Chullin

But let us infer [the rule]1 from the raven thus: As it has two [characteristics of cleanness] and yet may not be eaten, so all that have two [characteristics] may not be eaten! — If so, why does the Divine Law specify the peres2 and the ‘ozniah?3 Surely if we may not eat those that have two [characteristics of cleanness] it goes without saying [that we may not eat] those that have only one [characteristic]! Then let us infer [the rule] from the peres and the ‘ozniah! — If so, why does the Divine Law specify the eagle? For if we may not eat those that have one [characteristic of cleanness] it goes without saying that we may not eat those that have none [of the characteristics of cleanness]! The inference must therefore be: You may not eat the eagle because it has none [of the characteristics of cleanness], but whatsoever has one [characteristic] you may eat. Now this is the result only because the Divine Law specified the eagle, but had it not done so we should have inferred it4 from the peres and the ‘ozniah. But they, the peres and the ‘ozniah, are two texts, separately stated, which teach the same thing, and one may not draw any conclusions from two verses which teach the same thing!5 — There is a tradition that the characteristic [of cleanness] of the one is not that of the other.6 But consider. There are twenty-four species of unclean birds [mentioned in the Torah].7 Now it is inconceivable that the one characteristic of cleanness of each of these two species does not recur among the others, so that it is a case of two verses which teach the same thing!8 — There is a tradition that there are twenty four species of unclean birds and that there are four characteristics of cleanness. The same three characteristics circulate among all. Twenty [species] have each these three characteristics, the raven has two [of these characteristics], and the peres and the ‘ozniah have each one characteristic, but the characteristic of one is not that of the other.9 You might then have said: Let us infer the rule from that one;10 the Divine Law therefore specified the eagle to teach you that you may not eat the eagle as it has none of the characteristics of cleanness, but whatsoever has one characteristic you may eat. Why then does the Divine Law specify turtle doves?11 — R. ‘Ukba b. Hama answered: Only with regard to sacrifices.12 R. Nahman said, of cleanness only. therefrom, the Torah need only have stated one of them. The fact that two verses are stated, or two specimens given, suggests that the rule is limited to the particular specimens given. unclean; hence the specification of the eagle in the Torah becomes superfluous. cleanness. we do not know what is this unique fourth characteristic — would be forbidden. turtle doves in the Torah is rendered superfluous, and indeed contradictory, for it suggests the possession of all the four characteristics of cleanness as the criterion. stated turtle doves solely to set forth, by contrast with the eagle, the four characteristics of cleanness.