Chullin

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.1 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.2 An objection was raised. It was taught: Why was the list repeated [in Deuteronomy]? Cattle because of the shesu'ah,3 and birds because of the ra'ah.3 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!4 — No, in the former case a new species is added, but in the latter the addition is merely explanatory. 5 This view6 [of R. Hisda] differs from that of R. Abbahu,7 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.8 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.9 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]10 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.11 R. Isaac said: For the eating of clean birds we rely upon tradition.12 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.13 Why is it not sufficient [for the gentile] to say, ‘It is of a clean bird?’ — In that case he might be evasive.14 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 distinguish ayyah, dayyah, ra'ah and da'ah — are different names of one and the same bird, it is evident that according to him there are not twenty-four birds enumerated in the Torah. The argument in the Gemara at the outset presupposes the acceptance by R. Abbahu of R. Hisda's view, but the conclusion shows that he cannot agree with it. particular bird is clean. Jew.