Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Mishna states that the four physiological signs of a kosher bird are not explicitly detailed in the Torah, but are instead established by the Sages. The Gemara challenges this assertion based on a braita, which indicates that these kosher indicators are actually derived through a comparison of the anatomical details of each type of bird—specifically evaluating the characteristics of the nesher (griffin vulture), which is listed as non-kosher, against those of the tor (turtledove), which is known to be kosher due to its role in sacrificial offerings. Abaye resolves this difficulty by explaining that the analytical comparison of the physical details between the tor and the nesher outlined in the braita is precisely the methodology employed by the Sages to formulate and define these diagnostic signs.
Rabbi Chiya introduces a braita asserting that a bird possessing even a single kosher sign is permitted, based on the premise that only a bird structurally identical to the nesher—which lacks all four signs—is fundamentally excluded, along with the other non-kosher species explicitly enumerated in the Torah. The Gemara raises a difficulty, noting that one could argue the exact inverse: using the tor as the absolute paradigm, one could deduce that a bird is kosher only if it possesses all four signs. Since the other non-kosher birds listed in the Torah possess either one, two, or three kosher signs, the Gemara resolves the difficulty by explaining that if all four signs were universally required to render a bird kosher, there would be no logical necessity for the Torah to detail the other twenty-three non-kosher species, as their status as non-kosher would already be self-evident.
The Gemara then proceeds with a series of analytical queries, asking why the halakhic paradigm should not be derived from those forbidden birds that possess three signs, two signs, or one sign, respectively. In each instance, the Gemara answers using a redundant-case logic: if any of those categories served as the baseline paradigm, the Torah would have had no need to explicitly list the remaining forbidden species that possess fewer kosher signs (simanim).
The premise of the final query assumes that the peres and ozniyah (birds possessing a single kosher sign) could have established a binding paradigm were it not for the counter-example of the nesher. The Gemara immediately questions this, invoking the hermeneutical rule that two biblical verses teaching the same law cannot serve as a general paradigm (shnei ketuvim haba’im k’echad). Since both the peres and ozniyah share the same baseline characteristics, how could it be suggested that they form a general rule? The Gemara answers that they represent two distinct halakhic categories; one of them is completely unique because, within the entire biblical list of non-kosher birds, it is the sole species that possesses a specific, distinct kosher sign not found in any of the others.
In conclusion, the ultimate paradigm is the nesher (representing the principle that a bird is kosher unless it shares all the forbidden traits of the listed species), and we do not derive the rule from the tor. The tor (with all four kosher signs) is explicitly mentioned in the Torah solely to indicate its validity for sacrifices, rather than to serve as a universal archetype for kosher birds.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Dina Kaufman in honor of the pidyon haben of their grandson, Ilan Yishai, son of Elisheva and Janiw Palacchi, taking place today in Tel Aviv.
Chullin 61
מָה נֶשֶׁר מְיוּחָד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה וְזֶפֶק וְאֵין קוּרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלָף וְדוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל – טָמֵא, אַף כׇּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ – טָמֵא. תּוֹרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה וְזֶפֶק וְקוּרְקְבָן נִקְלָף וְאֵין דּוֹרְסִין וְאוֹכְלִין – טְהוֹרִין, אַף כׇּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן – טְהוֹרִין. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נֶאֱמַר פֵּירוּשָׁן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
Just as a nesher is unique in that it has no extra digit or crop, and its gizzard cannot be peeled, and it claws its prey and eats it, and it is non-kosher, so too, all like birds with these four signs are non-kosher. And just as doves and pigeons, which have an extra digit and a crop, and whose gizzard can be peeled, and do not claw their food and eat it, are kosher, as they are fit for sacrifice on the altar (see Leviticus 1:14), so too, all like birds with these four signs are kosher. If so, why does the mishna state that the signs were not stated in the Torah? Abaye said: The mishna means that the explanation of the signs of a kosher bird was not stated in the Torah. Rather, one learns it from the statements of the Sages, i.e., the baraita.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עוֹף הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד טָהוֹר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דּוֹמֶה לְנֶשֶׁר. נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל – הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא אִיכָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – תֵּיכוֹל.
Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A bird that comes before a person with one sign of a kosher bird, and which is not listed in the Torah as non-kosher, is kosher, since it is unlike a nesher. The verse did not need to state that the nesher is non-kosher, since one could have inferred this from the list of other non-kosher birds. Rather, the verse mentions the nesher specifically to indicate that it is only a bird like a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if there is a bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
וְלֵילַף מִתּוֹרִין: מָה תּוֹרִין דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלְּהוּ אַרְבְּעָה, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלְּהוּ אַרְבְּעָה?
The Gemara asks: But why learn specifically from the case of a nesher? Let one derive the opposite from the case of doves: Just as doves, which the Torah mentions explicitly as kosher, have all four signs, so too here, no other bird is kosher unless it has all four signs.
אִם כֵּן, שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara responds: If it is so that one learns from the case of a dove, why do I need the rest of the non-kosher birds that the Merciful One wrote? Since none of them has all four signs of a kosher bird, their non-kosher status could simply be inferred from the case of a dove. Rather, since the Torah states explicitly that they are non-kosher, it follows that one does not learn from the case of a dove.
וְנֵילַף מִינַּיְיהוּ: מָה הָתָם תְּלָתָא וְלָא אָכְלִינַן, אַף כֹּל תְּלָתָא וְלָא נֵיכוֹל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן תְּרֵי וְחַד?
The Gemara objects: But let us derive instead from them, i.e., the rest of the non-kosher birds, which each have only three signs, the following: Just as there, those birds have three of the signs of a kosher bird mentioned in the mishna, and we still do not eat them, so too, all other birds that have three signs should have the same halakhic status, and we will not eat them. And all the more so should this apply to a bird that has only two signs or one.
אִם כֵּן, עוֹרֵב, דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא, לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי מִיבַּעְיָא?
The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the crow that the Merciful One wrote among the non-kosher birds? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has three signs, is it necessary to mention the crow, which has only two? Rather, those birds explicitly listed as non-kosher are prohibited, and all other birds with any number of signs are kosher.
וְלֵילַף מֵעוֹרֵב: מָה הָתָם תְּרֵי לָא, אַף כֹּל תְּרֵי לָא? אִם כֵּן, פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד מִיבַּעְיָא!
The Gemara objects: But one should derive instead from a crow: Just as there, a bird with two signs is not kosher, so too any other bird that has only two signs is not kosher. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the peres and the ozniyya that the Merciful One wrote among the non-kosher birds? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has two signs, is it necessary to mention these birds, which have only one? Rather, even birds that have only one sign are kosher, save those mentioned explicitly in the Torah as non-kosher.
וְנִיגְמַר מִפֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה? אִם כֵּן, נֶשֶׁר דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל מִיבַּעְיָא! אֶלָּא נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל – הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – אֱכוֹל.
The Gemara objects: But let us learn instead from the peres and ozniyya themselves that all other birds with only one sign are non-kosher. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the nesher that the Merciful One wrote? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has one sign, is it necessary to mention the nesher, which has none? Rather, the Torah mentions the nesher to indicate that it is a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if you find any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
וְאֶלָּא, טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא נֶשֶׁר, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לֵילַף מִפֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה? הָוֵה לֵיהּ פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara objects: But if so, the reason for eating birds with even one sign is only that the Merciful One wrote: “Nesher.” One can infer, then, that if not for this, I would say: Derive from the peres and ozniyya that any bird with one sign is non-kosher. But that cannot be, since the peres and ozniyya are two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same matter, and as a rule, two verses that come as one do not teach a principle.
גְּמִירִי, דְּאִיכָּא בְּהַאי לֵיכָּא בְּהַאי, וּדְאִיכָּא בְּהַאי לֵיכָּא בְּהַאי.
The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that the sign present in this, the peres, is absent in that, the ozniyya, and that which is present in that is absent in this. Accordingly, this is not a case of two verses that come as one, since each case would teach only that any other bird with only its respective sign is non-kosher. Consequently, it would have been possible to derive from them that any bird with only one sign is non-kosher. The verse therefore states: “Nesher,” to indicate otherwise.
מִכְּדֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִים הָווּ, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּחַד דְּאִיכָּא בְּהָנָךְ לֵיכָּא בְּהָנֵי, וְהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד.
The Gemara persists: Now, there are twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the verses. It is impossible that the one sign present in these, the peres and ozniyya, respectively, is absent in all those other birds. Consequently, the mentioning of the peres, ozniyya, and the other birds constitutes two verses that come as one. If so, one could not have derived from the cases of the peres and ozniyya that a bird with one sign is not kosher, and the inclusion of the nesher is unnecessary.
גְּמִירִי: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִים הָווּ, וְאַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין. תְּלָתָא הָדְרִי בְּכוּלְּהוּ, עֶשְׂרִים מֵהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה, וּתְרֵי בְּעוֹרֵב, חַד בְּפֶרֶס וְחַד בְּעׇזְנִיָּה, דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּהָא לֵיתֵיהּ בְּהָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵילַיף מִינֵּיהּ – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נֶשֶׁר״, נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא אִיכָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – אֱכוֹל.
The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that there are twenty-four non-kosher birds, and four signs of a kosher bird. The same three signs can be found in all of them, with the exception of either the peres or the ozniyya. Twenty of them have all three signs, and two of those signs can be found in a crow. One sign is found in a peres and one in an ozniyya, and the sign present in this is absent in that, i.e., one of them has the fourth sign, which is absent from the other twenty-three non-kosher birds. Lest you say: Derive from it that any other bird with only that sign is non-kosher, the Merciful One wrote about the nesher to indicate: It is a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if there is any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
אֶלָּא, תּוֹרִין דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: לְקׇרְבָּן. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן:
The Gemara asks: But if one learns from nesher that a bird with even one sign is kosher, why do I need the doves that the Merciful One wrote are kosher, which have all four? Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: The dove was not mentioned to teach that it is kosher, but rather to teach that it is the only bird fit to be sacrificed as an offering. Rav Naḥman says:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Richmond, CA, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Chullin 61
מָה נֶשֶׁר מְיוּחָד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה וְזֶפֶק וְאֵין קוּרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלָף וְדוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל – טָמֵא, אַף כׇּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ – טָמֵא. תּוֹרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה וְזֶפֶק וְקוּרְקְבָן נִקְלָף וְאֵין דּוֹרְסִין וְאוֹכְלִין – טְהוֹרִין, אַף כׇּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן – טְהוֹרִין. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נֶאֱמַר פֵּירוּשָׁן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
Just as a nesher is unique in that it has no extra digit or crop, and its gizzard cannot be peeled, and it claws its prey and eats it, and it is non-kosher, so too, all like birds with these four signs are non-kosher. And just as doves and pigeons, which have an extra digit and a crop, and whose gizzard can be peeled, and do not claw their food and eat it, are kosher, as they are fit for sacrifice on the altar (see Leviticus 1:14), so too, all like birds with these four signs are kosher. If so, why does the mishna state that the signs were not stated in the Torah? Abaye said: The mishna means that the explanation of the signs of a kosher bird was not stated in the Torah. Rather, one learns it from the statements of the Sages, i.e., the baraita.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עוֹף הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד טָהוֹר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דּוֹמֶה לְנֶשֶׁר. נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל – הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא אִיכָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – תֵּיכוֹל.
Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A bird that comes before a person with one sign of a kosher bird, and which is not listed in the Torah as non-kosher, is kosher, since it is unlike a nesher. The verse did not need to state that the nesher is non-kosher, since one could have inferred this from the list of other non-kosher birds. Rather, the verse mentions the nesher specifically to indicate that it is only a bird like a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if there is a bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
וְלֵילַף מִתּוֹרִין: מָה תּוֹרִין דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלְּהוּ אַרְבְּעָה, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלְּהוּ אַרְבְּעָה?
The Gemara asks: But why learn specifically from the case of a nesher? Let one derive the opposite from the case of doves: Just as doves, which the Torah mentions explicitly as kosher, have all four signs, so too here, no other bird is kosher unless it has all four signs.
אִם כֵּן, שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara responds: If it is so that one learns from the case of a dove, why do I need the rest of the non-kosher birds that the Merciful One wrote? Since none of them has all four signs of a kosher bird, their non-kosher status could simply be inferred from the case of a dove. Rather, since the Torah states explicitly that they are non-kosher, it follows that one does not learn from the case of a dove.
וְנֵילַף מִינַּיְיהוּ: מָה הָתָם תְּלָתָא וְלָא אָכְלִינַן, אַף כֹּל תְּלָתָא וְלָא נֵיכוֹל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן תְּרֵי וְחַד?
The Gemara objects: But let us derive instead from them, i.e., the rest of the non-kosher birds, which each have only three signs, the following: Just as there, those birds have three of the signs of a kosher bird mentioned in the mishna, and we still do not eat them, so too, all other birds that have three signs should have the same halakhic status, and we will not eat them. And all the more so should this apply to a bird that has only two signs or one.
אִם כֵּן, עוֹרֵב, דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא, לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי מִיבַּעְיָא?
The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the crow that the Merciful One wrote among the non-kosher birds? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has three signs, is it necessary to mention the crow, which has only two? Rather, those birds explicitly listed as non-kosher are prohibited, and all other birds with any number of signs are kosher.
וְלֵילַף מֵעוֹרֵב: מָה הָתָם תְּרֵי לָא, אַף כֹּל תְּרֵי לָא? אִם כֵּן, פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד מִיבַּעְיָא!
The Gemara objects: But one should derive instead from a crow: Just as there, a bird with two signs is not kosher, so too any other bird that has only two signs is not kosher. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the peres and the ozniyya that the Merciful One wrote among the non-kosher birds? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has two signs, is it necessary to mention these birds, which have only one? Rather, even birds that have only one sign are kosher, save those mentioned explicitly in the Torah as non-kosher.
וְנִיגְמַר מִפֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה? אִם כֵּן, נֶשֶׁר דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל מִיבַּעְיָא! אֶלָּא נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל – הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – אֱכוֹל.
The Gemara objects: But let us learn instead from the peres and ozniyya themselves that all other birds with only one sign are non-kosher. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the nesher that the Merciful One wrote? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has one sign, is it necessary to mention the nesher, which has none? Rather, the Torah mentions the nesher to indicate that it is a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if you find any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
וְאֶלָּא, טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא נֶשֶׁר, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לֵילַף מִפֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה? הָוֵה לֵיהּ פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara objects: But if so, the reason for eating birds with even one sign is only that the Merciful One wrote: “Nesher.” One can infer, then, that if not for this, I would say: Derive from the peres and ozniyya that any bird with one sign is non-kosher. But that cannot be, since the peres and ozniyya are two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same matter, and as a rule, two verses that come as one do not teach a principle.
גְּמִירִי, דְּאִיכָּא בְּהַאי לֵיכָּא בְּהַאי, וּדְאִיכָּא בְּהַאי לֵיכָּא בְּהַאי.
The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that the sign present in this, the peres, is absent in that, the ozniyya, and that which is present in that is absent in this. Accordingly, this is not a case of two verses that come as one, since each case would teach only that any other bird with only its respective sign is non-kosher. Consequently, it would have been possible to derive from them that any bird with only one sign is non-kosher. The verse therefore states: “Nesher,” to indicate otherwise.
מִכְּדֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִים הָווּ, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּחַד דְּאִיכָּא בְּהָנָךְ לֵיכָּא בְּהָנֵי, וְהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד.
The Gemara persists: Now, there are twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the verses. It is impossible that the one sign present in these, the peres and ozniyya, respectively, is absent in all those other birds. Consequently, the mentioning of the peres, ozniyya, and the other birds constitutes two verses that come as one. If so, one could not have derived from the cases of the peres and ozniyya that a bird with one sign is not kosher, and the inclusion of the nesher is unnecessary.
גְּמִירִי: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִים הָווּ, וְאַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין. תְּלָתָא הָדְרִי בְּכוּלְּהוּ, עֶשְׂרִים מֵהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה, וּתְרֵי בְּעוֹרֵב, חַד בְּפֶרֶס וְחַד בְּעׇזְנִיָּה, דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּהָא לֵיתֵיהּ בְּהָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵילַיף מִינֵּיהּ – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נֶשֶׁר״, נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא אִיכָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – אֱכוֹל.
The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that there are twenty-four non-kosher birds, and four signs of a kosher bird. The same three signs can be found in all of them, with the exception of either the peres or the ozniyya. Twenty of them have all three signs, and two of those signs can be found in a crow. One sign is found in a peres and one in an ozniyya, and the sign present in this is absent in that, i.e., one of them has the fourth sign, which is absent from the other twenty-three non-kosher birds. Lest you say: Derive from it that any other bird with only that sign is non-kosher, the Merciful One wrote about the nesher to indicate: It is a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if there is any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
אֶלָּא, תּוֹרִין דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: לְקׇרְבָּן. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן:
The Gemara asks: But if one learns from nesher that a bird with even one sign is kosher, why do I need the doves that the Merciful One wrote are kosher, which have all four? Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: The dove was not mentioned to teach that it is kosher, but rather to teach that it is the only bird fit to be sacrificed as an offering. Rav Naḥman says:
