ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 61
CHULIN 61-63 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Simanim of birds are not mentioned in
the Torah. The problem with this is - that the Torah's insertion of the
Nesher (the eagle or the griffin vulture [which has none of the four Simnei
Taharah]) and the pigeon (which has all four) - is tantamount to mentioning
them (as we will now explain).
(b) Abaye resolves this problem - by explaining the Beraisa to mean that
they are not listed specifically (as those of animals are).
(c) The only bird that possesses no Simnei Taharah at all is - the Nesher.
(d) And when the Tana says - 'Af Kol ka'Yotzei Bo Tamei', he comes to
include - other species of Nesher.
(a) The Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa appear to clash - in that the
Reisha implies that a bird with one Siman Taharah is Kasher (because it does
not resemble a Nesher), whereas the Seifa implies that such a bird is Tamei
(because it does not resemble a dove) This Kashya will be answered in the
course of the Sugya.
(b) The Torah lists - twenty-four key species of Tamei birds.
(c) Despite the Limud from the eagle that a bird with even one Siman Tum'ah
is Kasher, the Torah lists the remaining twenty-three species of Tamei birds
in the form of a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' (a Divine decree, even though they
would otherwise be Kasher).
(a) Rebbi Chiya learns from a Nesher that any bird that has even one Siman
Taharah is Kasher ('Kal va'Chomer' two or three) - provided one recognizes
Peres and Ozniyah.
(b) We query Rebbi Chiya however - by suggesting that we learn from Torin,
which have all four Simanim. Perhaps any bird that is not like Torin, is
(c) We refute this suggestion outright however - because if that was so, the
Torah would not need to list the Tamei birds.
(a) Twenty of the Tamei birds possess - three Simnei Taharah.
(b) Yet we cannot learn from them that any bird with only three out of the
four Simnei Tum'ah is Tamei - because why does the Torah then mention a
raven (which possesses two Simnei Taharah).
(c) Neither can we learn from ...
1. ... a raven, that any bird with only two Simanim is not Kasher - because
then, why did the Torah see fit to mention Peres (an ossifrage) and Ozniyah
(d) This forces us to conclude - that our starting point is the Nesher, from
which we learn that all birds with one, two or three Simanim is Kasher, and
that the twenty-three birds listed by the Torah are all
2. ... a Peres or an Ozniyah, that even a bird with one Si'man is not
Kasher - because then why would the Torah need to mention a Nesher (which
has no Simanim, as we have already explained)?
(a) The problem with attempting to learn from Peres and Ozniyah that all
birds with only one Siman Taharah are Tamei is - that we then seem to have
two Pesukim teaching us the same thing ('Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'),
and we have a principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin'.
(b) We answer - that since Peres and Ozniyah have different Simanim, both
are needed (because had the Torah written one, we would not have known the
other). Therefore we need Nesher to teach us that even birds with one Siman
Taharah are permitted.
(c) We still ask that - it is unlikely that the Siman that exists by Peres
and the Siman that exists by Ozniyah do not both already exist in one or the
other of the twenty birds that each have three Simanim, in which case it
will still be a case of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.
(d) We answer - by citing a tradition that the three Simanim that are shared
by the twenty Tamei birds also incorporate the two of a raven, and one of
the Peres or the Ozniyah. The other one, is the fourth Siman that is unique
to that bird alone, making it necessary for the Torah to write Nesher (see
(a) Despite the Limud from Nesher that even birds with one Siman Taharah are
Kasher, the Torah needs to write Torin and B'nei Yonah, says Rav Ukva bar
Chama - to teach us that they alone are eligible to be brought on the
Mizbe'ach (indeed, Torin and B'nei Yonah are only written in Vayikra in the
Parshah of Korbanos).
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa (on Amud Alef) mentions Torin - because it is
from the fact that the same four Simanim that appear on a Tor do not appear
on a Nesher, that we know what the Simanim are.
(c) We refute the suggestion that Rav Ukva is coming to explain why the
*Tana* inserts Torin - because then, how could the Beraisa continue 'Af Kol
ke'Yotze Bahen Tehorin' (incorporating chickens)? Since when are chickens
Kasher to go on the Mizbe'ach?
(d) And we know that they are not - from the constant repetition of 'Torin
and B'nei Yonah', as the Toras Kohanim explicitly states.