Chullin 63b — the Talmud in English

Since,

the book

Mishna Torah came to add,

to add what was not written in the other books,

that is what it came for [

as we say below: Why were the impure animals repeated once more in Mishna Torah? To bring [the law of] the shesu'a, which was not mentioned in the portion of Shemini].

What is different here,

in the portion of Shemini,

where da'a is written, and what is different here,

in the portion of Re'eh,

where re'eh is written, and it is not written

also da'a

?!

Rather, conclude from this: the species re'eh and da'a is one!

For this is one bird, except that sometimes the Torah calls it re'eh, and sometimes da'a. And so that a person should not come to permit it in the place where it is called re'eh, saying that the Torah prohibited the da'a but not the re'eh, therefore the Torah went back and wrote re'eh, to say that whether it is called da'a or whether it is called re'eh, it is prohibited, since it is that same bird.

And we object:

But still there would be twenty-five

birds

!

Twenty-one written in Mishna Torah in the portion of Re'eh, and another four that were derived above!?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Just as re'eh and da'a,

we said,

are one, so ayya and dayya,

which are mentioned in the portion of Re'eh,

are one!

And the Torah called them by two names so as not to give an opening to a litigant to say that the Torah prohibited the ayya but not the dayya.

For if it should enter your mind that they are two

birds,

they are,

indeed,

since

it is

that Mishna Torah came only to add, what is different here,

in the portion of Shemini,

where “according to its species” is written concerning the ayya, and what is different there,

in the portion of Re'eh,

where “according to its species” is written concerning the dayya,

and “according to its species” is not written concerning the ayya, as it is written in the portion of Shemini!?

Rather, conclude from this: ayya and dayya are one,

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

And we explain:

But since ayya and dayya are one—

why does it need

the Torah

to write

in the portion of Re'eh

“ayya and dayya”?!

As it was taught: Rabbi says: I would read,

it would have been enough for the Torah to write

“ayya,”

since it itself is dayya, and if so,

why was “dayya” stated

in that same portion?

In order not to give an opening to a litigant to dispute. So that you should not read

in the Torah

“ayya,” and he should read

it by the name

“dayya,”

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

And likewise, if “dayya” had been written and “ayya” had not been written, the litigant would have an opening to dispute, because

you read

in the Torah

“dayya,” and he reads

it by the name

“ayya,”

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

Therefore, He wrote

the Merciful One

in Mishna Torah

in the portion of Re'eh:

“And the re'eh, and the ayya, and the dayya according to its species.”

To tell you that ayya and dayya are one!

It was objected

to 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 counted ayya and dayya as one bird.

For we learned in a beraita:

Why were they repeated,

why did the Torah go back and write in the portion of Re'eh the prohibition against eating impure animals and impure birds?

Concerning an animal,

the Torah went back and wrote it

because of the shesu'a,

which is a creature in its own right, having two backs and two spinal columns, as we explained above.

And concerning birds—

the Torah went back and wrote it

because of the re'eh,

which was not mentioned in the portion of Shemini!

And now we infer:

Is it not that, since the animal there [

which is the shesu'a]

came to add

to bring a new animal that had not previously been mentioned in the portion of Shemini,

the birds also came to add

a new bird that had not been mentioned? And conclude from this that da'a and re'eh are two birds, for the Torah went back and added a new bird whose name is re'eh, to say that it too is prohibited.

And we answer:

No.

This is not a proof. Rather,

there,

concerning animals, it came

to add

the shesu'a. But

here,

concerning birds, it came

to explain

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

And it disagrees

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

with [the opinion of] Rabbi Abahu.

For Rabbi Abahu said: The re'eh

mentioned in the Book of Devarim

is this ayya

mentioned in that same portion.

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

for it has good sight.

And so it says

in the Book of Iyov [chapter 28]:

“A path that the bird of prey did not know, and the eye of the ayya did not see.”

And the explanation of the verse is that even the ayya, whose sight is good, did not see this path.

And since Rabbi Abahu said, “Re'eh is ayya,” and we necessarily find that da'a and re'eh, and likewise ayya and dayya, are one, since the Torah did not go back and write da'a in Mishna Torah, it follows that according to Rabbi Abahu all of them—da'a and re'eh, and dayya and ayya—are one. 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:

Since re'eh, according to Rabbi Abahu, is ayya,

according to Rabbi Abahu,

by implication, da'a is not re'eh.

For it now enters our mind that Rabbi Abahu too maintains that there are twenty-four impure birds. And since he holds that re'eh is ayya, if we say that he holds that da'a is also re'eh, one bird is missing from the count of twenty-four impure birds. Rather, certainly he holds that da'a is not re'eh [and not like Abaye, who said that re'eh and da'a are one]. Therefore, although he holds that “re'eh is ayya,” he has twenty-four impure birds.

And if so, this is difficult:

Since,

what is written in the book

Mishna Torah came 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 portion of Shemini,

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

in the portion of Re'eh,

where da'a is not written!? [

For if da'a is re'eh, the Torah already wrote re'eh in the Book of Devarim.]

Rather, is it not so? Conclude from this that da'a, re'eh, and ayya are one [

and therefore the Torah did not write da'a, which is re'eh, and re'eh is ayya, as Rabbi Abahu said].

And in order to resolve the question of where we find twenty-four impure birds according to Rabbi Abahu, it is necessarily necessary to say:

And since re'eh is ayya, by implication dayya is not ayya,

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

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

what is different there,

in the portion of Shemini,

where “according to its species” is written concerning the ayya,

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

And what is different here,

in the portion of Re'eh,

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

only

concerning the dayya,

as it is written, “and the ayya and the dayya according to its species”!? But Mishna Torah came only to add; why did the Torah detract and not write “the ayya according to its species”!?

Rather,

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

conclude from this,

both

that da'a and re'eh

and

that dayya and ayya,

all four names of these birds,

are one!

And Rabbi Abahu does not maintain that there are twenty-four impure birds; rather, there are only twenty-three impure birds!

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

are of the species ayya!

Avimi, son of Rabbi Abahu, taught: Seven hundred species of impure fish

impure

there are.

And eight hundred species of locusts

are impure.

But concerning pure birds—

there is no number!

The number of impure birds is great.

And the Gemara wonders: But

birds

impure,

there are twenty-four!

As we said above. And how did Avimi say that they have no number!?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is how it should be read:

“But concerning pure birds, there is no number.”

It was taught: Rabbi says: It is manifest and known before the One who spoke and the world came into being that impure animals are more numerous than

the

pure animals. Therefore, Scripture enumerated among the pure

the pure animals, as it is written in the portion of Re'eh, “the ram, the deer, and the fallow deer,” and so forth, for only these are pure.

It is manifest and known before the One who spoke and the world came into being that pure birds are more numerous than

the

impure birds. Therefore, Scripture enumerated among the impure,

the impure birds, for only these are impure.

And the Gemara asks:

What does he teach us

Rabbi? Is it not obvious that if there were other impure birds, or other pure animals, the Torah would enumerate them!?

And we answer: Rabbi taught us

in accordance with what Rav Huna said 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 the matter endures with him more than if he teaches him in a lengthy manner. And therefore the Torah enumerated the pure animals and the impure birds, which are the fewer.

Rabbi Yitzhak said: A pure bird—

is eaten on the basis of tradition.

For if there is a trustworthy person whom he remembers having eaten it, or his teacher transmitted to him that this bird is pure, he may rely upon him and eat the bird. And

the hunter is trusted to say: “This bird is pure,”

for so

my teacher transmitted to me.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: And this is when he is expert

the rabbi or the hunter [as will be explained]

in them and in their names

of that bird and its name.

Rabbi Zeira inquired:

What Rabbi Yitzhak said—that the hunter is trusted to say that this is what his teacher transmitted to him—does he mean

his teacher

who is

a 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 Yohanan said, and this is when he is expert

that teacher

in them and in their names.

And the Gemara proves:

If you say

that Rabbi Yitzhak’s intention is

his teacher who is a hunter, it is well,

for it is reasonable to say that his teacher who is a hunter is expert in them.

But if you say

that his intention is

his teacher who is a scholar,

then

granted that their names,

their names [which Rabbi Yohanan said he must recognize],

he learned them,

he learned their names.

But them,

the birds themselves,

who knows them!?

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

Rather, is it not so? Conclude from this: his teacher is a hunter.

Rabbi Yitzhak’s intention was to say that his teacher who is a hunter must recognize them and their names.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this!

The Sages taught: One may purchase eggs from non-Jews everywhere, and there is no concern either because of

eggs of

carcasses, or because of

eggs of

animals with fatal injuries.

For there is no concern that these are eggs of a bird that was rendered an animal with fatal injuries or that became a carcass.

And we inquire about it:

Perhaps

the eggs

are of an impure bird,

and how may one purchase eggs from non-Jews!?

And we answer:

Avuh of Shmuel said:

The permission of the beraita to purchase eggs from non-Jews applies

when he says

that non-Jew, that these eggs are

of a certain 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 that we purchase from him, we are not concerned that he is lying.

And we inquire about it: Why must the non-Jew say that they are of a certain pure bird?

Let him say

that non-Jew that these eggs are

of a pure bird,

even without saying which bird it is, and that would be sufficient?

And we answer:

If so,

if he does not say from which bird they are,

he has,

he has the ability

to evade,

and to say that these eggs are of another pure bird, which the purchaser does not recognize, and the purchaser cannot contradict him.

And we object:

Let him examine

the eggs

by their signs,

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

For it was taught: As are the signs of eggs—

so are the signs of fish.

And this is astonishing:

“The signs of fish”—can it enter your mind!?

Can one say that the signs of eggs resemble the signs of purity of fish? Surely the opposite is the case, for

the Merciful One said “fin and scale”

concerning the signs of pure fish, and these signs have no connection whatsoever to eggs!?

Rather, say

that this is the intention of the beraita:

“As are the signs of eggs”—

so

they are

the signs ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

of the embryos [

eggs

of fish.