Chullin Daf 61 (חולין דף ס״א)
Daf: 61 | Amudim: 61a – 61b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (61a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
The baraita derives the four signs from nesher (non-kosher) and doves (kosher); Abaye explains the mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה נֶשֶׁר מְיוּחָד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה וְזֶפֶק וְאֵין קוּרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלָף וְדוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל – טָמֵא, אַף כׇּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ – טָמֵא. תּוֹרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה וְזֶפֶק וְקוּרְקְבָן נִקְלָף וְאֵין דּוֹרְסִין וְאוֹכְלִין – טְהוֹרִין, אַף כׇּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן – טְהוֹרִין. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נֶאֱמַר פֵּירוּשָׁן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
English Translation:
Just as a nesher is unique in that it has no extra digit or crop, and its gizzard cannot be peeled, and it claws its prey and eats it, and it is non-kosher, so too, all like birds with these four signs are non-kosher. And just as doves and pigeons, which have an extra digit and a crop, and whose gizzard can be peeled, and do not claw their food and eat it, are kosher, as they are fit for sacrifice on the altar (see Leviticus 1:14), so too, all like birds with these four signs are kosher. If so, why does the mishna state that the signs were not stated in the Torah? Abaye said: The mishna means that the explanation of the signs of a kosher bird was not stated in the Torah. Rather, one learns it from the statements of the Sages, i.e., the baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens with the baraita that grounds the entire bird-sign system in two anchor cases: the nesher, which the Torah lists as non-kosher and which possesses none of the four kosher signs, and the torim u-vnei yonah (doves and pigeons), which the Torah treats as kosher and which possess all four. The four signs are the extra toe (etzba yetera), the crop (zefek), the peelable gizzard (kurkavan niklaf), and not being dores (not clawing one’s prey). Abaye then reconciles this with the mishna’s claim that the signs “were not stated in the Torah”: the signs themselves are real Torah law, but their explanation (which bird has which) comes only from the words of the Sages — i.e., from this very baraita.
Key Terms:
- נֶשֶׁר (nesher) = the archetypal non-kosher bird, with none of the four signs
- אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה (etzba yetera) = an extra/raised hind toe
- זֶפֶק (zefek) = the crop, a food-storage pouch
- קוּרְקְבָן נִקְלָף (kurkavan niklaf) = a gizzard whose lining peels off
- דּוֹרֵס (dores) = clawing/seizing prey — the disqualifying trait
- מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים = from the words of the Sages (Rabbinic explanation)
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Chiyya: a bird with even one sign is kosher — learned from nesher, which has none
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עוֹף הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד טָהוֹר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דּוֹמֶה לְנֶשֶׁר. נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל – הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא אִיכָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – תֵּיכוֹל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A bird that comes before a person with one sign of a kosher bird, and which is not listed in the Torah as non-kosher, is kosher, since it is unlike a nesher. The verse did not need to state that the nesher is non-kosher, since one could have inferred this from the list of other non-kosher birds. Rather, the verse mentions the nesher specifically to indicate that it is only a bird like a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if there is a bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chiyya draws a far-reaching leniency from the nesher: a bird that possesses even a single kosher sign (and is not among the Torah’s listed non-kosher birds) is kosher. His reasoning is exegetical economy — the nesher’s prohibition was technically redundant (it could be inferred from the broader list), so its explicit mention must teach something extra: it is precisely a bird with no signs at all, like the nesher, that the Torah forbids; the presence of even one sign removes a bird from that category. This bold “one sign suffices” rule is the thesis the rest of the daf will test against every alternative derivation.
Key Terms:
- תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא = “Rabbi Chiyya taught [a baraita]”
- דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל = “which has none [of the signs] at all” — the nesher’s defining feature
- דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד = “which has one [sign]” — enough to render it kosher
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Why learn from nesher? Learn from doves instead — requiring all four signs for kosher status
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵילַף מִתּוֹרִין: מָה תּוֹרִין דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלְּהוּ אַרְבְּעָה, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלְּהוּ אַרְבְּעָה?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But why learn specifically from the case of a nesher? Let one derive the opposite from the case of doves: Just as doves, which the Torah mentions explicitly as kosher, have all four signs, so too here, no other bird is kosher unless it has all four signs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now opens the central dialectic of the daf — a chain of “why not learn from the other case?” The first challenge: instead of deriving leniency from the nesher (the no-signs non-kosher bird), why not derive stringency from the doves, the explicitly kosher bird that has all four signs? On that model, no bird would be kosher unless it possessed the full set. This frames the question of which biblical anchor case sets the rule, a question resolved by attending to what each verse would otherwise be teaching.
Key Terms:
- וְלֵילַף (ve-leilaf) = “let us derive [instead]” — proposing an alternative source
- כּוּלְּהוּ אַרְבְּעָה = “all four [signs]”
- תּוֹרִין (torim) = doves, the explicitly kosher anchor with all four signs
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Refutation: if we learned from doves, the Torah’s list of non-kosher birds would be superfluous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן, שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: If it is so that one learns from the case of a dove, why do I need the rest of the non-kosher birds that the Merciful One wrote? Since none of them has all four signs of a kosher bird, their non-kosher status could simply be inferred from the case of a dove. Rather, since the Torah states explicitly that they are non-kosher, it follows that one does not learn from the case of a dove.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara refutes the “learn from doves” proposal by the principle that the Torah does not write redundancies. If kosher status truly required all four signs (as the dove model implies), then every one of the Torah’s explicitly listed non-kosher birds would be superfluous — none of them has all four, so their disqualification would already follow automatically. The fact that the Torah bothered to list them proves we do not derive the rule from doves; the anchor must be the nesher instead.
Key Terms:
- שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין = the rest of the non-kosher birds (the Torah’s explicit list)
- דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא = “that the Merciful One [Torah] wrote”
- לְמָה לִי = “why do I need it?” — the redundancy challenge that drives the sugya
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
New objection: learn from the listed birds (three signs each) that three signs do not make kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנֵילַף מִינַּיְיהוּ: מָה הָתָם תְּלָתָא וְלָא אָכְלִינַן, אַף כֹּל תְּלָתָא וְלָא נֵיכוֹל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן תְּרֵי וְחַד?
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But let us derive instead from them, i.e., the rest of the non-kosher birds, which each have only three signs, the following: Just as there, those birds have three of the signs of a kosher bird mentioned in the mishna, and we still do not eat them, so too, all other birds that have three signs should have the same halakhic status, and we will not eat them. And all the more so should this apply to a bird that has only two signs or one.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having ruled out the dove as the source, the Gemara now probes whether the listed non-kosher birds themselves set the rule. Most of them carry three of the four kosher signs (lacking only “not being dores”) yet remain forbidden — so perhaps three signs are insufficient, and by kal va-chomer a bird with two signs or one would certainly be forbidden too. This would gut Rabbi Chiyya’s leniency entirely. The Gemara will again deploy the no-redundancy principle to dismantle it.
Key Terms:
- וְנֵילַף מִינַּיְיהוּ = “let us derive from them” (the listed non-kosher birds)
- תְּלָתָא (telata) = three [signs]
- וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן תְּרֵי וְחַד = “and all the more so two or one” — the a fortiori extension
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Refutation: if three signs disqualified, the explicitly-listed crow (two signs) would be superfluous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן, עוֹרֵב, דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא, לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי מִיבַּעְיָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the crow that the Merciful One wrote among the non-kosher birds? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has three signs, is it necessary to mention the crow, which has only two? Rather, those birds explicitly listed as non-kosher are prohibited, and all other birds with any number of signs are kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same redundancy logic dismantles the “three signs disqualify” proposal. If any bird with three signs were already forbidden, the Torah would never have needed to list the crow, which has only two — its prohibition would follow a fortiori. Since the crow is listed explicitly, three signs must not automatically disqualify; the listed birds are forbidden only because they are named, and otherwise a bird with signs is kosher. The argument now repeats one rung lower on amud bet, descending toward “even one sign.”
Key Terms:
- עוֹרֵב (orev) = the crow, a listed non-kosher bird bearing two signs
- מִיבַּעְיָא (mibba’ya) = “is it necessary [to state]?” — flagging an apparent redundancy
- הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא לָא אָכְלִינַן = “now that [a bird] with three is not eaten” (so two is obvious)
Amud Bet (61b)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Learn from the crow (two signs disqualify)? No — then peres/ozniyya (one sign) would be superfluous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵילַף מֵעוֹרֵב: מָה הָתָם תְּרֵי לָא, אַף כֹּל תְּרֵי לָא? אִם כֵּן, פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד מִיבַּעְיָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But one should derive instead from a crow: Just as there, a bird with two signs is not kosher, so too any other bird that has only two signs is not kosher. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the peres and the ozniyya that the Merciful One wrote among the non-kosher birds? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has two signs, is it necessary to mention these birds, which have only one? Rather, even birds that have only one sign are kosher, save those mentioned explicitly in the Torah as non-kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dialectic now descends one rung: perhaps the crow sets the rule, teaching that two signs do not make a bird kosher. The Gemara refutes this with the same tool: if two signs disqualified, the Torah would not have needed to list the peres and ozniyya, which have only a single sign each — their prohibition would follow automatically. Their explicit mention proves that even a one-sign bird is kosher unless named, pushing the leniency down to its limit.
Key Terms:
- תְּרֵי (terei) = two [signs]
- חַד (chad) = one [sign]
- פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה (peres ve-ozniyya) = two listed non-kosher birds, each with only one sign
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Learn from peres/ozniyya (one sign disqualifies)? No — then nesher (no signs) would be superfluous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנִיגְמַר מִפֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה? אִם כֵּן, נֶשֶׁר דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד לָא אָכְלִינַן, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל מִיבַּעְיָא! אֶלָּא נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל – הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – אֱכוֹל.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But let us learn instead from the peres and ozniyya themselves that all other birds with only one sign are non-kosher. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the nesher that the Merciful One wrote? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has one sign, is it necessary to mention the nesher, which has none? Rather, the Torah mentions the nesher to indicate that it is a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if you find any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final rung: perhaps the peres and ozniyya set the rule, teaching that even one sign does not make a bird kosher. But then the nesher — which has no signs at all — would be utterly superfluous, since a no-sign bird would obviously be forbidden once a one-sign bird is. The fact that the Torah names the nesher proves the opposite reading: it is specifically the signless bird that is forbidden, while any bird with even one sign is kosher. The chain has now circled back to confirm Rabbi Chiyya’s original “one sign suffices.”
Key Terms:
- וְנִיגְמַר (ve-nigmar) = “let us learn/derive”
- דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל מִיבַּעְיָא = “[a bird] with none at all — is it necessary [to state]?”
- הָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד אֱכוֹל = “but one that has one [sign] — eat it”
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Objection: peres and ozniyya are “two verses as one,” which teach nothing — so nesher is unneeded
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֶלָּא, טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא נֶשֶׁר, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לֵילַף מִפֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה? הָוֵה לֵיהּ פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But if so, the reason for eating birds with even one sign is only that the Merciful One wrote: “Nesher.” One can infer, then, that if not for this, I would say: Derive from the peres and ozniyya that any bird with one sign is non-kosher. But that cannot be, since the peres and ozniyya are two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same matter, and as a rule, two verses that come as one do not teach a principle.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now sharpens the role of the nesher by invoking a hermeneutical rule: shnei khetuvim ha-ba’im ke-echad ein melamdin — two verses that teach the same point do not generate a general principle (the second being seemingly superfluous, the pair is read as a limited case, not a model). If the peres and ozniyya both merely teach “one sign does not make kosher,” they are such a redundant pair and could not have founded a general rule anyway — so the nesher’s verse would not be needed to block that derivation. This threatens to render the nesher superfluous on the very reading the daf just established, forcing the precise tradition that follows.
Key Terms:
- טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא = “the reason being that the Torah wrote [nesher]”
- שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד = two verses that come as one (teaching the same thing)
- אֵין מְלַמְּדִין = “they do not teach” a general principle
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Tradition: peres and ozniyya bear different signs, so they are not “two verses as one”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמִירִי, דְּאִיכָּא בְּהַאי לֵיכָּא בְּהַאי, וּדְאִיכָּא בְּהַאי לֵיכָּא בְּהַאי.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that the sign present in this, the peres, is absent in that, the ozniyya, and that which is present in that is absent in this. Accordingly, this is not a case of two verses that come as one, since each case would teach only that any other bird with only its respective sign is non-kosher. Consequently, it would have been possible to derive from them that any bird with only one sign is non-kosher. The verse therefore states: “Nesher,” to indicate otherwise.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defends the nesher’s necessity with a received tradition (gemiri): the single sign the peres possesses is a different sign from the one the ozniyya possesses. Because each names a distinct one-sign configuration, they are not “two verses as one” — together they would have validly taught that any bird with merely one sign (of whatever kind) is non-kosher. To block that broad derivation and preserve the leniency, the Torah needed to write the nesher, signaling that only a signless bird is forbidden. The nesher is thus not superfluous after all.
Key Terms:
- גְּמִירִי (gemiri) = “it is learned as a [received] tradition”
- דְּאִיכָּא בְּהַאי לֵיכָּא בְּהַאי = “what is in this is not in that” — the peres and ozniyya differ in which sign they bear
- distinguishing this from שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד (two verses teaching one thing)
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Persisting: with 24 non-kosher birds, that single sign must recur elsewhere — “two verses as one” again
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּדֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִים הָווּ, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּחַד דְּאִיכָּא בְּהָנָךְ לֵיכָּא בְּהָנֵי, וְהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד.
English Translation:
The Gemara persists: Now, there are twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the verses. It is impossible that the one sign present in these, the peres and ozniyya, respectively, is absent in all those other birds. Consequently, the mentioning of the peres, ozniyya, and the other birds constitutes two verses that come as one. If so, one could not have derived from the cases of the peres and ozniyya that a bird with one sign is not kosher, and the inclusion of the nesher is unnecessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses harder: the Torah lists twenty-four non-kosher birds, so statistically the single sign borne by the peres (or ozniyya) cannot be unique to it — some among the other twenty-two surely share it. If so, that sign is taught by more than two sources, which revives the “two (or more) verses as one” problem and again renders the nesher unnecessary. This sets up the precise enumeration in the next segment, which maps exactly how the signs are distributed across the twenty-four.
Key Terms:
- עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִים = the twenty-four non-kosher birds of the Torah
- אִי אֶפְשָׁר = “it is impossible” (that the sign is absent from all the others)
- מִכְּדֵי (mikdei) = “now, consider” — introducing a reconsideration
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Tradition: the exact distribution of signs among the 24 — one sign is unique, so nesher is needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמִירִי: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִים הָווּ, וְאַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין. תְּלָתָא הָדְרִי בְּכוּלְּהוּ, עֶשְׂרִים מֵהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה, וּתְרֵי בְּעוֹרֵב, חַד בְּפֶרֶס וְחַד בְּעׇזְנִיָּה, דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּהָא לֵיתֵיהּ בְּהָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵילַיף מִינֵּיהּ – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נֶשֶׁר״, נֶשֶׁר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל הוּא דְּלָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא אִיכָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַד – אֱכוֹל.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that there are twenty-four non-kosher birds, and four signs of a kosher bird. The same three signs can be found in all of them, with the exception of either the peres or the ozniyya. Twenty of them have all three signs, and two of those signs can be found in a crow. One sign is found in a peres and one in an ozniyya, and the sign present in this is absent in that, i.e., one of them has the fourth sign, which is absent from the other twenty-three non-kosher birds. Lest you say: Derive from it that any other bird with only that sign is non-kosher, the Merciful One wrote about the nesher to indicate: It is a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if there is any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers with a precise received tradition mapping the signs across the twenty-four non-kosher birds: twenty bear three signs each, the crow bears two, and the peres and ozniyya bear one apiece — and crucially, one of those single signs is found in no other non-kosher bird. That uniquely-held sign cannot be a “two verses as one” case, so one might validly have derived from it that any bird possessing only that sign is forbidden. To forestall exactly this, the Torah wrote the nesher, fixing the rule that only a signless bird is non-kosher and any bird with even one sign is kosher. The nesher’s necessity is now fully secured.
Key Terms:
- תְּלָתָא הָדְרִי בְּכוּלְּהוּ = “three [signs] recur in all of them” (the twenty)
- וּתְרֵי בְּעוֹרֵב = “and two in the crow”
- חַד בְּפֶרֶס וְחַד בְּעׇזְנִיָּה = one [sign] in the peres and one in the ozniyya
- דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּהָא לֵיתֵיהּ בְּהָא = the sign held by one is held by no other — hence not redundant
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Why mention the dove at all? Rav Ukva: to teach it is fit for the altar; Rav Nachman begins (→ 62a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, תּוֹרִין דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: לְקׇרְבָּן. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן:
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if one learns from nesher that a bird with even one sign is kosher, why do I need the doves that the Merciful One wrote are kosher, which have all four? Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: The dove was not mentioned to teach that it is kosher, but rather to teach that it is the only bird fit to be sacrificed as an offering. Rav Naḥman says:
קלאוד על הדף:
With the nesher established as the source of the leniency, the symmetry question returns from the other side: why does the Torah bother naming the dove as kosher at all, if any bird with even one sign is permitted? Rav Ukva bar Chama answers that the dove’s mention serves a different purpose — not to certify it as kosher to eat, but to single it out as the bird fit for the altar (the only fowl species the Torah accepts as an offering). The amud ends mid-sentence as Rav Nachman begins his own statement, which continues onto daf 62a (the expert/non-expert rule for relying on signs).
Key Terms:
- תּוֹרִין דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי = “why did the Torah write [the kosher] doves?”
- לְקׇרְבָּן (le-korban) = “for [the purpose of] an offering” — the dove’s unique sacrificial role
- רַב נַחְמָן (Rav Nachman) = his statement opens here and is completed on daf 62a