Commento su Deuteronomio 14:12

וזה אשר לא תאכלו מהם BUT THESE ARE THEY WHICH YOU MAY NOT EAT — This again is intended to forbid as food the bird that is slaughtered in the case of a leper (Sifrei Devarim 103:1-2; Kiddushin 57a).

וזה אשר לא תאכלו, “this is the type of bird you may not eat;” this includes birds which have undergone ritual slaughter. The following had to be stated explicitly, as once no longer alive, such birds are susceptible to ritual impurity. One might have thought since the ritual impurity that had left the person stricken with tzoraat had been transferred to his offering, that offering had become contaminated. The Torah therefore indicates that this is not the case.

This prohibits the slaughtered bird [offered by the metzora]. Apparently it is expounded this way because the phrase, “This is what you may not eat,” is apparently superfluous. For below it is written (v. 19), “And all flying creeping creatures are ritually unclean for you, they may not be eaten.” Rather, the verse here intends to forbid the bird that is slaughtered by the metzora. The Gemora (Kiddushin 57a) asks, “I would say the opposite — forbid the [metzora’s] released bird and permit the slaughtered bird.” And the Gemora answers, “The Torah does not say to release the bird if eventually it may cause a liability” — that a person might unknowingly sin by taking and eating it. Re”m asks: If [this reasoning is] so, then why is the phrase, “[You may eat] any pure bird,” needed to permit the released bird? Re”m answers: The explanation, “Any pure bird — this permits the released bird,” is only an asmachta [a loose interpretation]. Also Rashi there says this explicitly (ibid.).

הנשר, contrary to common perception, this bird is not the one known to us as “eagle,” as it does not have a claw at the rear of its leg, one of the marks of identification for birds of prey. Forbidden birds listed are not supposed to possess any marks that the pure birds have in common. This is why the Talmud in tractate Chulin, folio 61.defines ythis bid as not possessing any of the marks that would suggest that it is a pure bird. There us a bird with by a similar name in Arabic [According to Mendelsohn, eagles in his time did not possess this extra claw at the rear of its leg. [Compare D. Hoffman in his discussion on the Book of Leviticus. Ed.]

וזה אשר לא תאכלו, “and these are the ones of which you may not eat;” Rashi explains that the word זה is meant to include that the prohibition includes if these birds had been of the permitted kind, but were used in a procedure prescribed as a sin offering. They must not be eaten even though slaughtered in the appropriate manner. (Compare Leviticus 14,4)