Chullin Daf 59 (חולין דף נ״ט)
Daf: 59 | Amudim: 59a – 59b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (59a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — defining “tia” (completing 58b)
The conclusion of the question from 58b: “what is tia?” — Rav Yehuda answers it is the root of a bitter plant
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עִיקָּרָא דְּמָרִירְתָּא.
English Translation:
It is the root of a bitter vegetable.
קלאוד על הדף:
This single phrase completes the question left hanging at the bottom of 58b. The baraita there had listed tia among the substances an animal might eat that leave it kosher, and the Gemara asked “what is tia?” Rav Yehuda answers: it is the root of a bitter vegetable/plant (ikkara de-marirta). Though bitter and unpleasant, it does not perforate the gut the way sharp asafoetida slivers do, so an animal fed it remains kosher.
Key Terms:
- תִּיעָה (tia) = a bitter substance — defined here as the root of a bitter plant
- עִיקָּרָא דְּמָרִירְתָּא (ikkara de-marirta) = the root of a bitter [vegetable]
Segment 2
TYPE: אגדה (רפואה) — the danger of eating asafoetida
Rav Yehuda and R. Abbahu on the fever caused by eating asafoetida on an empty stomach
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דַּאֲכַל תְּלָתָא תִּקְלֵי חִלְתִּית אַלִּיבָּא רֵיקָנָא – מִישְׁתְּלַח מַשְׁכֵיהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וַאֲכַלִי חַד תִּקְלָא חִלְתִּיתָא, וְאִי לָא דִּיתַבִי בְּמַיָּא – מִישְׁתְּלַח מַשְׁכַאי, וְקִיַּימְתִּי בְּעַצְמִי ״הַחׇכְמָה תְּחַיֶּה בְעָלֶיהָ״.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda says: This individual who eats the weight of three shekel of asafoetida on an empty heart, i.e., stomach, his skin sheds due to the fever he contracts. Rabbi Abbahu said: There was an incident in which I was involved, wherein I ate the weight of one shekel of asafoetida, and had I not immediately sat in water to cool off, my skin would have shed. And I thereby fulfilled with regard to myself that which the verse states: “Wisdom preserves the life of him that has it” (Ecclesiastes 7:12).
קלאוד על הדף:
A pair of medical-anecdotal teachings extending the asafoetida (chiltit) theme from 58b. Rav Yehuda warns that one who eats three shekel-weights of asafoetida on an empty stomach will have his skin shed (mishtelach mashkeih) from the resulting fever. R. Abbahu recounts a personal episode: he ate only one shekel-weight and would have lost his skin had he not at once sat in water to cool down — and he applies to himself the verse “Wisdom preserves the life of him that has it” (Ecclesiastes 7:12), since his knowledge saved him.
Key Terms:
- חִלְתִּית (chiltit) = asafoetida — a pungent, potentially dangerous resinous plant
- אַלִּיבָּא רֵיקָנָא (aliba reikana) = on an empty heart/stomach
- מִישְׁתְּלַח מַשְׁכֵיהּ (mishtelach mashkeih) = his skin sheds [from fever]
- הַחׇכְמָה תְּחַיֶּה בְעָלֶיהָ = “wisdom preserves the life of him that has it” (Eccl. 7:12)
Segment 3
TYPE: אגדה (רפואה) — Rav Yosef on a dangerous summer meal
Rav Yosef warns that a specific overindulgent summer meal on an empty stomach uproots the heartstrings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי מַאן דְּאָכֵיל שִׁיתַּסְרֵי בֵּיעֵי, וְאַרְבְּעֵי אַמְגּוֹזֵי, וְשַׁב בּוּטְיָתָא דְּפִרְחֵי, וְשָׁתֵי רְבִיעֵתָא דְּדוּבְשָׁא בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז, אַלִּיבָּא רֵיקָנָא – מִתְעֲקַר תַּלְיָא דְּלִיבֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef says: This individual who eats sixteen eggs and forty nuts and seven fruits of the caper bush, and he drinks a quarter-log of honey in the season of Tammuz, i.e., summer, all on an empty heart, i.e., stomach, his heartstrings are uprooted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef adds another dietary caution in the same vein. One who, on an empty stomach in the heat of Tammuz (high summer), consumes sixteen eggs, forty nuts, seven caper-fruits, and a quarter-log of honey will have “the strings of his heart” (talya de-libeih) uprooted — i.e., suffer severe cardiac harm. The passage reflects Chazal’s practical health-lore woven into the discussion of harmful foods that began in the previous mishna.
Key Terms:
- תַּלְיָא דְּלִיבֵּיהּ (talya de-libeih) = the strings/ligaments of his heart
- תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז (tekufat Tammuz) = the season of Tammuz — high summer
- רְבִיעֵתָא דְּדוּבְשָׁא = a quarter-log of honey
Segment 4
TYPE: מעשה — the snakebite concern; Rav, Shmuel, and the deer
Returning to the mishna’s snakebite case: a deer at the Exilarch’s house; Shmuel raises the worry of a hidden snakebite (nikkurei)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא בַּר טַבְיָא דַּאֲתָא לְבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, דַּהֲוָה מְפַסְּקָן כַּרְעִן בָּתְרָיָיתָא, בַּדְקֵיהּ רַב בְּצוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין וְאַכְשְׁרֵיהּ. סְבַר לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ בְּאוּמְצָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא חָיֵישׁ מָר לְנִיקּוּרֵי?
English Translation:
§ The mishna states that if an animal is bitten by a poisonous snake, it is not a tereifa, but it is nevertheless prohibited for consumption due to the hazard it poses. The Gemara recounts the case of a certain young deer that was brought to the house of the Exilarch after slaughter whose hind legs had been cut. Rav inspected it at the convergence of sinews in the thigh and found them intact, and he deemed it kosher. He thought to eat it rare, i.e., lightly roasted. Shmuel said to him: Is the Master not concerned for the possibility that it may have a snakebite?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s ruling that a snake-bitten animal, though not a tereifa, is forbidden as a danger to life. A young deer (bar tavya) with severed hind legs came to the Exilarch’s house; Rav inspected its tzomet ha-gidin, found them intact, and declared it kosher, intending to eat it lightly roasted (umtza). Shmuel cautioned: should the Master not be concerned for nikkurei — a possible snakebite, whose venom is invisible to ordinary inspection? This frames the dramatic test in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- בַּר טַבְיָא (bar tavya) = a young deer
- צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין (tzomet ha-gidin) = the convergence of sinews in the thigh
- נִיקּוּרֵי (nikkurei) = [the marks of] a snakebite
- בְּאוּמְצָא (be-umtza) = rare / lightly roasted meat
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה — the oven test; mutual praise of Rav and Shmuel
The deer is roasted; the meat falls apart, revealing a snakebite. Rav and Shmuel exchange verses of praise
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא? נוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּתַנּוּרָא דְּאִיהוּ בָּדֵיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ. אוֹתְבֵיהּ, נְפַל תִּילְחֵי תִּילְחֵי. קָרֵי שְׁמוּאֵל עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב: ״לֹא יְאֻנֶּה לַצַּדִּיק כׇּל אָוֶן״. קָרֵי רַב עֲלֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: ״כׇּל רָז לָא אָנֵס לָךְ״.
English Translation:
Rav said to him: What is the rectification for such an uncertainty? Shmuel said to him: We shall set it in a hot oven, as it will then inspect itself. Shmuel set it in the oven on a spit, and the meat fell off the bone bit by bit, a sign that a snake had bitten the young deer. Shmuel recited about Rav the verse: “There shall no mischief befall the righteous” (Proverbs 12:21), since he was saved due to his righteousness. Rav recited about Shmuel the verse: “And no secret causes you trouble” (Daniel 4:6), since he was learned even with regard to such matters.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav asked Shmuel for a remedy to the doubt; Shmuel proposed roasting the deer in a hot oven so it would “inspect itself.” When set on the spit the meat fell off the bone in pieces (tilchei tilchei) — the telltale sign that snake venom had broken down the flesh. The two sages then honored each other with verses: Shmuel applied to Rav “no mischief shall befall the righteous” (Proverbs 12:21), for his piety had nearly let him eat it but spared him; Rav applied to Shmuel “no secret causes you trouble” (Daniel 4:6), praising Shmuel’s mastery even of such hidden matters.
Key Terms:
- תַּקַּנְתָּא (takkanta) = a remedy / way to resolve the doubt
- תִּילְחֵי תִּילְחֵי (tilchei tilchei) = in pieces / bit by bit — the meat disintegrating from venom
- לֹא יְאֻנֶּה לַצַּדִּיק כׇּל אָוֶן = “no mischief shall befall the righteous” (Prov. 12:21)
- כׇּל רָז לָא אָנֵס לָךְ = “no secret causes you trouble” (Dan. 4:6)
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה — the signs of kosher birds (and the start of the simanim chapter)
The opening mishna of the new chapter: Torah gives signs for animals but not birds; the Sages’ bird-signs (no clawing, extra digit, crop, peelable gizzard)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ סִימָנֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה נֶאֶמְרוּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְסִימָנֵי הָעוֹף לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: כׇּל עוֹף הַדּוֹרֵס – טָמֵא, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֶצְבַּע יְתֵירָה וְזֶפֶק וְקוּרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלָף – טָהוֹר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עוֹף הַחוֹלֵק אֶת רַגְלָיו – טָמֵא.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The signs that indicate that a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal are kosher were stated in the Torah, and the signs of a kosher bird were not explicitly stated. But the Sages stated certain signs in a bird: Any bird that claws its prey and eats it is non-kosher. Any bird that has an extra digit behind the leg slightly elevated above the other digits, and a crop, which is a sack alongside the gullet in which food is stored prior to digestion, and for which the yellowish membrane inside its gizzard can be peeled, is kosher. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Any bird that splits the digits of its feet when standing on a string, placing two digits on one side of the string and two on the other, is non-kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna opens the chapter on kosher signs (simanim). The Torah explicitly gives signs for domesticated and wild animals but not for birds; the Sages therefore supplied criteria. A clawing bird (doreis — one that seizes prey with its talons and eats it) is non-kosher. A bird with an extra/elevated digit (etzba yeteira), a crop (zefek), and a gizzard whose inner membrane can be peeled (kurkevano niklaf) is kosher. R. Elazar son of R. Tzadok adds a further test: a bird that splits its toes evenly over a stretched string (choleik et raglav) — two on each side — is non-kosher.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִים (simanim) = identifying signs of kosher status
- דּוֹרֵס (doreis) = a bird that claws/seizes its prey — a non-kosher trait
- זֶפֶק (zefek) = the crop
- קוּרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלָף (kurkevano niklaf) = its gizzard-membrane can be peeled — a kosher sign
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה — signs of grasshoppers and fish
The mishna continues: kosher grasshoppers (four legs, four wings, jumping legs, wings covering most of the body) and kosher fish (fin and scale)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבַחֲגָבִים, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם, וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם, וְקַרְצוּלַּיִם, וּכְנָפָיו חוֹפִין אֶת רוּבּוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: וּשְׁמוֹ חָגָב. וּבַדָּגִים, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׁקֶשֶׁת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי קַשְׂקַשִּׂין וּסְנַפִּיר אֶחָד. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן קַשְׂקַשִּׂין – הַקְּבוּעִין בּוֹ, וּסְנַפִּירִים – הַפּוֹרֵחַ בָּהֶן.
English Translation:
And with regard to grasshoppers, whose signs were also not stated in the Torah, the Sages stated: Any grasshopper that has four legs, and four wings, and two additional jumping legs, and whose wings cover most of its body, is kosher. Rabbi Yosei says: And this applies only if the name of its species is grasshopper. And with regard to fish, the signs are explicitly stated in the Torah: Any fish that has a fin and a scale is kosher; Rabbi Yehuda says: Two scales and one fin. And these are scales: Those that are fixed to its body; and fins are those with which the fish swims.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna completes the survey of kosher signs. A kosher grasshopper (chagav) has four legs, four wings, two jumping legs (kartzulayim), and wings covering most of its body; R. Yosei adds it must also bear the name “chagav.” For fish, the signs are explicit in the Torah: a fin (snapir) and a scale (kaskeset) — R. Yehuda requiring two scales and one fin. The mishna defines the terms: scales are those fixed to the body, and fins are the organs with which the fish swims.
Key Terms:
- חֲגָבִים (chagavim) = grasshoppers/locusts
- קַרְצוּלַּיִם (kartzulayim) = the [two additional] jumping legs of a kosher grasshopper
- סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׁקֶשֶׂת (snapir ve-kaskeset) = a fin and a scale — the Torah’s signs of a kosher fish
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא (ברייתא) — the sign of upper teeth in animals
A baraita: an animal that chews the cud has no upper incisors and is kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנֵי בְּהֵמָה – ״כׇּל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְגוֹ׳״, כׇּל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמַּעֲלַת גֵּרָה – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שִׁינַּיִם לְמַעְלָה, וּטְהוֹרָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna states that the signs of a kosher domesticated animal are stated in the Torah. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: These are the signs of a kosher domesticated animal: “Whatsoever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the animals, that may you eat” (Leviticus 11:3). Any animal that chews the cud certainly has no upper front teeth, i.e., incisors, and is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the animal signs. A baraita, citing “whatsoever parts the hoof… and chews the cud… that may you eat” (Leviticus 11:3), states a practical shortcut: any animal that chews the cud (ma’alat geira) certainly lacks upper front teeth (shinayim le-ma’ala), and is kosher. This correlation between cud-chewing and the absence of upper incisors becomes the springboard for the long give-and-take that follows about its exceptions.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה (ma’alat geira) = chews the cud — a Torah sign of a kosher animal
- מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה (mafreset parsa) = parts/splits the hoof — the other Torah sign
- שִׁינַּיִם לְמַעְלָה (shinayim le-ma’ala) = upper [front] teeth/incisors
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — the camel exception
The camel chews the cud and lacks upper incisors yet is non-kosher; answer: it has cuspid-like upper teeth (nivei)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְלָלָא הוּא? וַהֲרֵי גָּמָל, דְּמַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא, וְאֵין לוֹ שִׁינַּיִם לְמַעְלָה, וְטָמֵא! גָּמָל נִיבֵי אִית לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is this an established principle? But isn’t there a camel, which chews the cud, and has no upper front teeth, and it is still non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:4)? The Gemara responds: A camel has cuspid-like upper incisors, one on each side.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the shortcut. The camel (gamal) chews the cud and has no ordinary upper front teeth, yet it is non-kosher (Leviticus 11:4) — seemingly refuting the rule that a cud-chewer with no upper incisors is kosher. The answer: a camel does have nivei — cuspid-like, pointed upper teeth, one on each side — so it is not actually toothless above and the correlation holds.
Key Terms:
- גָּמָל (gamal) = the camel — chews the cud but is non-kosher
- נִיבֵי (nivei) = cuspid-like / fang-like upper teeth
- כְּלָלָא (klala) = an established general principle
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — reformulating the rule
The young camel, hyrax, and hare further complicate matters; teeth aren’t even in the Torah, so the rule is reversed: no upper teeth → kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲרֵי בֶּן גָּמָל, דְּנִיבֵי נָמֵי לֵית לֵיהּ, וְתוּ, הֲרֵי שָׁפָן וְאַרְנֶבֶת דְּמַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הֵן וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן שִׁינַּיִם לְמַעְלָה, וּטְמֵאִין! וְעוֹד, שִׁינַּיִם מִי כְּתִיבִי בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא? אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שִׁינַּיִם לְמַעְלָה – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה וּמַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה, וּטְהוֹרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a young camel, which does not even have cuspid-like upper incisors and is still non-kosher? And furthermore, aren’t there the hyrax and the hare, which chew the cud, and yet they have upper front teeth, and are non-kosher? And furthermore, one might ask: Are teeth written in the Torah with regard to the kosher status of an animal? Rather, this is what the tanna is saying: Any animal that does not have upper front teeth certainly chews the cud and parts the hoof and is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
More exceptions pile up. A young camel (ben gamal) lacks even the cuspid nivei yet is non-kosher; the hyrax (shafan) and hare (arnevet) chew the cud and DO have upper teeth yet are non-kosher; and besides, teeth are nowhere mentioned in the Torah’s signs. The Gemara therefore reformulates the principle in one direction only: any animal that has NO upper front teeth certainly chews the cud and parts the hoof, and is kosher. (The converse — that a cud-chewer has no upper teeth — does not hold universally.)
Key Terms:
- בֶּן גָּמָל (ben gamal) = a young camel — lacks even cuspid teeth
- שָׁפָן וְאַרְנֶבֶת (shafan ve-arnevet) = the hyrax and the hare — cud-chewers with upper teeth, non-kosher
- שִׁינַּיִם מִי כְּתִיבִי = “are teeth even written [in the Torah]?” — they are not
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Chisda: when hooves are cut, inspect the mouth
Why inspect teeth at all? For a case where the hooves are cut; Rav Chisda’s wilderness ruling, requiring one recognize the young camel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיבְדּוֹק בְּפַרְסוֹתֶיהָ! כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ חֲתוּכוֹת, וְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר וּמָצָא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁפַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ חֲתוּכוֹת – בּוֹדֵק בְּפִיהָ, אִם אֵין לָהּ שִׁינַּיִם לְמַעְלָה – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה, אִם לָאו – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּכִּיר גָּמָל. גָּמָל נִיבֵי אִית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּכִּיר בֶּן גָּמָל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But why should one inspect the teeth? Let him simply inspect whether the hooves are cloven. The Gemara responds: One inspects the teeth in a case where its hooves were cut and one cannot tell whether they are cloven. And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Chisda, as Rav Chisda says: If one was walking in the wilderness, and he found an animal whose hooves were cut, he may inspect its mouth. If it has no upper front teeth, it is certainly kosher; if that is not the case, it is certainly non-kosher, provided that he recognizes that this animal is not a camel, which is non-kosher even though it has no upper incisors. The Gemara asks: Why must one recognize that this is not a camel? A camel has cuspid-like upper incisors. Rather, say: Provided that one recognizes that it is not a young camel, which has no cuspid-like upper incisors.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why one would inspect teeth rather than simply check for cloven hooves. Answer: when the hooves have been cut off (chatuchot) and cannot be examined. This matches Rav Chisda: one who finds in the wilderness an animal with cut hooves may inspect its mouth — no upper teeth means kosher, otherwise non-kosher — provided he can recognize a camel. Since a camel actually has nivei, the proviso is refined: provided he recognizes a young camel (ben gamal), which alone is toothless-above yet non-kosher.
Key Terms:
- פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ חֲתוּכוֹת (parsoteha chatuchot) = its hooves were cut off — so they cannot be inspected
- רַב חִסְדָּא (Rav Chisda) = author of the wilderness inspection rulings
- וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּכִּיר (u-bilvad she-yakkir) = provided that he recognizes [the exception species]
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא (דרשה) — the camel is the only exception
How can one rely on the mouth if an unknown species might also be toothless-above? The school of R. Yishmael: “it” excludes any other such species
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו אָמְרַתְּ אִיכָּא בֶּן גָּמָל? אִיכָּא נָמֵי מִינָא אַחֲרִינָא דְּדָמֵי לְבֶן גָּמָל! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְאֶת הַגָּמָל כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא״, שַׁלִּיט בְּעוֹלָמוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה וְטָמֵא אֶלָּא גָּמָל, לְפִיכָךְ פָּרַט בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב ״הוּא״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How can one rely only on an inspection of the mouth? Did you not say that there is a young camel, which has no upper incisors but is still non-kosher? If so, perhaps there is also another species that is similar to a young camel and is non-kosher despite having no upper incisors. The Gemara responds that this possibility should not enter your mind, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “The camel, because it chews the cud but parts not the hoof, it is unclean” (Leviticus 11:4). The Ruler of His world knows that nothing other than the camel chews the cud and is still non-kosher. Therefore, the verse singles it out with the word “it,” i.e., it and no other.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects: if the young camel is toothless above yet non-kosher, perhaps some other unknown species is too, undermining reliance on the mouth-inspection. The school of R. Yishmael resolves this from the verse “the camel, because it chews the cud… it (hu) is unclean” (Leviticus 11:4). The Ruler of the world, who alone knows all creatures, testifies via the limiting word “hu” (“it”) that no creature other than the camel chews the cud and is non-kosher. The Torah’s precise wording thus guarantees the inspection is reliable.
Key Terms:
- שַׁלִּיט בְּעוֹלָמוֹ (shallit be-olamo) = the Ruler in His world — God, who knows all species
- פָּרַט בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב הוּא = the verse specified “it” (hu) — a limiting term excluding others
- דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = the school of R. Yishmael, source of the derasha
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Chisda: when the mouth is mutilated, inspect the hooves
The mirror case: a mutilated mouth — inspect for cloven hooves, provided one recognizes the pig
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּמָצָא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁפִּיהָ גָּמוּם, בּוֹדֵק בְּפַרְסוֹתֶיהָ: אִם פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ סְדוּקוֹת – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה, אִם לָאו – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּכִּיר חֲזִיר.
English Translation:
And Rav Chisda says: If one was walking on the road, and he found an animal whose mouth was mutilated, he may inspect its hooves. If its hooves are cloven, it is certainly kosher. If not, it is certainly non-kosher. This applies provided that he recognizes that it is not a pig, which is non-kosher even though it has cloven hooves.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda gives the symmetric ruling. One who finds an animal whose mouth is mutilated (gamum) — so the teeth cannot be examined — may inspect its hooves instead: cloven hooves mean kosher, otherwise non-kosher. The proviso here is that he recognize a pig (chazir), the one animal with cloven hooves that is nonetheless non-kosher because it does not chew the cud.
Key Terms:
- פִּיהָ גָּמוּם (piha gamum) = its mouth was mutilated/blunted
- פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ סְדוּקוֹת (parsoteha sedukot) = its hooves are split/cloven — a kosher sign
- חֲזִיר (chazir) = the pig — cloven-hoofed but non-kosher
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא (דרשה) — the pig is the only such exception
Again: might another species resemble the pig? The school of R. Yishmael: “it” in the pig verse excludes all others
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו אָמְרַתְּ אִיכָּא חֲזִיר? אִיכָּא נָמֵי מִינָא אַחֲרִינָא דְּדָמְיָא לַחֲזִיר! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא״ – שַׁלִּיט בְּעוֹלָמוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁמַּפְרִיס פַּרְסָה וְטָמֵא אֶלָּא חֲזִיר, לְפִיכָךְ פָּרַט בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב ״הוּא״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that there is a pig, which has cloven hooves but is still non-kosher? If so, perhaps there is also another species that is similar to a pig. The Gemara responds that this possibility should not enter your mind, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “And the pig, because it parts the hoof, and is cloven-footed, but chews not the cud, it is unclean” (Leviticus 11:7). The Ruler of His world knows that nothing other than the pig parts the hoof and is still non-kosher. Therefore, the verse singles it out with the word “it.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Parallel to the camel discussion, the Gemara worries that an unknown species might share the pig’s profile (cloven hooves, non-kosher), undermining the hoof-inspection. The school of R. Yishmael answers from “and the pig, because it parts the hoof… it (hu) is unclean” (Leviticus 11:7): the limiting word “hu” testifies that no creature other than the pig parts the hoof and is non-kosher. The hoof-inspection is therefore reliable once one knows to exclude the pig.
Key Terms:
- וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא = “and the pig, because it parts the hoof… it is unclean” (Lev. 11:7)
- מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה (mafris parsa) = parts the hoof
- פָּרַט בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב = the verse singled it out [with “hu”]
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — when both mouth and hooves are gone: inspect the flesh
Rav Chisda’s third ruling: examine whether the flesh runs “warp and woof,” provided one recognizes the wild donkey
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר, וּמָצָא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁפִּיהָ גָּמוּם וּפַרְסוֹתֶיהָ חֲתוּכוֹת – בּוֹדֵק בִּבְשָׂרָהּ, אִם מְהַלֵּךְ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה, וְאִם לָאו – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּכִּיר עַרְוָד.
English Translation:
And Rav Chisda says: If one was walking in the wilderness, and he found an animal whose mouth was mutilated and whose hooves were cut, he may inspect its flesh. If it runs like warp and woof, i.e., part of it stretches vertically and part of it horizontally, it is certainly kosher; and if not, it is certainly non-kosher, provided that one recognizes that this animal is not a wild donkey, which is non-kosher even though its flesh runs like warp and woof.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda’s third scenario: an animal found with both a mutilated mouth and cut hooves. Here one inspects the flesh — kosher meat’s grain runs “warp and woof” (sheti va-erev), crisscrossing vertically and horizontally, whereas non-kosher meat does not. This works provided one can recognize the wild donkey (arvad), whose flesh also runs warp-and-woof yet is non-kosher.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב (sheti va-erev) = warp and woof — the crisscross grain of kosher flesh
- בּוֹדֵק בִּבְשָׂרָהּ (bodek bi-vesarah) = he inspects its flesh
- עַרְוָד (arvad) = the wild donkey — warp-and-woof flesh but non-kosher
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — no species resembles the wild donkey; where to inspect
A tradition that no other species resembles the arvad; Abaye/Rav Chisda: inspect the flesh at the tailbone edges
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו אָמְרַתְּ אִיכָּא עַרְוָד? אִיכָּא נָמֵי מִינָא אַחֲרִינָא דְּדָמֵיא לְעַרְוָד! גְּמִירִי דְּלֵיכָּא. וְהֵיכָא בּוֹדֵק? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּכַנְפֵי הָעוֹקֶץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Didn’t you say that there is a wild donkey, whose flesh runs like warp and woof but who is still non-kosher? If so, perhaps there is also another species that is similar to a wild donkey. The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that there are no similar species. The Gemara asks: And where does one inspect the flesh? Abaye said, and some say that Rav Chisda said: At the edges of the tailbone, on the upper thighs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises the now-familiar worry — might another species resemble the wild donkey? — and answers with a received tradition (gemiri) that there is none, so the warp-and-woof flesh test is reliable once the arvad is excluded. Finally it asks where on the carcass to perform this inspection; Abaye (or Rav Chisda) specifies the edges of the tailbone (kanfei ha-oketz), at the upper thighs, where the flesh-grain is clearest.
Key Terms:
- גְּמִירִי (gemiri) = it is learned/received as a tradition
- כַּנְפֵי הָעוֹקֶץ (kanfei ha-oketz) = the edges of the tailbone — where to inspect the flesh-grain
- דְּדָמֵיא (de-damya) = that resembles [the exception species]
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא — why does a wild animal need signs? (continues on 59b)
The Gemara asks why the mishna gives separate signs for a chaya, since it is included with behema; R. Zeira begins the answer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סִימָנֵי חַיָּה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנֵי חַיָּה. חַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה הִיא לְסִימָנִין! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא:
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: The signs of an undomesticated animal were stated in the Torah. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: These are the signs of an undomesticated animal. The Gemara interjects: Why does one need signs for an undomesticated animal? An undomesticated animal is included in the category of a domesticated animal with regard to signs, as the verse states: “These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatsoever parts the hoof” (Leviticus 11:2-3). Rabbi Zeira said:
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s statement that the signs of a wild animal (chaya) are given in the Torah, and asks: why are separate signs needed, since the verse “these are the chaya you may eat among all the behema…” (Leviticus 11:2-3) already includes wild animals in the category of domesticated animals for kosher signs? R. Zeira begins the answer, which is completed at the top of 59b — the signs distinguish a chaya in order to permit its fat. The question carries across the daf boundary.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנֵי חַיָּה (simanei chaya) = the signs of a wild/undomesticated animal
- בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה (bikhlal behema) = included within the category of a domesticated animal
- רַבִּי זֵירָא (Rabbi Zeira) = the sage who begins the answer (completed on 59b)
Amud Bet (59b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — the signs of a chaya permit its fat
R. Zeira completes: the wild-animal signs (horns and cloven hooves) exist to permit its forbidden-in-a-behema fat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְהַתִּיר חֶלְבָּהּ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנֵי חַיָּה שֶׁחֶלְבָּהּ מוּתָּר – כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם.
English Translation:
The signs are given to permit its forbidden fat, i.e., to deem the animal undomesticated. Fat that is forbidden for consumption in domesticated animals is permitted in undomesticated animals. And this is what the tanna is saying: These are the signs of a kosher undomesticated animal, so that one will know that its fat is permitted: Any animal that has horns and cloven hooves is an undomesticated animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Zeira completes the answer begun on 59a. The wild-animal signs are not needed for basic kosher status — a chaya is already kosher through the standard animal signs — but to identify it as a chaya in order to permit its fat (chelev). The fat (chelev) that is forbidden and carries karet in a domesticated animal is permitted in a wild one. The baraita therefore means: these are the signs of a kosher wild animal whose fat is permitted — any animal with horns (karnayim) and cloven hooves (telafayim).
Key Terms:
- חַיָּה / בְּהֵמָה (chaya / behema) = a wild animal / a domesticated animal
- חֵלֶב (chelev) = the forbidden fat — permitted in a chaya, forbidden (with karet) in a behema
- קַרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם (karnayim u-telafayim) = horns and cloven hooves — the wild-animal signs
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא — R. Dosa on horns; the keresh
R. Dosa: horns alone establish a chaya (no need to check hooves); the keresh is permitted despite one horn
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם – אִי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לַחֲזוֹר עַל טְלָפַיִם, יֵשׁ לָהּ טְלָפַיִם – צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לַחֲזוֹר עַל קַרְנַיִם, וְקֶרֶשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא קֶרֶן אַחַת – מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Dosa says: If it has horns, it is certainly a kosher undomesticated animal, and you need not search for cloven hooves. But if it has cloven hooves, you must still search for horns. And with regard to the animal called a keresh, even though it has only one horn, its fat is permitted for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues with R. Dosa’s refinement. If an animal has [the right kind of] horns, you need not also check for cloven hooves — the horns suffice to establish it as a chaya. But if it has only cloven hooves, you must still search for horns. R. Dosa adds the case of the keresh, which has only a single horn yet whose fat is permitted, anticipating the long discussion of what kind of horns qualify.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי דּוֹסָא (Rabbi Dosa) = holds horns alone establish a chaya
- קֶרֶשׁ (keresh) = a one-horned wild animal whose fat is permitted
- לַחֲזוֹר עַל (lachzor al) = to search for [the other sign]
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — refining the horn requirement (I)
A goat has horns and hooves yet forbidden fat; so we require “layered” horns. A bull’s are layered; so we require “grooved” horns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּלָלָא הוּא? וַהֲרֵי עֵז, דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם, וְחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר! כְּרוּכוֹת בָּעֵינַן. וַהֲרֵי שׁוֹר, דִּכְרוּכוֹת, וְחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר! חֲרוּקוֹת בָּעֵינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is this an established principle? But isn’t there a goat, which has horns and cloven hooves, and still its fat is forbidden, as it is a domesticated animal? The Gemara responds: We require horns that are layered to designate a kosher animal as undomesticated; a goat’s horns are not layered. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bull, which has layered horns, and still its fat is forbidden since it is domesticated? The Gemara responds: We require horns that are grooved; a bull’s horns are not grooved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins narrowing what kind of horns mark a chaya. A goat (ez) has horns and cloven hooves yet its fat is forbidden (it is a behema) — so horns alone are insufficient; we require layered horns (keruchot). But a bull (shor) has layered horns and its fat is also forbidden — so we further require grooved horns (charukot). Each counterexample forces an added specification.
Key Terms:
- כְּרוּכוֹת (keruchot) = layered horns — a required feature
- חֲרוּקוֹת (charukot) = grooved horns — a further required feature
- עֵז / שׁוֹר (ez / shor) = goat / bull — domesticated counterexamples
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — refining the horn requirement (II)
A goat’s horns are grooved yet forbidden; so we require “branched” horns. A gazelle’s aren’t branched yet permitted; so we require “rounded” horns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲרֵי עֵז, דַּחֲרוּקוֹת, וְחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר? מְפוּצָּלוֹת בָּעֵינַן! וַהֲרֵי צְבִי, דְּאֵין מְפוּצָּלוֹת, וְחֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר? חֲדוּרוֹת בָּעֵינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara persists: But isn’t there a goat, which has grooved horns, and still its fat is forbidden? The Gemara responds: We require horns that are branched; a goat’s horns are not branched. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a gazelle, whose horns are not branched, and still its fat is permitted? The Gemara responds: We require horns that are rounded and not broad like those of a sheep.
קלאוד על הדף:
The refinement continues. A goat’s horns are also grooved, yet its fat is forbidden — so we add that the horns must be branched (mefutzalot). But a gazelle (tzevi), a genuine chaya whose fat is permitted, does NOT have branched horns — so branching cannot be required after all; instead we require rounded horns (chadurot), not broad like a sheep’s. The dialectic shows how no single horn-feature alone distinguishes a chaya.
Key Terms:
- מְפוּצָּלוֹת (mefutzalot) = branched horns
- חֲדוּרוֹת (chadurot) = rounded horns — the gazelle’s type
- צְבִי (tzevi) = the gazelle — a chaya with permitted fat
Segment 5
TYPE: מסקנה — the combined horn criteria
Branched horns settle it outright; otherwise the horns must be layered, rounded, AND grooved with interlocking grooves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִלְכָּךְ, הֵיכָא דְּמִיפַּצְלָא – לָא דִּינָא וְלָא דַּיָּינָא; הֵיכָא דְּלָא מִיפַּצְלָא – בָּעֵינַן כְּרוּכוֹת, חֲדוּרוֹת, וַחֲרוּקוֹת, וְהוּא דְּמִיבְּלַע חִירְקַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: Therefore, where an animal’s horns are branched, there is neither judgment nor judge, and the animal is without a doubt undomesticated. Where they are not branched, we require that they be layered, rounded, and grooved. And it must be grooved in a pattern such that its grooves are absorbed into one another.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws the conclusion. Where an animal’s horns are branched (mefutzalot), the matter is settled with “neither judgment nor judge” — it is certainly a chaya. Where the horns are not branched, three features together are required: layered (keruchot), rounded (chadurot), and grooved (charukot) — and the grooving must be such that the grooves are absorbed into one another (mivla chirkaihu). This composite test is the daf’s definitive criterion for identifying a wild animal by its horns.
Key Terms:
- לָא דִּינָא וְלָא דַּיָּינָא (la dina ve-la dayyana) = “neither judgment nor judge” — beyond all doubt
- מִיבְּלַע חִירְקַיְיהוּ (mivla chirkaihu) = its grooves are absorbed into one another
- כְּרוּכוֹת, חֲדוּרוֹת, וַחֲרוּקוֹת = layered, rounded, and grooved — the three combined requirements
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה — the karkoz goat dispute
The doubtful karkoz goat at the Exilarch’s house: Rav Achai forbade its fat, Rav Shmuel b. R. Abbahu ate of it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַיְינוּ סְפֵיקָא דְּעִיזָּא כַּרְכּוּז. הָהִיא עִיזָּא כַּרְכּוּז דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, דַּעֲקוּר מְלָא צַנָּא דְּתַרְבָּא מִינַּהּ. רַב אַחַאי אָסַר, רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אֲכַל מִינֵּיהּ, קָרֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ: ״מִפְּרִי פִי אִישׁ תִּשְׂבַּע בִּטְנוֹ״.
English Translation:
And this is the uncertainty that arose concerning the karkoz goat, i.e., whether it is considered a domesticated animal. As there was a certain karkoz goat that was in the house of the Exilarch, from which they removed a full basket of fat after slaughtering it. Rav Achai deemed the fat forbidden, because he considered it a domesticated animal. But Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, ate of it. He read the verse about himself: “A man’s belly shall be filled with the fruit of his mouth” (Proverbs 18:20). In other words, due to his learning, he knew it was permitted to eat the fat of the karkoz goat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The composite horn-criteria explain a real dispute over the karkoz goat (iza karkoz), whose status as a chaya was uncertain. A karkoz goat at the Exilarch’s house yielded a full basket of fat. Rav Achai forbade the fat, treating it as a domesticated animal; Rav Shmuel son of R. Abbahu ate it, confident it was a chaya, and applied to himself “a man’s belly shall be filled with the fruit of his mouth” (Proverbs 18:20) — his learning let him benefit from the permitted fat.
Key Terms:
- עִיזָּא כַּרְכּוּז (iza karkoz) = the karkoz goat — a species of doubtful chaya/behema status
- צַנָּא דְּתַרְבָּא (tzana de-tarba) = a basket of fat
- מִפְּרִי פִי אִישׁ תִּשְׂבַּע בִּטְנוֹ = “a man’s belly shall be filled with the fruit of his mouth” (Prov. 18:20)
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — the ruling from Eretz Yisrael
The Sages of Eretz Yisrael rule like Rav Shmuel (fat permitted) but bid honoring Rav Achai, who “enlightens the eyes of the exile”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְהִזָּהֲרוּ בְּרַבֵּינוּ אַחַאי, שֶׁמֵּאִיר עֵינֵי גּוֹלָה הוּא.
English Translation:
The Sages sent a message from there, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, that a karkoz goat is an undomesticated animal and its fat is permitted; but nevertheless, be mindful of the honor of our teacher Achai who deems it forbidden, and do not partake of the fat in his presence, as he enlightens the eyes of the exile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages of Eretz Yisrael sent down a ruling: the halacha follows Rav Shmuel son of R. Abbahu — the karkoz goat is a chaya and its fat is permitted. Yet they added a note of deference: be mindful of the honor of “our teacher Achai,” and do not eat the fat in his presence, for he is one who “enlightens the eyes of the exile” (me’ir einei gola). The passage models how a community honors a great scholar even when the law is decided against his stringency.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם (shelachu mi-tam) = they sent [a ruling] from there — Eretz Yisrael
- הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = the halacha is in accordance with him
- מֵאִיר עֵינֵי גּוֹלָה (me’ir einei gola) = one who enlightens the eyes of the exile — an honorific for Rav Achai
Segment 8
TYPE: אגדה — the wondrous beasts of Bei Ila’ei
On the keresh: Rav Yehuda, Rav Kahana, and Rav Yosef describe the colossal gazelle and lion of Bei Ila’ei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקֶרֶשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא קֶרֶן אַחַת, מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: קֶרֶשׁ טַבְיָא דְּבֵי עִילַּאי, טִגְרִיס אַרְיָא דְּבֵי עִילַּאי. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: תְּשַׁע אַמְּהָתָא הָוֵי בֵּין אוּנָּא לְאוּנָּא דְּאַרְיָא דְּבֵי עִילַּאי. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: שִׁיתְּסַר אַמְּהָתָא הָוֵי מַשְׁכֵיהּ דְּטַבְיָא דְּבֵי עִילַּאי.
English Translation:
§ The baraita states: And with regard to the animal called a keresh, even though it has only one horn, its fat is permitted for consumption. Rav Yehuda says: The keresh is the gazelle that is native to the area of Bei Ila’ei. The tagras mentioned by the Sages is the lion of Bei Ila’ei. Rav Kahana says: There are nine cubits between the ears of the lion of Bei Ila’ei. Rav Yosef says: The length of the gazelle of Bei Ila’ei is sixteen cubits.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to R. Dosa’s keresh, the Gemara records traditions about extraordinary beasts. Rav Yehuda identifies the keresh as the gazelle (tavya) of Bei Ila’ei and the tigris as the lion (arya) of Bei Ila’ei. Rav Kahana reports the lion of Bei Ila’ei measures nine cubits between its ears, and Rav Yosef that the gazelle of Bei Ila’ei is sixteen cubits long. These hyperbolic descriptions of mythic-scale animals set up the aggadic exchange with the Roman emperor that follows.
Key Terms:
- קֶרֶשׁ (keresh) = identified as the gazelle of Bei Ila’ei
- בֵּי עִילַּאי (Bei Ila’ei) = a (legendary) locale home to colossal beasts
- אַמְּהָתָא (ammehata) = cubits — units of the beasts’ enormous measurements
Segment 9
TYPE: אגדה — the emperor and the lion of Bei Ila’ei
The emperor mocks comparing God to a killable lion; R. Yehoshua invokes the lion of Bei Ila’ei and prays it to set out toward Rome
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה: אֱלֹהֵיכֶם כְּאַרְיָה מְתִיל, דִּכְתִיב ״אַרְיֵה שָׁאָג מִי לֹא יִירָא״, מַאי רְבוּתֵיהּ? פָּרָשָׁא קָטֵיל אַרְיָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו כְּהַאי אַרְיָא מְתִיל, כְּאַרְיָא דְּבֵי עִילַּאי מְתִיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בָּעֵינָא דְּמַיחֲזֵית לֵיהּ נִיהֲלִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מָצֵית חָזֵית לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיבְרָא, חָזֵינָא לֵיהּ! בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי, אִתְעֲקַר מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ,
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: The Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya: Your God is compared to a lion, as it is written: “The lion has roared, who will not fear” (Amos 3:8). But if so, what is His greatness? A cavalryman can kill a lion. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: God is not compared to that lion which a cavalryman can kill. Rather, God is compared to the lion of Bei Ila’ei. The emperor said to him: I ask that you show it to me. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You cannot see it. The emperor said to him: Truly, I wish to see it. Rabbi Yehoshua prayed for mercy, and the lion of Bei Ila’ei set off from its place of origin toward Rome.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Roman emperor challenges R. Yehoshua ben Chananya: Scripture compares God to a lion (“the lion has roared, who will not fear,” Amos 3:8), but a mere cavalryman can kill a lion — so what is the greatness? R. Yehoshua answers that God is likened not to an ordinary lion but to the lion of Bei Ila’ei. The emperor demands to see it; told he cannot, he insists. R. Yehoshua prays, and the lion sets off from its place toward Rome — beginning a parable about the limits of human perception before the divine.
Key Terms:
- קֵיסָר (Keisar) = the Roman emperor in the dialogue
- רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה = the sage who answers the emperor
- אַרְיֵה שָׁאָג מִי לֹא יִירָא = “the lion has roared, who will not fear” (Amos 3:8)
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדה — the lion’s roar and its devastation
From far off the lion’s roars cause miscarriages, topple Rome’s wall, knock out teeth, and fell the emperor; he begs it be sent back
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי הֲוָה מְרַחַיק אַרְבַּע מְאָה פַּרְסֵי, נַיהֵם חַד קָלָא, אַפִּילוּ כֹּל מְעַבְּרָתָא, וְשׁוּרָא דְּרוֹמִי נְפַל. אַדִּמְרַחַק תְּלָת מְאָה פַּרְסֵי, נַיהֵם קָלָא אַחֲרִינָא, נְתוּר כַּכֵּי וְשִׁינֵּי דְּגַבְרֵי, וְאַף הוּא נְפַל מִכּוּרְסְיָיא לְאַרְעָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּמָטוּתָא מִינָּךְ, בְּעֵי רַחֲמֵי עֲלֵיהּ דְּלֶהְדַּר לְדוּכְתֵּיהּ. בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי עֲלֵיהּ, וְאַהְדַּר לֵיהּ לְאַתְרֵיהּ.
English Translation:
When it was four hundred parasangs away from Rome, it roared once, and all the pregnant women miscarried, and the wall of Rome fell. When it was three hundred parasangs away, it roared another time, and all the men’s front and back teeth fell out from fear. And even he, the emperor, fell from his throne to the ground. The emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua: I beg you, pray for mercy with regard to it, that it should go back to the place from which it came. Rabbi Yehoshua prayed for mercy with regard to it, and it returned to the place from which it came.
קלאוד על הדף:
The parable reaches its climax. While still four hundred parasangs from Rome, the lion of Bei Ila’ei roared once: pregnant women miscarried and the wall of Rome collapsed. At three hundred parasangs it roared again: men’s teeth fell out and the emperor himself toppled from his throne. Overwhelmed, the emperor begged R. Yehoshua to pray for it to return to its place, and R. Yehoshua did so. The lesson: if a single creature of God’s world is so overpowering even from afar, how much more unapproachable is God Himself — answering the emperor’s original challenge.
Key Terms:
- פַּרְסֵי (parsei) = parasangs — a unit of distance
- נַיהֵם (nahem) = it roared
- שׁוּרָא דְּרוֹמִי נְפַל = the wall of Rome fell
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדה — the emperor asks to see God (continues on 60a)
Emboldened, the emperor demands to see God Himself; R. Yehoshua says he cannot — the dialogue continues on the next daf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה: בָּעֵינָא דְּאִיחְזֵי לֵאלָהַיְכוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מָצֵית חָזֵית לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיבְרָא
English Translation:
§ The Gemara recounts: The emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya: I wish to see your God. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You cannot see Him. The emperor said to him: Truly,
קלאוד על הדף:
Having witnessed the lion, the emperor escalates: he now demands to see the God of Israel Himself. R. Yehoshua tells him he cannot. The emperor insists (“truly…”), and the sentence breaks off here, the famous continuation — R. Yehoshua bidding him first stare into the midday sun — picked up at the start of 60a. The daf thus ends mid-dialogue on the theme of the unseeable, transcendent God.
Key Terms:
- בָּעֵינָא דְּאִיחְזֵי לֵאלָהַיְכוּ = “I wish to see your God” — the emperor’s demand
- לָא מָצֵית חָזֵית לֵיהּ = “you cannot see Him” — R. Yehoshua’s reply
- אִיבְרָא (ivra) = “truly / indeed” — the emperor’s insistence (continues 60a)