Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A "TAMEI" BORN TO A "TAHOR"

(a) Answer #1 (Beraisa): If a Tahor animal gave birth to a Tamei animal, it is forbidden; if its head and majority resemble its mother, Bechorah applies to it.

1. This is like R. Shimon, he does not permit eating it unless the head and majority resemble its mother!

(b) Rejection: No, he requires similarity of the head and majority only for Kedushas Bechor.
(c) Support: He mentioned the prohibition to eat, he did not mention what permits it to be eaten, only what is Mechayev Bechorah;

1. This shows that similarity of the head and majority are not needed for eating, only for Kedushas Bechor!

(d) Rejection: No, he requires them even for eating;

1. He had to teach them regarding Bechor - one might have thought that since it says "Ach Bechor Shor," it must totally resemble its mother, similarity of the head and majority would not suffice - the Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(e) Version #1 - Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): "Ach Es Zeh Lo Sochelu mi'Ma'alei ha'Gera umi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah Es ha'Gamal" - a [full] camel is forbidden, but a child with even one Siman (i.e. resemblance to its mother) is permitted;

1. A Tamei child with one Siman born to two Tahor parents is permitted.
2. Suggestion: Perhaps one Siman suffices even if the father is Tamei!
3. Rejection: "Seh Kevasim v'Seh Izim" - both parents must be sheep (or goats).
4. R. Eliezer says, we do not need the verse to permit if both parents are sheep, rather, if only the mother is a sheep.
5. Suggestion: Perhaps it permits only if both parents are sheep!
6. Rejection: "Seh... Seh" - even if only the mother is a Seh.
7. Summation of answer: The Tana calls a child of Tahor parents 'Tamei' (because it resembles a Tamei species) - this is like R. Shimon (Chachamim permit it, they would not call it Tamei), and one Siman suffices!

(f) Rejection: The Tana holds like R. Shimon in one way (he forbids a Tamei born to a Tahor), and argues with him in one way (the Tana says that any resemblance to the mother permits, R. Shimon requires the head and majority).
(g) Version #2 - Answer #2: We learn from the resolution of a difficulty concerning the above Beraisa:

1. Question: R. Eliezer discusses a child of a Tahor and Tamei - but R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that the following combinations cannot lead to pregnancy!

i. The male *or* female is Tahor, and the other is Tamei;
ii. One is large (a work animal), and the other is small;
iii. [According to Chachamim, if] one is a Behemah, the other is a Chayah;
iv. R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua argue with this, they say that a Chayah can impregnate a Behemah.

2. Answer (R. Yirmeyah): In the Beraisa, the "Tamei" father (that impregnated a Tahor animal) was itself born to a Tahor animal; this is like R. Shimon (who forbids eating it, therefore it is called Tamei);
3. The Beraisa says that one Siman is enough!

(h) Rejection: The Tana holds like R. Shimon in one way, and argues with him in one way. (End of Version #2)
(i) Question: In the Beraisa, R. Eliezer permits Zeh v'Zeh Gorem (something that results from two (or more) causes, and one of the causes is forbidden), and R. Yehoshua forbids it - elsewhere, each says the opposite!

1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): The offspring of a Tereifah is invalid for a Korban;
2. R. Yehoshua says, it is valid.

(j) Answer - part 1: Normally, R. Eliezer forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem - here is different, for the Torah could have said '(Shor...) Kevasim....Izim';

1. It says "*Seh* Kevasim *Seh* Izim" to include any Seh (i.e. even if its father was Tamei).

(k) Answer - part 2: Normally, R. Yehoshua permits Zeh v'Zeh Gorem - here is different, for the Torah could have said "Seh Keves Seh Ez";

1. It says "Kevas*im*... Iz*im*" to require that both parents to be sheep (or goats).

(l) Answer #3 (Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Gamal" is written twice, to forbid a camel born to a camel, and a camel born to a cow;

1. If its head and majority resemble its mother, it may be eaten.

(a) (Mishnah): What comes from something Tamei is Tamei, what comes from something Tahor is Tahor.
(b) Question: It is permitted to drink a donkey's urine?

1. Question: Why was the question only about a donkey's urine, not that of horses and camels?
2. Version #1: We do not ask about urine of horses and camels, for it is watery, it is not at all like milk [of a Tamei animal, which is forbidden]; essentially, it is like the water the animal drank, surely it is permitted.
3. We ask about donkey's urine, for it is thick, like milk;

i. Since it is drawn from its body, it is forbidden;
ii. Or, perhaps it is essentially the water the animal drank, just the animal's body heat thickens it!

(c) Answer (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah): What comes Min (from) ha'Tamei is Tamei, what comes from something Tahor is Tahor;

1. It does not say "mi'Tamei," which connotes a part of the Tamei animal itself (Rashi; R Gershom - anything inside it); rather, "Min ha'Tamei," anything like part of it (and its urine is thick like milk).

2. Version #2: We do not ask about urine of horses and camels, for no one drinks this;
3. We ask about donkey's urine, for people drink it, it is a cure for Yerakon (jaundice).

(d) Answer (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah): What comes from something Tamei is Tamei, what comes from something Tahor is Tahor;

1. This urine comes from something Tamei. (End of Version #2)

(e) Question (Beraisa): It is permitted to eat bee's honey because bees merely spit out what they ate (from flowers), honey does not contain any part of the bee.
(f) Answer: Rav Sheshes holds like R. Yakov:

1. (Beraisa - R. Yakov):"Ach Es Zeh Tochlu mi'Kol Sheretz ha'Of" - but not a Tamei Sheretz ha'Of.
2. Question: The previous verse explicitly forbids this!
3. Answer: Rather, we infer (from the inference; alternatively - from the previous verse), you may not eat a Tamei Sheretz ha'Of, but you may eat what it is Mashritz (emits from its body), i.e. bee's honey.
4. Suggestion: Perhaps even honey of Gazin (Rashi - locust; Tosfos - falcon) and Tzir'in (hornets) are permitted!
5. Rejection: No, they are forbidden.
6. Question: [The verse does not specify which honey to permit, so] why do we permit bee's honey and forbid the others, and not vice-versa?
7. Answer: We permit bee's honey, for people call it "honey," but the others are always called by an accompanying name.

(g) Question: Who is the Tana of the following Mishnah?

1. (Mishnah): Honey of Gazin and Tzir'in is Tahor (not Mekabel Tum'ah), it is permitted to eat it.

(h) Answer: It is unlike R. Yakov.
(i) Inference: The Mishnah says that it is Tahor - this means that it is not Mekabel Tum'ah until one intends to eat it.
(j) Support (Beraisa): Honey (i.e. of bees, only they live) in a hive is Mekabel Tum'as Ochlim without intent.
(k) (Rabanan): Chali (pieces of flesh that fall out of the womb) of a Yachmur (antelope) are testicles (Rashi; R. Gershom - eggs), they are forbidden (they are Ever Min ha'Chai; R. Gershom - the Heter to eat bird eggs does not apply to them).
(l) (Rav Safra): No, they come from semen of an Ayal (gazelle). (It has difficulty mating with ewes, it tries mating with an antelope, some of the semen falls out and hardens; since it was originally putrid, it is permitted.)
(m) (Rav Huna): Skin opposite the face of a donkey is permitted. (Rashi - its fetal sac; presumably, the Rambam explains this literally, for he permits this and forbids a fetal sac.)
(n) Question: What is the reason?
(o) Answer: It is mere waste (not proper meat).
(p) Support #1 (Rav Chisda - Beraisa #1): Skin opposite the face of a person, whether alive or dead, is Tahor.

1. Suggestion: This means, whether he is alive and his mother died, or if he and his mother died. (This shows that it is not proper flesh!)

(q) Rejection: No, it means whether he is alive and his mother died (Rashi - is alive), or if he died and his mother is alive.
(r) Support #2 (Rav Chisda - Beraisa #2): (It is Tahor) whether the fetus and mother are both alive, or both are dead.
(s) This support cannot be refuted.

(a) (Mishnah): If a Tamei fish swallowed a Tahor fish, it is permitted to eat it (the swallowed fish);
(b) If a Tahor fish swallowed a Tamei fish, it is forbidden to eat it, for it did not grow from it.
(c) (Gemara) Question: The Reisha permits only if we saw it swallow the Tahor fish, if not we are concerned that it grew inside the Tamei fish - what is the source of this?
(d) Answer (Beraisa): Tamei fish grow inside their mother, Tahor fish lay eggs.
(e) Question: If Tamei fish grow inside their mother, we should be concerned that the fish we found inside was not swallowed (the swallowed one was digested), rather, it grew there!
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): The case is, the interior fish was found at the end of the digestive tract.
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The interior fish was found at the beginning of the digestive tract.
(h) Answer #3 (Rav Nachman): The interior fish was fully developed and grown (had it grown inside, it would not remain until full growth).
(i) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): Most fish that grow inside are the same species as the mother - therefore, the Mishnah assumes that any interior fish of a different species was swallowed.
(j) (Beraisa): Tamei fish grow inside their mother, Tahor fish lay eggs;
(k) A mother (of any species) that gives birth nurses her young, a mother that lays eggs gathers food for her young (alternatively, she gathers the eggs and sits on them - R. Gershom);

1. The only exception is the bat, even though it lays eggs, it nurses.