The mishna says that dead animals can join together to get to a requisite amount and creeping creatures also. Is the topic of the mishna for eating or for transferring impurities or both? There are three different opinions. According to Rav the requisite amount for eating creeping creatures is an olive bulk – which is different from the amount required for impurities – a lentil bulk. The gemara questions this opinion from another source and tries to resolve the contradiction.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Meilah 16
לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה – טְהוֹרִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, וּטְמֵאִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. וְלֵוִי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לַאֲכִילָה נָמֵי מִצְטָרְפִין.
The mishna taught that all carcasses join together, which indicates that carcasses of non-kosher animals join together with carcasses of kosher animals, only with regard to ritual impurity. But with regard to the prohibition of eating animal carcasses, kosher animal carcasses are distinct, i.e., they join together only with other kosher animals, and non-kosher animal carcasses are likewise distinct. And Levi says: Even with regard to the prohibition of eating animal carcasses, kosher and non-kosher carcasses join together.
וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: טְהוֹרִים לְעַצְמָן וּטְמֵאִין לְעַצְמָן. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לָא פְּלִיגָא.
And Rav Asi says: Kosher animal carcasses are distinct, and non-kosher animal carcasses are distinct. Since Rav Asi did not specify whether he is referring only to eating or also to ritual impurity, there are those who say that Rav Asi disagrees with the opinion of Rav, i.e., he interprets the mishna as referring to all carcasses of a similar kind, that is, from kosher animals on the one hand, and from non-kosher animals on the other hand. And there are those who say that Rav Asi does not disagree with the opinion of Rav, and concedes that kosher and non-kosher animal carcasses join together with regard to ritual impurity.
מֵיתִיבִי: מִיתַת פָּרָה, וְחַיֵּי גָמָל – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. הָא מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין, וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב אַסִּי!
The Gemara raises an objection against the first explanation of the opinion of Rav Asi from a baraita: With regard to half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a live camel, they do not join together with one another. It can be inferred from here that if both of them are dead, they do join together. Rav can explain this baraita as referring to ritual impurity, but this poses a difficulty to Rav Asi.
אֵימָא: הָא חַיֵּי שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין, וּמַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בַּטְּמֵאָה.
The Gemara answers: One should say that the correct inference from the baraita is not that if both of them, the cow and the camel, are dead, then they join together. Rather, one should infer that if both of them are alive, they join together. And who is the tanna of the baraita? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies even to the limb of a non-kosher animal.
אֲבָל מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַאי? לָא מִצְטָרְפִי? אִם כֵּן, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּרָהֵיט וְתָנֵי ״מִיתַת פָּרָה וְחַיֵּי גָמָל״, הָא אֲפִילּוּ מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם לָא מִצְטָרְפִי!
The Gemara raises a difficulty with this answer. But in that case, what is the halakha if both of them, the cow and the camel, are dead? Do they not join together? If so, why does the tanna run specifically to an extreme case and teach: Half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a live camel? After all, even if both of them are dead, they do not join together.
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חֲצִי זַיִת פָּרָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ וַחֲצִי זַיִת גָּמָל בְּמִיתָתָהּ – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲבָל חֲצִי זַיִת מִפָּרָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִגָּמָל, בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ – מִצְטָרְפִין. קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא אַסֵּיפָא! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין!?
And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: Half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a cow when it is alive and half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a camel when it is dead do not join together; but half an olive-bulk from a cow and half an olive-bulk from a camel, whether alive or dead, do join together. The first clause in the baraita is difficult as it is apparently contradicted by the latter clause. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from the baraita that if there is half an olive-bulk from each of the two of them when they are dead, they join together?
אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.
The Gemara answers: Rav Asi could have said to you that this tanna holds that a prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already exists. He maintains that the prohibition of eating an animal carcass takes effect even with regard to the flesh of a non-kosher animal, which is already prohibited, and for this reason the two half olive-bulks join together, as the same prohibition against eating an animal carcass applies to both. By contrast, Rav Asi himself maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and therefore this baraita does not pose a difficulty to his opinion that the two do not combine.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: אֲכִילַת שְׁרָצִים – לוֹקֶה עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. מַאי טַעְמָא? ׳אֲכִילָה׳ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to eating creeping animals, one is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of them. What is the reason? It is because the term “eating” is written in the Torah with regard to them. The verse states: “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The term “eating” is invariably referring to consuming an olive-bulk.
וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא״ – פָּתַח הַכָּתוּב בַּאֲכִילָה, וְסִיֵּים בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina teach the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The verse states: “You shall separate between the kosher animal and the non-kosher, and between the non-kosher bird and the kosher; and you shall not make your souls detestable by animal, or by bird, or by anything that swarms on the ground, which I have set apart for you as impure” (Leviticus 20:25). The verse opens with eating creeping animals, in the phrase “You shall not make your souls detestable,” and it ends with the ritual impurity of creeping animals: “Which I have set apart for you as impure.”
מָה טוּמְאָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אַף אֲכִילָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְקַלְּסֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְקַשְׁיָא לִדְרַב!
The baraita explains: This teaches that just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts ritual impurity through contact when it is the volume of a lentil-bulk, so too, one is liable for the prohibition of eating a creeping animal when it is the volume of a lentil-bulk. And Rabbi Yoḥanan praised [vekilseih] Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina for citing this baraita. And this poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav, who maintains that one is flogged only if he eats an olive-bulk of creeping animals.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – בְּמִיתָתָן, כָּאן – בְּחַיֵּיהֶן.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to eating creeping animals when they are dead, at which stage they impart ritual impurity and one is liable for eating a lentil-bulk. By contrast, there, Rav is speaking about eating creeping animals when they are alive, which do not yet impart ritual impurity. For this reason one is flogged only if he eats an olive-bulk.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא רַב אַמַּתְנִיתִין קָאֵי, וּמַתְנִיתִין ״כׇּל הַשְּׁרָצִים״ קָתָנֵי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִיתָתָן. לָאו דְּאִיכָּא פּוּרְתָּא מֵהַאי וּפוּרְתָּא מֵהַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: הָהִיא דִּיּוּקָא דִּילָךְ הוּא. רַב – שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא קָאָמַר.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But in his statement Rav was referring to the mishna, and the mishna teaches: And all the creeping animals join together to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. This indicates that this halakha applies even when they are dead. Is the mishna not referring to a case where there is a bit of this live creeping animal and a bit of that carcass of a creeping animal, which together combine to amount to an olive-bulk? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: This deductive inference, that Rav is referring to the mishna, is yours. But in fact Rav was merely saying a halakha unconnected to the mishna. Therefore, there is no proof that Rav was speaking about the carcasses of creeping animals.
וְקַלְּסֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵיתִיבִי: הָאֵיבָרִין – אֵין לָהֶן שִׁיעוּר, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת נְבֵלָה וּפָחוֹת מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ – מְטַמְּאִין. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת!
The Gemara stated: And Rabbi Yoḥanan praised Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina for citing the baraita that rules that one is liable for violating the prohibition of eating a creeping animal by the amount of a lentil-bulk. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Oholot 1:7): The whole limbs of impure bodies have no minimum measure with regard to imparting ritual impurity. Even if the limbs were less than an olive-bulk of a carcass or less than a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, they impart ritual impurity. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna is referring to the halakhot of ritual impurity; but with regard to the minimum measure which renders one liable for consumption, one is flogged for eating them only if they amount to an olive-bulk.
אָמַר רָבָא: בְּמוּבְדָּלִין דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב.
Rava says in resolution of the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one is flogged for eating even a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, he was referring only to those eight creeping animals of which the verse speaks, which are separated from all other creeping animals. The Torah (Leviticus 11:29–32) lists eight types of creeping animals, and Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring specifically to those eight. He maintains that one is flogged for eating a lentil-bulk of such creatures, whereas in the case of other creeping animals one is flogged only for eating an olive-bulk of them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי, לִיפְלְגִי בֵּין מוּבְדֶּלֶת לְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּבְדֶּלֶת.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: If that is so, that there is a difference in the measure of liability for consumption between various types of creeping animals, the same should also apply with regard to an animal. Since the Torah in Leviticus 20:25 juxtaposes both kosher animals and non-kosher animals to creeping animals, one can say that an analogous difference should apply here as well: Let the halakha distinguish between flesh from the carcass of kosher animals, which is separated from other types in that it is permitted in consumption by the Torah, and flesh from the carcass of a non-kosher animal, which is not separated, i.e., which is not permitted by the Torah. Consequently, if the carcass of a kosher animal imparts ritual impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk of flesh, the measure of flesh from the carcass of a non-kosher animal that imparts ritual impurity should be larger, i.e., an egg-bulk.
Follow 
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.
When does a Person’s Unique Da’at Have Significance? – Sukkah – Gefet 2
07.23.2021 | י״ד באב תשפ״א
Ketubot 29: If a Kohen Gadol Rapes a Widow, Can They Marry?
08.04.2022 | ז׳ באב תשפ״ב
A Daf Of Their Own – Ruler or Leader: King vs. President
09.07.2025 | י״ד באלול תשפ״ה
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.
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.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
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!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
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!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
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.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, 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.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
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.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
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!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
Meilah 16
לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה – טְהוֹרִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, וּטְמֵאִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. וְלֵוִי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לַאֲכִילָה נָמֵי מִצְטָרְפִין.
The mishna taught that all carcasses join together, which indicates that carcasses of non-kosher animals join together with carcasses of kosher animals, only with regard to ritual impurity. But with regard to the prohibition of eating animal carcasses, kosher animal carcasses are distinct, i.e., they join together only with other kosher animals, and non-kosher animal carcasses are likewise distinct. And Levi says: Even with regard to the prohibition of eating animal carcasses, kosher and non-kosher carcasses join together.
וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: טְהוֹרִים לְעַצְמָן וּטְמֵאִין לְעַצְמָן. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לָא פְּלִיגָא.
And Rav Asi says: Kosher animal carcasses are distinct, and non-kosher animal carcasses are distinct. Since Rav Asi did not specify whether he is referring only to eating or also to ritual impurity, there are those who say that Rav Asi disagrees with the opinion of Rav, i.e., he interprets the mishna as referring to all carcasses of a similar kind, that is, from kosher animals on the one hand, and from non-kosher animals on the other hand. And there are those who say that Rav Asi does not disagree with the opinion of Rav, and concedes that kosher and non-kosher animal carcasses join together with regard to ritual impurity.
מֵיתִיבִי: מִיתַת פָּרָה, וְחַיֵּי גָמָל – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. הָא מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין, וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב אַסִּי!
The Gemara raises an objection against the first explanation of the opinion of Rav Asi from a baraita: With regard to half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a live camel, they do not join together with one another. It can be inferred from here that if both of them are dead, they do join together. Rav can explain this baraita as referring to ritual impurity, but this poses a difficulty to Rav Asi.
אֵימָא: הָא חַיֵּי שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין, וּמַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בַּטְּמֵאָה.
The Gemara answers: One should say that the correct inference from the baraita is not that if both of them, the cow and the camel, are dead, then they join together. Rather, one should infer that if both of them are alive, they join together. And who is the tanna of the baraita? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies even to the limb of a non-kosher animal.
אֲבָל מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַאי? לָא מִצְטָרְפִי? אִם כֵּן, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּרָהֵיט וְתָנֵי ״מִיתַת פָּרָה וְחַיֵּי גָמָל״, הָא אֲפִילּוּ מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם לָא מִצְטָרְפִי!
The Gemara raises a difficulty with this answer. But in that case, what is the halakha if both of them, the cow and the camel, are dead? Do they not join together? If so, why does the tanna run specifically to an extreme case and teach: Half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a live camel? After all, even if both of them are dead, they do not join together.
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חֲצִי זַיִת פָּרָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ וַחֲצִי זַיִת גָּמָל בְּמִיתָתָהּ – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲבָל חֲצִי זַיִת מִפָּרָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִגָּמָל, בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ – מִצְטָרְפִין. קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא אַסֵּיפָא! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין!?
And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: Half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a cow when it is alive and half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a camel when it is dead do not join together; but half an olive-bulk from a cow and half an olive-bulk from a camel, whether alive or dead, do join together. The first clause in the baraita is difficult as it is apparently contradicted by the latter clause. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from the baraita that if there is half an olive-bulk from each of the two of them when they are dead, they join together?
אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.
The Gemara answers: Rav Asi could have said to you that this tanna holds that a prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already exists. He maintains that the prohibition of eating an animal carcass takes effect even with regard to the flesh of a non-kosher animal, which is already prohibited, and for this reason the two half olive-bulks join together, as the same prohibition against eating an animal carcass applies to both. By contrast, Rav Asi himself maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and therefore this baraita does not pose a difficulty to his opinion that the two do not combine.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: אֲכִילַת שְׁרָצִים – לוֹקֶה עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. מַאי טַעְמָא? ׳אֲכִילָה׳ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to eating creeping animals, one is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of them. What is the reason? It is because the term “eating” is written in the Torah with regard to them. The verse states: “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The term “eating” is invariably referring to consuming an olive-bulk.
וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא״ – פָּתַח הַכָּתוּב בַּאֲכִילָה, וְסִיֵּים בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina teach the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The verse states: “You shall separate between the kosher animal and the non-kosher, and between the non-kosher bird and the kosher; and you shall not make your souls detestable by animal, or by bird, or by anything that swarms on the ground, which I have set apart for you as impure” (Leviticus 20:25). The verse opens with eating creeping animals, in the phrase “You shall not make your souls detestable,” and it ends with the ritual impurity of creeping animals: “Which I have set apart for you as impure.”
מָה טוּמְאָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אַף אֲכִילָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְקַלְּסֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְקַשְׁיָא לִדְרַב!
The baraita explains: This teaches that just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts ritual impurity through contact when it is the volume of a lentil-bulk, so too, one is liable for the prohibition of eating a creeping animal when it is the volume of a lentil-bulk. And Rabbi Yoḥanan praised [vekilseih] Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina for citing this baraita. And this poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav, who maintains that one is flogged only if he eats an olive-bulk of creeping animals.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – בְּמִיתָתָן, כָּאן – בְּחַיֵּיהֶן.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to eating creeping animals when they are dead, at which stage they impart ritual impurity and one is liable for eating a lentil-bulk. By contrast, there, Rav is speaking about eating creeping animals when they are alive, which do not yet impart ritual impurity. For this reason one is flogged only if he eats an olive-bulk.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא רַב אַמַּתְנִיתִין קָאֵי, וּמַתְנִיתִין ״כׇּל הַשְּׁרָצִים״ קָתָנֵי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִיתָתָן. לָאו דְּאִיכָּא פּוּרְתָּא מֵהַאי וּפוּרְתָּא מֵהַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: הָהִיא דִּיּוּקָא דִּילָךְ הוּא. רַב – שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא קָאָמַר.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But in his statement Rav was referring to the mishna, and the mishna teaches: And all the creeping animals join together to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. This indicates that this halakha applies even when they are dead. Is the mishna not referring to a case where there is a bit of this live creeping animal and a bit of that carcass of a creeping animal, which together combine to amount to an olive-bulk? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: This deductive inference, that Rav is referring to the mishna, is yours. But in fact Rav was merely saying a halakha unconnected to the mishna. Therefore, there is no proof that Rav was speaking about the carcasses of creeping animals.
וְקַלְּסֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵיתִיבִי: הָאֵיבָרִין – אֵין לָהֶן שִׁיעוּר, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת נְבֵלָה וּפָחוֹת מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ – מְטַמְּאִין. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת!
The Gemara stated: And Rabbi Yoḥanan praised Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina for citing the baraita that rules that one is liable for violating the prohibition of eating a creeping animal by the amount of a lentil-bulk. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Oholot 1:7): The whole limbs of impure bodies have no minimum measure with regard to imparting ritual impurity. Even if the limbs were less than an olive-bulk of a carcass or less than a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, they impart ritual impurity. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna is referring to the halakhot of ritual impurity; but with regard to the minimum measure which renders one liable for consumption, one is flogged for eating them only if they amount to an olive-bulk.
אָמַר רָבָא: בְּמוּבְדָּלִין דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב.
Rava says in resolution of the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one is flogged for eating even a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, he was referring only to those eight creeping animals of which the verse speaks, which are separated from all other creeping animals. The Torah (Leviticus 11:29–32) lists eight types of creeping animals, and Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring specifically to those eight. He maintains that one is flogged for eating a lentil-bulk of such creatures, whereas in the case of other creeping animals one is flogged only for eating an olive-bulk of them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי, לִיפְלְגִי בֵּין מוּבְדֶּלֶת לְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּבְדֶּלֶת.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: If that is so, that there is a difference in the measure of liability for consumption between various types of creeping animals, the same should also apply with regard to an animal. Since the Torah in Leviticus 20:25 juxtaposes both kosher animals and non-kosher animals to creeping animals, one can say that an analogous difference should apply here as well: Let the halakha distinguish between flesh from the carcass of kosher animals, which is separated from other types in that it is permitted in consumption by the Torah, and flesh from the carcass of a non-kosher animal, which is not separated, i.e., which is not permitted by the Torah. Consequently, if the carcass of a kosher animal imparts ritual impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk of flesh, the measure of flesh from the carcass of a non-kosher animal that imparts ritual impurity should be larger, i.e., an egg-bulk.
Follow
