Kommentar zu Dewarim 14:13

ראה — הראה וראיה and איה and דיה are names for the same bird. Why is it called ראה? Because it sees keenly. And why does Scripture prohibit it under each of its names? In order not to give an opponent occasion to argue, i.e. in order that he who regards it as forbidden may not say, “This is the ראה and is therefore forbidden”, and he who wishes to declare it as permitted will then reply, “But this is named דיה", or “this is named איה and this Scripture has not forbidden”. — In the case of birds, Scripture enumerates by name the unclean species, thus telling you that the clean birds are more numerous than the unclean (in contradistinction to quadrupeds; see vv. 4—5), for which reason Scripture mentions those by name which form the minority (Chullin 63b).

והראה ואת האיה, and the aforementioned birds, etc. It appears that every one of the 24 categories of unclean birds listed here has numerous sub-categories. This is the reason the Torah does not write למינה, "according to its kind," but למינהו, "according to their kind" (Chulin 63). When the bird mentioned is the only one of its kind or there are only a few variants of that category, the Torah speaks of למינו, "its kind." The proof for this theory is that the Torah does not write למינו in connection with the נשר (often translated as eagle), and the Talmud in Chulin 61 when not certain about a particular bird suggests that it may belong to the family of the נשר. Clearly, the sages of the Talmud considered the word נשר as a collective term for quite a variety of birds of its category.

Ayah, and dayah are one and the same, etc. Rashi’s proof is: The Mishnah Torah [i.e., the book of Devarim] only intends to add upon what was previously written above in Toras Kohanim [i.e., the book of Vayikra]. And if so, why is it not written here, “The da’ah and the ra’ah,” to [include what was said in Vayikra and merely] add [the ra’ah] to it? This would be similar to what is said in Chulin (63b), “Why are the animals repeated? Because of the dromedary, which is not mentioned in Vayikra.” If so, why does the verse (Vayikra 11:14) say, “da’ah,” yet here it says, “ra’ah,” but not, “da’ah”? Rather, this indicates that ra’ah and da’ah are one and the same. Therefore Scripture here does not write “da’ah.” For if it did, I would think that the ra’ah and the da’ah are different animals, and that the verse is coming to add [the ra’ah]. For this reason the verse here only says, “ra’ah,” to teach that the da’ah and ra’ah are one and the same. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: If so [that the da’ah and ra’ah are the same], then the verse should say, “and the ra’ah according to its kind,” to include the da’ah mentioned in Vayikra. For this reason Rashi explains, “The ra’ah, ayah, and dayah are one and the same.” The indication that they are all the same is because in the verse it is written, “according to its kind,” at the end to group them all together to teach that they are one and the same. Furthermore Rashi is answering the question: If they are all one and the same, why does the verse say, “The ra’ah and (ואת) the ayah and the dayah according to its kind”? Why is the word ואת, which interrupts between the words ra’ah and ayah, needed? Rashi answers: Why is it entitled “ra’ah”, etc. In other words, the verse interrupts [with the word ואת] to say that this name [that it has] is different from its other names. For it is called “ra’ah” because its vision is exceedingly powerful, as is taught in Chulin (ibid.), “While standing in Babylon it can see a carcass in the Land of Israel.” Re”m’s explanation is most difficult to understand. See the Gemora (ibid.).