Chullin 65a — the Talmud in English

And from the fact that the scribe separates them ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

into two words, derive from it -

they are two names.

For this is not one word read “daughter of the ostrich,” but two words: the daughter of the ostrich, which is the ostrich’s egg.

And we challenge:

But from now,

with regard to that which is written in the verse

“Chedor -

Laomer,”

king of Elam,

that the scribe separates them

the scribe

into two

words, “Chedor - Laomer,” should

here too

it be said

that they are two names!?

But surely it is one man’s name, whose name is Chedorlaomer.

And it is proven that dividing into two words is not proof that these are two names!?

And we answer:

They say: There,

with “Chedor Laomer,” indeed

he separates them into two words,

but

into two lines,

into two rows,

he does not separate them,

for they do not write the two words of Chedor Laomer on two separate lines; therefore we consider them one name.

But here,

with “daughter of the ostrich,”

even into two lines also he separates them,

for it is possible to write the word “daughter” at the end of the line, and on the next line beneath it the word “ostrich”; and derive from it that they are two names, and the intention of the verse is the egg of the ostrich.

We learned in the Mishna:

But the Sages said: every bird

etc.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabban Gamaliel says:

A bird that

pounces and eats,

that grasps with its claws and lifts from the ground what it eats -

it is known that it is

a bird

impure.

And if it does not pounce, and

it has an extra toe

higher than the other toes,

and a crop,

a pouch in which the food gathers,

and its gizzard

the pouch in the gizzard

can be peeled

from the flesh by hand -

it is known that it is

a bird

pure!

Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok says: They stretch for it a measuring cord

a thin rope,

if it divides its feet,

its toes, when it stands on the cord, and places them

two

two toes

to this side,

to one side of the cord,

and two to this side

to the other side of the cord - it is a bird

impure!

But if it divides its toes when

three

toes are

to this side,

to one side,

and one to this side

to the other side - it is a bird

pure.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Every bird that catches

the food that they throw to it and brings it into its mouth

from the air -

it is a bird

impure.

And we ask: But there is a bird whose name is

tziparta,

and they knew of it that it was a pure bird, and it

also catches

the food from the air; and we see that this is not a sign of an impure bird!?

And we answer: Abaye said:

It catches and eats

and does not place the food on the ground until it swallows it,

we are saying,

for this is a sign of impurity; but tziparta catches the food from the air, yet it places it on the ground before it swallows it.

Others say: A

bird

“that dwells,”

that dwells

with

birds

impure,

it is

impure.

But if it dwells

with pure ones,

it is a bird

pure.

And we explain:

According to whom

do the words of “Others” proceed, that a bird dwelling with impure ones is impure even though it does not resemble them? -

According to Rabbi Eliezer!

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The starling did not go to the raven for nothing, but rather because it is of its species!

And we see that because the starling dwells together with the raven, it is considered an impure species, even though it does not resemble it.

And we reject this:

Even if you say

that Others hold like

the Rabbis:

And what they said, that a bird dwelling with impure ones is impure, is only if it

dwells

with them

and

also

resembles

them,

that it resembles the impure birds in its appearance,

we are saying,

for only then is their law equal: a bird that dwells with other birds and also resembles them in appearance has the same law as they do.

We learned in the Mishna:

And concerning locusts -

any that has

four legs and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of it!

And we explain:

What

does “its wings cover

most of it” mean?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Its wings cover

most of its length. And some say,

some explain: its wings cover

most of its circumference.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore,

since we are uncertain whether it means most of its length or most of its circumference,

we require

in order to permit it for eating that it have both

most of its length, and we require

also

most of its circumference,

that its wings cover most of the length of its body and most of the circumference of its body.

The Sages taught: If it does not have now

jumping legs - hind legs

but is destined to grow them later, such as a larva,

which is a species of locust, it is

permitted

for eating!

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei says:

It is written in the verse: “But this you may eat from every swarming creature that flies, that walks on four - which has no jumping legs above its feet.” It is written

“which has no jumping legs,”

but we read in it, “which has jumping legs.”

And we expound:

Even though it does not have now

jumping legs,

but is destined to grow them later,

such as the larva - it is permitted for eating.

And we explain:

What is “a larva”?

Abaye said: “Askariya,”

which does not have jumping legs when it is small, but they grow later.

The Sages taught: It is stated

“

These you may eat among them -

the locust

according to its species, and the sal'am according to its species, and the chargol according to its species, and the locust according to its species.”

And we expound:

“Locust” -

this is the gobai. “Sal'am” -

this is the rashon. “Chargol” -

this is the nipol. “Locust” -

this is the gadian!

What does the verse teach by saying: according to its species, according to its species, according to its species, according to its species -

four times!? “

According to its species,” stated with regard to the locust,

to include the vineyard bird,

which is a species of locust that has no forehead [that is, its head is pointed], and it resembles the locust, which also has no forehead. “

According to its species,” stated with regard to the sal'am, to include

the Jerusalem yochana,

which is a species of sal'am, for both of them have a forehead. “

According to its species,” written with regard to the chargol, to include

the hartzuvya,

which is a species of chargol, for both of them have a tail. “

According to its species,” written with regard to the locust, to include

the razvanit,

which does not resemble the three preceding species, and nevertheless it is pure.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael learned the verses in another manner. For in these verses there are superfluous generalizations [because they had already been written]. And there are also superfluous particulars, which were written after other particulars had already been written in the verse.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: These “

according to its species,” which the preceding tanna considered particulars, are nothing but

generalizations of generalizations!

That is, generalizations that were written after other generalizations, and they are superfluous.

And these,

the sal'am and the locust, are

particulars of particulars

! That is, particulars that were written without need.

And this is the learning of the verse: “

Locust” -

this is the gobai.

“According to its species”

written after the locust was written in order

to include

the

vineyard bird,

which resembles the locust in that neither of them has a forehead.