C. What
is the situation [regarding the bird]? If they passed judgment on it — [139a] it is put to death [and would not have escaped]. Rather it must be the
case that they had not yet passed judgment on it. And they needed to bring it
to the court and to fulfill by [killing it the requirement of the verse],
“So you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deut. 13:5).
D. What
is the circumstance regarding these consecrated
ones? If we say the case was that he
had a nest in his house and he consecrated it, would he be liable [to let the
dam go]? [The verse stipulates], “If you chance to come upon a bird's nest,
[in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting
upon the young or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young]”
(Deut. 22:6) — this excludes from the
obligation that which is captive [in a house].
E. Rather
[it must be the case that] he saw a nest elsewhere and consecrated it.
F. And
[in such a case] is it consecrated? “When a man dedicates his house to be
holy [to the Lord, the priest shall value it as either good or bad; as the
priest values it so it shall stand]” (Lev. 27:14), said the Torah. Just as “his
house” implies that it must be in his possession, so too everything [that he
wishes to consecrate must be] in his possession.
G. Rather
[the case must be where] he picked up the young birds and consecrated them and
then returned them [to the nest].
H. [But
the actions described in] this case, even in regard to an unconsecrated nest,
would not result in an obligation [to let the dam go from the nest]. For it was
taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: [If] one took the young and then returned them to the nest and
afterward the dam returned to them, he is free of the obligation to send forth
[the dam from the nest][M. 12:3 Q].
I. Rather
[the case must be that] he picked up the mother bird and consecrated it and put
it [back in the nest]. [But if so] at the outset he would be obligated to let
the dam go before he had a chance to consecrate it. For it was taught on
Tannaite authority: R. Yohanan B. Joseph says, “One who consecrated a wild
beast and then slaughtered it is free from the obligation to cover [the blood].
If he slaughtered it and then consecrated it, he is obligated to cover [the
blood]. For it was already subject to the obligation to be covered, before it
became sancta.”
I.3
A. Rab said, “[The case of consecrated
birds in question in the Mishnah is] where one consecrated the [young]
offspring of his dovecote and then they escaped.”
B. And Samuel said, “[The case in
question is] where one consecrated his chicken to the Temple treasury.”
C. Now
it is consistent to say that Samuel not state the matter in accord with the view
of Rab. For he explains [the case in terms of birds that were] consecrated to
the Temple treasury. [Samuel's example subsumes objects that represent a value
pledged to the Temple, but that have no inherent sanctity as sacrifices. It is
thus a more inclusive instance.]
D. But
on what basis does Rab not state the matter in accord with the view of Samuel?
Rab would say to you that one is free of the obligation to let go [the dam]
only in the specific case such as where one consecrated the [young] offspring of
his dovecote, because these are consecrated [as sacrifices to be offered] on
the altar. For once they become consecrated, their intrinsic sanctity does not
depart from them. But where one consecrated his chicken to the Temple treasury,
this is not [a case of objects] consecrated [as sacrifices to be offered] on
the altar. This is [a case of objects] consecrated for their everyday monetary
value [as a pledge to the Temple]. Once they escaped, their sanctity departed
from them. And they are subject to the obligation to let go the mother.
E. And
Samuel [would say in response to this], “Wherever it is, it remains inside of
the enclosures of the merciful one. As it is written, `The earth is the Lord's
and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein' (Ps. 24:1).”
F. And
similarly [to the view of Samuel] said R. Yohanan, “[The case is where] one
consecrated his chicken to the Temple treasury and it escaped.”
G. Said
to him R. Simeon B. Laqish, “Because it escaped, the sanctity departed from it.”
H. He
[Yohanan] said to him, “[No.] It remains inside of the enclosures of the merciful one. As it is written, `The
earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell
therein' (Ps. 24:1).”
I. But
we may raise by way of contradiction one view of R. Yohanan against another
view of R. Yohanan [stated elsewhere]. And we may raise by way of contradiction
one view of R. Simeon b. Laqish against another view of R. Simeon B. Laqish
[stated elsewhere].
J. For
it was stated: [If a person said], “May this maneh be consecrated to the Temple
treasury” and it was stolen or lost — R. Yohanan said, “He is responsible for
replacing it until it comes into the possession of the treasurer.” And R.
Simeon b. Laqish said, “Wherever it is, it remains inside of the enclosures
of the merciful one. As it is written,
`The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who
dwell therein' (Ps. 24:1).”
K. The
view of R. Yohanan [in the latter case] contradicts the view of R. Yohanan [in
the former case]. And the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish [in the latter case]
contradicts the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish [in the former case].
L. [No.]
The view of R. Simeon b. Laqish [in the latter case] does not contradict the
view of R. Simeon b. Laqish [in the former case]. This one [was stated] before
he heard the rule from R. Yohanan, his master.
And this one [was stated] after he heard the rule from R. Yohanan, his
master.
M. But
does the view of R. Yohanan [in the latter case really] contradict the view of
R. Yohanan [in the former case]? The view of R. Yohanan [in the latter case
really] also does not contradict the view of R. Yohanan [in the former case].
This one refers to a case where the one who consecrated it said, “Let it be a
vow upon me [to donate a certain amount].” And this one refers to a case where
the one who consecrated it said, “Let this be [consecrated to the Temple]. ”
N. May
we derive by implication that R. Simeon b. Laqish [holds the rule that] even
though one [who consecrated] said, “Let it be a vow upon me [to donate a
certain amount]” he is not liable [to replace it]? But lo it was taught on
Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: What
is deemed [to be a pair of birds brought in fulfillment of] a vow? He who says,
“Lo, I pledge myself to bring a burnt offering.” And what is deemed [to be a
pair of birds brought] as a freewill offering? He who says, “Lo, this is a
burnt offering.” And what is the difference between vows and freewill
offerings? In the case of vows, [if] they [the birds] died or were stolen or
lost, he is answerable for them [and
must replace them]. In the case of freewill offerings, [if] they died or were
stolen or lost, they are not
answerable for them [and need not replace them][M. Qinnim 1:1 G-M].
O. Resh
Laqish would say to you, “This concern [of M.] applies to what one sanctifies
for offering on the altar [i.e., he is liable to replace it, for if not,] he is
missing an offering. But [the concern of M. does not apply] to what one
sanctifies for the Temple treasury [for if he loses it and does not replace
it], he is not missing an offering. And even where he says, `Lo, I pledge
myself' he is not obligated [to replace them if they are lost or stolen].”
P. But
lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: [He who says], “This ox is a burnt offering,” “This house is a qorban,” if the ox died or the house
collapsed, is not liable to pay. [If he said], “The price of this ox is
incumbent on me for a burnt offering,” or “The price of this house is incumbent
on me as qorban,” [if] the ox died or
the house collapsed, he is liable to pay [M. Arakhin 5:5].
Q. This
[latter] concern applies where, the
ox died or the house collapsed, he is liable to pay, for they no longer exist. But where they still exist, “Wherever it is, it remains inside of the
enclosures of the merciful one. As it is
written, `The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and
those who dwell therein' (Ps. 24:1).”
R. Said R. Hamnuna, “Everyone agrees
with regard to Valuations that even though he said, `[The price...] is
incumbent on me' [and he set aside the amount and it was lost or stolen] that
he is not obligated [to replace it].”
S. What
is the basis for this opinion? For these [obligations] cannot be stated without
[stating] `is incumbent on me.' How else could he say it? He could say, `my
Valuation,' but we would not know upon whom [the obligation is incumbent]. He
could say, `the Valuation of that person,' but we would not know upon whom [the
obligation is incumbent].
T. Raba
raised this by way of contradiction: “Let him say, `Lo I am [obligated] in
accord with my own Valuation' or `Lo I am [obligated] in accord with the
Valuation of such-and-such-a-person.'”
U. And
furthermore it was taught on Tannaite authority, R. Nathan says: “[Then the
priest shall compute the Valuation for it up to the year of jubilee,] and the
man shall give the amount of the Valuation on that day as a Holy Thing to the
Lord” (Lev. 27:23) — what does the verse teach us? Since we determine regarding
consecrated objects and [second] tithes, that one redeemed with unconsecrated
coins, that if they were stolen or lost, he is not liable to replace them, [139b] you might infer that even in
this case the same rule applies, it comes to teach [to the contrary], “And the
man shall give the amount of the Valuation on that day as a Holy Thing to the
Lord.” It remains unconsecrated until it reaches the hands of the Temple
treasurer.
V. But
if you wish to state the matter, here is how you should state the matter:
Said R. Hamnuna, “Everyone agrees with regard to Valuations that even though he
did not say, `[The price...] is incumbent on me' [and he set aside the amount
and it was lost or stolen] that he is obligated [to replace it]. For it is
written, `And the man shall give the amount of the valuation on that day as a
holy thing to the Lord.' It remains unconsecrated in your hand until it reaches
the hands of the Temple treasurer.”
II.1
A. A
more strict rule applies to covering up the blood [than to letting the dam go from
the nest][M. 12:1 B]. Our rabbis
taught on Tannaite authority: “If you chance to come upon a bird's nest on
the way, [in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother
sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the
young]” (Deut. 22:6). What does this come to teach us? Because it says, “You
shall let the mother go, but the young you may take to yourself; [that it may
go well with you, and that you may live long]” (Deut. 22:7), you might infer
that one must search the hills and valleys in order to find a nest [so that he
may fulfill the commandment]. It comes to teach us, “If you chance to come
upon” — if by happenstance you find before you a nest [then you must send away
the mother].
B. [Continuing the interpretation of
the verses]: “A bird's” — [this implies] a clean one, but not an unclean one.
“Come upon” — in a private domain; “on the way” — in a public domain. On what
basis [must you send away the dams if you find nests] in trees? It comes to teach
us, “in any tree.” On what basis [if you find nests] in cisterns, ditches or
caves? It comes to teach, “or on the ground.” But if after all we include [in
the rule] all these instances, why then must we have [in the verse the phrase],
“to come upon... on the way”? To inform you that just as a nest [you find] “on
the way” is not in your hands, so [too the law applies to] any nest that is not
in your hands.
C. Based on this they said: Doves of
the dovecote and doves of the loft that make their nest in birdhouses or
bird-towers and geese and fowl that make
their nest in an orchard are liable to the requirement of letting the dam
go. But if they make their nest in the
house (and so Herodian doves), one is free of the requirement of letting the
dam go [=M. 12:1 F-G].
D. Said the master: What is the case
[where you come upon a nest] “on the way” that the nest is not in your hands,
so too in every case where the nest is not in your hands [must you send away
the dam]. But why must I maintain this
teaching? This can be derived from [the words in the verse], “If you
chance.” [No, this is not the case. We use that phrase to teach us something
else.] “If you chance” — this excludes [from the obligation] that which is
captive.
E. And
furthermore: “To come upon” — why must
I maintain this teaching? Rather “To come upon” encompasses in the rule a case where they were before you and they
escaped.
F. “On the way” — in accord with R.
Judah, who said in the name of Rab. For said R. Judah, said Rab, “If he found a
nest in the sea, he is liable for the requirement of letting the dam go. As it
says [using the word for `way'], `Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the
sea, [a path in the mighty waters]' (Isa. 43:16).”
G. Accordingly we should derive the
conclusion that if one found a nest [hovering] in the sky, As it is written, “The way of an eagle in the sky, [the way of a
serpent on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man
with a maiden]” (Prov. 30:19), it would be liable to the requirement of letting
the dam go. [No, this is not the case.] “The way of an eagle” is stated in the verse. Just plain “way”
is not stated in the verse.
H. Said the people of Papunia to R.
Matna, “If one found a nest on the head of a person, what is the law?” He said
[there is proof in a verse where it speaks of ground on the head], “[When David
came to the summit, where God was worshiped, behold, Hushai the Archite came to
meet him with his coat rent and] earth [=ground] upon his head” (II Sam.
15:32).
I. Where is there reference to Moses
in the Torah [in the book of Genesis]? “[Then the Lord said, `My spirit shall
not abide in man for ever,] for he is flesh, [but his days shall be a hundred
and twenty years]'” (Gen. 6:3). [This is a double allusion to Moses. The
numerical value of `for he is' (bšgm)
is equal to the value of `Moses', and there is a reference to `a hundred and
twenty years', the life span of Moses.]
J. Where is there reference to Haman
in the Torah? “[He said, `Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten] of
the tree [of which I commanded you not to eat?]'” (Gen. 3:11). [“Of the” is the
same spelling as Haman, hmn.]
K. Where is there reference to Esther
in the Torah? “And I will surely hide [my face in that day on account of all
the evil which they have done, because they have turned to other gods]” (Deut.
31:18). [“Hide” is the same spelling as Esther, `str.]
L. Where is there reference to Mordecai
in the Torah? As it is written,
“[Take the finest spices:] of liquid myrrh [five hundred shekels, and of sweet-smelling
cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic cane two
hundred and fifty]” (Exod. 30:23). And that [phrase] is translated into
Aramaic, mor-decai (myr` dky`).
III.1
A. What
is that which is not captive? [For example, geese and fowl which make their
nest in an orchard. But if they make their nest in the house (and so Herodian
doves), one is free of the requirement of letting the dam go] [M. 12:1 E-G].
R. Hiyya and R. Simeon [offered two readings of a name for the doves in M.]:
One taught, Hadresian. And one taught, Herodian.
The one who taught, Herodian [says
they were called that] on account of Herod. The one who taught, Hadresian [says
they were called that] on account of their place of origin.
B. Said
R. Kahana, “I saw with my own eyes sixteen rows [of Herodian doves] each one a
mile long and they were chirping [in a voice that sounded like the Greek words
for] `Master, Master'. One of them was not chirping `Master, Master'. The bird
next to it said to it, `Blind fool bird, chirp `Master, Master!' It said [in
reply to the bird], Blind fool bird, chirp `Master, slave.' [Greek words that
sound similar. By chirping this the bird indicated disrespect for authority.]
They took it and slaughtered it.” [In fact, this pericope may be a thinly
veiled reference, critical of Herod's brutality.]
C. Said
R. Ashi, “Said to me R. Hanina, `These [stories] are just meaningless words.'”
Do we conclude then that these [stories] are just meaningless words? [No.]
Rather it makes sense to say that these [events] were accomplished through
[magical] words [i.e., spells].
IV.1
A. An
unclean bird is exempt from the requirement of letting the dam go [M. 12:2 A].
What is the source of this assertion?
Said R. Yitzhak, “As scripture says, `If you chance to come upon a bird's nest
on the way' (Deut 22:6). The word `bird' [i.e., the Hebrew 'wp] includes both clean and unclean. The word `bird' [i.e., the
Hebrew spwr, does not include both]. We find clean birds that are called spwr. We do not find unclean birds that are called spwr.”
B. Come
and take note: “The likeness of any winged bird [spwr] that flies in the air” (Deut. 4:17) — is it not the case that
`bird' subsumes both the clean and the unclean and that `winged' subsumes
locusts? No. `Bird' subsumes only the clean ones; `winged' subsumes the unclean
ones and locusts.
C. Come
and take note: “Beasts and all cattle, creeping things and flying birds!”
(Ps. 148:10) — is it not the case that `bird' subsumes both
the clean and the unclean and that `winged' subsumes locusts? No. `Bird'
subsumes only the clean ones; `winged' subsumes the unclean ones and locusts.
D. Come
and take note: “Every bird, every winged creature” (Gen. 7:14) — is it not the case as we asked above? No. It
is the case as we answered above.
E. Come
and take note: “As for you, son of man, thus says the Lord God: Speak to
the birds of every sort and to all beasts of the field, [Assemble and come,
gather from all sides to the sacrificial feast which I am preparing for you, a
great sacrificial feast upon the mountains of Israel, and you shall eat flesh
and drink blood]” (Ezek. 39:17) — is it not the case as we asked above? No. It
is the case as we answered above.
No comments:
Post a Comment