אֲבָל בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָסוּר, דְּזִימְנִין דְּמִשְׁתַּכְּחִי שְׁמֵנִים כְּחוּשִׁים, וּכְחוּשִׁים שְׁמֵנִים, וְקָמְטַלְטֵל מִידֵי דְּלָא חֲזִי לֵיהּ. אִי נַמִי זִימְנִין דְּמִשְׁתַּכְּחִי כֻּלְּהוּ כְּחוּשִׁים, וְשָׁבֵיק לְהוּ, וְאָתֵי לְאִמְנוּעֵי מִשִּׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב.

However, on the Festival it is prohibited, as sometimes those that seemed to him to be fat ones will be found to be thin, and thin ones will be found to be fat, and he will move an object that is not suitable for him, thereby transgressing the prohibition against moving muktze objects. Alternatively, sometimes they will all be found to be thin, and he will leave them all, and he will come to neglect the rejoicing of the Festival. If, however, one announces the day before: I will take this one and that one, he will indeed take only those fledglings, thereby enhancing his Festival joy.

מתני׳ זִמֵּן שְׁחוֹרִים וּמָצָא לְבָנִים, לְבָנִים וּמָצָא שְׁחוֹרִים, שְׁנַיִם וּמָצָא שְׁלֹשָׁה – אֲסוּרִים. שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמָצָא שְׁנַיִם – מוּתָּרִים.

If, on the eve of a Festival, one designated black fledglings to be slaughtered, and on the following day found white ones in the dovecote, rather than the birds he had designated, or if one designated white ones to be slaughtered and found black ones, or if one designated two fledglings to be slaughtered and found three, they are prohibited, as these are not the same fledglings he had designated earlier. If, however, one designated three to be slaughtered and found only two, they are permitted, as it is presumed that one of the fledglings escaped.

בְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּן וּמָצָא לִפְנֵי הַקֵּן – אֲסוּרִין, וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הֵם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִים.

If one designated them inside the nest and the next day he cannot find them there, and he found fledglings before the nest, they are prohibited, as they might be fledglings other than the ones he designated and left inside the nest. But if there are only those fledglings in the immediate vicinity, they are permitted, as it can be assumed that these are the ones he designated inside the nest.

גמ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא. אֲמַר רַבָּה: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁזִּמֵּן שְׁחוֹרִים וּלְבָנִים, וְהִשְׁכִּים וּמָצָא שְׁחוֹרִים בִּמְקוֹם לְבָנִים, וּלְבָנִים בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחוֹרִים. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי אִינְהוּ נִינְהוּ, וְאִתְהַפּוּכֵי אִתְהַפּוּךְ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: הָנָךְ אָזְדוּ לְעָלְמָא, וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: But it is obvious that if one designated black ones to be slaughtered and found white ones, they are not the same birds. Rabba said: With what are we dealing here? The mishna is referring to a case where one designated both black and white ones to be slaughtered, and he arose and found black ones in the place where the white ones had been, and white ones in the place of the black ones. Lest you say: These are those same fledglings and they simply exchanged places, the mishna teaches us that this claim is not accepted. Instead, it is assumed that these ones that he designated have gone to the outside world, and these ones that he found are others that have come from elsewhere.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רוֹב וְקָרוֹב – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: When resolving an uncertainty with regard to the identity of an item, if the majority indicates one ruling but the item in question is proximate to a source that indicates otherwise, one follows the majority. In this case, the majority of fledglings are prohibited, as they were not designated for use on the Festival. Consequently, the found fledglings are prohibited, despite the fact that the nearest fledglings are the designated ones.

כְּדַאֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: בְּדַף, הָכָא נַמִי בְּדַף.

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Perhaps it is as Abaye said with regard to a different issue: We are dealing with fledglings located on a ledge, a flat piece of wood protruding from the dovecote, around which many doves congregate. Here too, the mishna is referring to a ledge. Since other doves are regularly found there, the principle that one follows the majority rather than the proximate source does not apply, as both the majority of doves and the proximate source of doves are not the original ones, and therefore all the fledglings are prohibited.

״שְׁנַיִם וּמָצָא שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲסוּרִין״. מַה נַּפְשָׁךְ, אִי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ – הָא אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאִי לָא אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ – הָא אִיכָּא חַד דְּמִעֲרַב בְּהוּ.

The mishna taught that if one designated two and found three, they are prohibited. The Gemara explains: Whichever way you look at this matter, the fledglings are prohibited. If these are others, they are others that have not been designated. And if they are not others, i.e., two of the fledglings that one designated are still there, nevertheless there is one that he certainly did not designate and that is mingled with them, which renders the others prohibited as well.

״שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמָצָא שְׁנַיִם מוּתָּרִין״. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָנֵי אִינְהוּ נִינְהוּ, וְחַד מִנַּיְיהוּ אֲזַל לְעָלְמָא.

§ The mishna taught that if one designated three and found two, they are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: These are the same ones, and one of them has gone to the outside world, leaving two behind.

לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי הִיא וְלָא רַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: הִנִּיחַ מָנֶה וּמָצָא מָאתַיִם – חוּלִּין וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַכֹּל חוּלִּין.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and not that of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita : If one placed one hundred dinars of tithe money in a safe place and found two hundred there, it is assumed that this is non-sacred money and second-tithe money mingled together. Someone must have come and added another hundred to his tithe money. Therefore, he separates one dinars from the total and states: Whatever part of this is the tithe, is fine; whatever part of it is non-tithe money, let it be used to redeem the tithe money, and this should be sanctified as tithe money in its place. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. Since the money is not as he left it, the assumption is that someone took the original one hundred dinars; and he, or someone else, replaced it with two hundred dinars of regular money.

הִנִּיחַ מָאתַיִם וּמָצָא מָנֶה – מָנֶה מוּנָּח וּמָנֶה מוּטָּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַכֹּל חוּלִּין.

Conversely, if one placed two hundred dinars and found one hundred dinars, it is presumed that one hundred dinars has been left in its place and is tithe money, and one hundred dinars was removed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. It is assumed that someone removed all the money, and the one hundred dinars he found must have been placed there by someone else, and is not connected to the money he left. The halakha with regard to the case of fledglings apparently follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion in the case of second-tithe money.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלָהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: שָׁאנֵי גּוֹזָלוֹת הוֹאִיל וַעֲשׂוּיִין לְדַדּוֹת.

The Gemara refutes this claim: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it can be explained, as it was stated with regard to this mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop from place to place. Therefore, it is possible that one of them escaped. By contrast, a money pouch cannot move of its own accord and must have been taken by someone.

וְלָמָּה לִי לְשִׁנּוּיֵי עֲלָהּ שָׁאנֵי גּוֹזָלוֹת הוֹאִיל וַעֲשׂוּיִין לְדַדּוֹת? וְהָא אִתְּמַר עֲלָהּ דְּהַהִיא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; חַד אָמַר: בִּשְׁנֵי כִּיסִין מַחֲלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל בְּכִיס אֶחָד – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חוּלִּין. וְחַד אָמַר: בְּכִיס אֶחָד מַחֲלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנֵי כִּיסִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מָנֶה מוּנָּח וּמָנֶה מוּטָּל.

The Gemara asks: And why do I need to answer with regard to it: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop? But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna, which deals with a money pouch, that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree over it: One of them said: The dispute applies only to a case of two pouches, with one hundred dinars in each pouch. However, if all of the money was in a single pouch, everyone agrees that it is non-sacred money, as it is unlikely that only half of the money was removed while the other half was left in its place. And the other one of them said: The dispute applies only to one pouch, but with regard to two pouches, everyone agrees that one hundred dinars of tithe is left and one hundred dinars has been removed.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּשְׁנֵי כִּיסִין מַחֲלוֹקֶת – הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְשִׁנּוּיֵי הָכָא שָׁאנֵי גּוֹזָלוֹת הוֹאִיל וַעֲשׂוּיִין לְדַדּוֹת. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּכִיס אֶחָד מַחֲלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנֵי כִּיסִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מָנֶה מוּנָּח וּמָנֶה מוּטָּל, הָשְׁתָּא לָמָּה לִי לְשִׁנּוּיֵי עֲלָהּ? הָא אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁנֵי כִּיסִין לָא פְּלִיגִי.

The Gemara explains: Granted, according to the one who said that the dispute deals with a case of two pouches, this is why it was necessary to answer here: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop. However, according to the one who says that the dispute involves a case of one pouch, but with regard to two pouches everyone agrees that one hundred dinars of tithe is left and one hundred dinars has been removed, now consider: Why do I need to answer, with regard to it, that there is a difference between that halakha and the case of fledglings? You said that they do not disagree even with regard to two separate pouches, and therefore they certainly do not disagree in the case of fledglings.

אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: הָכָא בְּגוֹזָלוֹת מְקוּשָּׁרִים וְכִיסִים מְקוּשָּׁרִים עָסְקִינַן. גּוֹזָלוֹת – מְנַתְּחִי אַהֲדָדֵי, כִּיסִין – לָא מְנַתְּחִי אַהֲדָדֵי.

Rav Ashi said: Here we are dealing with fledglings tied together and with money pouches tied together. In other words, when it is stated that the dispute applies to one pouch, this refers to two pouches that are tied together, as well. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the rabbis agree only with regard to two pouches that are entirely separate. Consequently, it is necessary to explain that there is a difference between pouches tied together and fledglings tied together: Fledglings can release themselves from each other, pouches cannot release themselves from each other. Therefore, it is evident that someone must have taken them. Since they were tied together, he certainly took both of them.

וְרַבִּי אָמַר לָךְ: כִּיסִין נַמִי, זִמְנִין

The Gemara asks: But if that is indeed the case, and it is obvious that someone came and took the money, what is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reasoning? The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: Pouches, too, sometimes