Talking Talmud

Consecrated birds are exempt from the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird -- what is the case? Well, what if a person consecrated the baby birds in the nest? Returning them to the nest if the mother bird returns to them, then there's no requirement to send her away anyway! Maybe he's consecrating the mother bird. Plus, what happens if a consecrated bird escapes to the wild?! Note that the Gemara narrows the mishnah's halakhah to a very specific case, in contrast to the original phrasing. Also, the case of finding a nest in the head of a person. And the ostensible sources, or allusions, anyway, in the Torah, for Moshe, Haman, Esther, and Mordechai. [Where's Where? Papuniya]

Finishing the 11th chapter and beginning the 12th chapter. First, how much wool must one give in terms of worth? And how must it be presented? And how do we know how much wool counts as this gift to the kohen? The source is in the verses in the same context as the "first fleece" mitzvah in the Torah, in Deuteronomy. Note the famous proverb about reaching for too much as an unsuccessful project, whereas a less ambitious grasp will be successful. Plus, the discussion of the kohen's sash -- namely, if there was no wool in the kohen's sash, then why the first fleece? The Gemara steps back to say that wool is used for the kohen gadol's clothing, and the sash applies to everyone, basically, and therefore the measure of how much fleece is required. Also, chapter 12! And a new mishnah -- all about the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird to take the eggs/baby birds, which, together with honoring parents, carry a biblical promise of long life.

The "first fleece" mishnah applies only to sheep - and the question is how is that known (from the Torah). Along the way, other first-born rules are raised, like the first-born ox doesn't work. Can it be that "shearing" isn't specific to sheep, but removing any animal's hair? And was this a serious inquiry? Also, the minimum number of sheep required for the prescribed shearing -- perhaps 5. Or perhaps according to the value of the fleece. Which comes to a comparable value.

3 universally accepted lenient halakhot at that time: 1. The first shearing of the wool applied only in the land of Israel (a reduction of obligation, as compared to the mishnah). 2. The words of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity. 3. The complicated requirements to violate the law of "mixing kinds," wherein 3 separate elements had to be planted together. Also, note that the "first fleece" had other stringencies that were part of it (eg - whether the treyfot of these sheep would be obligated in the first fleece). And how that is learned from the verses, including a "gezerah shavah" (but which one?).

A new chapter! A new mishnah! The first shearing of your sheep's wool goes to the kohanim. But only from non-consecrated animals. And only when you have "numerous" sheep -- which may be as few as two, or maybe five. Plus, what happens if the owner would dye the wool? Also, partnership in ownership of the flocks that would be required in gifts from the first-sheared wool but are not, because of the partnership (depending on the partnership). Note the contrasts when compared to terumah. Also, the categorization of retroactive clarification -- which shows up again (yesh/ein bereirah). Plus, the ramifications of a partnership with a non-Jew, including those who are not necessarily idolators.

A new mishnah! A convert who had a cow -- and it was slaughtered before the conversion, no gifts to the kohen; if after the conversion, then the convert is obligated in the gifts. But if it's not clear which happened first -- then the convert would be exempt from giving those gifts. [Who's Who: Rav Dimi] Plus, a contradiction raised by a different case -- as based on the information provided by ant holes in grain to determine how long ago that grain was moved, and whether it was harvested after the gifts for the poor had been left. Also, more on the gifts to the poor -- leket, shikchah, and pe'ah, and how they have different constraints/leniencies, as compared to terumah, which goes to the kohen.

Rav Yosef tested Rava and Abaye, regarding the gifts that are supposed to go to the kohen - when the kohen grabs the goods, he presents himself with the defense of obtaining the materials. Abaye explains how he used to reach of the gifts, but was schooled by others to simply wait. Plus, did Abaye teach Torah when he should have been functioning as a kohen? Also, partnered ownership of animals with an idolator -- how far can that be taken?

Do the gifts to the kohen include the daughter of the kohen as a recipient, or is she considered like a yisrael for this purpose, and the gifts are only to male kohanim? Also, more on the koi (the animal that is neither "behamah" nor "haya," but has indications of each). Plus, a new mishnah! On the case of a first-born animal that is blemished, which then exempts the owner from giving the gifts to the kohanim. And if that blemished animal is mixed among 100 other (unblemished) animals, it would exempt all of them from the gifts. Also, the question of joint ownership, and how that might exempt one from those same gifts. Plus, the understanding that this mishnah is speaking to the butcher, and not the owner or the kohen, for example.

A particular levi would grab the gifts going to the kohanim, before they reached the kohanim. The people complained to Rav... which raises the question of the gifts that are not required of the levites for the kohanim. But why aren't they required of the levites? Where does Rav find this approach? The difference seems to hinge on whether the levites are part of the people. Also, any foods that are considered sacred are taken from the levites, but not the things that are not sacred. But at the end of the long discussion, it seems that Rav's view is refuted, and the levites really did have to give these gifts.

A new chapter, and a new mishnah! The mitzvah of gifts from slaughtered animals that went to the kohanim - leg, jaw, and maw (the 4th stomach of the cow). Even not during the time of the Temple. Specifically about non-consecrated animals, and not about sacrifices, which have their own set of laws regarding the kohanim. And the many details surrounding these gifts. Also, delving into the gifts, and the specifics of the gifts to the kohanim. Including Rav Hisda's exemption for paying those gifts if they were lost, for example.