מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה לְאוֹסוּפֵי הוּא דְּאָתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב דָּאָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב רָאָה וְלָא כְּתִיב דָּאָה? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: מִין רָאָה וְדָאָה – אַחַת הִיא.

one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “ Da’a ,” and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: “ Ra’a ,” and da’a is not written? Rather, conclude from the presence of each on only one list that the ra’a and da’a are one species.

וְאַכַּתִּי עֶשְׂרִין וַחֲמִשָּׁה הָווּ! אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁרָאָה וְדָאָה אַחַת הִיא, כָּךְ אַיָּה וְדַיָּה – אַחַת הִיא; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ תַּרְתֵּי אִינּוּן, מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה לְאוֹסוּפֵי הוּא דְּאָתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״לְמִינָהּ״ אַאַיָּה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דִּכְתִיב ״לְמִינָהּ״ אַדַּיָּה? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: אַיָּה וְדַיָּה אַחַת הִיא.

The Gemara objects: But still, there are twenty-five birds, not twenty-four. Abaye said: Just as the ra’a and da’a are one species, so too, the ayya and the dayya , the latter of which is mentioned only in Deuteronomy, are one species. As, if it enters your mind that they are two different species, one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya , prohibiting some other kind of ayya , and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the dayya ? Why is the ayya not mentioned? Rather, learn from the use of the same phrase with regard to the ayya and dayya that they are one species.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאַיָּה וְדַיָּה אַחַת הִיא, לָמָּה לֵיהּ לְמִיכְתַּב אַיָּה וְדַיָּה? כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֶקְרָא אֲנִי אַיָּה, דַּיָּה לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְבַעַל דִּין לַחֲלוֹק, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אַיָּה וְהוּא קוֹרֵא דַּיָּה, אַתָּה קוֹרֵא דַּיָּה וְהוּא קוֹרֵא אַיָּה, לְכָךְ כָּתַב בְּמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה: ״וְהָרָאָה וְאֶת הָאַיָּה וְהַדַּיָּה לְמִינָהּ״.

The Gemara asks: And now that the ayya and dayya are one species, why did the Torah need to write both ayya and dayya in Deuteronomy? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Given that the two are one species, I will read ayya and know that it is forbidden. Why is dayya stated? It is so as not to give a claim to a litigant to disagree, and it should not occur that you call it an ayya and he calls it a dayya and eats it. Likewise, the Torah did not write only dayya so that it will not occur that you call it a dayya and he calls it an ayya and eats it. Therefore, the Torah writes in Deuteronomy: “And the ra’a , and the ayya , and the dayya after its kinds” (Deuteronomy 14:13). Consequently, both the list in Leviticus and that in Deuteronomy enumerate twenty-four birds, in accordance with the statement attributed to Rav.

מֵיתִיבֵי: לָמָּה נִשְׁנוּ בִּבְהֵמָה – מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁסוּעָה, וּבְעוֹפוֹת – מִפְּנֵי הָרָאָה; מַאי לָאו, מִדִּבְהֵמָה דְּהָתָם לְאוֹסוּפֵי, עוֹפוֹת נַמִי לְאוֹסוּפֵי? לָא, הָתָם – לְאוֹסוּפֵי, הָכָא – לְפָרוּשֵׁי.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : Why is the list of non-kosher animals in Leviticus repeated? It is due to the necessity of adding the shesua (Deuteronomy 14:7), which was not listed in Leviticus. And the list of non-kosher birds is repeated due to the ra’a . What, is it not understood from the fact that the extra list of animals there, in Deuteronomy, is to add animals, that the list of birds is also repeated to add birds? The Gemara responds: No, there, i.e., with regard to animals, the list is repeated to add, but here, with regard to birds, it is repeated only to explain.

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ: רָאָה – זוֹ אַיָּה, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ רָאָה – שֶׁרוֹאָה בְּיוֹתֵר, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״נָתִיב לֹא יְדָעוֹ עָיִט וְלֹא שְׁזָפַתּוּ עֵין אַיָּה״. תָּנָא: עוֹמֶדֶת בְּבָבֶל וְרוֹאָה נְבֵלָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

And the opinion that the da’a and ra’a are one species, and that the ayya and dayya are another species, differs from the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: The ra’a is the ayya . And why is it called the ra’a ? Since it sees [ ro’ah ] most vividly. And so the verse states: “That path no bird of prey knows, neither has the eye of the ayya seen it” (Job 28:7). And a Sage taught: The ra’a can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael.

מִדְּרָאָה הַיְינוּ אַיָּה – מִכְּלָל דְּדָאָה לָאו הַיְינוּ רָאָה; מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה לְאוֹסוּפֵי הוּא דְּאָתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב דָּאָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּלָא כְּתִיב דָּאָה? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: דָּאָה וְרָאָה וְאַיָּה – אַחַת הִיא.

The Gemara discusses Rabbi Abbahu’s statement: Since the ra’a is the same as the ayya , by inference, one may conclude that the da’a is not the same as the ra’a ; otherwise, there are not twenty-four non-kosher birds. But since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “ Da’a ,” and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that da’a is not written? Rather, must one not conclude from the discrepancy that the two are the same? If so, one must conclude that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da’a and ra’a and ayya are all one species.

וּמִדְּרָאָה הַיְינוּ אַיָּה – מִכְּלָל דְּדַיָּה לָאו הַיְינוּ אַיָּה, מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דִּכְתִיב ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ אַאַיָּה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ אַאַיָּה אֶלָּא אַדַּיָּה? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: דָּאָה וְרָאָה, דַּיָּה וְאַיָּה – אַחַת הִיא.

And furthermore, from the fact that Rabbi Abbahu holds that the ra’a is the same as the ayya , by inference, one may conclude that the dayya is not the same as the ayya . But if so, one may ask again: What is different there, in Leviticus, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya , and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is not written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya but about the dayya ? Rather, the ayya and dayya must be one species. And one may learn from the combination of the two disputes that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da’a and ra’a , dayya and ayya are all one species. Consequently, according to Rabbi Abbahu, there are only twenty-three non-kosher species.

תַּנְיָא, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵאָה עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין יֵשׁ בַּמִּזְרָח, וְכוּלָּן מִין אַיָּה הֵן. תָּנֵי אֲבִימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ: שְׁבַע מֵאוֹת מִינֵי דָגִים הֵן, וּשְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת מִינֵי חֲגָבִים, וּלְעוֹפוֹת אֵין מִסְפָּר. עוֹפוֹת, עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבָּעָה הָווּ! אֶלָּא: וּלְעוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִים אֵין מִסְפָּר.

§ With regard to the phrase: “The ayya after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:14), it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are one hundred non-kosher birds in the East, and they are all species of ayya . Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There are seven hundred types of non-kosher fish, and eight hundred types of non-kosher grasshopper, and there are countless birds. The Gemara protests: Are there countless non-kosher birds? But there are only twenty-four non-kosher birds Rather, Avimi must have meant: And there are countless kosher birds.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם שֶׁבְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מְרוּבָּה מִן הַטְּהוֹרוֹת – לְפִיכָךְ מָנָה הַכָּתוּב בַּטְּהוֹרָה; גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם שֶׁעוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִין מְרוּבִּין עַל הַטְּמֵאִין – לְפִיכָךְ מָנָה הַכָּתוּב בַּטְּמֵאִין.

It is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of non-kosher animals are more numerous than the kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the kosher animals, teaching that all the rest are non-kosher. On the other hand, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of kosher birds are more numerous than the non-kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לְעוֹלָם יִשְׁנֶה אָדָם לְתַלְמִידוֹ דֶּרֶךְ קְצָרָה.

The Gemara asks: What is this baraita teaching us? The Gemara responds: As Rav Huna says that Rav says, and some say that Rav Huna says that Rav says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner, just as the Torah is concise in its language.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עוֹף טָהוֹר נֶאֱכָל בְּמָסוֹרֶת. נֶאֱמָן הַצַּיָּיד לוֹמַר: עוֹף זֶה טָהוֹר מָסַר לִי רַבִּי. אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁבָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן.

Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A kosher bird may be eaten on the strength of a tradition that it is kosher, without inspecting for the signs listed in the mishna. And the hunter is deemed credible to say: My teacher conveyed to me that this bird is kosher. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this is the halakha only when the teacher is familiar with the non-kosher birds and with their names.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: רַבּוֹ חָכָם, אוֹ רַבּוֹ צַיָּיד? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁבָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן; אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבּוֹ צַיָּיד – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רַבּוֹ חָכָם, בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁמַיְיהוּ – גְּמִיר לְהוּ, אֶלָּא אִינְהוּ – מִי יָדַע לְהוּ? אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: רַבּוֹ צַיָּיד, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Was Rabbi Yoḥanan referring to the hunter’s teacher the Sage, or to his teacher the hunter, i.e., the one who taught him how to hunt? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this applies only when the teacher is familiar with them and with their names. Granted, if you say this is referring to his teacher the hunter, this works out well. But if you say it is referring to his teacher the Sage, granted, a Sage will know their names, since he has learned them, but does he recognize the birds themselves? Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Yoḥanan referred to his teacher the hunter? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוֹקְחִין בֵּיצִים מִן הַגּוֹיִם בְּכָל מָקוֹם, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לֹא מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלוֹת וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפוֹת.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita : One may buy eggs from the gentiles anywhere, and one need not be concerned, neither with regard to carcasses, i.e., that the egg may have been removed from a carcass of a bird and therefore forbidden, nor with regard to eggs from tereifot , because neither of these possibilities is likely.

וְדִילְמָא דְּעוֹף טָמֵא נִינְהוּ! אֲמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, בְּאוֹמֵר: ״שֶׁל עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי טָהוֹר״. וְלֵימָא: ״שֶׁל עוֹף טָהוֹר״! אִי הָכִי, אִית לֵיהּ לְאִישְׁתַּמּוּטֵי.

The Gemara objects: But perhaps they are from a non-kosher bird. Shmuel’s father said: The baraita is referring to a case where the gentile says they are of such and such bird, which is known to be kosher. The Gemara challenges: But if the gentile is deemed credible, let him say only that they are of a kosher bird. Why does he need to name the species? The Gemara responds: If so, if he does not name the species, he has the opportunity to deflect scrutiny if he is dishonest; but if he names the species, one can bring other eggs of the same species to compare and validate the claim.

וְלִבְדּוֹק בְּסִימָנִין! דְּתַנְיָא: כְּסִימָנֵי בֵיצִים – כָּךְ סִימָנֵי דָגִים. סִימָנֵי דָגִים סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כָּךְ סִימָנֵי

The Gemara asks: But why must one rely on the gentile? Let him inspect the eggs for signs, as it is taught in a baraita : Like the signs of kosher eggs, so too are the signs of fish. The Gemara interjects: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to the signs of fish? The Merciful One states them explicitly in the Torah: “Fins and scales” (Leviticus 11:9). Rather, say: So too are the signs of