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.
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
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.
Menahot 60: Bringing the Grain-Offering Near and/or Waving It
03.12.2026 | כ״ג באדר תשפ״ו
Do Words Matter: Words Enabling the Mutation of Antisemitism
01.26.2023 | ד׳ בשבט תשפ״ג
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.
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, 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!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
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
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
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
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 .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
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
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
