Chullin Daf 63 (חולין דף ס״ג)
Daf: 63 | Amudim: 63a – 63b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (63a)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא
The little wine-pourer bird is permitted; a mnemonic of relative size
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּת מָזְגָא חַמְרָא – שַׁרְיָא, וְסִימָנָיךְ ״יָפֶה כֹּחַ הַבֵּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב״.
English Translation:
But the bird called the little wine pourer is permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the idiom of the Sages: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father, i.e., the larger is forbidden while the smaller is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf continues the rapid catalogue of similarly named birds from the previous daf, distinguishing a permitted variety from its forbidden counterpart. Here the smaller bird (the bat mazga chamra, the ‘little wine-pourer’) is permitted while its larger namesake is forbidden, the reverse of the usual intuition. The mnemonic borrows a stock rabbinic phrase, yafeh koach ha-ben mi-koach ha-av (the power of the son exceeds that of the father), to fix in memory that the lesser one is the permitted one.
Key Terms:
- בַּת מָזְגָא חַמְרָא = the ‘little wine-pourer’ bird, here permitted
- סִימָנָיךְ = your mnemonic, a memory device
- יָפֶה כֹּחַ הַבֵּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב = ‘the power of the son exceeds the father’s’ — a stock phrase repurposed as a mnemonic
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Yehuda distinguishes kosher from forbidden shekitena birds by color and leg-length, with mnemonics
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁקִיטָנָא, אֲרִיכֵי שָׁקֵי וְסוּמָּקֵי – שַׁרְיָא, וְסִימָנָיךְ מוּרְזְמָא. גּוּצֵי וְסוּמָּקֵי – אֲסִירִי, וְסִימָנָיךְ ״נָנוּס פָּסוּל״. אֲרִיכֵי שָׁקֵי וִירוּקֵּי – אֲסִירִי, וְסִימָנָיךְ ״יְרוּקִּין פְּסוּלִין״.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda says: There are several types of shekitena. The long-shanked red ones are permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the murzema bird, which is similar in appearance and known to be kosher. The little red ones are forbidden, and your mnemonic for this is the halakha that a dwarf priest is unfit for Temple service. The long-shanked green, i.e., yellow, ones are forbidden, and your mnemonic for this is the mishna (56a): Innards that have turned green render an animal a tereifa and unfit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda sorts the shekitena birds by two features — leg length and color — yielding three rulings, each pinned to a mnemonic. The long-shanked red ones are permitted (recalled via the kosher murzema bird), while the short red ones and the long yellow ones are forbidden. The mnemonics cleverly draw on unrelated halachot — that a dwarf (nanas) priest is disqualified from Temple service, and that greened innards render an animal a tereifa (Chullin 56a) — so that ‘short’ and ‘yellow/green’ are remembered as the forbidden cases.
Key Terms:
- שְׁקִיטָנָא = the shekitena, a bird-type sorted by color and leg-length
- אֲרִיכֵי שָׁקֵי = long-shanked
- גּוּצֵי = short, stunted
- נָנוּס פָּסוּל = ‘a dwarf [priest] is unfit’ — the mnemonic for the forbidden short ones
- יְרוּקִּין פְּסוּלִין = ‘green ones are unfit’ — the mnemonic for the forbidden yellow ones
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא / ברייתא
Rav Yehuda identifies the biblical shalakh and dukhifat; the dukhifat brought the shamir
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״שָׁלָךְ״, זֶה הַשּׁוֹלֶה דָּגִים מִן הַיָּם. ״דּוּכִיפַת״, שֶׁהוֹדוֹ כָּפוּת. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: דּוּכִיפַת, שֶׁהוֹדוֹ כָּפוּת, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁהֵבִיא שָׁמִיר לְבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda says: As for the shalakh, listed as a non-kosher bird (see Leviticus 11:17), this is the bird that scoops [sholeh] fish out of the sea. The dukhifat (see Leviticus 11:19) is the bird whose comb seems bent [hodo kafut] due to its thickness. The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: The dukhifat is the bird whose comb seems bent, and this is the bird that brought the shamir to the Temple. As recounted in tractate Gittin (68b), King Solomon required a unique worm called the shamir to carve stones of the Temple, as the verse states: “There was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building” (I Kings 6:7).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda decodes two of the Torah’s listed non-kosher birds by etymology: the shalakh is the bird that ‘draws up’ (sholeh) fish from the sea, and the dukhifat is the bird whose comb seems ‘bent/bound’ (hodo kafut). A supporting baraita adds the famous aggadic identification of the dukhifat as the bird that brought the shamir — the miraculous stone-cutting worm — to Solomon, since iron tools could not be used in building the Temple (I Kings 6:7).
Key Terms:
- שָׁלָךְ = a listed non-kosher bird, read as the one that draws up (sholeh) fish
- דּוּכִיפַת = the hoopoe-type bird, ‘whose comb is bent’ (hodo kafut)
- שָׁמִיר = the shamir, the worm/agent that cut the Temple stones without iron
Segment 4
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Yochanan’s verses on seeing the shalakh and an ant — God’s justice and providence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, כִּי הֲוָה חָזֵי שָׁלָךְ, אָמַר: ״מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ תְּהוֹם רַבָּה״. כִּי הֲוָה חָזֵי נְמָלָה, אָמַר: ״צִדְקָתְךָ כְּהַרְרֵי אֵל״.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: When Rabbi Yoḥanan would see a shalakh, he would say: “Your judgments are like the great deep” (Psalms 36:7), as God exacts retribution even upon the fish in the sea. When he would see an ant, he would say the first half of the same verse: “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,” as God provides sustenance for the tiny ant just as He does for the largest creatures.
קלאוד על הדף:
A brief aggadic interlude on the religious sensibility of Rabbi Yochanan. Seeing the shalakh (which snatches fish from the deep), he would recite ‘Your judgments are like the great deep’ (Psalms 36:7), reflecting that God’s justice reaches even the fish; seeing a lowly ant, he would recite the verse’s first half, ‘Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,’ reflecting that God sustains even the tiniest creature. The two halves of one verse capture both divine judgment and divine providence.
Key Terms:
- שָׁלָךְ = the fish-snatching bird that prompted the verse on God’s deep judgments
- נְמָלָה = an ant, prompting the verse on God’s far-reaching righteousness
- מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ תְּהוֹם רַבָּה = ‘Your judgments are like the great deep’ (Psalms 36:7)
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Ameimar: certain birds permitted; for look-alikes, local custom governs because of confusion with peres/ozniyya
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: לַקְנִי וּבָטְנִי – שַׁרְיָין, שַׁקְנַאי וּבָטְנַאי – מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לֶאֱכוֹל אוֹכְלִין, מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכוֹל אֵין אוֹכְלִין. אַטּוּ בְּמִנְהֲגָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא? אִין, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּאַתְרָא דִּשְׁכִיחִי פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה, הָא בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה.
English Translation:
Ameimar says: The laknei and batnei birds are permitted. As for the sakna’ei and batna’ei birds, in any place that it is customary to eat them, one may eat them; in any place that it is customary not to eat them, one may not eat them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the matter of whether it is permitted depends on custom? The Gemara responds: Yes, but it is not difficult: This place where they are forbidden is a place where the peres and ozniyya are found. Since they are similar to these birds, one must be concerned that people will confuse them, even though the sakna’ei and batna’ei are themselves kosher. That place where they are permitted is a place where the peres and ozniyya are not found.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ameimar rules that the laknei and batnei are outright permitted, but the similar sakna’ei and batna’ei follow local custom. The Gemara is troubled that kashrut should hinge on custom, and resolves that the custom tracks a real concern: where the non-kosher peres and ozniyya are found, people might confuse these look-alikes with them, so the custom is to refrain; where those predators are absent, no confusion arises and the birds are eaten. The ‘custom’ is thus a reasoned safeguard, not arbitrary.
Key Terms:
- מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ = ‘a place where they were accustomed’ — local custom as the governing factor
- פֶּרֶס וְעׇזְנִיָּה = two non-kosher birds with which the look-alikes might be confused
- שְׁכִיחִי / לָא שְׁכִיחִי = [where they] are found / are not found
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
Abaye on the kevai/kakvai (forbidden) and kakvata (permitted); flogged in Eretz Yisrael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: קוּאֵי וְקָקוֹאֵי אֲסִירִי, קָקוֹאֲתָא שַׁרְיָא. בְּמַעְרְבָא מַלְקוּ עִילָּוַהּ, וְקָרוּ לַהּ תַּחְוָותָא.
English Translation:
Abaye says: The birds called kevai and kakvai are forbidden, but the kakvata is permitted. Still, in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they flog one who eats it on its account, and they call it taḥveta.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye adds another set of near-homonyms: the kevai and kakvai are forbidden, while the kakvata is permitted. He notes a regional stringency — in the West (Eretz Yisrael) they flogged anyone who ate even the kakvata and called it by a different name (tachveta), reflecting a local practice to forbid it. The passage illustrates how the same bird could be treated differently in Babylonia and Eretz Yisrael.
Key Terms:
- קוּאֵי וְקָקוֹאֵי = the kevai and kakvai, forbidden birds
- קָקוֹאֲתָא = the kakvata, permitted in Babylonia
- בְּמַעְרְבָא = ‘in the West,’ i.e., Eretz Yisrael
- מַלְקוּ עִילָּוַהּ = they administer lashes on its account
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
The tinshemet of the bird-list is identified via the ‘derived from context’ hermeneutic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תִּנְשֶׁמֶת״ בָּאוָת שֶׁבָּעוֹפוֹת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בָּאוָת שֶׁבָּעוֹפוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בָּאוָת שֶׁבַּשְּׁרָצִים? אָמַרְתָּ: צֵא וּלְמַד מִשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה נִדְרֶשֶׁת בָּהֶן, דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ. בְּמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? בְּעוֹפוֹת, אַף כָּאן בְּעוֹפוֹת.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: The tinshemet, listed in the Torah as non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:18), is the ba’ut among birds. One might ask: Do you say that it is the ba’ut among birds, or is it only the ba’ut among creeping animals? The tinshemet is also listed among the creeping animals (see Leviticus 11:30). Say: Go out and learn from the thirteen hermeneutical principles, of which one is: A matter derived from its context. What are the adjacent verses speaking about? They are speaking about birds. So too here, the word tinshemet is referring to birds.
קלאוד על הדף:
The tinshemet appears in the Torah twice — once among birds (Leviticus 11:18) and once among creeping creatures (11:30) — raising the question of which creature each instance denotes. The baraita applies the hermeneutical principle davar ha-lamed me-inyano (a matter learned from its context): since the surrounding verses in the bird-list speak of birds, the tinshemet there must be a bird. This is a clean application of one of the thirteen middot by which the Torah is expounded.
Key Terms:
- תִּנְשֶׁמֶת = a name appearing in both the bird-list and the creeping-creature list
- בָּאוָת = the ba’ut, the creature identified as the tinshemet
- דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ = ‘a matter learned from its context’ — one of the 13 hermeneutical principles
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
The parallel baraita applies the same contextual rule to the tinshemet in the creeping-creature list
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי שְׁרָצִים כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא: ״תִּנְשֶׁמֶת״ בָּאוָת שֶׁבַּשְּׁרָצִים. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בָּאוָת שֶׁבַּשְּׁרָצִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בָּאוָת שֶׁבָּעוֹפוֹת? אָמַרְתָּ: צֵא וּלְמַד מִשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה נִדְרֶשֶׁת בָּהֶן, דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ – בְּמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? בִּשְׁרָצִים, אַף כָּאן בִּשְׁרָצִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: It is also taught in a baraita in this way with regard to the tinshemet listed among the creeping animals: The tinshemet here is the ba’ut among creeping animals. One might ask: Do you say that it is the ba’ut among creeping animals, or it is only the ba’ut among birds? Say: Go out and learn from the thirteen hermeneutical principles, of which one is: A matter derived from its context. What are the adjacent verses speaking about? They are speaking about creeping animals. So too here, the word tinshemet is referring to creeping animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The companion baraita runs the identical logic in the other direction. For the tinshemet listed among the sheratzim (creeping creatures), the same davar ha-lamed me-inyano principle shows it must be a creeping creature, since its neighboring verses concern sheratzim. The two baraitot together demonstrate that one shared name yields two distinct creatures, each fixed by its own context.
Key Terms:
- שְׁרָצִים = creeping/swarming creatures, the context of the second tinshemet
- כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא = ‘in like manner’ — the parallel application of the rule
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Abaye names the two tinshemet creatures; Rav Yehuda identifies the ka’at and racham
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בָּאוָת שֶׁבָּעוֹפוֹת – קִיפוֹף, בָּאוָת שֶׁבַּשְּׁרָצִים – קוּרְפְּדַאי. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״קָאָת״ – זוֹ הַקּוּק, ״רָחָם״ – זוֹ שְׁרַקְרַק.
English Translation:
Abaye says: The ba’ut among birds is commonly called the kifof. The ba’ut among creeping animals is commonly called the kurpedai. Rav Yehuda says: As for the ka’at listed in the Torah as non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:18), this is the bird called a kuk. As for the raḥam, this is the sherakrak.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye supplies the colloquial names: the bird-tinshemet is the kifof (an owl-type) and the creeping-tinshemet is the kurpedai. Rav Yehuda then identifies two more Torah birds — the ka’at as the kuk and the racham as the sherakrak — continuing the project of mapping the Torah’s archaic bird-names onto the birds known in the rabbis’ own day.
Key Terms:
- קִיפוֹף = the kifof, the bird-tinshemet (an owl-type)
- קוּרְפְּדַאי = the kurpedai, the creeping-creature tinshemet
- קָאָת = a listed non-kosher bird, identified as the kuk
- רָחָם = a listed non-kosher bird, identified as the sherakrak
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Yochanan on the name racham (mercy); its sound as a sign of rain or of the Messiah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ רָחָם? כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא רָחָם בָּאוּ רַחֲמִים לְעוֹלָם. אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: וְהוּא דְּיָתֵיב אַמִּידֵּי וְעָבֵיד ״שְׁרַקְרַק״, וּגְמִירִי דְּאִי יָתֵיב אַאַרְעָא וְשָׁרֵיק – אֲתָא מְשִׁיחָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶשְׁרְקָה לָהֶם וַאֲקַבְּצֵם״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is it called the raḥam? Because when the raḥam comes to Eretz Yisrael, mercy [raḥamim] comes to the world, as it appears at the beginning of the rainy season. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: And it is a sign of rain only when it sits on something and makes a sherakrak sound. And it is learned as a tradition that if it sits on the ground and hisses [veshareik], this is a sign that the Messiah is coming, as it is stated: “I will hiss [eshreka] for them, and gather them” (Zechariah 10:8).
קלאוד על הדף:
An aggadic note on the racham, whose name evokes rachamim (mercy): when it arrives, mercy in the form of rain comes to the world. Rav Beivai bar Abaye qualifies that it portends rain only when it perches and makes its sherakrak call; and a tradition holds that if it sits on the ground and hisses (shareik), it heralds the Messiah, derived from ‘I will hiss (eshreka) for them and gather them’ (Zechariah 10:8). The bird’s behavior becomes a folk-omen anchored to a verse.
Key Terms:
- רָחָם = the racham bird, linked by name to rachamim (mercy)
- שְׁרַקְרַק = its characteristic call, a sign of rain
- אֶשְׁרְקָה לָהֶם וַאֲקַבְּצֵם = ‘I will hiss for them and gather them’ (Zechariah 10:8) — the verse linking its hiss to redemption
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא
A challenge from a racham that hissed yet brought no Messiah — answered: it was a ‘liar’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר שִׁימִי לְמָר בַּר רַב אִידַאי: וְהָא הָהוּא דְּיָתֵיב בֵּי כְרָבָא וּשְׁרַק, וַאֲתָא גָּלָל אַפְסְקֵיהּ לְמוֹחֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא בַּיָּידָא הֲוָה.
English Translation:
Rav Adda bar Shimi said to Mar bar Rav Idai: But wasn’t there a certain raḥam that sat on a plowed field and hissed, and a stone came and broke its head? Mar bar Rav Idai said to him: That raḥam was a liar and was punished for prophesying falsely.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Adda bar Shimi challenges the omen: a certain racham once sat on plowed ground and hissed, yet instead of redemption a stone struck and killed it. Mar bar Rav Idai answers that this particular bird was a ‘liar’ (bayyada) — it gave a false sign and was punished for it. The exchange preserves the omen-tradition while accounting for an apparent counterexample, treating the false portent itself as the bird’s offense.
Key Terms:
- בֵּי כְרָבָא = a plowed field
- גָּלָל = a stone, which struck the bird
- בַּיָּידָא = a liar/false one — the explanation for the failed omen
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita expounds ‘every orev after its kinds’ to include the valley-crow and a pigeon-headed crow
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עוֹרֵב״ – זֶה עוֹרֵב, ״אֶת כׇּל עוֹרֵב״ – לְהָבִיא עוֹרֵב הָעִמְקִי, ״לְמִינוֹ״ – לְהָבִיא עוֹרֵב הָבֵא בְּרָאשֵׁי יוֹנִים.
English Translation:
With regard to the verse: “Every orev after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:15), the Sages taught in a baraita: As for the orev, this is the crow. When the verse states: “Every orev,” this serves to include the valley crow as non-kosher. And the verse states: “After its kinds,” to include the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita mines the verse ‘every orev after its kinds’ (Leviticus 11:15) for additional forbidden species. The base word orev is the common crow; the inclusive ‘every orev’ adds the orev ha-amki (valley crow); and ‘after its kinds’ adds a crow that ‘comes at the heads of pigeons.’ Each extra phrase in the verse is read as expanding the prohibited category, a classic ribbui (inclusion) derashah that the next segments unpack.
Key Terms:
- עוֹרֵב = the common crow
- עוֹרֵב הָעִמְקִי = the ‘valley crow,’ added by the verse
- לְהָבִיא = ‘to include’ — the marker of an inclusionary derashah
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying the baraita: ‘orev’ means the black crow; the valley-crow is white
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: ״עוֹרֵב״ – זֶה עוֹרֵב. אַטּוּ קַמַּן קָאֵי? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: ״עוֹרֵב״ – זֶה עוֹרֵב אוּכָּמָא, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״קְוֻצּוֹתָיו תַּלְתַּלִּים שְׁחֹרוֹת כָּעוֹרֵב״. הָעִמְקִי – חִיוָּורָא, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּמַרְאֵהוּ עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר״, כְּמַרְאֵה חַמָּה הָעֲמוּקָּה מִן הַצֵּל.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: The Master said: As for the orev, this is the crow. Is that to say that the particular crow stands before us, such that one immediately knows which one it is? Rather, say: As for the orev, this is the black crow, and so the verse states: “His locks are curled, and black as a crow” (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara continues to explain the baraita: The valley crow [ha’amaki] is the white crow. And so the verse states with regard to leprosy: “If the appearance thereof be deeper [amok] than the skin” (Leviticus 13:30), and the Sages explained: As the appearance of an area lit by the sun, which seems deeper than the shade, which appears to cover it. There is therefore an association between a valley and the color white.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara refines the baraita’s terse identifications. ‘Orev is the crow’ cannot mean an unspecified bird before us, so it must mean the black crow, as in ‘black as a crow’ (Song of Songs 5:11). The orev ha-amki is then the white crow, the link being a wordplay on amok (‘deep’): just as a sunlit spot looks ‘deeper’ than shade, the term amki is associated with the bright/white coloration. The exegesis ties color to the verse’s vocabulary.
Key Terms:
- עוֹרֵב אוּכָּמָא = the black crow
- שְׁחֹרוֹת כָּעוֹרֵב = ‘black as a crow’ (Song of Songs 5:11)
- חִיוָּורָא = white — the color of the valley crow
- עָמֹק = ‘deep,’ the term linked by wordplay to the white/sunlit appearance
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa clarifies ‘the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons’ — it resembles a pigeon’s head
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹרֵב הַבָּא בְּרָאשֵׁי יוֹנִים, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא דְּאָתֵי בְּרֵישׁ יוֹנֵי, אֶלָּא דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לִדְיוֹנָה.
English Translation:
And with regard to the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons, Rav Pappa said: Do not say that the baraita means that it comes at the head of pigeons, i.e., it dwells with them; rather, it means that this crow’s head resembles that of a pigeon.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa corrects a possible misreading. ‘The crow that comes at the heads of pigeons’ does not mean a crow that dwells among or alights on pigeons, but a crow whose own head resembles that of a pigeon. The clarification keeps the derashah grounded in a physical, identifying feature rather than the bird’s habits.
Key Terms:
- בְּרָאשֵׁי יוֹנִים = ‘at the heads of pigeons’ — reinterpreted as resembling a pigeon’s head
- דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לִדְיוֹנָה = that its head resembles a pigeon’s
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita: ‘the netz after its kinds’ includes the bar chireya (shurineka)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַנֵּץ״ – זֶה הַנֵּץ, ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – לְהָבִיא אֶת בַּר חִירְיָא. מַאי בַּר חִירְיָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שׁוּרִינְקָא.
English Translation:
With regard to the verse: “And the netz after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:16), the Sages taught: As for the netz, this is the hawk. The verse states: “After its kinds,” to include the bird called bar ḥireya. The Gemara asks: What is the bar ḥireya? Abaye said: It is the bird commonly called the shurineka.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita reads ‘the netz (hawk) after its kinds’ (Leviticus 11:16) to include an additional bird, the bar chireya, which Abaye identifies as the shurineka. As with the orev, the phrase ‘after its kinds’ functions as an inclusion, broadening a named non-kosher bird to embrace a related species.
Key Terms:
- נֵץ = the netz, a hawk
- לְמִינֵהוּ = ‘after its kinds,’ here an inclusion
- בַּר חִירְיָא / שׁוּרִינְקָא = the included bird, identified as the shurineka
Segment 16
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Yehuda identifies the chasida and anafa with charitable and quarrelsome etymologies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״הַחֲסִידָה״ – זוֹ דַּיָּה לְבָנָה. לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ חֲסִידָה? שֶׁעוֹשָׂה חֲסִידוּת עִם חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ. ״הָאֲנָפָה״ – זוֹ דַּיָּה רַגְזָנִית. לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ אֲנָפָה? שֶׁמְּנָאָפֶת עִם חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ.
English Translation:
With regard to the verse: “And the ḥasida, and the anafa after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:19), Rav Yehuda says: As for the ḥasida, this is the white dayya. And why is it called ḥasida? Since it performs charity [ḥasidut] for its fellows, giving them from its own food. As for the anafa, this is the irritable dayya. And why is it called anafa? Since it quarrels [mena’efet] with its fellows.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda identifies the chasida and anafa (Leviticus 11:19) as two types of dayya (kite), distinguished by character drawn from their names. The chasida (‘kind one’) is the white dayya, so called because it does chesed for its fellows, sharing its food; the anafa (‘angry one’) is the irritable dayya, named for quarreling with its fellows. The aggadic etymology reads moral temperament into the bird’s name.
Key Terms:
- חֲסִידָה = the chasida, the white dayya, named for chesed (kindness)
- אֲנָפָה = the anafa, the irritable dayya, named for quarreling
- דַּיָּה = a kite, the genus of both birds
Segment 17
TYPE: מימרא / קושיא
Rav: there are 24 non-kosher birds; a count of the Torah’s lists falls short
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב חָנָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר רַב: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין הֵן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: דְּהֵיכָא? אִי דְּוַיִּקְרָא – עֶשְׂרִים הָווּ, אִי דְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה – עֶשְׂרִים וְחַד הָווּ, וְכִי תֵּימָא דָּאָה דִּכְתִיבָא בְּוַיִּקְרָא וְלָא כְּתִיבָא בְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה שִׁדְיַיהּ עֲלַיְיהוּ – אַכַּתִּי עֶשְׂרִין וּתְרֵין הָווּ!
English Translation:
§ Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ḥanan, son of Rava, says that Rav says: There are twenty-four non-kosher birds. Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Ḥisda, his father: From where in the Torah is this number obtained? If you are referring to the list of Leviticus (11:13–19), there are only twenty birds listed there. If you are referring to the list of Deuteronomy (14:12–18), there are only twenty-one there. And if you would say: Add the da’a, which is written in Leviticus but is not written in Deuteronomy, to the others in Deuteronomy, still there are only twenty-two.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav (via a chain of tradents) states the canonical count: there are twenty-four non-kosher birds. His grandson immediately challenges the arithmetic — Leviticus lists only twenty, Deuteronomy twenty-one, and even adding the da’a (in Leviticus but not Deuteronomy) reaches only twenty-two. The discrepancy launches the extended sugya, spanning into 63b, that reconciles the count of twenty-four.
Key Terms:
- עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין = the twenty-four non-kosher birds
- דְּוַיִּקְרָא / דְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה = the list in Leviticus / in Deuteronomy
- דָּאָה = the da’a, listed in Leviticus but not Deuteronomy
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
The four ‘after its kinds’ phrases add four; Abaye begins resolving the overcount via da’a = ra’a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דְּאִמָּךְ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: ״לְמִינָהּ״ ״לְמִינָהּ״ ״לְמִינוֹ״ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע. אִי הָכִי עֶשְׂרִין וְשֵׁית הָווּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דָּאָה וְרָאָה אַחַת הִיא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ תַּרְתֵּי אִינּוּן,
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said to him: This is what your mother’s father, Rav Ḥanan, son of Rava, said in the name of Rav: The phrases “after its kinds,” “after its kinds,” “after its kinds,” and “after its kinds,” that appear in each list indicate additional cases. Here, then, are four more. The Gemara objects: If so, there are twenty-six, not twenty-four. Abaye said: The da’a mentioned in Leviticus and the ra’a mentioned in Deuteronomy are one bird. As, if it enters your mind that they are two different birds,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda answers in Rav’s name that the four occurrences of ‘after its kinds’ (lemina / lemino / leminehu) across the lists each add a species — four more. But that yields twenty-six, an overcount. Abaye begins the correction: the da’a (Leviticus) and ra’a (Deuteronomy) are one and the same bird, since otherwise the lists’ differing names are unexplained. The reasoning continues onto 63b.
Key Terms:
- לְמִינָהּ / לְמִינוֹ / לְמִינֵהוּ = ‘after its kind(s)’ — each occurrence read as adding a species
- דָּאָה וְרָאָה אַחַת הִיא = the da’a and ra’a are one bird
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ = ‘if it enters your mind’ — introducing a hypothesis to be refuted
Amud Bet (63b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Proof that da’a and ra’a are one: Deuteronomy adds, so the name-swap signals identity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה לְאוֹסוֹפֵי הוּא דַּאֲתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״דָּאָה״ וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״רָאָה״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״דָּאָה״? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִין רָאָה וְדָאָה אַחַת הִיא.
English Translation:
one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “Da’a,” and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: “Ra’a,” and da’a is not written? Rather, conclude from the presence of each on only one list that the ra’a and da’a are one species.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes Abaye’s argument. Since Deuteronomy’s list is assumed to add to Leviticus, if da’a and ra’a were distinct, both names should appear in the cumulative reckoning; instead each name appears on only one list. The cleanest conclusion is that ra’a and da’a are simply two names for one species, reducing the overcount by one.
Key Terms:
- מִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה לְאוֹסוֹפֵי = Deuteronomy’s list comes ‘to add’
- מַאי שְׁנָא = ‘what is different’ — the parallel-structure challenge
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = ‘conclude from this’
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Still 25; Abaye: just as ra’a=da’a, so ayya=dayya, by the same parallel logic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַכַּתִּי עֶשְׂרִין וְחַמְשָׁה הָווּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁרָאָה וְדָאָה אַחַת הִיא, כָּךְ אַיָּה וְדַיָּה אַחַת הִיא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ תַּרְתֵּי אִינּוּן, מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה לְאוֹסוֹפֵי הוּא דַּאֲתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״לְמִינָהּ״ אַאַיָּה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דִּכְתִיב ״לְמִינָהּ״ אַדַּיָּה? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אַיָּה וְדַיָּה אַחַת הִיא.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But still, there are twenty-five birds, not twenty-four. Abaye said: Just as the ra’a and da’a are one species, so too, the ayya and the dayya, the latter of which is mentioned only in Deuteronomy, are one species. As, if it enters your mind that they are two different species, one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya, prohibiting some other kind of ayya, and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the dayya? Why is the ayya not mentioned? Rather, learn from the use of the same phrase with regard to the ayya and dayya that they are one species.
קלאוד על הדף:
The count is now twenty-five, still one too many. Abaye applies the identical reasoning a second time: just as ra’a and da’a are one, so ayya (Leviticus) and dayya (Deuteronomy) are one species. The ‘after its kinds’ attached to one name in each list, with the names split across the two lists, shows they denote the same bird — bringing the total down to the required twenty-four.
Key Terms:
- אַיָּה וְדַיָּה אַחַת הִיא = the ayya and dayya are one bird
- לְמִינָהּ = ‘after its kind’ — attached to ayya in one list, dayya in the other
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
If ayya=dayya, why write both? Rebbi: to leave no opening for a disputant
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאַיָּה וְדַיָּה אַחַת הִיא, לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִיכְתַּב אַיָּה וְדַיָּה? כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֶקְרָא אֲנִי אַיָּה, דַּיָּה לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְבַעַל דִּין לַחְלוֹק, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אַיָּה וְהוּא קוֹרֵא דַּיָּה, אַתָּה קוֹרֵא דַּיָּה וְהוּא קוֹרֵא אַיָּה, לְכָךְ כָּתַב בְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה: ״וְהָרָאָה וְאֶת הָאַיָּה וְהַדַּיָּה לְמִינָהּ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And now that the ayya and dayya are one species, why did the Torah need to write both ayya and dayya in Deuteronomy? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Given that the two are one species, I will read ayya and know that it is forbidden. Why is dayya stated? It is so as not to give a claim to a litigant to disagree, and it should not occur that you call it an ayya and he calls it a dayya and eats it. Likewise, the Torah did not write only dayya so that it will not occur that you call it a dayya and he calls it an ayya and eats it. Therefore, the Torah writes in Deuteronomy: “And the ra’a, and the ayya, and the dayya after its kinds” (Deuteronomy 14:13). Consequently, both the list in Leviticus and that in Deuteronomy enumerate twenty-four birds, in accordance with the statement attributed to Rav.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why the Torah names both ayya and dayya if they are one bird. A baraita of Rebbi answers: to deny a ‘disputant’ (a person seeking a loophole) any opening — lest one insist the forbidden bird is only the ayya, or only the dayya, and permit the other. By naming both (Deuteronomy 14:13), the Torah forecloses the evasion, and the lists settle at twenty-four, confirming Rav.
Key Terms:
- פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְבַעַל דִּין = an opening for a disputant to argue
- אֶקְרָא אֲנִי אַיָּה = ‘I would [just] read ayya’ — i.e., one name would have sufficed logically
- וְהָרָאָה וְאֶת הָאַיָּה וְהַדַּיָּה = Deuteronomy 14:13, naming all three to prevent evasion
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A baraita (‘why repeated?’) challenges Rav; resolved: animals’ repeat adds, birds’ repeat explains
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: לָמָּה נִשְׁנוּ? בִּבְהֵמָה – מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁסוּעָה, וּבָעוֹפוֹת – מִפְּנֵי הָרָאָה. מַאי לָאו, מִדִּבְהֵמָה דְּהָתָם לְאוֹסוֹפֵי, עוֹפוֹת נָמֵי לְאוֹסוֹפֵי? לָא, הָתָם לְאוֹסוֹפֵי, הָכָא לְפָרוֹשֵׁי.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Why is the list of non-kosher animals in Leviticus repeated? It is due to the necessity of adding the shesua (Deuteronomy 14:7), which was not listed in Leviticus. And the list of non-kosher birds is repeated due to the ra’a. What, is it not understood from the fact that the extra list of animals there, in Deuteronomy, is to add animals, that the list of birds is also repeated to add birds? The Gemara responds: No, there, i.e., with regard to animals, the list is repeated to add, but here, with regard to birds, it is repeated only to explain.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita asks why the lists are repeated: for animals, to add the shesua; for birds, ‘because of the ra’a.’ One might infer that, like the animal-list, the bird-list’s repetition also adds a species — undermining Rav’s count. The Gemara distinguishes: the animal repetition adds (the shesua is genuinely new), but the bird repetition only explains/clarifies (the ra’a is not a new bird but a clarifying name), preserving the count of twenty-four.
Key Terms:
- לָמָּה נִשְׁנוּ = ‘why were they repeated?’
- שְׁסוּעָה = the shesua, the genuinely added non-kosher animal
- לְאוֹסוֹפֵי / לְפָרוֹשֵׁי = ‘to add’ / ‘to explain’ — the distinction that saves the count
Segment 5
TYPE: פליגא
Rabbi Abbahu differs: the ra’a is the ayya, named for its sharp sight (Job 28:7)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: רָאָה זוֹ אַיָּה, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ רָאָה? שֶׁרוֹאָה בְּיוֹתֵר, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״נָתִיב לֹא יְדָעוֹ עָיִט וְלֹא שְׁזָפַתּוּ עֵין אַיָּה״, תָּנָא: עוֹמֶדֶת בְּבָבֶל וְרוֹאָה נְבֵלָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
And the opinion that the da’a and ra’a are one species, and that the ayya and dayya are another species, differs from the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: The ra’a is the ayya. And why is it called the ra’a? Since it sees [ro’ah] most vividly. And so the verse states: “That path no bird of prey knows, neither has the eye of the ayya seen it” (Job 28:7). And a Sage taught: The ra’a can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
The foregoing scheme (da’a=ra’a; ayya=dayya) conflicts with Rabbi Abbahu, who holds instead that the ra’a is the ayya — named ra’a because it ‘sees’ (ro’ah) with extraordinary acuity, as in ‘nor has the eye of the ayya seen it’ (Job 28:7). A Sage adds the hyperbole that it can stand in Babylonia and spot a carcass in Eretz Yisrael. This alternative grouping will yield a different total, worked out in the next segments.
Key Terms:
- רָאָה זוֹ אַיָּה = ‘the ra’a is the ayya’ — Rabbi Abbahu’s identification
- שֶׁרוֹאָה בְּיוֹתֵר = ‘it sees exceedingly’ — the etymology of ra’a
- עֵין אַיָּה = ‘the eye of the ayya’ (Job 28:7)
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
On Rabbi Abbahu: since ra’a=ayya, the da’a must also equal them — three names, one bird
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּרָאָה הַיְינוּ אַיָּה, מִכְּלָל דְּדָאָה לָאו הַיְינוּ רָאָה. מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה לְאוֹסוֹפֵי הוּא דַּאֲתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״דָּאָה״, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״דָּאָה״? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דָּאָה וְרָאָה וְאַיָּה אַחַת הִיא.
English Translation:
The Gemara discusses Rabbi Abbahu’s statement: Since the ra’a is the same as the ayya, by inference, one may conclude that the da’a is not the same as the ra’a; otherwise, there are not twenty-four non-kosher birds. But since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “Da’a,” and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that da’a is not written? Rather, must one not conclude from the discrepancy that the two are the same? If so, one must conclude that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da’a and ra’a and ayya are all one species.
קלאוד על הדף:
Working out Rabbi Abbahu’s view: if the ra’a is the ayya, the da’a cannot be a separate bird without breaking the count. The same parallel-structure argument (da’a in Leviticus, absent in Deuteronomy) shows da’a too is identical to ra’a. So for Rabbi Abbahu, da’a, ra’a, and ayya are all one species.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָל = ‘by inference’
- דָּאָה וְרָאָה וְאַיָּה אַחַת הִיא = da’a, ra’a, and ayya are all one bird (per R. Abbahu)
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
And the dayya is distinct from the ayya for R. Abbahu — so he reaches only 23
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִדְּרָאָה הַיְינוּ אַיָּה, מִכְּלַל דְּדַיָּה לָאו הַיְינוּ אַיָּה. מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דִּכְתִיב ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ אַאַיָּה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ אַאַיָּה אֶלָּא אַדַּיָּה? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דָּאָה וְרָאָה דַּיָּה וְאַיָּה אַחַת הִיא.
English Translation:
And furthermore, from the fact that Rabbi Abbahu holds that the ra’a is the same as the ayya, by inference, one may conclude that the dayya is not the same as the ayya. But if so, one may ask again: What is different there, in Leviticus, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya, and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is not written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya but about the dayya? Rather, the ayya and dayya must be one species. And one may learn from the combination of the two disputes that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da’a and ra’a, dayya and ayya are all one species. Consequently, according to Rabbi Abbahu, there are only twenty-three non-kosher species.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing Rabbi Abbahu’s accounting: since ra’a=ayya, the dayya must be a separate bird (the ‘after its kinds’ attaches to dayya in Deuteronomy, not ayya). Folding the three-into-one identification together with the separate dayya, Rabbi Abbahu’s scheme yields only twenty-three non-kosher birds — one short of Rav’s twenty-four, marking a genuine dispute over the count.
Key Terms:
- דַּיָּה לָאו הַיְינוּ אַיָּה = the dayya is not the ayya (for R. Abbahu)
- עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה = twenty-three — Rabbi Abbahu’s resulting total
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Isi: 100 ayya-species in the East; Avimi’s tallies — and ‘countless’ must mean kosher birds
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵאָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין יֵשׁ בַּמִּזְרָח, וְכוּלָּן מִין ״אַיָּה״ הֵן. תָּנֵי אֲבִימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שְׁבַע מֵאוֹת מִינֵי דָגִים הֵן, וּשְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת מִינֵי חֲגָבִים, וּלְעוֹפוֹת אֵין מִסְפָּר. עוֹפוֹת עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבָּעָה הָווּ! אֶלָּא: וּלְעוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִים אֵין מִסְפָּר.
English Translation:
With regard to the phrase: “The ayya after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:14), it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are one hundred non-kosher birds in the East, and they are all species of ayya. Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There are seven hundred types of non-kosher fish, and eight hundred types of non-kosher grasshopper, and there are countless birds. The Gemara protests: Are there countless non-kosher birds? But there are only twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the Torah. Rather, Avimi must have meant: And there are countless kosher birds.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two tannaitic statements on scale. Isi ben Yehuda says there are a hundred non-kosher birds in the East, all ayya-types — i.e., the named birds are umbrella categories. Avimi counts seven hundred fish species and eight hundred grasshopper species ‘and countless birds.’ Since only twenty-four birds are non-kosher, the Gemara emends Avimi: it is the kosher birds that are countless, which dovetails with why the Torah lists the (fewer) non-kosher ones.
Key Terms:
- מִין אַיָּה = ‘a type of ayya’ — the named birds as broad categories
- אֵין מִסְפָּר = ‘without number,’ countless
- עוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִים = kosher birds — the countless category
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Rebbi: the Torah lists the smaller category — kosher animals, but non-kosher birds
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם שֶׁבְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מְרוּבָּה מִן הַטְּהוֹרוֹת, לְפִיכָךְ מָנָה הַכָּתוּב בַּטְּהוֹרָה. גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם שֶׁעוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִין מְרוּבִּין עַל הַטְּמֵאִין, לְפִיכָךְ מָנָה הַכָּתוּב בַּטְּמֵאִין.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of non-kosher animals are more numerous than the kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the kosher animals, teaching that all the rest are non-kosher. On the other hand, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of kosher birds are more numerous than the non-kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rebbi explains the Torah’s asymmetric method. Non-kosher animals outnumber kosher ones, so the Torah lists the (shorter) kosher set and forbids the rest; non-kosher birds are fewer than kosher ones, so the Torah lists the (shorter) non-kosher set and permits the rest. In each case the Torah enumerates the smaller category — an economy of expression.
Key Terms:
- מָנָה הַכָּתוּב בַּטְּהוֹרָה = ‘the verse counted by the kosher ones’ — for animals
- מָנָה הַכָּתוּב בַּטְּמֵאִין = ‘the verse counted by the non-kosher ones’ — for birds
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The lesson: teach concisely, as the Torah counts only the smaller list
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לְעוֹלָם יִשְׁנֶה אָדָם לְתַלְמִידוֹ דֶּרֶךְ קְצָרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is this baraita teaching us? The Gemara responds: As Rav Huna says that Rav says, and some say that Rav Huna says that Rav says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner, just as the Torah is concise in its language.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what practical lesson Rebbi’s observation teaches, and answers with Rav’s maxim (in the name of Rabbi Meir): a person should always teach his student in a concise manner. The Torah’s economy in listing only the smaller category models the pedagogical value of brevity — saying as much as possible in as few words as possible.
Key Terms:
- דֶּרֶךְ קְצָרָה = ‘a concise manner’ — the pedagogical principle
- לְעוֹלָם יִשְׁנֶה אָדָם לְתַלְמִידוֹ = ‘one should always teach one’s student’
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yitzchak: a kosher bird may be eaten by tradition; the hunter is believed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עוֹף טָהוֹר נֶאֱכָל בְּמָסוֹרֶת, נֶאֱמָן הַצַּיָּיד לוֹמַר: עוֹף זֶה טָהוֹר, מָסַר לִי רַבִּי. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁבָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A kosher bird may be eaten on the strength of a tradition that it is kosher, without inspecting for the signs listed in the mishna. And the hunter is deemed credible to say: My teacher conveyed to me that this bird is kosher. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this is the halakha only when the teacher is familiar with the non-kosher birds and with their names.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak introduces the practical alternative to checking signs: a kosher bird may be eaten on the strength of a received tradition (masoret), and a hunter is believed to say ‘my teacher transmitted to me that this bird is kosher.’ Rabbi Yochanan qualifies the credibility: it holds only when the teacher was expert in the non-kosher birds and their names. This is the mesorah-based system that governs bird kashrut in practice.
Key Terms:
- נֶאֱכָל בְּמָסוֹרֶת = ‘eaten on [the strength of] tradition’
- נֶאֱמָן הַצַּיָּיד = the hunter is believed/credible
- בָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן = expert in them and their names
Segment 12
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Zeira: is the credible ‘teacher’ the Sage or the hunter? Resolved: the hunter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: רַבּוֹ חָכָם, אוֹ רַבּוֹ צַיָּיד? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁבָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבּוֹ צַיָּיד – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רַבּוֹ חָכָם, בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁמַיְיהוּ גְּמִיר לְהוּ, אֶלָּא אִינְהוּ מִי יָדַע לְהוּ? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: רַבּוֹ צַיָּיד. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Was Rabbi Yoḥanan referring to the hunter’s teacher the Sage, or to his teacher the hunter, i.e., the one who taught him how to hunt? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this applies only when the teacher is familiar with them and with their names. Granted, if you say this is referring to his teacher the hunter, this works out well. But if you say it is referring to his teacher the Sage, granted, a Sage will know their names, since he has learned them, but does he recognize the birds themselves? Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Yoḥanan referred to his teacher the hunter? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira asks whether Rabbi Yochanan’s required expert ‘teacher’ is the scholar (chacham) or the professional hunter (tzayyad). The proof resolves it: Rabbi Yochanan required familiarity with the birds and their names. A scholar would know the names from study but might not recognize the actual birds; only a hunter knows both. Hence the credible transmitter is the hunter, whose field knowledge underwrites the tradition.
Key Terms:
- רַבּוֹ חָכָם / רַבּוֹ צַיָּיד = his teacher the Sage / his teacher the hunter
- גְּמִיר לְהוּ = ‘he has learned them’ — i.e., the names, by study
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = ‘conclude from it’ — the resolution
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita: one may buy eggs from gentiles anywhere, without fear of neveila or tereifa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוֹקְחִין בֵּיצִים מִן הַגּוֹיִם בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לֹא מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלוֹת וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: One may buy eggs from the gentiles anywhere, and one need not be concerned, neither with regard to carcasses, i.e., that the egg may have been removed from a carcass of a bird and therefore forbidden, nor with regard to eggs from tereifot, because neither of these possibilities is likely.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new sugya on eggs. The baraita permits buying eggs from gentiles anywhere, without concern that they came from a carcass (neveila) or a tereifa — such origins being unlikely. The discussion that follows probes how this is reconciled with the real concern that the eggs might come from a non-kosher bird, since egg kashrut tracks the kashrut of the bird that laid them.
Key Terms:
- לוֹקְחִין בֵּיצִים מִן הַגּוֹיִם = one may buy eggs from gentiles
- נְבֵלוֹת = carcass-origin (a bird that died improperly)
- טְרֵפוֹת = tereifa-origin
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
The non-kosher-bird worry: the gentile must name a known-kosher species, so claims can be checked
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִילְמָא דְּעוֹף טָמֵא נִינְהוּ? אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: בְּאוֹמֵר שֶׁל עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי טָהוֹר. וְלֵימָא שֶׁל עוֹף טָהוֹר? אִי הָכִי, אִית לֵיהּ לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But perhaps they are from a non-kosher bird. Shmuel’s father said: The baraita is referring to a case where the gentile says they are of such and such bird, which is known to be kosher. The Gemara challenges: But if the gentile is deemed credible, let him say only that they are of a kosher bird. Why does he need to name the species? The Gemara responds: If so, if he does not name the species, he has the opportunity to deflect scrutiny if he is dishonest; but if he names the species, one can bring other eggs of the same species to compare and validate the claim.
קלאוד על הדף:
Responding to the worry that the eggs might be from a non-kosher bird, Shmuel’s father limits the baraita to where the gentile names a specific kosher species. Why must he name it rather than just say ‘kosher’? Because a vague claim leaves him room to ‘wriggle out’ (le-ishtemutei) if challenged, whereas a named species can be verified by comparing the eggs to known specimens of that species. The naming makes the claim falsifiable.
Key Terms:
- עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי טָהוֹר = ‘such-and-such [named] kosher bird’
- לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי = ‘to wriggle out / deflect’ — why a vague claim is insufficient
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Why not just check egg signs? A baraita compares egg-signs to ‘fish-signs’ (text breaks off)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִבְדּוֹק בְּסִימָנִין! דְּתַנְיָא: כְּסִימָנֵי בֵיצִים כָּךְ סִימָנֵי דָגִים. סִימָנֵי דָגִים סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? ״סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כָּךְ סִימָנֵי
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But why must one rely on the gentile? Let him inspect the eggs for signs, as it is taught in a baraita: Like the signs of kosher eggs, so too are the signs of fish. The Gemara interjects: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to the signs of fish? The Merciful One states them explicitly in the Torah: “Fins and scales” (Leviticus 11:9). Rather, say: So too are the signs of
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses: rather than rely on the gentile, why not simply inspect the eggs for their own kosher signs, as a baraita teaches ‘like the signs of eggs, so the signs of fish’? It immediately objects that fish-signs cannot be meant, since the Torah states fish-signs explicitly (fins and scales, Leviticus 11:9) — so the baraita must mean something else. The amud breaks off mid-sentence, the resolution continuing on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנֵי בֵיצִים = the [kosher] signs of eggs
- סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת = ‘fins and scales’ — the explicit Torah signs of kosher fish
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ = ‘could you really think?’ — flagging an untenable reading