Daf 139 — Chullin 139 Summary

Chullin 139 – Good Morning Raboisai The Perek of Shiluach HaKen Shiluach HaKen Applies Everywhere The new Mishnah teaches: Shiluach HaKen applies: • In Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La’Aretz. • With or without the Beis Hamikdash. • To Chullin birds, but not Mukdashim. Unlike some land - related Mitzvos: • Shiluach HaKen is an obligation on the person and is not dependent on Eretz Yisrael. Shiluach HaKen Must Be “Eino Mezuman” A major condition of Shiluach HaKen is: • The nest must not be prepared and readily available to you. It must be something: • You happen upon. Therefore, birds that are permanently yours and nesting in your house are generally: • Patur from Shiluach HaKen. But birds which escaped and are no longer under your control can become: • Eino Mezuman. Kisui HaDam vs Shiluach HaKen Kisui HaDam Is Broader The Mishnah compares Shiluach HaKen to Kisui HaDam. Kisui HaDam applies: • To a Chayah and a bird. • Whether Mezuman or Eino Mezuman. Shiluach HaKen is narrower: • Only birds. • Only Eino Mezuman. Birds in an Orchard vs House If birds escaped and later made a nest: • In an orchard – they may qualify for Shiluach HaKen. But birds nesting: • In one's house or certain pigeons which regularly return to their established home: • Are considered Mezuman and are Patur. Kosher Birds and Eggs The Mother and Young Must Qualify Shiluach HaKen does not apply to: • A non - kosher bird. If: • A non - kosher bird is sitting on kosher eggs or: • A kosher bird is sitting on non - kosher eggs there is no Shiluach HaKen. The Korei The Mishnah discusses the Korei – described in the transcript as a partridge. Other birds may: • Lay their eggs in its nest and the Korei will sit on them. If a female Korei is sitting on the eggs: • Shiluach HaKen can apply. If it is a male: • Rebbe Eliezer says Chayav. • The Chachamim say Patur. Why Do All These Mishnayos Use the Same Wording? The Familiar Opening Several recent Perakim use virtually the same language: • Applies in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La’Aretz. • Before and after the Beis Hamikdash. • Chullin and Mukdashim. This wording appeared regarding: • Gid HaNasheh • Kisui HaDam • Oso V’Es Beno • Reishis HaGez • Shiluach HaKen. The Gemara explains: • Not every phrase is necessary in every Mishnah. Once the Tanna uses this structure: • It is repeated consistently. Where the Wording Is Necessary For Reishis HaGez, saying: • Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La’Aretz is important because: • Rebbe Ilai holds Reishis HaGez applies only in Eretz Yisrael. For Oso V’Es Beno, saying it applies: • Even without the Beis Hamikdash is important because its Pesukim appear: • In the context of Korbanos. The Mishnah teaches: • It is not limited to Korbanos. Gid HaNasheh of Mukdashim By Gid HaNasheh it seems obvious: Making an animal Hekdesh should not remove: • The Issur of Gid HaNasheh. But there can be a case where: • The mother was already Hekdesh while pregnant • And the Gid developed only afterward. The Mishnah teaches that: • Gid HaNasheh still applies. The broader point remains: • Some phrases are essential in one Mishnah and repeated in the others for consistency. Why Is Hekdesh Exempt From Shiluach HaKen? “Shale’ach Teshalach” The Mishnah says Shiluach HaKen does not apply to: • Mukdashim. The Gemara discusses the source from: • Shale’ach Teshalach. There are situations where another Torah obligation takes priority and: • You do not perform Shiluach HaKen. A Bird That Killed a Person One example discussed is: • A bird that killed a person. Such a bird may be subject to: • U’viarta HaRa MiKirbecha – removing the evil. Therefore, instead of sending it away: • The required Din must be carried out. How Did the Bird Become Hekdesh? The Basic Problem The Gemara now asks a fundamental question: How can we have a case of: • Hekdesh requiring an exemption from Shiluach HaKen? If the nest was already: • Yours then it was Mezuman and there was never a Chiyuv of Shiluach HaKen. If it was: • Not yours how could you make it Hekdesh? A person cannot normally be Makdish: • Something that is not his. Picking Up the Young Doesn't Work Perhaps he found a nest, picked up the young: • Made them Hekdesh • Returned them • And the mother came back. But once he acquired them: • The nest became Mezuman. Therefore: • There would be no Shiluach HaKen even without the Hekdesh. Making the Mother Hekdesh Perhaps he picked up: • The mother made her Hekdesh and then: • She returned to the nest. But the Chiyuv of Shiluach HaKen had already existed: • Before the Hekdesh. Why should the later Hekdesh remove: • An existing Mitzvah? Proof From Kisui HaDam A similar rule exists by Kisui HaDam. If someone shechts a Chayah: • The Chiyuv to cover the blood immediately takes effect. If he then makes the blood Hekdesh: • The existing Chiyuv does not disappear. So too: • A pre - existing Chiyuv of Shiluach HaKen should not simply disappear through Hekdesh. Rav's Answer – The Birds Rebelled Hekdesh Birds That Flew Away Rav establishes the case as follows: A person owned birds and made them: • Hekdesh for the Mizbe’ach. Later: • They rebelled and flew away. Normally, once birds escape and are no longer controlled: • They can become Eino Mezuman. However: • Their Kedushas HaGuf remains. Therefore, when they are later found: • Shiluach HaKen does not apply because they are still Hekdesh. Shmuel – Kedushas Damim Even Bedek HaBayis Shmuel gives a similar case, but with: • Kedushas Damim. The bird was dedicated for: • Bedek HaBayis rather than as an actual Korban. It then: • Flew away. According to Shmuel: • The Kedushah remains. Therefore: • Shiluach HaKen still does not apply. Does Kedushas Damim Disappear? Rav vs Shmuel Rav distinguishes between: • Kedushas HaGuf • Kedushas Damim. Kedushas HaGuf: • Does not disappear merely because the animal escapes. But Kedushas Damim is weaker, and Rav holds that when the bird rebels and escapes: • Its Kedushah can fall away. Shmuel disagrees: • Even Kedushas Damim remains. “LaHashem HaAretz U’Melo’ah” Shmuel's reasoning: The bird may have disappeared: • From you. But it has not disappeared: • From Hashem. Wherever it is in the world: • It remains within Hashem's domain. Therefore: • Its Kedushah remains. Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish Lost Hekdesh Money The Gemara brings a parallel Machlokes involving: • Money designated for Bedek HaBayis which was then: • Lost or stolen. The question is whether the donor must: • Replace the money. This seems to contradict positions attributed to: • Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish about whether lost Hekdesh is still considered: • Present in Hashem's possession. Reish Lakish Retracted The contradiction in Reish Lakish is resolved: He later heard the principle from: • Rebbe Yochanan that wherever the Hekdesh is: • It remains in Hashem's domain. Reish Lakish therefore: • Retracted his earlier position. Neder vs Nedavah “Alai” vs “Zu” To understand Rebbe Yochanan, the Gemara distinguishes between: • Neder • Nedavah. If someone says: • Harei Alai Olah – it is upon me to bring an Olah the obligation rests: • Personally upon him. If that animal is lost: • He must replace it. But if he says: • Harei Zu Olah – this animal is an Olah the obligation is attached specifically to: • That animal. If it is lost or dies: • He does not necessarily have to replace it. Bedek HaBayis Is Different The Gemara explores whether this distinction works the same way for: • Kedushas Damim and Bedek HaBayis. With a Korban: • “Alai” means he undertook to actually bring the Korban. But with monetary Hekdesh: • He has already designated the particular property. If that property still exists somewhere: • It may still belong to Hekdesh. If the Property Is Destroyed The Gemara discusses someone who dedicates: • An ox • Or a house. If the designated item is merely: • Lost it may still exist somewhere in the world. But if: • The ox dies • Or the house collapses and loses its value then the designated property: • No longer exists in a meaningful form. That can create: • A replacement obligation. Erchin A New Comparison Rav Huna discusses: • Erchin. A person can pledge the Torah - fixed value of: • Himself • Or another person. The amount depends on: • Age • And whether the person is male or female. Once the money is designated: • What happens if it is lost? Is “Alai” Necessary? The Gemara initially suggests: Perhaps Erchin is different because one says: • Erki Alai – my value is upon me. But the Gemara challenges this: One could phrase the commitment without: • Explicitly saying Alai. Therefore: • The wording alone cannot explain the liability. Maaser Sheni Redeeming Maaser Sheni The Gemara compares this to: • Maaser Sheni. A person who cannot easily bring his Maaser Sheni produce to Yerushalayim may: • Redeem it onto money. The Kedushah transfers: • From the produce to the money. He then brings the money to Yerushalayim and uses it for: • Food eaten there with Kedushas Maaser Sheni. Lost Maaser Sheni Money If the Maaser Sheni money is: • Lost or stolen the owner does not simply have: • The same personal replacement obligation. This appears to support the idea that designated Kedushah money: • Can be different from a personal Neder. But Erchin ultimately has: • A special rule. Erchin Remains the Person's Responsibility The Gemara concludes: By Erchin: • Everyone agrees the person remains responsible. Why? Because the Torah teaches that the obligation remains on him: • Until the money reaches the Gizbar – the treasurer of Hekdesh. Therefore, if the Erchin money is lost before reaching the Gizbar: • He must replace it. Key Chazarah • Shiluach HaKen applies in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La’Aretz and even without the Beis Hamikdash. • It applies only to Eino Mezuman – a nest that is not already prepared and under one's control. • Kisui HaDam is broader: it applies to Chayah and birds and to both Mezuman and Eino Mezuman. • Shiluach HaKen applies only to qualifying kosher birds and young. • Rebbe Eliezer and the Chachamim disagree regarding a male Korei sitting on eggs. • The repeated wording across the recent Mishnayos is sometimes necessary in one Perek and repeated in the others for consistency. • The Gemara asks how a Shiluach HaKen bird could ever become Hekdesh without already becoming Mezuman. • Rav's case is birds with Kedushas HaGuf that escaped; their Kedushah remains. • Shmuel says even Kedushas Damim remains after the bird escapes. • The principle is that although the object is lost to you, it is still somewhere in Hashem's world. • A Neder of “Alai” creates personal responsibility; a Nedavah of “Zu” attaches the obligation to the particular object. • The Gemara applies these ideas to lost Hekdesh money, an ox or house dedicated to Hekdesh, and Maaser Sheni. • By Erchin, the person remains responsible until the money actually reaches the Gizbar. Catch up, review, download previous Dafim & more: https://www.dafchazarah.co.uk Now available as an app (Apple, Google & Amazon): https://dafchazarah.co.uk/download Sponsor a day: https://dafchazarah.co.uk/sponsor לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רות בת הרב מנחם מנדל