Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Af Kol' only comes to include different types of eagle, seeing as there are no Tamei birds other than the twenty-four species mentioned in the Torah, as the Beraisa cited later (on 63b) states 'That is why the Torah lists the Tamei birds ... '.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And all of those twenty-four that are listed have (at least) one Si'man Taharah, with the exception of an eagle.

Refutation: This is no proof however ...

Explanation #2: ... because perhaps what the Gemara means is that the reason that the Torah lists the Teme'im is because, via these twenty-four birds and their Simanim one can discern all Tamei birds in the world. Whereas had the Torah wanted to list the Tahor birds, it would have had to increase the list.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And similarly, when the Gemara queries the statement 'And the birds are numberless - But the Tamei birds are (only) twenty-four?' and it answers that it is the Tahor birds that are numberless' - what it means to say (at first) is that 'There is no number by which we can discern through them all the other birds. And it answers that 'It is the Tahor birds that are numberless'.

Conclusion: Consequently, the Gemara is perfectly justified in including here even other species that are not species of eagles.

Question: How do the Rabbanan know this? Were they hunters or archers (who hunted birds), that they examined all the Tahor birds, till they discovered that no Tahor bird is Doreis ...

Question (cont): Bearing in mind what the Gemara says later (Daf 63b) that 'Tahor birds are numberless'?

Suggested Answer: Perhaps it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai!

Refutation: ... in which case why does the Torah need to mention both "Peres and Ozniyah"? Let it omit the one that is Doreis, since Mah Nafshach, one of them is Doreis, seeing as each one has one Si'man Taharah, and the one that one of them has, the other one doesn't, as is clear in the Gemara?

Answer: Perhaps they had a tradition from the days of No'ach, who sacrificed (seven pairs) from every species of Tahor bird. After examining them all, he handed down his conclusion to future generations that no Tahor bird is Doreis.

Answer (cont.): It is not possible to say this with regard to a Shesu'ah however, seeing as it is not an individual species, only the child of any animal, as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Mapeles (Nidah, 2a).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it grips what it eats in its claws and lifts it from the ground.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks however, that even a chicken does that?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tm therefore explains that it holds down its prey whilst it is still alive, without waiting until it dies.

Proof #1: ... like the Gemara says in Perek Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim 49b 'If someone who marries of his daughter to an Am ha'Aretz, it is as if he has bound her in front of a lion; For just as a lion holds down its prey and eats it without waiting until it dies, so too, does an Am-ha'Aretz 'strike and is intimate, without first appeasing his wife'.

Proof #2: Similarly, we learned in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 16:) 'If a lion holds down his prey and eats it in the R'shus ha'Rabim, the owner is Patur, since that is its way, in which cse it is Shein (which is Patur in the R'shus ha'Rabim) ...

Proof #2 (cont.): Whereas if it tore it apart and ate it (after it is dead), that is not its way and it is Keren (which is Chayav in the R'shus ha'Rabim).

Proof #2 (cont.): And the Gemara asks there from the Pasuk "A lion tears up its prey enough for the food of its cubs"? And it answers ' ... on behalf of its cubs' (it kills its prey because his cubs are still very small); "And it strangles enough for its lionesses"? ... 'On behalf of its lionesses'.

Explanation #1: We learned in a Beraisa cited in the Gemara - 'Raban Gamliel says that whatever possesses an extra claw and a crop, and its gizzard can be peeled, is certainly Tahor'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi explains there that it refers to the Reisha - which states that 'Any bird that is Doreis is Tamei, and any bird that doesn't, is Tahor'. And Raban Gamliel is now coming to teach us that, if in addition to not being Doreis, it has the three Simanim, one can be sure that it is Tahor.

Question: The wording of the Beraisa however, does not imply this.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that if it possesses these three Simanim of Taharah, then it is definitely Tahor, and it is not necessary to examine it for the Simon D'risah.

Inference #1: One can learn from this that when the Gemara says later - that the three Simanim apply to all of them (the nineteen birds), one of them has to be that it is not Doreis, because if they possess an extra claw, a crop and its gizzard can be peeled, and in addition, they are not Doreis, then they will have four Simanim (and not just three) ...

Conclusion: Consequently, the fact that it is not Doreis must be one of the three Simanim.

Inference #2: Similarly, when the Gemara says that 'a bird that possesses two Simanim is Tahor, provided one recognizes a raven ...

Inference #2 (cont.): ... now since one needs to recognize a raven, we see that a raven is not Doreis, and the two Simanim of Taharah of a raven that are to be found by all of the nineteen birds.

Reason: This is because the fourth Si'man that is not found with the nineteen birds is found either by the Peres or by the Ozniyah exclusively, as is clearly stated in the Gemara.

Question: Why does the Gemara then find it necessary to mention all three Simanim of Taharah; It could just as well have that if it has just two of them, we know it is Tahor - assuming that it is one of the Simanim that is not found by the nineteen birds, plus any other Si'man, in which case there is no Tamei bird that it can possibly be ...

Question (cont.): Since it can be neither an eagle, which has no Si'man Taharah at all, nor a Peres or Ozniyah, which have only one Si'man Taharah, not a raven or any of the nineteen birds, which do not have both of those Simanim, just one of them at most?

Suggested Answer: And if you want to say that they did not know the Siman Taharah that is not to be found among the nineteen birds.

Refutation #1: But they recognized the Shalach, as Rebbi Yochanan said 'I saw a Shalach ... I saw a Racham, and it went "Shrakrak" '. And likewise the bat, which is a sign among the birds'.

Refutation #2: And in Perek ha'Mapeles (Nidah 23b) Karya and Kifufa (two species of owl) whose eyes look ahead; like those of a human-being - and they are synonymous with the Kos and the Yanshuf.

Conclusion: Seeing as they recognized them, why could they not examine them; And they would then be able to permit a bird that came before them with the fourth Si'man that none of the others have, plus another Si'man together with it.

Conclusion (cont.): ... in which case it is no longer possible to suspect that it may be a Tamei bird.

Refutation #3: And a raven too, they recognized, as the Gemara states in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos 128b) 'One may handle Luf (a species of onion) because it is the food of ravens'. And the Gemara explains there that 'All Yisrael are princes' (and are therefore eligible to keep ravens).

Refutation #3 (cont.): And the Gemara will say later 'It is not in vain that the starling went to the raven - but because it is the same species'.

Refutation #3 (cont.): And in Perek ha'Shole'ach too (Gitin 45a) the Gemara relates how 'a raven came and announced 'Ilish, flee!' and likewise at the end of Bamah Ishah (Shabbos 67b), where the Gemara says 'Someone who says to a raven "Scream!" '.

Conclusion: That being the case, why not simply examine the two Simanei Taharah of a raven, and then by means of the two Simanei Taharah that the raven does not possess, let them declare Kasher all other birds.

Proof #1: It is also possible to clarify this from the Halachah, from what the Gemara says (on the following Daf) 'But do the men of Tamarta not eat it, (the starling) because it has a crop?'

Proof #2: And regarding a white-bellied swallow the Gemara says there 'But do the men of the Galil not eat it because it's gizzard can be peeled?' ...

Conclusion: ... so we see that the raven does not possess these two Simanim?

Suggested Answer: Perhaps our Mishnah does not require all three Simanei Taharah (the basis of our Kashya), but what it means is 'either or' - with reference to the Reisha 'Kol Of ha'Doreis Tamei' it now adds that if in addition to not being Doreis, it either possesses an extra claw or a crop, or its gizzard can be peeled, it is Tahor.

Refutation: It is impossible to say that however, because, based on what we proved earlier that one of the Simanim of a raven is the fact that it is not Doreis, how can we eat a bird on the basis of its not being Doreis plus one other Si'man, seeing as it may be a raven?

Conclusion: It therefore seems that our Mishnah is coming to teach us that there are four Simanim of Taharah. And we will automatically know that that the two Simanim that the Raven does not possess will identify a bird as being Tahor.

Explanation: Rashi explains that, since the Torah lists "pigeons" among the Tahor species, and they do possess those Simanim, and it lists "eagle" among the Tamei species, and it is these four Simanim that divide them, it is clear that they are the Simanim of Taharah.

Question: The Gemara will shortly answer the Kashya why we do not learn from "Peres and Ozniyah" - 'If so, why does the Torah need to insert "Nesher"; Because if we are forbidden to eat birds which possess only one Si'man, how much more so birds that have no Simanim at all?

Question (cont.): (According to Rashi) we need "Nesher" to teach us the Simanim of Taharah?

Answer: We could learn them from Peres and Ozniyah however; since in whatever Peres differs from Torin we would consider a Si'man Taharah, amd likewise, in whatever way Ozniyah differs from Torin we would consider a Si'man Taharah, and between the two of them we would end up with all four Simanim.

Question #1: There is a Kashya from Torin however - when the Gemara states the the Torah only mentions it with regard to a Korban. According to Rashi however, the Torah needs to write it, since it is from Torin that we learn the Simanim of Taharah?

Question #2: Furthermore, had the Torah not inserted Torin, we would have learned the opposite, namely that three of the Simnei Taharah are in fact Simnei Tum'ah, that the nineteen birds each have four Simnei Tum'ah, and the eagle, one?

Refuting Second Question: It would not have been possible to say this however, seeing as regarding Peres and Ozniyah, the one that has the Si'man that none of the others have, would not have a Si'man Tum'ah at all, which is exactly the opposite of the nineteen birds.

Alternative explanation: We could however, have made all the Simanim of the raven Simnei Tum'ah.

Answer: The correct explanation therefore is that we initially think that there must be a spare "Torin" that is superfluous, to teach us Simnei Taharah. That is why the Gemara asks 'Why we need that "Torin"? Since, if it is to teach the Simanim of Taharah, that we would already know from the "Torin" that comes for the basic ruling and from "Nesher".

Answer (cont.): In fact, there is no superfluous "Torin".

Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered that it is nineteen Pesukim that are all teaching us the same thing ...

Answer: ... but it gives a better answer.

Question: But this is the very thing that we wanted to learn from Torin - that one cannot eat them with three Simanim, until there are all four.

Question (cont.): ... and Having answered 'If so, why does the Torah insert all the other Tamei birds?', why does the Gemara now ask again 'Let us learn from there, just as there, they have three Simanim and we do not eat them ... '?

Answer (Part 1): What the Gemara is asking is that with those three Simanim we should not eat, only with two of them, plus the one that they don't have - making three; Whereas from "Torin" we would have learned that one has to have all four.

Answer (cont.): ... and the Gemara answers 'If so, why does the Torah need to insert "Oreiv"? Because since we only permit a bird with two Simanim plus the one that the nineteen birds don't have, it is not necessary to insert "Oreiv", which only has two Simanim'?

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could then have asked 'If so, why does the Torah need to add "le'Miyno" (to its species)?

Explanation #1: All of them possess three Simanei Taharah with the exception of the raven. And it is impossible for the Siman that the Peres possesses not to be found by at least of them, and likewise, the one that is possessed by the Ozniyah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): In fact, the Torah inserts each one twice not to eat each bird with that Si'man, turning it into a case of two Pesukim which teach us the same thing. Consequently, we cannot learn from there the prohibition not to eat other birds that come before us with either of those two Simanim. And since we cannot learn from there, from where do we know that it is forbidden, that we require Nesher to permit it. So Rashi explains.

Question: The Torah still needs to write "Nesher", to permit it with the third Si'man, that neither the Peres nor the Ozniyah possess - only the nineteen birds. Otherwise we would have thought that it is forbidden, because now that one cannot eat a bird with three Simanim, how much more so one with only one Si'man!

Question (cont.): Granted, we would not have forbidden one of those two Simanim that the Peres and the Ozniyah possess, since it is a matter of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', seeing as the nineteen birds possess them too; nevertheless, with that third Si'man we ought to have forbidden it?

Answer #1: Now if we were to say that that third Si'man is possessed by the raven, the question would be answered, since it too, would then be a matter of two Pesukim ... by the raven and by the nineteen birds.

Answer #2: The Kashya is anyway nonexistent however, because on what grounds would we have forbidden a bird with that third Si'man? From the nineteen birds we could not learn it, neither via a 'Mah Matzinu' nor with a 'Kal va'Chomer', since it constitutes nineteen Pesukim that teach us the same thing, from which we can therefore not learn it.

Explanation: Rashi concludes that one of these three Simanim that exists by all of them, is also to be found either by the Peres or by the Ozniyah, and the fourth Si'man is o be found by the other one. It therefore transpires that that Si'man is only said once.

Explanation (cont.): Consequently, we would have learned from there to forbid any bird that comes before us with one Si'man, whichever one it may be (seeing as we don't know which Si'man that solitary Si'man is, that we should learn from it).

Conclusion: And so "Nesher" comes to teach us that an eagle, which has no Si'man Taharah is forbidden, but any bird that comes before us with one Si'man, is Kasher. So Rashi explains.

Refutation: It was unnecessary however, for Rashi to explain that we don't know which Si'man that solitary Si'man is. because even if we would (as we explained earlier - that they recognized the Shalach, the Tinshemes, the Kos and the Yanshuf', we would nevertheless need "Nesher" to teach us that we will not forbid a bird that has that particular Si'man.

Question: How could we learn from the one with the new Si'man to forbid a bird with one Si'man like that? If so, why does the Torah find it necessary to insert the one (Peres or Ozniyah) that possesses the Si'man that all the nineteen possess - If one cannot eat a bird with three Simanim, how much more so one with only one Si'man?

Question (cont.): We must therefore say that the Torah writes the old Si'man by one of them to teach us that one cannot learn from the new Si'man either, seeing as for itself, it is not necessary to insert it, since, as we just explained, we would learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer from the nineteen birds?

Answer: This is not a Kashya, because from them (the nineteen birds) we cannot learn at all, since they are considered nineteen Pesukim that teach us the same thing. And that is why the Torah specified the one of the three Simanim that is shared by all of them (See Maharsha).

Answer (cont.): And it is for the same reason that the Torah specified the raven, since we do not learn from them at all, and we may eat a bird with any of those three Simanim.

Question: Since we don't learn from the nineteen birds, as a result of which the Torah needs to mention one bird that possesses one of their Simanim, why do we not then learn from that one, because, since the Torah needs to mention it, it is no longer 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'?

Answer: It is not possible to learn from it at all. Why is that? Because just as we don't learn from the nineteen birds (from all those beyond the first two, that is, which the Torah needs to mention, since we cannot learn them from the first two, which is 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.

Answer (cont.): By the same token, we cannot learn from it, since it remains 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', because that Si'man is written twenty times.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It is possible to explain the Sugya in a different manner. That the Gemara initially considers "Peres and Ozniyah" 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad". In other words, if the Torah wanted us to learn from them that a bird with one Si'man is Tamei, then it ought to have omitted either "Peres" or "Ozniyah", as from one of them we would have known that a bird that comes before us with only one Si'man of Taharah is Tamei?

Question: And if you want to answer that, had the Torah mentioned only "Peres", then we would have thought that it is only with that specific Si'man that the Peres has that a bird is Tamei, but the Siman that the Ozniyah has is Chashuv, and a bird that possesses that Si'man only is Tahor.

Answer: But since that Si'man is also shared by the nineteen birds, it cannot be Chashuv to render Tahor by itself, because, seeing as even a bird that has two other Simanim together with it, is Tamei, how much more so if it is on its own! In which case, the Torah would not need to write Ozniyah, and we would learn it from Peres.

Answer (cont.): And the reason that the Torah nevertheless added "Ozniyah" is to turn it into 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' - and 'Ein Melamdin'.

Explanation #2 (Part 2)): And the Gemara answers that there is a Si'man either by "Peres" or by "Ozniyah" which is not to be found by the nineteen birds.

Clarification: Consequently, it is no longer 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' - because if we render Tamei with one Si'man from the one with the Si'man that is not found among the nineteen birds, we can no longer ask why we need the other one. Because in fact we need it to counter the argument that the new Si'man is Chashuv (since it is not found by any other bird) to render a bird which has it, Tahor.

Clarification (cont.): However, from the one with the new Si'man we would not have learned that a bird that comes before us with one Si'man is Tamei, because if so, why would we need the one with the Si'man that it shares with the nineteen birds, which is certainly not more Chashuv to render Tahor?

Question: If one is able to learn from the one which has the Si'man that it shares with the nineteen birds, that a bird that has only one Si'man Taharah is Tamei, let the Torah insert only the one with the new Si'man, and we will learn that any bird that comes before us with that Si'man is Tamei, and how much more so with one of the other three Simanim, that do not help to render it Tahor by the nineteen birds (even together with two other Simnim)?

Conclusion: Rashi's explanation is therefore the correct one!

Question: There is however, a Kashya on Rashi - Why does it consider the Si'man Taharah that is shared by the nineteen birds and one of these ('Peres and Ozniyah') 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'? So what if it is written by both, Perhaps it is needed to teach us on itself and on similar birds that have any one of the three Simnei Taharah that they are Tamei?

Question (cont.): ...because this is not something that we would have known from the nineteen birds, seeing as they are nineteen Pesukim that teach us the same thing. Nor can they be compared to those of the nineteen birds that the Torah lists after the first two ...

Question (cont.): ... seeing as, although they are needed for themselves, we cannot learn from them, because, if that is what the Torah wanted, then it would have sufficed to insert just one of them, and to omit the rest.

Question (cont.): But here what should it omit? If it did not write the one that is written by the Peres or the Ozniyah, we would not learn it from the nineteen birds, since they are nineteen Pesukim ... .

Question (cont.): Whereas if it inserted the one that is by the Peres or the Ozniyah and not mentioned the nineteen birds, we would have thought that it is only a bird with one Si'man that is forbidden, but with two or three it is permitted; and that explains why both are necessary.

Conclusion: So we will therefore learn from the single Si'man that exists by either the Peres or the Ozniyah, and (as we explained) it is not comparable to those nineteen birds - that is to say, those that are listed after the first two, which are all equal.

Conclusion (cont.): ... and if we do learn from it, let the Torah omit all the others and just mention that one.