Chullin Daf 64 (חולין דף ס״ד)
Daf: 64 | Amudim: 64a – 64b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (64a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The baraita’s phrase is completed: ‘…so the signs of fish’ refers to fish embryos
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עוּבְּרֵי דָּגִים.
English Translation:
fish embryos, i.e., fish eggs found in the fish’s innards.
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud opens by completing the baraita that broke off at the end of daf 63. The comparison ‘like the signs of eggs, so the signs of fish’ cannot mean literal fish (whose signs the Torah states explicitly), so it must refer to ubrei dagim — the immature fish eggs found inside a fish’s body, which lack the explicit fins-and-scales test and so need a sign-based rule analogous to that of bird eggs.
Key Terms:
- עוּבְּרֵי דָּגִים = fish embryos / immature roe found inside a fish
- סִימָנֵי בֵיצִים = the [kosher] signs of eggs
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
The full sign-list for kosher eggs: shape (one end pointed, one rounded) and yolk/albumen position
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנְיָא גַּבֵּי בֵיצִים: אֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנֵי בֵיצִים – כָּל שֶׁכּוֹדֶרֶת וַעֲגוּלְגּוֹלֶת, רֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד כַּד וְרֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד חַד – טְהוֹרָה, שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין אוֹ שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ חַדִּין – טְמֵאִין. חֶלְבּוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְמוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – טְהוֹרָה, חֶלְמוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבְּפָנִים – טְמֵאָה, חֶלְמוֹן וְחֶלְבּוֹן מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת הַשֶּׁרֶץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: And it is taught in a baraita about eggs that these are the signs of bird eggs: Any egg that narrows at the top and is rounded, so that one of its ends is rounded and the other one of its ends is pointed, is kosher. If both of its ends are rounded or both of its ends are pointed, they are non-kosher. If the albumen is on the outside and the yolk on the inside, it is kosher. If the yolk is on the outside and the albumen on the inside, it is non-kosher. If the yolk and albumen are mixed with each other, it is certainly the egg of a creeping animal. Therefore, if it is possible to recognize a kosher egg by these signs, there is no need to rely on the gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites the complete baraita of egg-signs. A kosher egg is asymmetrical — one end rounded, one pointed — with the albumen (white) outside and the yolk inside. Symmetrical eggs (both ends alike) or a reversed yolk/albumen mark a non-kosher bird, and yolk and albumen fully blended together indicate the egg of a sheretz (creeping creature). This raises the obvious challenge that opens the sugya: if such signs exist, why must one rely on a gentile’s word (daf 63b)?
Key Terms:
- כּוֹדֶרֶת וַעֲגוּלְגּוֹלֶת = narrowing at one end and rounded — the kosher asymmetrical shape
- חֶלְבּוֹן = the albumen (egg white)
- חֶלְמוֹן = the yolk
- בֵּיצַת הַשֶּׁרֶץ = the egg of a creeping creature, marked by blended yolk and white
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The signs are needed when eggs are cut, or mixed in a bowl so shape and layering can’t be seen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּחֲתוּכוֹת. וְלִיבְדּוֹק בְּחֶלְמוֹן וְחֶלְבּוֹן? בִּטְרוּפוֹת בִּקְעָרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary if the eggs have already been cut and one cannot know their original shape. The Gemara challenges: But let him inspect the yolk and the albumen, to see which is inside and which is outside. The Gemara responds: The baraita deals with a case where the eggs are mixed in a bowl, and it is impossible to discern this.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains when the gentile’s testimony is still needed despite the existence of signs: when the eggs are already cut (chatuchot), so their original shape is unknowable. To the further challenge that one could still inspect the yolk-and-albumen layering, it answers that the case is one where the eggs are beaten together in a bowl (terufot bi-ke’ara), erasing both the shape sign and the layering sign — leaving only the seller’s word to rely on.
Key Terms:
- דַּחֲתוּכוֹת = that they are cut, so the shape is lost
- טְרוּפוֹת בִּקְעָרָה = beaten/scrambled in a bowl, erasing the visible signs
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
But a baraita forbids buying beaten eggs from gentiles — since tereifa eggs may be sold beaten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא מִי זָבְנִינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אֵין מוֹכְרִין בֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה לְגוֹי, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן טְרוּפָה בִּקְעָרָה; לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶם בֵּיצִים טְרוּפוֹת בִּקְעָרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara counters: But in a case like this, where the eggs are mixed, may we buy eggs from them? Isn’t it taught in another baraita: One may sell the egg of a tereifa bird to a gentile only if it is mixed in a bowl; therefore, one may not buy eggs mixed in a bowl from them, because they may be from tereifot? If so, it cannot be that the baraita deals with a case where they are mixed, and one should be able to inspect the yolk and albumen.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara counters its own resolution: if the case is beaten eggs, one may not buy them from a gentile at all. A baraita teaches that the egg of a tereifa may be sold to a gentile only when beaten in a bowl (to avoid deceiving a Jewish buyer who relies on signs) — so conversely, a Jew may not buy beaten eggs from gentiles, lest they be from tereifot. This undercuts the ‘beaten in a bowl’ explanation and forces the deeper answer of the next segment.
Key Terms:
- בֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה = the egg of a tereifa (a fatally-defective bird)
- אֵין לוֹקְחִין = one may not purchase
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Zeira: the egg-signs are not Torah-valid — proven from Rav Asi’s eight doubtful birds
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: סִימָנִין לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: שְׁמֹנָה סְפֵיקוֹת הֵן – לִיבְדּוֹק בְּבֵיצִים דִּידְהוּ! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סִימָנִין לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: The signs of a kosher egg are not valid by Torah law. As, if you do not say so, one encounters difficulty with that which Rav Asi says: There are eight birds whose kosher status is uncertain. Why is there uncertainty? Let one inspect their eggs for the signs listed in the baraita to determine whether they are kosher. Rather, learn from it that the signs are not valid by Torah law and one may not rely on them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira resolves the whole tangle with a principle: the egg-signs are not de’oraita (not valid by Torah law). His proof is Rav Asi’s eight doubtful birds (62b): if egg-signs were reliable, one could simply inspect those birds’ eggs and resolve the doubt — yet their status remains uncertain. The signs therefore cannot be a decisive Torah-level test, which is why one must still rely on a named, verifiable source.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִין לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = ‘the signs are not [valid] by Torah law’
- שְׁמֹנָה סְפֵיקוֹת = the eight doubtful birds (cf. 62b)
- לִיבְדּוֹק בְּבֵיצִים דִּידְהוּ = ‘let one check by their eggs’ — the disproof if signs were reliable
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
So what do the signs teach? They can disqualify with certainty, and confirm a named kosher claim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ? הָכִי קָאָמַר: שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין, אוֹ שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ חַדִּין, אוֹ חֶלְמוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – וַדַּאי טְמֵאָה. רֵישֵׁיהּ חַד חַד, רֵישֵׁיהּ חַד כַּד, וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְמוֹן מִבִּפְנִים, וְאָמַר לָךְ שֶׁל עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי וְטָהוֹר הוּא – סְמוֹךְ עֲלֵיהּ. בִּסְתָמָא – לָא תִּסְמוֹךְ עֲלֵיהּ, דְּאִיכָּא דְּעוֹרְבָא דְּדָמֵי לִדְיוֹנָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if one may not rely on these signs, with regard to what halakha is the baraita teaching them? The Gemara responds: This is what the baraita is saying: If both of its ends are rounded, or both its ends are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the albumen is on the inside, it is certainly non-kosher. But if one of its ends is pointed and one of its ends is rounded, and the albumen is on the outside and the yolk on the inside, and the gentile says to you that it is from such and such bird, and that bird is kosher, rely on the signs. But if he offers no specification of the type of bird, or if one simply finds eggs with these signs, do not rely on them, since there are crow’s eggs that resemble those of a pigeon.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the signs are not Torah-valid, what is their purpose? The Gemara recasts the baraita: the negative signs (both ends alike, or reversed yolk/albumen) render an egg certainly non-kosher. The positive signs (asymmetrical shape, albumen outside) do not permit on their own, but they corroborate a gentile’s claim that the egg is from a specific kosher bird; absent a named species, one may not rely on them, since crow eggs can resemble pigeon eggs.
Key Terms:
- וַדַּאי טְמֵאָה = ‘certainly non-kosher’ — the force of the negative signs
- סְמוֹךְ עֲלֵיהּ = ‘rely on him’ — when a kosher species is named
- בִּסְתָמָא = without specification (an unnamed source)
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ukva: ‘blended yolk/albumen = sheretz egg’ teaches it conveys impurity if an embryo formed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: חֶלְבּוֹן וְחֶלְמוֹן מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת הַשֶּׁרֶץ. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם רִיקְּמָה וְנִיקְּבָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה – מְטַמֵּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: If the albumen and yolk are mixed with each other, it is certainly the egg of a creeping animal and not of a non-kosher bird. The Gemara asks: For what halakha is this information necessary? Either way, the egg is forbidden. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: The baraita means to say that if tissue of an embryo developed [rikema] inside it and it was perforated, and one touched it, it transmits ritual impurity provided that the embryo is at least the size of a lentil-bulk, because the carcass of a creeping animal of this size is a source of ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes why the baraita bothers to say a fully-blended egg is a sheretz egg, since it is forbidden either way. Rav Ukva bar Chama answers that it teaches a tum’a (ritual impurity) rule: if an embryo has formed (rikema) inside and the shell is perforated, touching it conveys impurity — provided the embryo is at least a ke-adasha (lentil-bulk), the minimum size at which a creeping-creature carcass is impure.
Key Terms:
- רִיקְּמָה = an embryo has formed/developed (within the egg)
- כַּעֲדָשָׁה = a lentil-bulk, the minimum size for sheretz impurity
- מְטַמֵּא = it conveys ritual impurity
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Ravina objects (maybe a snake’s egg); Rava: it teaches liability for eating a formed embryo
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: וְדִלְמָא דְּנָחָשׁ הִיא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁאִם רִיקְּמָה וְאָכְלָה – לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם ״שֶׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.
English Translation:
Ravina objects to this: But perhaps it is the egg of a snake, whose carcass does not transmit ritual impurity, even though the albumen and yolk of its eggs are mixed together. Rather, Rava said: The baraita does not teach about ritual impurity, but rather that if tissue of an embryo developed inside the egg and one ate it, he is flogged on its account, due to the prohibition: “And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina objects that the impurity reading fails — the blended egg might be a snake’s, whose carcass conveys no impurity, so ‘sheretz egg’ cannot be teaching a tum’a rule. Rava therefore re-reads the baraita: it teaches that if an embryo has formed and one eats it, he is flogged under ‘every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth… it shall not be eaten’ (Leviticus 11:41). The lesson is the prohibition of eating a formed sheretz, not impurity.
Key Terms:
- דְּנָחָשׁ = of a snake (whose carcass is not metamei)
- לוֹקֶה = he is flogged (incurs malkot)
- שֶׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ = ‘the swarming thing that swarms on the earth’ (Leviticus 11:41)
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Why specify a non-kosher sheretz? A formed embryo even of a kosher bird is forbidden (begins)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא דִּטְמֵאָה? אֲפִילּוּ דִּטְהוֹרָה נָמֵי! דְּתַנְיָא: ״כׇּל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״ –
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If so, why specifically mention the egg of a non-kosher creeping animal? The same would apply even for one who eats the embryo of a kosher bird as well. In either case, one is flogged, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses Rava: if the point is the prohibition of a formed embryo, why single out the egg of a non-kosher creeping creature? Even the embryo within a kosher bird’s egg would be forbidden — as a baraita expounds the verse ‘every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth’ to include something further. The proof is cut off at the page-turn and completed at the top of 64b.
Key Terms:
- מַאי אִירְיָא דִּטְמֵאָה = ‘why specifically the non-kosher one?’
- דִּטְהוֹרָה = of a kosher [bird]
- כׇּל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ = ‘every swarming thing that swarms’ — the verse expounded as an inclusion
Amud Bet (64b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
The verse includes unhatched chicks — but only rabbinically; the verse is a mere support
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְרַבּוֹת אֶפְרוֹחִים שֶׁלֹּא נִפְתְּחוּ עֵינֵיהֶם! מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
English Translation:
serves to include chicks of pigeons whose eyes have not yet opened in the prohibition against consuming swarming things. The Gemara responds: This prohibition is by rabbinic law, and the verse cited is a mere support for it. One who eats the embryo of a kosher bird is not liable to receive lashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s inclusion is completed: ‘every swarming thing’ extends the prohibition to efrochim — chicks (even of kosher pigeons) whose eyes have not yet opened, i.e., still embryonic. The Gemara resolves the difficulty by ranking the prohibitions: eating the formed embryo of a kosher bird is forbidden only mi-derabbanan (by rabbinic law), with the verse serving as a mere asmachta (textual support), whereas the formed sheretz embryo carries Torah-level lashes — hence the baraita’s specification.
Key Terms:
- אֶפְרוֹחִים שֶׁלֹּא נִפְתְּחוּ עֵינֵיהֶם = chicks whose eyes have not yet opened (still embryonic)
- מִדְּרַבָּנַן = by rabbinic law
- אַסְמַכְתָּא = a textual support (not a true Torah derivation)
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Eggs boiled with non-kosher ones, unfertilized eggs, and a blood-spot egg: the basic rulings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גִּיעוּלֵי בֵּיצִים מוּתָּרוֹת, בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת – נֶפֶשׁ יָפָה תֹּאכְלֵם, נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹרֶט דָּם – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַשְּׁאָר.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Kosher eggs that have been boiled with non-kosher eggs are permitted. Unfertilized eggs are permitted, and one of strong constitution may eat them, even if the hen has sat on them for a long period of time. If a drop [koret] of blood is found on it, one discards the blood, which is the first stage of an embryo’s development, and eats the rest.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new baraita sets out three practical egg rulings. Eggs cooked together with non-kosher eggs (gi’ulei beitzim) remain permitted (the forbidden taste is negligible). Unfertilized eggs (muzarot) are permitted, and ‘one of robust appetite’ may eat them even after prolonged sitting. And if a koret dam — a drop of blood — is found on an egg, one discards the blood (the first stage of embryonic development) and eats the rest. The next segment qualifies exactly when the rest is permitted.
Key Terms:
- גִּיעוּלֵי בֵּיצִים = eggs boiled together with non-kosher eggs
- בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת = unfertilized eggs
- קוֹרֶט דָּם = a drop/speck of blood (the start of an embryo)
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא
Where the blood-spot lies (knot/albumen vs. yolk) determines if the rest is permitted; a disputed text
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: וְהוּא שֶׁנִּמְצָא עַל קֶשֶׁר שֶׁלָּהּ. תָּנֵי דּוֹסְתַּאי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַפְטוֹרִיקִי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצָא עַל חֶלְבּוֹן שֶׁלָּהּ, אֲבָל נִמְצָא עַל חֶלְמוֹן שֶׁלָּהּ – אֲפִילּוּ בֵּיצָה אֲסוּרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּשְׁדָא תִּכְלָא בְּכוּלַּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב גְּבִיהָה מִבֵּי כְתִיל לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אִיפְּכָא תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, וְאַבָּיֵי הוּא דְּתָרְצַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ הָכִי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya said: And this applies when the blood is found on its knot, i.e., the place in the albumen where the embryo begins to develop, since this proves that tissue has not developed elsewhere in the egg. And so taught Dostai, father of Rabbi Aptoriki: The Sages taught that one may eat the rest of the egg only when the blood is found on its albumen, i.e., the knot; but if it is found on its yolk, even the rest of the egg is forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that the decay has spread through all of it. Rav Geviha from Bei Ketil said to Rav Ashi: A tanna taught the opposite before Abaye, that one may eat the rest of the egg only when the blood is found on its yolk, and it is Abaye that corrected it in this manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya restricts the leniency: the rest of the egg is eaten only when the blood is found on the kesher (the knot in the albumen where development begins). Dostai (father of Rabbi Aptoriki) teaches likewise — permitted only if on the albumen, but if on the yolk the whole egg is forbidden, since the decay (tikhla) has spread throughout. Rav Geviha reports a textual reversal: a tanna taught the opposite before Abaye (permitted only if on the yolk), and Abaye emended it to the version given here.
Key Terms:
- קֶשֶׁר = the knot in the albumen where the embryo begins to form
- דִּשְׁדָא תִּכְלָא בְּכוּלַּהּ = ‘the decay has spread through all of it’
- אִיפְּכָא תָּנֵי = ‘he taught the opposite’ — a variant version Abaye corrected
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא / דרשה
Chizkiyya: a non-kosher bird’s egg is Torah-forbidden, from ‘the bat (daughter of) the ya’ana’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מִנַּיִן לְבֵיצַת טְמֵאָה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה״, וְכִי בַּת יֵשׁ לָהּ לַיַּעֲנָה? אֶלָּא אֵיזוֹ – זוֹ בֵּיצָה טְמֵאָה. וְדִלְמָא הַיְינוּ שְׁמַיְיהוּ? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּת עַמִּי לְאַכְזָר כַּיְעֵנִים בַּמִּדְבָּר״.
English Translation:
Ḥizkiyya says: From where is it derived that the egg of a non-kosher bird is prohibited by Torah law? As it is stated: “And the daughter [bat] of the ya’ana” (Leviticus 11:16). But does the ya’ana have a daughter whose forbidden status would be different from that of its mother? Both daughter and mother should be included in the same prohibition. Rather, which is this? This is a non-kosher egg. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps this is their name, i.e., the bird is called bat ya’ana. The Gemara responds: This should not enter your mind, as it is written: “The daughter of my people has become cruel, like the ye’enim in the wilderness” (Lamentations 4:3).
קלאוד על הדף:
Chizkiyya derives the Torah-level prohibition of a non-kosher bird’s egg from ‘and the bat ha-ya’ana’ (Leviticus 11:16): since a bird has no ‘daughter’ meriting a separate prohibition from its mother, ‘bat’ must denote the bird’s egg. The Gemara raises that ‘bat ya’ana’ might simply be the bird’s name, and rebuts it from ‘cruel like the ye’enim in the wilderness’ (Lamentations 4:3), where the bird is called ya’ana without ‘bat’ — showing ‘bat’ is not part of the name.
Key Terms:
- בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה = ‘the daughter of the ya’ana’ — read as the bird’s egg
- בֵּיצָה טְמֵאָה = a non-kosher egg
- יְעֵנִים = ye’enim — the bird named without ‘bat’ (Lamentations 4:3)
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Verses using ‘benot ya’ana’ are reread as ‘like the ya’ana’ that mourns or dwells with its young
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״אֶעֱשֶׂה מִסְפֵּד כַּתַּנִּים וְאֵבֶל כִּבְנוֹת יַעֲנָה״? כְּיַעֲנָה זוֹ שֶׁמִּתְאַבֶּלֶת עַל בָּנֶיהָ. וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְשָׁכְנוּ שָׁם בְּנוֹת יַעֲנָה״? כְּיַעֲנָה זוֹ שֶׁשּׁוֹכֶנֶת עִם בָּנֶיהָ.
English Translation:
The Gemara persists: And is bat ya’ana not its name? But isn’t it written: “I will make a wailing like the jackals, and a mourning like the daughters [benot] of the ya’ana” (Micah 1:8)? The Gemara responds: The verse means: I will make mourning like this ya’ana that mourns for its children. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And benot ya’ana shall dwell there” (Isaiah 13:21)? The Gemara responds: Here too, the verse means: And they shall dwell there like this ya’ana that dwells with its children.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the ‘it is just the name’ view from verses that say benot ya’ana (Micah 1:8; Isaiah 13:21). It answers by rereading each: ‘mourning like the benot ya’ana’ means like the ya’ana that mourns for its young, and ‘benot ya’ana shall dwell there’ means like the ya’ana that dwells with its young. In both, ‘benot’ is taken not as part of a compound name but as a reference to the bird’s relationship with its offspring.
Key Terms:
- בְּנוֹת יַעֲנָה = benot ya’ana — reread as ‘like the ya’ana [with its young]’
- שֶׁמִּתְאַבֶּלֶת עַל בָּנֶיהָ = that mourns for its young
- שֶׁשּׁוֹכֶנֶת עִם בָּנֶיהָ = that dwells with its young
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
From ‘benot ya’ana shall honor Me’ (an egg cannot sing): both ‘ya’ana’ and ‘bat ya’ana’ are names
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָכְתִיב: ״תְּכַבְּדֵנִי חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה תַּנִּים וּבְנוֹת יַעֲנָה״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בֵּיצָה, בֵּיצָה בַּת מֵימַר שִׁירָה הִיא? אֶלָּא, כְּתִיב ״הַיַּעֲנָה״, וּכְתִיב ״בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “The animals of the field shall honor Me, the jackals and the benot ya’ana” (Isaiah 43:20)? And if it enters your mind that the term bat ya’ana is referring to an egg, can an egg sing a song of praise to God? Rather, one must say: The ya’ana is written, and the bat ya’ana is also written, and both are acceptable names for this bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
A decisive verse forces a concession: ‘the benot ya’ana shall honor Me’ (Isaiah 43:20) — and an egg cannot sing God’s praise, so here ‘bat ya’ana’ must denote the living bird, not an egg. The Gemara concedes that both ‘ya’ana’ and ‘bat ya’ana’ are legitimate names for the bird. This seemingly collapses Chizkiyya’s derivation, which the next segment rescues by a different textual feature.
Key Terms:
- תְּכַבְּדֵנִי = ‘shall honor Me’ (Isaiah 43:20) — only a living creature can
- בַּת מֵימַר שִׁירָה = capable of uttering song/praise
- הַיַּעֲנָה / בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה = both forms accepted as names of the bird
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Chizkiyya’s rescue: the scribe writes ‘bat ya’ana’ as two separate words (begins; continues next daf)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּפָסֵק סָפְרָא לִשְׁתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת, וּמִדְּפָסֵיק לְהוּ סָפְרָא
English Translation:
And still, the name here is different from those of other animals, in that the scribe splits it into two words: Bat ya’ana, even though it is one species. And from the fact that the scribe splits it
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rescues Chizkiyya’s reading by a scribal feature: although ‘bat ya’ana’ can name the bird, here the Torah’s scribe writes it as two separate words, and that deliberate splitting signals that ‘bat’ is being read independently — pointing to the egg. The argument from the orthography breaks off at the page-turn and is completed on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- פָּסֵק סָפְרָא = the scribe splits/separates [the word]
- לִשְׁתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת = into two [separate] words
- בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה = written as two words, hinting at the egg-reading