Talmud su Deuteronomio 14:11

“ ‘I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir, but the Sages say, he is not a nazir.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: “Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.²²Dan. 4:30. This establishes a proverbial connection between long hair and a mention of birds.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because an impure nazir brings birds²⁷Num. 6:10. But no pure person would entertain the idea of becoming a nazir if he expects to become impure since that could extend his period of nezirut indefinitely.. Does he bring birds²⁸Many people use צִפּוֹר only for wild birds.? He brings turtledoves or young pigeons. There are some Tannaïm who state that all pure birds are called צפור, and there are some Tannaïm who state that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור. He who says that all pure birds are called צפור, “you may eat any pure bird²⁹Deut. 14:11. In Scripture, צפור is feminine..” He who says that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור, “say to any winged bird³⁰Ez. 39:14.. “What is the rabbi’s reason? He is like somebody offering birds for the upkeep of the Temple³¹The expression הֲרֵי עָלַי “I have to bring” is a regular form of a vow, which in Temple times implied a gift to the Temple. A single bird can be offered as a voluntary sacrifice (Lev. 1:14–17) but a couple can be given only as an obligatory sacrifice, i. e., a reparation or a purification sacrifice. These can never be given voluntarily, as result of a vow. Since the vow was formulated for birds, not a bird, it is concluded that the birds have to be given to the Temple for its upkeep, to be sold to persons needing them for obligatory sacrifices, with the proceeds given to the Temple treasury.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He is like somebody offering a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple³²This is an impossibility; an obligatory sacrifice cannot be given voluntarily and it has to be offered on the altar, not sold for the Temple’s benefit. Therefore, the vow has to be interpreted as a wish to be in a situation in which one has to bring a reparation sacrifice to the Temple. The only reparation sacrifices which depend on the person’s initiative are either the possible sacrifice of the impure nazir or those required of the person guilty of larceny (Lev. 5:14–16, 21–26). Since it is impossible to think that a person should want to commit larceny for religious purposes, the state of nazir is the only alternative.. What is the difference between them? If somebody says, “I take upon myself to bring a reparation sacrifice.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is a nazir since one cannot bring a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple. In the opinion of the rabbis he is a nazir since an impure nazir brings a reparation sacrifice³³Since in this formulation there is no difference between the rabbis and R. Meïr, all commentaries read “he is not a nazir”; since no person would accept nezirut with the prospect of an indefinite duration unless he spells this out clearly at the start, the vow is invalid because it is unrealistic. If one keeps the original wording, the rabbis and R. Meїr agree not only on the result but also on the reasoning behind it..

And the birds of the sufferer from skin disease. Any pure bird you may eat¹⁵⁷Deut. 14:11., this is the living bird. But the following you may not eat of them¹⁵⁸Deut. 14:12., that is the slaughtered one¹⁵⁹Sifry Deut. 103, Babli Qiddušin 57a, Ḥulin 82a. Since first it is said, any pure bird you may eat, which is immediately followed by but the following you may not eat of them, this implies that not only may one not eat the impure birds listed later but also some pure birds. Of the two pure birds used for the purification ceremony of the healed sufferer from skin disease, one is slaughtered (Lev. 14:5). The other is released (v. 7); since it is nor recognizable it cannot be forbidden to anybody who might catch it. Therefore the slaughtered bird must be the one pure bird which was correctly slaughtered and nevertheless is forbidden as food. The parallel sources also presuppose that the remains of the slaughtered bird, after its blood has benn used, is forbidden for usufruct but no explicit reason for that is given. One must assume that this is one of the cases where a prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct (cf. Note 155).. Or the other way around? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah has no prohibition of usufruct which applies to any living thing¹⁶⁰Babli Qiddušin 57a, opposed there by R. Simeon ben Laqish..