Talmud Bavli Hullin 61a-b - translation by Tzvee

V.1

A.            And the tokens of fowl have not been so stated [M. 3:6 B]. Have they not? But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority, “The eagle” (Lev. 11:13) — [61a] just as the eagle is distinctive in that it does not have an extra claw, [and it does not have] a crop, and [the skin of] its gizzard cannot be peeled off, and it mauls [its prey] and eats it, [and the eagle is] unclean. So too all [birds] similar to it are unclean.

B.            “Turtle doves” (Lev. 1:14) — they have an extra claw, [and they have] a crop, and [the skin of] its gizzard can be peeled off, and they do not maul [their prey] and eat it, [and they are] clean. So too all [birds] similar to it are clean. [Apparently, the tokens of clean fowl are in the Torah.]

C.            Said Abayye, “The specifics [of the tokens] were not matters stated in the Torah. Rather they were matters stated by the scribes.”

D.            Taught R. Hiyya, “A bird that has one token is clean. Because it does not resemble the eagle.” [We reason as follows:] The eagle that has none [of the tokens], that is the [kind of bird] that may not be eaten. Lo, if there is one [kind of bird] that has one [token of cleanness] may be eaten.

E.            But why not derive the rule from [the principle regarding] turtle doves? [And let us reason as follows:] What is the case regarding turtle doves? They have all four [tokens of cleanness]. So these too [may be eaten] only if they have all four [tokens of cleanness].

F.             If this is the case [that we follow this line of reasoning] then what is the purpose of [listing] all of the other unclean birds that are written in the Torah? Let us derive the inference from these [listed birds]. What is the case regarding those that have three [tokens]? We do not eat them. So all those with three [tokens] we do not eat. And all the more so [in the case of a bird that has only] two [tokens] or one [token].

G.            If this is the case, then what purpose is served by the Torah stating [as unclean] the raven [that has two tokens]? Now those that have three [tokens], we do not eat them. Must we state the rule for [a bird] that has only two [tokens]?

H.           [61b] Then let us derive [the rule] from the [inclusion of the] raven. What is the case there? [A bird that has] two [tokens of cleanness] we do not [eat]. So all those with two [tokens] we do not [eat]. If so, “The vulture and the osprey” (Lev. 11:13), that the Torah stated [are unclean], why must we have these [specified]? Now those that have two [tokens], we do not eat them. Must we state the rule for [a bird] that has only one [token]?

I.              Then let us derive [the rule] from the [inclusion of the] vulture and the osprey. If this is the case, then why do we need to have the Torah state [that] the eagle [is unclean]? Now those that have one [token], we do not eat them. Must we state the rule for [a bird] that has none?

J.              Rather [it must be the case that] an eagle that has no [tokens] at all, [that is the type of bird] we do not eat. But lo, one that has one [token], we do eat!

K.            But [it must be the case] that the reason the Torah state the eagle [is unclean is because] if it did not so specify I would have reasoned that we derive the rule from [the specification in the verse] of the vulture and the osprey. But the [references to the] vulture and the osprey [come under the principle of] concurrent scriptural references [that teach the same rule]. And [we say that from] concurrent scriptural references [that teach the same rule] we do not derive any conclusions [about other cases].

L.            [But we may argue that they do not teach exactly the same rule.] We have a tradition that [the token] that is present in this one [bird] is not present in that one. And [the token] that is present in that [bird] is not present in this one.

M.           [But we may object to this solution.] Consider: there are twenty-four unclean birds [specified in the Torah]. It is not possible that one [token] that is present in some is missing in all the others. So it would be [certain that we have an instance of] concurrent scriptural references [that teach the same rule]. [Thus we should not be able to derive any conclusions at all about other cases from this list.]

N.           [But we may argue that they do not teach exactly the same rule.] We have a tradition that there are twenty-four unclean birds and there are four tokens. Three are present in all [twenty-four as follows]: Twenty have all three of them; two are present in raven; one of these is present in the vulture and one in the osprey. The one that is present in this one is absent in that one. [Accordingly one of these is not “concurrent” in that it has a token unique from the others.]

O.            It would make sense to say that we should derive from this one [some general conclusion about the others]. [But we do not because] the Torah wrote concerning the eagle. [You conclude from this that] the eagle that has no [tokens] at all you may not eat. Lo any [bird] that has one [token] you may eat.

P.            But then why did the Torah write about turtle doves? Said R. Uqba bar Hama, “[To teach us which bird may be brought as a] sacrifice. [But not to teach us anything in regard to tokens of uncleanness.]”