Chulin 62
Summary
- Today's *shiur* on Maseches Chullin Daf 62 returns to Daf 62b and the words “רב נחמן הוי בקי בהן ובשמותיהן,” presenting how the Torah lists twenty-four non-kosher birds and how they fall into groups by their *simanei taharah*, then tracing the Gemara’s rules for birds with one or two *simanim*, the breadth of the *orev* family, and the disputes about identifying specific birds like זרזיר and סנונית לבנה. The narrative follows Rashi’s reading of Rav Nachman’s expertise, contrasts it with Tosafos and other *Rishonim*, and then develops practical identification principles such as *doreis* and *kurkavon niklaf*, including cases where apparent signs mislead and the role of *mesorah*. The *sugya* then shifts into related identifications for birds used in korbanos and purification rites, name-changes and “שם לווי” in defining Torah species, and a chain of later Amoraic rulings that distinguish permitted and forbidden species by remembered סימנים, names, and behaviors.
- Today's *shiur* frames the Torah’s twenty-four non-kosher birds as four categories: נשר with no *siman taharah*, פרס and עזניה with one *siman*, עורב with two *simanim*, and the remaining non-kosher birds with three *simanim*, while all other birds are kosher. Rav Nachman’s statement “רב נחמן הוי בקי בהן ובשמותיהן” is learned by Rashi as expertise specifically in פרס and עזניה, so that when Rav Nachman sees a bird with one *siman taharah* and recognizes it is not פרס or עזניה, he can treat it as kosher. The *Rishonim* ask why the Gemara adds “ובשמותיהן,” and some explain this requires knowing not only the birds but also any birds sharing their names or related naming, while others explain it is to prevent error because these birds are uncommon and not found in inhabited areas.
- Tosafos reads “בקי בהן ובשמותיהן” as Rav Nachman being an expert in all birds, even though the practical relevance for a one-*siman* bird hinges on recognizing פרס and עזניה. Another view among the *Rishonim* holds Rav Nachman must be expert in all birds because only comprehensive expertise allows reliance on the rule that a one-*siman* bird is *tahor* if it is not פרס or עזניה, while lack of clarity about פרס and עזניה leaves a one-*siman* bird in doubt as possibly *tamei*.
- The Gemara teaches that for a bird with two *simanei taharah*, the non-kosher concern is עורב, and if one knows the bird is not an עורב then Rav Nachman permits it. The Gemara challenges this by citing “עורב למינו,” which expands the prohibition to the *orev* family, and רבי אלעזר derives that this includes the זרזיר and declares that אנשי כפר תמרתא acted improperly by eating it “מפני שיש להם זפק.” The *Rishonim* dispute whether there is a *machlokes* between רבי אלעזר and the *Chachamim*, with Rashi and Tosafos implying disagreement while the כסף משנה reads the *Chachamim* as agreeing that זרזיר is אסור and treating the exchange as a challenge from local practice, and the *Rishonim* also dispute whether “מפני שיש להם זפק” means the זרזיר differs from the עורב by having a crop or by not being *doreis*.
- The text presents “דבר אחר, למינהו להביא סנונית לבנה” and notes a dispute how to read the *girsa* as למינה or למינהו, where one reading keeps the expansion within the עורב while another shifts it to the נץ and includes סנונית לבנה in that family. רבי אליעזר’s teaching is met with the claim that אנשי גליל העליון eat it “מפני שקרקבנו נקלף,” and he responds “אף הם עתידין ליתן את הדין” because it is not kosher. The *Rishonim* explain the argument either as focusing on distinguishing features from עורב or as a dispute over whether this peeling counts as *niklaf* in the halachic sense.
- The Rashba explains the core question could have been asked simply from “למינהו,” since the Torah itself implies a broad *orev* family, and the Gemara’s stories serve to illustrate how large that family is. The Gemara resolves that expertise for a two-*siman* bird means recognizing not only the עורב but “עורב וכל מיני עורב,” so permission requires certainty the bird is not in the *orev* family at all.
- Amimar states “הלכתא, עוף הבא בסימן אחד” is *tahor* as long as “והוא לא דורס,” and the *Rishonim* explain he teaches that any *doreis* bird is never permitted. Rashi defines *doreis* as seizing food with claws and lifting it or holding food down while tearing pieces, Tosafos citing Rabbeinu Tam rejects this as chickens eat similarly and instead defines *doreis* as eating prey before it dies, and the Rambam defines *doreis* as killing prey by clawing it to death. Rav Ashi asks how this fits Rav Nachman’s requirement of expertise in פרס and עזניה, and Amimar replies “לא שמיע לי כלומר לא סבירא לי” because “ליתא בישובא,” with some explaining this as never appearing in inhabited areas and others explaining it as absent from Bavel and Eretz Yisrael where Jews lived even if it might exist elsewhere.
- The Gemara connects “שתי צפרים” of a *metzora* to Rav Yehuda’s statement that “עוף המסרק” is kosher for *taharas metzora* and “וזו היא סנונית לבנה שנחלקו בה רבי אליעזר וחכמים.” Some *Rishonim* read this as the Torah’s bird being specifically סנונית לבנה, while most read it as one permissible option within the broader category of “צפור.” Amimar distinguishes that when it has a white belly “דחיורא כרסיה” everyone permits it, and the dispute is when it has a green-yellow belly “ירוקא כרסא,” where רבי אליעזר forbids and the *Rabbanan* permit, and the text states “והלכתא כרבי אליעזר.”
- Mar Zutra reports an alternate tradition that when it is yellow-bellied everyone agrees it is forbidden and the dispute is when it is white-bellied, with רבי אליעזר forbidding and the *Rabbanan* permitting and “והלכתא כרבנן דשרו.” The Gemara analyzes that calling it “סנונית לבנה” fits the view that the dispute is about the white one, and if the dispute is about the yellow one the term is explained as excluding “דבתי דאוכמתי,” the house variety that is black and certainly forbidden.
- Tosafos observes that “אמר רחבא אמר רבי יהודה” uses “רבי” even though Rav Yehuda is an Amora, and explains an Amora may use “רבי” when quoting his *rebbe muvhak*. Rav Yehuda teaches “תוסל, פסולה משום תור וכשרה משום בני יונה,” aligning it with the earlier rule that תורין are brought when mature and בני יונה when young, and teaches that “הציפין ותור שחוחבא” are “כשרה משום תורין ופסולה משום בני יונה,” making them suitable only as mature תורין.
- Rav Chanina bar Gamliel challenges from “כל העופות פסולין למי חטאת חוץ מן היונה מפני שמצמצת,” explaining that most birds foul the מים חיים through regurgitation, saliva, or lack of guarding, while the dove sucks without expelling. The Gemara asks that if תוסל is in the יונה family the Mishnah should list it explicitly, and Rav Zeira answers “זה מוצץ ומקיא וזה מוצץ ואינו מקיא.” The Noda BiYehuda explains the Mishnah’s purpose is not to list bird names but to define the functional criterion of whether the bird expels what it drank, so תוסל need not be named.
- The text brings the rule that Torah-required אזוב excludes “אזוב יון” and “כל אזוב שיש לו שם לווי,” and uses this to frame how a modified attached name can disqualify a species from being the Torah’s required item. The Rashash is cited to explain that an attached place-name matters if it is used universally, so a name that remains plain in its native region may not be a disqualifying *shem livui*. Abaye answers that disqualifying modified names are those already changed before *Matan Torah* and then excluded by the Torah, while later name differentiations after *Matan Torah* do not remove a species from the Torah’s category, and Rava answers that these birds are called by the modified name only where they are found but elsewhere are called plain תורים, so they remain valid.
- Rav Yehuda rules “הני קאצי דבי חלפי” are permitted and “דבי קבי” are forbidden, and Ravina says the prohibition is definite with lashes “מלקינן ליה משום שרץ העוף,” which Rashi reads as definite non-kosher grasshoppers. Tosafos objects to introducing grasshopper laws in a bird *sugya* and reads this as classification within *sheretz ha’of*, distinguishing which small flying creatures fall under that prohibition.
- Rav Yehuda rules “סרדא” permitted and “ברדא” forbidden with “וסימניך בר מיניה,” and says “מרדא” is a ספק. Rav Asi lists “שמונה ספקי” birds—חובא, חוגא, סוגא, הרגונא, תשלומי, ומרדא, כחפינא, ומרדא נפחא—whose doubt centers on whether “קורקבן נקלף” when it requires a knife. The Gemara distinguishes a case in Mar Shmuel’s house where sun-softening allowed peeling by hand, while these remain peelable only with a knife even after softening.
- Abaye identifies “תרנגולא דאגמא” as one of the ספקות and equates it with “מרדא,” and Rav Papa states “תרנגולא דאגמא אסירא תרנגולתא דאגמא שריא” with the mnemonic “עמוני ולא עמונית.” Rashi reads this as male forbidden and female permitted, while Tosafos rejects that because “היוצא מן הטמא טמא” and explains they are two different species with similar names. Rav Elchanan frames this as whether *simanim* are a *sibah* that makes the species kosher or a *siman* that merely indicates an inherently kosher species, and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is cited that even if one followed the view that *simanim* make kosher, engineered סימנים through genetic modification would not render a non-kosher species kosher.
- Marimar later declares “תרנגול דאגמא אסירא” after observing it “דרס ואכל,” identifying it as the גירותא bird and reinforcing that a *doreis* bird cannot be kosher. Rashi derives that birds require *mesorah* because a bird was presumed kosher until behavior proved otherwise, so סימנים alone are insufficient. The text applies this to the turkey (*Hodu*) question, presenting views that it had a *mesorah* from India, that some allow relying on all סימני טהרה, that widespread acceptance creates a de facto *mesorah*, and that some *poskim* still question permission without an original *mesorah*.
- The Taz asks how people could have eaten a non-kosher bird given “בהמתן של צדיקים אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מביא תקלה על ידם,” and answers offered include that *tzaddikim* did not eat it, that later generations were not at that level, or that following the then-accepted ruling is not an *aveirah* even if the ruling later changes. The Satmar Rebbe in דברי יואל adds that animal behavior reflects human behavior, so earlier generations’ righteousness aligned with birds not being *dorsin*, later decline aligned with birds becoming *dorsin*, and in the era of *Mashiach* renewed human conduct brings a peaceful world where animals are no longer dangerous.
- Rav rules that “שוור ודפדא” are permitted while “פירוז אדפתא” is forbidden with “וסימנך פירוז רשיעא,” tying the name to a known רשע and מכשף. Rav Huna says “בוניא” is permitted and “פרבא” forbidden with “וסימנך פרבא מגושא,” linking it to פרבא דמגושא and בית הפרווה. Rav Papa permits “מר דזגי ואכל” and forbids “סגיד ואכל” with the mnemonic “לא תשתחוה לאל זר,” and Shmuel forbids “שס חמרא” with “וסימנך שתיא חמרא סחיפא ואזלא,” forbids “מזג חמרא,” and permits “בת מזג חמרא” with “וסימנך יפה כח הבן מכח האב.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions