יכול אף זה כן ת"ל ונתן את הערכך וגו' חולין עד שיבאו לידי גזבר
One might have thought that with regard to this valuation too, the halakha should be so, i.e., if money from a valuation is stolen or lost, the owner does not bear financial responsibility for it. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall give your valuation on that day,” indicating that the valuation money is non-sacred until it enters the possession of the Temple treasurer, and that the owner bears responsibility for it until that time. Evidently, even with regard to valuations, the consecrator bears financial responsibility, in contradiction to the statement of Rav Hamnuna.
אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב המנונא הכל מודים בערכין דאע"ג דלא אמר עלי מיחייב דכתיב (ויקרא כז, כג) ונתן את הערכך חולין הן בידך עד שיבאו לידי גזבר:
Rather, if a statement was stated, this is what was stated: Rav Hamnuna says that everyone concedes with regard to valuations that even if one did not say: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for it, as it is written: “And he shall give your valuation,” indicating that the valuation money is non-sacred until it enters the possession of the Temple treasurer.
חומר בכסוי וכו': תנו רבנן (דברים כב, ו) כי יקרא קן צפור לפניך מה ת"ל
§ The mishna states: There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother from the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals and birds that are readily available in one’s home, and to animals and birds that are not readily available; and the sending of the mother from the nest applies only to birds that are not readily available. With regard to the mitzva of sending away the mother, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “If a bird’s nest happens before you on the way, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, and the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall send the mother, but the young you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). What is the meaning when the verse states all the various details contained in it?
לפי שנאמר (דברים כב, ז) שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך יכול יחזור בהרים וגבעות כדי שימצא קן ת"ל כי יקרא במאורע לפניך
Since it is stated: “You shall send [shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ] the mother, but the young you may take for yourself,” one might have thought that the doubled verb “shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ” indicates that one must search even in the mountains and hills in order to find a nest with which to perform this mitzva. Therefore, the verse states: “If a bird’s nest happens,” indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother only when it confronts you; one is not required to seek out a nest.
קן מ"מ צפור טהורה ולא טמאה לפניך ברשות היחיד בדרך ברשות הרבים באילנות מנין ת"ל בכל עץ בבורות שיחין ומערות מנין ת"ל או על הארץ
The baraita continues: The word “nest” indicates that this mitzva applies in any case, even to a nest with only a single chick or egg. The word “bird’s” indicates that the mitzva applies only to kosher birds, and not to non-kosher birds. The term “before you” indicates that the mitzva applies to a nest that is on private property, e.g., an unguarded orchard or field, such that the owner’s property does not acquire the nest for him. The term “on the way” indicates that the mitzva also applies to a nest found in a public thoroughfare. From where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to nests found in trees? The verse states: “In any tree.” And with regard to nests found in pits, ditches, and caves, from where is it derived that the mitzva also applies to them? The verse states: “Or on the ground,” indicating that the mitzva applies to a nest on any type of ground.
וכי מאחר שסופנו לרבות כל דבר לפניך בדרך למה לי לומר לך מה דרך שאין קנו בידך אף כל שאין קנו בידך מכאן אמרו יוני שובך ויוני עלייה שקננו בטפיחין ובבירות ואווזין ותרנגולין שקננו בפרדס חייב בשילוח אבל קננו בתוך הבית וכן יוני הרדסיאות פטור משילוח
The baraita continues: And since, in the end, we will include everything, i.e., every location of the nest, from the verse: “In any tree or on the ground,” why do I need the earlier statement: “Before you on the way”? It is to say to you: Just as a nest on the way is a case in which the bird’s nest is not in your possession and is not readily available for you, so too, with regard to all other cases, one is obligated only when its nest is not in your possession. From here the Sages stated: With regard to pigeons of a dovecote or pigeons of an attic that nested in small wall niches or in buildings, and geese or chickens that nested in an orchard, one is obligated in the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, because such birds are not in one’s possession. But with regard to birds that nested inside the house, and likewise with regard to domesticated pigeons, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending the mother bird away.
אמר מר מה דרך שאין קנו בידך אף כל שאין קנו בידך הא למה לי מכי יקרא נפקא כי יקרא פרט למזומן ועוד לפניך למה לי
§ The Gemara analyzes the above baraita: The Master said: Just as a nest on the way is a case in which the bird’s nest is not in your possession, so too, with regard to all other cases, one is obligated only when its nest is not in your possession. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this derivation? It may be derived from: “If a bird’s nest happens,” as it is taught: “If a bird’s nest happens” excludes a nest that is readily available. And furthermore, why do I need the term “before you” to include even a nest found on private property? It is already derived from the verse: “In any tree or on the ground.”
אלא לפניך לאתויי שהיו לפניך ומרדו בדרך כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מצא קן בים חייב בשילוח שנאמר (ישעיהו מג, טז) כה אמר ה' הנותן בים דרך וגו'
Rather, the term “before you” is necessary to include a case where the birds were before you, i.e., they had an owner and were readily available to him, and they then rebelled and fled and nested elsewhere. “On the way” is necessary for that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one found a nest in the sea, e.g., in a case where a tree was washed out to sea with a nest in its branches, one is obligated in the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, as it is stated: “So said the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters” (Isaiah 43:16). The term “way” applies even to the sea.
אלא מעתה מצא קן בשמים דכתיב (משלי ל, יט) דרך נשר בשמים הכי נמי דמיחייב בשילוח הקן דרך נשר איקרי דרך סתמא לא איקרי
The Gemara challenges: If that is so, then if one found a nest in the sky, e.g., in a case where a bird carries the nest as it flies, about which it is written: “The way of an eagle in the sky” (Proverbs 30:19), one should also be obligated in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest. The Gemara responds: The sky is called “the way of an eagle,” but it is not called: A way, in an unspecified manner. The sea, by contrast, is referred to simply as: A way.
אמרי ליה פפונאי לרב מתנה מצא קן בראשו של אדם מהו אמר (שמואל ב טו, לב) ואדמה על ראשו משה מן התורה מנין (בראשית ו, ג) בשגם הוא בשר
§ The residents of Pappunya said to Rav Mattana: If one found a nest on the head of a person, what is the halakha with regard to the mitzva of sending away the mother? Is the nest considered to be on the ground, such that one is obligated in the mitzva? Rav Mattana said to them that one is obligated in the mitzva in such a case because the verse states: “And earth upon his head” (II Samuel 15:32), rather than: Dirt upon his head, indicating that one’s head is considered like the ground. They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah is the existence of Moses [Moshe] alluded to before his birth? He replied that the verse states: “For that he also [beshaggam] is flesh; therefore shall his days be one hundred and twenty years” (Genesis 6:3). The numerical value of beshaggam is the same as that of the Hebrew name Moshe, and it is known that Moses lived a total of 120 years (see Deuteronomy 34:7).
המן מן התורה מנין (בראשית ג, יא) המן העץ
They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the hanging of Haman? He replied: The verse states after Adam ate from the tree of knowledge: “Have you eaten of [hamin] the tree, about which I commanded you that you should not eat?” (Genesis 3:11). Hamin is spelled in the same manner as Haman: Heh, mem, nun.
אסתר מן התורה מנין (דברים לא, יח) ואנכי הסתר אסתיר מרדכי מן התורה מנין דכתיב (שמות ל, כג) מר דרור ומתרגמינן מירא דכיא:
They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the events involving Esther? He replied to them that the verse states: “Then My anger shall be kindled against them on that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day: Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us? And I will hide [haster astir] My face on that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned to other gods” (Deuteronomy 31:17–18). They also asked him: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the greatness bestowed upon Mordecai? He replied: As it is written with regard to the anointing oil in the Tabernacle: “And you shall also take the chief spices, of flowing myrrh [mor deror]” (Exodus 30:23); and we translate mor deror into Aramaic as: Mira dakhya, which resembles the name Mordecai.
ואיזהו שאינו מזומן וכו': ר' חייא ור' שמעון חד תני הדרסיאות וחד תני הרדסיאות מאן דתני הרדסיאות על שם הורדוס ומאן דתני הדרסיאות על שם מקומן
§ The mishna states: And which are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard. But if the geese or chickens nested in the house, one is exempt from sending them away, and likewise with regard to domesticated pigeons. The Gemara relates: With regard to the correct name of the domesticated pigeons referred to in the mishna, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon disagree. One teaches that the correct name is yonei hadrisei’ot, and the other one teaches that the correct name is yonei hardisei’ot. According to the one who teaches that the correct name is yonei hardisei’ot, they are called so on account of King Herod, who was involved in breeding these pigeons; and according to the one who teaches that the correct name is yonei hadrisei’ot, they are called so on account of their location.
אמר רב כהנא לדידי חזיין וקיימן שיתסר דרי בפתי מילא והוה קרא קירי קירי הוה חד מינייהו דלא הוה קרי קירי קירי אמרה לה חברתה סומא אמרי קירי קירי אמרה סומא אמרי קירי בירי אתיוה ושחטוה
Rav Kahana said: I myself saw these pigeons, and they were standing in sixteen rows, each a mil wide, and they were calling out: My master, my master. There was one of them who was not calling out: My master, my master. Another one said to it: Blind one, i.e., fool, say: My master, my master, so that you will not be punished for refusing to acknowledge the authority of the king. The pigeon said in response: Blind one, you should say: My master, my slave, as Herod is not a king but a slave. They brought that pigeon to a slaughterhouse and slaughtered it for speaking against the king.
א"ר אשי אמר לי [ר'] חנינא מילין מילין ס"ד אלא אימא במילין:
Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Ḥanina said to me: This story is no more than mere words, as no such incident took place. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that Rabbi Ḥanina dismisses as mere words an incident reported by Rav Kahana? Rather, say that Rabbi Ḥanina said that those pigeons acted as described above through words of witchcraft.
עוף טמא פטור מלשלח: מנה"מ א"ר יצחק דאמר קרא כי יקרא קן צפור לפניך עוף משמע לן בין טהור בין טמא צפור טהור אשכחן דאיקרי צפור טמא לא אשכחן דאיקרי צפור
§ The mishna states: If one encounters a nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: As the verse states: “If a bird’s [tzippor] nest happens before you” (Deuteronomy 22:6), and not: If a bird’s [of ] nest happens before you. The word of indicates to us that all birds are included, whether kosher or non-kosher. But with regard to the word tzippor, we have found that a kosher bird is called a tzippor, but we have not found that a non-kosher bird is called a tzippor.
תא שמע (דברים ד, יז) תבנית כל צפור כנף מאי לאו צפור בין טהור בין טמא כנף חגבים לא צפור טהור כנף טמא וחגבים
The Gemara attempts to reject the above assertion: Come and hear that which is stated in the verse with regard to the prohibition against fashioning idols: “The likeness of any winged bird [tzippor]” (Deuteronomy 4:17). What, is it not that the word “tzippor” is referring to any bird, whether kosher or non-kosher, and the word “winged” adds the likeness of grasshoppers to the prohibition? If so, we have found that a non-kosher bird is called a tzippor. The Gemara rejects this: No, the word “tzippor” means a kosher bird, while the word “winged” is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.
ת"ש (תהלים קמח, י) החיה וכל בהמה רמש וצפור כנף מאי לאו צפור בין טהור בין טמא וכנף חגבים לא צפור טהור כנף טמא וחגבים
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage describing how all of creation praises God: “The undomesticated animal and all domesticated animals, creeping things and winged birds [tzippor]” (Psalms 148:10). What, is it not that the word “tzippor” is referring to all birds, whether kosher or non-kosher, and the word “winged” is referring to grasshoppers? The Gemara rejects this: No, the word “tzippor” means a kosher bird, while the word “winged” is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.
תא שמע (בראשית ז, יד) כל צפור כל כנף מאי לאו כדמקשינן לא כדמשנינן
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the verse about the animals that entered Noah’s ark: “Every bird [tzippor] of every type of wing” (Genesis 7:14). What, is it not the same difficulty that we posed previously, that the word “tzippor” is referring to all birds, kosher and non-kosher, and the word “wing” is referring to grasshoppers? The Gemara rejects this as well: No, it is actually as we resolved it, that the word “tzippor” is referring only to kosher birds, and the word “wing” is referring to non-kosher birds and to grasshoppers.
תא שמע (יחזקאל לט, א) ואתה בן אדם אמור לצפור כל כנף מאי לאו כדאקשינן לא כדשנינן
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is stated in the passage describing the war of Gog and Magog: “And you, son of man, so said the Lord God: Speak to the birds [tzippor] of every type of wing, and to every animal of the field: Assemble yourselves, and come” (Ezekiel 39:17). What, is it not the same difficulty that we posed previously? The Gemara responds: No, it is actually as we resolved it.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which is