ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 139
CHULIN 137-140 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dapim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Aval Lo be'Mukdashin'. The problem with that,
assuming that the nest is ...
1. ... in one's house is - that it would then be 'prepared', and a
'prepared' nest is not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein.
(b) Neither can we establish the case where he picked up ...
2. ... outside is - that, based on the Pasuk "ve'Ish ki Yakdish es Beiso
Kodesh" ('Mah Beiso bi'Reshuso ... '), seeing as he does not yet have the
birds in his possession, Hekdesh will not take effect.
1. ... the baby birds outside his property, and after declaring them
Hekdesh, he returned them to the nest - because in such a case, even if he
had not declared them, there would be no obligation to send away the mother
bird, as we learned in a Beraisa.
(c) ... as Rebbi Yochanan ben Yosef rules with regard to Kisuy ha'Dam, in a
case where someone Shechted a Chayah and then declared it Hekdesh.
2. ... the mother, and after declaring it Hekdesh, he returned it to its
nest - he would be Chayav, since the obligation to send away the mother bird
preceded the declaration of Hekdesh ...
(d) Someone who Shechts a Chayah belonging to Hekdesh - is Patur from
covering its blood - because it is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah (since it
is not fit to eat).
(a) Rav establishes the case by 'Makdish Peiros Shovcho u'Mardu' - meaning
that he declared the young doves in a nest in his domain, Olos Nedavah, and
later, after they 'rebelled' and made a new nest outside his domain, he came
across them again and wished to take them to bring on the Mizbe'ach. If they
were Chulin, there would be no reason to exempt them from Shilu'ach ha'Kein
(b) And the reason that Rav said specifically 'Peiros Shovcho' (and not just
'Shovcho') is - because it is only young doves that are fit to go on the
(c) Shmuel establishes the case - like Rav, only by chickens of Kodshei
Bedek ha'Bayis that rebelled.
(d) Shmuel basically agrees with Rav and does not learn like him, in order
to teach us that even Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are Patur from Shilu'ach
ha'Kein. But Rav declines to learn like Shmuel - because in his opinion, the
moment the Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis birds fly away, they lose their Kedushah.
(a) Whereas Shmuel holds - that Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis, like Kedushas
Mizbe'ach, remains intact wherever it is ('Kol Heicha de'Isa, Bei Gaza
de'Rachmana Isa'), as the Pasuk writes "la'Hashem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah".
(b) Rebbi Yochanan established the Mishnah like Shmuel. Resh Lakish asked
him - why, once the birds fly away, they doe not lose their Kedushah?
(c) To which he replied - with the principle 'Kol Heicha de'Isa, Bei Gaza
(a) In a case where someone declares a Manah, Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, and it
is subsequently stolen, Rebbi Yochanan considers the owner liable until it
reaches the hand of the treasurer. Resh Lakish maintains that he is Patur -
because 'Kol Heicha de'Isa, Bei Gaza de'Rachmana Isa'.
(b) The problem is - that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish seem to have
switched their opinions.
(c) We answer that Resh Lakish retracted after hearing Rebbi Yochanan's
previous ruling - whereas Rebbi Yochanan (who spoke in the previous case
about where the owner said 'Harei Zu') agrees here, where he said 'Harei
Alai', that he is liable.
(a) Discussing Kodshei Mizbe'ach, the Beraisa defines a Neder - as 'Harei
Alai' (where he remains responsible to keep his word should the animal get
lost) and a Nedavah - as 'Harei Zu' (where he does not).
(b) Resh Lakish nevertheless disputes Rebbi Yochanan's ruling in the
previous case (where the latter obligates someone who declared 'Harei Alai
Manah le'Bedek ha'Bayis' to pay, if the money is stolen) - because he
confines the Beraisa's ruling to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which lack 'Hakravah' on
the Mizbe'ach, but Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are in Hekdesh's storehouse
wherever they are (even if the owner said 'Harei Alai').
(c) The Mishnah in Erchin rules that if someone declares an ox an Olah, and
a house, a Korban (to Bedek ha'Bayis) should the ox die or the house fall
down, assuming he said ...
1. ... 'Shor Zeh Olah, Bayis Zeh Korban' - he is not obligated to replace
(d) According to Resh Lakish, who holds that 'Harei Alai' is Patur even by
Bedek ha'Bayis - that is only because the object is still in existence (and
the S'vara 'Kol Heicha de'Isa ... ' is applicable), but not in this Mishnah,
where the house has fallen down.
2. ... 'Shor Zeh Alai Olah, Bayis Zeh Alai Korban' - he is obligated.
(a) Rav Hamnuna rules that if someone declares Hekdesh Erchin using the word
'Alai', and the money that he subsequently designates is stolen - he is
(b) ... seeing as he had no option but to use the word 'Alai' (which can
therefore no longer serve as an obligatory clause), because if he said
'Erchi' or 'Erko shel P'loni' we would not know whom he is obligating.
(c) Rava queries Rav Hamnuna's statement factually - since he could have
said 'Hareini be'Erchi' or 'Hareini be'Erech P'loni'.
(d) He also queries him from Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa, who discusses the
Pasuk "Ve'nasan es ha'Erk'cha ba'Yom ha'Hu" - which is written in connection
with the redemption of a purchased field, which the purchaser declared
(a) The Tana states that if one redeemed Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheini on
Chulin money - they are redeemed even if the money got lost ...
(b) ... because the Torah (which writes "Veyasaf Chamishis Kesef Erk'cha
Alav Vehayah Lo") does not use a Lashon of Nesinah.
(c) Rebbi Nasan now learns from the above Pasuk - which writes "Ve'nasan"
that one remains responsible for Erchin, should the money get lost.
(d) Based on Rebbi Nasan's Beraisa, Rava presents Rav Hamnuna's revised
statement as - 'ha'Kol Modim be'Erchin de'Af-al-Gav de'Lo Amar "Alai,
(a) The Beraisa discusses the Pasuk "Ki Yikarei Kan Tzipor Lefanecha".
Following the Pasuk "*Shale'ach Teshalach* es ha'Eim ... ", the Pasuk needs
to write "Ki Yikarei Kan Tzipor ... " to teach us - that it is not necessary
to search the hills and the mountains for a bird's nest in order to fulfill
(b) And the Tana learns from the word ...
1. ... "Kan" - that one is Chayav even if the nest contains only one egg or
(c) The Tana learns that the Mitzvah applies even if the nest is in a tree -
from the Pasuk "be'Chol Eitz".
2. ... "Tzipor" - that the Mitzvah is confined to Tahor birds.
3. ... "Lefanecha" - that it applies to a nest that one finds in the Reshus
4. ... "ba'Darech" - that it applies also to a nest in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(d) And the Torah adds "O al ha'Aretz" - to teach us that it also applies to
nests that one finds in pits, ditches and trenches.
(a) The Tana then retracts from its D'rashah "ba'Derech" (seeing as the
Pasuk anyway includes wherever the nest is found), and precludes instead - a
nest that the finder has acquired.
(b) Included in a nest that he has not acquired are doves in a dove-cot,
doves in an attic and 'Tziporin she'Kanenu be'Tafichim u'va'Biros'.
'Tziporim she'Kanenu ...
1. ... be'Tafichin are - birds that nested inside earthenware pots that one
placed in a wall for that purpose.
(c) Geese and chickens are subject to Shilu'ach - when they nest in an
orchard, but not when they nest in one's house.
2. ... ba'Biros' are - birds which nested in mansions in the town.
(d) The Tana - exempts Yonei Hardesiyos (which will be discussed later) from
(a) We refute this Limud too however, on the grounds that we already know it
all from "Ki Yikarei", 'P'rat li'Mezuman'. And we finally use "ba'Darech"
to teach us the D'rashah of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav. Based on the Pasuk in
Yeshayah "Koh Amar Hashem, ha'Nosen ba'Yam Derech", Rav Yehudah Amar Rav
learns from "ba'Darech" - that a birds' nest in the sea is subject to
(b) And seeing as we already know the Din of Reshus ha'Yachid from the
above, we learn from "Lefanecha" - that a bird that one acquired but that
sub subsequently rebels, is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein too.
(c) In spite of the D'rashah from "ba'Darech", we cannot learn from the
Pasuk "Derech Nesher ba'Shamayim", that a birds' nest that a bird is
carrying in the sky is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein - because we can only
prove from there that the sky is called the 'Derech' of an eagle, but not
that it is called 'Derech' S'tam.
(a) The Papunai asked Rav Masna for a number of sources. From the Pasuk
"va'Adamah al Rosho" - he proved that a bird's nest that is placed on
somebody's head is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein.
(b) He cited them a Pasuk just before the great flood "be'sha'Gam Hu Basar",
which hints at Moshe Rabeinu - a. because the word "be'sha'Gam" itself has
the same numerical value as 'Moshe', and b. because the Pasuk continues "and
his days will number a hundred and twenty years".
(c) He cited the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ha'Min ha'Eitz ... " - as a hint to Haman, who was hanged from a
2. ... "ve'Anochi Hastir Astir Panai" - as a hint to Esther, during whose
reign Hashem (initially) hid His Face from Yisrael.
3. ... "Mar D'ror" - as a hint to Mordechai, as Unklus' translation "Mari
Dichi" (which spells 'Mordechai') indicates (particularly as Tzadikim are
compared to spices, and this is the 'head of the spices', just as Mordechai
was head of the Anshei K'neses ha'Gedolah).
(a) Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon (b'Rebbi?) argue over whether 'Yonei
Hardesiyos' (which the Beraisa exempts from Shilu'ach ha'Kein) is spelt like
that or as 'Yonei Hadresiyos. 'Yonei ...
1. ... Hadresiyos' are - doves from a place called 'Hadras'.
(b) Rav Kahana saw the remains of Hurdus dove-nests - of which there were
sixteen, each a Mil (approximately one Kilometer) long.
2. ... Hardesiyos are - the doves belonging to the nests of Hurdus (who was
the first to rear nests of homing pigeons).
(c) All the doves chirped 'Kiri Kiri' - meaning 'Master Master' (describing
King Herod), except for one.
(a) When its friend said to it 'Blind one; say Kiri Kiri' (like us), the
silent dove began to chirp - 'Blind one, say "Chiri Biri" (meaning slave,
which is what Herod was).
(b) They took the poor dove - and Shechted it.
(c) Despite the fact that, as Rebbi Chanina commented to Rav Ashi, birds
cannot speak, Rav Kahana nevertheless testified that he heard it - because
these birds were made to speak by means of Kishuf (black-magic).
(a) The Beraisa precludes Tamei birds from Shilu'ach ha'Kein from the Pasuk
"Kan Tzipor". Rebbi Yitzchak explains - that 'Of' can refer to either a
Tahor bird or a Tamei one, whereas 'Tzipor' refers only to a Tahor one.
(b) We take for granted that that the Pasuk (in connection with the Isur of
Avodah-Zarah) "Tavnis Kol Tzipor Kanaf" incorporates Tamei birds. "Kanaf"
certainly comes to include grasshoppers in the Isur, and according to Rebbi
Yitzchak - it incorporates Tamei birds too ...
(c) ... and the same applies to the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ha'Chayah ve'Chol Beheimah, Remes ve'Chol Tzipor Kanaf ... Yehalelu
es Shem Hashem ... ", and to that of ...
(d) As for the Pasuk "u've'Anpohi Yeduran Tziprei Shemaya" (where 'Kanaf' is
not mentioned) - Rebbi Yitzchak will agree that Tziprei Shemaya includes
Tamei birds, as well.
2. ... "Kol Tzipor Kol Kanaf" (in connection with the creation).