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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
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 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
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
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
Oceanside NY, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
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
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, 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.
