Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Leviticus 14:4/רמב"ן על ויקרא י״ד:ד׳

אחַיּוֹת פְּרָט לִטְרֵפוֹת. טְהוֹרוֹת פְּרָט לְעוֹף טָמֵא. לְפִי שֶׁהַנְּגָעִים בָּאִים עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרַע שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֵׂה פָּטִיט, לְפִיכָךְ הֻצְרְכוּ בְּטַהֲרָתוֹ צִפֳּרִים שֶׁמְּפַטְפְּטִין תָּמִיד בְּצִפְצוּף קוֹל, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא י"ד:ד'). וּמִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר "טְהוֹרוֹת פְּרָט לְעוֹף טָמֵא", נִלְמַד שֶׁאֵין הַצִּפֳּרִים מִין טָהוֹר יָדוּעַ, אֲבָל הוּא שֵׁם כּוֹלֵל כָּל הָעוֹפוֹת. אִם כֵּן מַהוּ הַפִּטְפּוּט הַזֶּה שֶׁמָּצְאוּ לָהֶם, כִּי עוֹפוֹת רַבִּים אֵין בָּהֶם פּוֹצֶה פֶּה וּמְצַפְצֵף. וְעוֹד כִּי מִדְרַשׁ "חַיּוֹת פְּרָט לִטְרֵפוֹת" יָבֹא בְּמַחְלֹקֶת, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה אֵינוֹ כֵן. וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרשה א יב), "חַיּוֹת" - לֹא שְׁחוּטוֹת. "טְהוֹרוֹת" - לֹא טְמֵאוֹת. "טְהוֹרוֹת" - לֹא טְרֵפוֹת. וּבַעֲלֵי הַפְּשָׁט אוֹמְרִים כִּי כָל עוֹף יִקָּרֵא צִפּוֹר, מִמַּה שֶׁאָמַר "צִפּוֹר שָׁמַיִם וּדְגֵי הַיָּם" (תהלים ח ט), "כֹּל צִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף" (בראשית ז יד), "בֶּן אָדָם אֱמֹר לְצִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף" (יחזקאל לט יז), וְכֵן "וְאֶת הַצִּפֹּר לֹא בָתָר" (בראשית טו י) עַל תּוֹרִים וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה. וְהַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי שֶׁשֵּׁם צִפּוֹר כְּלָל לָעוֹפוֹת הַקְּטַנִּים הַמַּשְׁכִּימִים בַּבֹּקֶר לְצַפְצֵף וּלְשׁוֹרֵר, מִלְּשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּית "צַפְרָא", וְכֵן "יָשׁוּב וְיִצְפֹּר" (שופטים ז ג), יַשְׁכִּים בַּבֹּקֶר. אָמַר "צִפּוֹר שָׁמַיִם" עֲלֵיהֶם כִּי הֵם לְרֻבָּם יַגְבִּיהוּ לָעוּף בַּשָּׁמַיִם; וְ"כֹל צִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף" (בראשית ז יד) שְׁנֵי מִינִין, כָּל הַקְּטַנִּים וְכָל הַגְּדוֹלִים; "כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ" (דברים כב ו), הֵם הַקְּטַנִּים שֶׁהֵן רַבִּים, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בִּקְטַנֵּיהֶם יָחוּס; וְכֵן "אֲשֶׁר שָׁם צִפֳּרִים יְקַנֵּנוּ" (תהלים קד יז), כִּי הֵם הַשּׁוֹכְנִים בְּעַנְפֵי אַרְזֵי הַלְּבָנוֹן; "אֱמֹר לְצִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף" (יחזקאל לט יז), שֶׁיִּתְאַסְּפוּ אֲפִלּוּ הַקְּטַנִּים עֲלֵיהֶם, כִּי הַטּוֹרְפִים יָבֹאוּ מֵעַצְמָם; וְכֵן "הַתְשַׂחֶק בּוֹ כַּצִּפּוֹר וְתִקְשְׁרֶנּוּ לְנַעֲרוֹתֶיךָ" (איוב מ כט), כִּי דֶּרֶךְ הַנְּעָרִים לְשַׂחֵק בָּעוֹף הַקָּטָן. וּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים כָּךְ הוּא, כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ מַקֵּל אוֹ צִפּוֹר (עבודה זרה מ), הָאוֹרֵג מִשְּׂעַר הַנָּזִיר כִּמְלֹא הַסִּיט בְּבֶגֶד בְּצִפַּרְתָּא (תמורה לד), וְאָמְרוּ צִפֹּרֶת כְּרָמִים (שבת צ), וְאָמְרוּ בְּשַׂר צִפֳּרִים מַחְזִירִין הַחוֹלֶה לְחָלְיוֹ (ברכות נז). וְאָמַר בַּכָּתוּב (דברים יד יא) "כָּל צִפּוֹר טְהֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ", עַל הַמִּינִין הָרַבִּים הָהֵם, וְנִתְרַבָּה שֶׁל מְצֹרָע מִ"כָּל" וְאָמַר (שם פסוק יב), "וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם", כְּאוֹמֵר וְאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ מִבְּשָׂרָם, וּלְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ "טְהוֹרוֹת לֹא טְמֵאוֹת". וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כֻּלָּם בַּעֲלֵי פִּטְפּוּט הֵם. וְכֵן גַּם כֵּן "גַּם צִפּוֹר מָצְאָה בַיִת וּדְרוֹר קֵן לָהּ" (תהלים פד ד), כָּךְ נִרְאֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֵׁם כּוֹלֵל הָעוֹפוֹת כֻּלָּם, וְכֵן "אֲשֶׁר שָׁם צִפֳּרִים יְקַנֵּנוּ חֲסִידָה בְּרוֹשִׁים בֵּיתָהּ" (שם קד יז). וְהַנִּרְאֶה מִדִּבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁכָּל עוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִים נִקְרָאִים "צִפּוֹר", אֲבָל מִצְוָתוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע בְּצִפֳּרֵי דְּרוֹר, דְּתַנְיָא בְּת"כ (פרק ה יד), "וְשִׁלַּח אֶת הַצִּפֹּר הַחַיָּה אֶל מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה" (ויקרא י"ד:נ"ג), רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, צִפּוֹר שֶׁחַיָּה חוּץ לְכָל עִיר, וְאֵי זוֹ, זֶה דְּרוֹר. וּמִן הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַזֶּה הִזְכִּירוּ הַפִּטְפּוּט. וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה, וְדִיעֲבַד כֻּלָּם כְּשֵׁרִין בּוֹ, וּלְפִיכָךְ הֻצְרְכוּ בְּת"כ (כאן) לְמַעֵט טְמֵאוֹת. וְכֵן שָׁנִינוּ בַּמִּשְׁנָה מַסֶּכֶת נְגָעִים (פי"ד מ"א), וּמֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים דְּרוֹר. וְשָׁנוּ עוֹד שָׁם (משנה ה), שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁווֹת בְּמַרְאֶה בְּקוֹמָה וּבְדָמִים וּלְקִיחָתָן כְּאַחַת, אע"פ שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁווֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת. שָׁחַט אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁלֹּא דְּרוֹר, יִקַּח זוּג לַשְּׁנִיָּה. וְהַטַּעַם בָּזֶה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּדִיעֲבַד כֻּלָּן כְּשֵׁרוֹת, כְּשֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי מִינִים פְּסוּלוֹת. וּבְפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת (חולין סב) אָמְרוּ, עוֹף הַמְסָרֵט כָּשֵׁר לְטַהֵר בּוֹ אֶת הַמְּצֹרָע, וְזוֹ הִיא סְנוּנִית לְבָנָה שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בָּהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים. וּמִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין צִפֳּרֵי הַמְּצֹרָע מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד, וְשֶׁאֵין מְטַהֲרִין בְּכָל עוֹף טָהוֹר, אֲבָל מִצְוָתוֹ בְּכָל עוֹף דְּרוֹר, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁדָּרָה בַּבַּיִת כְּבַשָּׂדֶה. וּלְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ בִּסְנוּנִית, דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה לְדַעַת חֲכָמִים כְּשֵׁרָה לְטַהֵר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בִּכְלַל דְּרוֹר. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כָּל הַטְּהוֹרִין כְּשֵׁרִים בְּדִיעֲבַד, שֶׁכֻּלָּן בִּכְלַל שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים טְהוֹרוֹת. וְשָׁנוּ בְּסִפְרֵי (ראה קג), אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "צִפּוֹר", בִּטְהוֹרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, עוֹף טָהוֹר נִקְרָא "עוֹף" וְנִקְרָא "צִפּוֹר", וְטָמֵא לֹא נִקְרָא אֶלָּא "עוֹף". וְכָךְ הִזְכִּירוּ בַּגְּמָרָא בְּפֶרֶק שִׁלּוּחַ הַקֵּן (חולין קלט), וְשָׁם הֶעֱלוּ (קמ) כִּי "חַיּוֹת" - שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים שֶׁלָּהֶם, לְמַעוֹטֵי מְחֻסְּרוֹת אֵבָר. וְכֵן הַטְּרֵפוֹת פְּסוּלוֹת בָּהֶן. וְדָרְשׁוּ "טְהוֹרוֹת" - לְמַעֵט אֲסוּרוֹת, כְּגוֹן צִפֳּרֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת וְעוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהַחִלּוּפִין בַּע"ז. וּמִדְרָשָׁם זֶה שָׁם מִן הַלָּשׁוֹן עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁאֵין צִפּוֹר אֶלָּא עוֹף טָהוֹר, וּמַשְׁמַע מִכָּאן שֶׁכָּל עוֹף טָהוֹר בִּכְלַל צִפּוֹר. וְרָאִיתִי עוֹד בַּיְּרוּשַׁלְמִי בְּמַסֶּכֶת נָזִיר (פ"א ה"א) שֶׁאָמְרוּ, וְכִי נָזִיר טָמֵא צִפֳּרִים הוּא מֵבִיא, תּוֹרִים וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה הוּא מֵבִיא, אִית תַּנַּיֵי תָּנֵי, כָּל עוֹף טָהוֹר קָרוּי צִפֳּרִים, אִית תַּנַּיֵי תָּנֵי, כָּל הָעוֹפוֹת בֵּין טָמֵא וּבֵין טָהוֹר קָרוּי צִפֳּרִים. וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁאַר בְּיָדֵינוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַחְלֹקֶת. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם יִתָּכֵן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשֵּׁם בַּקְּטַנִּים בִּלְבַד. וּבַגְּמָרָא כָּךְ הוּא נִרְאֶה, מִמַּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּמַסֶּכֶת סוֹטָה (סוטה ט"ז), הָבֵא מַיִם שֶׁדַּם צִפּוֹר נִכָּר בָּהֶם, וְכַמָּה הֵם, רְבִיעִית. וְשָׁאֲלוּ, גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הַמַּיִם, קְטַנָּה וְנִדְחֵת מִפְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, מַהוּ, וּפֵרְשׁוּ, כָּל שִׁעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים כָּךְ הֵם, בְּצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר שִׁעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים, אֵין לְךָ גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הַמַּיִם וְאֵין לְךָ קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּדְחֵית מִפְּנֵי הַמַּיִם. וְאִלּוּ הָיָה כָּל עוֹף טָהוֹר כָּשֵׁר בּוֹ, הָיָה מֵהֶם מִי שֶׁדָּמוֹ דּוֹחֶה כַּמָּה לֻגִּין. וְאוּלַי אָמְרוּ כֵן בְּצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה, מִמִּדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַ' יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. וּכְבָר הִזְכִּירוּ בַּגְּמָרָא (שבועות כט), וְדִלְמָא צִפּוֹרָא רַבָּא חֲזָא וְאַסֵּק שְׁמֵהּ גָּמָל. וְהַנָּכוֹן שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה מִכָּל זֶה הוּא שֶׁנֹּאמַר שֶׁכָּל צִפּוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ דְּרוֹר פָּסוּל אֲפִילּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד, מִן הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַזֶּה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁנוּ בְּמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ (נגעים יד א) מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיְּהוּ דְּרוֹר, אע"פ שֶׁאֵינָן דְּרוֹר כְּשֵׁרוֹת - כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ בְּשָׁווֹת (שם יד ה). וְכָל הַדְּרוֹרִים בַּעֲלֵי פִּטְפּוּט הֵם. וּמַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּת"כ "לֹא טְמֵאוֹת", מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ אַף בַּטְּמֵאִין מִינִין שֶׁהֵם דְּרוֹר, כְּגוֹן הַסְּנוּנִית לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אוֹ יִהְיֶה פֵּרוּשׁוֹ לְמַעֵט טְמֵאוֹת לְךָ, שֶׁהֵן הָאֲסוּרוֹת וְהַטְּרֵפוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ בַּגְּמָרָא בְּפֶרֶק שִׁלּוּחַ הַקֵּן (חולין קמ). וְזֶהוּ הֶהָגוּן בְּעֵינַי. וּבַהַגָּדָה דְּרַבָּה (ויקרא רבה טז ז) אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן, אִלֵּן צִפְּרַיָּא קוֹלָנִין, זֶה הָאוֹמֵר לָשׁוֹן הָרַע. אָמַר הקב"ה, יָבֹא קוֹל וִיכַפֵּר עַל קוֹל. וְר' יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר, צִפֳּרִים צִפֳּרֵי דְּרוֹר, שֶׁאָכְלָה מִפִּתּוֹ וְשָׁתַת מִן מֵימָיו. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר וְכוּ':

1THEN SHALL THE PRIEST COMMAND TO TAKE FOR HIM THAT IS TO BE CLEANSED TWO LIVING, CLEAN ‘TZIPORIM’ (BIRDS). “Living, this excludes birds which are treifah.⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. Clean, this excludes a bird unfit for food. Since the plagues of leprosy came as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore Scripture required for the leper’s cleansing that he bring birds which always twitter with a chirping sound.” This is Rashi’s language.Now in view of the fact that Rashi wrote, “Clean, this excludes a bird which is unfit for food,” we can deduce that the [unqualified] term tziporim does not denote a permissible species of birds, but is instead a generic term for all birds [those permissible as food and those forbidden]. If so, the question appears: what is this “chirping” that they found [among the tziporim]? For there are many birds among which there is none that openeth the mouth, or chirpeth!⁸ Moreover, the interpretation [which Rashi quoted]: “Living, this excludes birds which are treifah,”⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. is really subject to a controversy of opinion,⁹ animal or bird can in fact survive for more than one year. and according to the Sage who says that a treifah⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. can survive, this interpretation [of Rashi] is not correct. And in the Torath Kohanim we find this interpretation:¹⁰ 1:12. “Living, not slaughtered. Clean, not unfit for food. Clean, not treifoth.”¹¹ means not slaughtered; clean means not unfit for food.’ Then [the Tanna] says that according to the Midrash thereof, clean means not treifah, since that it may not be of a forbidden species, we know already from the word tzipor. This Sage further holds that a treifah can survive, and therefore birds which are treifah are not excluded by the word living,” but instead are excluded by the term clean. Now the scholars who follow the simple meaning of Scripture¹². say that every kind of bird [whether permissible as food or forbidden] is called tzipor, as is evidenced by the verses which state: ‘tzipor’ (the fowl) of the air, and the fish of the sea;¹³ every ‘tzipor’ (bird) of every sort;¹⁴ And thou son of man … speak ‘l’tzipor’ (unto the birds) of every sort.¹⁵ Similarly, it says, and ‘hatzipor’ (the birds) he did not divide,¹⁶ with reference to the turtle-doves and young pigeons¹⁷, Verse 9. [which are permissible birds, thus proving that the term tzipor is used with reference to both permissible and forbidden birds].The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the term tzipor is a generic term for all small birds that rise early in the morning to chirp and to sing, the term being associated with the Aramaic word tzaphra (morning). Similarly, the expression let him return v’yitzpor’¹⁸ means, and arise “early in the morning.” The expression ‘tzipor’ (the fowl of) the air¹³ is said with reference to these small birds, because it is mostly they that fly high in the air. Every ‘tzipor’ (bird) of every sort¹⁴ refers to two kinds, all the little ones and the big ones. If a ‘kan tzipor’ (bird’s nest) chance to be before thee¹⁹ speaks about the little ones which are many [and therefore likely to chance to be there], to teach that even when they are young, the finder must exercise mercy towards them. Similarly, therein ‘tziporim’ (the birds) make nests²⁰ [means the little ones], for it is they that dwell on the boughs of the cedars of the Lebanon. Speak ‘l’tzipor’ (unto the birds) of every sort¹⁵ means that even the little ones should gather upon [the flesh of the mighty that have fallen in battle],²¹ for the big marauding birds will come by themselves. Similarly, Wilt thou play with him [the leviathan] ‘katzipor’ (as with a bird)? Or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?²² [refers to the little birds], for it is the way of young boys to play with little birds. The language of the Sages also follows that usage: Any statue which bears in its hand a staff or ‘tzipor’ (a bird)²³ must be to a small bird that can easily be caught. Rabbeinu Chananel explains the text of the Gemara in the following words: “he holds the whole world in his hand as one holds a bird.” Here too the reference is to a small bird that the holder can easily control in the palm of his hand. [one may not derive any benefit from, since these objects indicate that the statue is worshipped as an idol]; “If a man wove into a garment one sit’s length of a Nazirite’s hair [from which one is forbidden to derive any benefit], the garment is to be burnt,”²⁴ is the distance between the tips of the outstretched thumb and forefinger. [and when the Sages of the Gemara raised the question, “why is this small piece not neutralized by the larger part of the garment?” it was answered that this is a case where he wove into the garment “the form of] a tziporta” [a small bird, which made the whole garment more valuable, and therefore it is not neutralized by the larger part thereof, and hence must be burnt].²⁵ From this too it is clear that the term tzipor denotes a small bird. The Sages also speak of “tziporoth (birds of) the vineyard [however small].”²⁶ (birds of) the vineyard, whether alive or dead, [he is liable], however small [the size be].” It is thus clear that the word tzipor is used by the Sages to mean a small bird, which even when alive is “however small.” They also said: “the meat of tziporim (birds) brings back a sickness to a sick man [who is recovering, and makes it worse”²⁷ refers to a small bird, Ramban now begins to elucidate further that it means both a permissible and forbidden species of bird. Here in the text of Berachoth it definitely means a permissible bird, but further it will be shown that it may mean also a forbidden bird. thus indicating that the term tzipor refers to a bird which one may eat]. Scripture further states, All ‘tzipor’ (birds) that are clean ye may eat,²⁸ meaning all these many species of [permissible] birds, thus including [the living bird sent away by] the leper [into the open field²⁹ as permissible food],³⁰ (Deuteronomy 14:11), meaning any bird of a permissible species that is found may be eaten, now if the living bird of the leper were forbidden to be eaten, the Torah would not command the bird to be sent off, as this could involve a possible offense [since if the bird were not in fact permitted to be eaten, one might catch it without knowing that it had been used by the leper, and eat it]! Now, concludes Ramban, this permission is based in the Talmud on the word ‘all’ (‘All birds etc.) as explained above. This proves that the word tzipor, such as found here in the text before us, does not of itself only mean a permissible kind of bird. Rather, since it is a term for both the permissible and forbidden kind, it was therefore necessary for the Torath Kohanim here to establish that the leper’s bird must be of a permissible species, from the word clean qualifying tziporim. by means of the word kol (‘All’ birds that are clean ye may eat).²⁸ And the verse which states, But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey³¹ means “a small” bird, whether of a permissible or forbidden kind, Ramban finds this verse difficult, since the expression of them [in translation of the verse: “of which”] apparently refers back to ‘kol tzipor’ (birds) mentioned in the previous verse [11], and yet it mentions here (in Verse 12) big birds like the great vulture, etc. In addition, the word tzipor in Verse 11 is explicitly qualified by the word ‘t’horah,’ thus excluding the great vulture. Ramban’s answer follows in the text, where he explains that the expression of them does not refer back to ‘kol tzipor’ (all birds) previously mentioned, but rather means “of their flesh,” i.e., the flesh of these big birds about to be mentioned — the great vulture, etc. is [to be understood] as if it said, “and these are they, from the flesh of which ye may not eat.” It is for this reason [i.e., since the term tzipor includes both permissible and forbidden birds], that the Sages found it necessary to interpret:¹⁰ 1:12. “Clean, not forbidden birds” [but they would not have been able to derive it if the word tziporim had not been qualified]. In any case it is clear that tziporim are the small chirping birds. Similarly, Yea, the ‘tzipor’ hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself³² also indicates that the word tzipor is not a name for all birds [for otherwise why should the verse mention both tzipor and the swallow, if the term tzipor already includes all birds]. Likewise, Wherein tziporim (the birds) make their nests, the stork makes the fir-tree her house³³, 104:17. [indicates that tziporim does not include all birds, since the verse proceeds also to mention some specific birds].It would appear from the words of our Sages that all birds permissible as food are called tzipor, but the leper was commanded to bring tziporei dror [“free birds,” a term which, as explained further on means birds which live in the house as well as in the field], for we have been taught in the Torath Kohanim:³⁴ 5:13. “And he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open field.³⁵ Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said: ‘This means a bird that lives outside all cities. And what kind of bird is it? It is the bird called dror’” [the free bird that lives in the house as well as in the field]. It is on the basis of this interpretation of the Rabbis that they further mentioned [in connection with the leper’s birds] that they “chatter” [since it is usually these free birds which twitter].It is possible that the requirement that the birds be of “the free” kind is a commandment [which is to be observed if possible, but is not indispensable], so that if it has already been done, they are all valid [whether free or unfree]. Therefore the Sages in the Torath Kohanim¹⁰ 1:12. found it necessary to exclude forbidden bird’s [which do not possess this characteristic of living in the house and in the field]. And so we have been taught in a Mishnah of Tractate Negaim:³⁶ “And he [the leper] brought two birds that are of the free type of bird.” And it is furthermore taught there:³⁷, 5. “It is a commandment that the two birds of the leper should be alike in appearance, in size and in value, and that they should be brought at the same time. Yet even if they are not alike, they are valid. If one was slaughtered and it was found that it was not a ‘free bird,’ he should buy a partner for the second one.” The reason [why he must buy a partner for the second one] although [as we have said above] if it has already been done, all birds [whether free or unfree] are valid, is that if they were of two different kinds [as in this case, where the slaughtered one was a non-dror, and the living one a dror], they are invalid. And in the Chapter Eilu Treifoth³⁸” among cattle. It is the third chapter of Tractate Chullin. The text quoted here is found there on 62 a. For the word treifah, see above, Note 7. the Sages of the Gemara have said: “A bird which scratches, is valid to be used for the purification of the leper. This is the white-bellied swallow concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages differed” [as explained further on]. From these texts [it is clear] that the birds for the purification of the leper are not limited to one species, and that the purification is not to be done with any permissible bird, but rather the commandment is that it be done only with those birds that are dror, that is to say, “which live in the house as well as in the field.”³⁹ Therefore the Rabbis said [in the above-quoted text] with reference to the white-bellied swallow, that since according to the Sages it is a bird which may be eaten, it is also valid for the purification of the leper, as it is included within [the category of those birds that are] dror [living in the house as well as in the field]. Yet nonetheless all permissible birds [even those that are not “free birds”] are valid, if the purification of the leper has already been done with them, since they are all included within the phrase, two living clean birds.And we have been taught in the Sifre:⁴⁰ 103. See in Seder Vayikra Note 121, on Sifre. “Rabbi Yashiyah said: ‘Wherever it says in Scripture tzipor, it speaks of a permissible bird.’ Said Rabbi Yitzchak: ‘A permissible bird is called oph (fowl) and also tzipor (bird), but a forbidden one is only called oph’.” Similarly the Rabbis mentioned also in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin], in the Chapter Shilu’ach Hakan,⁴¹ where they resolved that the term living [two ‘living’ clean birds] means “the ends of whose limbs ‘live’ (exist), thus excluding birds from whom a limb is missing.” Similarly [permissible] birds which are treifah⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. are invalid [for the purification of the leper]. The Rabbis also interpreted there⁴¹ the term clean [two living ‘clean’ birds] to exclude those birds which are of a permissible species but are forbidden to be eaten [for some special reason], such as birds belonging to a person of a city that went astray,⁴² or a fowl that killed a human being, or those that have been exchanged for an idol.⁴³ use, just as the original idol may not be made any use of. This interpretation was derived by the Sages from the very language itself, since the term tzipor denotes only a permissible bird. It is clear then from this text, that all permissible birds [whether they are of the dror-type or not] are included within the category of tzipor.I have further seen in the Yerushalmi of Tractate Nazir⁴⁴ i.e., the Jerusalem Talmud. The academies in Babylon flourished for many centuries longer. Their teachings were later compiled [about the year 475 of Common Era] and are known as the Babylonian Talmud. To this day Talmudic study is almost exclusively devoted to the Babylonian Talmud, so that any tractate of the Talmud generally cited, is that of the Babylonian Talmud, unless specified as in the case before us: “the Yerushalmi of Tractate” so-and-so. A tradition has it that after the redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud, its Sages went down as a group to Babylon, and most of their teachings were incorporated into the text of the Babylonian Talmud. This explains why Talmudic study throughout the ages was concentrated almost entirely upon the Babylonian Talmud, while only the outstanding Rabbis of the generations devoted their studies also to the Jerusalem Talmud. that the Sages of the Gemara said: “But does an impure Nazirite really bring tziporim?⁴⁵ (birds),’ Rabbi Meir says that he becomes a Nazirite etc.” The reason for this opinion of Rabbi Meir was explained there in the Gemara by Resh Lakish, that it is because a Nazirite whose consecration has been defiled, must bring tziporim as an atonement (Numbers 6:9-11). On this explanation of Resh Lakish, the Gemara asked: “But does a Nazirite really bring tziporim? It is turtle-doves or young pigeons that he brings!” In other words, tziporim means birds which are of a forbidden kind, while the Nazirite must bring birds which are permissible to be eaten! So how could the reason Resh Lakish advanced to explain Rabbi Meir’s opinion be correct, since tziporim (forbidden birds) are not used at all by a Nazirite! — Ramban is thus beginning at this point to refute his own explanation which he had set forth, namely, that tzipor refers only to a permissible bird, since it is evident from the Yerushalmi that tzipor means a forbidden bird! The final solution of the Yerushalmi follows. It is turtle-doves or young pigeons that he brings! [To this question the reply was made:] ‘There are some authorities who teach that all edible birds are called tziporim, and there are other authorities that teach that all birds, whether permissible or forbidden, are called tziporim.’”⁴⁶, becomes a Nazirite even according to those authorities that hold that the term tziporim denotes all kinds of birds, permissible ones or forbidden ones, for since it also denotes permissible birds, his intention was those birds that may be brought upon the altar (P’nei Moshe). Thus we are now left with a divergence of opinion [as to what the term tzipor denotes]! Yet it is possible that the name applies only to the small birds. This appears so in the Gemara from what the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sotah:⁴⁷ [In the process of his purification the leper is commanded to] “bring a sufficient amount of water that the bird’s blood may remain discernible in it.⁴⁸. On this the Sages commented that the vessel must contain just enough water that the blood of the bird is discernible in it. And how much etc. (see text). And how much is this? The fourth of a log.” Upon this the Sages queried: “If the bird was a large one so that the blood thereof ‘pushed away’ the water [so that it was imperceptible], or the bird was a small one so that its blood was ‘pushed away’ by the water [so that the blood was indiscernible], what is the ruling on these cases?” On these questions [the Rabbis of the Talmud] explained: “All standard measures laid down by the Sages were fixed with precision. The Sages estimated with reference to a ‘free bird’ that you will not find one so big that the blood thereof will ‘push away’ the water, nor will you find one so small that the blood thereof will be ‘pushed away’ by the water.” Now if all kinds of permissible birds were valid for [the purification of the leper], there are some birds the blood of which would “push away” many logim of water! Perhaps the Sages established the above standard only with reference to a “free bird” which one is commanded to bring if this is possible, according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,⁴⁹ [but if the purification has already been done with a large bird, it is also valid]. It has already been mentioned in the Gemara:⁵⁰ “Perhaps he saw a large tziporo (bird) and he called it gamal (camel).”⁵¹ includes also large birds, and hence the above-mentioned explanation that it refers only to small birds is incorrect.The correct [and final] conclusion which emerges from all this discussion is that we say on the basis of this interpretation⁴⁹ that any bird which is not a “free one” is invalid for the purification of the leper, even if the purification has already been done, since in the Mishnah thereof³⁷, 5. it was not taught: “It is a commandment [to be fulfilled if possible] that the birds should be ‘free birds,’ but even if they were not ‘free birds,’ they are valid,” as it taught concerning the requirement of equality [in appearance, size and value, that “even if they are not alike, they are valid”]; also, the correct conclusion is that all birds that are “free birds” are those that chatter. And that which the Rabbis said in the Torath Kohanim,¹⁰ 1:12. “Clean, not those forbidden as food,”⁵²-characteristic of the bird is indispensable in the purification of the leper, meaning that if the birds did not have this quality of living in the house as well as in the field, the purification is invalid even if already done, why was it necessary for the Torath Kohanim to point to a special Scriptural source for the exclusion of forbidden birds; for such birds are not of the kind that live in the house as well as in the field, and we have said that if the birds lack this characteristic, the purification is invalid?” Ramban answers that we must perforce say that even among forbidden birds there are some species that do have this characteristic of being able to live in the house as well as in the field, and hence it was necessary for the Torath Kohanim to exclude them by means of a special expression in the verse. is because even among the forbidden birds there are some species that possess this quality of dror [living in the house as well as in the field], such as the white-bellied swallow according to Rabbi Eliezer.⁵³ Or perhaps the meaning of the Torath Kohanim is that it excludes those birds [whose prohibition is not because they belong to the forbidden species, but because of special circumstances] which make them “forbidden to you,” such as those birds which are nonetheless forbidden [as food or benefit, because they belonged to a person of a city that had gone astray,⁴² or those that have been exchanged for an idol],⁴³ use, just as the original idol may not be made any use of. or those which are treifah,⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. just as the Rabbis resolved in the Gemara in the Chapter Shilu’ach Hakan.⁴¹ This is the correct interpretation in my eyes. In the Agadah of the [Midrash] Rabbah we find this statement:⁵⁴ “Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon said: These birds [brought by the leper for his purification] are noisy ones, symbolic of he who speaks slander [and as a punishment for which, the slanderer is stricken with leprosy]. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Let that which is accompanied by sound [namely, these noisy birds] come to bring atonement for the evil sound [of the slanderer].’ And Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Levi said: The birds [brought by the leper for his purification] are of the ‘free kind’ [that live in the house as well as in the field] and thus ate of the leper’s bread and drank of his water. Now the following statement follows logically with stronger reason etc.”⁵⁵).

בוְעֵץ אֶרֶז וּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת וְאֵזֹב אָמַר ר"א (אבן עזרא על ויקרא י"ד:ד') הוּא הַגָּדוֹל וְהַקָּטָן בְּמִינֵי הַצְּמָחִים, וְהָעֵד מִדִּבְרֵי חָכְמַת שְׁלֹמֹה (מלכים א ה יג). וְהִנֵּה הַמְּצֹרָע וְתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הַמְּנֻגָּע וְטֻמְאַת הַמֵּת קְרוֹבִים, וְהִנֵּה הֵם כִּדְמוּת פֶּסַח מִצְרַיִם. וְטַעַם "עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה" (ויקרא י"ד:ז'), מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֵין שָׁם יִשּׁוּב, שֶׁלֹּא תִּדְבַּק הַצָּרַעַת. וּבְת"כ (פרשה ב ה) אָמְרוּ, "עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה", שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמֹד בְּיָפוֹ וִישַׁלְּחֶנָּה לַיָּם, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמוֹד בִּגְבַת וִישַׁלְּחֶנָּה לַמִּדְבָּר. וְאִם כֵּן יִהְיֶה הַטַּעַם כְּסוֹד הַשָּׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, וְשָׁם יִשְׁתַּלַּח לַעֲזָאזֵל הַמִּדְבָּרָה וְכָאן לְפוֹרְחוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה. וְעוֹד אֲפָרֵשׁ זֶה (רמב"ן על ויקרא ט"ז:ח') בע"ה:

2AND CEDAR-WOOD, AND SCARLET, AND HYSSOP. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “[the cedar-wood and the hyssop] represent the tallest and the lowest in species of vegetation, as is evidenced by the words of wisdom of Solomon.⁵⁶ [Solomon] spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall (I Kings 5:13). The inference is clearly that Solomon’s wisdom encompassed all vegetation, from highest to lowest. Thus the law of the leper and the law of the house stricken with leprosy and the [law of] impurity [conveyed by] a corpse are closely related,⁵⁷ and they resemble the Passover in Egypt.⁵⁸ And the meaning of the expression into the open field⁵⁹ is to an uninhabitated place, so that no infection might be caused.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra.].And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁶⁰ 2:5. “Into the open field,⁵⁹ this means that he is not to stand in Joppa [which is on the sea] and let it go into the sea, nor is he to stand in Gabbath [a city which is on the edge of the desert] and let it go into the desert.” Now if so, [that he may not let it go into the sea or into the desert], then the reason why it is sent into the open field is like the secret of the goat sent to Azazel,⁶¹ except that there it is sent for Azazel into the wilderness,⁶¹ and here it is sent to the flying [destructive spirits] of the field.⁶² I will yet explain this with the help of G-d.⁶³