Chullin 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

And we derive from it through a binyan av:

What is unique about the eagle

in four respects:

a.

It has no extra toe

positioned higher than the other toes.

b.

And

it has no

crop.

A sac in which food gathers.

c.

And its gizzard cannot be peeled

from the flesh without cutting it with a knife.

d.

And it pounces

It grasps with its claws and lifts from the ground,

and eats—

it is

impure.

Likewise, every

bird

that resembles it,

which does not have these four signs, is

impure.

But a bird that possesses one of the four signs is pure, except for the birds explicitly listed in the Torah as impure, even though they possess a sign of purity.

Likewise, the Torah writes

“turtledoves,”

which are pure birds, as bird offerings are brought from them. And from these turtledoves you derive through a binyan av with regard to the other birds: What is the case with turtledoves,

which have an extra toe, a crop, a gizzard that can be peeled, and do not pounce and eat

—they are

pure. Likewise, every

bird

that resembles them is pure.

If so, this is difficult: Why did the Mishna say that the signs of birds were not stated in the Torah, when we derive them through a binyan av from the eagle?!

And we answer:

Abaye said:

What the Mishna said—that the signs of birds were not stated in the Torah—means that

their interpretation was not stated by words of Torah.

The signs were not explicitly specified in the Torah;

rather, by the words of the Sages

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

Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 explicitly listed in the Torah),

because a bird that possesses one sign

does not resemble

an eagle,

which is an impure bird.

The eagle, which has no sign at all

of purity,

is

what the Merciful One said

you may not eat

it.

But if there is

a bird

that has one

sign of purity—

eat it!

And we raised an objection: Why should we derive from the eagle that a bird possessing one sign is fit?!

Let us derive from the turtledoves: Just as turtledoves have

among them

all four

signs of purity, and the Torah deemed them fit,

so too

other birds should be fit only

when they possess all four

signs of purity. But when they possess fewer than four signs of purity, we should not deem them fit! And we answer:

If so,

if you say that all four signs of purity are required,

the other

twenty-four

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

After all, none of them possesses all four signs of purity. And from the fact that Scripture had to state that it is forbidden to eat them, it follows that one sign of purity is sufficient to render a bird fit.

And we challenge this:

Let us derive from them,

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

Just as there,

where they possess

three

signs of purity,

and

nevertheless

we do not eat

them,

likewise, every

bird that comes with

three

signs should be derived to be impure,

and we should not eat

it;

and all the more so

a bird that possesses only

two

signs,

or one

sign, should we not eat them?!

And we answer:

If so,

that even a bird possessing three signs is derived as forbidden from the birds explicitly listed in the Torah—

the raven, which the Merciful One wrote

is an impure bird even though it possesses only two signs of purity—

why do I need it?!

Now,

where

it has three

signs of purity,

we do not eat

it, the raven,

which has two

signs בלבד,

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 that when a bird has three signs of purity, it is a pure bird!