Chullin 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

A bird called

bat mezaga ḥamra

is permitted

to be eaten!

And your mnemonic is:

so that you should not confuse them: that which we have established with regard to oaths is

the power of the son is greater than the power of the father.

Similarly, mezaga ḥamra is forbidden, whereas bat mezaga ḥamra is permitted.

Rav Yehuda said:

A bird called

shakitna

has two varieties. The variety that has

arikhei shakei,

long shanks,

and sumkei,

a red body—

is permitted!

And your mnemonic is:

A bird called

morazma,

which was established in their tradition as a kosher bird, has long shanks and a red body. Similarly, that bird called shakitna whose shanks are long is permitted.

But the second variety of that bird, which is

gutzei,

with short shanks,

and sumkei,

with a red body—

is forbidden!

And your mnemonic is:

that which we have established with regard to the blemishes of kohanim: a

nanus,

a kohein who is a dwarf, is

disqualified

from performing the Temple service. Similarly, that shakitna whose shanks are short, like those of a dwarf, is forbidden to be eaten.

But a shakitna whose shanks are

arikhei shakei,

indeed long,

and yerukei,

but whose body is green—

is forbidden,

it is forbidden to be eaten despite the fact that its shanks are long.

And your mnemonic is:

that which we established above, on page 56a, that if the bird’s intestines became scorched and turned

green, they are disqualified.

Similarly, that shakitna whose color is green is forbidden.

Rav Yehuda said:

The

shakh

mentioned in the Torah among the non-kosher birds—

this

is the bird

that fishes from the sea.

The dukifat

mentioned in the Torah among the non-kosher birds is the bird

whose crest is folded,

whose thick crest is folded inward against its head.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: The dukifat—

whose crest is folded, and this is

the bird

that brought

the stone of the

shamir to the Temple,

as it is stated in tractate Gittin.

When Rabbi Yoḥanan would see a shakh, he would recite

the verse from the book of Psalms [chapter 36],

“Your judgments are like the great deep.”

That is, You judge and exact punishment from the fish of the sea, killing the fish that are destined to die.

When Rabba would see an ant, he would say: “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,”

for even an ant, which is a small living creature, possesses vitality like that of a large living creature.

Ameimar said:

The birds called

laknei and batnei—

are permitted!

But the birds called

shikanai and bitnai—

if

the place where people are accustomed to eat

them—

they eat them; if the place where people are accustomed not to eat

them, they do not eat

them!

And we raised an objection:

Is the matter dependent on custom?

Does their prohibition or permission depend on custom?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, the matter depends on custom,

and there is no difficulty

as to how this can be so.

This

statement that they are forbidden is referring

to a place

where

paras and ozniyya are common,

as we have seen them there; and we are concerned that perhaps the shikanai and bitnai belong to the species of paras and ozniyya, which likewise possess a kosher sign.

This

statement that they are permitted is referring

to a place where paras and ozniyya are not common,

and we do not presume that they belong to the species of paras and ozniyya, since those birds are not found in settled areas.

Abaye said:

The birds called

kavai and kakavai are forbidden

to be eaten. But a bird called

kakvata is permitted

to be eaten.

In the West,

in Eretz Yisrael,

they flogged one on its account,

flogging anyone who ate the kakvata,

and they called it teḥavta.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the non-kosher birds [Leviticus 11]: “And the tinshemet and the ka’at.”

Tinshemet—

this is the bird that cries at night, and it is

the bo’at,

the most repulsive

of birds!”

You say

that the tinshemet is

“the bo’at of birds,” or

is it only

“the bo’at of creeping creatures”?!

For the tinshemet resembles a creeping creature, except that it has wings like a bird.

You have said: Go and learn from the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded,

and one of these principles is

a matter derived from its context.

What is the verse

in which the tinshemet is mentioned

speaking about?—

Birds!

And according to this principle of “a matter derived from its context,” you learn that

also here,

the tinshemet,

is among the birds

being discussed, and not among the creeping creatures.

And we raised an objection: But

it was also taught with regard to creeping creatures in this same manner,

just as you expounded with regard to birds!?

For it is written in the passage concerning creeping creatures: “And the anaka, the ko’aḥ, the leta’a, the ḥomet, and the tinshemet.”

And we say:

Tinshemet—it is

“the

bo’at

repulsive

among creeping creatures!”

You say

that it is

the bo’at among creeping creatures, or is it only the bo’at among birds?

You have said: Go and learn from the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded,

and one of these principles is the principle of

a matter derived from its context.

What is the verse,

the passage in which the tinshemet is written,

speaking about—

creeping creatures; therefore, even

the tinshemet written

here

is referring

to creeping creatures

and not to birds!?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

The tinshemet that is

“the bo’at among birds”

is a bird called

kipof.

Whereas the tinshemet that is

“the bo’at among creeping creatures”

is a creeping creature called

korpedai.

Rav Yehuda said: The ka’at

mentioned in the verse [“and the tinshemet and the ka’at and the raḥam”],

this

is the bird called among us

the kuk.

The raḥam

mentioned in the verse—

this is the shrakrak.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why is it called raḥam? Once the raḥam arrives, compassion—

rain—

arrives in the world.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said:

When is the appearance of the raḥam a sign of rain?

When it sits on an object,

sitting on some object,

and makes the sound shrakrak,

chirping and sounding as though it is saying “shrakrak.”

And we have a tradition

that

if it sits on the ground and whistles,

if it sits on the earth, although it is not accustomed to sit on the ground, and whistles—

the Messiah has arrived,

the Messiah will come.

As it is stated

in the book of Zechariah [chapter 6]:

“I will whistle for them—

and gather them.”

Rav Adda bar Shimi said to Mar bar Rav Idi: But what of that shrakrak that sat in a plowed field,

having settled on the ground in the place of plowing,

and whistled, and a stone fell,

a round stone came from above,

and split its brain,

splitting its brain and killing it? We see that the whistling of the raḥam while it sits on the ground is not a sign of the coming of the Messiah.

He said to him,

Mar bar Rav Idi:

That one—

was a deceiver,

a fraud and a liar,

he was!

The time of the Messiah had not yet arrived, and therefore it was punished.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the non-kosher birds [Leviticus 11:15]: “Every raven according to its kind,” and we expound:

“Raven”—

this is a raven! “Every raven,”

the additional word “every” comes

to include the valley raven! “

According to its kind,”

the verse comes

to include the raven that comes at the head of doves!

As the Gemara will explain below.

The Master said: “Raven”—

this is a raven!

And we raised an objection:

Is it standing before us?

Did the tanna hold the raven in his hand and say that the raven written in the Torah is this raven that he is holding in his hand? Since we have learned that there are several types of ravens, the tanna should have said: “Raven”—this particular raven, so that we would know what is meant by an unspecified raven.

And we answer:

Rather, say: “Raven”—

this is the black raven,

black.

And so it says

in the Song of Songs:

“His locks

are curled, black as a raven.”

And we learn from it that an unspecified raven is black. “

Raven

of the valley”—

this is a

white

raven.

And so it says

in the passage concerning leprosy [Leviticus 13]:

“And its appearance is deeper than the skin.”

The meaning of the verse is that the appearance of the white affliction appears deeper than the appearance of the skin; and this matter is

like the appearance of the sun, which appears deeper

than

the

appearance of

the shadow

[and the meaning of “the valley raven” is that the white appearance of the white raven is deeper than the appearance of the black raven].

And the raven that comes at the head of doves—

Rav Pappa said: Do not say

that it is a raven

that comes

that arrives

at the head of doves,

before the doves;

rather,

this is a raven

whose head resembles that of a dove,

whose head is similar to a dove.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the verse, “And the hawk according to its kind,” and we expound:

“The hawk”—

this is the hawk. “According to its kind”—

to include the bar ḥirya.

And we explain:

What is bar ḥirya? Abaye said—

shurinka.

Rav Yehuda said:

It is written in the verse, “And the ḥasida, the anafa”—

“The ḥasida”—this is a white kite.

And

why is it called ḥasida? Because it performs kindness with its companions,

distributing its food to them.

“The anafa”—

this is an angry kite.

Why is it called anafa? Because it becomes angry,

becoming filled with rage,

with its companions.

Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda said, citing Rav Ḥisda, who said, citing Rav Ḥanan, son of Rava, who said, citing Rav: There are twenty-four non-kosher birds

mentioned in the Torah.

Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Ḥisda,

his father:

Where?

Where are those twenty-four birds enumerated?

If you mean Leviticus,

if you are referring to the non-kosher birds mentioned in the book of Leviticus, in the passage of Shemini, then

twenty

birds

are

enumerated there, not twenty-four!?

If you mean Deuteronomy,

and if you are referring to those enumerated in the passage of Re’eh, then

there are twenty-one,

not twenty-four!? In the passage of Shemini it is written, “And the da’a, and the ayya according to its kind,” whereas in the passage of Re’eh it is written, “And the ra’a, the ayya, and the diya according to its kind.”

And if you say

that the bird called

da’a, which is written in Leviticus

in the passage of Shemini,

but is not written in Deuteronomy

in the passage of Re’eh,

should be cast,

added

to them,

to the birds written in the passage of Re’eh, so that one additional bird will be added to the count—

there are still twenty-two

birds בלבד

there are,

not twenty-four!?

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda to Rav Ḥanan, his son:

This is what

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava, my father-in-law, who is

your mother’s father,

your maternal grandfather,

said in the name of Rav:

It is written in the passage of Shemini, “The anafa

according to its kind,” “the ayya

according to

its kind,” and in the passage of Re’eh it is written, “Every raven

according to its kind,”

“and the hawk

according to

its kind.” Here, then, are four words from which four additional birds are included.

Here are four words from which four additional birds are included.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if you include four additional birds among the twenty-two already mentioned, then

there are twenty-six

birds

there are,

not twenty-four!?

Abaye said: “And the

daah”

da’a”

mentioned in the passage of Shemini, “

and

the

ra’a” mentioned in the passage of Re’eh—

they are one and the same!

For if it would enter your mind that they are two

different birds

they are,