## Chullin Daf 140a

###### Chullin 140a:1
[Chullin 140a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:1)

״וּבְעַנְפוֹהִי יְדוּרָן צִפְּרֵי שְׁמַיָּא״ – ״צִפְּרֵי שְׁמַיָּא״ אִיקְּרוֹ, ״צִפְּרֵי״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
stated in the verse describing a tree: **“And in its branches will dwell the birds [*tzipparei*] of the heaven”** (Daniel 4:9). The verse states only: “The birds [*tzipparei*],” and not: The birds of any type of wing. Accordingly, the term “the birds [*tzipparei*]” must be referring to all birds, whether kosher or non-kosher, since all birds dwell in tree branches. The Gemara rejects this: Non-kosher birds **are called: Birds [*tzipparei*] of the heaven,** but **they are not called: *Tzipparei*,** in **an unspecified** manner.


###### Chullin 140a:2
[Chullin 140a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כׇּל צִפּוֹר טְהוֹרָה״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא טְמֵאָה? לָא, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** that which is stated in the passage discussing kosher and non-kosher animals: **“Every kosher bird [*tzippor*]** you may eat” (Deuteronomy 14:11). Since it was necessary for the verse to specify that it is referring to a kosher bird [*tzippor*], **by inference,** one may conclude **that there is a non-kosher** bird [*tzippor*], in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. The Gemara rejects this: **No,** this is not the correct inference. Rather, **by inference** one may conclude **that there is** a *tzippor* that is **prohibited** for consumption, despite its being a kosher bird.


###### Chullin 140a:3
[Chullin 140a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:3)

מַאי הִיא? אִי טְרֵפָה – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב! וְאִי בִּשְׁחוּטָה דִּמְצוֹרָע – מִסֵּיפָא דִּקְרָא נָפְקָא, ״וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׁחוּטַת מְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** this kosher bird whose prohibition must be derived from this verse? **If** it is a bird **with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*],** that would be superfluous, as that **is written explicitly** in the verse: “An unslaughtered animal carcass, or a *tereifa*, he shall not eat” (Leviticus 22:8). **And if** it is referring **to the slaughtered** bird from the purification ritual **of a leper,** which is prohibited for consumption despite being kosher, that would also be superfluous, since it **is derived from the latter clause of the verse** in Deuteronomy, as the verse states: **“But these are they of which you shall not eat”** (Deuteronomy 14:12), which serves **to include the slaughtered** bird **of the leper.**


###### Chullin 140a:4
[Chullin 140a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:4)

לְעוֹלָם בִּשְׁחוּטָה דִּמְצוֹרָע, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וּבְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְלוֹקְמַהּ בִּטְרֵפָה, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ, וּבְעִנְיָנָא דִּשְׁחוּטָה כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Actually,** the verse: “Every kosher bird you may eat,” is referring **to the slaughtered** bird **of a leper, and** the verse indicates that one **transgresses** the **positive mitzva** of: “You may eat,” in addition to the **prohibition** of: “But these are they of which you shall not eat,” **on account of it.** The Gemara objects: **But** why not **interpret** the verse as referring **to a *tereifa*,** and explain that the verse teaches that one **transgresses a positive mitzva and a prohibition on account of it?** The Gemara responds: The verse should be interpreted as referring to the slaughtered bird of a leper, since it is **a matter derived from its context,** as that verse **is written in the context of a slaughtered** bird. By contrast, a *tereifa* is not properly slaughtered, and interpreting the verse in that manner does not fit the context.


###### Chullin 140a:5
[Chullin 140a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים חַיּוֹת״, מַאי ״חַיּוֹת״? לָאו שֶׁחַיּוֹת בְּפִיךְ? מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא לָאו שֶׁחַיּוֹת בְּפִיךְ! לָא, מַאי ״חַיּוֹת״? שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים שֶׁלָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** that which is stated in the passage discussing the purification ritual of a leper: “Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed **two living birds [*tzipporim*]** that are kosher” (Leviticus 14:4). Since the birds are obviously alive before the purification ritual begins, **what** is the meaning of the word **“living”?** Is it **not that they are living in your mouth,** i.e., permitted for consumption? If so, **by inference,** one may conclude **that there are** birds [*tzipporim*] **that are not living in your mouth,** i.e., that are not kosher. The Gemara rejects this: **No,** that is not its meaning. Rather, **what** is the meaning of the word **“living”?** It means **that their extremities are living,** i.e., attached to their bodies. The verse indicates that the kosher birds must have all their limbs attached to their bodies in order to be used in the purification ritual.


###### Chullin 140a:6
[Chullin 140a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא: ״טְהוֹרוֹת״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא טְמֵאוֹת? לָא, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא טְרֵפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof **from the latter clause** of that verse: “Two living birds [*tzipporim*] that are **kosher.”** Since it was necessary for the verse to specify that it is referring to kosher birds, **by inference** one may conclude **that there are non-kosher** birds, in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. The Gemara rejects this: **No,** that is not the correct inference. Rather, **by inference** one may conclude **that there are** other birds of kosher species that may not be used for this ritual, i.e., ***tereifot*.**


###### Chullin 140a:7
[Chullin 140a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:7)

טְרֵפוֹת מֵ״חַיּוֹת״ נָפְקָא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? וְעוֹד, בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, מִדְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But the disqualification of ***tereifot* is** already **derived from** the word **“living”** in that verse. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, **this works out well according to the one who says** that **a *tereifa* can live** (see 42a); it is therefore necessary for the verse to state “kosher” to exclude *tereifot*, because one could not have derived it from the word “living.” **But according to the one who says** that **a *tereifa*** animal **cannot live, what is there to say?** Let it be derived from the word “living.” **And furthermore, whether according to the one who says** that **a *tereifa* can live or according to the one who says** that **a *tereifa* cannot live,** it is not necessary to derive the exclusion of *tereifot* from the word “kosher,” since it **is derived from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.**


###### Chullin 140a:8
[Chullin 140a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:8)

דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר בִּפְנִים, וְנֶאֱמַר מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** It is **stated** in the Torah that there are offerings that **enable** one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the sin offering of a woman who has given birth or the guilt offering of a leper, **and** there are offerings that **atone,** e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, all of which are brought **inside** the Temple. **And** it is also **stated** in the Torah that there are offerings that **enable** one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the birds of a leper’s purification ritual, **and** offerings that **atone,** e.g., the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, that are brought **outside** the Temple.


###### Chullin 140a:9
[Chullin 140a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:9)

מָה מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר הָאָמוּר בִּפְנִים – עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר, אַף מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר הָאָמוּר בַּחוּץ – עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Therefore, the offerings brought outside the Temple are compared to those offered inside: **Just as** with regard to the offerings that **enable or atone stated** in the Torah that are offered **inside** the Temple, the Torah **made** the offering that **enables like** the offering that **atones,** as even the former has portions of it that are burned on the altar, **so too,** with regard to offerings that **enable or atone stated** in the Torah that are offered **outside** the Temple, the Torah **made** the offering that **enables like** the offering that **atones.** Accordingly, just as the scapegoat must not be a *tereifa*, so too, the birds of a leper’s purification ritual must not be *tereifot*. If so, there is no need to derive the exclusion of *tereifa* birds from the word “kosher.”


###### Chullin 140a:10
[Chullin 140a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְמַעוֹטֵי צִפּוֹרֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. לְמַאי? אִי לְשִׁילּוּחַ – לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שַׁלַּח לְתַקָּלָה, אֶלָּא לִשְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** The word “kosher” serves **to exclude birds from an idolatrous city.** Such a city must be burned to the ground, and it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any of its contents. The verse indicates that such a bird is unfit for use in the leper’s purification ritual. The Gemara asks: **For what** function are such birds rendered unfit by the word “kosher”? **If** the verse means **to** render them unfit for **sending** away as part of the ritual, this is unnecessary, since the **Torah did not say** to **send** a bird only **to** create **a stumbling block.** It is obvious that any bird prohibited for consumption is unfit for sending, since the Torah would not allow for the possibility that the bird sent away will be trapped and consumed by unwitting individuals. **Rather,** the verse means **to** render them unfit for use as the bird intended for **slaughter.**


###### Chullin 140a:11
[Chullin 140a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:11)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְזַוֵּוג לָהּ אַחֶרֶת קוֹדֶם שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ. לְמַאי? אִי לִשְׁחִיטָה – הָא בָּעֲיָא שִׁילּוּחַ! אֶלָּא לְשִׁילּוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The word “kosher” serves **to exclude** the repeated use of a bird, i.e., a leper may **not pair** a bird **with another** bird from a previous leper, **before its** being **sent** away. The Gemara asks: **For what** function does the word “kosher” indicate that a bird may not be reused? **If** it means **to** indicate that the bird intended for being sent away by the first leper may not be used for **slaughter** by the second leper, the verse is unnecessary, as this bird **requires** being **sent** away as part of the first leper’s purification ritual. **Rather,** the verse means **to** indicate that the bird intended for being sent away by the first leper may not be used for **sending** simultaneously by the second leper.


###### Chullin 140a:12
[Chullin 140a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:12)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְצִפֳּרִים (שֶׁהֶחְלִיפוּ) [שֶׁהֶחְלִיפָן] בְּצִפֳּרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ״, כׇּל מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה מְהַיֶּיה הֵימֶנּוּ כָּמוֹהוּ. לְמַאי? אִי לְשִׁילּוּחַ – לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שַׁלַּח לְתַקָּלָה, אֶלָּא לִשְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** The word “kosher” serves **to** exclude the use of **birds that were exchanged for birds of idol worship,** i.e., a gentile paid a Jew for his idol by giving the Jew birds. Such birds are prohibited from use in the leper’s ritual, **as it is written** about objects of idol worship: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, **and become [*vahayita*] accursed like it”** (Deuteronomy 7:26), indicating that **anything that you generate [*mehayye*] from it,** e.g., through exchange, is prohibited **like it.** The Gemara asks: **For what** function does the word “kosher” indicate that such birds are prohibited? **If** it serves **to** exclude such birds from being **sent** away, this is unnecessary, because **the Torah did not say: Send** it away, if doing so could lead **to a mishap.** If the bird were prohibited, the Torah would not have commanded one to send it away, as others might eat it unwittingly. **Rather,** the word “kosher” serves **to** disqualify such birds for **slaughter.**


###### Chullin 140a:13
[Chullin 140a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:13)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּעוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּגְמַר דִּינֵהּ – בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא! אֶלָּא קוֹדֶם גְּמַר דִּינֵאּ, וּלְמַאי? אִי לְשִׁילּוּחַ – בָּעֵי לְאֵתוֹיֵי לְבֵי דִינָא וְקַיּוֹמֵי ״וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרַע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״! אֶלָּא לִשְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Here we are dealing with a bird that killed a person** and is therefore subject to being killed. The verse indicates that such a bird is unfit for use in the leper’s ritual. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If** this is a case **where its verdict** of execution **was issued,** then **it is subject** to being **killed,** and there is no need for the verse to teach that it cannot be used in the ritual. **Rather,** it must be referring to a bird **before its verdict** of execution **was issued. And for what** function does the verse exclude such a bird? **If** it serves **to** exclude the bird from **sending** away, this is unnecessary, since one is **required to bring it to the court to fulfill** the verse: **“And you shall eradicate the evil from your midst”** (Deuteronomy 13:6). Obviously, one may not send it away. **Rather,** the verse serves **to** disqualify such a bird for **slaughter.**


###### Chullin 140a:14
[Chullin 140a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:14)

עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר. בִּשְׁלָמָא עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי טָהוֹר – בָּעֵינַן ״צִפּוֹר״ וְלֵיכָּא, אֶלָּא עוֹף טָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא – הָא ״צִפּוֹר״ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: If **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. The Gemara objects: **Granted,** it is understandable that one is exempt in a case where **a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher** bird, since **we require** a kosher bird, as the verse uses the word **“*tzippor*”** (Deuteronomy 22:6) in this context, which the Gemara earlier (139b) interpreted as a reference to a kosher bird, **and** this bird **is not** kosher. **But** in a case where **a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, it is a *tzippor*,** a kosher bird, and one should be required to send it away.


###### Chullin 140a:15
[Chullin 140a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:15)

כִּדְאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״תִּקַּח לָךְ״ – וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ, הָכָא נָמֵי: ״תִּקַּח לָךְ״ – וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that this is in accordance with **that which Rav Kahana said** in a different context: The verse states: “But the young **you may take for yourself”** (Deuteronomy 22:7), indicating that one is required to send away the mother only if the eggs are fit for consumption, **but not** if they are fit only **for your dog. Here too,** with regard to non-kosher eggs, the mitzva applies only if **you may take for yourself, but not** if they are fit only **for your dog** because they are not kosher.


###### Chullin 140a:16
[Chullin 140a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:16)

וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא? אַהָא דְּתַנְיָא: אִם טְרֵפָה – חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ, אֶפְרוֹחִים טְרֵפוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״תִּקַּח לָךְ״ – וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And where was** this statement **of Rav Kahana stated?** The Gemara answers that it was stated **with regard to that which is taught** in a *baraita*: Even if the **mother** bird is **a *tereifa*,** one is **obligated to send** away the mother from the nest. But if the **fledglings** are ***tereifot*,** one is **exempt from sending** away the mother. **From where is this matter** derived? **Rav Kahana said: As the verse states: “You may take for yourself,”** indicating that you are required to send away the mother only if the fledglings are fit for consumption, **but not** if they are fit only **for your dog** because they are *tereifot*.


###### Chullin 140a:17
[Chullin 140a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140a:17)

וּלְהַקִּישׁ אֵם טְרֵפָה לְאֶפְרוֹחִים, מָה אֶפְרוֹחִים טְרֵפוֹת – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ, אַף אֵם טְרֵפָה נָמֵי – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** why not **compare a *tereifa* mother** bird **to** *tereifa* **fledglings** and say: **Just as** with regard to ***tereifa* fledglings** one is **exempt from sending** away the mother, **so too,** with regard to **a *tereifa* mother** one should **also** be **exempt from sending** her away.