Chullin 63b (סג:) — the Talmud in English

Now,

the Book of

Mishneh Torah was brought

to add what was not written in the other books;

that is its purpose

as we will say below: Why were the impure animals repeated in the Book of Mishneh Torah? To include the shesu'a, which was not mentioned in the passage of Shemini].

What is different here,

in the passage of Shemini,

where it is written “da’a,” and what is different here,

in the passage of Re’eh,

where it is written “re’eh,” and it does not say

also

“da’a”?!

Rather, conclude from this that the species called re’eh and da’a is one and the same!

It is one bird, except that sometimes the Torah calls it re’eh and sometimes da’a. In order that a person should not come to permit it where it is called re’eh, saying that the Torah prohibited da’a but not re’eh, the Torah therefore wrote re’eh again, to say that whether it is called da’a or whether it is called re’eh, it is prohibited, since they are the same bird.

And we raise an objection:

But there were still twenty-five

birds

in all,

the twenty-one written in the Book of Mishneh Torah in the passage of Re’eh, plus the four included above!?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Just as we said that re’eh and da’a

are

one and the same, so, too, ayya and dayya

mentioned in the passage of Re’eh

are one and the same!

The Torah called them by two names so as not to give an opponent an opening to argue that the Torah prohibited ayya but not dayya.

For if it would enter your mind that they are two

birds

in fact,

they are,

now,

the

Book of Mishneh Torah was brought only to add. What is different here,

in the passage of Shemini,

where it writes “according to its species” regarding ayya, and what is different there,

in the passage of Re’eh,

where it writes “according to its species” regarding dayya,

and it does not write “according to its species” regarding ayya, as it does in the passage of Shemini!?

Rather, conclude from this that ayya and dayya are one and the same,

and therefore the Torah wrote “according to its species” once regarding ayya and once regarding dayya, because they are the same bird.

And we explain:

But since ayya and dayya are one and the same—

why does it need

the Torah

to write

in the passage of Re’eh

both ayya and dayya!?

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi says: I would read,

it would have sufficed for the Torah to write

ayya,

since it itself is dayya; and if so,

why was “dayya” stated

in that same passage?

So that it should not give an opponent an opening to argue. You should not read

in the Torah

“ayya,” while he reads

it by the name

“dayya,”

and he can say: The Torah prohibited only ayya, whereas this is dayya, and it is permitted.

Likewise, had it written “dayya” and not “ayya,” an opponent would have had an opening to argue, because

you read

in the Torah

“dayya,” while he reads

it by the name

“ayya,”

and he could say: The Torah prohibited dayya, but not ayya.

Therefore,

the Merciful One

wrote in the Book of Mishneh Torah

in the passage of Re’eh,

“and the re’ah, and the ayya, and the dayya according to its species.”

This tells you that ayya and dayya are one and the same!

A challenge was raised

against Rav Hisda in the name of Rav, who said that there are twenty-four impure birds, and counted da’a and re’eh as one bird, and ayya and dayya as one bird.

For we learned in a beraita:

Why were they repeated,

why did the Torah repeat in the passage of Re’eh the prohibition against eating impure animals and impure birds?

Regarding animals,

the Torah repeated it

because of the shesu’a,

which is a distinct creature, with two backs and two spinal columns, as we explained above.

And regarding birds—

the Torah repeated it

because of the re’eh,

which was not mentioned in the passage of Shemini!

And we now analyze this:

Is it not the case that, just as the animal there [

which is the shesu’a]

was brought to add

a new animal not previously mentioned in the passage of Shemini,

so, too, the birds were brought to add

a new bird that had not been mentioned? And conclude from this that da’a and re’eh are two birds, since the Torah returned and added a new bird called re’eh, to say that it too is prohibited.

And we answer:

No.

This is not a proof. Rather,

there,

regarding animals, it was brought

to add

the shesu’a. Whereas

here,

regarding birds, it was brought

to explain

all the names of the da’a, and to say that the da’a is also called re’eh.

And this disagrees

with the statement of Rav Hisda in the name of Rav, who said that there are twenty-four impure birds,

with

Rabbi Abbahu.

For Rabbi Abbahu said: The re’eh

mentioned in the Book of Deuteronomy

is the ayya mentioned in that same passage.

And why is it called re’eh? Because it sees exceptionally well,

as it has keen vision.

And so it says

in the Book of Job [chapter 28]:

“A path that no bird of prey knows, and the eye of the ayya has not seen it.”

The explanation of the verse is that even the ayya, whose vision is keen, did not see this path.

And since Rabbi Abbahu said, “Re’eh is ayya,” while we are compelled to find that da’a and re’eh, and likewise ayya and dayya, are one and the same—since the Torah did not write da’a again in the Book of Mishneh Torah—it follows that, according to Rabbi Abbahu, all of them, da’a and re’eh and dayya and ayya, are one and the same. It follows that according to him there are fewer than twenty-four impure birds.

A tanna taught [

by way of exaggeration]: Ayya

stands in Babylonia and sees a carcass in the Land of Israel.

And we challenge this:

Since re’eh is ayya

according to Rabbi Abbahu,

it follows that da’a is not re’eh.

For our present assumption is that Rabbi Abbahu also holds that there are twenty-four impure birds. Since he holds that re’eh is ayya, if we say that he also holds that da’a is re’eh, one bird is missing from his count of twenty-four impure birds. Rather, it is certain that he holds that da’a is not re’eh [contrary to Abaye, who said that re’eh and da’a are one and the same]. Therefore, although he holds that “re’eh is ayya,” he has twenty-four impure birds.

And if so, this is difficult:

Now,

what is written in the Book of

Mishneh Torah was brought only to add

to the other Books of the Torah; and if we say that da’a is not re’eh,

what is different here,

in the passage of Shemini,

where da’a is written, and what is different there,

in the passage of Re’eh,

where da’a is not written?!

For if da’a is re’eh, the Torah has already written re’eh in the Book of Deuteronomy.

Rather, is it not that we can conclude from this that da’a, re’eh, and ayya are one and the same [

and therefore the Torah did not write da’a, which is re’eh, and re’eh is ayya, as Rabbi Abbahu said]?

And in order to resolve the question of how Rabbi Abbahu arrives at twenty-four impure birds, it is necessary to say:

And since re’eh is ayya, it follows that dayya is not ayya,

and since dayya is not ayya, Rabbi Abbahu has twenty-four impure birds.

But this answer too is difficult, for if dayya is not ayya,

what is different there,

in the passage of Shemini,

where “according to its species” is written regarding ayya,

as it is written, “and the ayya according to its species”?

And what is different here,

in the passage of Re’eh,

where “according to its species” is not written regarding ayya, but

only

regarding dayya,

as it is written, “and the ayya and the dayya according to its species”!? Yet the Book of Mishneh Torah was brought only to add; why did the Torah omit “the ayya according to its species”?!

Rather,

since the Torah did not write in the passage of Re’eh, “and the dayya according to its species,”

conclude from this

that both

da’a and re’eh

and

dayya and ayya,

all four names of these birds,

are one and the same!

And Rabbi Abbahu does not hold that there are twenty-four impure birds; rather, there are only twenty-three impure birds!?

It is taught in a beraita: Isi ben Yehuda says: There are one hundred impure birds in the East, and all of them

belong to the species of ayya!

Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There are seven hundred species of impure fish

impure

in number.

And eight hundred species of locusts

are impure.

But regarding pure birds—

there is no number!

The number of impure birds is great.

The Gemara is surprised: But

impure birds

impure

number twenty-four!

as we said above. How, then, did Avimi say that they have no number!?

And we answer:

Rather,

the correct version is:

“And regarding pure birds, there is no number.”

It is taught in a beraita: Rabbi says: It is revealed and known before Him Who spoke and brought the world into being that impure animals are more numerous than

the

pure animals. Therefore, Scripture enumerated the pure animals

in the passage of Re’eh, writing, “the deer, the gazelle, and the fallow deer,” and so on, since only these are pure.

It is revealed and known before Him Who spoke and brought the world into being that pure birds are more numerous than

the

impure birds. Therefore, Scripture enumerated among the impure birds

the impure birds, since only these are impure.

And the Gemara asks:

What does Rabbi teach us

by this? Is it not obvious that if there were additional impure birds or additional pure animals, the Torah would have enumerated them!?

And we answer: Rabbi taught us

the principle stated by Rav Huna in the name of Rav—and some say: Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student

his learning in

a concise manner,

because it remains with him better than if he teaches it in an extended manner. Therefore, the Torah enumerated the pure animals and the impure birds, which are fewer in number.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A pure bird

is eaten on the basis of a tradition.

If a reliable person is remembered as having eaten it, or if his teacher transmitted to him that this bird is pure, he may rely on this and eat the bird. And

a hunter is trusted to say: “This bird is pure;

so

my teacher transmitted to me.”

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is provided that he is familiar

the rabbi or the hunter [as will be explained]

with them and with their names

of that bird and its name.

Rabbi Zeira raised a question:

Regarding what Rabbi Yitzḥak said—that a hunter is trusted to say that this is what his teacher transmitted to him—does he mean

his teacher

who is

a Torah scholar

in Torah,

or

does he mean

his teacher who is a hunter [

the one who taught him the craft of hunting]?

Come and hear: Rabbi Yoḥanan said, this is provided that he is familiar

that same teacher

with them and with their names.

And the Gemara proves:

Granted, if you say

that Rabbi Yitzḥak meant

his teacher who is a hunter, it works

for it is reasonable to say that his hunter-teacher is familiar with them.

But if you say

that he meant

his teacher who is a Torah scholar,

then

granted, their names,

their names [which Rabbi Yoḥanan said he must know],

he has learned them,

he learned their names.

But the birds themselves,

the birds themselves,

does he know them!?

From where does he know how to recognize them, so that there might not be an impure bird resembling the bird that he permits to him!?

Rather, conclude from this that his teacher was a hunter.

Rabbi Yitzḥak meant that his hunter-teacher must recognize them and their names.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this!

The Sages taught: One may purchase eggs from gentiles everywhere, and there is no concern either for

eggs of

carcasses or for

eggs of

animals that had been mortally wounded.

There is no concern that these are eggs of a bird that was a carcass or that had been mortally wounded.

And we raise a question:

Perhaps

the eggs

are those of an impure bird,

and how can one purchase eggs from gentiles!?

And we answer:

Shmuel’s father said:

The beraita that permits purchasing eggs from gentiles is speaking

when

the gentile says that these eggs are

of a particular bird,

which is known to us to be

pure,

and since we can bring eggs of that bird and see whether they resemble the eggs we are purchasing from him, we are not concerned that he is lying.

And we raise a question: Why must the gentile say that they are from a particular pure bird?

Let him say

that these eggs are

from a pure bird,

even without specifying which bird it is; would that not suffice?

And we answer:

If so,

if he does not say which bird they are from,

he has

the ability

to evade responsibility,

and say that these eggs are from another pure bird, one that the purchaser does not recognize, so that the purchaser cannot contradict him.

And we challenge this:

Let him examine

the eggs

by their identifying signs,

and if they have the signs of purity, he can purchase them in any event, whereas if they have the signs of impurity, he cannot purchase them.

For it is taught in a beraita: The signs of eggs—

so are the signs of fish.

And this is puzzling:

Can it enter your mind to say “the signs of fish”!?

Can one say that the signs of eggs resemble the signs of purity of fish? It is actually the reverse, for

the Merciful One stated “fins and scales”

as the signs of pure fish, and these signs have no relevance at all to eggs!?

Rather, say

that this is the intention of the beraita:

“The signs of eggs”—

so

are

the signs

of fish embryos [

eggs of

fish.