upon the young or upon the eggs (Deut. XXII, 6), which would exclude every case where some extraneous object interposed between the dam and the eggs. chicken; v. Mishnah infra), if these addled eggs formed a layer over ordinary eggs, interposing between the dam and the ordinary eggs, are they regarded as an interposition, in which case the law of letting the dam go does not apply, or not? letting the dam go, or not? deemed an interposition between the dam and the eggs, or not? eggs of another clean bird the law applies, may be restricted only to the case of the hen partridge which habitually broods over other birds’ eggs. brought forth’. bird in the previous verse; in each case it is a proper brooding. much less where she was hovering over the nest! or the eggs, and therefore one is bound to let the dam go. V. however, Maim. Yad, Shechitah, XIII, 13; and Tur, Yoreh De'ah, c. 292.