Chullin 139aחולין קל״ט א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 139a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
139aקל״ט א

בר קטלא הוא אלא דלא גמר דיניה ובעי לאתוייה לבי דינא וקיומי ביה (דברים יג, ו) ובערת הרע מקרבך

how could it be free to rest on its eggs? It is subject to being killed and should have been executed. Rather, it must be a case where its verdict was not yet issued, and one is required to bring it to the court to fulfill through it the verse: “And you shall eradicate the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:6).

הני מוקדשין היכי דמי אילימא דהוה ליה קן בתוך ביתו ואקדשיה מי מיחייב (דברים כב, ו) כי יקרא קן צפור פרט למזומן

§ With regard to the statement of the mishna that sacrificial birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of these sacrificial birds discussed in the mishna? If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where one had a nest in his house and consecrated it, is one obligated to send away even a non-sacred bird in such a case? The verse states: “If a bird’s nest happens before you on the way” (Deuteronomy 22:6), which excludes a nest readily available in one’s home.

אלא דחזא קן בעלמא ואקדשיה ומי קדוש (ויקרא כז, יד) איש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש אמר רחמנא מה ביתו ברשותו אף כל ברשותו

Rather, perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where one merely saw a nest that did not belong to him, and he consecrated it. But this, too, is problematic: Is the nest consecrated in such a case? But the Merciful One states: “When a man shall sanctify his house to be holy” (Leviticus 27:14), indicating that just as his house is in his possession when he consecrates it, so too, any item that one wishes to consecrate must be in his possession when consecrating it. If so, one cannot consecrate a nest that does not belong to him.

אלא דאגבהינהו לאפרוחים ואקדשינהו והדר הדרינהו האי אפילו בחולין נמי לא מיחייב דתנא נטל את הבנים והחזירן לקן ואח"כ חזרה האם עליהן פטור מלשלח

Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted the chicks, taking possession of them, and then consecrated them, and then returned them to the nest. But this too cannot be, as even with regard to non-sacred birds one is not obligated to send the mother away in such a case, as is taught in a mishna (141a): If one sent the mother away and took the offspring and then returned them to the nest, and thereafter, the mother returned and rested upon them, one is exempt from sending the mother bird away, because he has acquired the offspring and they are now considered readily available.

אלא דאגבהה לאם ואקדשה והדרה מעיקרא איחייב ליה בשילוח מקמי דאקדשה דתניא ר' יוחנן בן יוסף אומר הקדיש חיה ואח"כ שחטה פטור מלכסות שחטה ואח"כ הקדישה חייב לכסות שכבר נתחייב בכסוי קודם שיבא לידי הקדש

The Gemara suggests: Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted the mother, taking possession of her, and then consecrated her, and thereafter returned her to the nest. The Gemara responds that this too cannot be, because he was initially obligated in the sending away of the mother bird before he consecrated her. Consequently, the consecration of the bird afterward cannot abrogate the requirement to send it away, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Yosef says: If one consecrated an undomesticated animal and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from covering its blood, because a consecrated animal is not subject to the obligation of covering the blood. But if he slaughtered it and then consecrated it, he is obligated to cover its blood, as he was already obligated in the mitzva of covering of the blood before it came into the possession of the Temple treasury.

רב אמר במקדיש פירות שובכו ומרדו ושמואל אמר במקדיש תרנגולתו לבדק הבית

Rather, Rav says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates the fruit, i.e., the chicks, of his dovecote for sacrifice on the altar, and they later rebelled and fled from the dovecote and nested elsewhere. The mishna teaches that although such birds are not considered readily available, one is exempt from sending away the mother because they are sacrificial birds. If they were non-sacred, one who finds them would be obligated to do so. And Shmuel says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken later rebelled and fled its owner’s home and established a nest elsewhere.

בשלמא שמואל לא אמר כרב דקא מוקים לה בקדשי בדק הבית אלא רב מאי טעמא לא אמר כשמואל

The Gemara objects: Granted, Shmuel did not state his explanation of the mishna in accordance with that of Rav, since he interprets it as referring even to birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, which do not have inherent sanctity. Accordingly, the mishna teaches that all consecrated birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird. But what is the reason that Rav did not state his explanation in accordance with that of Shmuel?

אמר לך רב דוקא קפטרי משילוח כגון פירות שובכו דקדשי מזבח נינהו דכיון דקדשי קדושת הגוף לא פקעה קדושתייהו מינייהו אבל במקדיש תרנגולתו לבדק הבית דלאו קדשי מזבח דקדושת דמים בעלמא הוא כיון דמרדה פקעה קדושתייהו וחייבת בשילוח

The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: I specifically exempted one from sending the mother bird away in a case where the birds are the fruit of his dovecote, as they are consecrated for the altar. Since they are consecrated with inherent sanctity, their sanctity is not abrogated from them even when they flee from the dovecote. But in a case where one consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, where the chicken is not consecrated for the altar but merely has sanctity that inheres in its value, once it rebels its sanctity is abrogated, and it is obligated in, i.e., subject to, the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.

ושמואל אמר כל היכא דאיתיה בבי גזא דרחמנא איתא דכתיב (תהלים כד, א) לה' הארץ ומלואה וכן אמר ר' יוחנן במקדיש תרנגולתו לבדק הבית ומרדה אמר ליה רבי שמעון בן לקיש וכיון שמרדה פקעה ליה קדושתה אמר ליה בבי גזא דרחמנא איתא דכתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה

And Shmuel could have said: Though it has rebelled, the chicken retains its sanctity, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury [bei gazza] of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof” (Psalms 24:1). And so Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the mishna is referring to a case where one consecrated his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken then rebelled. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: But once it rebels, its sanctity is abrogated. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof.”

ורמי דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן ורמי דר' שמעון בן לקיש אדר"ש בן לקיש

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan here and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan elsewhere, and the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish here and that of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish elsewhere.

דאיתמר מנה זה לבדק הבית ונגנבו או נאבדו רבי יוחנן אמר חייב באחריותן עד שיבואו לידי גזבר וריש לקיש אמר כל היכא דאיתיה בבי גזא דרחמנא איתיה דכתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה קשיא דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש קשיא דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן

As it was stated: If one declares that these one hundred dinars are consecrated for Temple maintenance, and they were stolen or lost, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He bears responsibility for them until they come into the physical possession of the Temple treasurer [gizbar]. Consequently, he must pay one hundred dinars to the treasury. And Reish Lakish says: One is not required to replace the lost money, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.” Accordingly, the money is considered to have entered the possession of the treasury. If so, this statement of Reish Lakish poses a difficulty for the other statement of Reish Lakish, and this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan poses a difficulty for the other statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש לא קשיא הא מקמי דשמעיה מר' יוחנן רביה הא לבתר דשמעיה מר' יוחנן רביה

The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and that statement of Reish Lakish is not difficult. This statement, that the sanctity of a consecrated chicken that rebelled is abrogated, was made before he heard the statement from Rabbi Yoḥanan, his teacher, that wherever it is, it is in God’s treasury. That statement, that one is not liable to replace the missing consecrated funds, was made after he heard that statement from Rabbi Yoḥanan his teacher.

אלא דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן קשיא דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן נמי לא קשיא הא דאמר עלי הא דאמר הרי זו

The Gemara objects: But still, this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan poses a difficulty for that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is also not difficult. This statement, that one bears responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, is referring to a case where the consecrator said: It is incumbent upon me to bring one hundred dinars to the Temple treasury. In such a case, one bears responsibility for the money until it reaches the Temple treasurer. That statement, that a consecrated chicken that rebelled remains consecrated, is referring to a case where the consecrator said: This chicken is consecrated for Temple maintenance. In such a case, the sanctity is not abrogated even after the chicken flees, because wherever it is, it is in God’s treasury.

מכלל דר"ש בן לקיש אע"ג דאמר עלי לא מחייב

The Gemara objects: If it is so that when Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one bears financial responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, he is referring to a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me, by inference one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that one does not bear responsibility for the money, one does not bear financial responsibility even though one said: It is incumbent upon me.

והתניא איזהו נדר ואיזו היא נדבה נדר האומר הרי עלי עולה נדבה האומר הרי זו עולה ומה בין נדר לנדבה נדר מתה או נגנבה או שאבדה חייב באחריותה נדבה מתה או נגנבה או שאבדה אינו חייב באחריותה

But isn’t it taught in a mishna (Kinnim 1:1): Which is the case of a vow offering, and which is the case of a gift offering? A vow offering is where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering. A gift offering is where one says: This animal is a burnt offering. And what is the difference between a vow offering and a gift offering? With regard to a vow offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one bears financial responsibility for it. With regard to a gift offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.

אמר לך ריש לקיש הני מילי קדשי מזבח דמחוסר הקרבה אבל קדשי בדק הבית דלאו מחוסר הקרבה אע"ג דאמר עלי לא מחייב

The Gemara responds that Reish Lakish could have said to you: This statement, that one who says: It is incumbent upon me, bears financial responsibility, applies only to an item consecrated for the altar, since one vowed to sacrifice it as an offering and it has not yet been sacrificed. But with regard to an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which is not lacking sacrifice on the altar, even though one said: It is incumbent upon me, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.

והתנן האומר שור זה עולה בית זה קרבן מת השור נפל הבית אינו חייב באחריותן שור זה עלי עולה בית זה עלי קרבן מת השור ונפל הבית חייב לשלם

The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Arakhin 20b) that in the case of one who says: This bull is consecrated as a burnt offering, or: This house is consecrated as an offering, and the bull died or the house collapsed, he does not bear financial responsibility for them; but in the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to give this bull as a burnt offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to give this house as an offering, if the bull died or the house collapsed, he is obligated to pay its value? Evidently, even with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, if one says: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for them.

ה"מ היכא דמת השור ונפל הבית חייב לשלם דליתנהו אבל היכא דאיתנהו כל היכא דאיתיה בבי גזא דרחמנא איתיה דכתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה

The Gemara responds: With regard to this statement, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to give an item for Temple maintenance, he bears financial responsibility, that applies only where the bull died or the house collapsed. In such a case he is obligated to pay, since they no longer exist. But where they still exist, e.g., in the case of an item or sum of money that was lost or stolen, one applies the principle: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof.”

אמר רב המנונא הכל מודים בערכין אע"ג דאמר עלי לא מיחייב מאי טעמא דלא מיתמר ליה בלא עלי

§ The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish as to the halakha about one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an item for Temple maintenance. With regard to this dispute, Rav Hamnuna says: Everyone concedes with regard to valuations that even if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my own valuation, and one set aside money that was then lost or stolen, one does not bear financial responsibility for it. What is the reason for this? It is because it cannot be stated by him without stating: Upon me. In other words, one cannot say: This is my valuation, since he has yet to accept upon himself any such obligation.

היכי לימא לימא ערכי אמאן לימא ערך פלוני אמאן

Therefore, although one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, this is not considered an acceptance of financial responsibility. After all, how shall he say it without stating: It is incumbent upon me? Shall he say only: My own valuation, without: Is incumbent upon me? If so, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay the money? Or shall he say only: The valuation of so-and-so? Still, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay the money?

מתקיף לה רבא לימא הריני בערכי הריני בערך פלוני ועוד תניא רבי נתן אומר (ויקרא כז, כג) ונתן את הערכך ביום ההוא קדש לה' מה תלמוד לומר לפי שמצינו בהקדשות ומעשרות שמתחללין על מעות שבחולין נגנבו או שאבדו אינן חייבין באחריותן

Rava objects to this: Let him say: I am encumbered with my own valuation, or: I am encumbered with the valuation of so-and-so. One need not say: Is incumbent upon me. Additionally, it is taught in a baraita with regard to the redemption of a purchased field that was consecrated that Rabbi Natan says about the verse: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year, and he shall give your valuation on that day, as a consecrated thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23): Why must the verse state: “And he shall give your valuation”? It could have stated simply: And he shall give it. It is necessary because we have found with regard to consecrated property and tithes that they can be desacralized by transferring their sanctity onto non-sacred money, and that if that money was stolen or lost, the owners do not bear financial responsibility for it.