Chullin

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]! — 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. Jeremiah1 answered: The Baraitha2 deals with the case where her wings touch the side of the nest. IF THERE WAS BUT ONE YOUNG BIRD OR ONE EGG etc. A certain Rabbi said to Raba: Perhaps it should be the reverse, thus if there was but one young bird or one egg [in the nest], one is not bound to let the dam go, for according to the verse there must be young or eggs,3 which is not the case here; and if there were there young birds able to fly or addled eggs, one is bound to let the dam go, for it is written, a nest, that is, any nest whatsoever! — [He replied,] If that were so, the verse should have stated: ‘And the dam sitting upon them’; why is it written: And the dam sitting upon the young or upon the eggs? To compare the young with the eggs4 and the eggs with the young.5 MISHNAH. IF A MAN LET [THE DAM] GO AND SHE RETURNED, EVEN FOUR OF FIVE TIMES, HE IS STILL BOUND [TO LET HER GO AGAIN], FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE LET THE DAM GO.6 IF A MAN SAID, ‘I WILL TAKE THE DAM AND LET THE YOUNG GO’, HE IS STILL BOUND [TO LET HER GO], FOR IT IS WRITTEN, ‘THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE LET THE DAM GO’. IF A MAN TOOK THE YOUNG7 AND BROUGHT THEM BACK AGAIN TO THE NEST, AND AFTERWARDS THE DAM RETURNED TO THEM, HE IS NOT BOUND TO LET HER GO.8 GEMARA. A certain Rabbi said to Raba: Perhaps ‘shalleah’9 means once, and ‘teshallah’10 twice? — He replied: ‘Shalleah’ implies even a hundred times; and as for ‘teshallah’, [it is required for the following teaching:] I only know [this law in the case where the dam is required] for matters of choice,11 whence do I know [that this law applies even when it is required] for the fulfilment of a precept?12 The text therefore states: ‘teshallah’, [thou shalt let her go] under all circumstances. R. Abba the son of R. Joseph b. Raba said to R. Kahana: Then the only reason [for this] is that the Divine Law stated ‘teshallah’, but otherwise I should have said that [where one required the dam] for the fulfilment of a precept, the law did not apply. But there is here, is there not, both a positive and a negative precept?13 And [it is established law that] a positive precept14 cannot override a positive and negative precept! — It is necessary for the case where one had transgressed and had taken the dam. Now he has already transgressed the negative precept, and there remains only the positive precept; and one might suppose that now a positive precept can override this [remaining] positive precept,15 [Scripture] therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. This is in order, however, according to him who teaches16 that it depends upon whether he has fulfilled or not fulfilled [the positive precept],17 but according to him who teaches that it depends upon whether he has nullified or not nullified [the positive precept],18 then so long as this man has not slaughtered the dam he has not transgressed the negative precept.19 Moreover, according to R. Judah who maintains that the precept of letting [the dam] go was intended only in the first instance,20 there is now [after the transgression of the law] not even a positive precept!21 — Rather, said Mar son of R. Ashi, we suppose the case where a man took up the dam in order to let it go, in which case there is no infringement of the negative precept; there is, however, a positive precept and [it might be suggested that] the positive precept [of the leper's offering] should override this positive precept.22 But in what way is this positive precept more potent than that?23 — Because one might argue: since a Master has said,24 Great is the peace between man and wife, for the Torah has permitted the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is to be written in all sanctity, to be washed away in the waters of bitterness,25 and since a leper so long as he has not been cleansed is forbidden marital intercourse, (for it is written: And he shall dwell outside his tent seven days;26 ‘his tent’ signifies his wife,27 hence he is forbidden marital intercourse) — one might therefore argue, since he is forbidden marital intercourse, the positive precept in his case28 should override the positive precept of letting the dam go, we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. MISHNAH. 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. BUT THE SAGES SAY, HE MUST LET HER GO, AND HE DOES NOT INCUR STRIPES. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: [FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF] ANY NEGATIVE PRECEPT WHICH ADMITS OF A REMEDY BY THE SUBSEQUENT FULFILMENT OF A POSITIVE COMMAND,29 ONE DOES NOT INCUR STRIPES.30 GEMARA. R. Abba b. Memel raised the question: Is the reason for R. Judah's view [in the Mishnah] 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, or is it that elsewhere he is of the opinion that [for the transgression of] a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act one does not incur stripes, but here the reason is that he maintains that the precept of letting [the dam] go was intended only in the first instance?31 — Come and hear: A thief and a robber are subject to the penalty of stripes; so R. Judah. Now is not this a case of a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act,for the Divine Law says: Thou shalt not rob,32 and also: He shall restore that which he took by robbery?33 You can therefore infer from this that the reason for R. Judah's view [in our Mishnah] 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. Thereupon R. Zera said to them,34 Have I not told you that every Baraitha that was not taught in the school of text before Maim. and Tur. loc. cit.; v. D.S. a.l. can fly. excluded, v. Mishnah supra. Consequently the expression ‘a nest’, signifying any nest whatsoever, includes a nest that has but one young or one egg in it. law no longer applies. I know that even for these religious purposes it is not permitted to take the dam? the dam go. prohibition: Thou shalt not rob (Lev. XIX, 13), can after the transgression thereof be rectified by the remedial precept: He shall restore that which he took by robbery (ibid. V, 23) — the transgressor is not liable to forty stripes unless after the transgression he does not immediately (or, at the Court's bidding, v. Rashi, Mak. 15a s.v. tjhbv) fulfil the remedial precept. In our case, therefore, if the man does not let the dam go at once he has transgressed the law and is liable to stripes. Accordingly there now remains only the positive precept and this could be overridden by another positive precept were it not for the expression ‘teshallah’, v. supra. also nullified his chances of performing the remedial precept, e.g., here if he slaughtered the dam. But so long as he has not nullified the remedial precept, even though he defers it to some later date, he is not liable to stripes. the dam go for the latter still involves a positive and a negative precept; accordingly the verse stated above to exclude this is now superfluous. transgresses the law for which he incurs forty stripes (v. next Mishnah). Thereafter he is not obliged to let her go at all, but may use it for any purpose. Judah it may be used for all purposes. even if he does not let it go it cannot be said that he has transgressed this negative precept retroactively. There now remains incumbent upon him the positive precept of letting it go, but this would be overridden if he were to retain it for the fulfilment of the positive precept of the leper's offering. The verse is therefore necessary to exclude this possibility. the dam go? relationships. chances of performing the remedial act according to the other view above. V. supra p. 815, n. 8 and p. 816, n. 1, notes 5 and 6, and Mak. 15b. no longer obliged to send it away. V. p. 816, n. 3. according to R. Judah the robber incurs the penalty of stripes. teaching. Cur. edd. ‘to him’.