Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 23, 2019 | ื™ืดื— ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 7

Would Rabbi Shimon permit a non kosher animal born to a kosher animal if it is a little bit similar to its mother or does its head and most of its body need to be like its mother (as in the laws of firstborn)? What is the law regarding items that pass through or come out of non kosher animals – are they all forbidden or does it depend on other factors? Why is honey permitted to be eaten? If one finds a kosher fish inside a non kosher fish or the reverse, can one eat it?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืื™ืฉืชื ื™ ืžื’ืžืœ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืœื ืฉื ื

it is different from an ordinary camel and has some characteristics of its mother, perhaps it is permitted to eat it. Or perhaps there is no difference, and with regard to consumption Rabbi Shimon also requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืื ื“ื•ืžื” ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืœืืžื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื•

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts, the offspring is forbidden for consumption, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; but if its head and the majority of its body are similar to its mother, it is obligated in, i.e., subject to the obligations of, firstborn status. Learn from it that with regard to consumption, Rabbi Shimon also requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother.

ืœื ืœื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ื“ื•ืงื ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงื ืฉื‘ืงื” ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืงื ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ื”ื•ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืื‘ืœ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื

The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the requirement that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother is relevant specifically with regard to firstborn status. The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise, as the tanna leaves the halakha of consumption with which he began and addresses the halakha of firstborn status. Learn from it that it is with regard to firstborn status that Rabbi Shimon requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother, but with regard to consumption he does not require this, and even a partial similarity suffices.

ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื•ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืš ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื‘ื›ื•ืจื• ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืชื™ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara rejects this conclusion as well: Actually, I will say to you that with regard to the permissibility of consumption he also requires that its head and the majority of its body be similar to the mother. But it was necessary to state this condition specifically with regard to the halakha of firstborn status, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: โ€œBut the firstborn of an oxโ€ (Numbers 18:17), perhaps firstborn status does not apply unless it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox, and a resemblance of the offspringโ€™s head and the majority of its body to the mother does not suffice unless its whole body has the appearance of an ox. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a resemblance of its head and the majority of its body to the mother do suffice.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืš ืืช ื–ื” ืœื ืชืื›ืœื• ืžืžืขืœื™ ื”ื’ืจื” ื•ืžืžืคืจื™ืกื™ ื”ืคืจืกื” ื–ื” ืื™ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: The Torah states: โ€œNevertheless these shall you not eat from them that only chew the cud, or from them that only have a split hoof: The camelโ€ (Leviticus 11:4). The phrase: โ€œFrom them that only chew the cud,โ€ which is referring to animals that are forbidden for consumption, indicates that a camel or other non-kosher animal that is born to a kosher animal is forbidden. Furthermore, the word โ€œtheseโ€ teaches that concerning these animals that resemble a non-kosher animal, you may not eat them when they are born to a kosher animal, but you may eat a non-kosher animal that comes with one characteristic of its mother.

ื•ืื™ ื–ื” ื–ื” ื”ื‘ื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื˜ืžื ื”ื ื•ืœื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ

And which animal is this that comes with one characteristic of its mother? This is a non-kosher animal that is born from a kosher female animal and its impregnation came from a kosher male animal.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื” ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื” ืขื–ื™ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืื‘ื™ื• ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ืืžื• ื›ื‘ืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even if its conception came from a non-kosher male animal it should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œThese are the beasts which you may eat: โ€œThe ox, the sheep [seh kesavim], and goat [veseh izzim]โ€ (Deuteronomy 14:4). The plural form of โ€œkesavimโ€ and โ€œizzimโ€ indicates that a lamb is not kosher unless its father is a male lamb and its mother is a female lamb. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืžื•ืชืจ ืืœื ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ื˜ืžื ื”ื ื•ืœื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื” ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื” ืขื–ื™ื ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

Rabbi Eliezer says: Offspring whose father and mother are both kosher are permitted, and this verse which renders permitted an offspring that partially resembles its mother does not come to permit that which is permitted, i.e., where both parents are kosher, but it comes rather to add to that which is permitted; and which case is this? It is a case of a non-kosher animal that is born from a kosher animal and its conception came from a non-kosher animal. Or perhaps it permits only an animal whose conception came from a kosher animal? The verse states: โ€œThe ox, the sheep [seh kesavim], and goat [veseh izzim].โ€ The repetition of the word seh indicates that it is permitted to be eaten in any case, even if only its mother was a ewe.

ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื˜ืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“

In any event, the tanna of this baraita refers to a non-kosher animal that was born to a kosher animal as non-kosher, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who deems a camel that was born to a cow forbidden to eat, and he says: But you may eat a non-kosher animal that comes with one characteristic that is similar to its mother. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does not require that the head and the majority of the body resemble the mother for it to be rendered fit for consumption.

ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื

The Gemara responds: No proof may be brought from here, as this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one matter, where a kosher animal gave birth to a non-kosher animal, maintaining that it is forbidden, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one other matter, where the animal has some characteristics of the mother, in which case this tanna deems it permitted to be eaten. Concerning the second matter, Rabbi Shimon deems it forbidden unless the head and majority of the body resemble the mother.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืงืฉื™ ื•ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืžื™ ืžืขื‘ืจื

The Gemara comments that there are those who raise a difficulty with this baraita and resolve it, thereby resolving the dilemma concerning the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: The baraita states that the kosher animalโ€™s impregnation came from a non-kosher animal. Can a kosher animal become pregnant from a non-kosher animal?

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืžืชืขื‘ืจืช ืœื ื˜ืžืื” ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืœื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ื•ืœื ื’ืกื” ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืงื” ื•ืœื ื“ืงื” ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืกื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืŸ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื” ืžืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื”

But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: A non-kosher animal never becomes pregnant from a kosher one, e.g., a camel from an ox, nor a kosher animal from a non-kosher one, e.g., a cow from a horse, nor a large animal from a small animal, e.g., a cow from a goat, nor a small one from a large one, e.g., a ewe from an ox, nor a domesticated animal from an undomesticated animal, e.g., a goat from a deer, nor an undomesticated animal from a domesticated animal, e.g., a gazelle from a goat.

ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื—ืœื•ืงืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื—ื™ื” ืžืชืขื‘ืจืช ืžื‘ื”ืžื”

With regard to all these cases, everyone agrees that pregnancy is impossible except for Rabbi Eliezer and his disputants, who would say that an undomesticated animal can become pregnant from a domesticated animal (see แธคullin 79b). Those Sages disagree with regard to whether slaughtering the offspring of a gazelle that became pregnant from a goat is included in the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื“ืื™ืขื‘ืจ ืžืงืœื•ื˜ ื‘ืŸ ืคืจื” ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืืžืจ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“

And Rabbi Yirmeya says in response to the difficulty: When the baraita discusses the case of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal, the reference is to a case where the kosher animal became pregnant from an animal with closed hooves that is the offspring of a cow. A cow can become pregnant from such an animal because the mother of that animal was a cow. And the tanna of the baraita said his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a non-kosher animal that was born from a kosher animal is considered non-kosher, and he says: But you may eat that which comes with one characteristic of its mother. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does deem permitted the consumption of an animal with some characteristics similar to its mother.

ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื

The Gemara responds: This tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one matter, where a kosher animal gave birth to a non-kosher animal, maintaining that it is forbidden, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one other matter, where the animal has some characteristics of the mother, in which case this tanna deems it fit for consumption. Concerning the second matter, Rabbi Shimon deems it forbidden unless the head and majority of the body resemble the mother.

ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื’ื•ืจื ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืกื‘ืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื’ื•ืจื ืืกื•ืจ

ยง The Gemara asks concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the baraita: Is this to say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this and that cause it, i.e., both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is permitted, and he therefore permits the consumption of the offspring of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that when both this and that cause it, it is forbidden?

ื•ื”ื ืื™ืคื›ื ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ื•ืœื“ ื˜ืจื™ืคื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—

But we have heard them saying the opposite: With regard to the offspring of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] and is forbidden to be eaten or sacrificed as an offering upon the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring may not be sacrificed upon the altar either, despite the fact that its father is kosher, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: The offspring may be sacrificed upon the altar despite the fact that its mother is a tereifa, since its father is kosher.

ื‘ืขืœืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื’ื•ืจื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืฉื” ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืขื–ื™ื ืฉื” ื•ืฉื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

The Gemara answers: Generally, Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this and that cause the result, it is forbidden. But it is different here in the case of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal, because if it is so, i.e., that the offspring is forbidden, let the verse write: Sheep and goats [seh kesavim veโ€™izzim]. Why do I need the verse to repeat the term โ€œsehโ€ in the phrase โ€œseh kesavim veseh izzimโ€? Learn from it that a seh is permitted in any case, i.e., even if only the mother is kosher it is permitted to eat the offspring.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืœืš ื‘ืขืœืžื ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื’ื•ืจื ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ื”ื›ื ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืฉื•ืจ ื›ืฉื‘ ื•ืขื– ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืขื–ื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืื‘ื™ื• ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ืืžื• ื›ื‘ืฉื”

And as for Rabbi Yehoshua, he could have said to you: Generally, if both this and that cause the result it is permitted. But here it is different, as if so, i.e., if the offspring of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal is permitted, let the verse write: These are the animals that you may eat: An ox, a lamb, and a goat. Why do I need it to state: โ€œSeh kesavim veseh izzim,โ€ in the plural? Learn from it that the offspring may not be eaten unless its father is a male lamb and its mother is a female lamb.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ืžืœ ื’ืžืœ ืฉื ื™ ืคืขืžื™ื ืื—ื“ ื’ืžืœ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืžืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ื’ืžืœ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืคืจื” ื•ืื ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืืžื• ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”

ยง The Gemara returns to the dilemma of whether Rabbi Shimon permits the consumption of the offspring of a kosher animal that resembles a non-kosher animal but has some of the characteristics of its mother. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says it is stated: โ€œCamelโ€ (Leviticus 11:4), โ€œcamelโ€ (Deuteronomy 14:7), i.e., the term is written two times with regard to the prohibition against consumption. This teaches that both a camel that is born from a camel and a camel that is born from a cow are non-kosher. And if in the latter case its head and the majority of its body are similar to its mother, it is permitted for consumption.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Learn from it that not only with regard to firstborn status, but with regard to consumption as well Rabbi Shimon requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother, and a partial resemblance does not suffice. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

ืฉื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืขื• ืžื™ื ื” ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืฉืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื”ื•

ยง The mishna (5b) teaches: This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher. The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to the urine of a donkey, what is the halakha? Is it forbidden, like the milk of a donkey?

ื•ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืกื•ืกื™ื ื•ื’ืžืœื™ื ื“ืกื•ืกื™ื ื•ื’ืžืœื™ื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื ืขื›ื™ืจื™ ื•ืœื ื“ืžื• ืœื—ืœื‘ ืžื™ื ืขื•ืœ ืžื™ื ื ืคื•ืง ื›ื™ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ื—ืžื•ืจ ื“ืขื›ื™ืจื™ ื•ื“ืžื• ืœื—ืœื‘ ืžืื™ ืžื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืงื ืžื™ืžืฆืฆื™ ื•ืืกื™ืจื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ื ืขื•ืœ ืžื™ื ื ืคื•ืง ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืขื›ื™ืจื™ ื”ื‘ืœื ื“ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: And should they raise the dilemma also with regard to the urine of horses and camels? The Gemara answers: With regard to the urine of horses and camels they did not raise the dilemma, as their urine is not turbid and consequently is not similar to milk. Rather, water enters their body and water exits their body. When they raised the dilemma it was concerning the urine of a donkey, which is turbid and is consequently similar to milk. What is the halakha? Does it get excreted from its body, and it is therefore forbidden, or perhaps water enters and water exits, and the fact that it is turbid is due to the heat of the flesh?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืฉื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ื˜ืžื ื•ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ืžื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืืœื ืžืŸ

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned the answer in the mishna: This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher. From the fact that it does not state: That which emerges from a non-kosher animal [mittamei], meaning from the body of a non-kosher animal, but rather it says: From

ื”ื˜ืžื ื•ื”ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื ื ื“ื˜ืžื ื”ื•ื

the non-kosher animal [min hattamei], one can infer that any type [min] of non-kosher substance is included. And these fluids, i.e., the urine of a donkey, are also a type of non-kosher substance, as they resemble the milk of a donkey, which is forbidden.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื“ืกื•ืกื™ื ื•ื’ืžืœื™ื ืœื ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื ืฉืชื• ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื›ื™ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ื—ืžื•ืจ ื“ืฉืชื• ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื•ืžืขืœื• ืœื™ืจืงื•ื ื ืžืื™

And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion about the urine of a donkey: With regard to the urine of horses and camels, the students of Rav Sheshet did not raise the dilemma, because people do not drink it. When they raised the dilemma it was with regard to the urine of a donkey, which people drink and which is beneficial for curing jaundice. What, then, is the halakha?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ื˜ืžื ื•ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื˜ืžื ืงืืชื™

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned the answer to your dilemma in the mishna: That which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher, and these fluids also come from a donkey, which is non-kosher. Therefore, they are forbidden.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืฉ ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžื›ื ื™ืกื•ืช ืื•ืชื• ืœื’ื•ืคืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืžืฆื•ืช ืื•ืชื• ืžื’ื•ืคืŸ

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: For what reason did the Sages say that the honey of bees is permitted? It is because they bring the nectar from the flowers into their body, but they do not excrete it from their body as a bodily excretion. So too, the urine of a donkey is not an excretion produced by the body itself. Rather, it is simply ejected in the same form that it entered the body. Why, then, should it be forbidden?

ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื‘ืฉื ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉืจื™ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet stated his answer in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov, who says that with regard to honey, the Merciful One permits it as an exception to the principle that a substance that emerges from a non-kosher animal is non-kosher.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืืš ืืช ื–ื” ืชืื›ืœื• ืžื›ืœ ืฉืจืฅ ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื–ื” ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืฉืจืฅ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yaโ€™akov says that it is stated: โ€œYet these may you eat of all winged creaturesโ€ (Leviticus 11:21). The word โ€œtheseโ€ indicates that you may eat these, but you may not eat a non-kosher winged creature.

ืฉืจืฅ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ืฉืจืฅ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืื™ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืžืฉืจื™ืฅ ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืฉ ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื

The Gemara asks: Why is this inference necessary? The prohibition against eating a non-kosher winged creature is written explicitly: โ€œAll winged creatures that go upon all fours are a repugnance to youโ€ (Leviticus 11:20). Rather, the inference must be understood as follows: You may not eat a non-kosher winged creature, but you may eat that which a non-kosher winged creature discharges from its body, and what is that? That is the honey of bees.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื”ื’ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืจืขื™ืŸ ืืžืจืช ืœื ื•ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื’ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืจืขื™ืŸ ืžืจื‘ื” ืื ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื ืœื•ื•ื™ ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืื ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื”ื’ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืจืขื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ืœื•ื•ื™

The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: One might have thought that even the honey of gizzin and wasps should be permitted. Nevertheless, you should say no. The baraita asks: And what did you see to include the honey of bees as being permitted to eat and to exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps as being forbidden? The baraita answers: I include the honey of bees, as its name does not have a modifier, i.e., the word honey alone always refers to the honey of bees. And I exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps, which have a modifier, i.e., one must always add the word gizzin or wasp to specify these particular types of honey.

ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื“ื‘ืฉ ื”ื’ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืจืขื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: The honey of gizzin and wasps is not susceptible to ritual impurity and is permitted for consumption? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov.

ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืืœืžื ื‘ืขื™ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื‘ื›ื•ื•ืจืชื• ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื—ืฉื‘ื”

The Gemara infers from the expression: Is not susceptible to ritual impurity, that apparently, in order for the honey of gizzin and wasps to become susceptible to ritual impurity it requires specific intention to eat it, which renders it food. Furthermore, the baraita indicates that honey from bees does not require specific intention to eat it in order for it to become susceptible, because it is normally used for food. This is also taught in a baraita: The honey of bees that is still in its hive is susceptible to ritual impurity as food even without intent.

ื—ืœื™ ื“ื™ื—ืžื•ืจืชื ืกื‘ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืขื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืืกื™ืจืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ื–ืจืขื ื“ืื™ืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืื™ืœืชื ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืจื—ืžื” ืฆืจ ืœื ืžื–ื“ืงืงื ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื—ืžื•ืจืชื ื•ื ืชืจื™

ยง The Gemara discusses additional cases of animal secretions. With regard to chunks that are discharged from the womb of a female fallow deer, the Sages thought to say that they are its egg cells, and therefore are forbidden as a limb severed from a living animal. Rav Safra said: It is the semen of a hart, which pursues the hind, but since the hindโ€™s womb is narrow it does not mate with the hart, and instead the hart pursues the female fallow deer and mates with it, and chunks of its semen that have hardened fall out of the fallow deerโ€™s body.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืขื•ืจ ื”ื‘ื ื›ื ื’ื“ ืคื ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืคื™ืจืฉื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

Rav Huna says: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a donkey when it is born, i.e., the fetal sac that envelopes it during birth, is permitted to be consumed. What is the reason? It is merely a secretion, and is not an integral part of the mother or the offspring.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืชื ื™ื ื“ืžืกื™ืข ืœืš ืขื•ืจ ื”ื‘ื ื›ื ื’ื“ ืคื ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืช ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ื•ืืžื• ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืช ื•ืืžื• ืžืชื”

Rav แธคisda said to him: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a person, i.e., a newborn baby, whether the newborn is alive or dead, is ritually pure and does not transmit ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. What, is it not the case that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, it is not considered a part of the body of the fetus or the mother, but merely a secretion, and therefore even when they are both dead it does not transmit impurity?

ืœื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ื•ืืžื• ืžืชื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืช ื•ืืžื• ื—ื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ื•ืืžื• ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืช ื•ืืžื• ืžืชื” ืื™ ืชื ื™ื ืชื ื™ื

Rav Huna answered him: No, there is no proof from this baraita, as it may mean that whether it is alive and its mother is dead or whether it is dead and its mother is alive, meaning only one is alive, the skin is ritually pure. But if both are dead it is impure. Rav แธคisda said to him: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, the skin is pure? Rav Huna said to Rav แธคisda: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot dispute it.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืฉื‘ืœืข ื“ื’ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉื‘ืœืข ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื’ื™ื“ื•ืœื•

MISHNA: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish, consumption of the kosher fish is permitted. And in the case of a kosher fish that swallowed a non-kosher fish, consumption of the non-kosher fish is prohibited due to the fact that the host fish is not the place of its development.

ื’ืžืณ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื‘ืœืข ื”ื ืœื ื—ื–ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื‘ืœืข ืืžืจื™ ืืฉืจื•ืฆื™ ืืฉืจื™ืฅ

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the language of the mishna: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish: The reason consumption of the kosher fish is permitted is that we saw that the non-kosher fish swallowed the kosher fish. But if we did not see it swallow the kosher fish we say that perhaps the non-kosher fish spawned the kosher fish, and it is forbidden.

ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืžืฉืจื™ืฅ ื“ื’ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ื™ ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ื‘ืœืข ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ืื™ ืื™ืขื›ืœื ื•ื”ืื™ ืืฉืจื•ืฆื™ ืืฉืจื™ืฅ

From where do we derive that we must have this concern? As it is taught in a baraita: A non-kosher fish spawns offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs from which the offspring hatch. The Gemara challenges: If so, even when we saw it swallowing a kosher fish we should say that that fish that it swallowed was digested, and this one, which was found inside of the non-kosher fish, it spawned, and should be forbidden.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืฆืื• ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื™ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืฆืื• ื“ืจืš ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืฆืื• ืฉืœื

Rav Sheshet says: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the digestive tract, which is not where the non-kosher fish normally spawns its offspring. Rav Pappa says similarly: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the passageway of the gullet. Rav Naแธฅman says: It is referring to a case where one found it whole and in complete form, and not as a newly hatched fish.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื•ื‘ ื“ื’ื™ื ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉืจื™ืฆื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืœืข ืœืคื ื™ื ื• ื“ืžื™

Rav Ashi says: Do not infer from the mishna that it is referring to a case where the non-kosher fish was seen swallowing the kosher fish. Rather, the reason it is permitted to consume the swallowed fish is that the majority of fish spawn offspring of their own species, and therefore the case of a kosher fish discovered inside a non-kosher fish is considered as if the non-kosher fish had swallowed the kosher fish in our presence.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืžืฉืจื™ืฅ ื“ื’ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืœื™ื“ ืžื ื™ืง ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืžื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžืœืงื˜ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืขื˜ืœืฃ ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžื ื™ืง

ยง The Gemara cites the entirety of the previously mentioned baraita. The Sages taught that a non-kosher fish spawns its offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs. Any animal that gives birth to its offspring nurses them, and any animal that lays eggs gathers food and feeds it to its young. This applies to all animals except for a bat [atallef ], as although it lays eggs, it nurses its young.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 7

ืื™ืฉืชื ื™ ืžื’ืžืœ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืœื ืฉื ื

it is different from an ordinary camel and has some characteristics of its mother, perhaps it is permitted to eat it. Or perhaps there is no difference, and with regard to consumption Rabbi Shimon also requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืื ื“ื•ืžื” ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืœืืžื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื•

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts, the offspring is forbidden for consumption, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; but if its head and the majority of its body are similar to its mother, it is obligated in, i.e., subject to the obligations of, firstborn status. Learn from it that with regard to consumption, Rabbi Shimon also requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother.

ืœื ืœื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ื“ื•ืงื ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงื ืฉื‘ืงื” ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืงื ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ื”ื•ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืื‘ืœ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื

The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the requirement that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother is relevant specifically with regard to firstborn status. The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise, as the tanna leaves the halakha of consumption with which he began and addresses the halakha of firstborn status. Learn from it that it is with regard to firstborn status that Rabbi Shimon requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother, but with regard to consumption he does not require this, and even a partial similarity suffices.

ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื•ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืš ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื‘ื›ื•ืจื• ืฉื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืชื™ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara rejects this conclusion as well: Actually, I will say to you that with regard to the permissibility of consumption he also requires that its head and the majority of its body be similar to the mother. But it was necessary to state this condition specifically with regard to the halakha of firstborn status, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: โ€œBut the firstborn of an oxโ€ (Numbers 18:17), perhaps firstborn status does not apply unless it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox, and a resemblance of the offspringโ€™s head and the majority of its body to the mother does not suffice unless its whole body has the appearance of an ox. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a resemblance of its head and the majority of its body to the mother do suffice.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืš ืืช ื–ื” ืœื ืชืื›ืœื• ืžืžืขืœื™ ื”ื’ืจื” ื•ืžืžืคืจื™ืกื™ ื”ืคืจืกื” ื–ื” ืื™ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: The Torah states: โ€œNevertheless these shall you not eat from them that only chew the cud, or from them that only have a split hoof: The camelโ€ (Leviticus 11:4). The phrase: โ€œFrom them that only chew the cud,โ€ which is referring to animals that are forbidden for consumption, indicates that a camel or other non-kosher animal that is born to a kosher animal is forbidden. Furthermore, the word โ€œtheseโ€ teaches that concerning these animals that resemble a non-kosher animal, you may not eat them when they are born to a kosher animal, but you may eat a non-kosher animal that comes with one characteristic of its mother.

ื•ืื™ ื–ื” ื–ื” ื”ื‘ื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื˜ืžื ื”ื ื•ืœื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ

And which animal is this that comes with one characteristic of its mother? This is a non-kosher animal that is born from a kosher female animal and its impregnation came from a kosher male animal.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื” ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื” ืขื–ื™ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืื‘ื™ื• ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ืืžื• ื›ื‘ืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even if its conception came from a non-kosher male animal it should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œThese are the beasts which you may eat: โ€œThe ox, the sheep [seh kesavim], and goat [veseh izzim]โ€ (Deuteronomy 14:4). The plural form of โ€œkesavimโ€ and โ€œizzimโ€ indicates that a lamb is not kosher unless its father is a male lamb and its mother is a female lamb. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืžื•ืชืจ ืืœื ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ื˜ืžื ื”ื ื•ืœื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื” ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื” ืขื–ื™ื ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

Rabbi Eliezer says: Offspring whose father and mother are both kosher are permitted, and this verse which renders permitted an offspring that partially resembles its mother does not come to permit that which is permitted, i.e., where both parents are kosher, but it comes rather to add to that which is permitted; and which case is this? It is a case of a non-kosher animal that is born from a kosher animal and its conception came from a non-kosher animal. Or perhaps it permits only an animal whose conception came from a kosher animal? The verse states: โ€œThe ox, the sheep [seh kesavim], and goat [veseh izzim].โ€ The repetition of the word seh indicates that it is permitted to be eaten in any case, even if only its mother was a ewe.

ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื˜ืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“

In any event, the tanna of this baraita refers to a non-kosher animal that was born to a kosher animal as non-kosher, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who deems a camel that was born to a cow forbidden to eat, and he says: But you may eat a non-kosher animal that comes with one characteristic that is similar to its mother. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does not require that the head and the majority of the body resemble the mother for it to be rendered fit for consumption.

ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื

The Gemara responds: No proof may be brought from here, as this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one matter, where a kosher animal gave birth to a non-kosher animal, maintaining that it is forbidden, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one other matter, where the animal has some characteristics of the mother, in which case this tanna deems it permitted to be eaten. Concerning the second matter, Rabbi Shimon deems it forbidden unless the head and majority of the body resemble the mother.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืงืฉื™ ื•ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืขื‘ื•ืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ืžื™ ืžืขื‘ืจื

The Gemara comments that there are those who raise a difficulty with this baraita and resolve it, thereby resolving the dilemma concerning the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: The baraita states that the kosher animalโ€™s impregnation came from a non-kosher animal. Can a kosher animal become pregnant from a non-kosher animal?

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืžืชืขื‘ืจืช ืœื ื˜ืžืื” ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืœื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ื•ืœื ื’ืกื” ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืงื” ื•ืœื ื“ืงื” ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืกื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืŸ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื” ืžืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื”

But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: A non-kosher animal never becomes pregnant from a kosher one, e.g., a camel from an ox, nor a kosher animal from a non-kosher one, e.g., a cow from a horse, nor a large animal from a small animal, e.g., a cow from a goat, nor a small one from a large one, e.g., a ewe from an ox, nor a domesticated animal from an undomesticated animal, e.g., a goat from a deer, nor an undomesticated animal from a domesticated animal, e.g., a gazelle from a goat.

ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื—ืœื•ืงืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื—ื™ื” ืžืชืขื‘ืจืช ืžื‘ื”ืžื”

With regard to all these cases, everyone agrees that pregnancy is impossible except for Rabbi Eliezer and his disputants, who would say that an undomesticated animal can become pregnant from a domesticated animal (see แธคullin 79b). Those Sages disagree with regard to whether slaughtering the offspring of a gazelle that became pregnant from a goat is included in the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื“ืื™ืขื‘ืจ ืžืงืœื•ื˜ ื‘ืŸ ืคืจื” ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืืžืจ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“

And Rabbi Yirmeya says in response to the difficulty: When the baraita discusses the case of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal, the reference is to a case where the kosher animal became pregnant from an animal with closed hooves that is the offspring of a cow. A cow can become pregnant from such an animal because the mother of that animal was a cow. And the tanna of the baraita said his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a non-kosher animal that was born from a kosher animal is considered non-kosher, and he says: But you may eat that which comes with one characteristic of its mother. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does deem permitted the consumption of an animal with some characteristics similar to its mother.

ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื

The Gemara responds: This tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one matter, where a kosher animal gave birth to a non-kosher animal, maintaining that it is forbidden, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one other matter, where the animal has some characteristics of the mother, in which case this tanna deems it fit for consumption. Concerning the second matter, Rabbi Shimon deems it forbidden unless the head and majority of the body resemble the mother.

ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื’ื•ืจื ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืกื‘ืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื’ื•ืจื ืืกื•ืจ

ยง The Gemara asks concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the baraita: Is this to say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this and that cause it, i.e., both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is permitted, and he therefore permits the consumption of the offspring of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that when both this and that cause it, it is forbidden?

ื•ื”ื ืื™ืคื›ื ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ื•ืœื“ ื˜ืจื™ืคื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—

But we have heard them saying the opposite: With regard to the offspring of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] and is forbidden to be eaten or sacrificed as an offering upon the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring may not be sacrificed upon the altar either, despite the fact that its father is kosher, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: The offspring may be sacrificed upon the altar despite the fact that its mother is a tereifa, since its father is kosher.

ื‘ืขืœืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื’ื•ืจื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืฉื” ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืขื–ื™ื ืฉื” ื•ืฉื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

The Gemara answers: Generally, Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this and that cause the result, it is forbidden. But it is different here in the case of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal, because if it is so, i.e., that the offspring is forbidden, let the verse write: Sheep and goats [seh kesavim veโ€™izzim]. Why do I need the verse to repeat the term โ€œsehโ€ in the phrase โ€œseh kesavim veseh izzimโ€? Learn from it that a seh is permitted in any case, i.e., even if only the mother is kosher it is permitted to eat the offspring.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืœืš ื‘ืขืœืžื ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื’ื•ืจื ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ื”ื›ื ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืฉื•ืจ ื›ืฉื‘ ื•ืขื– ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืขื–ื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืื‘ื™ื• ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ืืžื• ื›ื‘ืฉื”

And as for Rabbi Yehoshua, he could have said to you: Generally, if both this and that cause the result it is permitted. But here it is different, as if so, i.e., if the offspring of a kosher animal that became pregnant from a non-kosher animal is permitted, let the verse write: These are the animals that you may eat: An ox, a lamb, and a goat. Why do I need it to state: โ€œSeh kesavim veseh izzim,โ€ in the plural? Learn from it that the offspring may not be eaten unless its father is a male lamb and its mother is a female lamb.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ืžืœ ื’ืžืœ ืฉื ื™ ืคืขืžื™ื ืื—ื“ ื’ืžืœ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืžืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ื’ืžืœ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืคืจื” ื•ืื ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืืžื• ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”

ยง The Gemara returns to the dilemma of whether Rabbi Shimon permits the consumption of the offspring of a kosher animal that resembles a non-kosher animal but has some of the characteristics of its mother. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says it is stated: โ€œCamelโ€ (Leviticus 11:4), โ€œcamelโ€ (Deuteronomy 14:7), i.e., the term is written two times with regard to the prohibition against consumption. This teaches that both a camel that is born from a camel and a camel that is born from a cow are non-kosher. And if in the latter case its head and the majority of its body are similar to its mother, it is permitted for consumption.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Learn from it that not only with regard to firstborn status, but with regard to consumption as well Rabbi Shimon requires that its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother, and a partial resemblance does not suffice. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

ืฉื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืขื• ืžื™ื ื” ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืฉืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื”ื•

ยง The mishna (5b) teaches: This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher. The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to the urine of a donkey, what is the halakha? Is it forbidden, like the milk of a donkey?

ื•ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืกื•ืกื™ื ื•ื’ืžืœื™ื ื“ืกื•ืกื™ื ื•ื’ืžืœื™ื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื ืขื›ื™ืจื™ ื•ืœื ื“ืžื• ืœื—ืœื‘ ืžื™ื ืขื•ืœ ืžื™ื ื ืคื•ืง ื›ื™ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ื—ืžื•ืจ ื“ืขื›ื™ืจื™ ื•ื“ืžื• ืœื—ืœื‘ ืžืื™ ืžื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืงื ืžื™ืžืฆืฆื™ ื•ืืกื™ืจื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ื ืขื•ืœ ืžื™ื ื ืคื•ืง ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืขื›ื™ืจื™ ื”ื‘ืœื ื“ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: And should they raise the dilemma also with regard to the urine of horses and camels? The Gemara answers: With regard to the urine of horses and camels they did not raise the dilemma, as their urine is not turbid and consequently is not similar to milk. Rather, water enters their body and water exits their body. When they raised the dilemma it was concerning the urine of a donkey, which is turbid and is consequently similar to milk. What is the halakha? Does it get excreted from its body, and it is therefore forbidden, or perhaps water enters and water exits, and the fact that it is turbid is due to the heat of the flesh?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืฉื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ื˜ืžื ื•ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ืžื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืืœื ืžืŸ

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned the answer in the mishna: This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher. From the fact that it does not state: That which emerges from a non-kosher animal [mittamei], meaning from the body of a non-kosher animal, but rather it says: From

ื”ื˜ืžื ื•ื”ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื ื ื“ื˜ืžื ื”ื•ื

the non-kosher animal [min hattamei], one can infer that any type [min] of non-kosher substance is included. And these fluids, i.e., the urine of a donkey, are also a type of non-kosher substance, as they resemble the milk of a donkey, which is forbidden.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื“ืกื•ืกื™ื ื•ื’ืžืœื™ื ืœื ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื ืฉืชื• ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื›ื™ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ื—ืžื•ืจ ื“ืฉืชื• ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื•ืžืขืœื• ืœื™ืจืงื•ื ื ืžืื™

And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion about the urine of a donkey: With regard to the urine of horses and camels, the students of Rav Sheshet did not raise the dilemma, because people do not drink it. When they raised the dilemma it was with regard to the urine of a donkey, which people drink and which is beneficial for curing jaundice. What, then, is the halakha?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ืžื ื˜ืžื ื•ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื˜ืžื ืงืืชื™

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned the answer to your dilemma in the mishna: That which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher, and these fluids also come from a donkey, which is non-kosher. Therefore, they are forbidden.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืฉ ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžื›ื ื™ืกื•ืช ืื•ืชื• ืœื’ื•ืคืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืžืฆื•ืช ืื•ืชื• ืžื’ื•ืคืŸ

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: For what reason did the Sages say that the honey of bees is permitted? It is because they bring the nectar from the flowers into their body, but they do not excrete it from their body as a bodily excretion. So too, the urine of a donkey is not an excretion produced by the body itself. Rather, it is simply ejected in the same form that it entered the body. Why, then, should it be forbidden?

ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื‘ืฉื ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉืจื™ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet stated his answer in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov, who says that with regard to honey, the Merciful One permits it as an exception to the principle that a substance that emerges from a non-kosher animal is non-kosher.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืืš ืืช ื–ื” ืชืื›ืœื• ืžื›ืœ ืฉืจืฅ ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื–ื” ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืฉืจืฅ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yaโ€™akov says that it is stated: โ€œYet these may you eat of all winged creaturesโ€ (Leviticus 11:21). The word โ€œtheseโ€ indicates that you may eat these, but you may not eat a non-kosher winged creature.

ืฉืจืฅ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ืฉืจืฅ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืื™ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืžืฉืจื™ืฅ ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืฉ ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื

The Gemara asks: Why is this inference necessary? The prohibition against eating a non-kosher winged creature is written explicitly: โ€œAll winged creatures that go upon all fours are a repugnance to youโ€ (Leviticus 11:20). Rather, the inference must be understood as follows: You may not eat a non-kosher winged creature, but you may eat that which a non-kosher winged creature discharges from its body, and what is that? That is the honey of bees.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื”ื’ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืจืขื™ืŸ ืืžืจืช ืœื ื•ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื’ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืจืขื™ืŸ ืžืจื‘ื” ืื ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื ืœื•ื•ื™ ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืื ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื”ื’ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืจืขื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ืœื•ื•ื™

The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: One might have thought that even the honey of gizzin and wasps should be permitted. Nevertheless, you should say no. The baraita asks: And what did you see to include the honey of bees as being permitted to eat and to exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps as being forbidden? The baraita answers: I include the honey of bees, as its name does not have a modifier, i.e., the word honey alone always refers to the honey of bees. And I exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps, which have a modifier, i.e., one must always add the word gizzin or wasp to specify these particular types of honey.

ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื“ื‘ืฉ ื”ื’ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืจืขื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: The honey of gizzin and wasps is not susceptible to ritual impurity and is permitted for consumption? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov.

ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืืœืžื ื‘ืขื™ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉ ื‘ื›ื•ื•ืจืชื• ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื—ืฉื‘ื”

The Gemara infers from the expression: Is not susceptible to ritual impurity, that apparently, in order for the honey of gizzin and wasps to become susceptible to ritual impurity it requires specific intention to eat it, which renders it food. Furthermore, the baraita indicates that honey from bees does not require specific intention to eat it in order for it to become susceptible, because it is normally used for food. This is also taught in a baraita: The honey of bees that is still in its hive is susceptible to ritual impurity as food even without intent.

ื—ืœื™ ื“ื™ื—ืžื•ืจืชื ืกื‘ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืขื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืืกื™ืจืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ื–ืจืขื ื“ืื™ืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืื™ืœืชื ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืจื—ืžื” ืฆืจ ืœื ืžื–ื“ืงืงื ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื—ืžื•ืจืชื ื•ื ืชืจื™

ยง The Gemara discusses additional cases of animal secretions. With regard to chunks that are discharged from the womb of a female fallow deer, the Sages thought to say that they are its egg cells, and therefore are forbidden as a limb severed from a living animal. Rav Safra said: It is the semen of a hart, which pursues the hind, but since the hindโ€™s womb is narrow it does not mate with the hart, and instead the hart pursues the female fallow deer and mates with it, and chunks of its semen that have hardened fall out of the fallow deerโ€™s body.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืขื•ืจ ื”ื‘ื ื›ื ื’ื“ ืคื ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืคื™ืจืฉื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

Rav Huna says: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a donkey when it is born, i.e., the fetal sac that envelopes it during birth, is permitted to be consumed. What is the reason? It is merely a secretion, and is not an integral part of the mother or the offspring.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืชื ื™ื ื“ืžืกื™ืข ืœืš ืขื•ืจ ื”ื‘ื ื›ื ื’ื“ ืคื ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืช ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ื•ืืžื• ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืช ื•ืืžื• ืžืชื”

Rav แธคisda said to him: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a person, i.e., a newborn baby, whether the newborn is alive or dead, is ritually pure and does not transmit ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. What, is it not the case that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, it is not considered a part of the body of the fetus or the mother, but merely a secretion, and therefore even when they are both dead it does not transmit impurity?

ืœื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ื•ืืžื• ืžืชื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืช ื•ืืžื• ื—ื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ื•ืืžื• ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืช ื•ืืžื• ืžืชื” ืื™ ืชื ื™ื ืชื ื™ื

Rav Huna answered him: No, there is no proof from this baraita, as it may mean that whether it is alive and its mother is dead or whether it is dead and its mother is alive, meaning only one is alive, the skin is ritually pure. But if both are dead it is impure. Rav แธคisda said to him: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, the skin is pure? Rav Huna said to Rav แธคisda: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot dispute it.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืฉื‘ืœืข ื“ื’ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉื‘ืœืข ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื’ื™ื“ื•ืœื•

MISHNA: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish, consumption of the kosher fish is permitted. And in the case of a kosher fish that swallowed a non-kosher fish, consumption of the non-kosher fish is prohibited due to the fact that the host fish is not the place of its development.

ื’ืžืณ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื‘ืœืข ื”ื ืœื ื—ื–ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื‘ืœืข ืืžืจื™ ืืฉืจื•ืฆื™ ืืฉืจื™ืฅ

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the language of the mishna: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish: The reason consumption of the kosher fish is permitted is that we saw that the non-kosher fish swallowed the kosher fish. But if we did not see it swallow the kosher fish we say that perhaps the non-kosher fish spawned the kosher fish, and it is forbidden.

ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืžืฉืจื™ืฅ ื“ื’ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ื™ ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ื‘ืœืข ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ืื™ ืื™ืขื›ืœื ื•ื”ืื™ ืืฉืจื•ืฆื™ ืืฉืจื™ืฅ

From where do we derive that we must have this concern? As it is taught in a baraita: A non-kosher fish spawns offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs from which the offspring hatch. The Gemara challenges: If so, even when we saw it swallowing a kosher fish we should say that that fish that it swallowed was digested, and this one, which was found inside of the non-kosher fish, it spawned, and should be forbidden.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืฆืื• ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื™ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืฆืื• ื“ืจืš ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืฆืื• ืฉืœื

Rav Sheshet says: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the digestive tract, which is not where the non-kosher fish normally spawns its offspring. Rav Pappa says similarly: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the passageway of the gullet. Rav Naแธฅman says: It is referring to a case where one found it whole and in complete form, and not as a newly hatched fish.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื•ื‘ ื“ื’ื™ื ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉืจื™ืฆื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืœืข ืœืคื ื™ื ื• ื“ืžื™

Rav Ashi says: Do not infer from the mishna that it is referring to a case where the non-kosher fish was seen swallowing the kosher fish. Rather, the reason it is permitted to consume the swallowed fish is that the majority of fish spawn offspring of their own species, and therefore the case of a kosher fish discovered inside a non-kosher fish is considered as if the non-kosher fish had swallowed the kosher fish in our presence.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืžืฉืจื™ืฅ ื“ื’ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืœื™ื“ ืžื ื™ืง ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืžื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžืœืงื˜ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืขื˜ืœืฃ ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืžื ื™ืง

ยง The Gemara cites the entirety of the previously mentioned baraita. The Sages taught that a non-kosher fish spawns its offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs. Any animal that gives birth to its offspring nurses them, and any animal that lays eggs gathers food and feeds it to its young. This applies to all animals except for a bat [atallef ], as although it lays eggs, it nurses its young.

Scroll To Top