The Gemara objects: But one should derive instead from a crow: Just as there, a bird with two signs is not kosher, so too any other bird that has only two signs is not kosher. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the peres and the ozniyya that the Merciful One wrote among the non-kosher birds? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has two signs, is it necessary to mention these birds, which have only one? Rather, even birds that have only one sign are kosher, save those mentioned explicitly in the Torah as non-kosher.

The Gemara objects: But let us learn instead from the peres and ozniyya themselves that all other birds with only one sign are non-kosher. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the nesher that the Merciful One wrote? Now that it is established that we do not eat any bird that has one sign, is it necessary to mention the nesher, which has none? Rather, the Torah mentions the nesher to indicate that it is a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if you find any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.

The Gemara objects: But if so, the reason for eating birds with even one sign is only that the Merciful One wrote: “Nesher.” One can infer, then, that if not for this, I would say: Derive from the peres and ozniyya that any bird with one sign is non-kosher. But that cannot be, since the peres and ozniyya are two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same matter, and as a rule, two verses that come as one do not teach a principle.

The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that the sign present in this, the peres, is absent in that, the ozniyya, and that which is present in that is absent in this. Accordingly, this is not a case of two verses that come as one, since each case would teach only that any other bird with only its respective sign is non-kosher. Consequently, it would have been possible to derive from them that any bird with only one sign is non-kosher. The verse therefore states: “Nesher,” to indicate otherwise.

The Gemara persists: Now, there are twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the verses. It is impossible that the one sign present in these, the peres and ozniyya, respectively, is absent in all those other birds. Consequently, the mentioning of the peres, ozniyya, and the other birds constitutes two verses that come as one. If so, one could not have derived from the cases of the peres and ozniyya that a bird with one sign is not kosher, and the inclusion of the nesher is unnecessary.

The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that there are twenty-four non-kosher birds, and four signs of a kosher bird. The same three signs can be found in all of them, with the exception of either the peres or the ozniyya. Twenty of them have all three signs, and two of those signs can be found in a crow. One sign is found in a peres and one in an ozniyya, and the sign present in this is absent in that, i.e., one of them has the fourth sign, which is absent from the other twenty-three non-kosher birds. Lest you say: Derive from it that any other bird with only that sign is non-kosher, the Merciful One wrote about the nesher to indicate: It is a nesher, which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat. But if there is any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.

The Gemara asks: But if one learns from nesher that a bird with even one sign is kosher, why do I need the doves that the Merciful One wrote are kosher, which have all four? Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: The dove was not mentioned to teach that it is kosher, but rather to teach that it is the only bird fit to be sacrificed as an offering. Rav Naḥman says: