Chullin 62b (סב:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Daniel bar Rav Kattina raised an objection:

from what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Parah [9:3]:

All birds

render the water of purification unfit

if they drank from it, because they do not suck up the water. Rather, after they collect the water into their beaks, they raise their heads, and the water falls back from their mouths into the vessel; it is therefore like water with which work has been performed. And it is established that work renders the water of purification unfit.

Except for the dove,

which does not render the water of purification unfit by drinking from it,

because it sucks

up the water, and the water does not fall from its mouth. Thus, no work has been performed with the water of purification that remains in the vessel.

And if it is so

that the tasil has the same status as a dove,

let the Mishna teach

in the Mishna:

“Except for a dove and a tasil,”

which do not render the water of purification unfit, since the tasil also sucks up the water like a dove.

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said: This one,

the tasil,

sucks

up the water

and vomits it,

and therefore the water of purification is unfit, either because of the vomit mixed into it or because work has been performed with the water of purification.

But this one,

the dove,

sucks it up but does not vomit it,

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

Rav Yehuda said: These kufshanei tzufzeyanei,

turtledoves called turei tzufzeyanei after their place of origin,

are fit with regard to the altar,

to be offered according to the law of turtledoves.

And these are the turtledoves of Reḥava,

which were mentioned above as being fit.

The Gemara raises an objection:

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

“Hyssop,”

the plant called simply “hyssop,”

and not

the hyssop called

“Greek hyssop,” nor “blue hyssop,” nor “Roman hyssop,” nor “

hyssop

of the wilderness,” nor any hyssop that has an accompanying name,

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

It is thus proven that an accompanying name disqualifies the item. If so, this is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who declared the turei tzufzeyanei fit even though they have an accompanying name.

And we answer:

Abaye said: Any

thing

whose name changed before the giving of the Torah,

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

and the Torah was particular about it,

as the Torah never mentioned hyssop together with an accompanying name—therefore, if it

has an accompanying name, it is

unfit

!

But these,

the turei tzufzeyanei,

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

These turtledoves were not called kufshanei tzufzeyanei before the giving of the Torah. Consequently, we do not find that the Torah excluded them on account of their accompanying name. For the fact that the Torah wrote “turtledoves” without qualification is no proof that it intended to exclude other turtledoves, since at that time there were no other turtledoves bearing an accompanying name; the turei tzufzeyanei had not yet been called by that name. Therefore, they are fit.

Rava said: These kufshanei tzufzeyanei, in their place,

in their own locality,

are called simply

“turtledoves.”

They are called so.

Therefore, they do not have an accompanying name. The fact that in our locality we call them by the name of their place does not give them the status of turtledoves bearing an accompanying name, since in their own locality they are called simply turtledoves.

Rav Yehuda said: These karzei

locusts

of the house of Ḥalfei,

which are found among the branches of the willow,

are permitted,

and may be eaten.

But those of the house of Karvei,

which are found in cabbage,

are forbidden,

and may not be eaten.

Ravina said: We administer lashes for them

to one who eats them,

because of a winged swarming creature,

since the prohibition against eating them is certain, and not merely a matter of doubt.

And Rav Yehuda said:

A species of bird called

tzarda

is permitted

to be eaten. But the bird called

barda is forbidden

to be eaten.

And your mnemonic

to ensure that you do not confuse them is: barda—

bar minei

[a play on similar-sounding words]. The meaning of the mnemonic is: barda—“apart from it”; that is, it is forbidden to eat it.

But the bird called

marda

is a matter of doubt;

it is uncertain whether it is permitted or forbidden.

Rav Asi said: There are eight doubtful species

of birds, concerning whether they are permitted or forbidden, and these are:

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

The Gemara is astonished:

What is the source of their uncertainty?

Let us examine whether they possess a sign of ritual 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.

But these

eight doubtful species

have gizzards that can be peeled with a knife,

but not by hand. The uncertainty is whether peeling with a knife is considered peeling or not. We object:

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

as its gizzard could not be peeled,

and they placed it in the sun,

leaving it in the sun,

and once it softened, it was peeled.

After it softened, they succeeded in peeling it.

It is thus proven that even a pure bird can sometimes be difficult to peel. If so, those eight doubtful species should likewise be deemed fit, despite the difficulty of peeling them, since they can be peeled with a knife.

And we answer:

There,

in the case of the wild duck that was in the house of Mar Shmuel,

when it softened,

when its gizzard became soft,

it was peeled by hand.

It peeled by hand. But

here,

in the case of the eight doubtful species,

even though they softened,

becoming soft,

their gizzards cannot be peeled

except

with a knife.

Therefore, the Gemara was uncertain whether this is considered peeling.

Abaye said: The marsh rooster

is one of the eight doubtful species

mentioned above;

that is,

it is the same bird called

“mardu.”

Rav Pappa said: The marsh rooster

is forbidden! The marsh hen

is permitted!

And your mnemonic

to remember which is permitted and which is forbidden is as follows: it is like what we have established:

“An Ammonite man, but not an Ammonite woman.”

The male Ammonite is forbidden to enter the congregation, whereas an Ammonite woman is permitted to enter the congregation. Likewise, tarnegola, which is a masculine term, is forbidden to eat, whereas tarnegoleta, which is feminine, is permitted.

Marimar taught: The marsh hen is forbidden

to eat, because

they saw it

the Sages saw it

treading upon prey and eating it,

as it trod upon prey and ate it. And we said earlier in the Mishna that predation is the sign of an impure bird. Therefore, the Sages subsequently prohibited it.

That is,

this is

the “giruta,”

which we will say later, in the chapter “All Flesh,” is forbidden to eat.

Rav said:

A bird called

shavur andrafta

is permitted

to be eaten, whereas a bird called

piroz andrafta

is forbidden

to be eaten.

And your mnemonic

to remember which is permitted and which is forbidden is that piroz andrafta is forbidden to eat, like

piroz reshaaya,

a man named Piroz the wicked, who was known as a wicked person.

Rav Huna said:

A bird called

bunya

is permitted.

A bird called

parva

is forbidden!

And your mnemonic

to remember and not confuse them is that parva is forbidden, as it shares its name with

Parva the sorcerer,

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

Rav Pappa said:

A bird called

“mardu zagid ve-akhal”

is permitted.

A bird called “mardu

sagid ve-akhal is forbidden.”

And your mnemonic

is that sagid ve-akhal is forbidden, because sagid in Aramaic means bowing, and this is a forbidden act, as it is stated:

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

A bird called

“shatia ḥamra”

is forbidden! And your mnemonic

that it is forbidden is that shatia ḥamra in Aramaic means “drinks wine,” and

“those intoxicated by wine are disqualified from service”

in the Temple; likewise, this bird is forbidden to eat.

And Shmuel said:

A bird called

mezaga ḥamra

is forbidden!