## Chullin Daf 138b

###### Chullin 138b:1
[Chullin 138b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:1)

אַלְמָא מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ, הָכָא נָמֵי מַתָּנוֹת דְּכֹהֵן לָא מְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ. הִלְכָּךְ: שִׁיֵּיר הַמּוֹכֵר – מוֹכֵר חַיָּיב, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לוֹקֵחַ: ״מַתָּנָה דְּכֹהֵן גַּבָּךְ הִיא״. לֹא שִׁיֵּיר – לוֹקֵחַ חַיָּיב, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ מוֹכֵר: ״מַתָּנָה דְּכֹהֵן לָא זַבֵּנִי לָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Evidently, a person does not sell the gifts** belonging **to** the **priest,** and therefore they are not included in the sale of the innards unless they were sold by weight. **Here too,** with regard to the first sheared wool, **a person does not sell the gifts** belonging **to** the **priest. Therefore,** if **the seller left** wool in his possession, the **seller is obligated** to give the first sheared wool from the remaining wool for that which he sold, **as** the **buyer** can **say to** the seller: The **gift of** the **priest is in your** possession, since you did not sell me everything. If the seller did **not leave** any wool in his possession, **the buyer is obligated** to give the first sheared wool and he does not deduct its value from the price, **as the seller** can **say to him: I did not sell the gift of** the **priest to you,** i.e., there was no obligation to give the gifts to a priest when I sold the wool to you, and therefore the buyer is required to give the gifts to the priest.


###### Chullin 138b:2
[Chullin 138b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:2)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.**


###### Chullin 138b:3
[Chullin 138b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:3)

מַתְנִי׳ **שִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן** נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בְּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין. חוֹמֶר בְּכִסּוּי הַדָּם מִשִּׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן, שֶׁכִּסּוּי הַדָּם נוֹהֵג בַּחַיָּה וּבָעוֹף, בִּמְזוּמָּן וּבְשֶׁאֵין מְזוּמָּן, וְשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּעוֹף, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The mitzva of **sending** away the mother bird from **the nest applies** both **in Eretz** Yisrael **and outside of Eretz** Yisrael, and **in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple.** It applies **to non-sacred** birds, **but** it does **not** apply **to sacrificial** birds. There are more **stringent** elements **in the covering of the blood than in the sending** away of the mother bird from **the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to** animals and birds that are readily **available** in one’s home, **and to** animals and birds **that are not** readily **available** and are hunted in the wild; **and the sending** of the mother bird from **the nest applies only to birds, and applies only to** birds **that are not** readily **available.**


###### Chullin 138b:4
[Chullin 138b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:4)

אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן? כְּגוֹן אֲוָוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס, אֲבָל אִם קִנְּנוּ בַּבַּיִת, וְכֵן יוֹנֵי הַרְדָּסִיָּאוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ. עוֹף טָמֵא – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְטָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. קוֹרֵא זָכָר – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What are** considered birds **that are not** readily **available?** They are any birds, even domesticated, that may fly away at any time, **such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard [*pardes*]. But if** geese or chickens **nested in the house, and likewise,** with regard to **domesticated pigeons [*yonei hardisei’ot*],** one is **exempt from sending** away the mother bird. With regard to the nest of **a non-kosher bird,** one is **exempt from sending** away the mother bird. In a case where **a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher** bird **is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird,** one is **exempt from sending** away the bird. With regard to **a male pheasant [*korei*],** which is known to sit upon the eggs like the female of its species, **Rabbi Eliezer deems** one **obligated** to send it away, **and the Rabbis deem** one **exempt** from sending it away.


###### Chullin 138b:5
[Chullin 138b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי מְיָישָׁא, חַד אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ״ שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי דְּאָמַר: ״רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna contains several phrases related to the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest that also appear in the first mishna of several other chapters of this tractate. With regard to this, **Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha** made the following statements. **One** of them **said: Anywhere** in this tractate **that we learned** in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both **in Eretz** Yisrael **and outside of Eretz** Yisrael, it is stated **needlessly,** as those mitzvot are not related to land, such that there is no need to teach that they apply outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. This is true **except for** the mitzva of **the first shearing** of wool, which one must give to a priest. It was necessary to teach that that mitzva applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael, **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Ilai, who said: The first shearing is in effect only in Eretz** Yisrael.


###### Chullin 138b:6
[Chullin 138b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:6)

וְחַד אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת״ – שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מֵ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָנָא דְּקָדָשִׁים כְּתִיב, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא קָדָשִׁים – נִנְהוֹג, בִּזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא קֳדָשִׁים – לָא נִנְהוֹג, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the other **one said: Anywhere** in this tractate **that we learned** in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both **in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple,** it is stated **needlessly,** as these mitzvot are requirements of the object itself, and there is no need to teach that they apply even after the destruction of the Temple. This is true **except for** the prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring** on the same day. It was necessary to teach that this mitzva applies even after the destruction of the Temple, because it might **enter your mind to say: Since** this prohibition **is written in** a passage in the Torah discussing **the matter of sacrificial** animals (see Leviticus, chapter 22), **at a time when there are sacrificial** animals, i.e., when the Temple is standing, **we will abide** by it, but **at a time when there are no sacrificial** animals, after the destruction of the Temple, **we will not abide** by it. Therefore, that mishna **teaches us** that this is not so.


###### Chullin 138b:7
[Chullin 138b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:7)

וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ אָמְרִי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן ״בְּחוּלִּין וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁים״ – לְצוֹרֶךְ, לְבַד מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיקַּדַּשׁ פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִינֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And both of them said: Anywhere** in this tractate **that we learned** in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both **to non-sacred** animals **and to sacrificial** animals, it is stated **necessarily.** This is the case **except for** the mishna discussing the **sciatic nerve,** as it is **obvious** that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals as well. Can it enter one’s mind to say that **because it was consecrated, the prohibition of** eating **the sciatic nerve is abrogated from** the animal?


###### Chullin 138b:8
[Chullin 138b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:8)

וְלָאו אוֹקֵימְנָא בְּוַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we establish** that the mishna there (89b) is referring **to offspring of sacrificial** animals? Without the mishna, one might have thought that since the offspring was already prohibited as a sacrificial animal before its sciatic nerve was even formed, the prohibition with regard to the latter does not take effect where the former prohibition already exists. If so, it was in fact necessary to teach this *halakha*.


###### Chullin 138b:9
[Chullin 138b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:9)

וּמַאי טַעְמָא אוֹקֵימְנָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לַן לָא לִיתְנֵי? מֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי לָא תִּקְשֵׁי לָךְ, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא לְצוֹרֶךְ, תְּנָא נָמֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **But what is the reason we interpreted** that mishna as referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Is it **not due to** the fact that the question: **Let** the mishna **not teach** that the prohibition applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is **difficult for us?** It is in response to this question that Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha stated that **even from the outset,** this **should not** pose a **difficulty for you.** Rather, **since** the phrase: Applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, **is taught necessarily** with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring, it **is also taught needlessly** with regard to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, to parallel the formula of the other mishna.


###### Chullin 138b:10
[Chullin 138b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:10)

בְּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים. אַמַּאי לָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״ – בְּמִי שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאוֹ לִידֵי גִּזְבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies **to non-sacred** birds, **but not to sacrificial** birds. The Gemara asks: **Why** does this mitzva **not** apply to sacrificial birds? The Gemara responds: **As the verse states: “You shall send the mother”** (Deuteronomy 22:7). The verse refers only **to** a bird **that you are commanded to send** away, i.e., a non-sacred bird; that **excludes this** sacrificial bird, **which you are not commanded to send** away, but **rather to bring it to the custody of** the Temple **treasurer.**


###### Chullin 138b:11
[Chullin 138b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/138b:11)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הִלְכָּךְ, עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ פָּטוּר מִשִּׁלּוּחַ, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״ – בְּמִי שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְבֵית דִּין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּגְמַר דִּינֵיהּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina says: Therefore,** with regard to **a kosher bird that killed a person** and must now be executed, one **is exempt from sending** it away. **What is the reason** for this? It is **as the verse states: “You shall send the mother.”** The verse is referring only **to** a bird **that you are commanded to send** away, which **excludes this** bird **that you are not commanded to send** away, but **rather to bring it to court.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case, i.e., how is this bird that killed a person now resting on its eggs? **If** this is a case **where its verdict** of execution **was issued,**