1 To one who is familiar with these birds and their nomenclature any bird that has one characteristic [of cleanness] is clean; but to one who is not familiar with these birds and their nomenclature any bird that has one characteristic [of cleanness is unclean], but that which has two characteristics [of cleanness] is clean; provided he recognizes the raven. The raven only, and no other! Surely it has been taught: It is written: Raven, that is the actual raven; after its kind, that, says R. Eliezer, includes the zarzir. They said to R. Eliezer: But the men of Kefar Tamratha in Judah used to eat it, because it has a crop! He replied: They shall indeed have to account for it in the future. Another version reads: ‘After its kind’, that, says R. Eliezer, includes the white senunith. They said to R. Eliezer: But the men of Upper Galilee eat it, because its gizzard can be peeled! He replied: They shall indeed have to account for it in the future! Rather say, [provided he recognizes] the raven and all its kind. Amemar said: The law is that every bird that has one characteristic [of cleanness] is clean, that is, if it does not seize prey. R. Ashi said to Amemar: But what about the [above] statement of R. Nahman? — He replied: I have not heard of it, by which I mean to say: I do not agree with it. For what is there to fear? That it might be either the peres or the ‘ozniah? But neither of these are found in inhabited regions. Rab Judah said: A bird which scratches is permitted for use in the purification rite of a leper; and this is the white senunith about which R. Eliezer and the Sages argued. Amemar said: As to the white-bellied [senunith] there is no dispute that it is permitted; they differ only about the green-bellied kind, which R. Eliezer forbids and the Rabbis permit, and the law rests with R. Eliezer. Mar Zutra reports this passage as follows: As to the green-bellied senunith there is no dispute that it is forbidden; they differ only about the white-bellied kind, which R. Eliezer forbids and the Rabbis permit, and the law rests with the Rabbis. Now according to the version which reports the dispute [between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis] about the white-bellied kind it is right that it says above ‘the white senunith’. But according to the other version which reports the dispute about the green-bellied kind, why is ‘the white senunith’ mentioned? — In order to exclude the black kind which nests in [eaves of] houses. Rehabah said in the name of Rabbi Judah: The tasil is disqualified [for sacrifice] as a turtle dove but is not disqualified as a young pigeon. Dazife and the turtle doves of Rehabah are not disqualified as turtle doves but are disqualified as young pigeons. R. Daniel son of R. Kattina raised an objection. [We have learnt:] All birdsᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒ
2 render invalid the waters of purification except the dove, because it sucks up the water. Now if it were [as you say], it should read ‘Except the dove and the tasil’? — R. Zera answered: The latter sucks up the water and spits it back, whereas the former sucks up without spitting. Rab Judah said: Zuzinian doves are fit for the altar; and they are identical with the doves of Rehabah. An objection was raised. [We have learnt:] Hyssop, but not Greek hyssop, nor Kohalith hyssop, nor Roman hyssop, nor wild hyssop, nor any kind of hyssop which bears a special name! — Abaye said: Everything which prior to the giving of the Torah had various names, and we find that the Torah is particular about it, then those kinds that bear a special name are invalid. These doves, however, did not have various names prior to the giving of the Torah, Raba said: These Zuzinian doves are called simply [‘doves’] in their locality. Rab Judah said: Karze which are found among the rushes are permitted, but those found among cabbages are forbidden. Rabina added: And we scourge [him that eats them] for [eating] winged creeping things. Rab Judah further said: Zarda is permitted but barda is forbidden; and in order to remember this think of the expression, ‘Keep aloof [bar] from it’. As to marda there is a doubt. R. Assi said: There are eight birds regarding which there is a doubt, viz., Huba, huga, suga, harnuga, tushlami, marda, kohilna, and bar nappaka. What is the doubt about them? — [It is this]. One of the characteristics of clean birds is that the gizzard can be peeled, and one of the characteristics of unclean birds is that the gizzard cannot be peeled, but in the case of these [eight] the gizzard can only be peeled with a knife. But was there not a case of a duck belonging to Mar Samuel, the gizzard of which could not be peeled, so it was left in the sun, and as soon as it became soft it peeled easily? — In that case as soon as it became soft it peeled easily with the hand, but here even after it has been softened it can only be peeled with a knife. Abaye said: The moor-cock is one of the eight cases of doubt, for it is the mardu. R. Papa said: The moor-cock is forbidden but the moor-hen is permitted, and in order to remember this think of the rule, ‘An Ammonite [is debarred] but not an Ammonitess’. Meremar stated in an exposition: The moor-hen is forbidden because it was seen to seize prey and eat it, and this is girutha. Rab said: Shabur androfata is permitted, piruz androfata is forbidden; and to remember this think of ‘the wicked piruz’. R. Huna said: Bunia is permitted, parwa is forbidden, and to remember this think of ‘Parwa the magician’. R. Papa said: The mardu which stands erect and eats is permitted, that which bends down and eats is forbidden, and to remember this think of the verse: Thou shalt bow down to no other god. Samuel said: The ‘wine drinker’ is forbidden, and to remember this think of the law ‘Those that have drunk wine are unfit for service’. Samuel further said: The ‘wine mixer’ is forbidden,ᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳ