Chullin 61a — the Talmud in English

And we derive from it by a binyan av:

Just as the eagle is distinguished

by four things:

a.

that it does not have a

supernumerary toe raised above the other toes.

b.

And

it does not have

a crop.

A pouch in which food collects.

c.

And its gizzard is not peeled

from the flesh without a knife-cut.

d.

And it claws

it seizes with its claws and lifts from the ground,

and eats—

it is

impure.

So too every

bird

similar to it,

which does not have these four signs is

impure.

But a bird that has one of the four signs is pure, except for the birds specified in the Torah as impure, even though they have a sign of purity.

And likewise it is written in the Torah

“turtledoves,”

which are pure birds, for from them bird-offerings are brought. And from these turtledoves you derive by a binyan av concerning the other birds: just as turtledoves,

which have a supernumerary toe, a crop, and a peelable gizzard, and do not claw and eat,

are

pure. So too every

bird

similar to them is pure.

And if so, it is difficult: why did the Mishna say that the signs of a bird were not stated in the Torah, when we derive them by a binyan av from the eagle!?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

What the Mishna said—that the signs of a bird were not stated in the Torah—means:

Their explanation was not stated by words of Torah.

For the signs were not explicitly explained in the Torah,

but from the words of the Sages

we derive them—by a binyan av, from the eagle and from the turtledoves.

Rabbi Hiyya taught: A bird that comes

before us

with one sign

of purity—

is pure

and all the more so if it comes with two or three signs of purity, provided that one recognizes that it is not one of the twenty-four impure birds specified in the Torah,

because a bird that has one sign

a bird that has one sign

is not similar to the eagle,

which is an impure bird.

The eagle, which does not have at all

any sign of purity,

it

is the one concerning which the Merciful One said

that you shall not eat

it.

But there is

a bird

that has one

sign of purity—

eat it!

And we ask concerning this: Why should we derive from the eagle that a bird that comes with one sign is fit!?

But let us derive from turtledoves: just as turtledoves, which have

in them

all four

signs of purity, and the Torah declared them fit,

so too here

the other birds, only

once they have all four

signs of purity should they be declared fit. But if they have fewer than four signs of purity, we should not declare them fit!? And we answer:

If so,

if you say that four signs of purity are required,

the other

twenty-four

impure birds that the Merciful One wrote, why do I need them?

For none of them has all four signs of purity. And from the fact that the verse needed to say that it is forbidden to eat them, it follows that one sign of purity is sufficient to render the bird fit.

And we object:

But let us derive from them,

by a kal va-chomer from the twenty impure birds mentioned in the Torah that have three signs of purity. And let us say:

Just as there,

where they have

three

three signs of purity,

and

nevertheless

we do not eat

them.

So too every

bird that comes with

three

signs, let us derive that it is impure

and let us not eat

it,

and all the more so

a bird that has only

two

signs,

and one

sign, that we should not eat them!?

And we answer:

If so,

that even a bird that comes with three signs we derive to prohibit from the birds specified in the Torah—

the raven, concerning which the Merciful One wrote

that it is an impure bird, even though it has only two signs of purity,

why do I need it?!

Now,

where

it has three

signs of purity,

we do not eat,

the raven,

which has two

signs only,

is it necessary

to write that we do not eat it!? And from the fact that the Torah wrote that it is forbidden to eat the raven, which has two signs of purity, infer from it that with three signs of purity, a bird is pure!