Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 29, 2019 | 讻状讙 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 63

How many kosher birds are there? The gemara compares the list in Vayikra and the list in Devarim.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘转 诪讝讙讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬讗 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讘谉 诪讻讞 讛讗讘

But the bird called the little wine pourer is permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the idiom of the Sages: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father, i.e., the larger is forbidden while the smaller is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖拽讬讟谞讗 讗专讬讻讬 砖拽讬 讜住讜诪拽讬 砖专讬讗 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 诪讜专讝诪讗 讙讜爪讬 讜住讜诪拽讬 讗住讬专讬 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 谞谞讜住 驻住讜诇 讗专讬讻讬 砖拽讬 讜讬专讜拽讬 讗住讬专讬 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讬专讜拽讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉

Rav Yehuda says: There are several types of shekitena. The long-shanked red ones are permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the murzema bird, which is similar in appearance and known to be kosher. The little red ones are forbidden, and your mnemonic for this is the halakha that a dwarf priest is unfit for Temple service. The long-shanked green, i.e., yellow, ones are forbidden, and your mnemonic for this is the mishna (56a): Innards that have turned green render an animal a tereifa and unfit for consumption.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讱 讝讛 讛砖讜诇讛 讚讙讬诐 诪谉 讛讬诐 讚讜讻讬驻转 砖讛讜讚讜 讻驻讜转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讚讜讻讬驻转 砖讛讜讚讜 讻驻讜转 讜讝讛讜 砖讛讘讬讗 砖诪讬专 诇讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖

Rav Yehuda says: As for the shalakh, listed as a non-kosher bird (see Leviticus 11:17), this is the bird that scoops [sholeh] fish out of the sea. The dukhifat (see Leviticus 11:19) is the bird whose comb seems bent [hodo kafut] due to its thickness. The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: The dukhifat is the bird whose comb seems bent, and this is the bird that brought the shamir to the Temple. As recounted in tractate Gittin (68b), King Solomon required a unique worm called the shamir to carve stones of the Temple, as the verse states: 鈥淭here was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building鈥 (I聽Kings 6:7).

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 砖诇讱 讗诪专 诪砖驻讟讬讱 转讛讜诐 专讘讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 谞诪诇讛 讗诪专 爪讚拽转讱 讻讛专专讬 讗诇

The Gemara recounts: When Rabbi Yo岣nan would see a shalakh, he would say: 鈥淵our judgments are like the great deep鈥 (Psalms 36:7), as God exacts retribution even upon the fish in the sea. When he would see an ant, he would say the first half of the same verse: 鈥淵our righteousness is like the mighty mountains,鈥 as God provides sustenance for the tiny ant just as He does for the largest creatures.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诇拽谞讬 讜讘讟谞讬 砖专讬讬谉 砖拽谞讗讬 讜讘讟谞讗讬 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讟讜 讘诪谞讛讙讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 驻专住 讜注讝谞讬讛 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 驻专住 讜注讝谞讬讛

Ameimar says: The laknei and batnei birds are permitted. As for the sakna鈥檈i and batna鈥檈i birds, in any place that it is customary to eat them, one may eat them; in any place that it is customary not to eat them, one may not eat them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the matter of whether it is permitted depends on custom? The Gemara responds: Yes, but it is not difficult: This place where they are forbidden is a place where the peres and ozniyya are found. Since they are similar to these birds, one must be concerned that people will confuse them, even though the sakna鈥檈i and batna鈥檈i are themselves kosher. That place where they are permitted is a place where the peres and ozniyya are not found.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽讜讗讬 讜拽拽讜讗讬 讗住讬专讬 拽拽讜讗转讗 砖专讬讗 讘诪注专讘讗 诪诇拽讜 注讬诇讜讛 讜拽专讜 诇讛 转讞讜讜转讗

Abaye says: The birds called kevai and kakvai are forbidden, but the kakvata is permitted. Still, in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they flog one who eats it on its account, and they call it ta岣eta.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转谞砖诪转 讘讗讜转 砖讘注讜驻讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讗讜转 砖讘注讜驻讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜转 砖讘砖专爪讬诐 讗诪专转 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诪讚讜转 砖讛转讜专讛 谞讚专砖转 讘讛谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬谞讜 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讘注讜驻讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注讜驻讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: The tinshemet, listed in the Torah as non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:18), is the ba鈥檜t among birds. One might ask: Do you say that it is the ba鈥檜t among birds, or is it only the ba鈥檜t among creeping animals? The tinshemet is also listed among the creeping animals (see Leviticus 11:30). Say: Go out and learn from the thirteen hermeneutical principles, of which one is: A matter derived from its context. What are the adjacent verses speaking about? They are speaking about birds. So too here, the word tinshemet is referring to birds.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 砖专爪讬诐 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 转谞砖诪转 讘讗讜转 砖讘砖专爪讬诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讗讜转 砖讘砖专爪讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜转 砖讘注讜驻讜转 讗诪专转 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诪讚讜转 砖讛转讜专讛 谞讚专砖转 讘讛谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬谞讜 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讘砖专爪讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖专爪讬诐

The Gemara notes: It is also taught in a baraita in this way with regard to the tinshemet listed among the creeping animals: The tinshemet here is the ba鈥檜t among creeping animals. One might ask: Do you say that it is the ba鈥檜t among creeping animals, or it is only the ba鈥檜t among birds? Say: Go out and learn from the thirteen hermeneutical principles, of which one is: A matter derived from its context. What are the adjacent verses speaking about? They are speaking about creeping animals. So too here, the word tinshemet is referring to creeping animals.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讗讜转 砖讘注讜驻讜转 拽讬驻讜祝 讘讗讜转 砖讘砖专爪讬诐 拽讜专驻讚讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讗转 讝讜 讛拽讜拽 专讞诐 讝讜 砖专拽专拽

Abaye says: The ba鈥檜t among birds is commonly called the kifof. The ba鈥檜t among creeping animals is commonly called the kurpedai. Rav Yehuda says: As for the ka鈥檃t listed in the Torah as non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:18), this is the bird called a kuk. As for the ra岣m, this is the sherakrak.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 专讞诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讘讗 专讞诐 讘讗讜 专讞诪讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 讚讬转讬讘 讗诪讬讚讬 讜注讘讬讚 砖专拽专拽 讜讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬 讬转讬讘 讗讗专注讗 讜砖专讬拽 讗转讗 诪砖讬讞讗 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专拽讛 诇讛诐 讜讗拽讘爪诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Why is it called the ra岣m? Because when the ra岣m comes to Eretz Yisrael, mercy [ra岣mim] comes to the world, as it appears at the beginning of the rainy season. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: And it is a sign of rain only when it sits on something and makes a sherakrak sound. And it is learned as a tradition that if it sits on the ground and hisses [veshareik], this is a sign that the Messiah is coming, as it is stated: 鈥淚 will hiss [eshreka] for them, and gather them鈥 (Zechariah 10:8).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 砖讬诪讬 诇诪专 讘专 专讘 讗讬讚讗讬 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讬转讬讘 讘讬 讻专讘讗 讜砖专拽 讜讗转讗 讙诇诇 讗驻住拽讬讛 诇诪讜讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讘讬讬讚讗 讛讜讛

Rav Adda bar Shimi said to Mar bar Rav Idai: But wasn鈥檛 there a certain ra岣m that sat on a plowed field and hissed, and a stone came and broke its head? Mar bar Rav Idai said to him: That ra岣m was a liar and was punished for prophesying falsely.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注专讘 讝讛 注讜专讘 讗转 讻诇 讛注专讘 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜专讘 讛注诪拽讬 诇诪讬谞讜 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜专讘 讛讘讗 讘专讗砖讬 讬讜谞讬诐

With regard to the verse: 鈥淓very orev after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:15), the Sages taught in a baraita: As for the orev, this is the crow. When the verse states: 鈥淓very orev,鈥 this serves to include the valley crow as non-kosher. And the verse states: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 to include the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons.

讗诪专 诪专 注专讘 讝讛 注讜专讘 讗讟讜 拽诪谉 拽讗讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注专讘 讝讛 注讜专讘 讗讜讻诪讗 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 拽讜爪讜转讬讜 转诇转诇讬诐 砖讞专讜转 讻注讜专讘 讛注诪拽讬 讞讬讜讜专讗 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜诪专讗讛讜 注诪拽 诪谉 讛注讜专 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讛注诪讜拽讛 诪谉 讛爪诇

The Gemara explains: The Master said: As for the orev, this is the crow. Is that to say that the particular crow stands before us, such that one immediately knows which one it is? Rather, say: As for the orev, this is the black crow, and so the verse states: 鈥淗is locks are curled, and black as a crow鈥 (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara continues to explain the baraita: The valley crow [ha鈥檃maki] is the white crow. And so the verse states with regard to leprosy: 鈥淚f the appearance thereof be deeper [amok] than the skin鈥 (Leviticus 13:30), and the Sages explained: As the appearance of an area lit by the sun, which seems deeper than the shade, which appears to cover it. There is therefore an association between a valley and the color white.

讜注讜专讘 讛讘讗 讘专讗砖讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚讗转讬 讘专讬砖 讬讜谞讬 讗诇讗 讚讚诪讬 专讬砖讬讛 诇讚讬讜谞讛

And with regard to the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons, Rav Pappa said: Do not say that the baraita means that it comes at the head of pigeons, i.e., it dwells with them; rather, it means that this crow鈥檚 head resembles that of a pigeon.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞抓 讝讛 讛谞抓 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讘专 讞讬专讬讗 诪讗讬 讘专 讞讬专讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讜专讬谞拽讗

With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the netz after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:16), the Sages taught: As for the netz, this is the hawk. The verse states: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 to include the bird called bar 岣reya. The Gemara asks: What is the bar 岣reya? Abaye said: It is the bird commonly called the shurineka.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讞住讬讚讛 讝讜 讚讬讛 诇讘谞讛 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 讞住讬讚讛 砖注讜砖讛 讞住讬讚讜转 注诐 讞讘专讜转讬讛 讛讗谞驻讛 讝讜 讚讬讛 专讙讝谞讬转 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 讗谞驻讛 砖诪谞讗驻转 注诐 讞讘专讜转讬讛

With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the 岣sida, and the anafa after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:19), Rav Yehuda says: As for the 岣sida, this is the white dayya. And why is it called 岣sida? Since it performs charity [岣sidut] for its fellows, giving them from its own food. As for the anafa, this is the irritable dayya. And why is it called anafa? Since it quarrels [mena鈥檈fet] with its fellows.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 注讜驻讜转 讟诪讗讬谉 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讚讜讬拽专讗 注砖专讬诐 讛讜讜 讗讬 讚诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讞讚 讛讜讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讛 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讜讬拽专讗 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 砖讚讬讬讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讻转讬 注砖专讬谉 讜转专讬谉 讛讜讜

Rav 岣nan bar Rav 岣sda says that Rav 岣sda says that Rav 岣nan, son of Rava, says that Rav says: There are twenty-four non-kosher birds. Rav 岣nan bar Rav 岣sda said to Rav 岣sda, his father: From where in the Torah is this number obtained? If you are referring to the list of Leviticus (11:13鈥19), there are only twenty birds listed there. If you are referring to the list of Deuteronomy (14:12鈥18), there are only twenty-one there. And if you would say: Add the da鈥檃, which is written in Leviticus but is not written in Deuteronomy, to the others in Deuteronomy, still there are only twenty-two.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讱 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬谞讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 讗讬 讛讻讬 注砖专讬谉 讜砖讬转 讛讜讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讗讛 讜专讗讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转专转讬 讗讬谞讜谉

Rav 岣sda said to him: This is what your mother鈥檚 father, Rav 岣nan, son of Rava, said in the name of Rav: The phrases 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 and 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 that appear in each list indicate additional cases. Here, then, are four more. The Gemara objects: If so, there are twenty-six, not twenty-four. Abaye said: The da鈥檃 mentioned in Leviticus and the ra鈥檃 mentioned in Deuteronomy are one bird. As, if it enters your mind that they are two different birds,

诪讻讚讬 诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚讗讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 专讗讛 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讚讗讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讬谉 专讗讛 讜讚讗讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: 鈥Da鈥檃,鈥 and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: 鈥Ra鈥檃,鈥 and da鈥檃 is not written? Rather, conclude from the presence of each on only one list that the ra鈥檃 and da鈥檃 are one species.

讜讗讻转讬 注砖专讬谉 讜讞诪砖讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖诐 砖专讗讛 讜讚讗讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讻讱 讗讬讛 讜讚讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转专转讬 讗讬谞讜谉 诪讻讚讬 诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讬谞讛 讗讗讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讬谞讛 讗讚讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬讛 讜讚讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

The Gemara objects: But still, there are twenty-five birds, not twenty-four. Abaye said: Just as the ra鈥檃 and da鈥檃 are one species, so too, the ayya and the dayya, the latter of which is mentioned only in Deuteronomy, are one species. As, if it enters your mind that they are two different species, one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 about the ayya, prohibiting some other kind of ayya, and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 about the dayya? Why is the ayya not mentioned? Rather, learn from the use of the same phrase with regard to the ayya and dayya that they are one species.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讗讬讛 讜讚讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讻转讘 讗讬讛 讜讚讬讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗拽专讗 讗谞讬 讗讬讛 讚讬讛 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转谉 驻转讞讜谉 驻讛 诇讘注诇 讚讬谉 诇讞诇讜拽 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗转讛 拽讜专讗 讗讬讛 讜讛讜讗 拽讜专讗 讚讬讛 讗转讛 拽讜专讗 讚讬讛 讜讛讜讗 拽讜专讗 讗讬讛 诇讻讱 讻转讘 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讜讛专讗讛 讜讗转 讛讗讬讛 讜讛讚讬讛 诇诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: And now that the ayya and dayya are one species, why did the Torah need to write both ayya and dayya in Deuteronomy? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Given that the two are one species, I will read ayya and know that it is forbidden. Why is dayya stated? It is so as not to give a claim to a litigant to disagree, and it should not occur that you call it an ayya and he calls it a dayya and eats it. Likewise, the Torah did not write only dayya so that it will not occur that you call it a dayya and he calls it an ayya and eats it. Therefore, the Torah writes in Deuteronomy: 鈥淎nd the ra鈥檃, and the ayya, and the dayya after its kinds鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:13). Consequently, both the list in Leviticus and that in Deuteronomy enumerate twenty-four birds, in accordance with the statement attributed to Rav.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇诪讛 谞砖谞讜 讘讘讛诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛砖住讜注讛 讜讘注讜驻讜转 诪驻谞讬 讛专讗讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讘讛诪讛 讚讛转诐 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 注讜驻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 诇讗 讛转诐 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讻讗 诇驻专讜砖讬

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Why is the list of non-kosher animals in Leviticus repeated? It is due to the necessity of adding the shesua (Deuteronomy 14:7), which was not listed in Leviticus. And the list of non-kosher birds is repeated due to the ra鈥檃. What, is it not understood from the fact that the extra list of animals there, in Deuteronomy, is to add animals, that the list of birds is also repeated to add birds? The Gemara responds: No, there, i.e., with regard to animals, the list is repeated to add, but here, with regard to birds, it is repeated only to explain.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专讗讛 讝讜 讗讬讛 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 专讗讛 砖专讜讗讛 讘讬讜转专 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞转讬讘 诇讗 讬讚注讜 注讬讟 讜诇讗 砖讝驻转讜 注讬谉 讗讬讛 转谞讗 注讜诪讚转 讘讘讘诇 讜专讜讗讛 谞讘诇讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

And the opinion that the da鈥檃 and ra鈥檃 are one species, and that the ayya and dayya are another species, differs from the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: The ra鈥檃 is the ayya. And why is it called the ra鈥檃? Since it sees [ro鈥檃h] most vividly. And so the verse states: 鈥淭hat path no bird of prey knows, neither has the eye of the ayya seen it鈥 (Job 28:7). And a Sage taught: The ra鈥檃 can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael.

诪讚专讗讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讚讗讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讗讛 诪讻讚讬 诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚讗讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讚讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讛 讜专讗讛 讜讗讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

The Gemara discusses Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement: Since the ra鈥檃 is the same as the ayya, by inference, one may conclude that the da鈥檃 is not the same as the ra鈥檃; otherwise, there are not twenty-four non-kosher birds. But since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: 鈥Da鈥檃,鈥 and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that da鈥檃 is not written? Rather, must one not conclude from the discrepancy that the two are the same? If so, one must conclude that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da鈥檃 and ra鈥檃 and ayya are all one species.

讜诪讚专讗讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讚讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讗讗讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讗讗讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讚讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讛 讜专讗讛 讚讬讛 讜讗讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

And furthermore, from the fact that Rabbi Abbahu holds that the ra鈥檃 is the same as the ayya, by inference, one may conclude that the dayya is not the same as the ayya. But if so, one may ask again: What is different there, in Leviticus, that it is written: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 about the ayya, and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is not written: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 about the ayya but about the dayya? Rather, the ayya and dayya must be one species. And one may learn from the combination of the two disputes that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da鈥檃 and ra鈥檃, dayya and ayya are all one species. Consequently, according to Rabbi Abbahu, there are only twenty-three non-kosher species.

转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗讛 注讜驻讜转 讟诪讗讬谉 讬砖 讘诪讝专讞 讜讻讜诇谉 诪讬谉 讗讬讛 讛谉 转谞讬 讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖讘注 诪讗讜转 诪讬谞讬 讚讙讬诐 讛谉 讜砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 诪讬谞讬 讞讙讘讬诐 讜诇注讜驻讜转 讗讬谉 诪住驻专 注讜驻讜转 注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 讛讜讜 讗诇讗 讜诇注讜驻讜转 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪住驻专

搂 With regard to the phrase: 鈥淭he ayya after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:14), it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are one hundred non-kosher birds in the East, and they are all species of ayya. Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There are seven hundred types of non-kosher fish, and eight hundred types of non-kosher grasshopper, and there are countless birds. The Gemara protests: Are there countless non-kosher birds? But there are only twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the Torah. Rather, Avimi must have meant: And there are countless kosher birds.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讙诇讜讬 讜讬讚讜注 诇驻谞讬 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛注讜诇诐 砖讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专讜转 诇驻讬讻讱 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 讘讟讛讜专讛 讙诇讜讬 讜讬讚讜注 诇驻谞讬 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛注讜诇诐 砖注讜驻讜转 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 注诇 讛讟诪讗讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 讘讟诪讗讬谉

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of non-kosher animals are more numerous than the kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the kosher animals, teaching that all the rest are non-kosher. On the other hand, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of kosher birds are more numerous than the non-kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖谞讛 讗讚诐 诇转诇诪讬讚讜 讚专讱 拽爪专讛

The Gemara asks: What is this baraita teaching us? The Gemara responds: As Rav Huna says that Rav says, and some say that Rav Huna says that Rav says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner, just as the Torah is concise in its language.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 谞讗讻诇 讘诪住讜专转 谞讗诪谉 讛爪讬讬讚 诇讜诪专 注讜祝 讝讛 讟讛讜专 诪住专 诇讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A kosher bird may be eaten on the strength of a tradition that it is kosher, without inspecting for the signs listed in the mishna. And the hunter is deemed credible to say: My teacher conveyed to me that this bird is kosher. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And this is the halakha only when the teacher is familiar with the non-kosher birds and with their names.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讘讜 讞讻诐 讗讜 专讘讜 爪讬讬讚 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讜 爪讬讬讚 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘讜 讞讻诐 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诪讬讬讛讜 讙诪讬专 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬谞讛讜 诪讬 讬讚注 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讜 爪讬讬讚 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Was Rabbi Yo岣nan referring to the hunter鈥檚 teacher the Sage, or to his teacher the hunter, i.e., the one who taught him how to hunt? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And this applies only when the teacher is familiar with them and with their names. Granted, if you say this is referring to his teacher the hunter, this works out well. But if you say it is referring to his teacher the Sage, granted, a Sage will know their names, since he has learned them, but does he recognize the birds themselves? Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Yo岣nan referred to his teacher the hunter? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讬爪讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讟专驻讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may buy eggs from the gentiles anywhere, and one need not be concerned, neither with regard to carcasses, i.e., that the egg may have been removed from a carcass of a bird and therefore forbidden, nor with regard to eggs from tereifot, because neither of these possibilities is likely.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚注讜祝 讟诪讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讜诪专 砖诇 注讜祝 驻诇讜谞讬 讟讛讜专 讜诇讬诪讗 砖诇 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬

The Gemara objects: But perhaps they are from a non-kosher bird. Shmuel鈥檚 father said: The baraita is referring to a case where the gentile says they are of such and such bird, which is known to be kosher. The Gemara challenges: But if the gentile is deemed credible, let him say only that they are of a kosher bird. Why does he need to name the species? The Gemara responds: If so, if he does not name the species, he has the opportunity to deflect scrutiny if he is dishonest; but if he names the species, one can bring other eggs of the same species to compare and validate the claim.

讜诇讘讚讜拽 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讻住讬诪谞讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讻讱 住讬诪谞讬 讚讙讬诐 住讬诪谞讬 讚讙讬诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讱 住讬诪谞讬

The Gemara asks: But why must one rely on the gentile? Let him inspect the eggs for signs, as it is taught in a baraita: Like the signs of kosher eggs, so too are the signs of fish. The Gemara interjects: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to the signs of fish? The Merciful One states them explicitly in the Torah: 鈥淔ins and scales鈥 (Leviticus 11:9). Rather, say: So too are the signs of

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 63

讘转 诪讝讙讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬讗 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讘谉 诪讻讞 讛讗讘

But the bird called the little wine pourer is permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the idiom of the Sages: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father, i.e., the larger is forbidden while the smaller is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖拽讬讟谞讗 讗专讬讻讬 砖拽讬 讜住讜诪拽讬 砖专讬讗 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 诪讜专讝诪讗 讙讜爪讬 讜住讜诪拽讬 讗住讬专讬 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 谞谞讜住 驻住讜诇 讗专讬讻讬 砖拽讬 讜讬专讜拽讬 讗住讬专讬 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讬专讜拽讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉

Rav Yehuda says: There are several types of shekitena. The long-shanked red ones are permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the murzema bird, which is similar in appearance and known to be kosher. The little red ones are forbidden, and your mnemonic for this is the halakha that a dwarf priest is unfit for Temple service. The long-shanked green, i.e., yellow, ones are forbidden, and your mnemonic for this is the mishna (56a): Innards that have turned green render an animal a tereifa and unfit for consumption.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讱 讝讛 讛砖讜诇讛 讚讙讬诐 诪谉 讛讬诐 讚讜讻讬驻转 砖讛讜讚讜 讻驻讜转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讚讜讻讬驻转 砖讛讜讚讜 讻驻讜转 讜讝讛讜 砖讛讘讬讗 砖诪讬专 诇讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖

Rav Yehuda says: As for the shalakh, listed as a non-kosher bird (see Leviticus 11:17), this is the bird that scoops [sholeh] fish out of the sea. The dukhifat (see Leviticus 11:19) is the bird whose comb seems bent [hodo kafut] due to its thickness. The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: The dukhifat is the bird whose comb seems bent, and this is the bird that brought the shamir to the Temple. As recounted in tractate Gittin (68b), King Solomon required a unique worm called the shamir to carve stones of the Temple, as the verse states: 鈥淭here was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building鈥 (I聽Kings 6:7).

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 砖诇讱 讗诪专 诪砖驻讟讬讱 转讛讜诐 专讘讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 谞诪诇讛 讗诪专 爪讚拽转讱 讻讛专专讬 讗诇

The Gemara recounts: When Rabbi Yo岣nan would see a shalakh, he would say: 鈥淵our judgments are like the great deep鈥 (Psalms 36:7), as God exacts retribution even upon the fish in the sea. When he would see an ant, he would say the first half of the same verse: 鈥淵our righteousness is like the mighty mountains,鈥 as God provides sustenance for the tiny ant just as He does for the largest creatures.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诇拽谞讬 讜讘讟谞讬 砖专讬讬谉 砖拽谞讗讬 讜讘讟谞讗讬 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讟讜 讘诪谞讛讙讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 驻专住 讜注讝谞讬讛 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 驻专住 讜注讝谞讬讛

Ameimar says: The laknei and batnei birds are permitted. As for the sakna鈥檈i and batna鈥檈i birds, in any place that it is customary to eat them, one may eat them; in any place that it is customary not to eat them, one may not eat them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the matter of whether it is permitted depends on custom? The Gemara responds: Yes, but it is not difficult: This place where they are forbidden is a place where the peres and ozniyya are found. Since they are similar to these birds, one must be concerned that people will confuse them, even though the sakna鈥檈i and batna鈥檈i are themselves kosher. That place where they are permitted is a place where the peres and ozniyya are not found.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽讜讗讬 讜拽拽讜讗讬 讗住讬专讬 拽拽讜讗转讗 砖专讬讗 讘诪注专讘讗 诪诇拽讜 注讬诇讜讛 讜拽专讜 诇讛 转讞讜讜转讗

Abaye says: The birds called kevai and kakvai are forbidden, but the kakvata is permitted. Still, in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they flog one who eats it on its account, and they call it ta岣eta.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转谞砖诪转 讘讗讜转 砖讘注讜驻讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讗讜转 砖讘注讜驻讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜转 砖讘砖专爪讬诐 讗诪专转 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诪讚讜转 砖讛转讜专讛 谞讚专砖转 讘讛谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬谞讜 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讘注讜驻讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注讜驻讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: The tinshemet, listed in the Torah as non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:18), is the ba鈥檜t among birds. One might ask: Do you say that it is the ba鈥檜t among birds, or is it only the ba鈥檜t among creeping animals? The tinshemet is also listed among the creeping animals (see Leviticus 11:30). Say: Go out and learn from the thirteen hermeneutical principles, of which one is: A matter derived from its context. What are the adjacent verses speaking about? They are speaking about birds. So too here, the word tinshemet is referring to birds.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 砖专爪讬诐 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 转谞砖诪转 讘讗讜转 砖讘砖专爪讬诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讗讜转 砖讘砖专爪讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜转 砖讘注讜驻讜转 讗诪专转 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诪讚讜转 砖讛转讜专讛 谞讚专砖转 讘讛谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬谞讜 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讘砖专爪讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖专爪讬诐

The Gemara notes: It is also taught in a baraita in this way with regard to the tinshemet listed among the creeping animals: The tinshemet here is the ba鈥檜t among creeping animals. One might ask: Do you say that it is the ba鈥檜t among creeping animals, or it is only the ba鈥檜t among birds? Say: Go out and learn from the thirteen hermeneutical principles, of which one is: A matter derived from its context. What are the adjacent verses speaking about? They are speaking about creeping animals. So too here, the word tinshemet is referring to creeping animals.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讗讜转 砖讘注讜驻讜转 拽讬驻讜祝 讘讗讜转 砖讘砖专爪讬诐 拽讜专驻讚讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讗转 讝讜 讛拽讜拽 专讞诐 讝讜 砖专拽专拽

Abaye says: The ba鈥檜t among birds is commonly called the kifof. The ba鈥檜t among creeping animals is commonly called the kurpedai. Rav Yehuda says: As for the ka鈥檃t listed in the Torah as non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:18), this is the bird called a kuk. As for the ra岣m, this is the sherakrak.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 专讞诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讘讗 专讞诐 讘讗讜 专讞诪讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 讚讬转讬讘 讗诪讬讚讬 讜注讘讬讚 砖专拽专拽 讜讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬 讬转讬讘 讗讗专注讗 讜砖专讬拽 讗转讗 诪砖讬讞讗 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专拽讛 诇讛诐 讜讗拽讘爪诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Why is it called the ra岣m? Because when the ra岣m comes to Eretz Yisrael, mercy [ra岣mim] comes to the world, as it appears at the beginning of the rainy season. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: And it is a sign of rain only when it sits on something and makes a sherakrak sound. And it is learned as a tradition that if it sits on the ground and hisses [veshareik], this is a sign that the Messiah is coming, as it is stated: 鈥淚 will hiss [eshreka] for them, and gather them鈥 (Zechariah 10:8).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 砖讬诪讬 诇诪专 讘专 专讘 讗讬讚讗讬 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讬转讬讘 讘讬 讻专讘讗 讜砖专拽 讜讗转讗 讙诇诇 讗驻住拽讬讛 诇诪讜讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讘讬讬讚讗 讛讜讛

Rav Adda bar Shimi said to Mar bar Rav Idai: But wasn鈥檛 there a certain ra岣m that sat on a plowed field and hissed, and a stone came and broke its head? Mar bar Rav Idai said to him: That ra岣m was a liar and was punished for prophesying falsely.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注专讘 讝讛 注讜专讘 讗转 讻诇 讛注专讘 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜专讘 讛注诪拽讬 诇诪讬谞讜 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜专讘 讛讘讗 讘专讗砖讬 讬讜谞讬诐

With regard to the verse: 鈥淓very orev after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:15), the Sages taught in a baraita: As for the orev, this is the crow. When the verse states: 鈥淓very orev,鈥 this serves to include the valley crow as non-kosher. And the verse states: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 to include the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons.

讗诪专 诪专 注专讘 讝讛 注讜专讘 讗讟讜 拽诪谉 拽讗讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注专讘 讝讛 注讜专讘 讗讜讻诪讗 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 拽讜爪讜转讬讜 转诇转诇讬诐 砖讞专讜转 讻注讜专讘 讛注诪拽讬 讞讬讜讜专讗 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜诪专讗讛讜 注诪拽 诪谉 讛注讜专 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讛注诪讜拽讛 诪谉 讛爪诇

The Gemara explains: The Master said: As for the orev, this is the crow. Is that to say that the particular crow stands before us, such that one immediately knows which one it is? Rather, say: As for the orev, this is the black crow, and so the verse states: 鈥淗is locks are curled, and black as a crow鈥 (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara continues to explain the baraita: The valley crow [ha鈥檃maki] is the white crow. And so the verse states with regard to leprosy: 鈥淚f the appearance thereof be deeper [amok] than the skin鈥 (Leviticus 13:30), and the Sages explained: As the appearance of an area lit by the sun, which seems deeper than the shade, which appears to cover it. There is therefore an association between a valley and the color white.

讜注讜专讘 讛讘讗 讘专讗砖讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚讗转讬 讘专讬砖 讬讜谞讬 讗诇讗 讚讚诪讬 专讬砖讬讛 诇讚讬讜谞讛

And with regard to the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons, Rav Pappa said: Do not say that the baraita means that it comes at the head of pigeons, i.e., it dwells with them; rather, it means that this crow鈥檚 head resembles that of a pigeon.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞抓 讝讛 讛谞抓 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讘专 讞讬专讬讗 诪讗讬 讘专 讞讬专讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讜专讬谞拽讗

With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the netz after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:16), the Sages taught: As for the netz, this is the hawk. The verse states: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 to include the bird called bar 岣reya. The Gemara asks: What is the bar 岣reya? Abaye said: It is the bird commonly called the shurineka.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讞住讬讚讛 讝讜 讚讬讛 诇讘谞讛 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 讞住讬讚讛 砖注讜砖讛 讞住讬讚讜转 注诐 讞讘专讜转讬讛 讛讗谞驻讛 讝讜 讚讬讛 专讙讝谞讬转 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 讗谞驻讛 砖诪谞讗驻转 注诐 讞讘专讜转讬讛

With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the 岣sida, and the anafa after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:19), Rav Yehuda says: As for the 岣sida, this is the white dayya. And why is it called 岣sida? Since it performs charity [岣sidut] for its fellows, giving them from its own food. As for the anafa, this is the irritable dayya. And why is it called anafa? Since it quarrels [mena鈥檈fet] with its fellows.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 注讜驻讜转 讟诪讗讬谉 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讚讜讬拽专讗 注砖专讬诐 讛讜讜 讗讬 讚诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讞讚 讛讜讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讛 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讜讬拽专讗 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 砖讚讬讬讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讻转讬 注砖专讬谉 讜转专讬谉 讛讜讜

Rav 岣nan bar Rav 岣sda says that Rav 岣sda says that Rav 岣nan, son of Rava, says that Rav says: There are twenty-four non-kosher birds. Rav 岣nan bar Rav 岣sda said to Rav 岣sda, his father: From where in the Torah is this number obtained? If you are referring to the list of Leviticus (11:13鈥19), there are only twenty birds listed there. If you are referring to the list of Deuteronomy (14:12鈥18), there are only twenty-one there. And if you would say: Add the da鈥檃, which is written in Leviticus but is not written in Deuteronomy, to the others in Deuteronomy, still there are only twenty-two.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讱 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬谞讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 讗讬 讛讻讬 注砖专讬谉 讜砖讬转 讛讜讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讗讛 讜专讗讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转专转讬 讗讬谞讜谉

Rav 岣sda said to him: This is what your mother鈥檚 father, Rav 岣nan, son of Rava, said in the name of Rav: The phrases 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 and 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 that appear in each list indicate additional cases. Here, then, are four more. The Gemara objects: If so, there are twenty-six, not twenty-four. Abaye said: The da鈥檃 mentioned in Leviticus and the ra鈥檃 mentioned in Deuteronomy are one bird. As, if it enters your mind that they are two different birds,

诪讻讚讬 诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚讗讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 专讗讛 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讚讗讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讬谉 专讗讛 讜讚讗讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: 鈥Da鈥檃,鈥 and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: 鈥Ra鈥檃,鈥 and da鈥檃 is not written? Rather, conclude from the presence of each on only one list that the ra鈥檃 and da鈥檃 are one species.

讜讗讻转讬 注砖专讬谉 讜讞诪砖讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖诐 砖专讗讛 讜讚讗讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讻讱 讗讬讛 讜讚讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转专转讬 讗讬谞讜谉 诪讻讚讬 诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讬谞讛 讗讗讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讬谞讛 讗讚讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬讛 讜讚讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

The Gemara objects: But still, there are twenty-five birds, not twenty-four. Abaye said: Just as the ra鈥檃 and da鈥檃 are one species, so too, the ayya and the dayya, the latter of which is mentioned only in Deuteronomy, are one species. As, if it enters your mind that they are two different species, one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 about the ayya, prohibiting some other kind of ayya, and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 about the dayya? Why is the ayya not mentioned? Rather, learn from the use of the same phrase with regard to the ayya and dayya that they are one species.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讗讬讛 讜讚讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讻转讘 讗讬讛 讜讚讬讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗拽专讗 讗谞讬 讗讬讛 讚讬讛 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转谉 驻转讞讜谉 驻讛 诇讘注诇 讚讬谉 诇讞诇讜拽 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗转讛 拽讜专讗 讗讬讛 讜讛讜讗 拽讜专讗 讚讬讛 讗转讛 拽讜专讗 讚讬讛 讜讛讜讗 拽讜专讗 讗讬讛 诇讻讱 讻转讘 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讜讛专讗讛 讜讗转 讛讗讬讛 讜讛讚讬讛 诇诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: And now that the ayya and dayya are one species, why did the Torah need to write both ayya and dayya in Deuteronomy? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Given that the two are one species, I will read ayya and know that it is forbidden. Why is dayya stated? It is so as not to give a claim to a litigant to disagree, and it should not occur that you call it an ayya and he calls it a dayya and eats it. Likewise, the Torah did not write only dayya so that it will not occur that you call it a dayya and he calls it an ayya and eats it. Therefore, the Torah writes in Deuteronomy: 鈥淎nd the ra鈥檃, and the ayya, and the dayya after its kinds鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:13). Consequently, both the list in Leviticus and that in Deuteronomy enumerate twenty-four birds, in accordance with the statement attributed to Rav.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇诪讛 谞砖谞讜 讘讘讛诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛砖住讜注讛 讜讘注讜驻讜转 诪驻谞讬 讛专讗讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讘讛诪讛 讚讛转诐 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 注讜驻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 诇讗 讛转诐 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讻讗 诇驻专讜砖讬

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Why is the list of non-kosher animals in Leviticus repeated? It is due to the necessity of adding the shesua (Deuteronomy 14:7), which was not listed in Leviticus. And the list of non-kosher birds is repeated due to the ra鈥檃. What, is it not understood from the fact that the extra list of animals there, in Deuteronomy, is to add animals, that the list of birds is also repeated to add birds? The Gemara responds: No, there, i.e., with regard to animals, the list is repeated to add, but here, with regard to birds, it is repeated only to explain.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专讗讛 讝讜 讗讬讛 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 专讗讛 砖专讜讗讛 讘讬讜转专 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞转讬讘 诇讗 讬讚注讜 注讬讟 讜诇讗 砖讝驻转讜 注讬谉 讗讬讛 转谞讗 注讜诪讚转 讘讘讘诇 讜专讜讗讛 谞讘诇讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

And the opinion that the da鈥檃 and ra鈥檃 are one species, and that the ayya and dayya are another species, differs from the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: The ra鈥檃 is the ayya. And why is it called the ra鈥檃? Since it sees [ro鈥檃h] most vividly. And so the verse states: 鈥淭hat path no bird of prey knows, neither has the eye of the ayya seen it鈥 (Job 28:7). And a Sage taught: The ra鈥檃 can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael.

诪讚专讗讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讚讗讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讗讛 诪讻讚讬 诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚讗讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讚讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讛 讜专讗讛 讜讗讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

The Gemara discusses Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement: Since the ra鈥檃 is the same as the ayya, by inference, one may conclude that the da鈥檃 is not the same as the ra鈥檃; otherwise, there are not twenty-four non-kosher birds. But since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: 鈥Da鈥檃,鈥 and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that da鈥檃 is not written? Rather, must one not conclude from the discrepancy that the two are the same? If so, one must conclude that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da鈥檃 and ra鈥檃 and ayya are all one species.

讜诪讚专讗讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讚讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讗讗讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讗讗讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讚讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讛 讜专讗讛 讚讬讛 讜讗讬讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

And furthermore, from the fact that Rabbi Abbahu holds that the ra鈥檃 is the same as the ayya, by inference, one may conclude that the dayya is not the same as the ayya. But if so, one may ask again: What is different there, in Leviticus, that it is written: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 about the ayya, and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is not written: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 about the ayya but about the dayya? Rather, the ayya and dayya must be one species. And one may learn from the combination of the two disputes that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da鈥檃 and ra鈥檃, dayya and ayya are all one species. Consequently, according to Rabbi Abbahu, there are only twenty-three non-kosher species.

转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗讛 注讜驻讜转 讟诪讗讬谉 讬砖 讘诪讝专讞 讜讻讜诇谉 诪讬谉 讗讬讛 讛谉 转谞讬 讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖讘注 诪讗讜转 诪讬谞讬 讚讙讬诐 讛谉 讜砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 诪讬谞讬 讞讙讘讬诐 讜诇注讜驻讜转 讗讬谉 诪住驻专 注讜驻讜转 注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 讛讜讜 讗诇讗 讜诇注讜驻讜转 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪住驻专

搂 With regard to the phrase: 鈥淭he ayya after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:14), it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are one hundred non-kosher birds in the East, and they are all species of ayya. Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There are seven hundred types of non-kosher fish, and eight hundred types of non-kosher grasshopper, and there are countless birds. The Gemara protests: Are there countless non-kosher birds? But there are only twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the Torah. Rather, Avimi must have meant: And there are countless kosher birds.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讙诇讜讬 讜讬讚讜注 诇驻谞讬 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛注讜诇诐 砖讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专讜转 诇驻讬讻讱 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 讘讟讛讜专讛 讙诇讜讬 讜讬讚讜注 诇驻谞讬 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛注讜诇诐 砖注讜驻讜转 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 注诇 讛讟诪讗讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 讘讟诪讗讬谉

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of non-kosher animals are more numerous than the kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the kosher animals, teaching that all the rest are non-kosher. On the other hand, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of kosher birds are more numerous than the non-kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖谞讛 讗讚诐 诇转诇诪讬讚讜 讚专讱 拽爪专讛

The Gemara asks: What is this baraita teaching us? The Gemara responds: As Rav Huna says that Rav says, and some say that Rav Huna says that Rav says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner, just as the Torah is concise in its language.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 谞讗讻诇 讘诪住讜专转 谞讗诪谉 讛爪讬讬讚 诇讜诪专 注讜祝 讝讛 讟讛讜专 诪住专 诇讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A kosher bird may be eaten on the strength of a tradition that it is kosher, without inspecting for the signs listed in the mishna. And the hunter is deemed credible to say: My teacher conveyed to me that this bird is kosher. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And this is the halakha only when the teacher is familiar with the non-kosher birds and with their names.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讘讜 讞讻诐 讗讜 专讘讜 爪讬讬讚 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讜 爪讬讬讚 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘讜 讞讻诐 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诪讬讬讛讜 讙诪讬专 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬谞讛讜 诪讬 讬讚注 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讜 爪讬讬讚 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Was Rabbi Yo岣nan referring to the hunter鈥檚 teacher the Sage, or to his teacher the hunter, i.e., the one who taught him how to hunt? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And this applies only when the teacher is familiar with them and with their names. Granted, if you say this is referring to his teacher the hunter, this works out well. But if you say it is referring to his teacher the Sage, granted, a Sage will know their names, since he has learned them, but does he recognize the birds themselves? Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Yo岣nan referred to his teacher the hunter? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讬爪讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讟专驻讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may buy eggs from the gentiles anywhere, and one need not be concerned, neither with regard to carcasses, i.e., that the egg may have been removed from a carcass of a bird and therefore forbidden, nor with regard to eggs from tereifot, because neither of these possibilities is likely.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚注讜祝 讟诪讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讜诪专 砖诇 注讜祝 驻诇讜谞讬 讟讛讜专 讜诇讬诪讗 砖诇 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬

The Gemara objects: But perhaps they are from a non-kosher bird. Shmuel鈥檚 father said: The baraita is referring to a case where the gentile says they are of such and such bird, which is known to be kosher. The Gemara challenges: But if the gentile is deemed credible, let him say only that they are of a kosher bird. Why does he need to name the species? The Gemara responds: If so, if he does not name the species, he has the opportunity to deflect scrutiny if he is dishonest; but if he names the species, one can bring other eggs of the same species to compare and validate the claim.

讜诇讘讚讜拽 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讻住讬诪谞讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讻讱 住讬诪谞讬 讚讙讬诐 住讬诪谞讬 讚讙讬诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讱 住讬诪谞讬

The Gemara asks: But why must one rely on the gentile? Let him inspect the eggs for signs, as it is taught in a baraita: Like the signs of kosher eggs, so too are the signs of fish. The Gemara interjects: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to the signs of fish? The Merciful One states them explicitly in the Torah: 鈥淔ins and scales鈥 (Leviticus 11:9). Rather, say: So too are the signs of

Scroll To Top