## Chullin Daf 140b

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

אִם כֵּן, ״צִפּוֹר״ לְמַעוֹטֵי עוֹף טָמֵא לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If so,** that the mother should be compared to the fledglings, then **why do I** need the word **“*tzippor*” to exclude a non-kosher bird?** One could simply derive it from the fact that one is exempt from the mitzva in the case of non-kosher fledglings, since they are not fit for consumption. Rather, since it was necessary for the verse to teach that non-kosher birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother, it must be that no such comparison is to be drawn.


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵם אֶפְרוֹחִין טְרֵפָה – חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר – אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁאִמָּן טְרֵפָה חַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the statement of Rav Kahana that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest does not apply in the case of fledglings unfit for consumption: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a mother of fledglings,** in the case of a ***tereifa*,** one is **obligated to send** away the mother bird from the nest? The *baraita* appears to teach that even if the fledglings themselves are *tereifot*, one is obligated in the mitzva. **Abaye said** in response: The word *tereifa* is not referring to the fledglings. Rather, **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** In the case of **a fledgling whose mother is a *tereifa*,** one is **obligated to send** away the mother bird. This *baraita*, then, is in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana.


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

בָּעֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לַקֵּן, וְשָׁחַט מִיעוּט סִימָנִים, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the statement of Rav Kahana above, **Rav Hoshaya raises a dilemma:** If one **stretched his hand into a nest** containing a mother bird and its fledglings **and slaughtered,** i.e., severed, **a minority of** the **two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [*simanim*],** i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, of the fledglings,**what is** the *halakha* with regard to sending away the mother bird?


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

מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ שָׁבֵיק לְהוּ מִטַּרְפִי, בָּעֵינַן ״לָךְ וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ״, אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּבְיָדוֹ לְמִגְמַר שְׁחִיטָה, ״תִּקַּח לָךְ״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ, וְחַיָּיב בְּשִׁילּוּחַ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The two sides of the dilemma are explained: **Do we say: Since if those** fledglings **are left** as they are, with only partially severed *simanim*, **they will** eventually be rendered ***tereifot*,** one is therefore exempt from sending away the mother because **we require** that the fledglings be taken **“for yourself,” and not for your dog? Or perhaps, since it is in his power to complete the** act of **slaughter,** thereby permitting the fledglings for consumption, **we** may **call** this case: **“Take for yourself,” and one is obligated to send** away the mother bird. Since no answer is given, the Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מַטְלֵית מַהוּ שֶׁתָּחוֹץ? כְּנָפַיִם מַהוּ שֶׁיָּחוֹצּוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:** In a case where **a rag** is lying in the nest between the mother bird and the eggs, **what is** the *halakha*? Does **it interpose**between them,such that the mother is not considered to be resting upon the eggs? If so, one would be exempt from sending away the mother. Similarly, if feathers are detached from a bird’s **wings** and are lying between the mother bird and the eggs, **what is** the *halakha*? Do **they interpose** between the eggs and the mother?


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

בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת, מַהוּ? שְׁנֵי סִדְרֵי בֵיצִים זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ, מַהוּ? זָכָר עַל גַּבֵּי בֵיצִים וּנְקֵבָה עַל גַּבֵּי זָכָר, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya continues: If **unfertilized [*muzarot*] eggs** separate between the mother bird and fertilized eggs, **what is** the *halakha*? Additionally, in a case where **two sets of** fertilized **eggs** are lying **one on top of the other, what is** the *halakha*? Does the upper set of eggs interpose between the mother and the lower set? Furthermore, **what is** the *halakha* in a case where **a male** bird is resting **on top of** the **eggs and a female** bird is resting **on top of** the **male?** Does the male bird interpose between the female and the eggs? No answers are given, so the Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved in all of these cases.


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

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: יוֹנָה עַל בֵּיצֵי תָסִיל, מַהוּ? תָּסִיל עַל בֵּיצֵי יוֹנָה, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma:** If **a pigeon** is resting **upon the eggs of a *tasil*,** a kosher bird resembling a pigeon, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to sending away the mother bird from the nest? Likewise, if **a *tasil*** is resting **upon the eggs of a pigeon, what is** the *halakha*?


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תָּא שְׁמַע, עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְטָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא – פָּטוּר מִשִּׁילּוּחַ. הָא טָהוֹר וְטָהוֹר – חַיָּיב! דִּלְמָא בְּקוֹרֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Come** and **hear** that which is taught in the mishna: 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. One may infer from the mishna **that** in a case involving **a kosher** bird **and kosher** eggs, e.g., a *tasil* resting on the eggs of a pigeon, one is **obligated** to send away the mother bird. The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps** this inference applies only **to** the case of a female **pheasant,** which normally rests upon the eggs of other birds. Since this is its normal behavior, one is obligated to send it away even if it rests upon the eggs of another kosher bird. This may not be the case with regard to a *tasil* or pigeon.


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

קוֹרֵא זָכָר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָתְיָא ״דְּגִירָה״ ״דְּגִירָה״, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״קוֹרֵא דָגַר וְלֹא יָלָד״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״וּבָקְעָה וְדָגְרָה בְצִלָּהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of **a male pheasant** that rests upon the eggs of its species, **Rabbi Eliezer deems** one **obligated** to send away the pheasant, **and the Rabbis deem** one **exempt** from sending it away. With regard to this dispute, **Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer?** According to Rabbi Eliezer, a verbal analogy between **brooding** stated with regard to a male pheasant and **brooding** with regard to a female bird **comes** to indicate that the resting of a male pheasant upon its eggs is considered an effective resting. **It is written here: “As the pheasant that broods over young that he has not brought forth”** (Jeremiah 17:11), **and it is written elsewhere** about a female bird: “There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, **and hatch, and brood under her shadow”** (Isaiah 34:15). Just as a female bird broods over its nest, so too, a male pheasant broods over a nest. Therefore, one is required to send away the male bird from the nest as well.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּקוֹרֵא זָכָר, אֲבָל בְּקוֹרֵא נְקֵבָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״קוֹרֵא זָכָר״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא רַבָּנַן אֲפִילּוּ קוֹרֵא נְקֵבָה פָּטְרִי, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״זָכָר״ – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, **Rabbi Elazar says:** Their **dispute** is only **with regard to a male pheasant, but** with regard **to a female pheasant all agree** that one is **obligated** to send away the bird. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious,** given that **we learned** in the mishna: **A male pheasant?** The Gemara responds: **Lest you say** that **the Rabbis deem** one **exempt** from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird **even** in the case of **a female pheasant, and** as for **that which** the mishna **teaches** the dispute in the case of **a male** pheasant, the reason is **to convey to you the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** in that he requires one to send away even a male pheasant, therefore, Rabbi Elazar **teaches us** that the Rabbis agree that one must send away a female pheasant.


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

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּקוֹרֵא זָכָר, אֲבָל בְּזָכָר דְּעָלְמָא – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״קוֹרֵא זָכָר״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֲפִילּוּ זָכָר דְּעָלְמָא מְחַיֵּיב, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״קוֹרֵא זָכָר״ – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar** also **says:** The **dispute** between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is only **with regard to a male pheasant, but** with regard **to male** birds **in general, all agree** that one is **exempt** from the mitzva of sending away the bird from the nest. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious,** given that **we learned** in the mishna: **A male pheasant?** The Gemara responds: **Lest you say** that **Rabbi Eliezer deems** one **obligated** to send away **even male** birds **in general, and that which** the mishna **teaches: A male** pheasant, is **to convey to you the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** in that they also deem one exempt from sending a male pheasant, therefore, Rabbi Elazar **teaches us** that even according to Rabbi Eliezer, one is exempt from sending away male birds in general.


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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: זָכָר דְּעָלְמָא – פָּטוּר, קוֹרֵא זָכָר – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **This** explanation of Rabbi Elazar **is also taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a male** bird **in general,** one is **exempt** from the mitzva of sending it away, but with regard to **a male pheasant, Rabbi Eliezer deems** one **obligated** to send it away from the nest, **and the Rabbis deem** one **exempt** from sending it away.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁכְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, אֵין כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶחָד אוֹ בֵּיצָה אַחַת – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״קַן״, קֵן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If the mother bird **was hovering** over the eggs or fledglings in the nest, **when its wings are touching** the eggs or fledglings **in the nest,** one is **obligated to send** away the mother. When its wings **are not touching** the eggs or fledglings **in the nest,** one is **exempt from sending** away the mother. Even if **there is only one fledgling or one egg,** one is **obligated to send** away the mother, **as it is stated:** “If a bird’s **nest** happens before you” (Deuteronomy 22:6), indicating that one is obligated to send away the mother bird from the **nest in any case.**


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

הָיוּ שָׁם אֶפְרוֹחִים מַפְרִיחִים, אוֹ בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים״, מָה אֶפְרוֹחִים בְּנֵי קַיָּימָא, אַף בֵּיצִים בְּנֵי קַיָּימָא, יָצְאוּ מוּזָרוֹת. וּמָה הַבֵּיצִים צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן, אַף הָאֶפְרוֹחִין צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן, יָצְאוּ מַפְרִיחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **there were fledglings** capable of **flying, or unfertilized eggs** from which a fledgling will not hatch, one is **exempt from sending** away the mother bird from the nest, **as it is stated** in the same verse: **“And the mother is resting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs.”** From the juxtaposition of the fledglings and the eggs one derives: **Just as the fledglings are living, so too, the eggs** must **be** capable of producing **living** fledglings. This **excludes unfertilized** eggs, which cannot produce a living fledgling. **And** furthermore, **just as the eggs need their mothers** to hatch them, **so too, the fledglings** must be those that **need their mothers.** This **excludes** fledglings that are capable of **flying.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״רוֹבֶצֶת״ – וְלֹא מְעוֹפֶפֶת. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״רוֹבֶצֶת״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? מִדְּלָא כְּתִיב ״יוֹשֶׁבֶת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna discusses the case of a mother bird that hovers over the nest. With regard to this, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse teaches that one is obligated to send away the mother bird only when it is at rest, as it states: “And the mother is **resting** upon the fledglings” (Deuteronomy 22:6), **and not** when it is **hovering.** One **might** have thought that one is exempt **even** if the mother is hovering and **its wings are touching the nest.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Resting,”** indicating that in fact one is obligated in the mitzva in such a case. The Gemara asks: **What is the** biblical **derivation,** i.e., how is this derived from the word “resting”? The Gemara responds: It is derived **from** the fact **that** the word **sitting is not written** in the verse. Although a bird whose wings are touching the nest is not sitting upon it, such a bird is considered to be resting upon it.


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּין שְׁנֵי רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן – רוֹאִים, כֹּל שֶׁאִם תִּשָּׁמֵט נוֹפֶלֶת עֲלֵיהֶם – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, וְאִם לָאו – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** If the mother bird **was sitting** above the eggs or fledglings **between two tree branches,** one **looks** at the following factor in order to determine whether the obligation to send away the mother applies: In **any** case **where if** the branches were to separate, the bird **would slip** between them and **fall upon** the eggs or fledglings, one is **obligated to send** away the mother bird. **And if** the bird would **not** fall upon them, but to the sides, one is **exempt** from the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of Rav from that which was taught in a *baraita*: If the mother bird **was sitting among** the eggs or the fledglings, one is **exempt from sending** it away, as the verse states: “And the mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs” (Deuteronomy 22:6), i.e., upon and not among. If it was sitting **above them,** one is **obligated to send** it away. If it **was hovering, even** if **its wings are touching the nest,** one is **exempt from sending** it away.


###### Chullin 140b:18
[Chullin 140b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140b:18)

מַאי לָאו עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, דּוּמְיָא דְּבֵינֵיהֶן: מָה בֵּינֵיהֶן – דְּנָגְעָה בְּהוּ, אַף עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – דְּנָגְעָה בְּהוּ, אֲבָל רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן – פָּטוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** that the case of sitting **above them** is **similar to** the case of sitting **between them?** The Gemara elaborates: **Just as** in the case of sitting **between them** one is exempt **where she is touching them, so too,** in the case of sitting **above them** one is obligated **where she is touching them.** If so, conclude from this *baraita* that one is obligated only if the bird is touching the fledglings or eggs, **but** if it is sitting between two **tree branches** above the eggs or fledglings without touching them, one is **exempt** from sending her away.


###### Chullin 140b:19
[Chullin 140b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140b:19)

לֹא, עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דּוּמְיָא דְּבֵינֵיהֶן: מָה בֵּינֵיהֶן – דְּלֹא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, אַף עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – דְּלֹא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, וְהַיְינוּ רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No;** actually, the case of sitting **above them** is **similar to** that of sitting **between them** in the following manner: **Just as** the case of sitting **between them** is one **where she is not touching them** from **above,** but from the side, **so too,** the case of sitting **above them** is one **where she is not touching them** from **above.** Accordingly, the *baraita* teaches that one is obligated to send away the bird if it is resting on branches above the nest, even though it is not touching the eggs or fledglings. **And that is** the case where the mother is sitting between two **tree branches.**


###### Chullin 140b:20
[Chullin 140b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140b:20)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן פָּטוּר – אַדְּתָנֵי: הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, לִיתְנֵי רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מְעוֹפֶפֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **This, too, stands to reason,** that one is obligated to send away a mother bird that is sitting between two tree branches above the nest. **As, if** it should **enter your mind** that one is **exempt** when the mother bird is sitting between two **tree branches,** then one may ask: **Rather than teaching** that if it **was hovering, even** if **its wings are touching the nest,** one is **exempt from sending** it away, **let** the *baraita* **teach** that one is exempt in the case of a mother bird that is sitting between two **tree branches, and all the more so** if the mother **is hovering.**


###### Chullin 140b:21
[Chullin 140b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140b:21)

מְעוֹפֶפֶת אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one is exempt from sending the mother bird if it is resting between two tree branches. Nevertheless, it **was necessary** for the *tanna* to teach the case of **a hovering** bird, in order to teach **that even** if **its wings are touching the nest,** one is **exempt from sending** away the mother bird. Had the *tanna* taught the exemption in a case of a bird resting between two tree branches, one might have thought that this is because the bird’s wings are not touching the nest.


###### Chullin 140b:22
[Chullin 140b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140b:22)

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: בִּזְמַן שֶׁכְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כִּי קָתָנֵי מַתְנִיתָא בְּנוֹגֵעַ מִן הַצַּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now questions the *baraita* itself: How can the *baraita* state that even if the hovering bird’s wings are touching the nest, one is exempt from sending the bird away? **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: **When its wings are touching the nest,** one is **obligated to send** away the mother? **Rabbi Yirmeya said: When** the case of the hovering mother bird **is taught** in **the *baraita*,** it is referring **to** a bird **touching** the nest **from the side.** In such a case, one is exempt because its wings are not touching the nest from above. By contrast, the mishna is referring to a case where the bird is hovering directly above the nest and touching the nest with its wings from above.


###### Chullin 140b:23
[Chullin 140b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140b:23)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ, עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּחַ, הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that the discussion proceeded as follows: **Let us say** that the following *baraita* **supports** the opinion of Rav: If the mother bird **was sitting among** the eggs or the fledglings, one is **exempt from sending** it away. If it was sitting **above them,** one is **obligated to send** it away. If **it was hovering, even** if **its wings are touching the nest,** one is **exempt from sending** it away.


###### Chullin 140b:24
[Chullin 140b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140b:24)

מַאי לָאו עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, דּוּמְיָא דְּבֵינֵיהֶן: מָה בֵּינֵיהֶן – דְּלָא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, אַף עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – דְּלָא נָגְעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, וְהַיְינוּ רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** that the case of sitting **above them** is **similar to** that of sitting **between them** in the following manner: **Just as** the case of sitting **between them** is one **where she is not touching them** from **above** but from the side, **so too,** the case of sitting **above them** is one **where she is not touching them** from **above?** If so, the *baraita* teaches that if the bird rests on branches over the eggs or fledglings without touching them, one is obligated in the mitzva. **And that is** the case where the mother is sitting between two **tree branches.**


###### Chullin 140b:25
[Chullin 140b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/140b:25)

לָא, עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דּוּמְיָא דְּבֵינֵיהֶן: מָה בֵּינֵיהֶן – דְּנָגְעָה בְּהוּ, אַף עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן – דְּנָגְעָה בְּהוּ. אֲבָל רוֹבְדֵי אִילָן – פָּטוּר. אִי הָכִי, אַדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת, אֲפִילּוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן – פָּטוּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** the case of sitting **above them** is **similar to** that of sitting **between them** in the following manner: **Just as** the case of sitting **between them** is one **where she is touching them, so too,** the case of sitting **above them** is one **where she is touching them.** Accordingly, one is obligated only if the bird is touching the nest from above; **but** if it is sitting between two **tree branches** without touching the eggs or the fledglings, one is **exempt** from sending it away. The Gemara objects: **If that is so, rather than teaching** in **the last clause:** If it **was hovering, even** if **its wings are touching the nest,** one is **exempt** from sending it away,