Explanation #1: Rashi explains that in a place where they (the Peres and the Ozniyah) are common, we suspect, because, since they resemble Peres and Ozniyah, perhaps they are a species of Peres and Ozniyh.

Question: In that case, they ought to be forbidden everywhere?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that they do definitely not belong to the species of Peres and Ozniyah. However, in a place where they (the Peres and the Ozniyah) are common, we are strict, because, seeing as they resemble them, people will confuse one with the other; whereas in a place where they are not common, there is nothing to worry about, and they are permitted.

Clarification: There are three kinds of 'Kifuf'- this one, which is described as 'Ba'os she'be'Ofos'; That is the Tinshemes (owl), as the Gemara states - 'The Tinshemes is Ba'os she'be'Ofos'.

Clarification (cont.): Then there is the "Kos" and the "Yanshuf" which Onkelos translates as 'Karya' and 'Kifufa'. And it is about them that the Gemara says in 'ha'Mapeles' (Nidah 23a) that their eyes are in front of their face, like those of human-beings, like Karya and Kifufan ...

Clarification (cont.): And in B'rachos, Perek ha'Ro'ah (Daf 57b) we say that 'All species of birds are good in dreams, except for Karya and Kifufa'.

Clarification (cont.): However, there is another kind of "Kifuf" which is a Chayah, as the Gemara states in Perek ha'Ro'eh (Ibid.) 'All kinds of Chayos are good in dreams, except for an elephant, a monkey and a Kifuf' (an ape).

Clarification (cont.): Similarly, in the first Perek of Bechoros (8a) 'A lion, a bear, a leopard, a monkey and a Kifuf - give birth after three years'.

Implied Question: Here we cannot ask 'Is it in front of us?' that the Tana sees fit to say 'This is the Netz'? ...

Answer: ... since, when he says 'Zeh ha'Netz', he means to say that this is the species that one calls 'Netz' ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas above, where 'Oreiv ha'Amaki' is also called 'Oreiv', the Gemara is justified in asking in what way the one is more explicit than the other?

Explanation: Rashi translates this as 'a sparrow-hawk'.

Refutation: But it is impossible to say that, seeing as a "Netz" is one of the nineteen birds, which are not Doreis, as we explained above, and we see for a fact that a sparrow-hawk is Doreis, according to both Rashi's interpretation of Doreis and that of Rabeinu Tam - seeing as it catches the bird and eats it alive?

Explanation: Similarly, they err with regard to a "Nesher", which they call 'an eagle'.

Refutation: And this too, is incorrect, seeing as a Nesher possesses the four Simanim of Tum'ah - whereas an eagle has an extra claw.

Explanation: And they also say that "Korei" is a cuckoo.

Refutation: And this is not correct either, since we establish a cuckoo as a Tamei bird, whereas "Korei" is Tahor, as is evident in Perek Shilu'ach ha'Kein (later, Daf 140b), where Rebbi Eliezer renders it subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein because it is Tahor.

Refutation (cont.): ... and the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer only because it sits on eggs that are not its own; but everyone agrees that it is intrinsically Tahor.

Implied Question: The Gemara could equally well have mentioned "Ra'ah" and "Da'ah" ...

Answer: ... only it mentioned only one of them.

Question: Why, on the one hand, does the Torah write in Vayikra "Da'ah" and in Mishnah Torah "Ra'ah", and not both of them in one place; whilst on the other, it mentions "Ayah" in Vayikra, and both "Ayah" and "Dayah" in Devarim?

Answer: Because the Torah did not want to mention both "Da'ah" and "Ra'ah" in Mishnah Torah ...

Answer (cont.): ... because, had it done so, we would have thought that "Da'ah" and "Ra'ah" are two different species of bird, and the Torah is coming to add a species ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas by "Ayah" and "Dayah" we cannot make such a mistake, since the Torah writes "le'Miynah" by "Ayah" and in Mishnah Torah it writes "le'Miynah" with regard to "Dayah", indicating that the two are one and the same.

Clarifying the Sugya: There are many species, as we explained earlier (at the beginning of 60a), as we learn from Nesher, according to the simple P'shat of the Beraisa.

Clarifying the Sugya (cont.): And here, the questioner thought that the Beraisa is speaking similar to the Reisha - that 'There the seven hundred species of fish and eight hundred of locusts' is speaking about Tamei species, and here too, it is referring to Tamei species.

Clarifying the Sugya (cont.): Since the Reisha is certainly referring to Tamei species, even according to the version that does not mention the word 'bi'Teme'im in the Beraisa.

Proof: Because if it was talking about Tehorim, the numbers there would be of no practical relevance ...

Proof (cont.): ... whereas if it is referring to Teme'im, it teaches us that if somebody wants to eat a fish without scales, even assuming that he does not know whether the species in question is destined to grow them later, or whether it sheds them when it leaves the water, or not, as long as he recognizes the seven hundred species of Tamei fish and that this is not one of them, he is permitted to eat it, seeing as there no more than seven hundred Tamei species.

In Similar Vein: ... and similarly, the Tana is coming to permit locusts even if they have no jumping legs (as long as one is conversant with the eight hundred species of Tamei locusts ... ).

Conclusion: And that explains why the questioner thought that by birds too, even if one recognizes all the species of Tamei birds written in the Parshah, this does not permit one to eat other birds that possess one, two or three Si'manim - seeing as these Simanim are found by other Tamei birds as well ...

Conclusion (cont.): ... and there is no end to the number of birds that one needs to recognize in order to permit the rest!

Clarifying the Sugya (cont.): Hence the Gemara asks 'That there are twenty-four and no more, by which we are able to determine the other (Kasher) species.

Clarifying the Sugya (cont.): ... And the Gemara answers - that when the Tana says 'without number', he is referring to the Tahor species - not like the Reisha, which refers to the Tamei ones.

Question: Seeing as the Tahor birds are the majority, why do we not simply go after the majority?

Answer #1: According to what Tosfos explained earlier (on 60b) that the Torah includes many species, the Kashya is answered.

Answer #2: And even according to Rashi, who maintains that it only includes species of Nesher, the Kashya is nevertheless answered, as the Gemara explained above 'There are a hundred species of Tamei birds in the east, all of them various species of Ayah. Consequently, it is possible that among the Tamei birds, there are many Tamei species.