(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Chulin 61

CHULIN 61-63 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.



(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Simanim of birds are not mentioned in the Torah. The problem with this is - that the Torah's insertion of the Nesher (the eagle or the griffin vulture [which has none of the four Simnei Taharah]) and the pigeon (which has all four) - is tantamount to mentioning them (as we will now explain).

(b) Abaye resolves this problem - by explaining the Beraisa to mean that they are not listed specifically (as those of animals are).

(c) The only bird that possesses no Simnei Taharah at all is - the Nesher.

(d) And when the Tana says - 'Af Kol ka'Yotzei Bo Tamei', he comes to include - other species of Nesher.

(a) The Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa appear to clash - in that the Reisha implies that a bird with one Siman Taharah is Kasher (because it does not resemble a Nesher), whereas the Seifa implies that such a bird is Tamei (because it does not resemble a dove) This Kashya will be answered in the course of the Sugya.

(b) The Torah lists - twenty-four key species of Tamei birds.

(c) Despite the Limud from the eagle that a bird with even one Siman Tum'ah is Kasher, the Torah lists the remaining twenty-three species of Tamei birds in the form of a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' (a Divine decree, even though they would otherwise be Kasher).

(a) Rebbi Chiya learns from a Nesher that any bird that has even one Siman Taharah is Kasher ('Kal va'Chomer' two or three) - provided one recognizes Peres and Ozniyah.

(b) We query Rebbi Chiya however - by suggesting that we learn from Torin, which have all four Simanim. Perhaps any bird that is not like Torin, is forbidden?

(c) We refute this suggestion outright however - because if that was so, the Torah would not need to list the Tamei birds.

(a) Twenty of the Tamei birds possess - three Simnei Taharah.

(b) Yet we cannot learn from them that any bird with only three out of the four Simnei Tum'ah is Tamei - because why does the Torah then mention a raven (which possesses two Simnei Taharah).

(c) Neither can we learn from ...

1. ... a raven, that any bird with only two Simanim is not Kasher - because then, why did the Torah see fit to mention Peres (an ossifrage) and Ozniyah (an osprey)?
2. ... a Peres or an Ozniyah, that even a bird with one Si'man is not Kasher - because then why would the Torah need to mention a Nesher (which has no Simanim, as we have already explained)?
(d) This forces us to conclude - that our starting point is the Nesher, from which we learn that all birds with one, two or three Simanim is Kasher, and that the twenty-three birds listed by the Torah are all



(a) The problem with attempting to learn from Peres and Ozniyah that all birds with only one Siman Taharah are Tamei is - that we then seem to have two Pesukim teaching us the same thing ('Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'), and we have a principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin'.

(b) We answer - that since Peres and Ozniyah have different Simanim, both are needed (because had the Torah written one, we would not have known the other). Therefore we need Nesher to teach us that even birds with one Siman Taharah are permitted.

(c) We still ask that - it is unlikely that the Siman that exists by Peres and the Siman that exists by Ozniyah do not both already exist in one or the other of the twenty birds that each have three Simanim, in which case it will still be a case of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.

(d) We answer - by citing a tradition that the three Simanim that are shared by the twenty Tamei birds also incorporate the two of a raven, and one of the Peres or the Ozniyah. The other one, is the fourth Siman that is unique to that bird alone, making it necessary for the Torah to write Nesher (see Rashash).

(a) Despite the Limud from Nesher that even birds with one Siman Taharah are Kasher, the Torah needs to write Torin and B'nei Yonah, says Rav Ukva bar Chama - to teach us that they alone are eligible to be brought on the Mizbe'ach (indeed, Torin and B'nei Yonah are only written in Vayikra in the Parshah of Korbanos).

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa (on Amud Alef) mentions Torin - because it is from the fact that the same four Simanim that appear on a Tor do not appear on a Nesher, that we know what the Simanim are.

(c) We refute the suggestion that Rav Ukva is coming to explain why the *Tana* inserts Torin - because then, how could the Beraisa continue 'Af Kol ke'Yotze Bahen Tehorin' (incorporating chickens)? Since when are chickens Kasher to go on the Mizbe'ach?

(d) And we know that they are not - from the constant repetition of 'Torin and B'nei Yonah', as the Toras Kohanim explicitly states.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,