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.
Gittin 12: The King’s Daughter’s Glory: In the Palace – and the Workplace
05.28.2023 | ח׳ בסיון תשפ״ג
Eruvin 46: When the Many Dispute the One, and the One Wins
09.24.2020 | ו׳ בתשרי תשפ״א
Pesachim 18: Back to the Leviticus Source: Text vs. Logic
12.09.2020 | כ״ג בכסלו תשפ״א
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.
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
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, 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
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
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!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
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.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, 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
