Chullin

To one who is familiar with these birds1 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],2 but that which has two characteristics [of cleanness] is clean; provided he recognizes the raven.3 The raven only, and no other! Surely it has been taught: It is written: Raven,4 that is the actual raven; after its kind, that, says R. Eliezer, includes the zarzir.5 They said to R. Eliezer: But the men of Kefar Tamratha in Judah used to eat it, because it has a crop!6 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.7 They said to R. Eliezer: But the men of Upper Galilee eat it, because its gizzard can be peeled!6 He replied: They shall indeed have to account for it in the future!8 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.9 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;10 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’.11 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.12 Rehabah said in the name of Rabbi13 Judah: The tasil14 is disqualified [for sacrifice] as a turtle dove but is not disqualified as a young pigeon.15 Dazife14 and the turtle doves of Rehabah14 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 birds in the statement of R. Nahman it should be necessary for a man to recognize all those birds that are included within the species ‘raven’. cleanness it is clean. According to Tosaf. (s.v. tuvu) the fact that it does not seize prey is the only characteristic of cleanness that it need Possess. type of bird that scratches is not precluded, i.e., it is regarded as clean. The epithet ‘scratch’ is applied to a bird perhaps by reason of it peculiar beak, possibly the fissirostral birds, i.e., that have the beak broad and deeply cleft. 203-205.