Chullin Daf 58 (חולין דף נ״ח)
Daf: 58 | Amudim: 58a – 58b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (58a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — completing Ameimar: which eggs of a tereifa are forbidden
The conclusion of Ameimar’s ruling (begun on 57b): the first clutch is forbidden, later-fertilized eggs are permitted as “zeh va-zeh gorem”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא אֲסִירָא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – הָוֵה לֵיהּ זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם, וּמוּתָּר.
English Translation:
the first clutch of eggs that were in its body at the time it was rendered a tereifa is prohibited for consumption, because these eggs are considered part of the bird and were therefore rendered tereifa along with it. But as for any egg fertilized from this point forward, it is a case where both this and that cause it, i.e., a tereifa female and a kosher male, and as a rule, when permitted and prohibited causes operate together, the joint result is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes Ameimar’s ruling opened at the close of 57b. The eggs already present in the bird’s body when it became a tereifa — the “first clutch” (shichla kamma) — are forbidden, because they are reckoned as part of the bird’s body and so were rendered tereifa along with it. Any egg formed afterward, however, has two causes: the tereifa hen and a kosher male. This is a classic case of zeh va-zeh gorem (two contributing causes, one permitted and one forbidden), and the rule is that such a joint product is permitted.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא (shichla kamma) = the first clutch of eggs — present in the body when the bird became tereifa
- זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם (zeh va-zeh gorem) = “this and that cause it” — a result produced by both a permitted and a forbidden cause
- בֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה (beitzat tereifa) = the egg of a tereifa bird
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — Rav Ashi’s objection from Eduyyot
Rav Ashi cites a mishna forbidding a tereifa’s egg “because it grew in prohibition”; Ameimar limits it to an unfertilized egg
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וְשָׁוִין בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵיפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּדְלָה בְּאִיסּוּר! הָתָם בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1): And all agree with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, because it grew in a state of prohibition. Evidently, even eggs created after the bird was rendered a tereifa are prohibited. Ameimar said to him: There, the mishna is dealing with a bird that is heated by the earth, i.e., that was not fertilized by a male, and the female tereifa is therefore the sole source of the egg.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi challenges Ameimar from a mishna in Eduyyot (5:1): all agree the egg of a tereifa bird is forbidden “because it grew in a state of prohibition” — implying even post-tereifa eggs are barred, contradicting Ameimar’s leniency. Ameimar deflects: that mishna speaks of a hen “heated by the earth” (de-safna me-ar’a), i.e. an egg formed without any male, so the tereifa hen is the sole cause. With only one (forbidden) cause and no zeh va-zeh gorem, the egg is indeed forbidden.
Key Terms:
- עֵדוּיּוֹת (Eduyyot 5:1) = the mishna Rav Ashi cites against Ameimar
- גָּדְלָה בְּאִיסּוּר (gadla be-issur) = “it grew in a state of prohibition”
- דְּסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא (de-safna me-ar’a) = “heated/impregnated by the earth” — an egg formed without a male
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא — why “grew” and not “finished”?
The Gemara asks why Ameimar did not simply say the mishna refers to the first clutch; the wording “grew” rules that out
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ בְּשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא? אִם כֵּן, ״גָּדְלָה״? ״גָּמְרָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: And let Ameimar answer differently, that the mishna is dealing with the first clutch of eggs, which were part of the mother’s body when it became a tereifa. The Gemara responds: If this was so, why does the mishna state: Because it grew in a state of prohibition? The mishna should have stated: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses: why did Ameimar resort to the unfertilized-egg answer rather than simply saying the Eduyyot mishna refers to the first clutch (which everyone agrees is forbidden)? The answer lies in the mishna’s precise wording. It says the egg is forbidden because it “grew” (gadla) in prohibition — implying the entire growth occurred while the bird was already a tereifa. Had it meant the first clutch (which merely finished developing afterward), it would have said it “was finished” (gamra) in prohibition. The diction forces the unfertilized-egg reading.
Key Terms:
- גָּדְלָה (gadla) = “grew” — entire development under prohibition (a post-tereifa egg)
- גָּמְרָה (gamra) = “was finished/completed” — the wording that would fit the first clutch
- דִּיּוּק (diyyuk) = a close inference drawn from the mishna’s precise wording
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא — the dispute of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua
A baraita on the offspring of a tereifa: if the womb-offspring is also tereifa, why do R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua argue only about the altar?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: וְלַד טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בְּשֶׁנִּטְרְפָה וּלְבַסּוֹף עִיבְּרָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם מוּתָּר. אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי לְגָבוֹהַּ, לִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט?
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But if the offspring in the womb of an animal becomes a tereifa along with it, then that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal was rendered a tereifa and afterward became pregnant from a kosher male, and Rabbi Eliezer holds: In a case where this and that cause it, it is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds: In a case where this and that cause it, it is permitted. But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them disagree concerning the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a difficulty from a baraita: regarding the offspring of a tereifa animal, R. Eliezer says it may not be offered on the altar and R. Yehoshua says it may. The case must be one where the mother was rendered tereifa and only then conceived from a kosher male — so the dispute is precisely about zeh va-zeh gorem (R. Eliezer forbids, R. Yehoshua permits). But if so, why frame the argument over offering it “to the Most High” (la-gavoah)? They should have disputed the more basic question of whether such offspring may be eaten by an ordinary person (hedyot).
Key Terms:
- וְלַד טְרֵפָה (vlad tereifa) = the offspring of a tereifa
- לְגָבוֹהַּ (la-gavoah) = “to the Most High” — fitness as an altar offering
- לְהֶדְיוֹט (le-hedyot) = “to an ordinary person” — fitness for ordinary consumption
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ — to show the power of R. Yehoshua’s leniency
The dispute is framed at the altar to highlight how far R. Yehoshua’s lenient view reaches
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ נָמֵי שָׁרֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The dispute addresses the question of whether it is permitted to sacrifice the animal as an offering in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that such an animal is permitted even as an offering to the Most High.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the baraita deliberately frames the dispute at the level of the altar in order to convey the reach of R. Yehoshua’s lenient position: such offspring is permitted even la-gavoah, as a sacrifice to God — the strongest possible expression of leniency. Stating the dispute at the higher, more demanding level dramatizes just how far R. Yehoshua is willing to permit.
Key Terms:
- כֹּחוֹ (kocho) = “its power/force” — how far a halachic position reaches
- כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא (koach de-heteira) = the power of leniency — what a permissive ruling teaches
- שָׁרֵי (sharei) = it is permitted
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — why not show R. Eliezer’s stringency?
The Gemara asks why not frame it at the hedyot level to show R. Eliezer’s reach; answer: a tanna prefers to teach leniency
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי אָסַור! כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But let them disagree concerning whether the animal is permitted to an ordinary person in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that such an animal is prohibited even to an ordinary person. The Gemara responds: It is preferable for the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the symmetric question: why not instead frame the dispute over the ordinary person (hedyot), which would dramatize the reach of R. Eliezer’s stringency — that such offspring is forbidden even to a layman? The answer states a general editorial preference of the Mishna: koach de-heteira adif — “the power of leniency is preferable.” A tanna prefers to highlight how far a lenient ruling extends rather than how far a stringent one does, since a permissive ruling reflects greater confidence and reveals more about the law’s outer boundary.
Key Terms:
- כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא עֲדִיף (koach de-heteira adif) = “the power of leniency is preferable” — a Mishnaic editorial principle
- כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר = the reach of R. Eliezer’s stringent view
- תַּנָּא = the tanna/editor who chooses how to frame the dispute
Segment 7
TYPE: מסקנה — the Eduyyot concession concerns an unfertilized egg
Since R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua dispute a two-cause case, the conceded egg of Eduyyot must be a single-cause (unfertilized) egg
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמוֹדִים בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא, דְּחַד גּוֹרֵם הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: Since Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree with regard to an offspring brought about by two causes, it follows that when the mishna states: And they concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, this is referring to a bird that is heated by the earth and was not fertilized by a male, so that there is only one cause, the tereifa mother bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws its conclusion. Since the very dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua concerns offspring produced by two causes, the concession in the Eduyyot mishna — “all agree the egg of a tereifa is forbidden” — must address a different case where there is no dispute. That case is an unfertilized egg, “heated by the earth,” in which the tereifa hen is the sole cause (chad gorem). With only one, forbidden, cause, even R. Yehoshua agrees it is forbidden. This vindicates Ameimar’s reading from segment 2.
Key Terms:
- חַד גּוֹרֵם (chad gorem) = a single cause — only the forbidden source operates
- מוֹדִים (modim) = “they concede” — the point of agreement in the Eduyyot mishna
- בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא = the unfertilized egg, the single-cause case
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Acha’s version follows Rav Acha bar Yaakov
Rav Acha holds a tereifa can lay/give birth, and so teaches Ameimar as above (post-tereifa eggs permitted)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אַחָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לִדְאַמֵּימָר כְּדַאֲמַרַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: Rav Acha holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Acha bar Yaakov, who said at the end of the previous amud that a tereifa animal can be capable of giving birth, and similarly a tereifa bird can be capable of laying eggs as well, and he therefore teaches the statement of Ameimar as we have said, that any egg fertilized after the bird became a tereifa is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now distinguishes two transmissions of Ameimar’s ruling. Rav Acha follows Rav Acha bar Yaakov (cited at the end of 57b) that a tereifa can give birth and a tereifa hen can lay eggs. On this premise he teaches Ameimar exactly as presented above: eggs formed after the bird became a tereifa are produced by two causes and are therefore permitted, while only the first clutch is forbidden. This is the lishna already explained.
Key Terms:
- רַב אַחָא = the tradent transmitting Ameimar per Rav Acha bar Yaakov
- רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב = the sage holding a tereifa can give birth/lay eggs
- כְּדַאֲמַרַן (ki-da’amaran) = “as we have said” — the version already explained
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — Ravina’s version: a tereifa cannot lay
Ravina holds a tereifa cannot lay; so Ameimar’s ruling becomes a test — if a doubtful bird lays again, the first clutch is permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא לָא סָבַר לַהּ כִּדְרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לִדְאַמֵּימָר בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא: אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הָנֵי בֵּיעֵי דִּסְפֵק טְרֵפָה, דְּשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא מְשַׁהֵינַן לְהוּ, אִי הָדְרָה וְטָעֲנָה – שַׁרְיָין, וְאִי לָא – אֲסִירָן.
English Translation:
But Ravina does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Acha bar Yaakov. Rather, he holds that a tereifa cannot produce eggs or give birth. And he therefore teaches the statement of Ameimar in this formulation: Ameimar said that with regard to these eggs of a bird concerning which it is uncertain whether it is a tereifa, the halakha is as follows: We leave aside the first clutch of eggs. If the bird produces eggs again, the first eggs are permitted for consumption, because the bird is certainly not a tereifa. And if not, they are prohibited, because they were considered part of the bird when it was rendered a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina rejects Rav Acha bar Yaakov’s premise, holding that a true tereifa cannot lay eggs or give birth at all. He therefore recasts Ameimar’s statement as a practical test for a bird of doubtful status (sefek tereifa): we set aside (meshahinan) the first clutch and wait. If the bird lays again (hadra ve-ta’ana), this proves it was never a tereifa, and the held-back first clutch is retroactively permitted. If it does not lay again, the bird was a tereifa and the first clutch is forbidden as part of its body.
Key Terms:
- רָבִינָא (Ravina) = holds a tereifa cannot lay or give birth
- סְפֵק טְרֵפָה (sefek tereifa) = a bird of doubtful tereifa status
- מְשַׁהֵינַן (meshahinan) = we set aside / hold back [the first clutch] to test the bird
- הָדְרָה וְטָעֲנָה (hadra ve-ta’ana) = it laid again — proving it was not a tereifa
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — Rav Ashi objects again; “teach: was finished”
Same Eduyyot objection to Ravina’s version; Ameimar answers it concerns the first clutch and emends “grew” to “was finished”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וּמוֹדִים בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּדְלָה בְּאִיסּוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם בִּדְשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא. אִם כֵּן, ״גָּדְלָה״? ״גָּמְרָה״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: גָּמְרָה.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1): And they concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, because it grew in a state of prohibition. Evidently, a tereifa bird can produce eggs. Ameimar said to him: The mishna there deals with the first clutch of eggs, which existed before the bird became a tereifa. Rav Ashi asks: If so, why does the mishna state: Because it grew in a state of prohibition? The mishna should have stated: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition. Ameimar responded: Teach an emended version of the mishna: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
Under Ravina’s version the Eduyyot objection returns: if a tereifa cannot lay, how can the mishna speak of “the egg of a tereifa”? Ameimar answers that it refers to the first clutch — eggs that existed before the bird became a tereifa. Rav Ashi presses the same diction problem: why “grew” (gadla) rather than “was finished” (gamra)? This time Ameimar does not deflect to an unfertilized egg but simply emends the text: teni gamra — “read the mishna as: because it was finished in prohibition.” The wording is corrected to fit the first-clutch reading.
Key Terms:
- תְּנִי גָּמְרָה (teni gamra) = “read: was finished” — an explicit emendation of the mishna’s text
- בִּדְשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא = referring to the first clutch
- אֵיתִיבֵיהּ (eitiveih) = “he objected to him” — Rav Ashi’s challenge
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא — the R. Eliezer/R. Yehoshua dispute, recast
Under Ravina’s view the dispute is reframed: conceived first then became tereifa, turning on “is a fetus a limb of its mother?”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: וְלַד טְרֵפָה, ר׳ אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, ר׳ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב, בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? כְּשֶׁעִיבְּרָה וּלְבַסּוֹף נִטְרְפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא. אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי לְגָבוֹהַּ, לִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט!
English Translation:
Rav Ashi asks: But if a tereifa cannot become pregnant, that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal became pregnant and only afterward was rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Eliezer holds that a fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother and is rendered a tereifa as part of its body, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a fetus is not considered like the thigh of its mother. The Gemara objects: But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them dispute the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
Because Ravina holds a tereifa cannot conceive, the dispute of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua must be reframed: the mother conceived first and only afterward became a tereifa. Now the issue is not zeh va-zeh gorem but whether ubar yerech immo — a fetus is reckoned as a “limb of its mother.” R. Eliezer holds it is, so it became tereifa with her; R. Yehoshua holds it is not, so it remains permitted. The Gemara again asks why the dispute is framed at the altar rather than ordinary consumption.
Key Terms:
- עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ (ubar yerech immo) = “a fetus is a limb of its mother” — R. Eliezer’s premise
- עִיבְּרָה וּלְבַסּוֹף נִטְרְפָה = conceived first and only afterward became a tereifa
- עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ = “a fetus is not a limb of its mother” — R. Yehoshua’s premise
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ — again, to show R. Yehoshua’s leniency
The same resolution: framed at the altar to show R. Yehoshua’s reach; koach de-heteira adif
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְלִיפַּלְגוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The mishna discusses the question of whether it is permitted to sacrifice the animal as an offering in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that such an animal is permitted even as an offering to the Most High. The Gemara suggests: But let them dispute whether the animal is permitted to an ordinary person, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that such an animal is prohibited even to an ordinary person. The Gemara responds: It is preferable for the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara gives the same resolution as before. The dispute is framed at the altar to convey the reach of R. Yehoshua’s leniency — the offspring is permitted even as a sacrifice. To the symmetric question (why not frame it at the hedyot level to show R. Eliezer’s stringency?), the answer is again the editorial maxim koach de-heteira adif: the tanna prefers to display the extent of a lenient ruling.
Key Terms:
- כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ = the reach of R. Yehoshua’s lenient view
- כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא עֲדִיף = “the power of leniency is preferable”
- לְגָבוֹהַּ = as an offering to the Most High
Segment 13
TYPE: מסקנה — the conceded egg is a true part of the body
Even R. Yehoshua (fetus is not a limb) concedes the first-clutch egg is forbidden, because an egg is truly part of the hen’s body
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמוֹדִים וַדַּאי בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵיפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, בִּדְשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא, מַאי טַעְמָא? גּוּפַהּ הִיא.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: According to this explanation, when the mishna states: And they certainly concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, it is dealing with the first clutch of eggs in the bird’s oviduct at the time it becomes a tereifa. Even Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that the fetus of an animal is not considered like the thigh of its mother, concedes that a bird’s egg is rendered a tereifa along with it. What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yehoshua holds that an egg is a true part of its body.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concludes Ravina’s line. The Eduyyot concession — “all certainly agree the egg of a tereifa is forbidden” — refers to the first clutch present in the oviduct when the bird became a tereifa. Strikingly, even R. Yehoshua, who holds a fetus is not a limb of its mother, concedes here. The reason (gufah hi): unlike a fetus, an egg is a genuine, integral part of the hen’s own body, so it is rendered tereifa together with the hen.
Key Terms:
- גּוּפַהּ הִיא (gufah hi) = “it is [part of] its body” — why the egg is rendered tereifa
- שִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא = the first clutch, present at the moment of tereifa
- מוֹדִים וַדַּאי (modim vaddai) = “they certainly concede” — even R. Yehoshua agrees here
Segment 14
TYPE: הלכה — the twelve-month / birth criterion
The ruling for a sefek tereifa: a male is forbidden twelve months; a female until it gives birth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהִלְכְתָא בְּזָכָר – כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, בִּנְקֵבָה – כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת.
English Translation:
The Gemara rules: And with regard to an animal concerning which it is uncertain whether it is a tereifa, the halakha is: In the case of a male, it is prohibited for an entire twelve-month period. After that point, the animal is certainly kosher. In the case of a female, any animal that does not give birth is prohibited. Once it has, it is certainly kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara states the operative halacha for an animal of doubtful tereifa status, echoing the principle from daf 57b. A male is held forbidden for a full twelve months; if it survives, it is certainly kosher. A female is forbidden until it gives birth; once it does, it is certainly kosher, since a true tereifa cannot reproduce. This pairing of waiting-period (male) and reproduction (female) becomes the standard test for resolving tereifa doubts.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא (hilcheta) = the [settled] halacha
- שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ (shneim asar chodesh) = twelve months — the survival test for a male
- כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת = any [female] that does not give birth — remains forbidden
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Huna: boneless creatures do not last a year
Rav Huna: a creature with no bones cannot survive twelve months; Rav Pappa connects this to Shmuel’s ruling on infested melons
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם אֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא, הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קִישּׁוּת שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה בְּאִיבֶּיהָ אֲסוּרָה.
English Translation:
§ Rav Huna says: Any creature that has no bones cannot last twelve months. Rav Pappa said: One may learn from Rav Huna’s statement about that which Shmuel says: If a serpent melon became infested by worms while attached to the ground, the worm is prohibited for consumption, in accordance with the verse: “And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).
קלאוד על הדף:
A new principle that will govern the next several segments: Rav Huna teaches that any creature lacking bones cannot survive twelve months. Rav Pappa draws a corollary touching Shmuel’s ruling that a serpent-melon (kishut) infested by worms while still attached to the ground (be-ibbeha) is forbidden — because a worm that bred in the attached produce is an earth-swarming creature barred by “every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth… shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The boneless-lifespan rule will let the Gemara date when such worms could have formed.
Key Terms:
- אֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם (ein bo etzem) = having no bones — a creature that cannot last twelve months
- קִישּׁוּת (kishut) = a serpent-melon / cucumber
- בְּאִיבֶּיהָ (be-ibbeha) = while still attached to the ground/plant
- שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ (sheretz ha-aretz) = an earth-swarming creature — forbidden per Lev. 11:41
Amud Bet (58b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — dates stored a year are permitted
Applying Rav Huna: worms in jarred dates kept twelve months must have bred after picking, so they are permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנֵי תַּמְרֵי דְּכַדָּא לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שַׁרְיָין.
English Translation:
These dates stored in a jar are permitted after remaining there for twelve months of the year. Since worms have no bones, they cannot last twelve months. Consequently, any worms found in the dates must have hatched after they were picked and are therefore permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara applies Rav Huna’s boneless-lifespan rule to a practical kashrut question. Dates stored in a jar for a full twelve months are permitted even if worms are found in them. Since worms have no bones and cannot live twelve months, any worm present must have hatched after the dates were detached from the tree (when worms are permitted), not while they were still attached (when an earth-swarming worm would be forbidden). The passage of a year thus resolves the doubt in the lenient direction.
Key Terms:
- תַּמְרֵי דְּכַדָּא (tamrei de-kadda) = dates [stored] in a jar
- תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא = twelve months of the year — the storage period that permits
- שַׁרְיָין (sharyan) = they are permitted
Segment 2
TYPE: אגדה — Rav on the lifespans of insects
Rav: there is no one-day-old mosquito and no one-year-old fly
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: לֵית בָּקָא בַּר יוֹמָא, וְלֵית דִּידְבָא בַּת שַׁתָּא.
English Translation:
Rav says: There is no one-day-old mosquito, since all mosquitoes die before they have lived a day. And there is no one-year-old fly.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav adds two folk-zoological observations consonant with the boneless-lifespan theme: there is no mosquito (baka) that lives even a full day, and no fly (didva) that lives a full year. These hyperbolic-sounding statements about the brief lifespans of tiny boneless creatures set up the playful give-and-take of the next segment, where Rav Pappa challenges them from popular sayings.
Key Terms:
- בָּקָא (baka) = a mosquito/gnat
- דִּידְבָא (didva) = a fly
- בַּר יוֹמָא / בַּת שַׁתָּא = a day old / a year old
Segment 3
TYPE: אגדה — popular sayings and how to read them
Rav Pappa cites a saying of a seven-year mosquird grudge; Abaye answers that such sayings use the creatures’ own units
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שַׁב שְׁנֵי אִימְּרַאי בָּקְתָּא מִבָּקָא. דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְבַר מָחוֹזָא דִּסְחָא בְּמַיָּא, וּסְלֵיק וְאִיכְּרֵךְ בִּסְדִינִין, וְאִיתֵּיבְתְּ עֲלֵיהּ וּמְצֵת מִינֵּיהּ, וְלָא הוֹדַעְתְּ לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי ״שִׁיתִּין מָנֵי פַּרְזְלָא תְּלוּ לֵיהּ לְבָקָא בְּקוּרְנָסֵיהּ״, מִי אִיכָּא? אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ כַּמָּה הָוֵי? אֶלָּא בְּמָנֵי דִּידְהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּשְׁנֵי דִּידְהוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn’t there the adage that people say that the female mosquito revolted against the male mosquito seven years, since she said to him: I saw a townsman swimming in the water, and he came out and wrapped himself in sheets, and you sat on him and sucked blood from him, and you did not inform me? Apparently, some boneless creatures can survive at least seven years. Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, what about that adage that people say: Six thousand iron dinars hang in a mosquito’s mallet, i.e., its bite is powerful? Is there really such a thing? How much does the mosquito itself weigh? Rather, the saying must be referring to hundreds of their own dinars, i.e., the mosquitoes’ coins. Here, too, the adage is referring to their own years, not human years.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa challenges Rav from a folk-saying that a female mosquito bore a seven-year grudge against the male — implying mosquitoes live for years. The saying’s content is a vivid domestic quarrel: she rebukes him for feasting on a bather wrapped in sheets without telling her. Abaye dismisses the literal reading with a parallel proverb that “sixty iron weights hang on a mosquito’s mallet” (its bite) — obviously impossible if taken literally, given the mosquito’s tiny size. Just as that must mean the creatures’ own tiny units, so the “seven years” means the mosquito’s own brief years, not human ones.
Key Terms:
- שַׁב שְׁנֵי (shav shnei) = seven years — the figure in the folk-saying
- בַּר מָחוֹזָא (bar Machoza) = a townsman of Machoza — the bather in the anecdote
- בְּשַׁתָּא דִּידְהוּ (be-shata didhu) = in their [own] years — Abaye’s rereading of the proverb
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Huna: an extra limb is like a missing one
From a mishna on blemishes: Rav Huna rules an extra or missing HIND leg is also a tereifa, since “any extra is like removed”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָסֵר וְיָתֵר בַּיָּד, אֲבָל חָסֵר וְיָתֵר בָּרֶגֶל – טְרֵפָה נָמֵי הָוְיָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כׇּל יָתֵר כְּנָטוּל דָּמֵי.
English Translation:
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Bekhorot 40a): With regard to an animal with five legs, or one that has only three, this is a blemish, and the animal may not be brought as an offering. Rav Huna said: They taught this halakha only in a case where the animal was missing or had an additional foreleg. But if it was missing or had an additional hind leg, it is also a tereifa. What is the reason? It is that any extra limb is considered like a removed limb. An animal whose foreleg was removed is kosher, but if its hind leg was removed it is a tereifa; the same applies if it had an extra leg.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya pivots to abnormal anatomy. A mishna in Bekhorot (40a) lists an animal with five legs or only three as blemished (disqualified for the altar). Rav Huna qualifies: that mishna speaks of a foreleg (yad) — a missing or extra foreleg is a blemish but not a tereifa. A missing or extra HIND leg (regel), however, is also a tereifa. His reasoning is the influential principle kol yater ke-natul dami — “anything extra is regarded as removed”: since an animal whose hind leg was removed is a tereifa, one with an extra hind leg is likewise a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- מוּם (mum) = a blemish — disqualifies for the altar but is not necessarily a tereifa
- כׇּל יָתֵר כְּנָטוּל דָּמֵי (kol yater ke-natul dami) = “anything extra is regarded as removed”
- יָד / רֶגֶל (yad / regel) = foreleg / hind leg — only the hind leg makes a tereifa
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה — Ravina and the double cecum
An animal with two ceca is deemed a tereifa per Rav Huna; but if they connect, it is kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא חֵיוְתָא דַּהֲוָה לַהּ תַּרְתֵּי סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי, אַיְיתוּהָ לְרָבִינָא, וְטַרְפַהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא. וְאִי שָׁפְכָן לַהֲדָדֵי – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain animal that had two ceca. They brought it to Ravina, and he deemed it a tereifa based on the statement of Rav Huna that an extra limb is like a missing limb. Since an animal missing a cecum is a tereifa, an animal with an extra cecum is likewise a tereifa. The Gemara adds: But if they empty into each other, such that food can move freely between them, the animal is kosher, because they are considered one organ.
קלאוד על הדף:
A case applying Rav Huna’s principle. An animal was found with two ceca (tartei sanya deivei) and brought to Ravina, who ruled it a tereifa: since an animal missing a cecum is a tereifa, an animal with an extra one is likewise a tereifa (yater ke-natul). The Gemara adds an important qualification: if the two ceca empty into one another (shafchan la-hadadei), so food passes freely between them, they count as a single organ and the animal is kosher.
Key Terms:
- סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי (sanya deivei) = the cecum (a blind gut/appendage)
- תַּרְתֵּי (tartei) = two — a doubled organ
- שָׁפְכָן לַהֲדָדֵי (shafchan la-hadadei) = they empty into each other — making them one organ, hence kosher
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה — the tube from reticulum to omasum
A tube from the bei kasei to the huvlila; Rav Ashi would deem it tereifa, but it is normal in wild animals
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה נָפְקָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לְהוּבְלִילָא, סָבַר רַב אָשֵׁי לְמִיטְרְפַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא מָר בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּל הָנֵי חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא הָכִי אִית לְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain tube that exited from the reticulum into the omasum. Rav Ashi thought to deem the animal a tereifa. Rav Huna Mar bar Chiyya said to Rav Ashi: All animals that dwell outside have tubes like this, and one need not be concerned.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another anatomical case. A tube (gubta) was found running from the reticulum (bei kasei) to the omasum (huvlila). Rav Ashi thought to rule the animal a tereifa as an abnormal structure. But Rav Huna Mar bar Chiyya corrected him: all wild/field animals (chivei barayata) naturally have such a tube, so it is no defect at all and there is no cause for concern. The lesson: what looks anomalous in a domestic beast may be the normal anatomy of another species.
Key Terms:
- גּוּבְתָּא (gubta) = a tube/duct
- בֵּי כָסֵי (bei kasei) = the reticulum (second stomach)
- הוּבְלִילָא (huvlila) = the omasum (third stomach)
- חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא (chivei barayata) = wild/outdoor animals — in which the tube is normal
Segment 7
TYPE: מעשה — the tube from reticulum to rumen
A different tube (to the rumen); Mar bar Rav Ashi would permit by analogy, but Rav Oshaya rules tereifa — not all cases are alike
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה מְעַבְּרָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לִכְרֵסָא, סְבַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא מְחִיתָא מַחֵתִינְהוּ? הֵיכָא דְּאִתְּמַר – אִתְּמַר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִתְּמַר – לָא אִתְּמַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain tube that passed from the reticulum to the rumen. Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to deem the animal kosher, as in the above case. Rav Oshaya said to him: Is that to say all such cases are woven in one weave? Where it was stated that such an organ is normal, it was stated; where it was not stated, it was not stated. This animal is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
A contrasting case warns against over-applying the previous leniency. A tube was found passing from the reticulum (bei kasei) to the rumen (kreisa). Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to permit it by analogy to the prior case. Rav Oshaya rebuked him: “are all cases woven in one weave?” (chada mechita) — one cannot extend a leniency to a different anatomical situation. Only where the sages explicitly stated a structure is normal may we rely on it; where they did not, we may not, and this animal is a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- כְּרֵסָא (kreisa) = the rumen (first/main stomach)
- חֲדָא מְחִיתָא (chada mechita) = “one weave” — treating distinct cases as identical (rejected)
- הֵיכָא דְּאִתְּמַר אִתְּמַר = “where it was stated, it was stated” — rely only on explicit precedent
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא (עדות) — Natan bar Sheila on two intestines
Two intestines exiting the stomach as one render an animal tereifa (kosher in a bird), unless they merge within a fingerbreadth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵעִיד נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא רַב טַבָּחַיָּא דְּצִיפּוֹרִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, עַל שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם הַיּוֹצְאִין מִן הַבְּהֵמָה כְּאֶחָד, שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה, וּכְנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף – כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת, אֲבָל יוֹצְאִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְכָלִין עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
Natan bar Sheila, head of the butchers of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about two intestines that exit the abomasum of the animal as one, that this renders the animal a tereifa. But if this phenomenon occurs likewise in a bird, it is kosher, because it is common in birds. In what case is this statement said, i.e., that two intestines render an animal a tereifa? It is said in a case where they exit at two different points. But if they exit at one point, adjacent to each other, and they end, i.e., they merge into one intestine, within a fingerbreadth, the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Natan bar Sheila, chief of the butchers of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi (Yehuda HaNasi): two intestines exiting the animal’s abomasum together render it a tereifa — but the same condition in a bird is kosher, since it is common in fowl. He limits the ruling: it is a tereifa only when the two emerge at two separate points; if they emerge at a single point and merge into one within a fingerbreadth (ad ke-etzba), the animal is kosher. This is a rare instance of expert butcher’s testimony being received into halacha.
Key Terms:
- נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא = head of the butchers of Tzippori, who testified before Rabbi
- שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם (shnei benei me’ayim) = two intestines exiting as one
- עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע (ad ke-etzba) = within a fingerbreadth — the merge-distance that keeps it kosher
Segment 9
TYPE: מחלוקת — Rav Ami and Rav Asi
Do the two intestines need to actually merge to be kosher? One says yes; one says even if they don’t merge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, וְחַד אָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי.
English Translation:
Rav Ami and Rav Asi disagree with regard to this halakha. One says: It is kosher when the two intestines exit at one point only in a case where they subsequently merge into one intestine; and one says: It is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ami and Rav Asi dispute the precise condition in Natan bar Sheila’s ruling. One holds the animal is kosher only when the two intestines, after exiting one point, actually loop back and merge (hadri ve-arvei) into a single intestine. The other holds it is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge, so long as they exit at one point. The dispute turns on how to read the baraita’s phrase “and they end within a fingerbreadth.”
Key Terms:
- הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי (hadri ve-arvei) = they loop back and merge into one
- רַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי = the two sages disputing the condition
- אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא (af al gav de-la) = “even though they do not [merge]“
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא — reconciling the dispute with the baraita
The “within a fingerbreadth” phrase fits the merge-view easily; the other view reads it as “a fingerbreadth from the bottom”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, מַאי ״עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע״? עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע מִלְּמַטָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that it is kosher only in a case where they subsequently merge, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches: Within a fingerbreadth. That is, the two intestines must merge within a fingerbreadth for the animal to be kosher. But according to the one who says: It is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge, what is the meaning of the phrase: And they end within a fingerbreadth? The Gemara responds: It means within a fingerbreadth below. As long as the intestines merge before the final fingerbreadth near the anus, the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the two views against the baraita’s wording “ad ke-etzba” (within a fingerbreadth). For the view that the intestines must actually merge, the phrase fits naturally: they must merge within a fingerbreadth. But for the view that merging is unnecessary, what does “within a fingerbreadth” mean? The answer: it means a fingerbreadth from the bottom (mi-lematta) — the intestines need only converge before the final fingerbreadth near the anus, and as long as they do so the animal is kosher even without a full merge.
Key Terms:
- מִלְּמַטָּה (mi-lematta) = from below — a fingerbreadth before the anus
- בִּשְׁלָמָא (bishlama) = “granted” — introducing the easier of two readings
- עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע = within a fingerbreadth — reinterpreted for the second view
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — R. Yochanan: R. Yehuda and R. Yishmael agree
On the mishna’s “plucked down is tereifa”: R. Yochanan links R. Yehuda to R. Yishmael (down joins flesh for piggul)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִיטְּלָה הַנּוֹצָה – פְּסוּלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹצָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the down covering its body was removed, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption, like an animal whose hide was removed. With regard to this, Rabbi Yochanan says: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Yehuda said that which we said here, that the removal of the feathers is like removal of the hide. Rabbi Yishmael agrees, as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: The down joins the flesh to constitute an olive-bulk for purposes of piggul. If a priest pinches the nape of the neck of a bird with intent to consume a combined olive-bulk of its meat and its down beyond the permitted time, the offering is rendered piggul. Evidently, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael agree that the down of a bird is considered like the hide of an animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to the previous mishna’s ruling that a bird whose down (notza) is removed is a tereifa, Rabbi Yochanan observes that R. Yehuda and R. Yishmael “said one thing.” R. Yehuda treats the down like an animal’s hide — its removal is fatal. R. Yishmael, in a baraita, holds the down joins (mitztarefet) with the flesh to complete an olive-bulk for the laws of piggul. Both, R. Yochanan infers, regard a bird’s down as the functional equivalent of an animal’s protective hide.
Key Terms:
- נוֹצָה (notza) = the down/plumage covering the bird’s body
- מִצְטָרֶפֶת (mitztarefet) = joins/combines [with the flesh] to make an olive-bulk
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = a sacrifice invalidated by improper intent of time
Segment 12
TYPE: דחייה — Rava: perhaps they do not agree
Rava distinguishes: R. Yehuda speaks only of tereifa (protection), R. Yishmael only of piggul (edibility); each may reject the other’s context
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָכָא אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה, דְּלֵיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמַגֵּין עֲלֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי – כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה – אַגּוֹנֵי לָא מַגֵּין.
English Translation:
Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, and they disagree. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda says that the down is like the hide of an animal here only with regard to a tereifa, since when the down is removed, there is nothing that protects the bird, and its life is in danger; but with regard to piggul, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the down is not treated like the hide of an animal, because piggul applies only if one had intent to consume an item that is normally consumed. And perhaps Rabbi Yishmael says so there only with regard to piggul, since he holds that the down is in fact fit for consumption; but with regard to a tereifa, he holds that the down does not protect the bird, and its removal does not endanger it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava challenges R. Yochanan’s equation. Perhaps R. Yehuda and R. Yishmael do not in fact agree. R. Yehuda may liken down to hide only regarding tereifa — because stripped of its down nothing protects (maggein) the bird and its life is endangered — while for piggul he could side with the Rabbis that down is not like hide (since piggul requires intent to eat a normally-eaten item). Conversely, R. Yishmael may treat down like flesh only for piggul (deeming it edible) while holding that for tereifa the down does not protect the bird and its removal poses no danger. The two rulings rest on different criteria — protection versus edibility — and need not coincide.
Key Terms:
- מַגֵּין (maggein) = protects/shields — the criterion for R. Yehuda’s tereifa ruling
- אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי (ipaggolei) = [the laws of] piggul — R. Yishmael’s context
- כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ = he holds in accordance with the Rabbis
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה — the dying-but-kosher animal; poison and snakebite
Mishna: blood-congestion, smoke, chill, oleander, droppings, foul water are kosher; deadly poison or snakebite are permitted as tereifa but forbidden as a danger
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְהַמְצוּנֶּנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנֵי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָת מַיִם הָרָעִים – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת.
English Translation:
MISHNA: With regard to an animal that is congested with excess blood, or that was smoked, i.e., that suffered from smoke inhalation, or that was chilled and subsequently became sick, or that ate oleander, which is poisonous, or that ate the excrement of chickens, or that drank foul water, although in all these cases the animal is in danger, it is kosher. By contrast, if the animal ate deadly poison, or if a snake bit the animal, with regard to the prohibition of tereifa, consumption of the animal would be permitted, but it is prohibited due to the threat to one’s life if he eats it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna distinguishes tereifa-status from danger to life. An animal that is congested with blood (achuzat ha-dam), suffered smoke inhalation (me’ushenet), was chilled (metzunenet), or ate oleander (hardufnei), chicken droppings, or foul water — though endangered — is kosher, because none of these creates a recognized tereifa defect. But an animal that ate deadly poison (sam ha-mavet) or was bitten by a snake is permitted as far as the laws of tereifa go, yet forbidden for consumption because of the danger to human life (sakkanat nefashot). The mishna thus separates ritual fitness from a distinct, health-based prohibition.
Key Terms:
- אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם (achuzat ha-dam) = congested with [excess] blood
- הַרְדּוּפְנֵי (hardufnei) = oleander — a poisonous plant
- סַם הַמָּוֶת (sam ha-mavet) = deadly poison
- סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת (sakkanat nefashot) = danger to [human] life — a prohibition distinct from tereifa
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — Shmuel: asafoetida makes a tereifa
Shmuel rules that feeding an animal asafoetida renders it a tereifa, because it perforates the intestines
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִלְעִיטָהּ חִלְתִּית – טְרֵפָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּמְינַקְּבָה לְהוּ לְמַעְיָינַהּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Shmuel says: If one fed an animal asafoetida, a very sharp plant, it is a tereifa. What is the reason? Since it perforates its intestines.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with Shmuel’s stringent ruling: if one fed an animal asafoetida (chiltit), a pungent resinous plant, the animal is a tereifa. The reason is physiological — the sharp substance perforates its intestines (di-menakkeva lehu le-ma’yanah), and a perforated intestine is a classic tereifa. This will be challenged in the next segment from a baraita that lists asafoetida among the harmless substances.
Key Terms:
- הִלְעִיטָהּ (hil’itah) = he force-fed it
- חִלְתִּית (chiltit) = asafoetida — a sharp resinous plant
- דִּמְינַקְּבָה (di-menakkeva) = because it perforates [the intestines]
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא — Rav Sheizvi’s objection from a baraita
A baraita lists asafoetida and deadly poison among the kosher cases, contradicting both Shmuel and the mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנֵי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, וְשָׁתָת מַיִם הָרָעִים, הִלְעִיטָהּ תִּיעָה, חִלְתִּית וּפִלְפְּלִין, אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה. הִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכָהּ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת. קַשְׁיָא חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית, קַשְׁיָא סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת!
English Translation:
Rav Sheizvi raises an objection from a baraita: An animal that is congested with excess blood, or that suffered from smoke inhalation, or that ate poisonous oleander, or that ate the excrement of roosters, or that drank foul water, or if one fed it tia, asafoetida, or peppers, or if it ate deadly poison, it is kosher. But if a snake bit the animal, or if a mad dog bit it, with regard to the prohibition of tereifa its consumption is permitted, but it is nevertheless prohibited due to the threat to one’s life. The statement of the baraita concerning an animal that was fed asafoetida poses a difficulty to Shmuel’s statement that asafoetida renders the animal a tereifa, and the statement concerning deadly poison poses a difficulty to the mishna’s statement that deadly poison renders the animal prohibited due to the threat to one’s life.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheizvi objects to Shmuel from a fuller baraita. That baraita lists, among animals that remain kosher, ones fed tia, asafoetida (chiltit), and peppers, and even ones that ate deadly poison — while only a snakebite or the bite of a mad dog (kelev shoteh) is permitted-as-tereifa-but-forbidden-as-a-danger. This raises two contradictions: the baraita’s asafoetida (kosher) versus Shmuel’s asafoetida (tereifa), and the baraita’s deadly poison (kosher) versus the mishna’s deadly poison (forbidden as a danger).
Key Terms:
- רַב שֵׁיזְבִי = the sage raising the objection from the baraita
- תִּיעָה (tia) = a substance the Gemara will define at the end of the daf
- כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה (kelev shoteh) = a mad/rabid dog
- קַשְׁיָא (kashya) = a [standing] difficulty
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ — distinguishing leaves from slivers, animal-poison from human-poison
Asafoetida: leaves (kosher) vs. slivers (tereifa). Deadly poison: deadly to the animal (kosher) vs. deadly to a person (forbidden)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעָלִין, כָּאן בִּקְרָטִין. סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּידַהּ, הָא דְּאָדָם. סַם הַמָּוֶת דִּבְהֵמָה הַיְינוּ הַרְדּוּפְנֵי? תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי סַם הַמָּוֶת.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between one statement about asafoetida and the other statement about asafoetida is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the animal ate asafoetida leaves, which are less dangerous. There, Shmuel is referring to a case where the animal ate slivers of asafoetida, which are very sharp. Likewise, the apparent contradiction between one statement about deadly poison and the other statement about deadly poison is not difficult. This statement of the baraita that it is permitted is referring to a case where the animal consumed poison that is deadly only to itself. That statement of the mishna that it is prohibited is referring to a case where it consumed poison deadly to a person. The Gemara asks: Poison deadly to an animal is the same as oleander; why should the baraita mention both? The Gemara responds: The tanna is referring to two types of deadly poison.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves both contradictions by distinguishing cases. For asafoetida: the lenient baraita speaks of the leaves (alin), which are mild, while Shmuel speaks of the sharp slivers/chunks (kratin) that actually perforate the gut. For deadly poison: the lenient baraita speaks of poison deadly only to the animal itself (didah) — a tereifa concern only, hence kosher once it is no danger to people — while the mishna speaks of poison deadly to a person (de-adam), which is forbidden as a human-health hazard. To the follow-up that “poison deadly to an animal is just oleander,” the Gemara answers there are two different kinds of deadly poison.
Key Terms:
- בְּעָלִין / בִּקְרָטִין (be-alin / bi-kratin) = in leaves (mild) / in slivers (sharp, perforating)
- דִּידַהּ / דְּאָדָם (didah / de-adam) = deadly to itself / deadly to a person
- תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי (trei gavnei) = two types [of deadly poison]
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא — defining “tia” (continues on 59a)
The Gemara asks what “tia” is; Rav Yehuda begins to answer, with the definition completed on the next daf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי תִּיעָה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה:
English Translation:
The above baraita teaches that if an animal was fed tia, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is tia? Rav Yehuda said:
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes by turning to a term left undefined in Rav Sheizvi’s baraita. The baraita had listed tia among the harmless substances an animal might eat; the Gemara now asks “what is tia?” Rav Yehuda begins the answer, but the definition is cut off here and completed at the start of 59a. This open-ended close is a typical Talmudic seam, carrying the reader’s question across the daf boundary.
Key Terms:
- תִּיעָה (tia) = an (initially unnamed) substance the Gemara now defines
- מַאי (mai) = “what is…?” — the Gemara’s request for a definition
- רַב יְהוּדָה = the sage who begins the definition (completed on 59a)