1 the ‘daughter of the wine mixer’ is permitted, and to remember this think of the saying: ‘The position of the son is better than that of the father’. Rab Judah said: The shakitna with the long legs and red body is permitted, and to remember this think of murzama; that with the short legs and red body is forbidden, and to remember this think of the law, ‘The dwarf is unfit’; and that with the long legs and green body is forbidden, and to remember this think of the rule, ‘If they turned green it is invalid’. Rab Judah said: The shalak is the bird that catches fish out of the sea; the dukifath is so called because its crown appears double. There is also [a Baraitha] taught to this effect : The dukifath is so called because its crown appears double, and it was this bird that brought the shamir to the Temple. Whenever R. Johanan used to see the shalak he would exclaim: Thy judgments are like the great deep, and whenever he used to see an ant he would exclaim: Thy righteousness is like the mighty mountains. Amemar said: Lakni and batni are permitted; as for shaknai and batnai, wherever it is the custom to eat them they are permitted. and wherever it is not the custom to eat them they are forbidden. But is it a matter of custom? — Indeed it is; nevertheless, there is no difficulty. The former custom obtains in that place where the peres and the ‘ozniah are not found, whereas the latter custom obtains in that place where the peres and the ‘ozniah are found. Abaye said: Kuai and kakuai are forbidden, but kaku'atha is permitted; in the West [palestine], however, one would incur stripes [for eating it], and it is called by them tahwatha. Our Rabbis taught: The tinshemeth is the bawath among the birds. You say: ‘the bawath among the birds’, but perhaps it is not so but rather ‘the bawath among the reptiles’? — You can reply: Go and derive it by one of the thirteen exegetical principles by which the Torah is interpreted, namely, ‘The meaning of a passage is to be deduced from its context’. Now what does the passage deal with? Birds; then this too is a bird. It was likewise taught with regard to reptiles: The tinshemeth is the bawath among reptiles. You say: ‘the bawath among reptiles’, but perhaps it is not so but rather ‘the bawath among the birds’? — You can reply: Go and derive it by one of the thirteen exegetical principles by which the Torah is interpreted, namely, ‘The meaning of a passage is to be deduced from its context’. Now what does the passage deal with? Reptiles; then this too is a reptile. Abaye said: The bawath among the birds is the bat, and the bawath among the reptiles is the mole. Rab Judah said: Ka'ath is the sea crow, raham the sherakrak [vulture]. R. Johanan said: Why is it called raham? Because when the raham comes mercy [rahamim] comes to the world. R. Bibi b. Abaye said, provided it perches upon something and cries ‘sherak-rak’. There is a tradition that if it settles upon the ground and hisses, the Messiah will come at once, for it is said: I will hiss for them and gather them. R. Adda b. Shimi said to Mar the son of R. Iddi: Did not [a raham] once settle upon a ploughed field and commence to hiss when a stone fell upon it and broke its head? That one was a liar, he replied. Our Rabbis taught: Raven signifies the raven, every raven includes the raven of the valley, after its kind includes the raven that moves ahead of the doves. The Master said: Raven signifies the raven. But is it here before us? — Render, Raven signifies the black raven, as it is said: His locks are curled and black as a raven. ‘The raven of the valley’ is the white spotted raven, as it is said: And the appearance thereof is deeper than the skin that is, as the sunlight that appears deeper than the shadow. ‘The raven that moves ahead of the doves’. R. Papa said: Read not ‘that moves ahead of the doves’, but ‘whose head resembles that of a dove. Our Rabbis taught: The nez is the hawk, after its kind includes the bar hiria. What is the bar hiria? — Abaye said: It is the falcon. R. Hisda said: The hasidah is the white stork. And why is it called hasidah? Because it shows kindness [hasiduth] to its companions. The anafah is the heron. And why is it called anafah? Because it quarrels [mean'efeth] with its companions. R. Hanan, son of R. Hisda, stated in the name of R. Hisda, who reported in the name of R. Hanan, son of Raba, on the authority of Rab, There are twenty-four unclean birds [enumerated in the Torah]. Where? In Leviticus there are only twenty enumerated, and in Deuteronomy there are but twenty-one! And should you say that the da'ah mentioned in Leviticus, but not in Deuteronomy, should be added to the list, even then there would only be twenty-two! — He replied: Thus did your mother's father report in the name of Rab, The words ‘after its kind’, stated four times, represent four more birds. Then there would be twenty-six? — Abaye answered: The da'ah and the ra'ah are one and the same. For should you say that they are two distinct birdsᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏ
2 then consider this: seeing that the purport of Deuteronomy is to add to the laws, why is it that here [in Leviticus] it mentions the da'ah but there [in Deuteronomy] only the ra'ah and not the da'ah? You must therefore hold that the ra'ah and the da'ah are one and the same. But for all that there are still twenty-five? — Abaye answered: Just as the ra'ah and the da'ah are one and the same, so, too, are the dayyah and the ayyah. For should you say that they are two distinct birds then consider this: seeing that the purport of Deuteronomy is to add to the laws, why is it that here [in Leviticus] the words ‘after its kind’ are appended to the ayyah but there [in Deuteronomy] these words are appended to the dayyah? You must therefore hold that the ayyah and the dayyah are one and the same. But since the ayyah and the dayyah are one and the same why are they both stated? — For the reason given in the following Baraitha: Rabbi says: It is sufficient when I read the ayyah, why then is the dayyah mentioned? So as not to give skeptics cause for criticism, for you might call it the ayyah and they the dayyah, or you the dayyah and they the ayyah; therefore it is written in Deuteronomy, The ra'ah, the ayyah and the dayyah after its kind. An objection was raised. It was taught: Why was the list repeated [in Deuteronomy]? Cattle because of the shesu'ah, and birds because of the ra'ah. Now presumably, just as in the case of cattle a new species is added to the list, so too in the case of birds a new species is added! — No, in the former case a new species is added, but in the latter the addition is merely explanatory. This view [of R. Hisda] differs from that of R. Abbahu, for R. Abbahu taught. The ra'ah is the same as the ayyah: wherefore is it called ra'ah? Because it can see [roah] very keenly, for so it is said: That path no bird of prey knoweth, neither hath the eye of the ayyah seen it. And a Tanna [has also] taught: It [the ayyah] stands in Babylon and espies carrion in the land of Israel. But since [according to R. Abbahu] the ra'ah and the ayyah are one and the same, it would follow then that the da'ah is not the same as the ra'ah and [this being so] why is it that here [in Leviticus] the da'ah is mentioned but there [in Deuteronomy], the purport of which is to add to the laws, the da'ah is not mentioned? You must therefore hold that the da'ah, the ra'ah and the ayyah are all one and the same. But then since the ra'ah and the ayyah are one and the same, it would follow that the dayyah is not the same as the ayyah, and [this being so] why is it that here [in Leviticus] the words ‘after its kind’ are appended to the ayyah whereas there [in Deuteronomy] these words are not added to the ayyah but to the dayyah? It must therefore be said that the da'ah, the ra'ah, the ayyah and the dayyah are all one and the same. It was taught: Issi b. Judah says: In the East there are one hundred unclean birds all of the species of ayyah. Abimi the son of R. Abbahu learnt: There are seven hundred species of [unclean] fishes, eight hundred species of [unclean] locusts, but the species of [unclean] birds are innumerable. But there are only twenty-four species of [unclean] birds! — Rather [say], The species of clean birds are innumerable. It was taught: Rabbi says. It is well known to Him who spake and the world came into being that the unclean animals are more numerous than the clean, therefore did Scripture enumerate the clean. It is also well known to Him who spake and the world came into being that the clean birds are more numerous than the unclean, therefore did Scripture enumerate the unclean. What is the point of this teaching? — It sets forth the idea, also expressed by R. Huna in the name of Rab (others say: R. Huna in the name of Rab on the authority of R. Meir), viz., A teacher should always teach his pupil succinctly. R. Isaac said: For the eating of clean birds we rely upon tradition. A hunter is believed when he says. ‘My master transmitted to me that this bird is clean’. R. Johanan added. provided he was familiar with birds and their nomenclature. R. Zera enquired: Does ‘master’ mean a master in learning or in hunting? — Come and hear, for R. Johanan added: ‘provided he was familiar with birds and their nomenclature’. Now if it means a master in hunting it is well, but if it means a master in learning, I grant you that he would have learnt their nomenclature, but would he actually know them [so as to recognize them]? You must therefore say it means a master in hunting; this is proved. Our Rabbis taught: One may buy eggs from gentiles in any place and need have no fear lest they are of birds that were nebelah or trefah. But perhaps they are of unclean birds? — Samuel's father answered. [We must suppose the case to be that] he says, ‘It is of such and such a bird’, which is clean. Why is it not sufficient [for the gentile] to say, ‘It is of a clean bird?’ — In that case he might be evasive. And why not test [the egg] by the characteristics [stated by the Rabbis]? For it has been taught: ‘Characteristics which distinguish the eggs [of clean birds] are the same as those which distinguish [clean] fish’. (But how can you say ‘as those which distinguish [clean] fish’, since the Divine law states fins and scales? — Say rather: As those which distinguishᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸ