Talmud Bavli Hullin 62a-b - translation by Tzvee

V.2

A.            Said R. Nahman [62a], “[To] one who is knowledgeable of them [i.e., the various kinds of birds] and their names, [a bird that has] one token is deemed clean. To one who is not knowledgeable of them and their names, [a bird that has] one token is deemed unclean. [A bird that has] two tokens is deemed clean.”

B.            [And that is so] as long as he can identify a raven. [Does this mean that he needs to be able to identify] just a raven and no other [kind of bird]?

C.            But lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority: “Every raven [according to its kind]” (Lev. 11:15) — this means the raven itself. “[Every raven] according to its kind” — R. Eliezer says, “This subsumes [under the category of the raven] the starling.” They said to R. Eliezer, “But lo, the people of the village of Tamrata in Judea used to eat [starlings] because they have crops.” [The raven does not have this token.]

D.            He said to them, “In the future they will have to be judged [for this questionable action].”

E.            Another version: “[Every raven] according to its kind” — “this subsumes [under the category of the raven] the white bellied swallow,” the words of R. Eliezer. They said to him, “But lo, the people of the Upper Galilee used to eat them because their gizzards can be peeled.” [The raven does not have this token.]

F.             He said to them, “In the future they will have to be judged [for this questionable action].” Rather [the verse specifies] the raven [and subsumes under that] every kind of raven.

V.3

A.            Said Amemar, “The law is that any bird that has one token is deemed clean as long as [in addition] it does not maul its prey.”

B.            Said R. Ashi to Amemar, “Lo, what of the rule of R. Nahman [V.2 A]?” He said to him, “I did not hear it.” That is to say [he meant], “I do not reason in accord with it.”

C.            For which ones are there [that we should be concerned with identifying]? The vulture and the osprey. But they are not common in settled areas.

V.4

A.            Said R. Judah, “A bird that can scratch [with its talon] is valid [for the sacrifice one must bring] for the purification of the leper. And this is the white bellied swallow about which there is a dispute between R. Eliezer and the sages.”

B.            Said Amemar, “Concerning the white bellied [swallow] there is a consensus that it is permitted. Where do they dispute the matter? Regarding the green bellied [swallow]. R. Eliezer prohibits and the sages permit. And the law follows in accord with R. Eliezer.”

C.            Mar Zutra taught as follows: With regard to the green bellied [swallow] there is a consensus that it is prohibited. Where do they dispute? Regarding the white bellied [swallow]. R. Eliezer prohibits and the sages permit. And the law follows in accord with the sages who permit.

D.            It is consistent, according to the authority who holds the view that they disputed over the status of the white bellied [swallow], with that stated above [in A], “This is the white bellied swallow [about which there is a dispute between R. Eliezer and the sages].”

E.            But according to the authority who says that [Eliezer and sages] disputed over the status of the green bellied [swallow] what [can we say to harmonize this with A that says,] “This is the white bellied swallow [about which there is a dispute between R. Eliezer and the sages]?” This [dispute over the white bellied swallow] excludes the black house swallow [that is prohibited according to both authorities].

V.5

A.            Said Rehaba, said R. Judah, “The tasil-dove is invalid [for a sacrifice requiring] a turtle dove. But it is valid [for a sacrifice requiring] a young pigeon. Dazipe and the Rehaba-doves are valid [for a sacrifice requiring] a turtle dove. But they are invalid [for a sacrifice requiring] a young pigeon.”

B.            R. Daniel bar R. Qatina posed a question: All the fowl [62b] render unfit [the purification water if they drink from it] except for the dove, because it sucks it up [not drooling into it] [M. Parah 9:3 C-D]. And if you accept this [rule in A] then it should teach, Except for the dove and the tasil-dove.

C.            Said R. Zira, “This one [the tasil-dove] sucks it up and drools [and thereby renders the water unfit]. This one [the ordinary dove] sucks it up and does not drool.”

D.            Said R. Judah, “These Zuzinian doves (Cashdan) are valid [as sacrifices] upon the altar. And these are identical with Rehaba-doves.”

E.            They posed this objection: “[And the priest shall take cedarwood and] hyssop [and scarlet stuff, and cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer]” (Num. 19:6) — and not Greek hyssop, and not blue hyssop, and not Roman hyssop, and not desert hyssop, and not any kind of hyssop that has a distinct name.

F.             Said Abayye, “Any kind that had different names [for its various kinds] before the giving of the Torah [at Mt. Sinai], and the Torah was consistent about [using the generic name in all instances] — [then a kind] that has a distinct name — it is invalid. But these [doves] did not have different names [for the various kinds] before the giving of the Torah.” [Accordingly, all kinds are valid.]

G.            Raba said, “The Zuzinian doves are called ordinary doves in their native locale.”

V.6

A.            Said R. Judah, “The winged creatures of the rushes are permitted. Those of the cabbages are prohibited.” [Rashi interprets: locusts. Tosafot: birds.]

B.            Said Rabina, “And [if one eats them] he is flogged on account of violating the prohibition (Lev. 9:23) against the creeping things that fly.”

C.            And said R. Judah, “The linnet [zrd'] is permitted. The white jay [brd'] is prohibited. And the mnemonic is: let not the linnet [br mynyh].” [As to the] moor-cock [mrd'] there is a doubt.

D.            Said R. Assi, “There are eight cases of doubt [regarding these kinds of birds]: the crested lark, the lark, the wren, the mountain chaffinch, the wood lark, the moor-hen, the black woodpecker, and the partridge.”

E.            And what doubt is there about them? Clean birds have gizzards that can be skinned. Unclean birds have gizzards that cannot be skinned. And these have gizzards that can be skinned with a knife [but not by hand].

F.             But lo, there was a duck in the house of mar Samuel whose gizzard could not be skinned. So they left it out in the sun. And as soon as it softened, it could be skinned. [The circumstances are different in that case.] There as soon as it softened it could be skinned by hand. Here even after it softened it could be skinned only with a knife.

G.            Said Abayye, “The moor-cock is one of the eight cases of doubt [listed in D]. For it is in the same category as the moor-hen.”

H.           Said R. Pappa, “The moor-cock is prohibited. The moor-hen is permitted. And the mnemonic is: An `Amonite' (Deut. 23:4) [is prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel] and not an Amonitess.”

I.              Meremar interpreted, “The moor-hen is prohibited. We can see that it mauls and eats its prey. And this is also called the giruta.”

J.              Said Rab, “The domesticated parrot is permitted. The wild (Hebrew: prwz) parrot is prohibited. And its mnemonic is: Peroz is evil.”

K.            Said R. Huna, “The penguin is permitted. The sea-mew is prohibited. [A mnemonic is given.]” Said R. Pappa, “A moor-hen that stands and eats is permitted. A moor-hen that bends over and eats is prohibited. And the mnemonic for this is: `For you shall bow down to no other God' (Exod. 34:14).”