Question #5: It says "uv'Anfohi Yeduran Tziparei Shemaya"! (Surely, Tamei and Tahor birds nest in this great tree!)

Answer: Tamei birds are included in the term "Tziparei Shemaya." They are not called (plain) Tzipor.

Question #6 "(You may eat) Kol Tzipor Tehorah" implies that some Tziporim are Teme'im!

Answer: No, some Tziporim are forbidden.

Question: Why are they forbidden?

Suggestion: They are Terefos.

Rejection: Another verse explicitly forbids Terefos!

Suggestion: They were slaughtered to be Metaher a Metzora.

Rejection: The following verse forbids them!

"V'Zeh Asher Lo Sochelu" includes the Shechutah (the bird slaughtered for Taharas Metzora).

Answer: Really, it is the Shechutah. The Torah forbids it with a Lav and an Aseh.

Question: Perhaps "Kol Tzipor Tehorah" excludes a Terefah, to forbid it with a Lav and an Aseh!

Answer: Since the next verse alludes to the Shechutah, also this verse does.

Question #7: "Shtei Tziporim Chayos" (are used to be Metaher a Metzora).

Question: What does "Chayos" teach?

Suggestion: This teaches that they may be eaten (i.e. they are Tehorim). This implies that some Tziporim are Teme'im!

Answer: No, it means that their limbs are Chayim (complete).

Question #8: "(Shtei Tziporim Chayos) Tehoros" (are used for Taharas Metzora). This implies that some Tziporim are Teme'im!

Answer #1: No, it excludes Terefos.

Objection #1: "Chayos" excludes Terefos!

Partial answer: According to the opinion that a Terefah can live, it does not exclude Terefos.

According to the opinion that a Terefah cannot live, the objection remains!

Objection #2: Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael's teaching excludes Terefos!

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): The Torah discusses Machshirim (things that permit) and atonements brought in the Mikdash, and Machshirim and atonements brought outside the Mikdash;

In the Mikdash, the laws of Machshirim (Korbanos that complete the Taharah of Tamei people, allowing them to eat Kodshim) and atonements (Chata'os) are the same (they must be Kosher Korbanos). Also outside the Mikdash, the laws of Machshirim (birds of a Metzora) and atonements (the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kipur) are the same;

Just like the goat cannot be Terefah, also birds of a Metzora.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): It excludes birds from an Ir ha'Nidachas (a city that is burned because the majority of its residents served idolatry).

Question: (One bird is slaughtered, and the other is Meshulachas (sent away).) For which do we need a verse to disqualify birds of an Ir ha'Nidachas?

Suggestion: It is for the Meshulachas.

Rejection: Reasoning alone excludes a bird from an Ir ha'Nidachas. If we sent it, someone might find it and eat it, not knowing that it is forbidden!

Answer: Rather, the verse teaches that the Shechutah may not be from an Ir ha'Nidachas.

Answer #3 (Rava): "Tehoros" teaches that after slaughtering one bird (for Taharas Metzora), we may not pair a third bird with the remaining bird to be Metaher another Metzora.

Question: (If not for the verse,) what could we do with the remaining bird?

We could not slaughter it. It must be sent to be Metaher the first Metzora!

Answer: Rather, one might have thought that we send it to be Metaher both Metzora'im.

Answer #4 (Rav Papa): "Tehoros" excludes birds bought with money (or objects) of idolatry;

"V'Hayisa Cherem Kamohu" - whatever you get from (buy with) idolatry is forbidden like idolatry.

Question: Do we need the verse to disqualify such a bird from being the Shechutah, or the Meshulachas?

Surely, we cannot send it. Someone might find it and eat it, unaware that it is forbidden!

Answer: Rather, it disqualifies it from being the Shechutah.

Answer #5 (Ravina): "Tehoros" excludes a bird that killed a person.

Question: What is the case?

If Beis Din sentenced it to die, we must kill it. Surely it cannot be used for a Metzora!

Answer: Rather, Beis Din did not sentence it.

Question: Does the verse disqualify such a bird from being the Shechutah, or the Meshulachas?

Answer: Surely it cannot be sent. It must be taken to Beis Din to fulfill "u'Viarta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha"!

Rather, it disqualifies it from being the Shechutah.

(Mishnah): A Tamei bird sitting on Tahor eggs...

We understand why the Mitzvah does not apply to this. The Torah discusses a (mother that is a) Tzipor, and not a Tamei bird.

Question: If a Tahor bird sits on Tamei eggs, why is there no Mitzvah to send it?

Answer: We answer like Rav Kahana said (elsewhere). "Tikach Lach" teaches that the Mitzvah applies when you may take the eggs to eat, but not (only) for your dog.

Question: Where did Rav Kahana say this?

Answer (Beraisa): If the mother is Terefah, the Mitzvah applies. If the chicks are Terefos, there is no Mitzvah.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Rav Kahana): "Tikach Lach", but not for your dog.

Suggestion: We should equate the law of the mother to the chicks. Just like there is no Mitzvah when the chicks are Terefos, the same should apply when the mother is Terefah!

Rejection: If so, we would not need "Tzipor" to exclude a Tamei mother.

Contradiction (Beraisa): A mother (on) a chick that is Terefah must be sent.

Answer (Abaye): It means, (even) a mother of a chick that (it, the mother) is Terefah must be sent.

Question (R. Hoshaya): If a man slaughtered the minority of the Veshet (foodpipe) of chicks in a nest, must he send the mother?

Do we say that since if he will not finish the Shechitah they are Terefos and proper only for a dog, there is no Mitzvah?

Or, since he can finish the Shechitah and they will be proper for him, there is a Mitzvah?

This question is not resolved.

Question #1 (R. Yirmeyah): If a rag separates between a mother and its young, is she considered to be on them (and the Mitzvah applies), or not?

Question #2 (R. Yirmeyah): (If a rag is considered a Chatzitzah,) if Muzaros eggs (that cannot produce chicks) separate between a mother and eggs that will hatch, what is the law? (Rashi holds that the Mitzvah applies only when one wants the eggs; Ramban holds that one must send the mother even if he does not want the eggs.)

Version #1 (Rashi) Question #3 (R. Yirmeyah): (If Muzaros eggs are a Chatzitzah,) if (healthy) eggs separate between a mother and a bottom layer of eggs (that one wants to take), what is the law?

Version #2 (Ramban) Question #3 (R. Yirmeyah): If (Tamei) eggs separate between a mother and a bottom layer of eggs (of its species), what is the law? (If Tamei eggs are not a Chatzitzah, one must send the mother.)

Question #4 (R. Yirmeyah): If a male bird separates between a mother and the eggs, what is the law?

These questions are not resolved.

Question (R. Zeira): If a dove sits on eggs of a Tasil (a similar species), or vice-versa, what is the law?

Answer (Abaye - Mishnah): One is exempt from sending a Tamei bird on Tahor eggs or a Tahor bird on Tamei eggs;

Inference: One must send a Tahor bird on Tahor eggs of a different species.

Rejection: Perhaps that refers to a Korei (partridge. Since it normally does so, it must be sent.)

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One must send a male Korei sitting on eggs;

Chachamim exempt.

(R. Avahu): R. Eliezer learns from a Gezerah Shavah. It says "Korei Dagar v'Lo Yalad" (a male Korei calls to chicks)," and "u'Vakah v'Dagrah v'Tzilah" (a mother calls to its chicks. Just like the latter must be sent, also a male Korei on eggs of its species.)

(R. Elazar): The Tana'im argue only about a male Korei, but all obligate sending a female Korei (on eggs of another species).

Objection: This is obvious. The Mishnah says that they argue about a male Korei!

Answer: One might have thought that Chachamim exempt even regarding a female Korei, and the Mishnah taught the argument about a male Korei to show the extremity of R. Eliezer's opinion;

R. Elazar teaches that this is not so.

(R. Elazar): The Tana'im argue only about a male Korei, but all agree that a male of other species is exempt (since it is abnormal for it to sit on eggs. The Rif explains that this is a second version of R. Elazar's teaching. The Rosh says that it is another teaching. It does not argue with the first teaching.)

Objection: This is obvious. The Mishnah says that they argue about a male Korei!

Answer: One might have thought that R. Eliezer obligates even males of other species, and the Mishnah taught the argument about a male Korei to show the extremity of Chachamim's opinion;

R. Elazar teaches that this is not so.

Support (Beraisa): There is no Mitzvah to send males of other species;

R. Eliezer obligates sending a male Korei,

Chachamim exempt.

(Mishnah): If the mother was hovering:

If its wings were touching the nest, it must be sent. If not, it need not be sent.

"Kan" - one must send the mother even if there is only one egg or chick in the nest;

If the chicks can flutter or if the eggs are Muzaros, there is no Mitzvah - "veha'Em Rovetzes Al ha'Efrochim Oh Al ha'Beitzim";

Just like the chicks hatched, the eggs must be the type that hatch, excluding Muzaros;

Just like the eggs need the mother, also the chicks need the mother. This excludes chicks that can flutter.

(Gemara - Beraisa): "Rovetzes (crouching)" - but if the mother is hovering, one is exempt.

Suggestion: Perhaps one is exempt even if it hovers and touches the nest!

Rejection: "Rovetzes."

Question: How does this refute the suggestion?

Answer: Had the Torah wanted to exclude when it hovers and touches, it would have said "sitting."

(Rav Yehudah): If a bird was sitting between two branches:

If its young are directly under it, it must be sent; if not, not.

Version #1 - Question (Beraisa): If a bird was sitting between its young, it need not be sent; if it was on them, it must be sent.

If it was hovering above - even if its wings touch the nest, it need not be sent.

Suggestion: The first two cases are similar:

Just like when it is between them it is touching them (otherwise, there is no Chidush), also when it is on (i.e. over) them, but if it is sitting between two branches, it does not touch them, so it need not be sent!

Answer: No. When it is between them, it does not touch them from above, but it touches them from the side. Also when it is over them, it must be sent even if it does not touch from above.

Support: If sitting between branches was exempt, the Mishnah should exempt this case, rather than hovering!

Rejection: No, it is a bigger Chidush that hovering is exempt even though it touches them from the side.

Contradiction: the Mishnah obligates when the mother is hovering and its wings touch!

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): That is when it touches from above, the Beraisa exempts when it touches from the side.

Version #2 - Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa): If a bird was sitting between its young, it need not be sent. If it was on them, it must be sent.

If it was hovering above, even if its wings touch the nest, it need not be sent.

Suggestion: The first two cases are similar. Just like when it is between them it is not touching them (otherwise, the Mitzvah would apply). Also when it is over them. This is the case of sitting between branches!

Rejection: No. When it is between, it touches them. Also when it is over them, it touches (from above), but sitting between branches is exempt.

Question: If so, the Mishnah should exempt sitting between branches, rather than hovering!

Answer: It is a bigger Chidush that hovering is exempt even though it touches them from the side.

Contradiction: The Mishnah obligates when it hovers and its wings touch!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): That is when it touches from above. The Beraisa exempts when it touches from the side.