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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 3, 2019 | 讚壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Meilah 16

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.


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

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜讟诪讗讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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.

讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讟讛讜专讬诐 诇注爪诪谉 讜讟诪讗讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讗

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬转转 驻专讛 讜讞讬讬 讙诪诇 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讛讗 诪讬转转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讗住讬

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.

讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讞讬讬 砖谞讬讛诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 谞讜讛讙 讘讟诪讗讛

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.

讗讘诇 诪讬转转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚专讛讬讟 讜转谞讬 诪讬转转 驻专讛 讜讞讬讬 讙诪诇 讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转转 砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

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.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讞爪讬 讝讬转 驻专讛 讘讞讬讬讛 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讙诪诇 讘诪讬转转讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗讘诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪驻专讛 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讙诪诇 讘讬谉 讘讞讬讬讛 讘讬谉 讘诪讬转转讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗住讬驻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讬转转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗住讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讻讬诇转 砖专爪讬诐 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讜 讘讻讝讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 壮讗讻讬诇讛壮 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

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 鈥渆ating鈥 is written in the Torah with regard to them. The verse states: 鈥淎nd every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41). The term 鈥渆ating鈥 is invariably referring to consuming an olive-bulk.

讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讘讚诇转诐 讘讬谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讟讛专讛 诇讟诪讗讛 讜讘讬谉 讛注讜祝 讛讟诪讗 诇讟讛专 讜诇讗 转砖拽爪讜 讗转 谞驻砖转讬讻诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘注讜祝 讜讘讻诇 讗砖专 转专诪砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讗砖专 讛讘讚诇转讬 诇讻诐 诇讟诪讗 驻转讞 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜住讬讬诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi 岣nina teach the following baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: The verse states: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (Leviticus 20:25). The verse opens with eating creeping animals, in the phrase 鈥淵ou shall not make your souls detestable,鈥 and it ends with the ritual impurity of creeping animals: 鈥淲hich I have set apart for you as impure.鈥

诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗祝 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻注讚砖讛 讜拽诇住讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讚专讘

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 Yo岣nan praised [vekilseih] Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi 岣nina 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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪讬转转谉 讻讗谉 讘讞讬讬讛谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗讬 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻诇 讛砖专爪讬诐 拽转谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬转转谉 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讜专转讗 诪讛讗讬 讜驻讜专转讗 诪讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讛讬讗 讚讬讜拽讗 讚讬诇讱 讛讜讗 专讘 砖诪注转讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪专

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.

讜拽诇住讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗讬讘专讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 砖讬注讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 谞讘诇讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻注讚砖讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara stated: And Rabbi Yo岣nan praised Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi 岣nina 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪讜讘讚诇讬谉 讚讘专 讛讻转讜讘

Rava says in resolution of the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statements: When Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥32) lists eight types of creeping animals, and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬谉 诪讜讘讚诇转 诇砖讗讬谞讛 诪讜讘讚诇转

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Meilah 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Meilah 16

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜讟诪讗讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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.

讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讟讛讜专讬诐 诇注爪诪谉 讜讟诪讗讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讗

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬转转 驻专讛 讜讞讬讬 讙诪诇 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讛讗 诪讬转转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讗住讬

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.

讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讞讬讬 砖谞讬讛诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 谞讜讛讙 讘讟诪讗讛

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.

讗讘诇 诪讬转转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚专讛讬讟 讜转谞讬 诪讬转转 驻专讛 讜讞讬讬 讙诪诇 讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转转 砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

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.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讞爪讬 讝讬转 驻专讛 讘讞讬讬讛 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讙诪诇 讘诪讬转转讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗讘诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪驻专讛 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讙诪诇 讘讬谉 讘讞讬讬讛 讘讬谉 讘诪讬转转讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗住讬驻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讬转转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗住讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讻讬诇转 砖专爪讬诐 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讜 讘讻讝讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 壮讗讻讬诇讛壮 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

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 鈥渆ating鈥 is written in the Torah with regard to them. The verse states: 鈥淎nd every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41). The term 鈥渆ating鈥 is invariably referring to consuming an olive-bulk.

讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讘讚诇转诐 讘讬谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讟讛专讛 诇讟诪讗讛 讜讘讬谉 讛注讜祝 讛讟诪讗 诇讟讛专 讜诇讗 转砖拽爪讜 讗转 谞驻砖转讬讻诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘注讜祝 讜讘讻诇 讗砖专 转专诪砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讗砖专 讛讘讚诇转讬 诇讻诐 诇讟诪讗 驻转讞 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜住讬讬诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi 岣nina teach the following baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: The verse states: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (Leviticus 20:25). The verse opens with eating creeping animals, in the phrase 鈥淵ou shall not make your souls detestable,鈥 and it ends with the ritual impurity of creeping animals: 鈥淲hich I have set apart for you as impure.鈥

诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗祝 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻注讚砖讛 讜拽诇住讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讚专讘

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 Yo岣nan praised [vekilseih] Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi 岣nina 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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪讬转转谉 讻讗谉 讘讞讬讬讛谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗讬 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻诇 讛砖专爪讬诐 拽转谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬转转谉 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讜专转讗 诪讛讗讬 讜驻讜专转讗 诪讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讛讬讗 讚讬讜拽讗 讚讬诇讱 讛讜讗 专讘 砖诪注转讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪专

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.

讜拽诇住讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗讬讘专讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 砖讬注讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 谞讘诇讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻注讚砖讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara stated: And Rabbi Yo岣nan praised Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi 岣nina 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪讜讘讚诇讬谉 讚讘专 讛讻转讜讘

Rava says in resolution of the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statements: When Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥32) lists eight types of creeping animals, and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬谉 诪讜讘讚诇转 诇砖讗讬谞讛 诪讜讘讚诇转

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.

Scroll To Top