Previous daf

1)

(a) We cite a Beraisa 'Beheimah Tehorah she'Yaldah Miyn Beheimah Temei'ah Asur ba'Achilah'. Assuming that it resembles its mother 'Rosho ve'Rubo' the Tana concludes - 'Chayav bi'Vechorah'.

(b) We refute the proof from there that Rebbi Shimon requires a camel, the son of a cow to resemble its mother Rosho ve'Rubo, regarding the Heter Achilah, like he does regarding the Bechorah - by confining the ruling in the Seifa to the Din of Bechorah ...

(c) ... and we attempt to prove this from the Beraisa itself, which appears to deliberately switch from Achilah in the Reisha to Bechorah in the Seifa, in order to preclude the Din of Achilah from its final ruling.

(d) We refute this proof however - by ascribing the Tana's switch (not to preclude the Din of Achilah, but) to teach us that Rosho ve'Rubo by the Bechorah, in spite of the Pasuk "Ach Bechor Shor", which suggests that the Bechor must resemble its mother completely.

(a) We cite another Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Yehoshua. Based on the Pasuk "Ach es Zeh Lo Sochlu mi'Ma'alei ha'Geirah ... ", he rules - that a Tamei that is born from a Tahor is permitted (to eat), provided its father is a Tahor, too.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer maintains that Rebbi Yehoshua's case hardly needs a Pasuk to permit it - since it is permitted anyway.

(c) So he learns the Pasuk - is talking about where the father is a Tamei.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tocheilu, Shor Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim" - that we do indeed go after the mother, and not after the father.

(a) There is no proof from here that Rebbi Shimon permits eating a camel the son of a cow, with even just one or two Simanim like its mother - because this Tana might hold like him with regard to forbidding it when it does not resemble its mother at all, but not with regard to how much it must resemble it.

(b) Another Lashon queries Rebbi Yehoshua's statement 'Iburo min ha'Tamei' from a factual statement by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - who said that a Tahor animal cannot become pregnant through a Tamei one (or vice-versa)?

(c) Besides a small category of animal from a large one (or vice-versa), a Chayah and a Beheimah cannot inter-breed either.

(d) And we reconcile Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi with the Beraisa - by adding 'except for Rebbi Eliezer and his disputant', who argue in Chulin over whether Oso ve'es B'no applies to a Coy that is born from a he-goat and a female deer (even though the one is a Beheimah, the other, a Chayah).

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes Rebbi Eliezer ('Iburo min ha'Tamei') by a Kalut ben Parah - meaning a camel (which has partially cloven hooves) born to a cow ...

(b) ... and Rebbi Eliezer holds like - Rebbi Shimon (in our Sugya).

(c) We refute the proof from here that Rebbi Shimon does not require 'Rosho ve'Rubo' like its mother, to permit the Kalut ben Parah to be eaten - like we did earlier, in that Rebbi Eliezer may well hold like Rebbi Shimon in one point, but not in the other.

(a) Initially, we establish the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua (who argue over whether the father needs to be of a Kasher species too, or not) as to - whether 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem' is Mutar (Rebbi Eliezer) or Asur (Rebbi Yehoshua).

(b) They also argue in a Beraisa about the baby of a Tereifah, whose father is not a Tereifah, which Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies from the Mizbe'ach - but which Rebbi Yeshoshua permits.

(c) The problem with this is - that seeing as here Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is Asur', whilst according to Rebbi Yeshoshua, it is Asur, the two Tana'im appear to have switched their opinions there.

(d) We answer that Rebbi ...

1. ... Eliezer really holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur, and the reason that he permits a camel whose mother is a cow and whose father, a camel, to be eaten is - because of the 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' "Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim", which teaches that in this instance alone we go after the mother exclusively.
2. ... Yehoshua really holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Mutar'. Yet in our Sugya, he forbids a camel whose mother is a cow and whose father, a camel, to be eaten - because then the Torah ought to have written "Shor Seh Kesev ve'Seh Eiz" (in the singular). "Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim" implies that both the mother and the father must of the species of a sheep or of a goat.

(a) We finally resolve our She'eilah from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon clearly states his view in the matter. After learning from the two "Gamal's" that even a camel that is born from a cow is forbidden, he permits it - provided its head and most of its body resembles its mother ...

(b) ... a clear proof that Rebbi Shimon compares the Din of Achilah to that of the Bechorah in this regard.

(a) We ask whether the urine of a donkey is permitted. We did not ask the same She'eilah about the urine of a camel or a horse - which is clear and is therefore permitted, since it is merely the water that it digested and is now emitting ...

(b) ... unlike that of a donkey, whose urine is murky and can therefore be compared to its milk (which is part of the donkey itself), or perhaps it too, is merely the water that it digested ... .

(c) Rav Sheishes resolves the She'eilah from 'Kol ha'Yotzei min *ha'Tamei*' (in our Mishnah) - implying that whatever is of the same species as what is Tamei (incorporating a donkey's urine, which like milk, comes from the body of the donkey) is forbidden.

(d) It seems that if the Tana had said 'Kol ha'Yotzei min *Tamei*, Tamei - then whatever comes out of something Tamei would be Tamei, even the urine of camels and horses (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

8)

(a) According to the second Lashon, we only ask about the urine of a donkey, and not about that of a camel or a horse - because (unlike the latter, which are considered pure waste), because people drink it - as a cure for jaundice.

(b) And Rav Sheishes resolves the She'eilah - from our Mishnah, which forbids anything that comes from a Tamei animal.

(c) We query this however, from a Beraisa - which give the reason for the Torah's concession to eat honey, as - the fact that it is made entirely from a foreign element (pollen) that the bee digests (and is not manufactured from any part of the bee's body).

(d) In that case - the same ought to apply to the donkey's urine (which is merely water according to this Lashon, so why does Rav Sheishes forbid it)?

(a) Rav Sheishes, we reply, holds like Rebbi Ya'akov - who initially extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ach es *Zeh* Tochlu mi'Kol Sheretz ha'Of" that Sheretz Of Tamei (i.e. flying insects) are forbidden. But that is impossible - since the Torah expressly forbids it (so why should we need a D'rashah for it)?

(b) What he therefore Darshens from this Pasuk (or from the Pasuk forbidding Sheretz ha'Of) is - that although Sheretz Of Tamei is forbidden, what it produces is permitted (with reference to bees' honey).

(c) Rebbi Ya'akov precludes the honey of wasps and hornets from the concession - because they are not called honey (S'tam), but hornets' honey and wasps' honey.

(d) We therefore comment that the author of the Beraisa which permits the latter - is not Rebbi Ya'akov.

(a) The Beraisa adds that the honey of wasps and hornets is Tahor, from which we infer - that bees' honey is Tamei ...

(b) ... meaning - that it does not require a specific Machshavah that one intends to eat it to render it subject to Tum'as Ochlin (which the honey of wasps and hornets does).

(c) Another Beraisa supports this - stating specifically that the honey in a beehive is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin without Machshavah.

(a) 'Bei'i de'Yachmurta' - are egg-shaped objects that appear in the dung of a she-donkey (or a female antelope).

(b) The Rabbanan want to declare them Asur - because they assumed them to have broken off the body of the male during mating, in which case they are 'Eiver min ha'Chai'.

(c) But Rav Safra informed them that they are permitted - because they are formed from the congealed seed of a male gazelle, which mated with the Yachmurta, after being rejected by its own mate (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(a) Rav Huna permits the skin-like substance (a sort of placenta) on the face of a baby donkey when it is born - because it is merely waste from the mother's body.

(b) Rav Chisda supports Rav Huna with a Beraisa, which rules that such a skin that is found on the face of a human baby 'Bein Chai Bein Meis' - is Tahor ...

(c) ... which Rav Chisda explains to mean - whether the baby and its mother are alive or whether they are dead ...

(d) ... in which case it is neither considered part of the baby nor of the mother (a proof for Rav Huna).

(a) Rav Huna rejects this proof however - by explaining 'Bein Chai Bein Meis' to refer to the baby, but the mother must be alive, since the skin is considered part of the mother [like the placenta]).

(b) But when Rav Chisda pointed out to him that he (Rav Chisda) had merely quoted the words of another Beraisa, he retorted - that if it is a Beraisa, then there is nothing more to say.

(a) Our Mishnah ...

1. ... permits a Tahor fish that is swallowed by a Tamei fish.
2. ... forbids a Tamei fish that is swallowed by a Tahor one.

(b) When the Tana refers to a Tamei fish that swallowed a Tahor fish, he implies that we saw this happening. Otherwise - bearing in mind that Tamei fish produce their babies in their stomachs, we would assume that the baby was its own.

(c) The Beraisa draws a distinction between Tamei fish - which produce their babies inside their stomachs, and Tahor fish, which lay eggs.

(d) The problem with the Mishnah's original ruling is - that even if we did see the fish swallow the Tahor fish, who says that the fish that we subsequently find is the one that it swallowed? Perhaps it is its own baby that we find, and the one that it swallowed became digested?

(a) Rav Sheishes establishes the Beraisa where the Tahor fish was found in the fish's back passage - whereas had it been its own baby, one would have expected to find it in its stomach.

(b) In order to solve the problem, Rav Papa claims they found it - in the fi sh's throat.

(c) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, it is not a question of where they found it, but how they found it - since the Mishnah must be speaking when they found it fully developed, which would be unlikely if it was its own baby.

(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with the initial assumption, that we saw the Tamei fish swallow the Tahor one. According to him, it is not necessary to say that - because the majority of fish breed their own species, and since we found another species of fish inside it, we assume that it is not its own baby, but that it must have swallowed it.