Chullin Daf 62 (חולין דף ס״ב)
Daf: 62 | Amudim: 62a – 62b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (62a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Nachman’s rule (continued): expertise lets one rely on a single sign; the crow as the lone two-sign exception
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָיָה בָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן – עוֹף הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד טָהוֹר, לֹא הָיָה בָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן – בְּסִימָן אֶחָד טָמֵא, בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין טָהוֹר, וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּיר עוֹרֵב.
English Translation:
If one is familiar with the non-kosher birds and their names, any bird that comes before him with only one sign is kosher, since he can be sure that it is not the peres or ozniyya, which have only one sign. If he is not familiar with them and their names, any bird that he finds with one sign is non-kosher, since it may be the peres or ozniyya. But if he finds a bird with exactly two signs, it is kosher, provided that he can recognize a crow, since the crow is the only non-kosher bird with exactly two signs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by completing Rav Nachman’s framework from the previous amud for identifying a kosher bird by its physical signs. The key variable is the observer’s expertise: an expert who knows every non-kosher bird by name can rely on a single kosher sign (since the only one-sign non-kosher birds, the peres and ozniyya, are recognizable to him); a non-expert needs two signs and must additionally be able to recognize the crow, the lone non-kosher bird that bears two signs. This sets up the Gemara’s challenge in the next segment: is the crow really the only such bird?
Key Terms:
- בָּקִי (baki) = expert, fluent (in identifying the birds and their names)
- סִימָן (siman) = a kosher sign (e.g., an extra toe, a crop, a peelable gizzard)
- פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה (peres ve-ozniyya) = two non-kosher birds bearing only one sign each
- עוֹרֵב (orev) = the crow, presented as the sole two-sign non-kosher bird
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from a baraita: “after its kinds” includes the zarzir — so the crow is not the only two-sign bird
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עוֹרֵב וְתוּ לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״עוֹרֵב״ – זֶה עוֹרֵב, ״לְמִינוֹ״ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לְהָבִיא אֶת הַזַּרְזִיר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וַהֲלֹא אַנְשֵׁי כְּפַר תְּמַרְתָּא שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה הָיוּ אוֹכְלִים אוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן זֶפֶק! אָמַר לָהֶם: אַף הֵן עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Must he recognize only the crow and nothing more? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Every orev after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:15). With regard to the orev, this is the well-known crow; as for the phrase “after its kinds,” Rabbi Eliezer says: It is written to include the zarzir, another type of crow, to teach that it is non-kosher. The Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer: But wouldn’t the people of Kefar Temarta in Judea eat the zarzir, because it has a crop? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: They too will be judged in the future for their transgression.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses Rav Nachman’s claim that only the crow has two signs: a baraita derives from “after its kinds” (לְמִינוֹ) that the zarzir (starling) is also a forbidden crow-type — apparently a second two-sign bird. Rabbi Eliezer reads the plural “kinds” as expansive, sweeping additional species into the prohibition. When the Sages object that the people of Kefar Temarta ate the zarzir relying on its crop (a kosher sign), Rabbi Eliezer does not retract but insists they are simply transgressors who will answer for it — a strong assertion that a derashah-based prohibition overrides established local practice.
Key Terms:
- וְתוּ לָא (ve-tu lo) = “and nothing more?” — challenging an exclusive claim
- לְמִינוֹ / לְמִינֵהוּ = “after its kind(s),” read by R’ Eliezer to extend the prohibition
- זַרְזִיר (zarzir) = the starling, a crow-type bird
- זֶפֶק (zefek) = the crop, one of the kosher signs
- עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין = “destined to give a [future] accounting” — i.e., they transgress
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
A second derashah (white senunit); the resolution — “crow” means the crow and all crow-species
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ לְהָבִיא סְנוּנִית לְבָנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא אַנְשֵׁי גָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן אוֹכְלִים אוֹתוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקֻּרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלָף! אָמַר לָהֶם: אַף הֵן עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין. אֶלָּא עוֹרֵב וְכׇל מִין עוֹרֵב.
English Translation:
Alternatively, the phrase “after its kinds” is written to include the white senunit and teach that it is non-kosher; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis said to him: But don’t the people of the upper Galilee eat it, because its gizzard can be peeled? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: They too will be judged in the future for their transgression. In any event, the baraita indicates that other non-kosher birds exist that have two signs, like the crow. The Gemara responds: Rather, Rav Naḥman must have meant that one must be able to recognize the well-known crow and all other species of crow.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second version of Rabbi Eliezer’s derashah uses “after its kinds” to forbid the white senunit (a swallow-type bird), again over the objection that Galileans ate it on the strength of its peelable gizzard. Since the baraita shows multiple two-sign birds exist, the Gemara reinterprets Rav Nachman: he never meant the crow was the only two-sign bird, but that the non-expert must be able to recognize “the crow and every crow-species” — i.e., the whole family that “after its kinds” includes. This resolution salvages Rav Nachman’s rule by reading “crow” as a category rather than a single bird.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר אַחֵר (davar acher) = “another interpretation,” an alternative derashah
- סְנוּנִית לְבָנָה (senunit levana) = the white senunit (a swallow-type bird)
- קֻרְקְבָן נִקְלָף (kurkavan niklaf) = a gizzard whose inner lining can be peeled — a kosher sign
- גָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן = the Upper Galilee
Segment 4
TYPE: פסק הלכה
Ameimar’s ruling: one kosher sign suffices (if non-predatory); the peres/ozniyya concern is moot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הִלְכְתָא, עוֹף הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד – טָהוֹר, וְהוּא דְּלָא דָּרֵיס. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: הָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר לָא סְבִירָא לִי. מַאי אִיכָּא? מִשּׁוּם פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה? לֵיתַנְהוּ בַּיִּשּׁוּב.
English Translation:
Ameimar said: The halakha is: Any bird that comes before a person with one sign is kosher, provided that it does not claw its food. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What about that which Rav Naḥman said, that if one finds a bird with exactly one sign, he may eat it only if he can identify all the non-kosher birds in the Torah, to be sure that it is not one of them? Ameimar said to him: I did not hear this statement; that is to say: I do not hold accordingly. What concern is there? Is one concerned because of the peres and ozniyya, which have only one sign? They are not found in settled areas, and one need not be concerned about them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ameimar issues a sweeping practical ruling that cuts through the prior complexity: a single kosher sign suffices for any bird, with the one proviso that it is not dores (a bird that claws/seizes its prey, a hallmark of non-kosher predators). When Rav Ashi presses him on Rav Nachman’s stricter requirement of comprehensive expertise, Ameimar candidly says he does not hold that view, reasoning that the only one-sign non-kosher birds, the peres and ozniyya, are wild raptors not found in inhabited areas — so the worry never arises in practice. This is the operative halachic conclusion of the sugya.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא (hilkheta) = “the [established] halakha is”
- דּוֹרֵס (dores) = a bird that claws/holds down its prey while eating — a disqualifying trait
- לָא סְבִירָא לִי = “I do not hold this view”
- לֵיתַנְהוּ בַּיִּשּׁוּב = “they are not [found] in inhabited settlements”
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Yehuda: the “scratching bird” is kosher and fit for the metzora rite — it is the disputed white senunit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: עוֹף הַמְסָרֵט – כָּשֵׁר לְטׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע, וְזוֹ הִיא סְנוּנִית לְבָנָה שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בָּהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda says: The bird known as the scratching bird is fit for use in the purification of a leper, i.e., it is kosher. Only kosher birds are fit for this rite, as the verse states: “Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be purified two living pure birds” (Leviticus 14:4). And this is the white senunit about which Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagreed in the baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda introduces a fresh thread (§) tying the bird-identification discussion to the purification of the metzora (one afflicted with tzara’at), which the Torah requires be performed with “two living pure (kosher) birds” (Leviticus 14:4). He rules that the of ha-mesaret (“scratching bird”) is kosher and thus valid for the rite — and identifies it as the very senunit levana disputed by Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages. This identification triggers Ameimar’s and Mar Zutra’s clarifications in the next two segments about which color senunit is actually under debate.
Key Terms:
- עוֹף הַמְסָרֵט (of ha-mesaret) = the “scratching/scoring bird”
- טׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע (taharat metzora) = the purification ritual of one afflicted with tzara’at
- צִפֳּרִים חַיּוֹת טְהֹרוֹת = “living pure [kosher] birds,” required for the rite (Leviticus 14:4)
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
Ameimar’s version: dispute is over the yellow-bellied senunit; halakha follows R’ Eliezer (forbidden)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: בְּחִיוָּרָא כְּרֵסַהּ – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּשַׁרְיָא, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּדִירוּקָּא כְּרֵסַהּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָסַר וְרַבָּנַן שָׁרוּ, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
English Translation:
Ameimar said: There are two kinds of white senunit. With regard to the senunit with a white belly, everyone agrees that it is permitted for consumption. They disagree when discussing the kind with a yellow belly. Rabbi Eliezer prohibits it, and the Rabbis permit it. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ameimar refines the machloket by distinguishing two varieties of senunit by belly color. In his version, the white-bellied senunit is permitted by all; the dispute concerns only the yellow-bellied one, which Rabbi Eliezer forbids and the Sages permit. Ameimar rules stringently here, like Rabbi Eliezer (forbidden) — the opposite of how he ruled leniently on relying on one sign, showing that each case is decided on its own merits.
Key Terms:
- חִיוָּרָא כְּרֵסַהּ (chivara kresah) = its belly is white
- דִּירוּקָּא כְּרֵסַהּ (dirukka kresah) = its belly is yellow/green
- כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי = “all agree” (there is no dispute)
- וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר = “and the halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer”
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
Mar Zutra’s reversed version: dispute is over the white-bellied senunit; halakha follows the Sages (permitted)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר זוּטְרָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: בְּדִירוּקָּא כְּרֵסַהּ, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּדְחִיוָּרָא כְּרֵסַהּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָסַר וְרַבָּנַן שָׁרוּ, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבָּנַן דְּשָׁרוּ.
English Translation:
Mar Zutra teaches the statement of Ameimar in this manner: With regard to the senunit with a yellow belly, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. They disagree when discussing the kind with a white belly. Rabbi Eliezer deems it prohibited, and the Rabbis deem it permitted. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem it permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar Zutra transmits Ameimar’s teaching in mirror image: in his telling the yellow-bellied senunit is forbidden by all, and the dispute concerns the white-bellied one, where the halakha follows the Sages (permitted). Strikingly, despite the two versions assigning the dispute to opposite birds, the practical bottom line is identical — the white-bellied senunit is permitted and the yellow-bellied one forbidden. The disagreement is only over the structure of the machloket, not the resulting law, which is why the next segment probes how each version squares with Rav Yehuda’s phrasing.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנֵי הָכִי (matnei hakhi) = “teaches it [this version] thus”
- וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבָּנַן דְּשָׁרוּ = “and the halakha follows the Sages, who permit”
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Testing both versions against Rav Yehuda’s “this is the white senunit”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּחִיוָּרָא כְּרֵסַהּ פְּלִיגִי – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״זוֹ הִיא סְנוּנִית לְבָנָה״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּדִירוּקָּא פְּלִיגִי, מַאי ״זוֹ הִיא סְנוּנִית לְבָנָה״? לְאַפּוֹקֵי דְּבָתֵּי דְּאוּכַּמְתִּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that they disagree with regard to the kind with a white belly, this explanation is consistent with that which Rav Yehuda teaches: This is the white senunit about which Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagreed. But according to the one who says that they disagree with regard to the kind with a yellow belly, what is the meaning of the phrase: This is the white senunit? The Gemara responds: The phrase: White senunit, is used only to exclude the house senunit, which is black.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the two versions against Rav Yehuda’s wording, “this is the white senunit about which they disagreed.” Mar Zutra’s version (dispute over the white-bellied bird) fits naturally. But on Ameimar’s version (dispute over the yellow-bellied bird), why call the disputed bird “white”? The Gemara answers that “white senunit” there is not pinpointing the belly color but simply distinguishing this wild swallow from the black house-swallow (senunit shel batim) — so both versions remain tenable.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא (bishlama) = “granted / it works out well [for one view]”
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי (le-apukei) = “to exclude”
- סְנוּנִית דְּבָתֵּי / דְּאוּכַּמְתִּי = the house senunit, which is black
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא / קושיא
The tasil classified as a pigeon-type, not a dove; R’ Daniel objects from the Para mishna (begins)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַחֲבָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: תָּסִיל פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם תּוֹרִין, וְכָשֵׁר מִשּׁוּם בְּנֵי יוֹנָה, דָּאצִיפִי וְתוֹרִין שֶׁל רְחָבָה כְּשֵׁרִין מִשּׁוּם תּוֹרִין, וּפְסוּלִין מִשּׁוּם בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. מֵתִיב רַב דָּנִיאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא: כָּל הָעוֹפוֹת
English Translation:
§ Raḥava says that Rabbi Yehuda says: A young tasil, which is similar to a dove, is unfit for sacrifice as a dove, which is fit only when mature, but it is fit for sacrifice as a pigeon, which is fit only when immature. In other words, the tasil is considered a type of pigeon, not a dove. A mature datzifi bird, and mature doves of Reḥava, are fit as doves, but are unfit as pigeons, since they are types of doves. Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina raises an objection from a mishna (Para 9:3): All birds
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya now turns from kosher-for-eating to fit-for-the-altar, where the Torah distinguishes torim (turtledoves, valid only when mature) from bnei yonah (young pigeons, valid only when immature). Rachava cites Rav Yehuda classifying the tasil: as a “dove” it is invalid (a dove must be mature), but as a “pigeon” it is valid — i.e., the tasil belongs to the pigeon family, whose members qualify only while young. The amud breaks off mid-objection: Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina challenges from a mishna in Para (9:3) about “all birds,” completed at the top of 62b.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹרִין (torim) = turtledoves, valid as offerings only when mature
- בְּנֵי יוֹנָה (bnei yonah) = young pigeons, valid only when immature
- תָּסִיל (tasil) = a bird classified here as a pigeon-type
- מֵתִיב (meitiv) = “raises an objection [from a tannaitic source]“
Amud Bet (62b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
The Para objection completed; R’ Zeira resolves — the tasil sips and spits, the pigeon only sips
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פּוֹסְלִין בְּמֵי חַטָּאת חוּץ מִן הַיּוֹנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹצֶצֶת, וְאִם אִיתָא לִיתְנֵי חוּץ מִיּוֹנָה וְתָסִיל! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: זֶה מוֹצֵץ וּמֵקִיא, וְזֶה מוֹצֵץ וְאֵינוֹ מֵקִיא.
English Translation:
disqualify the water of purification, i.e., water in which ashes of the red heifer have been placed, by drinking from it. The water that entered the bird’s mouth is disqualified, and some of it drips back into the container, disqualifying the rest. This applies to all birds except for the pigeon, because it sips the water from the container and none falls back in from its mouth. But if it is so that the tasil is a type of pigeon, let the mishna teach: Except for the pigeon and the tasil. Rabbi Zeira said: Although the tasil is a type of pigeon and sips the water as well, this, the tasil, sips the water and spits part of it back, and therefore disqualifies the water of purification, and that, the pigeon, sips but does not spit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection from Para 9:3 is now spelled out: every bird disqualifies the mei chatat (purification water made with red-heifer ashes) by drinking from it and dribbling back, except the pigeon, which sips cleanly. If the tasil were truly a pigeon-type, the mishna should have exempted it too. Rabbi Zeira resolves the difficulty by a behavioral distinction within the pigeon family: the tasil sips and spits back (so it disqualifies the water), whereas the true pigeon sips without spitting — preserving Rav Yehuda’s classification while explaining the mishna’s silence.
Key Terms:
- מֵי חַטָּאת (mei chatat) = the purification water mixed with red-heifer ashes
- פּוֹסְלִין (poslin) = disqualify (by drinking and dripping back)
- מוֹצֶצֶת (motzetzet) = sips/sucks
- מוֹצֵץ וּמֵקִיא = sips and spits back (the tasil); the pigeon only sips
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא / קושיא
Tzutzeyanei doves are fit for the altar; objection from the “hyssop with a modifier” rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי כּוּפְשָׁנֵי צוּצְיָינֵי כְּשֵׁרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְהֵן הֵן תּוֹרִין שֶׁל רְחָבָה. מֵיתִיבִי: ״אֵזוֹב״, וְלֹא אֵזוֹב יוֹן, וְלֹא אֵזוֹב כּוֹחֳלִי, וְלֹא אֵזוֹב רוֹמִי, וְלֹא מִדְבָּרִי, וְלֹא כׇּל אֵזוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda says: The tzutzeyanei doves are fit for sacrifice on the altar, and they are the doves of Reḥava mentioned earlier. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Nega’im 14:6): The Torah requires hyssop for the purification of a leper. It must be standard hyssop, and neither a hyssop of Greece, nor stibium hyssop, nor Roman hyssop, nor desert hyssop, nor any other kind of hyssop whose name is accompanied by a modifier. Likewise, tzutzeyanei doves should be unfit for sacrifice, because they have a modifier in their name.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda affirms that the tzutzeyanei doves are valid for the altar, identifying them with the “doves of Rechava” cited earlier. The Gemara objects from a principle in Nega’im 14:6: the Torah’s eizov (hyssop) for purification rites must be plain hyssop, excluding any variety with a shem levai — a qualifying epithet (Greek hyssop, Roman hyssop, etc.). By analogy, a dove called by a compound name like “tzutzeyanei doves” should likewise be disqualified for sacrifice. The next two segments offer two ways to defuse this analogy.
Key Terms:
- כּוּפְשָׁנֵי צוּצְיָינֵי = the tzutzeyanei doves (a named local variety)
- אֵזוֹב (eizov) = hyssop, required for purification rites
- שֵׁם לְוַוי (shem levai) = an accompanying qualifier/epithet attached to a name
- מֵיתִיבִי (meitivi) = “they raise an objection”
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye and Rava resolve: a disqualifying epithet must predate Sinai, or these are called plain “doves” locally
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנָּה שְׁמוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, וְהִקְפִּידָה תּוֹרָה עָלָיו, יֵשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי – פָּסוּל. וְהָנֵי לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה שְׁמָן קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה. רָבָא אָמַר: הָנֵי כּוּפְשָׁנֵי צוּצְיָינֵי, בְּאַתְרַיְיהוּ סְתָמָא קָרֵי לְהוּ.
English Translation:
Abaye said: Any item whose name was modified before the giving of the Torah, and concerning which the Torah was particular when naming it, is unfit if its name is accompanied by a modifier, since the language of the Torah was formulated to exclude it. But the name of these tzutzeyanei doves was not modified, i.e., the modifier tzutzeyanei was not applied to them, before the giving of the Torah. Even though it was applied to them later, they are still fit for sacrifice. Alternatively, Rava said: The tzutzeyanei doves are called simply doves in their place of habitation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two resolutions defuse the hyssop analogy. Abaye introduces a temporal criterion: the disqualifying shem levai rule applies only to a name that already bore its qualifier before mattan Torah (the giving of the Torah at Sinai), when the Torah’s own terminology was being fixed; since the epithet “tzutzeyanei” attached to these doves only later, it does not disqualify them. Rava offers a simpler answer: in their native locale these birds are called plain “doves” (yonim / torim) without any qualifier, so the modifier is incidental, not part of their real name. Either way, the doves remain fit for the altar.
Key Terms:
- מַתַּן תּוֹרָה (mattan Torah) = the giving of the Torah at Sinai
- הִקְפִּידָה תּוֹרָה = the Torah was particular/exacting (about the name)
- בְּאַתְרַיְיהוּ סְתָמָא קָרֵי לְהוּ = “in their place they call them by the plain name”
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא
Kosher vs. forbidden grasshoppers (lashes for the latter); the tzarda/barda/marda mnemonic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי כְּרָזֵי דְּבֵי חִילְפֵי שָׁרוּ, וּדְבֵי כְּרָבֵי אֲסִירִי. אָמַר רָבִינָא: וּמַלְקִינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: צְרָדָא – שְׁרֵי, בַּרְדָּא – אֲסִיר, וְסִימָנָיךְ ״בַּר מִינֵּיהּ״, מַרְדָּא – סְפֵקָא.
English Translation:
Similarly, Rav Yehuda says: These grasshoppers found among the shrubs are kosher and permitted for consumption. And those found among the cabbages are forbidden. Ravina said: And we flog those who eat them on their account, due to the prohibition: “And all winged swarming things are impure unto you” (Deuteronomy 14:19). And Rav Yehuda says: The bird called tzarda is permitted for consumption, and the barda is prohibited. And your mnemonic to remember which is which is this: Eat any bird except [bar] for it. As for the marda, it is uncertain whether it is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf shifts into a rapid catalogue of practical identifications, since many of these birds and locusts are known only by colloquial Aramaic names. Rav Yehuda permits the shrub-dwelling grasshoppers but forbids the cabbage-dwelling ones, and Ravina adds that eating the forbidden type incurs malkot (lashes) under “all winged swarming things are impure” (Deuteronomy 14:19). For the similar-sounding birds tzarda (permitted) and barda (forbidden), Rav Yehuda supplies a wordplay mnemonic — bar mineih, “except for it” — keying the forbidden barda to “bar”; the marda is left a safek (doubtful), foreshadowing Rav Asi’s list of eight doubtful cases.
Key Terms:
- כְּרָזֵי (kerazei) = grasshoppers/locusts
- שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף (sheretz ha-of) = winged swarming creatures, forbidden (Deuteronomy 14:19)
- מַלְקִינַן (malkinan) = “we administer lashes” (malkot)
- סִימָנָיךְ (simanakh) = “your mnemonic” — a memory device
- סְפֵקָא (safeka) = a doubtful/uncertain case
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Asi’s eight doubtful birds — their gizzards peel only with a knife
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: שְׁמוֹנָה סְפֵיקוֹת הֵן: חוֹבָא, חוּגָא, סוּגָא, וְהַרְנוּגָא, תּוּשְׁלְמִי, וּמַרְדָּא, כּוֹחִילְנָא, וּבַר נַפָּחָא. מַאי סְפֵיקַיְיהוּ? עוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִים קוּרְקְבָנָן נִקְלָף, וּטְמֵאִין אֵין קוּרְקְבָנָן נִקְלָף, וְהָנֵי קוּרְקְבָנָן נִקְלָף בְּסַכִּינָא.
English Translation:
Rav Asi says: There are eight uncertain cases: The ḥuva, ḥuga, suga, and harnuga, tushelemi, and marda, kuḥilna, and bar nappaḥa. The Gemara explains: What is their uncertainty? The gizzard of kosher birds can be peeled, as mentioned in the mishna, and the gizzard of non-kosher birds cannot be peeled, but the gizzard of these birds can be peeled only with a knife.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Asi enumerates eight birds whose status is genuinely doubtful. The source of the doubt is precise: the mishna’s gizzard test holds that a kosher bird’s gizzard-lining peels off and a non-kosher bird’s does not — but in these eight, the lining peels only with the help of a knife, neither cleanly by hand (which would prove kosher) nor not at all (which would prove non-kosher). They thus fall into a halachic gray zone, which the next segment probes by comparing them to a borderline duck in Mar Shmuel’s house.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוֹנָה סְפֵיקוֹת (shemonah sefeikot) = eight doubtful cases
- קוּרְקְבָן (kurkavan) = the gizzard; its peelable inner lining is the test
- נִקְלָף בְּסַכִּינָא = peels off only with a knife (the ambiguous middle state)
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Mar Shmuel’s duck (peeled after warming) — distinguished: by hand there, only by knife here
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא הָהִיא בַּר אֲוָוזָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי מָר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּלָא הֲוָה קָא מִקְּלֵף קוּרְקְבָנֵיהּ, וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּשִׁימְשָׁא, וְכֵיוָן דְּרָפֵי אִיקְּלֵיף! הָתָם, כִּי רָפֵי אִיקְּלֵיף בִּידָא. הָכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּרָפֵי, לָא מִקְּלֵיף אֶלָּא בְּסַכִּינָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But why should these not be kosher? Wasn’t there a certain duck in the house of Mar Shmuel whose gizzard could not be peeled, and they set the gizzard in the sun, and once it softened it could be peeled? The Gemara responds: There, when it softened it could be peeled by hand. Here, in these eight cases, even when it softened it could be peeled only with a knife.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the doubt: a duck in Mar Shmuel’s house whose gizzard at first would not peel was simply warmed in the sun and then peeled — and it was treated as kosher. Why not say the same of the eight doubtful birds? The distinction is decisive: in Mar Shmuel’s duck, once softened the lining came off by hand (the genuine kosher sign, merely needing warming), whereas in the eight cases even after softening it yields only to a knife — so the precedent does not dissolve their doubt. The exchange refines exactly how much “peelability” the kosher sign requires.
Key Terms:
- בַּר אֲוָוזָא (bar avaza) = a duck
- אוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּשִׁימְשָׁא = he placed it in the sun (to warm/soften it)
- רָפֵי (rafei) = softened
- בִּידָא / בְּסַכִּינָא = by hand / with a knife — the line between kosher and doubtful
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
The swamp rooster among the doubtful; the swamphen forbidden because it claws its prey (dores)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תַּרְנְגוֹלָא דְּאַגְמָא חַד מִשְּׁמוֹנָה סְפֵיקוֹת הוּא, וְהַיְינוּ מַרְדּוּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּרְנְגוֹלָא דְּאַגְמָא אֲסִירא, תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא שַׁרְיָא, וְסִימָנָיךְ – ״עַמּוֹנִי וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית״. דְּרַשׁ מָרִימָר: תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא אֲסִירָא, חַזְיוּהָ דְּדָרְסָה וְאָכְלָה, וְהַיְינוּ גֵּירוּתָא.
English Translation:
Abaye says: The swamp rooster is one of the eight uncertain cases, and this is the mardu, i.e., the marda mentioned earlier. Rav Pappa says: The swamp rooster is forbidden, but the swamphen is permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the statement of the Sages with regard to the verse: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4), that an Ammonite man is unfit to enter the assembly, but not an Ammonite woman. Mareimar taught: The swamphen is forbidden, because the Sages saw that it claws its prey and eats it. And this is the giruta, a non-kosher bird (see 109b).
קלאוד על הדף:
The sages debate the swamp fowl. Abaye identifies the tarnegola de-agma (swamp rooster) with the doubtful mardu of Rav Asi’s list. Rav Pappa rules by gender — rooster forbidden, hen permitted — anchored to a memorable halachic mnemonic: just as the Sages read “an Ammonite [shall not enter]” as barring the Ammonite man but not the woman, here the male is excluded and the female allowed. Mareimar, however, reverses the verdict on the hen: having observed it dores (clawing and eating its prey, the predatory disqualification), he forbids the swamphen and equates it with the non-kosher giruta — showing how direct observation of behavior can override a name-based rule.
Key Terms:
- תַּרְנְגוֹלָא / תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא = swamp rooster / swamphen
- עַמּוֹנִי וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית = “an Ammonite [man] but not an Ammonite woman” — the mnemonic
- דָּרְסָה וְאָכְלָה = it claws and eats (the predatory, disqualifying behavior)
- גֵּירוּתָא (giruta) = a known non-kosher bird (cf. 109b)
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
More paired birds with name-based mnemonics: shavor/piruz (Rav), bunya/parva (Rav Huna)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: שַׁבּוּר אַנַדַּרְפַּטָּא – שְׁרֵי, פֵּירוּז אַנַדַּרְפַּטָּא – אֲסִיר, וְסִימָנָיךְ – פֵּירוּז רַשִּׁיעָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בּוּנְיָא – שְׁרֵי, פַּרְוָא – אֲסִיר, וְסִימָנָיךְ – פַּרְוָאָה אַמְגּוּשָׁא.
English Translation:
Rav says: The bird called the shavor anderafta is permitted, but the piruz anderafta is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the known personality Piruz the Evil. Rav Huna says: The bird called the bunya is permitted. The parva is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the known personality Parva’a the Sorcerer.
קלאוד על הדף:
The catalogue continues with two more permitted/forbidden pairs of similarly named birds. Rav permits the shavor anderafta and forbids the piruz anderafta, hanging the latter on the memory peg “Piruz the Evil,” a notorious Persian figure — so the bird whose name echoes “Piruz” is the forbidden one. Rav Huna does the same with bunya (permitted) versus parva (forbidden), keyed to “Parva the Sorcerer.” These mnemonics are practical mental hooks for distinguishing near-homonymous birds whose kosher status differs.
Key Terms:
- שְׁרֵי / אֲסִיר (sherei / asir) = permitted / forbidden
- שַׁבּוּר אַנַדַּרְפַּטָּא / פֵּירוּז אַנַדַּרְפַּטָּא = two similarly named birds, the latter forbidden
- בּוּנְיָא / פַּרְוָא = a permitted bird and a forbidden one
- סִימָנָיךְ = the mnemonic peg (here a notorious named personality)
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
The bowing-vs-reclining mardu, and Shmuel’s wine-drinker/wine-pourer birds — behavior-based mnemonics
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַרְדּוּ זָגֵיד וְאָכֵיל – שְׁרֵי, סָגֵיד וְאָכֵיל – אֲסִיר, וְסִימָנָיךְ ״לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁתְיָא חַמְרָא – אֲסִירָא, וְסִימָנָיךְ ״שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן פְּסוּלִין לַעֲבוֹדָה״. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָזְגָא חַמְרָא – אֲסִירָא,
English Translation:
Rav Pappa says: The bird known as the reclining and eating mardu is permitted, while the bowing and eating mardu is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the verse: “You shall bow down to no other god” (Exodus 34:14). Shmuel says: The bird called the wine drinker is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the halakha: Those who drank wine are unfit for service in the Temple. And Shmuel says: The bird called the wine pourer is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final entries distinguish birds by their feeding posture and name, each fixed by a Torah-based mnemonic. Rav Pappa permits the mardu that reclines while eating but forbids the one that “bows” while eating — pegged to “you shall not bow down to another god” (Exodus 34:14), so the bowing bird is the forbidden one. Shmuel forbids the “wine-drinker” bird, recalling the law that those who have drunk wine are unfit for the Temple service, and likewise forbids the “wine-pourer.” The amud ends here mid-list, the catalogue of named birds continuing onto the next daf.
Key Terms:
- זָגֵיד וְאָכֵיל / סָגֵיד וְאָכֵיל = reclines and eats (permitted) / bows and eats (forbidden)
- לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר = “you shall not bow to another god” (Exodus 34:14) — the mnemonic
- שָׁתְיָא חַמְרָא / מָזְגָא חַמְרָא = the “wine-drinker” / “wine-pourer” birds, both forbidden
- שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן פְּסוּלִין לַעֲבוֹדָה = “those who drank wine are unfit for [Temple] service” — the mnemonic