THE CASE OF KODSHIM
Question: What is the case of Kodshim, for which a verse is needed to exempt?
If one was Makdish a bird in his house, he is exempt. "Ki Yikarei" excludes Mezuman!
Answer #1: He saw a Hefker nest and was Makdish it.
Rejection: "Ish Ki Yakdish Beiso Kodesh" - one can be Makdish only things like his house, that he owns.
Answer #2: Rather, he lifted the chicks, was Makdish them, then put them back.
Rejection: Even if they were Chulin, he would not have to send the mother!
(Mishnah): If one took the chicks and returned them to the nest, and the mother returned, he need not send it.
Answer #3: Rather, he lifted the mother and was Makdish it, then put it back.
Rejection: He was obligated to send it before he was Makdish it (and this obligation remains)!
(Beraisa - R. Yochanan ben Yosef): If one was Makdish a Chayah and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from Kisuy ha'Dam;
If he slaughtered it and then was Makdish it, he must cover the blood, because he was already obligated.
Answer #4 (Rav): He was Makdish the chicks in his dovecote to be Olos, and then they fled (and he recognizes one that matured and now sits on its young).
Answer #5 (Shmuel): One was Makdish his chicken (for Bedek ha'Bayis, and it fled, and now rests on its young).
Shmuel did not give Rav's answer. Shmuel teaches that the Mishnah applies even to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis.
Question: Why didn't Rav give Shmuel's answer?
Answer: Rav exempts from sending only when he made it Hekdesh Mizbe'ach;
Since they have Kedushas ha'Guf (to be offered), the Kedushah does not vanish when they flee;
Regarding Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, only the value is Kodesh. The Kedushah vanishes when they flee, and he must send the mother.
Shmuel holds that even Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis does not vanish, for wherever they flee, they are in Hash-m's domain - "la'Shem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah."
Also R. Yochanan explained the Mishnah like Shmuel. Reish Lakish argued like Rav, and R. Yochanan answered like Shmuel.
ACHARAYUS FOR HEKDESH
Contradictions: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish contradict what they said elsewhere!
(R. Yochanan): If a man said "this money is for Bedek ha'Bayis" and it was stolen or lost, he has Acharayus (he must replace the loss to Hekdesh) until he gives it to the Gizbar;
(Reish Lakish): He has no Acharayus. From the moment he designated the money, wherever it is, it is in Hash-m's domain.
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.
Answer - part 2 (for R. Yochanan): R. Yochanan says that he has Acharayus when he said "Alai (it is incumbent upon me)." He has no Acharayus when he did not say this. He only designated the money.
Question: If so, we must say that Reish Lakish exempts from Acharayus even when he says "Alai"!
(Beraisa): If one said "it is Alai to bring an Olah", this is a Neder. If he said "this is an Olah," this is a Nedavah;
The difference between them is, if it dies or is stolen or lost, one has Acharayus for a Neder, not for a Nedavah.
Answer: Reish Lakish holds that this applies only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, since they must be offered. One need not do anything to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (other than give them to Hekdesh), so he has no Acharayus even if he said "Alai."
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 Acharayus;
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 Acharayus (even though the only Kedushah of a house is its value)!
Answer: He has Acharayus only when it fell, but not if it stands, for wherever it is, it is in Hash-m's domain.
(Rav Hamnuna): All agree regarding Erchin (a pledge to give to Hekdesh an amount based on one's age and gender) that even if he said Alai, he has no Acharayus.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: "Alai" is not extra (to show that he accepts Acharayus). It is the only way to obligate oneself in Erchin!
"My Erech" or "Ploni's Erech" is meaningless, for he did not say who must give it!
Objection #1 (Rava): He could say "Hareni b'Erki (or b'Erech Ploni", I am obligated to give my Erech or Ploni's Erech)!
Objection #2 (Rava - Beraisa - R. Noson) Question: The verse "v'Nasan Es ha'Erkecha... Kodesh la'Shem" discusses redeeming a field. Why does it say "ha'Erkecha"?
Answer: One has no Acharayus on money given to redeem Hekdesh or Ma'aser Sheni. One might have thought that similarly, there is no Acharayus on money designated to pay Erchin. The verse teaches this is not so. The money is Chulin until it is given to the Gizbar.
Correction: Rather, Rav Hamnuna taught that all agree about Erchin, that even if he did not say Alai, he has Acharayus;
"V'Nasan Es ha'Erkecha" teaches that it is Chulin until it is given to the Gizbar.
WHEN DOES THE MITZVAH APPLY
(Mishnah): Kisuy ha'Dam is more stringent...
(Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Ki Yikarei (when will happen)... "?
Answer: One might have thought that "Shale'ach Teshalach" teaches that one must go to mountains to seek to fulfill the Mitzvah. "Ki Yikarei" teaches that this is not so. One must do the Mitzvah only if it presents itself.
"Kan" teaches that the Mitzvah applies no matter how small the nest is (even one chick or egg);
"Tzipor" is a Tahor (mother) bird, but not a Tamei bird;
"Lefanecha" refers to a Reshus ha'Yachid. "Ba'Derech" refers to a Reshus ha'Rabim;
Question: What is the source if it is in a tree?
Answer: It says "b'Chol Etz."
Question: What is the source if it is in a pit or cave?
Answer: It says "Oh Al ha'Aretz."
Question: Since we include all places, why must the Torah teach "Lefanacha ba'Derech"?
Answer #1: This teaches that the Mitzvah applies only to cases similar to "ba'Derech," i.e. it is not Mezuman.
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 birds that nested in a house or domestic doves.
Objection #1: We said that "ba'Derech" teaches that the Mitzvah applies only when it is not Mezuman. "Ki Yikarei" teaches this!
Objection #2: What does "Lefanacha" teach?
Answer #2: Rather, "Lefanacha" includes birds that were owned and fled;
"Ba'Derech" teaches Rav Yehudah's law.
(Rav Yehudah): If one finds a nest on the sea, he must send the mother - "ba'Yam Darech."
Question: If so, the same should apply to a nest (held by its mother) in the air - "Derech ha'Nesher ba'Shamayim"!
Answer: No. The air is called "Derech Nesher." It is not called (plain) "Derech."
Question (Rabanan of Papunai): Does the Mitzvah apply to a nest on a man's head?
Answer (Rav Masnah): It says "va'Adamah Al Rosho" (it is considered like on the ground).
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CERTAIN NAMES AND WORDS
Question: Where does the Torah allude to Moshe (before his birth), (the fate of) Haman, (the story of) Esther and (the aggrandizing of) Mordechai?
Answer: "Beshagam... his years will be 120" alludes to Moshe (he lived to be 120, and the Gematri'a of Beshagam is 345, like that of Moshe);
"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" alludes to Mordechai. The translation of this is "MaRa DaCHYa."
(Mishnah): What is not considered Mezuman?...
R. Chiya or R. Shimon (son of Rebbi) taught that the Mishnah discusses "Hadrasios" doves. The other says the text reads "Hordasios."
The latter opinion says that they are called by Hordus' name, because he started to raise them.
The former opinion says that they are called by the name of the place of their origin.
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)."
(Rav Ashi): These are (fictitious) words.
Objection: Rav Kahana said that he saw it!
Answer: Rather, Rav Ashi meant that they spoke in the language of birds (Aruch; Rashi - they spoke through witchcraft).
TAMEI BIRDS ARE NOT CALLED TZIPOR
(Mishnah): One is exempt from sending a Tamei bird.
Question: What is the source this?
Answer (R. Yitzchak): We learn from "Kan Tzipor." "Ohf" refers to Tahor and Tamei birds, but "Tzipor" refers only to Tahor birds.
Question #1: It says "Tavnis Kol Tzipor Kanaf"! (Surely, the Isur to make images applies to all birds and Chagavim (locusts or grasshoppers)!)
Suggestion: "Tzipor" refers to Tamei and Tahor birds. "Kanaf" refers to Chagavim.
Answer: No, "Tzipor" refers to Tahor birds. "Kanaf" refers to Tamei birds and Chagavim. (The next three questions are based on the above suggestion. The same answer is given.)
Question #2: It says "ha'Chayah v'Chol Behemah Remesh v'Tzipor Kanaf"! (Surely, all birds and Chagavim praise Hash-m!)
Question #3: It says "Kol Tzipor Kol Kanaf"! (All birds and Chagavim entered the ark).
Question #4: It says "Emor l'Tzipor Kol Kanaf"! (All birds and Chagavim will eat the dead of Gog's army.)