Previous daf

1)

(a) We query Rebbi Yitzchak (who learns that "Tzipor" refers to Tahor birds exclusively) from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Kol Tzipor Tehorah Tocheilu".
If "Tehorah" does not come to preclude Tamei birds (which would then be included in "Tzipor"), what does it come to include?

(b) Why can 'Asur' in this context not mean Tereifos?

(c) On what grounds do we accept the explanation that it comes to preclude the Shechutah of a Metzora, even though we already learn it from the Seifa "ve'Zeh Asher Lo Sochlu Meihem"?

(d) Then why can we not learn Tereifah from there, and say that we need the Pasuk to teach us an extra Asei?

(a) We query Rebbi Yitzchak from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "Sh'tei Tziparim Chayos", which we initially interpret as 'she'Chayos be'Ficha'. What does this mean? What does it imply?

(b) How do we refute the Kashya? How will Rebbi Yitzchak interpret "Chayos"?

(c) What problem do we then have with the 'Seifa' "Tehoros"? What does that imply?

(d) How do we counter the answer that "Tehoros" comes to preclude Tereifos (and not Temei'os)?

(e) According to which opinion can we indeed learn Tereifos from "Chayos"?

(a) In any event, we already know that the Tziprei Metzora are Pasul from Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who compares Machshir to Mechaper, ba'Chutz just like we compare them bi'Fenim.
What are 'Machshir' and 'Mechaper' ...

1. ... ba'Chutz'?
2. ... bi'Fenim'?

(b) In what respect does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael now learn Tziprei Metzora Sa'ir from ha'Mishtale'ach?

(c) From where do we know that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach cannot be a Tereifah?

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore learns from "Sh'tei Tziparim ... Tehoros" to preclude the birds of an Ir ha'Nidachas.
Why can this only pertain to the Shechutah but not to the Meshulachas?

(a) Rava learns from "Tehoros" that one is not permitted to take the remaining bird from one Metzora to use for another Metzora.
Why can he only be referring to taking the bird to pair off with the Shechutah of the second Metzora (but not with the Meshulachas)?

(b) So what is the Torah then coming to teach us?

(c) According to Rav Papa, the Pasuk is coming to preclude using a bird that one purchased in exchange for Avodah-Zarah.
What is the status of this bird?

(d) Why can Rav Papa only be referring to using it as the Shechutah, but not the Meshulachas?

(a) Finally, Ravina precludes from "Tehoros" a bird that killed someone.
Why can the Pasuk not be referring to one whose Din has already been concluded?

(b) If the Pasuk is then referring to one whose Din has not yet been concluded, why can it not be coming to preclude bringing it as the Meshulachas?

(c) So what do we learn from "Tehoros", according to Ravina?

(d) Why does our Mishnah exempt ...

1. ... a Tamei bird that is sitting on the eggs of a Tahor bird from Shilu'ach?
2. ... a Tahor bird that is sitting on the eggs of a Tamei one?

(a) What does Rav Kahana learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Tikach Lecha"?

(b) And he bases this on a Beraisa.
What does the Tana say about a case where ...

1. ... the mother is a Tereifah?
2. ... the babies are Tereifos?

(c) We query this inasmuch as the Torah compares the mother to the babies (in which case the Tana ought to have exempted the former case from Shilu'ach ha'Kein, too. How do we answer this Kashya?

(d) How does Abaye amend the Beraisa 'Eim Efrochim Tereifah Chayav be'Shilu'ach' (seemingly clashing with the previous Beraisa)?

7)

(a) What She'eilah (that remains unresolved) does Rav Hoshaya ask about a case where someone Shechted a minority of the baby birds whilst they are still in the nest.
Why might he be ...

1. ... Patur from Shilu'ach?
2. ... Chayav Shilu'ach?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks what the Din will be if the mother is sitting on a cloth which divides between it and the babies.
What is the basis of the She'eilah?

(c) He then goes on to ask what the Din will be if 1. loose feathers, 2. ... eggs that will not hatch, 3. a row of regular eggs, 4. a male bird interrupt between the mother and the eggs.
What does each subsequent She'eilah hold regarding the previous one?

(d) What is the outcome of all these She'eilos?

(a) And Rebbi Zeira asks what the Din will be if a T'sil (a species of dove) is sitting on the eggs of a dove, or vice-versa.
How does Abaye try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah which exempts a Tamei bird that is sitting on the eggs of a Tahor one or vice-versa, from Shilu'ach? What does he try to extrapolate from there?

(b) How do we refute Abaye's proof? Which kind of Tahor bird might the Mishnah be coming to include (in the Din of Shilu'ach)?

(c) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah includes a male Korei sitting on another bird's eggs in the Din of Shilu'ach.
How does Rebbi Avuhu learn this from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Korei Dagar (meaning a bird's call) ve'Lo Yalad" (Yirmiyah) from "u'Vak'ah ve'Dagrah be'Tzilah" (Yeshayah)?

(a) What does Rebbi Elazar say regarding ...

1. ... a *female* partridge (Korei) sitting on the eggs of another bird?
2. ... another male bird sitting on the eggs even of its own species?

(b) Why does Rebbi Elazar need to make ...

1. ... the former statement? Why is it not obvious from the fact that the Rabbanan and Rebbi Eliezer argue specifically regarding a male?
2. ... the latter statement? Why is it not obvious from the fact that they argue specifically about a male *Korei* (and not about any other male bird)?

(c) And we support this latter answer with a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say?

(a) Under what condition does our Mishnah exempt a mother bird who is hovering over the nest, from Shilu'ach?

(b) We already learned from "Kan" that one is Chayav to send away the mother bird even for just one baby or one egg.
What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Eim ... al ha'Efrochim O al ha'Beitzim"? Why does the Torah compare ...

1. ... the eggs to the fledglings?
2. ... the fledglings to the eggs?

(c) The Beraisa Darshens "Rovetzes", 've'Lo Me'ofefes'.
From where does the Tana now learn that as long as the bird's wings are touching the nest, it is subject to Shilu'ach?

(d) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav say about a bird whose wings are resting on two branches of a tree ('Sh'nei Rovdim')? Under which two conditions is it subject to Shilu'ach, even though it is not actually touching the nest?

(a) We query Rav Yehudah Amar Rav from a Beraisa which exempts a mother bird who is sitting in between the eggs from Shilu'ach.
What does the Tana say about a case where it is ...

1. ... sitting above them?
2. ... hovering over them (even if it is touching them)?

(b) What do we ask on Rav, based on the assumption that 'Mah Beineihen de'Nag'ah Behu, Af al-Gabeihen de'Nag'ah Behu'?

(c) Why do we not then ask directly from our Mishnah, which requires the mother to be touching the nest, in order to require Shilu'ach?

(a) How do we refute the Kashya on Rav? If the Tana does not intend to compare 'al-Gabeihen to Beineihen in this way, then why does he mention them together?

(b) And how do we try to prove this from the Seifa, where the mother was hovering over the nest? What ought the Tana to say, if resting on the branches would be Patur?

(c) We refute this however, on the grounds that, from another point of view, the case of hovering is a bigger Chidush.
Why is that?

(d) How do we reconcile the Seifa of the Beraisa with our Mishnah, which requires Shilu'ach, if the mother is touching the nest?

(a) In the second Lashon, we try to support Rav from the Beraisa by suggesting that 'Mah Beineihen de'Lo Nag'ah Alaihu, Af al-Gabeihen de'Lo Nag'ah Alaihu' (just like Rav).
How do we refute this proof?

(b) In that case, why does the Seifa present the case of where the bird was hovering over the nest? Why did the Tana not rather present the case of Rovdei Ilan, where it does not require Shilu'ach, even though it is resting inside it?

(c) And how does Rav Yehudah reconcile the Seifa of the Beraisa with our Mishnah, which requires Shilu'ach once the mother bird is touching the nest?

Next daf