The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Massechet Chullin, has been dedicated by our good friend Mr. Joey Jamal and his wife in honor of their son Jack’s engagement to Shirley Sutton, and in honor of the marriage. In the merit of the Torah learning that we will have over the next several months in Massechet Chullin, may they enjoy much nachat, peace in the home, peace, prosperity, and all the blessings. Amen.
Today’s daf is being studied in the merit of that dedication. We begin today’s daf on page 60b, at the bottom line. It is a quotation from the Mishnah.
The Torah lists the names of non-kosher birds, but it does not tell us explicitly which signs make a bird non-kosher. The Gemara asks: How can you say that the Torah does not give us the signs? We have a baraita that explains them.
There is a major disagreement about exactly what the eagle is. Some identify it as an eagle, while others identify it as a bald eagle. There are different opinions, but it belongs to the eagle family. The Torah mentions the eagle as one of the non-kosher birds.
What are the unique characteristics of the eagle? It does not have an extra finger. We previously learned that kosher birds have an extra or elongated finger. The eagle does not have that sign. It also does not have a crop, which is the small pouch into which food enters before reaching the actual gizzard. In addition, its gizzard cannot be peeled away; it does not have the texture that allows it to be peeled.
The eagle also eats animals while they are still alive. It pursues them and is a predator. We learned that the definition of predatory behavior involves standing on its feet, lifting food from the ground with its claws, and eating it while holding it. There are different opinions regarding the exact definition of this behavior, but the eagle is considered predatory.
Thus, the eagle has none of the four signs of a kosher bird. It is zero for four. The Torah therefore teaches: Just as the eagle has all four of these negative characteristics and is non-kosher, so too, any bird resembling it is non-kosher.
When the Torah discusses kosher birds, it lists the turtle dove. The Torah says not only that it is kosher, but also that it may be brought on the altar. The turtle dove has all four positive characteristics: it has the extra or elongated finger, it has a crop, its gizzard can be peeled, and it is not predatory. The Torah therefore teaches that any bird resembling it is kosher.
We now have the signs. The eagle is zero for four, and the turtle dove is four for four. These are the four signs that distinguish kosher from non-kosher birds.
Rabbi Abaye says that this explanation is not stated explicitly in the Torah itself; rather, it comes from the words of the Sages. The Torah itself explicitly states the signs of kosher animals—chewing the cud and having split hooves—and the signs of kosher fish—fins and scales. But regarding birds, the Torah merely lists the eagle and the turtle dove. The Sages came and explained which characteristics the eagle lacks and which characteristics the turtle dove possesses.
This is what it means that the explanation is not explicit in the Torah. Of course, we can deduce it from the Torah, but the Torah does not spell out the signs themselves.
The Gemara now discusses the implications of this derivation. It says that the eagle is unique in that it lacks all four signs. Accordingly, if a bird lacks even one of these four signs, it should be non-kosher, because it is like the eagle.
Rashi explains that when the Torah says that birds resembling the eagle are non-kosher, it is referring to birds that possess none of the four signs. The eagle is unique in having none of them. Therefore, a bird that has even one of the four signs is not included in the category of the eagle and is kosher—provided that it is not one of the specific birds listed in the Torah as non-kosher.
This is an important qualification. There are twenty-four non-kosher birds listed in the Torah. Most of them have some of the signs of kosher birds. Some have three signs, some have two, and some have one. Nevertheless, they are non-kosher because the Torah explicitly identifies them. Outside that group of birds, however, a bird with even one kosher sign may be considered kosher.
The Gemara brings a baraita taught by Rabbi Chiya: Any bird that possesses one kosher sign is kosher, because it does not resemble the eagle. Certainly, if it possesses two or three kosher signs, it is kosher, provided that one recognizes that it is not one of the twenty-four birds explicitly listed in the Torah.
The Gemara now seeks the source for this ruling. Why should one kosher sign be sufficient? Perhaps we should derive the law from the turtle dove. Just as the turtle dove has all four signs, perhaps every kosher bird must have all four signs.
The Gemara answers that if this were the rule, there would be no reason for the Torah to list all the other non-kosher birds. If a bird must have all four signs to be kosher, then once the Torah tells us about the turtle dove, we would know that any bird with fewer than four signs is non-kosher. Why would the Torah need to list the other birds?
The fact that the Torah lists those other birds must teach us that, in principle, a bird with fewer than four signs can be kosher. Even a bird with three signs can be kosher, and, ultimately, even a bird with two or one sign can be kosher. The birds listed in the Torah are exceptions: although they possess some kosher signs, they are non-kosher because the Torah specifically excludes them.
Rashi explains that twenty of the twenty-four non-kosher birds have three kosher signs. Among them are the raven, the peres, and the ozniyah. If the law were that a bird must have all four signs in order to be kosher, the Torah would not need to list these birds. Their listing demonstrates that three signs can ordinarily be sufficient, although these particular birds are excluded.
The Gemara then asks whether we might instead learn from the non-kosher birds that have three signs. Twenty of the listed birds have three kosher signs, yet they may not be eaten. Perhaps we should establish the principle that a bird with three signs is non-kosher. That could serve as the foundational rule, and we would certainly know that a bird with only two signs is non-kosher as well.
The Gemara rejects this reasoning. If three signs were always insufficient, why would the Torah need to list the raven, which has only two signs? The listing of the raven would then teach that even two signs are insufficient, implying that three signs are acceptable. In other words, the Torah’s progression indicates that the birds with three signs are special exceptions, and that birds with three signs are generally kosher.
The Gemara now asks why the Torah had to list the peres and the ozniyah, which possess only one kosher sign. If a bird with two signs is non-kosher, then certainly a bird with only one sign should be non-kosher. Why would the Torah need to mention the peres and the ozniyah?
The answer is that their inclusion teaches that, in general, even one kosher sign is sufficient. These birds are special exceptions. Although they each possess one sign, they are non-kosher because the Torah explicitly lists them.
Rashi notes that this discussion will later be connected to the eagle. The Torah’s listing of the peres and the ozniyah demonstrates that one sign can ordinarily be enough, while the eagle demonstrates that a bird with no signs is non-kosher.
The Gemara then asks: If one kosher sign is enough, why was it necessary to mention the eagle at all? Why could we not derive the law from the peres and the ozniyah? They have one sign and are non-kosher. Perhaps we could conclude that any bird with one sign is non-kosher.
The Gemara explains that the peres and the ozniyah are two separate scriptural passages teaching the same principle. There is a general rule that when two verses teach the same law, we do not derive a general principle from them. The fact that the Torah mentions both birds indicates that they are limited exceptions, and that we should not extend their status to other birds.
However, the two birds each have one sign, but not necessarily the same sign. One might therefore have thought that the sign possessed by the peres is insufficient, while the sign possessed by the ozniyah is sufficient, or the reverse. Since the two birds have different signs, they cannot necessarily be treated as identical cases.
This is why the Torah also mentions the eagle. The eagle has no signs at all. From the eagle we learn that a bird with no kosher signs is non-kosher, but a bird with one sign is outside the category of the eagle and is therefore kosher—unless it is one of the specifically listed birds.
The Gemara further analyzes the structure of the twenty-four non-kosher birds. We have a tradition that there are twenty-four such birds and four signs of kosher birds. Twenty of the non-kosher birds possess three of the four signs. The raven possesses two signs, and the peres and the ozniyah each possess one sign.
One might suggest that the twenty birds with three signs must all share the same three signs. If so, perhaps one of the signs possessed by the peres or the ozniyah is also found among those twenty birds. We would then have two scriptural examples showing that this particular sign is insufficient, and perhaps we could derive from them that any bird with that sign is non-kosher.
But this does not work. The signs are distributed in such a way that the cases cannot simply be combined as one unified comparison. The peres and the ozniyah each have one sign, but their signs differ. One of them possesses a sign that may be found among the twenty birds, while the other possesses a different sign. The additional sign possessed by one of them is not necessarily possessed by the other.
Therefore, they cannot be treated as two identical examples teaching that one specific sign is always insufficient. Nor can either one necessarily be combined with the twenty birds, because the comparison involves different combinations of signs. We therefore need the eagle to establish the general rule: a bird with none of the signs is non-kosher, whereas a bird with one, two, or three signs is kosher, as long as it is not one of the birds explicitly listed in the Torah.
The Gemara then returns to the turtle dove. If we already know from the eagle that a bird with even one sign is kosher, why did the Torah need to mention the turtle dove, which possesses all four signs?
The Gemara answers that the turtle dove is not needed to establish the signs of a kosher bird. We already derive that from the eagle. Rather, the turtle dove teaches a different law: not every kosher bird may be brought as a sacrifice. The turtle dove is not only kosher to eat; it is also fit to be brought as an offering on the altar.
One might have thought that the requirements for a sacrificial bird are stricter than the requirements for a bird that may be eaten. The Torah therefore mentions the turtle dove to teach that this particular bird is suitable as a sacrifice as well.
Earlier, when we referred to the turtle dove in order to identify the four positive signs, it was only a point of reference. We were not deriving the signs of kosher birds from the turtle dove. We were comparing it with the eagle in order to identify the four characteristics that distinguish them. The actual source for the rule that a bird with one sign is kosher is the eagle: the eagle lacks all four signs, and the Torah teaches that birds resembling it are non-kosher.