POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
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.
1) THE CASE OF "KODSHIM"
(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
(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
(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).
2. If he slaughtered it and then Hikdish it, he must
cover the blood, because he was already obligated.
(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
(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
(l) R. Yochanan also explained the Mishnah like Shmuel; Reish
Lakish argued like Rav, and R. Yochanan answered like
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."
(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;
(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.
2. (Reish Lakish): He has no Achrayus - from the moment
he designated the money, wherever it is, it is in
(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"!
(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.
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;
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."
ii. If it dies or is stolen or lost, one has
Achrayus for a Neder, not for a Nedavah.
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
1. Question: Why is this?
(q) Objection #1 (Rava): He could say "*Hareni* b'Erki (or
b'Erech Ploni)" (I am obligated to give my Erech (or
2. Answer: "Alai" is not extra (to show that he accepts
Achrayus) - it is the only way to obligate oneself
i. "My Erech" or "Ploni's Erech" is meaningless,
he did not say who must give it!
(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
(s) Correction: Rather, Rav Hamnuna taught, all agree
regarding Erchin, even if he did not say Alai, he has
2) WHEN DOES THE MITZVAH APPLY
1. "V'Nosan Es ha'Erkecha" - it is Chulin until given
to the Gizbar.
(a) (Mishnah): Kisuy ha'Dam is more stringent...
3) "TAMEI" BIRDS
(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);
(d) Question: Since we include all places, why must the Torah
teach "Lefanacha ba'Derech"?
2. "Tzipor" - this is a Tahor [mother] bird, not Tamei;
3. "Lefanecha" is a Reshus ha'Yachid; "ba'Derech" is a
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
7. Answer: "O Al ha'Aretz."
(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) Question (Rabanan of Papunai): Does the Mitzvah apply to
a nest on a man's head?
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
iii. Answer: No - the air is called "Derech Nesher,"
it is not called [plain] "Derech."
(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
(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).