Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara details the hermeneutical methods used to permit drinking water from pits, ditches, or caves without concern for finless and scaleless creatures. Regarding water in vessels, the braita states that its exemption is explicit in one verse and implicit in another. One version holds that the permission for vessels is explicit, derived from the verse explaining that fish in seas and streams must have fins and scales to be eaten (Vayikra 11:9), meaning that anything in vessels is permitted. The second version reverses this, arguing that the explicit source is the subsequent verse (Vayikra 11:10-11) which forbids fish in seas and streams that lack fins and scales.
The discussion then shifts to spontaneous generation. While creatures that crawl upon the ground are biblically forbidden, creatures that spontaneously generate within vessels or food are excluded from this prohibition, provided they have not yet crawled upon the ground. The Gemara delineates the exact parameters of this exclusion.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Chullin 67
הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם וְדוּנֵם בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, ״בַּמָּיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – פָּרַט, ״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
place the detail between the two generalizations and then expound them as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Therefore, the first instance of the phrase “in the waters” is a generalization. The phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” is a detail. And by the second instance of the phrase “in the waters,” it then generalized again.
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט, מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ מַיִם נוֹבְעִים, אַף כֹּל מַיִם נוֹבְעִים. מַאי רַבִּי? חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַעֵט? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא.
Therefore, as in any instance of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the detail, seas and rivers, is referring explicitly to flowing water, so too, fish without fins and scales found in all flowing water are forbidden. What does this include? It includes trenches and water channels, to prohibit fish without fins and scales found in them. And what does it exclude? It excludes pits, ditches, and caves, which are collections of still water, to permit all fish found in them.
וְאֵימָא: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – מַיִם גְּדֵלִין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, אַף כֹּל מַיִם גְּדֵלִין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. וּמַאי רַבִּי? אֲפִילּוּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַעֵט? מַעֵט כֵּלִים!
The Gemara asks: But why not say: Just as the detail refers explicitly to water that grows, i.e., is found, on the ground, so too, it includes all water that grows on the ground? And what would this include? It would include even pits, ditches, and caves, to prohibit fish found in them that do not have fins and scales. And what would it exclude? It would exclude only those found in vessels.
אִם כֵּן, ״תֹּאכְלוּ״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
The Gemara responds: If so, what use is the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters”? Even without it, vessels would be excluded, since they are not at all similar to seas and rivers. Rather, the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” serves to indicate that only trenches and water channels are considered similar to the detail, but all fish found in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״בַּמָּיִם״ ״בַּמַּיִם״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, אֵין זֶה כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֶלָּא רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט. ״בַּמָּיִם״ – רִיבָּה, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – מִיעֵט, ״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה. רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל. מַאי רַבִּי? חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַעֵט? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא.
§ The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse’s use of the phrase “in the waters,” “in the waters” twice is not to be interpreted as a generalization and a detail, but rather as an instance of amplification and restriction. By the first phrase “in the waters,” the verse amplifies, by the phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” it restricts, and by the second instance of “in the waters” it then amplifies again. According to a hermeneutical principle, when a verse amplified, and then restricted, and then amplified, it amplified the relevant category to include everything except for the specific matter excluded by the restriction, i.e., in the seas and in the rivers. What, then, does it include? It includes trenches and water channels, to prohibit fish without fins and scales found in them. And what does it exclude? It excludes fish found in pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them.
אֵימָא: מַאי רַבִּי? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַעֵט? מַעֵט כֵּלִים. אִם כֵּן, ״תֹּאכְלוּ״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
The Gemara objects: Why not say: What does it include? It includes fish found in pits, ditches, and caves, to prohibit them if they do not have fins and scales. And what does it exclude? It excludes only fish found in vessels. The Gemara responds: If so, what use is the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters”? Even without it, vessels would be excluded. Rather, it indicates that pits, ditches and caves are excluded by the restriction, and all fish found in them are permitted.
וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא, כִּדְתָנֵי מַתִּתְיָה, דְּתָנֵי מַתִּתְיָה בַּר יְהוּדָה: מַאי רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא, וּלְהוֹצִיא חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת שֶׁהֵן עֲצוּרִים כְּכֵלִים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין שֶׁאֵין עֲצוּרִין כְּכֵלִים.
The Gemara objects: But perhaps l should reverse the statement and claim that fish without fins and scales in pits, ditches, and caves are prohibited, and those in trenches and water channels are permitted. The Gemara responds: One must say as Mattitya taught, as Mattitya bar Yehuda taught: What did you see that caused you to include pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them, and to exclude trenches and water channels, to prohibit them? I include pits, ditches, and caves, which contain still water like vessels, and I exclude trenches and water channels, which are not still like vessels, as water flows through them.
הֵי סָתוּם וְהֵי מְפוֹרָשׁ? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא: חַד אָמַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ – מְפוֹרָשׁ, וְאֵין לוֹ – סָתוּם, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין לוֹ – מְפוֹרָשׁ, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ – סָתוּם.
§ The baraita on the previous amud states that the Torah permits all fish without fins and scales in vessels both explicitly and implicitly. The Gemara asks: Which verse is the implicit source and which is the explicit source? Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to it. One says: The verse permitting “whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers,” is the explicit source, and the verse prohibiting “all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,” is the implicit source. And one says the opposite, i.e., that the verse prohibiting “all that have not fins and scales” is the explicit source and the verse that permits “whatever has fins and scales” is the implicit source.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ מְפוֹרָשׁ? אָמַר לָךְ: מִינֵּיהּ הוּא דְּקָא מִשְׁתְּרוּ כֵּלִים.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that “whatever has fins and scales” is the explicit source? The Gemara responds: That Sage could have said to you: It is from this verse that the Gemara derives on the previous amud that fish without fins and scales found in vessels are permitted.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין לוֹ מְפוֹרָשׁ? דְּהַאי הוּא דְּקָמוֹכַח אַהַאיְךְ, דְּאִי מֵהַאיְךְ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בְּכֵלִים, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ – נָמֵי לָא תֵּיכוּל.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that “all that have not fins and scales” is the explicit source? The Gemara responds: The reasoning is that it is this verse that proves that the other verse permits all fish in vessels. As, if one attempted to derive whether fish in vessels are permitted from the other verse alone, I would say the opposite: The verse indicates that a fish with fins and scales is permitted only in the seas and rivers; but in vessels, even if it has fins and scales, you may still not eat it. The phrase in the verse “and all that have not fins and scales” indicates that these restrictions apply only to fish in the seas and rivers.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לָא לִשְׁפֵּי אִינָשׁ שִׁיכְרָא בְּצִבְיָיתָא בְּאוּרְתָּא, דִּילְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְעֵיל מִצִּבְיָיתָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל לְכָסָא, (וְהָוֵי) [וְקָא] עוֹבַר מִשּׁוּם ״שֶׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.
§ Rav Huna says: A person should not pour beer into a vessel through straw to filter it at night, lest a creeping animal emerge from the beer above the straw and then fall into the cup. Since the drinker poured the beer through a filter, he will assume that all creatures found in the vessel originated there and are permitted despite lacking fins and scales. He will therefore drink the beer along with the creature, and in doing so, he violates the prohibition: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).
אִי הָכִי, בְּמָנָא נָמֵי, דִּלְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְדַפְנָא דְּמָנָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל לְמָנָא? הָתָם הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
The Gemara objects: If so, that one must be concerned that a creeping animal may have fallen from the straw into the cup, one should also be concerned about any beer found in a vessel, as perhaps some creature emerged from the beer onto the side of the vessel, thereby becoming forbidden, and then fell back into the vessel. The Gemara responds: There, that is the creature’s normal manner of growth, to attach itself to the sides of the vessel, and it is not considered to have emerged from the liquid.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרַאּ, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁשּׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְדַפְנָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל? אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
And from where do you say that emerging in its normal manner of growth does not render it forbidden? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived to include pits, ditches, and caves, that one may bend down and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures inside them? The verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters,” indicating that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted. And one might ask: Let one be concerned that perhaps a creature emerged from the water onto the side of the pit or cave, thereby becoming forbidden, and then fell back into it. Rather, one must say that since that is the creature’s normal manner of growth, it does not render it forbidden. Here too, with regard to beer in a vessel, that is the creature’s normal manner of growth and does not render it forbidden.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הוּנָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ, ״כׇּל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְרַבּוֹת יַבְחוּשִׁין שֶׁסִּינְּנָן; טַעְמָא דְּסִינְּנָן, הָא לָא סִינְּנָן – שְׁרֵי.
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: A baraita is taught that supports your statement that one need be concerned only about filtered beer: The verse: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:41), serves to include gnats found in liquid that one filtered. One may infer: The reason they are prohibited is because one filtered the liquids, but if one did not filter them, the gnats are permitted. Evidently, one need not be concerned that they emerged from the water onto the side of the vessel.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קִישּׁוּת שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה
§ With regard to the prohibition against consuming creeping animals, Shmuel says: A cucumber that became infested with worms
בְּאִבֶּיהָ אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם ״הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.
while attached to the ground is prohibited, due to the prohibition of: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” because the cucumber was considered part of the earth when the worms infested it.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַזִּיזִין שֶׁבָּעֲדָשִׁים, וְאֶת הַיַּתּוּשִׁים שֶׁבַּכַּלִּיסִים, וְתוֹלַעַת שֶׁבַּתְּמָרִים וְשֶׁבַּגְּרוֹגְרוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כׇּל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְרַבּוֹת תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים וְשֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי גְפָנִים.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a comparison of the following two baraitot supports Shmuel’s opinion. As it is taught in one baraita: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth” serves to exclude zizin, a type of insect that is found in lentils, and mosquitoes that are in kelisim, a type of bean, and worms that are in dates and in dried figs. All of these are permitted for consumption because they do not swarm on the earth itself. And it is taught in another baraita that when the verse states: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” the word “every” serves to include as non-kosher worms that are in the roots of olive trees and that are in the roots of vines.
מַאי לָאו, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּפֵירָא, וְהָא בְּאִבֵּיהּ, וְהָא שֶׁלָּא בְּאִבֵּיהּ?
What, is it not that both this and that baraita are referring to insects that are found in the fruit, and this, the latter baraita, deems forbidden fruit that is attached to the ground, and that, the former baraita, deems permitted fruit that is not attached to the ground? This would support Shmuel’s statement that worms in a cucumber attached to the ground are forbidden.
לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי בְּאִבֵּיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּפֵירָא, הָא בְּאִילָנָא גּוּפֵאּ.
The Gemara responds: No, it is possible that both this and that baraita are referring to insects found in vegetation attached to the ground; and the apparent contradiction between the two is not difficult. This, the former baraita, deems permitted insects found in the fruit, and that, the latter baraita, deems forbidden insects found in the tree itself. This interpretation contradicts Shmuel’s statement.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים וְשֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי גְפָנִים״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara notes: The language of the latter baraita is also precise, as it teaches: Worms that are in the roots of olive trees and in the roots of vines, clearly referring to the tree itself rather than the fruit. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that the second interpretation is correct.
בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: פְּרָשָׁהּ וּמֵתָה, מַהוּ? מִקְצָתָהּ, מַהוּ? לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
§ From the above discussion, it is clear that worms that grow in produce not attached to the ground, and have never emerged from the produce, do not fall under the prohibition of: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” because they have never swarmed on the earth. Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: If a worm emerged from the produce but died before it reached the earth, what is the halakha? Is it considered to have swarmed on the earth simply by having emerged? If only part of it emerged, what is the halakha? If it emerged into the air of the world and flew away without landing, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds to all of the above: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: לְגַג תְּמָרָה מַהוּ? לְגַג גַּרְעִינָתָהּ מַהוּ? מִתְּמָרָה לִתְמָרָה מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If a worm was spawned in a date, and it emerges and climbs onto the roof of the date, i.e., its upper part, what is the halakha? Is this considered the normal manner of growth for the worm, in which case this does not render it forbidden, or is the roof of the date considered a separate entity such that crawling there constitutes swarming on the earth? And if it is considered a separate entity, what is the halakha if the worm climbed onto the roof of the date’s pit? Is this considered the normal manner of growth for the worm? If the worm emerged from a date and entered a date that was attached to it, without being exposed to the air, what then is the halakha? The Gemara responds to all of the above: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: קוּקְיָאנֵי אֲסִירִי, מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ.
§ Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: Kukeyanei, worms found in the internal organs of animals, e.g., in the lung and liver, are forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that they came from the outside world, i.e., the animal must have swallowed them along with vegetation, in which case these worms were already included in the prohibition: “Every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten.”
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ, לִישְׁתַּכְחוּ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הָרֶיעִי.
Rav Ashi objects to this: If they came from the outside world, they should be found in the digestive tract as well. Since they are found only in non-digestive organs, they must have originated in the animal and should not be considered creeping animals that swarm on the earth.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: קוּקְיָאנֵי שְׁרוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִינֵּיהּ גָּבְלִי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא קָא אָתוּ – לִישְׁתַּכְחוּ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הָרֶיעִי!
Some state the exchange differently: Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: Kukeyanei are permitted. What is the reason for this? It is that they originate from inside the animal. Rav Ashi said: This is obvious, as if they came from the outside world, they should be found in the digestive tract.
וְהִלְכְתָא: קוּקְיָאנֵי אֲסִירִי, מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵינָם נָיֵים וְעָיְילִי לֵיהּ בְּאוּסְיֵיהּ תּוֹלָעִים. דַּרְנֵי דְּבִשְׂרָא – אֲסִירִי, דְּכַוְורֵי – שַׁרְיָין.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Kukeyanei are forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that the animal sleeps, and worms enter it through its snout. From there they travel to the internal organs without passing through the digestive tract. Worms found in meat between the skin and the flesh are forbidden; those found in fish are permitted.
אֲמַר לַהּ רָבִינָא לְאִימֵּיהּ: אַבְלַע לִי וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא לְרָבִינָא: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא ״וְאֶת נִבְלָתָם תְּשַׁקֵּצוּ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַדְּרָנִים שֶׁבַּבְּהֵמָה?
The Gemara recounts: Ravina said to his mother: Conceal the fish’s worms inside it so I cannot see them, and I will eat the fish. Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Aḥa, said to Ravina: What is different in this case from that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: “Their carcasses you shall have in detestation” (Leviticus 11:11), serves to include worms that are in animals as forbidden? Why are worms in fish permitted?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בְּהֵמָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה הוּא דְּמִשְׁתַּרְיָא, וְהָנֵי מִדְּלָא קָא מַהְנְיָא לְהוּ שְׁחִיטָה – בְּאִיסּוּרַיְיהוּ קָיְימָן, אֲבָל דָּגִים בַּאֲסִיפָה בְּעָלְמָא מִישְׁתְּרוּ, וְהָנֵי כִּי קָא גָבְלָן – בְּהֶיתֵּרָא קָא גָבְלָן.
Ravina said to him: How can these cases be compared? An animal is rendered permitted for consumption only by slaughter. Before it is slaughtered, it and all its contents are considered part of a living animal and prohibited by the Torah. And since the animal’s slaughter is not effective for these worms, they retain their forbidden status. But fish are rendered permitted by merely gathering them; they are not included in the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. And therefore, when these worms originate inside the fish, they originate in a permitted state.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הוֹלֵךְ עַל גָּחוֹן״ – זֶה נָחָשׁ, ״כֹּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַשִּׁילְשׁוּל וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לְשִׁילְשׁוּל, ״עַל אַרְבַּע״ – זֶה עַקְרָב, ״כֹּל הוֹלֵךְ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַחִיפּוּשִׁית וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לְחִיפּוּשִׁית, ״מַרְבֵּה רַגְלַיִם״ – זֶה נָדָל, ״עַד כׇּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַדּוֹמֶה וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לַדּוֹמֶה.
§ The verse states: “Whatever goes upon the belly, and whatever goes upon all fours, or whatever has many feet, even all swarming things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat” (Leviticus 11:42). The Sages taught in a baraita that the phrase “goes upon the belly” is referring to the snake. The preceding word “whatever” serves to include the earthworm and animals similar to an earthworm. The phrase “upon all fours” is referring to the scorpion. The preceding phrase “whatever goes” serves to include the beetle and animals similar to a beetle. The phrase “has many feet” is referring to the centipede. The preceding phrase “or whatever” serves to include animals similar to a centipede and animals similar to those similar to it.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹרְמַסְקִית אוֹמֵר: לִוְיָתָן דָּג טָהוֹר הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גַּאֲוָה אֲפִיקֵי מָגִנִּים״, ״תַּחְתָּיו חַדּוּדֵי חֶרֶשׂ״; ״אֲפִיקֵי מָגִנִּים״ – אֵלּוּ קַשְׂקַשִּׂים שֶׁבּוֹ, ״תַּחְתָּיו חַדּוּדֵי חֶרֶשׂ״ – אֵלּוּ סְנַפִּירִין שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בָּהֶן.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: The leviathan mentioned in the Bible is a kosher fish, as it is stated: “His armor is his pride” (Job 41:7), and: “Sharpest potsherds are under him” (Job 41:22). The phrase “his armor” is referring to his scales, which protect him like armor. The phrase “sharpest potsherds are under him” is referring to fins with which he swims, which are sharp and project from his underside.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Raanana, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
Chullin 67
הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם וְדוּנֵם בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, ״בַּמָּיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – פָּרַט, ״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
place the detail between the two generalizations and then expound them as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Therefore, the first instance of the phrase “in the waters” is a generalization. The phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” is a detail. And by the second instance of the phrase “in the waters,” it then generalized again.
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט, מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ מַיִם נוֹבְעִים, אַף כֹּל מַיִם נוֹבְעִים. מַאי רַבִּי? חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַעֵט? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא.
Therefore, as in any instance of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the detail, seas and rivers, is referring explicitly to flowing water, so too, fish without fins and scales found in all flowing water are forbidden. What does this include? It includes trenches and water channels, to prohibit fish without fins and scales found in them. And what does it exclude? It excludes pits, ditches, and caves, which are collections of still water, to permit all fish found in them.
וְאֵימָא: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – מַיִם גְּדֵלִין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, אַף כֹּל מַיִם גְּדֵלִין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. וּמַאי רַבִּי? אֲפִילּוּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַעֵט? מַעֵט כֵּלִים!
The Gemara asks: But why not say: Just as the detail refers explicitly to water that grows, i.e., is found, on the ground, so too, it includes all water that grows on the ground? And what would this include? It would include even pits, ditches, and caves, to prohibit fish found in them that do not have fins and scales. And what would it exclude? It would exclude only those found in vessels.
אִם כֵּן, ״תֹּאכְלוּ״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
The Gemara responds: If so, what use is the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters”? Even without it, vessels would be excluded, since they are not at all similar to seas and rivers. Rather, the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” serves to indicate that only trenches and water channels are considered similar to the detail, but all fish found in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״בַּמָּיִם״ ״בַּמַּיִם״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, אֵין זֶה כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֶלָּא רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט. ״בַּמָּיִם״ – רִיבָּה, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – מִיעֵט, ״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה. רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל. מַאי רַבִּי? חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַעֵט? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא.
§ The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse’s use of the phrase “in the waters,” “in the waters” twice is not to be interpreted as a generalization and a detail, but rather as an instance of amplification and restriction. By the first phrase “in the waters,” the verse amplifies, by the phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” it restricts, and by the second instance of “in the waters” it then amplifies again. According to a hermeneutical principle, when a verse amplified, and then restricted, and then amplified, it amplified the relevant category to include everything except for the specific matter excluded by the restriction, i.e., in the seas and in the rivers. What, then, does it include? It includes trenches and water channels, to prohibit fish without fins and scales found in them. And what does it exclude? It excludes fish found in pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them.
אֵימָא: מַאי רַבִּי? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַעֵט? מַעֵט כֵּלִים. אִם כֵּן, ״תֹּאכְלוּ״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
The Gemara objects: Why not say: What does it include? It includes fish found in pits, ditches, and caves, to prohibit them if they do not have fins and scales. And what does it exclude? It excludes only fish found in vessels. The Gemara responds: If so, what use is the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters”? Even without it, vessels would be excluded. Rather, it indicates that pits, ditches and caves are excluded by the restriction, and all fish found in them are permitted.
וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא, כִּדְתָנֵי מַתִּתְיָה, דְּתָנֵי מַתִּתְיָה בַּר יְהוּדָה: מַאי רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא, וּלְהוֹצִיא חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת שֶׁהֵן עֲצוּרִים כְּכֵלִים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין שֶׁאֵין עֲצוּרִין כְּכֵלִים.
The Gemara objects: But perhaps l should reverse the statement and claim that fish without fins and scales in pits, ditches, and caves are prohibited, and those in trenches and water channels are permitted. The Gemara responds: One must say as Mattitya taught, as Mattitya bar Yehuda taught: What did you see that caused you to include pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them, and to exclude trenches and water channels, to prohibit them? I include pits, ditches, and caves, which contain still water like vessels, and I exclude trenches and water channels, which are not still like vessels, as water flows through them.
הֵי סָתוּם וְהֵי מְפוֹרָשׁ? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא: חַד אָמַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ – מְפוֹרָשׁ, וְאֵין לוֹ – סָתוּם, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין לוֹ – מְפוֹרָשׁ, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ – סָתוּם.
§ The baraita on the previous amud states that the Torah permits all fish without fins and scales in vessels both explicitly and implicitly. The Gemara asks: Which verse is the implicit source and which is the explicit source? Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to it. One says: The verse permitting “whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers,” is the explicit source, and the verse prohibiting “all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,” is the implicit source. And one says the opposite, i.e., that the verse prohibiting “all that have not fins and scales” is the explicit source and the verse that permits “whatever has fins and scales” is the implicit source.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ מְפוֹרָשׁ? אָמַר לָךְ: מִינֵּיהּ הוּא דְּקָא מִשְׁתְּרוּ כֵּלִים.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that “whatever has fins and scales” is the explicit source? The Gemara responds: That Sage could have said to you: It is from this verse that the Gemara derives on the previous amud that fish without fins and scales found in vessels are permitted.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין לוֹ מְפוֹרָשׁ? דְּהַאי הוּא דְּקָמוֹכַח אַהַאיְךְ, דְּאִי מֵהַאיְךְ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בְּכֵלִים, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ – נָמֵי לָא תֵּיכוּל.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that “all that have not fins and scales” is the explicit source? The Gemara responds: The reasoning is that it is this verse that proves that the other verse permits all fish in vessels. As, if one attempted to derive whether fish in vessels are permitted from the other verse alone, I would say the opposite: The verse indicates that a fish with fins and scales is permitted only in the seas and rivers; but in vessels, even if it has fins and scales, you may still not eat it. The phrase in the verse “and all that have not fins and scales” indicates that these restrictions apply only to fish in the seas and rivers.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לָא לִשְׁפֵּי אִינָשׁ שִׁיכְרָא בְּצִבְיָיתָא בְּאוּרְתָּא, דִּילְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְעֵיל מִצִּבְיָיתָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל לְכָסָא, (וְהָוֵי) [וְקָא] עוֹבַר מִשּׁוּם ״שֶׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.
§ Rav Huna says: A person should not pour beer into a vessel through straw to filter it at night, lest a creeping animal emerge from the beer above the straw and then fall into the cup. Since the drinker poured the beer through a filter, he will assume that all creatures found in the vessel originated there and are permitted despite lacking fins and scales. He will therefore drink the beer along with the creature, and in doing so, he violates the prohibition: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).
אִי הָכִי, בְּמָנָא נָמֵי, דִּלְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְדַפְנָא דְּמָנָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל לְמָנָא? הָתָם הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
The Gemara objects: If so, that one must be concerned that a creeping animal may have fallen from the straw into the cup, one should also be concerned about any beer found in a vessel, as perhaps some creature emerged from the beer onto the side of the vessel, thereby becoming forbidden, and then fell back into the vessel. The Gemara responds: There, that is the creature’s normal manner of growth, to attach itself to the sides of the vessel, and it is not considered to have emerged from the liquid.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרַאּ, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁשּׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְדַפְנָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל? אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
And from where do you say that emerging in its normal manner of growth does not render it forbidden? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived to include pits, ditches, and caves, that one may bend down and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures inside them? The verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters,” indicating that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted. And one might ask: Let one be concerned that perhaps a creature emerged from the water onto the side of the pit or cave, thereby becoming forbidden, and then fell back into it. Rather, one must say that since that is the creature’s normal manner of growth, it does not render it forbidden. Here too, with regard to beer in a vessel, that is the creature’s normal manner of growth and does not render it forbidden.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הוּנָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ, ״כׇּל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְרַבּוֹת יַבְחוּשִׁין שֶׁסִּינְּנָן; טַעְמָא דְּסִינְּנָן, הָא לָא סִינְּנָן – שְׁרֵי.
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: A baraita is taught that supports your statement that one need be concerned only about filtered beer: The verse: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:41), serves to include gnats found in liquid that one filtered. One may infer: The reason they are prohibited is because one filtered the liquids, but if one did not filter them, the gnats are permitted. Evidently, one need not be concerned that they emerged from the water onto the side of the vessel.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קִישּׁוּת שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה
§ With regard to the prohibition against consuming creeping animals, Shmuel says: A cucumber that became infested with worms
בְּאִבֶּיהָ אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם ״הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.
while attached to the ground is prohibited, due to the prohibition of: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” because the cucumber was considered part of the earth when the worms infested it.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַזִּיזִין שֶׁבָּעֲדָשִׁים, וְאֶת הַיַּתּוּשִׁים שֶׁבַּכַּלִּיסִים, וְתוֹלַעַת שֶׁבַּתְּמָרִים וְשֶׁבַּגְּרוֹגְרוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כׇּל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְרַבּוֹת תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים וְשֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי גְפָנִים.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a comparison of the following two baraitot supports Shmuel’s opinion. As it is taught in one baraita: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth” serves to exclude zizin, a type of insect that is found in lentils, and mosquitoes that are in kelisim, a type of bean, and worms that are in dates and in dried figs. All of these are permitted for consumption because they do not swarm on the earth itself. And it is taught in another baraita that when the verse states: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” the word “every” serves to include as non-kosher worms that are in the roots of olive trees and that are in the roots of vines.
מַאי לָאו, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּפֵירָא, וְהָא בְּאִבֵּיהּ, וְהָא שֶׁלָּא בְּאִבֵּיהּ?
What, is it not that both this and that baraita are referring to insects that are found in the fruit, and this, the latter baraita, deems forbidden fruit that is attached to the ground, and that, the former baraita, deems permitted fruit that is not attached to the ground? This would support Shmuel’s statement that worms in a cucumber attached to the ground are forbidden.
לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי בְּאִבֵּיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּפֵירָא, הָא בְּאִילָנָא גּוּפֵאּ.
The Gemara responds: No, it is possible that both this and that baraita are referring to insects found in vegetation attached to the ground; and the apparent contradiction between the two is not difficult. This, the former baraita, deems permitted insects found in the fruit, and that, the latter baraita, deems forbidden insects found in the tree itself. This interpretation contradicts Shmuel’s statement.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים וְשֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי גְפָנִים״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara notes: The language of the latter baraita is also precise, as it teaches: Worms that are in the roots of olive trees and in the roots of vines, clearly referring to the tree itself rather than the fruit. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that the second interpretation is correct.
בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: פְּרָשָׁהּ וּמֵתָה, מַהוּ? מִקְצָתָהּ, מַהוּ? לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
§ From the above discussion, it is clear that worms that grow in produce not attached to the ground, and have never emerged from the produce, do not fall under the prohibition of: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” because they have never swarmed on the earth. Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: If a worm emerged from the produce but died before it reached the earth, what is the halakha? Is it considered to have swarmed on the earth simply by having emerged? If only part of it emerged, what is the halakha? If it emerged into the air of the world and flew away without landing, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds to all of the above: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: לְגַג תְּמָרָה מַהוּ? לְגַג גַּרְעִינָתָהּ מַהוּ? מִתְּמָרָה לִתְמָרָה מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If a worm was spawned in a date, and it emerges and climbs onto the roof of the date, i.e., its upper part, what is the halakha? Is this considered the normal manner of growth for the worm, in which case this does not render it forbidden, or is the roof of the date considered a separate entity such that crawling there constitutes swarming on the earth? And if it is considered a separate entity, what is the halakha if the worm climbed onto the roof of the date’s pit? Is this considered the normal manner of growth for the worm? If the worm emerged from a date and entered a date that was attached to it, without being exposed to the air, what then is the halakha? The Gemara responds to all of the above: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: קוּקְיָאנֵי אֲסִירִי, מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ.
§ Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: Kukeyanei, worms found in the internal organs of animals, e.g., in the lung and liver, are forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that they came from the outside world, i.e., the animal must have swallowed them along with vegetation, in which case these worms were already included in the prohibition: “Every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten.”
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ, לִישְׁתַּכְחוּ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הָרֶיעִי.
Rav Ashi objects to this: If they came from the outside world, they should be found in the digestive tract as well. Since they are found only in non-digestive organs, they must have originated in the animal and should not be considered creeping animals that swarm on the earth.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: קוּקְיָאנֵי שְׁרוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִינֵּיהּ גָּבְלִי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא קָא אָתוּ – לִישְׁתַּכְחוּ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הָרֶיעִי!
Some state the exchange differently: Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: Kukeyanei are permitted. What is the reason for this? It is that they originate from inside the animal. Rav Ashi said: This is obvious, as if they came from the outside world, they should be found in the digestive tract.
וְהִלְכְתָא: קוּקְיָאנֵי אֲסִירִי, מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵינָם נָיֵים וְעָיְילִי לֵיהּ בְּאוּסְיֵיהּ תּוֹלָעִים. דַּרְנֵי דְּבִשְׂרָא – אֲסִירִי, דְּכַוְורֵי – שַׁרְיָין.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Kukeyanei are forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that the animal sleeps, and worms enter it through its snout. From there they travel to the internal organs without passing through the digestive tract. Worms found in meat between the skin and the flesh are forbidden; those found in fish are permitted.
אֲמַר לַהּ רָבִינָא לְאִימֵּיהּ: אַבְלַע לִי וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא לְרָבִינָא: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא ״וְאֶת נִבְלָתָם תְּשַׁקֵּצוּ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַדְּרָנִים שֶׁבַּבְּהֵמָה?
The Gemara recounts: Ravina said to his mother: Conceal the fish’s worms inside it so I cannot see them, and I will eat the fish. Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Aḥa, said to Ravina: What is different in this case from that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: “Their carcasses you shall have in detestation” (Leviticus 11:11), serves to include worms that are in animals as forbidden? Why are worms in fish permitted?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בְּהֵמָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה הוּא דְּמִשְׁתַּרְיָא, וְהָנֵי מִדְּלָא קָא מַהְנְיָא לְהוּ שְׁחִיטָה – בְּאִיסּוּרַיְיהוּ קָיְימָן, אֲבָל דָּגִים בַּאֲסִיפָה בְּעָלְמָא מִישְׁתְּרוּ, וְהָנֵי כִּי קָא גָבְלָן – בְּהֶיתֵּרָא קָא גָבְלָן.
Ravina said to him: How can these cases be compared? An animal is rendered permitted for consumption only by slaughter. Before it is slaughtered, it and all its contents are considered part of a living animal and prohibited by the Torah. And since the animal’s slaughter is not effective for these worms, they retain their forbidden status. But fish are rendered permitted by merely gathering them; they are not included in the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. And therefore, when these worms originate inside the fish, they originate in a permitted state.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הוֹלֵךְ עַל גָּחוֹן״ – זֶה נָחָשׁ, ״כֹּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַשִּׁילְשׁוּל וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לְשִׁילְשׁוּל, ״עַל אַרְבַּע״ – זֶה עַקְרָב, ״כֹּל הוֹלֵךְ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַחִיפּוּשִׁית וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לְחִיפּוּשִׁית, ״מַרְבֵּה רַגְלַיִם״ – זֶה נָדָל, ״עַד כׇּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַדּוֹמֶה וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לַדּוֹמֶה.
§ The verse states: “Whatever goes upon the belly, and whatever goes upon all fours, or whatever has many feet, even all swarming things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat” (Leviticus 11:42). The Sages taught in a baraita that the phrase “goes upon the belly” is referring to the snake. The preceding word “whatever” serves to include the earthworm and animals similar to an earthworm. The phrase “upon all fours” is referring to the scorpion. The preceding phrase “whatever goes” serves to include the beetle and animals similar to a beetle. The phrase “has many feet” is referring to the centipede. The preceding phrase “or whatever” serves to include animals similar to a centipede and animals similar to those similar to it.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹרְמַסְקִית אוֹמֵר: לִוְיָתָן דָּג טָהוֹר הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גַּאֲוָה אֲפִיקֵי מָגִנִּים״, ״תַּחְתָּיו חַדּוּדֵי חֶרֶשׂ״; ״אֲפִיקֵי מָגִנִּים״ – אֵלּוּ קַשְׂקַשִּׂים שֶׁבּוֹ, ״תַּחְתָּיו חַדּוּדֵי חֶרֶשׂ״ – אֵלּוּ סְנַפִּירִין שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בָּהֶן.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: The leviathan mentioned in the Bible is a kosher fish, as it is stated: “His armor is his pride” (Job 41:7), and: “Sharpest potsherds are under him” (Job 41:22). The phrase “his armor” is referring to his scales, which protect him like armor. The phrase “sharpest potsherds are under him” is referring to fins with which he swims, which are sharp and project from his underside.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת.
