Chullin 62b — the Talmud in English

Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina objected:

from that which we learned in the Mishna in tractate Para [9:3]:

All the birds ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

invalidate the water of the purification,

if they drank from it, because they do not suck up the water; rather, after they take the water into their beaks, they raise their mouths, and the water returns and falls from their mouths into the vessel, and it is therefore like water with which work has been performed; and it is established for us that work invalidates the water of the purification.

Except for the dove,

which does not invalidate the water of the purification by drinking,

because it sucks up

the water, and the water does not fall from its mouth. And with regard to the water of the purification that remained in the vessel, no work was performed with it.

And if it is so

that the tasil has the same law as the dove,

let him teach

in the Mishna

except for the dove and the tasil,

which do not invalidate the water of the purification, for the tasil also sucks up the water like the dove.

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said: This one,

the tasil,

sucks up

the water

and vomits it,

and therefore the water of the purification is invalid, either because of the vomit mixed with it or because work was performed with the water of the purification.

And this one,

the dove,

sucks up and does not vomit,

and therefore the water of the purification from which it drinks is fit.

Rav Yehuda said: These kufshanei tzutzeyanei,

turtledoves called turei tzutzeyanei after their place,

are fit with regard to the altar,

to be offered according to the law of turtledoves.

And they are the turtledoves of Reḥava,

which were mentioned above as being fit.

He objected:

It is written in the section of the red heifer: “And the koen shall take cedar wood and hyssop.” And we expound:

“Hyssop”

that is called simply “hyssop,”

and not

hyssop called

“Greek hyssop,” and not “blue hyssop,” and not “Roman hyssop,” and not

“hyssop

of the desert, and not any hyssop that has an accompanying name,”

for all of these have an accompanying name, and this is not the hyssop about which the Torah spoke.

And it is demonstrated that an accompanying name invalidates, and if so, this is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who declared “turei tzutzeyanei” fit, even though they have an accompanying name.

And we answer:

Abaye said: Anything

that

had its name changed before the giving of the Torah,

such as hyssop, which already before the giving of the Torah was hyssop with an accompanying name,

and the Torah was particular about it,

since the Torah never mentioned hyssop with an accompanying name; therefore, if

it has an accompanying name—

it is unfit

.

But these,

the turei tzutzeyanei,

did not have their name changed before the giving of the Torah,

for these turtledoves were not called “kufshanei tzutzeyanei” before the giving of the Torah. Since this is so, we do not find that the Torah was particular to exclude them because of their accompanying name. [For the fact that the Torah wrote simply “turtledoves” is no proof that it excludes other turtledoves, since at that time there were no other turtledoves with an accompanying name, for the turei tzutzeyanei had not yet been called by this name.] Therefore, they are fit.

Rava said: These kufshanei tzutzeyanei, in their place,

in their locale,

simply

ordinary turtledoves

they call them.

And if so, they do not have an accompanying name. The fact that among us they call them after their place does not give them the status of turtledoves with an accompanying name, since in their place they are called simply turtledoves.

Rav Yehuda said: These karzei

locusts

of the house of Ḥalfei,

which are found on the branches of the willow —

are permitted,

they are permitted for consumption.

But those of the house of Karvei,

which are found in cabbage,

are forbidden,

they are forbidden for consumption.

Ravina said: And we flog on account of them

one who eats them,

because of a winged swarming creature,

for the prohibition against eating them is certain, and not doubtful.

And Rav Yehuda said:

A species of bird called

tzerada—

is permitted,

it is permitted for consumption. And the bird called

berada is forbidden

for consumption.

And your mnemonic is,

the sign for you so that you will not confuse them is: berada—

bar minei

[a phrase with similar sound]. And the meaning of the sign is: berada—“apart from it”! That is, it is forbidden to eat it.

Whereas the bird called

merada—

is doubtful,

it is doubtful whether it is permitted or forbidden.

Rav Asi said: There are eight doubtful species

among birds, whether they are permitted or forbidden, and these are:

ḥuva, ḥuga, suga and harnuga, tushalmi, merada, kuḥilna, and bar nafḥa.

And the Gemara asks:

What is their doubt?

Let us examine whether they possess a sign of purity!?

And we answer:

The gizzards of pure birds can be peeled

by hand, whereas the gizzards of

impure birds cannot be peeled

at all.

And these

eight doubtful species,

their gizzards can be peeled with a knife,

but not by hand. And the doubt is whether peeling with a knife is considered peeling or not. And we object:

But there was that wild duck that was in the house of Mar Shmuel, whose gizzard could not be peeled,

for its gizzard could not be peeled,

and they placed it in the sun,

and they placed it in the sun,

and once it softened, it was peeled.

After it softened, they succeeded in peeling it.

And it is demonstrated that even a pure bird is sometimes difficult to peel. If so, those eight doubtful species as well, even though they are difficult to peel, nevertheless we should declare them fit, since they can be peeled with a knife.

And we answer:

There,

with regard to the wild duck that was in the house of Mar Shmuel,

when it softened,

when the gizzard softened,

it was peeled by hand,

it was peeled by hand. But

here,

with regard to the eight doubtful species,

even though they softened,

that they softened,

their gizzard is not peeled

by themselves

except with a knife.

And therefore the Gemara was uncertain whether this is considered peeling.

Abaye said: The marsh chicken—

it is one of the eight doubtful species

mentioned above,

and that is,

it is the same bird called

“merdo.”

Rav Pappa said: The marsh rooster—

is forbidden! The marsh hen—

is permitted!

And your mnemonic

so that you will remember which is permitted and which is forbidden is like that which is established for us:

“An Ammonite male, but not an Ammonite female.”

The male Ammonite is forbidden to enter the congregation, whereas the female Ammonite is permitted to the congregation. So too, tarnegola, which is masculine in form, is forbidden for consumption, whereas tarnegoleta, which is feminine in form, is permitted.

Marimar expounded: The marsh hen is forbidden

for consumption because

they saw it

the Sages saw it

stalking and eating,

for it stalked and ate. And we said above in the Mishna that stalking is the sign of an impure bird; therefore, the Sages returned and prohibited it.

And that is,

this is

“gireta,”

which we will say later in the chapter “All Meat,” that it is forbidden for consumption.

Rav said:

A bird whose name is

shavor andrapta—

is permitted,

it is permitted for consumption; and a bird whose name is

piroz andrapta—

is forbidden,

it is forbidden for consumption.

And your mnemonic is,

so that you will remember which is permitted and which is forbidden: piroz andrapta is forbidden for consumption, like

piroz reshia,

a man whose name was Piroz the wicked, who was known as wicked.

Rav Huna said:

A bird whose name is

bunya—

is permitted.

A bird whose name is

peroa—

is forbidden!

And your mnemonic is,

so that you will remember and not confuse them: peroa is forbidden, whose name is like

Perua the magician,

a sorcerer who made the chamber of the Parva House in the Temple, as it is stated in tractate Yoma.

Rav Pappa said:

A bird whose name is

“merdo zagid ve-akhal”—

is permitted.

A bird whose name is “merdo

sagid ve-akhal” is forbidden.

And your mnemonic is,

sagid ve-akhal is forbidden, because sagid in Aramaic means bowing down, and it is a forbidden matter, as it is said:

“You shall not bow down to another god.” Rav Shmuel said:

A bird whose name is

“shetia ḥamra”—

is forbidden! And your mnemonic is

that it is forbidden, because shetia ḥamra in Aramaic is “drinks wine,” and behold,

“those who have drunk wine are unfit for service”

in the Temple; likewise, this bird is forbidden for consumption.

And Rav Shmuel said:

A bird whose name is

mezaga ḥamra—

is forbidden!