Chullin 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

If he was familiar with them -

peres and ozniya,

and with their names,

and he knew which bird is called a peres and which is called an ozniya: If there came before him

a bird that possesses one sign

of purity,

one,

and he knew that it was called neither a peres nor an ozniya, and that it did not resemble them, the bird is

pure.

But if

he was not familiar with them or with their names,

then even though it possessed

one sign -

the bird is

impure!

And even if he knew that this bird did not resemble a peres or an ozniya, if its name was peres or ozniya, it is forbidden. For we are concerned that perhaps it is a species of peres or ozniya.

But if he had a bird that possessed

two signs

and he did not recognize it, it is

pure, and this is

on condition

that he recognized a raven,

and knew that this was not a raven. [For there is no impure bird that possesses two signs other than a raven; therefore, if he was certain that this bird was not a raven, it is permitted].

And we challenge this: Is it only

a raven that is forbidden even though it possesses two signs

and no more?!

Is that all?!

But there are other birds that possess two signs and are impure.

And it was taught in a beraita:

It is stated: “And every raven according to its kind.” And we expound:

“Raven”

written in the verse,

this is a raven.

“According to its kind” -

Rabbi Eliezer says: This comes to include the zarzir,

which is also forbidden.

They said to Rabbi Eliezer: But the people of Kfar Tamarata in Judea used to eat them,

the zarzir birds,

because they have a crop,

which is a sign of purity [and this sign is not one of the two signs found in a raven. Since the zarzir has only two signs of purity and does not resemble a raven, it should therefore be permitted. But Rabbi Eliezer maintains that since the zarzir commonly dwells with ravens, it is considered a species of raven].

He said to them: They too will ultimately be called to account

for having eaten the zarzir.

Alternatively: “According to its kind,” to include the white swallow,

which resembles a raven,

this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

They said to him: But the people of Upper Galilee eat it because its gizzard can be peeled.

He said to them: They too will ultimately be called to account

for having eaten the white swallow!

If so, we find other birds that possess two signs and are impure, and those too must be recognized!?

And we answer:

Rather,

when did Rav Naḥman say that a bird possessing two signs is pure? When one recognizes

a raven and every species of raven.

And when he knows that this bird is neither a raven nor a species of raven, it is permitted to eat.

Ameimar said: The halakha is -

a bird that possesses one sign

of purity is

pure,

even if he is not familiar either with them or with their names, those of the peres and the ozniya,

and this is

provided that it does not seize prey with its claws,

so long as we have not seen it seizing prey [A bird that places its foot on its food while eating, so that it will not move away and will not enter its mouth all at once, is a bird that seizes prey with its claws].

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What of this statement of Rav Naḥman,

who said that one must recognize that it is neither a peres nor an ozniya,

what

is your view? Do you disagree with Rav Naḥman’s statement or not?

He said to him: I have not heard it; that is to say, I do not hold it!

That is, I do not disagree with him. For

what concern is there

if he does not recognize the bird? It is only

because

perhaps this bird is a

peres

or an

ozniya.

These

are not found in settled areas.

Since they are not common in settled areas, if he found in a settled area a bird that possesses one sign and does not seize prey with its claws, it is permitted to eat.

Rav Yehuda said: A bird that scratches

and claws

is fit for the purification of a person with tzara’at,

because it is the bird mentioned in the Torah, as it is written: “And he shall take for the one being purified two living pure birds,”

and this is the white swallow concerning which

above

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages

disagreed [and Rav Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, who deem the white swallow pure].

Ameimar said: With regard to one whose belly is white,

a swallow of this kind, whose belly is white,

everyone agrees,

even Rabbi Eliezer concedes

that it is permitted!

They disagree

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages

with regard to one whose belly is green,

when its belly is green.

Rabbi Eliezer forbids it, and the Sages permit it.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

that it is forbidden. [And this disagrees with Rav Yehuda, who deemed it fit for the purification of a person with tzara’at, as Rav Yehuda holds in accordance with the Sages, that it is pure, since for the purification of a person with tzara’at we require pure birds].

Mar Zutra teaches Ameimar’s statement in this manner,

the statement of Ameimar:

With regard to one whose belly is green -

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

Even the Sages forbid it.

They disagree

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages

with regard to one whose belly is white.

Rabbi Eliezer forbids it and the Sages permit it. And the halakha is in accordance with the Sages, who permit it.

And we raise a question about this:

Granted, according to the one who says

[Mar Zutra]

that they disagree with regard to one whose belly is white,

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages,

this is why it teaches

above in the beraita, “according to its kind”

this is the white swallow,

which Rabbi Eliezer includes, maintaining that the white swallow has the status of a raven.

But according to the one who says

[the first formulation of Ameimar]

that they disagree with regard to one whose belly is green,

its belly,

they disagree,

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages,

what is the meaning of “this is the white swallow”

that the beraita teaches? But this is not a white swallow; rather, it is green.

And we answer: The fact that the beraita teaches “white swallow”

serves to exclude

a swallow

that lives in houses,

which grows and dwells in the walls of houses,

the black one,

which is black; and in comparison with the black one, the green one is called white. In the bird offerings, it is stated: “From the turtledoves and from the sons of the dove.” The Sages derived from here that turtledoves are fit for an offering only when they are mature, whereas doves are fit for an offering only when they are young, at which stage they are called “sons of the dove.”

With regard to bird offerings, it is stated: “From turtledoves and from the sons of doves.” The Sages derived from this that turtledoves are fit for an offering only when they are fully grown, whereas doves are fit for an offering only when they are young, when they are called “sons of doves.”

Rav Reḥava said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: A tesil,

which is a species of dove,

is unfit

to be offered if one brings it after it has matured

as “turtledoves,”

since it is not a species of turtledove.

But it is fit

to be brought as an offering when young

as “sons of the dove.”

The atzifi,

a species of turtledove,

and the turtledoves of Rav Reḥava -

are fit

when mature, to bring them

as turtledoves, but are unfit

when young, if one comes to bring them

as

sons of the dove, since they are a species of turtledove.