Bechorot Daf 7 (בכורות דף ז׳)
Daf: 7 | Amudim: 7a – 7b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (7a)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
The daf opens mid-sentence, completing 6b’s dilemma about Rabbi Shimon’s threshold for eating.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִישְׁתַּנִּי מִגָּמָל שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
English Translation:
it is different from an ordinary camel and has some characteristics of its mother, perhaps it is permitted to eat it. Or perhaps there is no difference, and with regard to consumption Rabbi Shimon also requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence 6b broke off in is finished here. The question is whether Rabbi Shimon’s requirement of רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ governs eating as well as bechora, or whether a camel born to a cow that merely אִישְׁתַּנִּי מִגָּמָל, differs from an ordinary camel, is already permitted. The next twenty segments are the search for an answer, and unusually for this masechet the search succeeds.
Key Terms:
- אִישְׁתַּנִּי מִגָּמָל = it differs from a camel
- שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי = it is acceptable — permitted
- לָא שְׁנָא = there is no difference
Segment 2
TYPE: ראיה
A baraita appears to prove that head-and-majority is required for eating too.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, וְאִם דּוֹמֶה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ לְאִמּוֹ — חַיָּיב בִּבְכוֹרָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לַאֲכִילָה נָמֵי בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ!
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts, the offspring is forbidden for consumption, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; but if its head and the majority of its body are similar to its mother, it is obligated in, i.e., subject to the obligations of, firstborn status. Learn from it that with regard to consumption, Rabbi Shimon also requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first attempt reads a baraita as a single continuous ruling. It opens with a kosher animal bearing a non-kosher type being אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה — which is Rabbi Shimon’s position — and then says that if רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ resemble the mother it is obligated in bechora. Taking the two clauses together suggests the threshold applies throughout.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — adducing a source
- רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ = its head and the majority of it
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rejected: the threshold attaches specifically to bechora, and the wording shows it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, לִבְכוֹרָה דַּוְקָא. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָא שָׁבְקַהּ לַאֲכִילָה וְקָם לֵיהּ אַבְּכוֹר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לִבְכוֹרָה הוּא דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ, אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה — לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the requirement that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother is relevant specifically with regard to firstborn status. The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise, as the tanna leaves the halakha of consumption with which he began and addresses the halakha of firstborn status. Learn from it that it is with regard to firstborn status that Rabbi Shimon requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother, but with regard to consumption he does not require this, and even a partial similarity suffices.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof is undone by noticing where the baraita’s sentence turns. It began with eating and then שָׁבְקַהּ לַאֲכִילָה וְקָם לֵיהּ אַבְּכוֹר, abandoned eating and took up firstborn status — so the רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ clause belongs to the second subject, not the first. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, the language is precise, and on this reading partial resemblance would suffice for eating.
Key Terms:
- דַּיְקָא נָמֵי = the language is also precise
- שָׁבְקַהּ = he abandoned it — left one topic for another
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
The reading is reversed again: bechora needed stating because of אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: לַאֲכִילָה נָמֵי בָּעֵי, וּבְכוֹרָה אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר, וְלֹא תִּיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this conclusion as well: Actually, I will say to you that with regard to the permissibility of consumption he also requires that its head and the majority of its body be similar to the mother. But it was necessary to state this condition specifically with regard to the halakha of firstborn status, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “But the firstborn of an ox” (Numbers 18:17), perhaps firstborn status does not apply unless it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox, and a resemblance of the offspring’s head and the majority of its body to the mother does not suffice unless its whole body has the appearance of an ox. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a resemblance of its head and the majority of its body to the mother do suffice.
קלאוד על הדף:
The conclusion is itself withdrawn. Rabbi Shimon may require the threshold for both, and the baraita specified bechora only because that case needed saying: אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר demands that it be an ox and its firstborn an ox, which might have been read as requiring the whole animal to match, עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ. The baraita teaches that head and majority suffice even there. Two readings have now been advanced and both dismantled.
Key Terms:
- אִיצְטְרִיךְ = it was necessary
- עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ = until the whole of it is present
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
A second baraita: you may eat one that comes with a single characteristic.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״אַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה״, זֶה — אִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: The Torah states: “Nevertheless these shall you not eat from them that only chew the cud, or from them that only have a split hoof: The camel” (Leviticus 11:4). The phrase: “From them that only chew the cud,” which is referring to animals that are forbidden for consumption, indicates that a camel or other non-kosher animal that is born to a kosher animal is forbidden. Furthermore, the word “these” teaches that concerning these animals that resemble a non-kosher animal, you may not eat them when they are born to a kosher animal, but you may eat a non-kosher animal that comes with one characteristic of its mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new source enters and with it a new phrase. Reading אַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ as restrictive, the baraita infers that זֶה, this one, is forbidden but הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, one that comes with a single characteristic of its mother, may be eaten. If that is Rabbi Shimon speaking, one sign would suffice and the dilemma is answered against head-and-majority.
Key Terms:
- הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד = one that comes with a single characteristic
- מַעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה = those that chew the cud
- מַפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה = those with split hooves
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
The case is specified: born of a kosher mother and conceived from a kosher male.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי זֶה זֶה הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד? זֶה טָמֵא הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַטָּהוֹר, וְעִבּוּרוֹ מִן הַטָּהוֹר.
English Translation:
And which animal is this that comes with one characteristic of its mother? This is a non-kosher animal that is born from a kosher female animal and its impregnation came from a kosher male animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita narrows what it has permitted. The animal in question is טָמֵא הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַטָּהוֹר, non-kosher in appearance but born of a kosher mother, and crucially also וְעִבּוּרוֹ מִן הַטָּהוֹר, conceived from a kosher male. Both parents are kosher and only the appearance is anomalous — a limitation that the following segments will contest.
Key Terms:
- עִבּוּרוֹ = its conception
- הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַטָּהוֹר = born from a kosher animal
Segment 7
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yehoshua: both parents must be kosher, from the doubled שֵׂה.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ עִבּוּרוֹ מִן הַטָּמֵא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אָבִיו כֶּבֶשׂ וְאִמּוֹ כִּבְשָׂה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that even if its conception came from a non-kosher male animal it should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: “These are the beasts which you may eat: The ox, the sheep [seh kesavim], and goat [veseh izzim]” (Deuteronomy 14:4). The plural form of “kesavim” and “izzim” indicates that a lamb is not kosher unless its father is a male lamb and its mother is a female lamb. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua reads the plural forms of Devarim 14:4 as a requirement about parentage. שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים teaches עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אָבִיו כֶּבֶשׂ וְאִמּוֹ כִּבְשָׂה — the father must be a ram and the mother a ewe. A kosher-born animal conceived from a non-kosher male would therefore remain forbidden however it looks.
Key Terms:
- שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים = the sheep of lambs and the sheep of goats (Devarim 14:4)
- אָבִיו כֶּבֶשׂ וְאִמּוֹ כִּבְשָׂה = its father a ram and its mother a ewe
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Eliezer: the verse adds to what is permitted, covering a non-kosher father.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְהַתִּיר אֶת הַמּוּתָּר, אֶלָּא לְהוֹסִיף עַל הַמּוּתָּר, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? טָמֵא הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַטָּהוֹר וְעִבּוּרוֹ מִן הַטָּמֵא. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא עִבּוּרוֹ מִן הַטָּהוֹר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שׁוֹר שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Eliezer says: Offspring whose father and mother are both kosher are permitted, and this verse which renders permitted an offspring that partially resembles its mother does not come to permit that which is permitted, i.e., where both parents are kosher, but it comes rather to add to that which is permitted; and which case is this? It is a case of a non-kosher animal that is born from a kosher animal and its conception came from a non-kosher animal. Or perhaps it permits only an animal whose conception came from a kosher animal? The verse states: “The ox, the sheep [seh kesavim], and goat [veseh izzim].” The repetition of the word seh indicates that it is permitted to be eaten in any case, even if only its mother was a ewe.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer objects on grounds of economy. לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְהַתִּיר אֶת הַמּוּתָּר — a verse does not permit what is already permitted, and two kosher parents need no license. It must therefore be adding a case, and the case is precisely the one Rabbi Yehoshua excludes: conception from a non-kosher male. The repeated שֵׂה then teaches מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, in any event, the mother alone suffices.
Key Terms:
- לְהַתִּיר אֶת הַמּוּתָּר = to permit what is already permitted
- לְהוֹסִיף עַל הַמּוּתָּר = to add to what is permitted
- מִכׇּל מָקוֹם = in any case
Segment 9
TYPE: ראיה
The baraita calls it non-kosher, like Rabbi Shimon, yet permits one characteristic.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״טָמֵא״, כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְקָאָמַר: אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד!
English Translation:
In any event, the tanna of this baraita refers to a non-kosher animal that was born to a kosher animal as non-kosher, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who deems a camel that was born to a cow forbidden to eat, and he says: But you may eat a non-kosher animal that comes with one characteristic that is similar to its mother. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does not require that the head and the majority of the body resemble the mother for it to be rendered fit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof is now pressed. The baraita’s own vocabulary — calling a kosher-born animal טָמֵא — aligns it with Rabbi Shimon rather than with the mishna, and that same baraita permits on a single sign. If its author is Rabbi Shimon, then he does not require head and majority for eating, and the dilemma is resolved.
Key Terms:
- קָרֵי לֵיהּ טָמֵא = he calls it non-kosher
- כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = in accordance with Rabbi Shimon
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Deflected: this tanna agrees with Rabbi Shimon on one point and differs on another.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No proof may be brought from here, as this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one matter, where a kosher animal gave birth to a non-kosher animal, maintaining that it is forbidden, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one other matter, where the animal has some characteristics of the mother, in which case this tanna deems it permitted to be eaten. Concerning the second matter, Rabbi Shimon deems it forbidden unless the head and majority of the body resemble the mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is a caution about attribution that recurs throughout the Talmud. סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא — sharing one of a sage’s positions does not make one his spokesman on every point. This tanna holds with Rabbi Shimon that the offspring is forbidden and against him on how much resemblance redeems it, so his baraita reports nobody’s complete view.
Key Terms:
- סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא = he holds like him in one matter
- וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא = and disagrees with him in one matter
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
A different line of attack: can a kosher animal conceive from a non-kosher one at all?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַקְשֵׁי וּמוֹתֵיב: עִבּוּרוֹ מִן הַטָּמֵא — מִי מִעַבְּרָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara comments that there are those who raise a difficulty with this baraita and resolve it, thereby resolving the dilemma concerning the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: The baraita states that the kosher animal’s impregnation came from a non-kosher animal. Can a kosher animal become pregnant from a non-kosher animal?
קלאוד על הדף:
Some raise a factual objection rather than an exegetical one. Rabbi Eliezer’s case presupposes a kosher animal conceiving from a non-kosher male, and the questioners doubt that such a thing occurs. If it does not, the baraita must be describing something else, and identifying what will incidentally settle the dilemma about Rabbi Shimon.
Key Terms:
- מִי מִעַבְּרָא = can it become pregnant
- אִיכָּא דְּמַקְשֵׁי = there are those who raise a difficulty
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: cross-species conception never occurs.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְעוֹלָם אֵין מִתְעַבֶּרֶת לֹא טְמֵאָה מִן הַטָּהוֹר, וְלֹא טְהוֹרָה מִן הַטָּמֵא, וְלֹא גַּסָּה מִן הַדַּקָּה, וְלֹא דַּקָּה מִן הַגַּסָּה, וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה מִן חַיָּה, וְלֹא חַיָּה מִן בְּהֵמָה.
English Translation:
But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: A non-kosher animal never becomes pregnant from a kosher one, e.g., a camel from an ox, nor a kosher animal from a non-kosher one, e.g., a cow from a horse, nor a large animal from a small animal, e.g., a cow from a goat, nor a small one from a large one, e.g., a ewe from an ox, nor a domesticated animal from an undomesticated animal, e.g., a goat from a deer, nor an undomesticated animal from a domesticated animal, e.g., a gazelle from a goat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states the impossibility categorically and in six paired clauses, ruling out conception across the kosher divide, across size, and between domesticated and wild animals, each in both directions. The statement is offered as a fact about the world rather than a legal presumption, and it is strong enough to make Rabbi Eliezer’s case look like a description of nothing.
Key Terms:
- לְעוֹלָם אֵין מִתְעַבֶּרֶת = it never becomes pregnant
- גַּסָּה / דַּקָּה = large livestock / small livestock
- בְּהֵמָה / חַיָּה = domesticated animal / wild animal
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
One exception is noted: Rabbi Eliezer and his disputants on wild from domesticated.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּץ מֵרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים חַיָּה מִתְעַבֶּרֶת מִבְּהֵמָה!
English Translation:
With regard to all these cases, everyone agrees that pregnancy is impossible except for Rabbi Eliezer and his disputants, who would say that an undomesticated animal can become pregnant from a domesticated animal (see Ḥullin 79b). Those Sages disagree with regard to whether slaughtering the offspring of a gazelle that became pregnant from a goat is included in the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rule is qualified by naming those who reject it. Rabbi Eliezer and the colleagues who dispute with him held that חַיָּה מִתְעַבֶּרֶת מִבְּהֵמָה, a wild animal can conceive from a domesticated one, a position they needed for their argument in Chullin about whether such offspring falls under אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ. The exception matters because Rabbi Eliezer is one of the disputants in our baraita.
Key Terms:
- מַחְלוּקְתּוֹ = those who dispute with him
- אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ = an animal and its offspring, not slaughtered on one day
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yirmeya rescues the case with a קָלוּט born of a cow.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: דְּאִיעַבַּר מִקָּלוּט בֶּן פָּרָה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמַר, וְקָאָמַר: אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד!
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yirmeya says in response to the difficulty: When the baraita discusses the case of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal, the reference is to a case where the kosher animal became pregnant from an animal with closed hooves that is the offspring of a cow. A cow can become pregnant from such an animal because the mother of that animal was a cow. And the tanna of the baraita said his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a non-kosher animal that was born from a kosher animal is considered non-kosher, and he says: But you may eat that which comes with one characteristic of its mother. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does deem permitted the consumption of an animal with some characteristics similar to its mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya finds a case that satisfies both the baraita and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. A קָלוּט is a closed-hooved animal, non-kosher in appearance, but if it is itself בֶּן פָּרָה, the offspring of a cow, then a cow can conceive from it — the species barrier is not crossed, since its mother was a cow. With the case restored, the baraita’s permission on a single sign again threatens the dilemma.
Key Terms:
- קָלוּט = an animal with closed, unsplit hooves
- בֶּן פָּרָה = the offspring of a cow
- אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = according to Rabbi Shimon
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
The same deflection is applied again: partial agreement, partial dissent.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: This tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one matter, where a kosher animal gave birth to a non-kosher animal, maintaining that it is forbidden, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one other matter, where the animal has some characteristics of the mother, in which case this tanna deems it fit for consumption. Concerning the second matter, Rabbi Shimon deems it forbidden unless the head and majority of the body resemble the mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara repeats the answer it gave in segment 10, and the repetition is itself informative. Even with the case rehabilitated, the baraita cannot be assigned wholesale to Rabbi Shimon; its author follows him on the prohibition and departs from him on the threshold. The same tool disposes of the proof in both of its versions.
Key Terms:
- הַאי תַּנָּא = this tanna
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
The baraita’s dispute is recast as one about זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמֵימְרָא, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם — מוּתָּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם — אָסוּר?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara asks concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the baraita: Is this to say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this and that cause it, i.e., both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is permitted, and he therefore permits the consumption of the offspring of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that when both this and that cause it, it is forbidden?
קלאוד על הדף:
Attention turns from Rabbi Shimon to the two tannaim themselves, and their disagreement is reframed in general terms. Where a permitted and a forbidden factor both contribute to a result, is the result permitted? Rabbi Eliezer’s leniency about a non-kosher father suggests he permits; Rabbi Yehoshua’s stringency suggests he forbids. The next segment shows that both attributions are backwards.
Key Terms:
- זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם = this and that cause it — a mixed causation
- לְמֵימְרָא = is this to say
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
But their positions on the offspring of a tereifa run the other way.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ: וְלַד טְרֵיפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ!
English Translation:
But we have heard them saying the opposite: With regard to the offspring of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] and is forbidden to be eaten or sacrificed as an offering upon the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring may not be sacrificed upon the altar either, despite the fact that its father is kosher, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: The offspring may be sacrificed upon the altar despite the fact that its mother is a tereifa, since its father is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reframing collides with a known dispute. On וְלַד טְרֵיפָה, the offspring of a fatally injured mother sired by a sound male, it is Rabbi Eliezer who forbids the altar and Rabbi Yehoshua who permits — exactly the reverse of what the general principle would predict. One of the two pairs of positions must be driven by something other than the principle.
Key Terms:
- וְלַד טְרֵיפָה = the offspring of a tereifa
- יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ = it may be offered on the altar
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Eliezer generally forbids, but a textual surplus forces leniency here.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָלְמָא סָבַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם — אָסוּר, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְעִזִּים״, ״שֵׂה״ ״וְשֵׂה״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שֶׂה — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Generally, Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this and that cause the result, it is forbidden. But it is different here in the case of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal, because if it is so, i.e., that the offspring is forbidden, let the verse write: Sheep and goats [seh kesavim ve’izzim]. Why do I need the verse to repeat the term “seh” in the phrase “seh kesavim veseh izzim”? Learn from it that a seh is permitted in any case, i.e., even if only the mother is kosher it is permitted to eat the offspring.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution separates each sage’s general view from what a verse compels. Rabbi Eliezer holds בְּעָלְמָא that mixed causation forbids, and departs from it only because the Torah wrote שֵׂה twice where שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְעִזִּים would have sufficed. The surplus teaches שֶׂה מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, and an explicit verse overrides a general disposition.
Key Terms:
- בְּעָלְמָא = generally — as a rule
- שֶׂה מִכׇּל מָקוֹם = a seh in any case
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yehoshua generally permits, and is likewise driven by the plural forms.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר לְךָ: בְּעָלְמָא זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם — מוּתָּר, וְהָכָא אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״שׁוֹר כֶּשֶׂב וָעֵז״, ״כְּשָׂבִים וְעִזִּים״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אָבִיו כֶּבֶשׂ וְאִמּוֹ כִּבְשָׂה.
English Translation:
And as for Rabbi Yehoshua, he could have said to you: Generally, if both this and that cause the result it is permitted. But here it is different, as if so, i.e., if the offspring of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal is permitted, let the verse write: These are the animals that you may eat: An ox, a lamb, and a goat. Why do I need it to state: “Seh kesavim veseh izzim,” in the plural? Learn from it that the offspring may not be eaten unless its father is a male lamb and its mother is a female lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror answer completes the symmetry. Rabbi Yehoshua holds בְּעָלְמָא that mixed causation permits, and is forced to stringency here by the plurals: the Torah could have written שׁוֹר כֶּשֶׂב וָעֵז in the singular, and its choice of כְּשָׂבִים וְעִזִּים teaches that both parents must match. Each sage is thus lenient in general and strict here, or the reverse, for the same kind of reason.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹר כֶּשֶׂב וָעֵז = an ox, a lamb and a goat — the singular forms
- כְּשָׂבִים וְעִזִּים = lambs and goats — the plural forms
Segment 20
TYPE: ראיה
A baraita quotes Rabbi Shimon himself permitting on head and majority.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, ״גָּמָל״ ״גָּמָל״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים — אֶחָד גָּמָל הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַגָּמָל, וְאֶחָד גָּמָל הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַפָּרָה, וְאִם רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְאִמּוֹ — מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to the dilemma of whether Rabbi Shimon permits the consumption of the offspring of a kosher animal that resembles a non-kosher animal but has some of the characteristics of its mother. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says it is stated: “Camel” (Leviticus 11:4), “camel” (Deuteronomy 14:7), i.e., the term is written two times with regard to the prohibition against consumption. This teaches that both a camel that is born from a camel and a camel that is born from a cow are non-kosher. And if in the latter case its head and the majority of its body are similar to its mother, it is permitted for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The decisive source is Rabbi Shimon in his own words. The familiar doubled גָּמָל teaching is given, forbidding both the camel born of a camel and the camel born of a cow, and then the qualification follows: וְאִם רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְאִמּוֹ מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. The threshold is stated for eating explicitly, by the author of the threshold.
Key Terms:
- מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה = permitted for consumption
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
The dilemma is resolved: head and majority is required for eating as well.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, לַאֲכִילָה נָמֵי בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
Learn from it that not only with regard to firstborn status, but with regard to consumption as well Rabbi Shimon requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother, and a partial resemblance does not suffice. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws the conclusion and repeats it, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ twice over, which marks a settled result rather than a tentative one. Rabbi Shimon requires head and majority for consumption as for bechora, and a single characteristic does not suffice. A dilemma that opened on 6b and consumed twenty segments is genuinely closed — something the preceding dapim of this masechet rarely managed.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = learn from it — a concluded inference
Segment 22
TYPE: בעיא
A new question to Rav Sheshet: is the urine of a donkey forbidden?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא וְכוּ׳. בְּעוֹ מִינַּהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁל חֲמוֹר, מַהוּ?
English Translation:
§ The mishna (5b) teaches: This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher. The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to the urine of a donkey, what is the halakha? Is it forbidden, like the milk of a donkey?
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf turns from lineage to secretions, returning to the mishna’s principle that what emerges from a non-kosher animal is non-kosher. The question put to Rav Sheshet is whether a donkey’s urine falls under that rule as its milk does — a practical enquiry that will be answered from the mishna’s own choice of words.
Key Terms:
- מֵי רַגְלַיִם = urine
- בְּעוֹ מִינַּהּ = they asked of him
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
Why donkeys and not horses or camels: the urine is turbid and resembles milk.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּסוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים? דְּסוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, דְּלָא עֲכִירִי וְלָא דָּמוּ לְחָלָב, מַיָּא עוּל מַיָּא נְפוּק. כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ דַּחֲמוֹר, דַּעֲכִירִי וְדָמוּ לְחָלָב, מַאי? מִגּוּפֵיהּ קָא מִימַּצְצִי וַאֲסִירִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא מַיָּא עוּל מַיָּא נְפוּק, וְהַאי דַּעֲכִירִי — הַבְלָא דְּבִישְׂרָא הוּא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And should they raise the dilemma also with regard to the urine of horses and camels? The Gemara answers: With regard to the urine of horses and camels they did not raise the dilemma, as their urine is not turbid and consequently is not similar to milk. Rather, water enters their body and water exits their body. When they raised the dilemma it was concerning the urine of a donkey, which is turbid and is consequently similar to milk. What is the halakha? Does it get excreted from its body, and it is therefore forbidden, or perhaps water enters and water exits, and the fact that it is turbid is due to the heat of the flesh?
קלאוד על הדף:
The question’s scope is explained by observation. The urine of horses and camels is clear, so it is evidently מַיָּא עוּל מַיָּא נְפוּק, water in and water out, and raises no question. A donkey’s is turbid and therefore looks like milk, so one may wonder whether something is being drawn from the body itself — מִגּוּפֵיהּ קָא מִימַּצְצִי — or whether the cloudiness is merely הַבְלָא דְּבִישְׂרָא, the heat of the flesh.
Key Terms:
- עֲכִירִי = turbid, cloudy
- מַיָּא עוּל מַיָּא נְפוּק = water enters and water exits
- הַבְלָא דְּבִישְׂרָא = the heat of the flesh
Segment 24
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Sheshet answers from the mishna’s wording — and the amud breaks off mid-word.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנֵיתוּה: שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא — טָמֵא, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּהוֹר — טָהוֹר. ״מִטָּמֵא״ לָא קָאָמַר, אֶלָּא ״מִן
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned the answer in the mishna: This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher. From the fact that it does not state: That which emerges from a non-kosher animal [mittamei], meaning from the body of a non-kosher animal, but rather it says: From
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer turns on a preposition. The mishna did not say מִטָּמֵא, from a non-kosher animal, which would point to the body; it said מִן הַטָּמֵא, and Rav Sheshet reads that as broader. The amud ends in the middle of the quoted phrase, with the inference itself completed at the top of 7b.
Key Terms:
- תְּנֵיתוּהָ = you have learned it — the answer is in a mishna you know
- מִן הַטָּמֵא = from the non-kosher — as against מִטָּמֵא
Amud Bet (7b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The inference completes: מִן implies any type of non-kosher substance.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַטָּמֵא״, וְהָנֵי נָמֵי מִינָא דְּטָמֵא הוּא.
English Translation:
the non-kosher animal [min hattamei], one can infer that any type [min] of non-kosher substance is included. And these fluids, i.e., the urine of a donkey, are also a type of non-kosher substance, as they resemble the milk of a donkey, which is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The word broken across the page turn is supplied and the reading closes. Because the mishna wrote מִן הַטָּמֵא rather than מִטָּמֵא, Rav Sheshet hears מִינָא, a type — the prohibition reaches anything of the non-kosher kind, not only what is physically drawn from the body. Donkey urine, resembling the forbidden milk, falls within that category.
Key Terms:
- מִינָא דְּטָמֵא = a type of the non-kosher
- הָנֵי נָמֵי = these too
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
A second version: horses and camels were not asked about because people do not drink their urine.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּסוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, דְּלָא שָׁתוּ אִינָשֵׁי. כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ דַּחֲמוֹר, דְּשָׁתוּ אִינָשֵׁי וּמְעַלּוּ לְיַרְקוֹנָא, מַאי?
English Translation:
And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion about the urine of a donkey: With regard to the urine of horses and camels, the students of Rav Sheshet did not raise the dilemma, because people do not drink it. When they raised the dilemma it was with regard to the urine of a donkey, which people drink and which is beneficial for curing jaundice. What, then, is the halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
The אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי keeps the question and changes its motive. On this telling the distinction is not turbidity but use: nobody drinks the urine of horses and camels, so no practical question arises, whereas donkey urine was drunk as a remedy — מְעַלּוּ לְיַרְקוֹנָא, beneficial for jaundice. The enquiry is thus reported as arising from medical practice rather than from observation of appearance.
Key Terms:
- דְּשָׁתוּ אִינָשֵׁי = that people drink
- מְעַלּוּ לְיַרְקוֹנָא = they are beneficial for jaundice
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Sheshet answers the second version more simply: it comes from a non-kosher animal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא טָמֵא, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּהוֹר טָהוֹר — וְהָנֵי נָמֵי מִטָּמֵא קָאָתֵי.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned the answer to your dilemma in the mishna: That which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher, and these fluids also come from a donkey, which is non-kosher. Therefore, they are forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
In this recension the answer needs no grammatical subtlety. The mishna’s rule is applied directly — הָנֵי נָמֵי מִטָּמֵא קָאָתֵי, these too come from a non-kosher animal, and are therefore forbidden. That the substance has a medicinal use does not alter what it emerged from.
Key Terms:
- מִטָּמֵא קָאָתֵי = it comes from a non-kosher animal
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
An objection from bees’ honey, which is permitted because bees do not produce it from their bodies.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים מוּתָּר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְנִיסוֹת אוֹתוֹ לְגוּפָן, וְאֵין מְמַצּוֹת אוֹתוֹ מִגּוּפָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: For what reason did the Sages say that the honey of bees is permitted? It is because they bring the nectar from the flowers into their body, but they do not excrete it from their body as a bodily excretion. So too, the urine of a donkey is not an excretion produced by the body itself. Rather, it is simply ejected in the same form that it entered the body. Why, then, should it be forbidden?
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection uses a permitted case to test the principle. The Sages explained bees’ honey as permitted because the bees מַכְנִיסוֹת אוֹתוֹ לְגוּפָן וְאֵין מְמַצּוֹת אוֹתוֹ מִגּוּפָן — they bring the nectar in and do not press it out of their own substance. If that reasoning permits honey, the same should permit donkey urine, which likewise enters as water and leaves as water.
Key Terms:
- דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים = the honey of bees
- אֵין מְמַצּוֹת אוֹתוֹ מִגּוּפָן = they do not press it out of their body
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Sheshet follows Rabbi Yaakov: honey is a scriptural exception.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמַר: דּוּבְשָׁא רַחֲמָנָא שַׁרְיֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet stated his answer in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who says that with regard to honey, the Merciful One permits it as an exception to the principle that a substance that emerges from a non-kosher animal is non-kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer denies that honey’s permission rests on the reasoning quoted. On Rabbi Yaakov’s view דּוּבְשָׁא רַחֲמָנָא שַׁרְיֵיהּ, the Torah permitted honey by special dispensation, which means it proves nothing about other substances. The bees’ non-production of it explains nothing; a verse does the work, and without such a verse donkey urine stays forbidden.
Key Terms:
- דּוּבְשָׁא רַחֲמָנָא שַׁרְיֵיהּ = the Merciful One permitted honey
Segment 6
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Yaakov’s source: אַךְ אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ״אַךְ אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף״ — זֶה אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, וְאִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל שֶׁרֶץ עוֹף טָמֵא.
English Translation:
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ya’akov says that it is stated: “Yet these may you eat of all winged creatures” (Leviticus 11:21). The word “these” indicates that you may eat these, but you may not eat a non-kosher winged creature.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse at Vayikra 11:21 is read restrictively, זֶה אַתָּה אוֹכֵל — this you may eat and not a non-kosher winged creature. Read that way it appears to state the obvious, which is the difficulty the next segment raises and which forces a different construction of the same words.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף = winged swarming creatures
- זֶה אַתָּה אוֹכֵל = this you may eat
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
The reading is redirected: not the creature, but what it discharges.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁרֶץ עוֹף טָמֵא בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב! אֶלָּא שֶׁרֶץ עוֹף טָמֵא אִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל מַה שֶּׁעוֹף טָמֵא מַשְׁרִיץ, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? זֶה דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why is this inference necessary? The prohibition against eating a non-kosher winged creature is written explicitly: “All winged creatures that go upon all fours are a repugnance to you” (Leviticus 11:20). Rather, the inference must be understood as follows: You may not eat a non-kosher winged creature, but you may eat that which a non-kosher winged creature discharges from its body, and what is that? That is the honey of bees.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is that the prohibition on non-kosher winged creatures is already explicit at Vayikra 11:20, so the verse must be doing something else. The redirected reading is elegant: you may not eat the creature, אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל מַה שֶּׁעוֹף טָמֵא מַשְׁרִיץ, but you may eat what it discharges — and that is bees’ honey. The dispensation Rav Sheshet relied on is now located in a verse.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב = it is written explicitly
- מַה שֶּׁעוֹף טָמֵא מַשְׁרִיץ = what a non-kosher winged creature discharges
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Why bees’ honey and not the honey of gizzin and wasps? Because of the שֵׁם לְוַוי.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אַף דְּבַשׁ הַגַּזִּין וְהַצִּירְעִין? אָמַרְתָּ: לֹא. וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת דְּבוֹרִים, וּלְהוֹצִיא הַגַּזִּין וְהַצִּירְעִין? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי דְּבַשׁ הַגַּזִּין וְהַצִּירְעִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: One might have thought that even the honey of gizzin and wasps should be permitted. Nevertheless, you should say no. The baraita asks: And what did you see to include the honey of bees as being permitted to eat and to exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps as being forbidden? The baraita answers: I include the honey of bees, as its name does not have a modifier, i.e., the word honey alone always refers to the honey of bees. And I exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps, which have a modifier, i.e., one must always add the word gizzin or wasp to specify these particular types of honey.
קלאוד על הדף:
The limitation is drawn from usage rather than from biology. Bees’ honey שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי, has no qualifying name — say honey and that is what is meant — whereas the honey of גַּזִּין and wasps requires a modifier to identify it. The verse’s unqualified permission therefore reaches only what the unqualified word denotes, and the rest stays outside.
Key Terms:
- שֵׁם לְוַוי = a qualifying name, a modifier
- גַּזִּין וְצִירְעִין = gizzin and wasps
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
A baraita permitting gizzin and wasp honey is assigned to another view.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: דְּבַשׁ הַגַּזִּין וְהַצִּירְעִין טָהוֹר וּמוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: The honey of gizzin and wasps is not susceptible to ritual impurity and is permitted for consumption? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov.
קלאוד על הדף:
A conflicting source is identified rather than reconciled. Since a baraita rules that the honey of gizzin and wasps is טָהוֹר וּמוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, and Rabbi Yaakov’s derivation excludes exactly those, the Gemara concludes דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב — that baraita follows a different authority. Locating a source outside a view is a standard way of preserving both.
Key Terms:
- כְּמַאן אָזְלָא = in accordance with whom does it go
- דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב = not in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
An inference about ritual impurity and whether intent is needed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טָהוֹר — אַלְמָא בָּעֵי מַחְשָׁבָה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: דְּבַשׁ בְּכַוַּורְתּוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara infers from the expression: Is not susceptible to ritual impurity, that apparently, in order for the honey of gizzin and wasps to become susceptible to ritual impurity it requires specific intention to eat it, which renders it food. Furthermore, the baraita indicates that honey from bees does not require specific intention to eat it in order for it to become susceptible, because it is normally used for food. This is also taught in a baraita: The honey of bees that is still in its hive is susceptible to ritual impurity as food even without intent.
קלאוד על הדף:
The word טָהוֹר in that baraita is read for a second implication. That gizzin and wasp honey is not susceptible to food impurity suggests it becomes food only through מַחְשָׁבָה, a deliberate intention to eat it. Bees’ honey needs no such intent, as a further baraita confirms: דְּבַשׁ בְּכַוַּורְתּוֹ, honey still in the hive, receives food impurity שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין = impurity of foodstuffs
- מַחְשָׁבָה = intent — designating something as food
- כַּוֶּורֶת = a beehive
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Safra explains the matter discharged by a fallow deer.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חָלֵי דְּיַחְמוּרְתָּא, סְבוּר רַבָּנַן לְמֵימַר: בֵּיעֵי נִינְהוּ וַאֲסִירָן. אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: זַרְעָא דְּאַיָּלָא הוּא, דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר אַיָּלְתָּא, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּרַחְמָהּ צַר לָא מִזְדַּקְקָא, וְאָזֵיל בָּתַר יַחְמוּרְתָּא וְנָתְרִי.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara discusses additional cases of animal secretions. With regard to chunks that are discharged from the womb of a female fallow deer, the Sages thought to say that they are its egg cells, and therefore are forbidden as a limb severed from a living animal. Rav Safra said: It is the semen of a hart, which pursues the hind, but since the hind’s womb is narrow it does not mate with the hart, and instead the hart pursues the female fallow deer and mates with it, and chunks of its semen that have hardened fall out of the fallow deer’s body.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages had supposed these to be the animal’s own egg cells, which would make them a limb taken from a living creature and forbidden. Rav Safra offers a different account from observation of the animals: it is the hardened semen of a hart, which mates with the fallow deer, and what falls out never belonged to her body at all.
Key Terms:
- יַחְמוּרְתָּא = a female fallow deer
- זַרְעָא דְּאַיָּלָא = the semen of a hart
- בֵּיעֵי = eggs, egg cells
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Huna: the fetal sac is permitted, being mere secretion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: עוֹר הַבָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו שֶׁל חֲמוֹר — מוּתָּר, מַאי טַעְמָא? פִּירְשָׁא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
English Translation:
Rav Huna says: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a donkey when it is born, i.e., the fetal sac that envelopes it during birth, is permitted to be consumed. What is the reason? It is merely a secretion, and is not an integral part of the mother or the offspring.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna rules on the membrane that emerges with a newborn donkey. It is פִּירְשָׁא בְּעָלְמָא, merely a secretion, belonging neither to the mother’s body nor to the offspring’s, and therefore does not carry the prohibition that attaches to the non-kosher animal itself. The category of secretion does a good deal of work across this amud.
Key Terms:
- עוֹר הַבָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו = the membrane that comes opposite its face — the fetal sac
- פִּירְשָׁא בְּעָלְמָא = merely a secretion
Segment 13
TYPE: ראיה
Rav Chisda supports him from a baraita about a human newborn.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּע לָךְ: עוֹר הַבָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו שֶׁל אָדָם, בֵּין חַי בֵּין מֵת — טָהוֹר. מַאי לָאו בֵּין הוּא חַי וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּה, בֵּין הוּא מֵת וְאִמּוֹ מֵתָה?
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said to him: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a person, i.e., a newborn baby, whether the newborn is alive or dead, is ritually pure and does not transmit ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. What, is it not the case that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, it is not considered a part of the body of the fetus or the mother, but merely a secretion, and therefore even when they are both dead it does not transmit impurity?
קלאוד על הדף:
The support is drawn from the laws of impurity rather than of food. A baraita rules the corresponding membrane in a human birth טָהוֹר, not transmitting corpse impurity, בֵּין חַי בֵּין מֵת. Rav Chisda reads that as covering even the case where both mother and child have died, which would establish that the sac is no part of either body — exactly Rav Huna’s claim.
Key Terms:
- מְסַיַּע לָךְ = it supports you
- בֵּין חַי בֵּין מֵת = whether alive or dead
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Huna resists the reading, is shown a clearer baraita, and concedes.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, בֵּין הוּא חַי וְאִמּוֹ מֵתָה, בֵּין הוּא מֵת וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּה. וְהָתַנְיָא: בֵּין הוּא חַי וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּה, בֵּין הוּא מֵת וְאִמּוֹ מֵתָה! אִי תַּנְיָא, תַּנְיָא.
English Translation:
Rav Huna answered him: No, there is no proof from this baraita, as it may mean that whether it is alive and its mother is dead or whether it is dead and its mother is alive, meaning only one is alive, the skin is ritually pure. But if both are dead it is impure. Rav Ḥisda said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, the skin is pure? Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥisda: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot dispute it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna declines the support, suggesting the baraita means only that one of the two is alive. Rav Chisda then produces a version stating explicitly בֵּין הוּא חַי וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּה בֵּין הוּא מֵת וְאִמּוֹ מֵתָה, and Rav Huna’s reply is a model of how to lose an argument: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא — if such a baraita has been taught, it has been taught, and there is nothing more to say.
Key Terms:
- אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא = if it is taught, it is taught
- וְהָתַנְיָא = but it is taught
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: a fish swallowed by another is judged by where it grew.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁבָּלַע דָּג טָהוֹר, מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, וְטָהוֹר שֶׁבָּלַע דָּג טָמֵא, אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גִּידּוּלוֹ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish, consumption of the kosher fish is permitted. And in the case of a kosher fish that swallowed a non-kosher fish, consumption of the non-kosher fish is prohibited due to the fact that the host fish is not the place of its development.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna extends the mother-not-appearance principle to a case with no parentage at all. A kosher fish found inside a non-kosher one may be eaten and a non-kosher fish inside a kosher one may not, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גִּידּוּלוֹ — the host is not where it grew. Containment confers nothing; origin remains decisive.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁבָּלַע = that swallowed
- אֵינוֹ גִּידּוּלוֹ = it is not its growth — not where it developed
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
The inference: this holds only where the swallowing was actually witnessed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דַּחֲזֵינֵיהּ דִּבְלַע, הָא לָא חֲזֵינֵיהּ דִּבְלַע — אָמְרִי: אַשְׁרוֹצֵי אַשְׁרֵיץ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the language of the mishna: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish: The reason consumption of the kosher fish is permitted is that we saw that the non-kosher fish swallowed the kosher fish. But if we did not see it swallow the kosher fish we say that perhaps the non-kosher fish spawned the kosher fish, and it is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reads the mishna’s verb strictly. שֶׁבָּלַע implies that we saw the swallowing; absent that, the small fish inside might be the large one’s own offspring — אַשְׁרוֹצֵי אַשְׁרֵיץ, it spawned it — and would then be forbidden. What looked like a rule about containment turns out to depend on an evidentiary question.
Key Terms:
- חֲזֵינֵיהּ דִּבְלַע = we saw that it swallowed
- אַשְׁרוֹצֵי אַשְׁרֵיץ = it spawned live young
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
The concern rests on a baraita distinguishing spawning from egg-laying, and is pressed further.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: דָּג טָמֵא מַשְׁרִיץ, דָּג טָהוֹר מֵטִיל בֵּיצִים. אִי הָכִי, כִּי חָזֵינָא דִּבְלַע אָמְרִינַן: הַאי אִיעַכַּלָא, וְהַאי אַשְׁרוֹצֵי אַשְׁרֵיץ!
English Translation:
From where do we derive that we must have this concern? As it is taught in a baraita: A non-kosher fish spawns offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs from which the offspring hatch. The Gemara challenges: If so, even when we saw it swallowing a kosher fish we should say that that fish that it swallowed was digested, and this one, which was found inside of the non-kosher fish, it spawned, and should be forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The worry has a source: דָּג טָמֵא מַשְׁרִיץ, דָּג טָהוֹר מֵטִיל בֵּיצִים — non-kosher fish bear live young while kosher fish lay eggs, so a whole small fish inside a large one is a plausible offspring. The Gemara then presses even the witnessed case: perhaps the swallowed fish was digested and this one is a different fish, spawned.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁרִיץ = bears live young
- מֵטִיל בֵּיצִים = lays eggs
- אִיעַכַּלָא = it was digested
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Three amoraim narrow the case by where and how the fish was found.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ דֶּרֶךְ הָרֶיעִי. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ שָׁלֵם.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet says: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the digestive tract, which is not where the non-kosher fish normally spawns its offspring. Rav Pappa says similarly: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the passageway of the gullet. Rav Naḥman says: It is referring to a case where one found it whole and in complete form, and not as a newly hatched fish.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three answers locate the mishna in circumstances that exclude the doubt. Rav Sheshet has it found דֶּרֶךְ הָרֶיעִי, in the digestive tract; Rav Pappa דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, in the gullet — neither being where spawn would be; Rav Nachman has it found שָׁלֵם, whole and fully formed rather than newly hatched. Each keeps the mishna’s ruling by restricting its case.
Key Terms:
- דֶּרֶךְ הָרֶיעִי = by way of the digestive tract
- בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה = the gullet
- שָׁלֵם = whole, complete
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ashi reframes with a probability: most fish spawn their own kind.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: רוֹב דָּגִים בְּמִינָן מַשְׁרִיצִין, וּכְמִי שֶׁבָּלַע לְפָנֵינוּ דָּמֵי.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi says: Do not infer from the mishna that it is referring to a case where the non-kosher fish was seen swallowing the kosher fish. Rather, the reason it is permitted to consume the swallowed fish is that the majority of fish spawn offspring of their own species, and therefore the case of a kosher fish discovered inside a non-kosher fish is considered as if the non-kosher fish had swallowed the kosher fish in our presence.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi declines the narrowing and answers with a רוֹב. Since רוֹב דָּגִים בְּמִינָן מַשְׁרִיצִין, most fish spawn offspring of their own species, a kosher fish found inside a non-kosher one is almost certainly not its young — וּכְמִי שֶׁבָּלַע לְפָנֵינוּ דָּמֵי, it is as though we had seen the swallowing. The answer needs no special circumstances and is the most far-reaching on the daf, since it decides a case by probability rather than by evidence.
Key Terms:
- רוֹב = a majority — a halachic probability
- כְּמִי שֶׁבָּלַע לְפָנֵינוּ דָּמֵי = it is as if it swallowed before us
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
The daf closes with the full baraita and the bat as its exception.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דָּג טָמֵא — מַשְׁרִיץ, דָּג טָהוֹר — מֵטִיל בֵּיצִים, כָּל הַמּוֹלִיד — מֵנִיק, וְכׇל הַמֵּטִיל בֵּיצִים — מְלַקֵּט, חוּץ מֵעֲטַלֵּף שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּטִיל בֵּיצִים — מֵנִיק.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites the entirety of the previously mentioned baraita. The Sages taught that a non-kosher fish spawns its offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs. Any animal that gives birth to its offspring nurses them, and any animal that lays eggs gathers food and feeds it to its young. This applies to all animals except for a bat [atallef], as although it lays eggs, it nurses its young.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita is now given entire, adding a general correlation to the spawning rule: כָּל הַמּוֹלִיד מֵנִיק וְכׇל הַמֵּטִיל בֵּיצִים מְלַקֵּט, live-bearers nurse their young and egg-layers gather food for them. The daf ends on the one creature that breaks the pattern — חוּץ מֵעֲטַלֵּף, except the bat, which lays eggs and nurses nonetheless — a natural close rather than the mid-sentence breaks of the preceding dapim.
Key Terms:
- כָּל הַמּוֹלִיד מֵנִיק = every live-bearer nurses
- מְלַקֵּט = gathers food for its young
- עֲטַלֵּף = a bat