(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

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) Question: What is the case of Kodshim, for which a verse is needed to exempt?
1. Suggestion: If a man was Makdish a bird in his house, he is exempt - "Ki Yikarei" excludes Mezuman!
(b) Answer #1: He saw a Hefker nest and was Makdish it.
(c) Rejection: "Ish Ki Yakdish Beiso Kodesh" - one can be Makdish only things like his house, that he owns.
(d) Answer #2: Rather, he lifted the chicks and Hikdish them, then put them back.
(e) Rejection: Even if they were Chulin, he would not have to send the mother!
1. (Mishnah): If one took the chicks and returned them to the nest, and the mother returned, he need not send it.
(f) Answer #3: Rather, he lifted the mother and Hikdish it, then put it back.
(g) Rejection: He was obligated to send it before he was Makdish it (and this obligation remains)!
1. (Beraisa - R. Yochanan ben Yosef): If one Hikdish a Chayah and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from Kisuy ha'Dam;
2. If he slaughtered it and then Hikdish it, he must cover the blood, because he was already obligated.
(h) Answer #4 (Rav): One who Hikdish the chicks in his dovecote to be Olos, and then they fled (and he recognizes one that matured and now sits on its young).
(i) Answer #5 (Shmuel): One was Makdish his chicken (for Bedek ha'Bayis, and it fled, and now rests on its young).
1. Shmuel did not give Rav's answer - Shmuel teaches that the Mishnah applies even to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis.
(j) Question: Why didn't Rav give Shmuel's answer?
(k) Answer: Rav holds that he is exempt from sending only when he made it Hekdesh Mizbe'ach;
1. Since they have Kedushas ha'Guf (intrinsic Kedushah), the Kedushah does not vanish when they flee;
2. But only the value of Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis is Kodesh, the Kedushah vanishes when they flee, and he must send the mother.
3. Shmuel reasons, even the Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis does not vanish, for wherever they flee, they are in Hash-m's domain - "la'Sh-m ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah."
(l) R. Yochanan also explained the Mishnah like Shmuel; Reish Lakish argued like Rav, and R. Yochanan answered like Shmuel.
(m) Contradictions: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish contradict what they said elsewhere!
1. (R. Yochanan): If a man said "This Maneh is for Bedek ha'Bayis" and it was stolen or lost, he has Achrayus (he must replace the loss to Hekdesh) until he gives it to the Gizbar;
2. (Reish Lakish): He has no Achrayus - from the moment he designated the money, wherever it is, it is in Hash-m's domain.
(n) Answer - part 1 (for Reish Lakish): The latter teaching of Reish Lakish was after he heard and accepted R. Yochanan's answer regarding our Mishnah.
(o) Answer - part 2 (for R. Yochanan): R. Yochanan says that he has Achrayus when he said "Alai (it is incumbent upon me)," he has no Achrayus when he did not say this, he only designated the money.
1. Question: If so, we must say that Reish Lakish exempts from Achrayus even when he says "Alai"!
i. (Beraisa): The difference between a Neder (vow) and a Nedavah - "It is Alai to bring an Olah" is a Neder; "This is an Olah," is a Nedavah;
ii. If it dies or is stolen or lost, one has Achrayus for a Neder, not for a Nedavah.
2. Answer: Reish Lakish says, that applies only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, since they must be offered - but one need not do anything to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (other than give them to Hekdesh), he has no Achrayus even if he said "Alai."
3. Question (Mishnah): If one said "This ox is an Olah," or "This house is a Korban," and the ox died or the house fell, he has no Achrayus;
i. If he said "This ox is Alai an Olah," or "This house is Alai a Korban," and the ox died or the house fell, he has Achrayus (even though the only Kedushah of a house is its value)!
4. Answer: He has Achrayus only when it fell, but not if it stands, for wherever it is, it is in Hash-m's domain.
(p) (Rav Hamnuna): All agree regarding Erchin (pledging to give amounts to Hekdesh based on a person's age and gender), even if he said Alai, he has no Achrayus.
1. Question: Why is this?
2. Answer: "Alai" is not extra (to show that he accepts Achrayus) - it is the only way to obligate oneself in Erchin!
i. "My Erech" or "Ploni's Erech" is meaningless, he did not say who must give it!
(q) Objection #1 (Rava): He could say "*Hareni* b'Erki (or b'Erech Ploni)" (I am obligated to give my Erech (or Ploni's Erech)!
(r) Objection #2 (Rava - Beraisa - R. Noson) Question: "v'Nasan Es ha'Erkecha...Kodesh la'Sh-m" - the verse discusses redeeming a field, why does it say "Erkecha"?
1. Answer: One has no Achrayus on the money used to redeem Hekdesh or Ma'aser Sheni; one might have thought that similarly, there is no Achrayus on money designated to pay Erchin - the verse teaches this is not so, the money is Chulin until given to the Gizbar.

(s) Correction: Rather, Rav Hamnuna taught, all agree regarding Erchin, even if he did not say Alai, he has Achrayus;
1. "V'Nosan Es ha'Erkecha" - it is Chulin until given to the Gizbar.
(a) (Mishnah): Kisuy ha'Dam is more stringent...
(b) (Beraisa): Question: What do we learn from "Ki Yikarei (when will happen)..."?
(c) Answer: One might have thought, "Shale'ach Teshalach" teaches that one must go to mountains to seek to fulfill the Mitzvah - "Ki Yikarei" teaches, this is not so, only if it presents itself.
1. "Kan" teaches, no matter how small the nest is (even one chick or egg);
2. "Tzipor" - this is a Tahor [mother] bird, not Tamei;
3. "Lefanecha" is a Reshus ha'Yachid; "ba'Derech" is a Reshus ha'Rabim;
4. Question: What is the source if it is in a tree?
5. Answer: "B'Chol Etz."
6. Question: What is the source if it is in a pit or cave?
7. Answer: "O Al ha'Aretz."
(d) Question: Since we include all places, why must the Torah teach "Lefanacha ba'Derech"?
(e) Answer #1: This teaches that the Mitzvah applies only to cases similar to "ba'Derech," i.e. it is not Mezuman.
1. This is the source to obligate [sending] doves that nested in a dovecote or attic, birds that nested in a hole in a wall or in a tower, and chickens and geese that nested in an orchard, but not to birds that nested in a house, nor domestic doves.
(f) Objection #1: We said that "ba'Derech" teaches that the Mitzvah applies only when it is not Mezuman - but "Ki Yikarei" teaches this!
(g) Objection #2: What does "Lefanacha" teach?
(h) Answer #2: Rather, "Lefanacha" includes birds that were owned and fled;
1. "Ba'Derech" teaches Rav Yehudah's law.
i. (Rav Yehudah): If one finds a nest on the sea, he must send the mother - "Ba'Yam Darech."
ii. Question: If so, the same should apply to a nest [held by its mother] in the air - "Derech ha'Nesher ba'Shamayim"!
iii. Answer: No - the air is called "Derech Nesher," it is not called [plain] "Derech."
(i) Question (Rabanan of Papunai): Does the Mitzvah apply to a nest on a man's head?
(j) Answer (Rav Masnah): "va'Adamah Al Rosho" (it is considered like on the ground).
(k) Question: Where does the Torah allude to Moshe (before his birth), [the fate of] Haman, [the story of] Esther and [the aggrandizing of] Mordechai?
(l) Answer: Moshe - "*b'Shagam* (the Gematri'a of this word is 345, like that of Moshe)... his years will be 120";
1. "Ha'MiN ha'Etz" alludes to the hanging of Haman; "Haster ASTiR Panai" refers to the story of Esther (Hash-m acted in a hidden way); "[Besamim Rosh (i.e. the head of the Tzadikim)] Mar Deror," the translation of this is "MaRa DaCHYa."
(m) (Mishnah): What is not considered Mezuman?
(n) R. Chiya or R. Shimon (son of Rebbi) taught that the Mishnah discusses "Hadrasios" doves, the other says the text reads "Hordasios."
1. The latter opinion says that they are called by Hordus' name, because he started to raise them.
2. The former opinion says that they are called by the name of the place of their origin.
3. Rav Kahana: I saw 16 rows of such birds, each row a Mil (kilometer) long; they were saying "Kiri (master) Kiri," except for one, which was saying "Kiri Biri (i.e. Hordus was really a slave)."
i. (Rav Ashi): These are [fictitious] words.
ii. Objection: Rav Kahana said that he saw it!
iii. Answer: Rather, Rav Ashi meant that they spoke in the language of birds (Aruch; Rashi - they spoke through witchcraft).
(a) (Mishnah): One is exempt from sending a Tamei bird.
(b) Question: What is the source this?
(c) Answer (R. Yitzchak): "Kan Tzipor" - "*Of*" refers to Tahor and Tamei birds, but "Tzipor" refers only to Tahor birds.
(d) Question #1: "Tavnis Kol Tzipor Kanaf" (surely, it is forbidden to make images of all birds and Chagavim (locusts or grasshoppers))!
1. Suggestion: "Tzipor" refers to Tamei and Tahor birds, "Kanaf" refers to Chagavim.
(e) Answer: No, "Tzipor" refers to Tahor birds, "Kanaf" refers to Tamei birds and Chagavim.
(f) (The next three questions are based on the above suggestion, the same answer is given.)
(g) Question #2: "ha'Chayah v'Chol Behemah Remesh v'Tzipor Kanaf" (surely, all birds and Chagavim praise Hash-m);
(h) Question #3: "Kol Tzipor Kol Kanaf" (all birds and Chagavim entered the ark).
(i) Question #4: "Emor l'Tzipor Kol Kanaf" (all birds and Chagavim will eat the Mesim of Gog).
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,