מפת הסוגיא — חולין ס״גSugya map — Chullin 63

רב מסר בשם רב: כ״ד עופות טמאים. שאל רב חנן את רב חסדא אביו: מניין? אם מרשימת ויקרא — רק עשרים; אם ממשנה תורה — עשרים ואחד; ואף אם תוסיף את ה׳דאה׳ שבויקרא ואינה במשנה תורה — עדיין רק עשרים ושניים.

§ 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.

רב חסדא: כך אמר אבי אמך בשם רב — ארבע הלשונות ״למינה״ ״למינה״ ״למינו״ ״למינהו״ מרבות ארבעה עופות נוספים. ואם כן יש כ״ו? אביי: דאה וראה עוף אחד הם, שאם תאמר שני מינים —

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,

המשך אביי: שהרי משנה תורה בא להוסיף — אם דאה וראה שני מינים, מדוע כאן (ויקרא) ׳דאה׳ וכאן (משנה תורה) ׳ראה׳ ולא ׳דאה׳? אלא שמע מינה: ראה ודאה מין אחד הם.

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.

ועדיין כ״ה? אביי: כשם שראה ודאה מין אחד, כך איה ודיה מין אחד; שאם שני מינים — מדוע כאן ׳למינה׳ על האיה וכאן ׳למינה׳ על הדיה? אלא שמע מינה איה ודיה אחת היא. בכך נשלם כ״ד.

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.

ואם איה ודיה אחת — למה נכתבו שתיהן? כברייתא, רבי: אקרא רק ׳איה׳; ׳דיה׳ למה נאמרה? כדי שלא ייתן אדם פתחון פה לחלוק — שלא יקרא אחד ׳איה׳ והשני ׳דיה׳ ויתירנה; לכך כתב משנה תורה את שתי השמות.

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.

מיתיבי מברייתא: למה נשנו הרשימות? בבהמה — מפני השסועה (שלא נמנתה בויקרא), ובעופות — מפני הראה. ואם בבהמה השנייה באה להוסיף, אף בעופות להוסיף — ויהיו יותר מכ״ד! תירוץ: לא; שם להוסיף, כאן הראה רק לפרש.

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.

וזה חולק על רבי אבהו, שאמר: ראה היא איה, ונקראת ׳ראה׳ על שם שרואה ביותר, וכן ״ולא שזפתו עין איה״; ותנא: עומדת בבבל ורואה נבלה בארץ ישראל.

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.

מכך שראה היא איה, נמצא לרבי אבהו שדאה אינה ראה. ושוב: משנה תורה להוסיף בא — מדוע כאן ׳דאה׳ ושם אין ׳דאה׳? אלא שמע מינה: דאה וראה ואיה — לרבי אבהו — מין אחד.

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.

ועוד: מכך שראה היא איה, דיה אינה איה. מדוע שם ׳למינהו׳ על האיה וכאן ׳למינהו׳ על הדיה? אלא שמע מינה: דאה וראה דיה ואיה — לרבי אבהו — אחת הן; ולשיטתו רק כ״ג עופות טמאים.

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.

ברייתא, איסי בן יהודה: מאה עופות טמאים יש במזרח, וכולם מין ׳איה׳. אבימי בנו של רבי אבהו: שבע מאות מיני דגים, שמונה מאות מיני חגבים, ולעופות אין מספר. הקשו: הרי רק כ״ד עופות טמאים! אלא כוונתו: ולעופות הטהורים אין מספר.

§ 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.

ברייתא, רבי: גלוי וידוע לפני הקב״ה שהבהמות הטמאות מרובות מן הטהורות, לכן מנה הכתוב את הטהורות (ושאר טמאות); וגלוי שהעופות הטהורים מרובים מן הטמאים, לכן מנה הכתוב את הטמאים בלבד.

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.

מה משמיעה הברייתא? כדברי רב הונא בשם רב (ויש אומרים משום רבי מאיר): לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו בדרך קצרה — כשם שהתורה קיצרה ומנתה את המעטים.

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.

רבי יצחק: עוף טהור נאכל על פי מסורת, בלי בדיקת סימנים; ונאמן הצייד לומר ׳עוף זה טהור, מסר לי רבי׳. רבי יוחנן: ובלבד שהצייד בקי בעופות ובשמותיהם.

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.

בעי רבי זירא: ה׳רבי׳ שמסר — רבו החכם או רבו הצייד (שלימדו לצוד)? תא שמע מדברי רבי יוחנן ׳שבקי בהן ובשמותיהן׳: אם רבו צייד — מובן; אם רבו חכם — שמותם למד, אך את העופות עצמם אינו מכיר. אלא שמע מינה: רבו צייד.

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.

ברייתא: לוקחים ביצים מן הגוים בכל מקום, ואין חוששים לא משום נבלות (שמא הוצאו מבהמה מתה) ולא משום טרפות, שאין זה מצוי.

§ 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.

קושיא: ושמא הביצים מעוף טמא? אבוה דשמואל: מדובר כשהגוי אומר ׳של עוף פלוני (טהור) הן׳. והקשו: יאמר סתם ׳של עוף טהור׳! תירוץ: אם לא יפרש שם, יוכל להישמט; כשמפרש, אפשר לבדוק בביצה אחרת מאותו מין.

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.

קושיא: ולמה לסמוך על הגוי — יבדוק בסימני הביצה! כברייתא: ״כסימני ביצים כך סימני דגים״. הקשו: סימני דגים? והרי ׳סנפיר וקשקשת׳ נאמרו בתורה! אלא אימא: כך סימני…

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

— עוברי דגים, היינו ביצי הדגים שבמעיהם. (השוואת הברייתא היא בין סימני ביצי עוף לסימני ביצי דגים.)

fish embryos, i.e., fish eggs found in the fish’s innards.

ברייתא בסימני הביצים: ביצה ראשהּ אחד עגול ואחד חד — טהורה; שני ראשיה עגולים או שניהם חדים — טמאים. חלבון מבחוץ וחלמון בפנים — טהורה; חלמון מבחוץ — טמאה; חלמון וחלבון מעורבים — ביצת שרץ.

The Gemara continues: And it is taught in a baraita about eggs that these are the signs of bird eggs: Any egg that narrows at the top and is rounded, so that one of its ends is rounded and the other one of its ends is pointed, is kosher. If both of its ends are rounded or both of its ends are pointed, they are non-kosher. If the albumen is on the outside and the yolk on the inside, it is kosher. If the yolk is on the outside and the albumen on the inside, it is non-kosher. If the yolk and albumen are mixed with each other, it is certainly the egg of a creeping animal. Therefore, if it is possible to recognize a kosher egg by these signs, there is no need to rely on the gentile.

תירוץ: צריך לסמוך על הגוי כשהביצים חתוכות ואין לראות צורתן. ויבדוק בחלמון וחלבון? כשהן טרופות (מעורבבות) בקערה, שאי אפשר להבחין.

The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary if the eggs have already been cut and one cannot know their original shape. The Gemara challenges: But let him inspect the yolk and the albumen, to see which is inside and which is outside. The Gemara responds: The baraita deals with a case where the eggs are mixed in a bowl, and it is impossible to discern this.

קושיא: וכי בכהאי גוונא, טרופות בקערה, קונים מהם? והרי ברייתא: אין מוכרים ביצת טרפה לגוי אלא אם כן טרופה בקערה; לפיכך אין לוקחים מהם ביצים טרופות בקערה, שמא מטרפה הן.

The Gemara counters: But in a case like this, where the eggs are mixed, may we buy eggs from them? Isn’t it taught in another baraita: One may sell the egg of a tereifa bird to a gentile only if it is mixed in a bowl; therefore, one may not buy eggs mixed in a bowl from them, because they may be from tereifot? If so, it cannot be that the baraita deals with a case where they are mixed, and one should be able to inspect the yolk and albumen.

אלא רבי זירא: סימני הביצה אינם מן התורה. שאם תאמר שהם מן התורה — הרי רב אסי אמר ׳שמונה עופות ספק הם׳, יבדקו בביצים שלהם ויכריעו! אלא שמע מינה: סימנין לאו דאורייתא.

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: The signs of a kosher egg are not valid by Torah law. As, if you do not say so, one encounters difficulty with that which Rav Asi says: There are eight birds whose kosher status is uncertain. Why is there uncertainty? Let one inspect their eggs for the signs listed in the baraita to determine whether they are kosher. Rather, learn from it that the signs are not valid by Torah law and one may not rely on them.

אם אינם מן התורה, למה שנו את הסימנים? אלא כך: סימני טומאה (שני ראשים שווים, או חלמון מבחוץ) — ודאי טמאה. ובסימני טהרה — רק כשהגוי מפרש שם עוף טהור, סומך עליו; בסתם — לא, שיש עורב הדומה ליונה.

The Gemara asks: But if one may not rely on these signs, with regard to what halakha is the baraita teaching them? The Gemara responds: This is what the baraita is saying: If both of its ends are rounded, or both its ends are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the albumen is on the inside, it is certainly non-kosher. But if one of its ends is pointed and one of its ends is rounded, and the albumen is on the outside and the yolk on the inside, and the gentile says to you that it is from such and such bird, and that bird is kosher, rely on the signs. But if he offers no specification of the type of bird, or if one simply finds eggs with these signs, do not rely on them, since there are crow’s eggs that resemble those of a pigeon.

אמר מר: חלבון וחלמון מעורבים — ביצת שרץ. למאי הלכתא? הרי בלאו הכי אסורה. רב עוקבא בר חמא: לומר שאם נרקם בה עובר וניקב, בשיעור כעדשה — מטמא, כנבלת שרץ.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: If the albumen and yolk are mixed with each other, it is certainly the egg of a creeping animal and not of a non-kosher bird. The Gemara asks: For what halakha is this information necessary? Either way, the egg is forbidden. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: The baraita means to say that if tissue of an embryo developed [rikema] inside it and it was perforated, and one touched it, it transmits ritual impurity provided that the embryo is at least the size of a lentil-bulk, because the carcass of a creeping animal of this size is a source of ritual impurity.

רבינא הקשה: שמא ביצת נחש היא, שאינו מטמא? אלא רבא: הברייתא לעניין מלקות — שאם נרקם בה עובר ואכלהּ, לוקה משום ״שרץ השורץ על הארץ״.

Ravina objects to this: But perhaps it is the egg of a snake, whose carcass does not transmit ritual impurity, even though the albumen and yolk of its eggs are mixed together. Rather, Rava said: The baraita does not teach about ritual impurity, but rather that if tissue of an embryo developed inside the egg and one ate it, he is flogged on its account, due to the prohibition: “And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).

קושיא: אם כן, מה לי ביצת טמאה? אף בביצת עוף טהור שנרקם בה עובר ואכלהּ — לוקה! כברייתא: ״כל השרץ השורץ על הארץ״ —

The Gemara asks: If so, why specifically mention the egg of a non-kosher creeping animal? The same would apply even for one who eats the embryo of a kosher bird as well. In either case, one is flogged, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,”

— לרבות אפרוחים שלא נפתחו עיניהם, אף של עוף טהור, באיסור שרץ. תירוץ: איסור זה מדרבנן, והפסוק אסמכתא בלבד; ואין לוקים עליו.

serves to include chicks of pigeons whose eyes have not yet opened in the prohibition against consuming swarming things. The Gemara responds: This prohibition is by rabbinic law, and the verse cited is a mere support for it. One who eats the embryo of a kosher bird is not liable to receive lashes.