משנה: זִימֵּן שְׁחוֹרִים וּמָצָא לְבָנִים לְבָנִים וּמָצָא שְׁחוֹרִים שְׁנַיִם וּמָצָא שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲסוּרִין. שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמָצָא שְׁנַיִם מוּתָּרִין. בְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּן וּמָצָא לִפְנֵי הַקֵּן אֲסוּרִין. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הֵם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין: MISHNAH: If he prepared140This Mishnah is a continuation of the preceding one. If he designated certain pigeons but the ones available clearly are different, the new birds are muqṣeh. black ones and found white ones, white ones and found black ones, two and found three, they are forbidden141If he designated two and found three, if the third is not clearly distinct from the other two it is impossible to know which is available and which is not.. Three and found two, they are permitted142We argue that one left, not that all three left and two new ones took up residence there.. Inside the nest and he found outside the nest they are forbidden, but if there are no others around they are permitted143If the designated birds were chicks unable to fly and only these chicks were around, it does not matter where they are found in the neighborhood of the dovecote, even if other dovecotes are not too far away..
הלכה: [ה]: מַתְנִיתָה דְרִבִּי. דְּתַנֵּי. מָאתַיִם וּמָצָא מְנָא. [מְנָה מוּנַח] (הַמְּנָה נוּטֶָּל) [וּמְנָה מוּטָּל]. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. חוּלִין. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָאוֹמֵר לִבְנוֹ. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בְּזָוִית זוֹ. וּמָצָא בְזָוִית אַחֶרֶת. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ חוּלִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. דִּרִבִּי הִיא. דְּתַנֵּי. מָאתַיִם וּמָצָא מְנָא. [מְנָה מוּנַח] (הַמְּנָה נוּטָּל) [וּמְנָה מוּטָּל]. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. חוּלִין. חָזַר וְאָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. שַׁנְייָא בַגּוֹזָלִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִפְרוֹחַ. וְהָא תַנָּא רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בַּר שָׁאוּל. הוּא הַדָּבָר בַּגּוֹזָלִים הוּא הַדָּבָר בַּבֵּצִים. הֲוֵי דִּרִבִּי הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. תַּמָּן. אָבִיו הִנִּיחַ וּבְנוֹ מָצָא. בְּרַם הָכָא. הוּא הִנִּיחַ הוּא מָצָא. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֵן אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדְּא בְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כְּהָדָא דְרִבִּי. HALAKHAH: : The Mishnah is Rebbi’s144The statement that if three chicks are selected but only two found, that we presume that one flew away, but not that all three flew away and these are new ones., as it was stated145Tosephta Ma`aser Šeni 5:7, Babli 10b. The entire paragraph is in Ma`aser Šeni 4:9 (Notes 160–166) with the quotes changed as appropriate.: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away]146The corrector’s text is the Babli’s and the Tosephta’s; it should be deleted. The scribe’s text in parentheses is confirmed by Gand the parallel in Ma`aser Šeni., the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.147Rebbi holds that if a smaller amount is found it is the remainder of the original dedicated amount. The Sages hold that if money was set aside for Second Tithe and the exact amount was not recovered, it is different money and never dedicated. They must hold that if three chicks were selected but only two found, these are forbidden as never selected.” There, we have stated148Mishnah Ma`aser Šeni 4:12 (Note 146).: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated145Tosephta Ma`aser Šeni 5:7, Babli 10b. The entire paragraph is in Ma`aser Šeni 4:9 (Notes 160–166) with the quotes changed as appropriate.: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly149Babli 10b, as final opinion. In this opinion, the two cases are not comparable.. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs150If on the eve of the holiday he found a number of eggs and instead of taking them away he declared them food for the holiday, but then the next morning he found a different number.? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it151This would be a different reason to find the two cases not comparable.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe152While the two cases are not comparable, they follow parallel rules..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם שְׁתֵּי קִינִּים. אֲבָל אִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא קַן אֶחָד לֹא בְדָא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. אִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הֵן הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מוּתָּרִין: [אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן.] בְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא גוֹזָל אֶחָד. [קַן אַחַת שְׁחוֹרים בִּלְבַד.] Rebbi Yudan said, this153Discussion of the statement in the Mishnah that if chicks are forbidden who could not fly when designated in the dovecote and then found in front if the dovecote. is only if there were there two broods. But if only one brood is there it does not apply154If there is no probability that these may be from another place.. But did we not state, “if there are no others around they are permitted”155Is not R. Yudan’s statement that of the Mishnah?? [Rebbi Yose bar Abun said,]156The corrector’s additions in parentheses are without bases in the sources and have to be deleted. if there only is a single chick available157One might interpret the Mishnah as permitting the use only if there is only one chick and the identity is guaranteed. But following R. Yudan it is sufficient if there is only one brood, even if only part of the chicks are designated as food. Differently in the Babli 11a.. [Only one brood of black ones.]156The corrector’s additions in parentheses are without bases in the sources and have to be deleted.
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. הַמְּלָחֵם אֵת הַתְּרִיסִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב חַייָב מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. וְקַשְׁיָא. דָּבָר שֶׁאִילּוּ עֲשָׂאוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַייָב חַטָּאת. בֵּית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין אַף לְהַחֲזִיר. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִתִּירוּ סוֹפוֹ מִפְּנֵי תְחִילָּתוֹ. שֶׁאִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזִיר אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ פּוֹתֵחַ. וְלֹא יִפְתַּח. אַף הוּא מְמָעֵט בְּשִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. מַחֲזִיר. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזִיר כָּל־צוֹרְכוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם פֶּתַח. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם פֶּתַח מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּתַח. 162While this text belongs here it also is found in Šabbat 12, Notes 39–44. Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters163Greek θυρίς “shield, armor”. on the holiday is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice164Following Samuel. the House of Hillel permit to restore165On the holiday.? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the start. For if you say that he cannot put them back he will not open. Don’t let him open! Then he detracts from the enjoyment of the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely166Then the work is not professional and comparable to writing with the back of one’s hand.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door167If customers can have access to the store without the owner removing the shutters, the House of Hillel will agree that the emergency permit is not valid..