Clarification: Both ('Bahen u'vi'Shemoseihen') are necessary, to avoid any errors.

Alternative Explanation: The Gemara could have said 'Tahor', provided one recognizes the Peres and the Ozniyah.

Clarification: It is only by a starling that the Rabbanan disagree with him; but they agree that Lemiyno: comes to include other birds that are similar to them.

Inference: This implies that the Oreiv does possess these two Simanim.

Explanation #1: And Rebbi Eliezer holds that it is nevertheless possible that they are a species of Oreiv, nd tht it does not matter that the two Simanim of an Oreiv and those of a species of Oreiv do not tally.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas the Rabbanan hold that if they do not tally, then it cannot belong to its species.

Observation: Rebbi Yitzchak be'ha'Rav Meir examined an Oreiv (that we call corbeil [a raven]) and he discovered that it has an extra claw and a crop.

Explanation: As a result, he made a Dochek (a forced explanation) to explain what the Gemara says 'Did the men of K'far Tamarta not eat them?' to mean that they must have discerned that they were not a species of Oreiv, and the reason that it states that 'they had a Zefek' was not to preclude an Oreiv, since an Oreiv does not have a Zefek either.

Explanation (cont.): It is merely explaining that they ate it because they saw signs of Taharah (i.e. that it had a crop, which is a Siman Taharah).

Explanation (cont.): Nor was it Doreis either - only it was not necessary to mention this since it is obvious that any bird that is, is Tamei. Automatically, the Gemara proves that since they ate it, they must have perceived that it was not an Oreiv.

Question: According to the Rivam, since an Oreiv possesses an extra claw and a crop, then its gizzard cannot be peeled and it is Doreis.

Question (cont.): But it is impossible to say that, since Rav Nachman states that 'a bird that come before us with two Simanim is Tahor, provided one recognizes an Oreiv'. One of those two Simanim must be that it is not Doreis (since every bird that is Doreis is Tamei. Now since the bird could be an Oreiv, it is clear that an Oreiv is not Doreis?

Suggestion: Perhaps the bird that we call a raven has an extra claw and a crop, and is also not Doreis, in which case it belongs to the nineteen birds.

Alternative: If however, it becomes clarified that it spits (i.e. it inseminates via its mouth) then it is definitely an Oreiv, as the Gemar states in Cheilek (Sanhedrin 108:), where it is listed as one of the three that mated in the Ark, and was punished (in this way).

A Forced Explanation: We will then be forced to say that when the Gemara says 'A bird that comes before us with two Simanim is Tahor' what it means is that we discern two Simanim, but not the third one, in that we have not examined it for the third Si'man, whether it is Doreis or not. And if we then recognize that it is not a raven, we don't need to examine it to see whether it is Doreis or not, since the only bird with two Simanim that is Doreis is a raven and its species.

A Forced Explanation (cont.): Now if it was Doreis, it would be a Tamei bird, since any bird that is Doreis is Tamei. In any event, it is not a raven or one of its species, since they recognized it. And if we were speaking about a bird that possesses two Simnei Taharah and two Simnei Tum'ah, what could it then possibly be?

Conclusion: It is therefore clear that an Oreiv is not Doreis.

Conclusion (cont.): Nevertheless, they did not take into account the possibility that it was from the nineteen birds that all share the same Simanim, since we can say that they are all Doreis, and the Simanim that they share are the other three.

The Ramifications: According to this explanation, we will learn like Rashi, who explains - that when our Mishnah said 'Whatever has an extra claw, a crop and its gizzard can be peeled, is known to be Tahor', it relies on the Reisha, which already taught us that 'any bird that is Doreis is Tamei' - not like Rabeinu Tam.

Conclusion: And we will therefore not permit any bird with the above three Simanim unless we know for sure that it is not Doreis, since the three Simanim are shared by all of them.

Refutation: The Lashon does not however imply that, rather 'with two Simanim' implies that we searched and that there are no more, similar to 'One that comes with one Siman' throughout the Sugya, which implies that we know for sure that it has only one Si'man

Refutation (cont.): Because if we harbored any doubts, it would be a Safek Oreiv, and it seems that when a bird has only one Si'man, it is not necessary to recognize an Oreiv.

Question: It seems from the Gemara earlier, that the fourth Si'man that the nineteen birds do not possess is only to be found either by a Peres or by an Ozniyah, whereas according to Rebbi Eliezer, all the Simnei Taharah are to be found on an Oreiv and its species, according to the P'shat of the Halachah - which implies that Zefek and Kurk'bano Niklaf are the Simanim of the starling and the white-breasted swallow, whilst the raven itself possess the other two Simanim ...

Question (cont.): In which case, between the Oreiv and its species are to be found all four Simanim? And the Gemara will shortly rule like Rebbi Eliezer.

Question (cont.): And it also seems that the Halachah is like Rebbi Chiya, since the Beraisa learns that a bird that comes with one Siman Taharah is Tahor, since it is not comparable to an eagle, and according to him one of the Simanim is to be found either by a Peres or by an Ozniyah exclusively?

Question (cont.): And even according to the explanation of the Rivam, who explains that an Oreiv possesses an extra claw and a crop, since Rebbi Eliezer considers the white-breasted swallow to be a species of Oreiv, whose gizzard can be peeled, as we learned; nor is it Doreis, seeing as the men of the Galil ate it, so we see that all four four Simanim exist between the Oreiv and its species?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is based on the fact that the starling's crop is small and the swallow's gizzard cannot be peeled by hand (See Amud Beis), in which case according to Rebbi Eliezer, the one is not considered a crop, and the other is not considered subject to being peeled.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if it possesses one Siman, we establish it as Tahor, provided we do not see that it is Doreis.

Question #1: Why is it Tahor? Perhaps it is a raven, which has two Simnei Taharah?

Question #2: Moreover, it implies that if the Peres and the Ozniyah were commonly found in inhabited areas, we would have doubts about it.

Question #2 (cont.): But why, seeing as we establish that it is not Doreis?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'Hu de'Lo Dores' means that the one Siman that it possesses is that it is not Doreis.

Explanation #2 (cont.): But if it was, it would be Tamei, since 'A bird that is Doreis is Tamei'.

Reason #1: This is S'tam Rav Yehudah, whom he called 'Rebbi' because he was his main Rebbi (from whom he had learned most of what he knew).

Reason #2: Others explains that he referred to him as Rebbi because he was not sure as to whether he heard it in the name of Rebbi Yehudah the Tana or from Rav Yehudah the Amora.

Explanation #1: And this is what we say in other places (B'rachos 33:) - 'who is careful and who quotes what he learnt from the mouth of his Rebbe, like Rachba from Pumbedisa', who said in the name of Rebbi Yehudah ' the Har ha'Bayis was a colonnade within a colonnade'.

Refutation #1: But this is not correct, because if so, the Gemara ought rather to have said ' ... that he even specifies the authors that he is quoting', as we find in the first Perek (Daf 18:) 'Rav Yehudah says, Safek in the name of Rav, Safek in the name of Shmuel'.

Refutation #2: Moreover, when it cites there the Din of a double colonnade, it should also have cited our Sugya.

Explanation #2: What the Gemara in B'rachos is therefore referring to is to the fact that he copied the wording that his Rebbi used, and declned to deviate from it, even when it is unconventional, such as when he said 'Satav Kaful Hayah, Satav li'Fenim mi'Satav, when he ought rather to have said 'Itztevanis Haysah ... ', which is how the Gemara in Pesachim (13:) refers to it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara is referring to locusts.

Refutation #1: This does not appear to be the case however, seeing as the Sugya is talking about birds?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, if it is talking about Tamei locusts, it is obvious that they are subject to Malkos because of Sheretz ha'Of?

Explanation #2: Consequently, it must be talking about very small birds which crawl on the ground, and it teaches us that one is Chayav on them because of Sheretz ha'Of, since they do not fll under the category of 'birds' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And not because they are lacking the Simanim of Taharah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the other three Simanim were clear to them; and our Safek is that if this is called 'peeling', then it has four Simnei Taharah, and it has left the realm of Tamei birds; whereas if it is not, then it has only three Simanim, and it belongs to the category of other Tamei birds that have only three Simanim.

Implication: We can extrapolate from this that the three Simanim of Taharah possessed by the nineteen birds are an extra claw, a crop and that they are not Doreis.

Proof : And there is no other possible explanation; because if we assume that Kurk'bano Niklaf is to be found in the nineteen birds, and here those S'feikos possessed two Simnei Taharah plus that it could be peeled with a knife ...

Proof (cont.): Now if one of those two Simanim was the one that is only to be found on either the Peres or the Ozniyah, then even if we do not reckon 'Kiluf', there is nothing to worry about, since Peres and Ozniyah only possess one Si'man, and these possess two; whilst the nineteen birds as well as the Oreiv do not possess the new Si'man.

Proof (cont.): Whereas if, on the other hand, those two Simanim are among the Simanim that are to be found on the nineteen birds, then even if it is considered Kiluf, perhaps it is one of the nineteen birds (in which case it is Tamei anyway).

Refuted Answer #1: Nor is it logical to say that they knew that they were not from the nineteen birds, only they suspected that they may be an Oreiv, so that, if it was considered Kiluf, they could no longer be an Oreiv; and if not, the doubt that perhaps they were, remained.

Refuted Answer #2: Alternatively, they had one Si'man plus the one of (Safek) Kiluf, and they knew that they were not an Oreiv, only their doubt was that perhaps they were a Peres or an Ozniyah.

Implied Question: And even though we say that Peres and Ozniyah are not common in inhabited areas?

Answer: That applies only to birds that we know for sure to be Peres and Ozniyah, whereas tose under discussion were a Safek that resembled them.

Conclusion: All this is a Dochek.

Refuted Explanation: Neither can we explain that they had one Si'man plus the one in question, and their Safek was that if it was considered 'Kurk'vano Niklaf, then perhaps they were an Oreiv, since they had two Simanei Taharah, whereas if it was not, then they could only have been either a Peres or an Ozniyah, in which cse they were permitted, since Peres and Ozniyah are not common in inhabited areas.

Refutation: The Lashon 'The gizzards of Tahor birds can be peeled' does not imply this, but rather that if was considered Kurk'vano Niklaf then they were Tahor, otherwise not.

Reinstating Explanation #1: We must therefore learn like Rashi's initial explanation and to permit any bird whose gizzard can be peeled plus one other Si'man - because on the one hand Peres and Ozniyah are not common in inhabited areas, whilst on the other, the gizzard and the other nineteen birds cannot be peeled.

Support: Also Rabeinu Chananel explains with regard to 'A bird that comes with one Si'man is Tahor' - 'We have a tradition from our fathers that that Si'man is Kurk'vano Niklaf', implying that the Si'man that is to be found only by Peres and Ozniyah is that of Kurk'vano Niklaf.

Implied Question: Even though when we learned earlier 'Three Simanim are shared by twenty of them, Oreiv possesses two, Peres and Ozniyah possess one, and Nesher, none' - Rabeinu Chananel himself explained 'For example, the twenty possess Zefek, Kurk'vano Niklaf and Etzba Yeseirah, only they are Doreis whilst eating ...

Implied Question (cont.): The Oreiv possesses two of those possessed by the twenty, whilst the Peres and the Ozniyah, one of them has one of the above Simanim, whereas the other possesses none of them (neither Zefek, Etzba Yeseirah nor Kurk'vano Niklaf, only it is not Doreis) ...

Implied Question (cont.): And we would therefore have thought that any bird that comes with one Si'man is Tamei; therefore the Torah inserts "Nesher" ' (upto here are the words of Rabeinu Chananel).

Answer: He wrote all this only as an example, not because he considered that to be the actual case; whereas in fact, he considers Kurk'vano Niklaf to be the Si'man that the nineteen birds do not possess.

Inference: According to what we just explained, that one can permit any bird whose gizzard can be peeled and that possesses one other Si'man, is permitted, the bird that we call 'Kavna' will be permitted, since its gizzard can be peeled and it has an extra claw but no crop.

Question: It is probably a 'Kos or a Yanshuf, since it is has cheeks like a human being - and we have learned in Perek ha'Mapeles (Nidah 23.) that 'Karya and Kifufa (i.e. Kos and Yanshuf) have cheeks like a human being?

Chidush: It therefore seems that the fourth Si'man that is found only on a Peres or Ozniyah is that it has a Zefek.

Chidush (cont.): And the bird that we call 'Kavna', that is similar to a Kos and Yanshuf, which in turn, belong to the group of nineteen birds, is perhaps not Doreis, in which case it possesses another three Simnei Tharah.

Inference: According to that, it is not logical to say that the bird that we call a raven is the "Oreiv" since it has a crop and an extra claw. It would then transpire that all four Simnei Taharah exist on all the (nineteen) birds and on the Oreiv, without the Peres and the Ozniyah?

Inference (cont.): it must therefore be a Tahor bird.

Answer to Previous Question: It is possible however, to resolve the problem from the Gemara in Nidah, if we explain that when the Gemara explains that 'Also Rebbi Meir only states this by Karya and Kikufa', it means them or birds that resemble them, even though they are not actually the Karya and the Kifufa themselves.

Answer to Previous Question (cont.): It may well then be that the bird called 'Kavna' is Tahor, or perhaps it is a species of Oreiv, if it can be determined that it is Doreis, in which case the raven is not a species of Oreiv.

Conclusion: Above however, we already explained that an Oreiv is not Doreis, and someone who looks into it will discover that this is so. 'Give to a wise man and he will become even wiser!'

Rejected Explanation: The Gemara cannot mean that the female is permitted and the male is prohibited ...

Refutation: Since whatever comes from what is Tahor is Tahor.

Correct Explanation: But they are two different species that are called by those names. And the male and female of both species share the same ruling.

Clarification: At first, they thought that it ate without being Doreis ...

Clarification (cont.): And with that Si'man alone they ate it; They were not worried that it may be a Peres or an Ozniyah, which are not common in inhabited areas.

Clarification (cont.): Or perhaps they simply knew that the Tarnegulta de'Agma was not a Peres or an Ozniyah.