Bekhorot 7bבכורות ז׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Bekhorot 7b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
7bז׳ ב

הטמא והני נמי מינא דטמא הוא

the non-kosher animal [min hattamei], one can infer that any type [min] of non-kosher substance is included. And these fluids, i.e., the urine of a donkey, are also a type of non-kosher substance, as they resemble the milk of a donkey, which is forbidden.

ואיכא דאמרי דסוסים וגמלים לא קא מיבעיא להו דלא שתו אינשי כי קמיבעיא להו דחמור דשתו אינשי ומעלו לירקונא מאי

And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion about the urine of a donkey: With regard to the urine of horses and camels, the students of Rav Sheshet did not raise the dilemma, because people do not drink it. When they raised the dilemma it was with regard to the urine of a donkey, which people drink and which is beneficial for curing jaundice. What, then, is the halakha?

אמר להו רב ששת תניתוה היוצא מן הטמא טמא והיוצא מן הטהור טהור והני נמי מטמא קאתי

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned the answer to your dilemma in the mishna: That which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher, and these fluids also come from a donkey, which is non-kosher. Therefore, they are forbidden.

מיתיבי מפני מה אמרו דבש דבורים מותר מפני שמכניסות אותו לגופן ואין ממצות אותו מגופן

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: For what reason did the Sages say that the honey of bees is permitted? It is because they bring the nectar from the flowers into their body, but they do not excrete it from their body as a bodily excretion. So too, the urine of a donkey is not an excretion produced by the body itself. Rather, it is simply ejected in the same form that it entered the body. Why, then, should it be forbidden?

הוא דאמר כר' יעקב דאמר דובשא רחמנא שרייה

The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet stated his answer in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who says that with regard to honey, the Merciful One permits it as an exception to the principle that a substance that emerges from a non-kosher animal is non-kosher.

דתניא ר' יעקב אומר (ויקרא יא, כא) אך את זה תאכלו מכל שרץ העוף זה אתה אוכל ואי אתה אוכל שרץ עוף טמא

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ya’akov says that it is stated: “Yet these may you eat of all winged creatures” (Leviticus 11:21). The word “these” indicates that you may eat these, but you may not eat a non-kosher winged creature.

שרץ עוף טמא בהדיא כתיב אלא שרץ עוף טמא אי אתה אוכל אבל אתה אוכל מה שעוף טמא משריץ ואיזה זה זה דבש דבורים

The Gemara asks: Why is this inference necessary? The prohibition against eating a non-kosher winged creature is written explicitly: “All winged creatures that go upon all fours are a repugnance to you” (Leviticus 11:20). Rather, the inference must be understood as follows: You may not eat a non-kosher winged creature, but you may eat that which a non-kosher winged creature discharges from its body, and what is that? That is the honey of bees.

יכול אף דבש הגזין והצירעין אמרת לא ומה ראית לרבות דבורים ולהוציא הגזין והצירעין מרבה אני דבש דבורים שאין לו שם לווי ומוציא אני דבש הגזין והצירעין שיש לו שם לווי

The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: One might have thought that even the honey of gizzin and wasps should be permitted. Nevertheless, you should say no. The baraita asks: And what did you see to include the honey of bees as being permitted to eat and to exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps as being forbidden? The baraita answers: I include the honey of bees, as its name does not have a modifier, i.e., the word honey alone always refers to the honey of bees. And I exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps, which have a modifier, i.e., one must always add the word gizzin or wasp to specify these particular types of honey.

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא דבש הגזין והצירעין טהור ומותר באכילה דלא כרבי יעקב

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: The honey of gizzin and wasps is not susceptible to ritual impurity and is permitted for consumption? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov.

טהור אלמא בעי מחשבה תניא נמי הכי דבש בכוורתו מטמא טומאת אוכלין שלא במחשבה

The Gemara infers from the expression: Is not susceptible to ritual impurity, that apparently, in order for the honey of gizzin and wasps to become susceptible to ritual impurity it requires specific intention to eat it, which renders it food. Furthermore, the baraita indicates that honey from bees does not require specific intention to eat it in order for it to become susceptible, because it is normally used for food. This is also taught in a baraita: The honey of bees that is still in its hive is susceptible to ritual impurity as food even without intent.

חלי דיחמורתא סבור רבנן למימר ביעי נינהו ואסירן אמר רב ספרא זרעא דאילא הוא דאזיל בתר אילתא ואיידי דרחמה צר לא מזדקקא ואזיל בתר יחמורתא ונתרי

§ The Gemara discusses additional cases of animal secretions. With regard to chunks that are discharged from the womb of a female fallow deer, the Sages thought to say that they are its egg cells, and therefore are forbidden as a limb severed from a living animal. Rav Safra said: It is the semen of a hart, which pursues the hind, but since the hind’s womb is narrow it does not mate with the hart, and instead the hart pursues the female fallow deer and mates with it, and chunks of its semen that have hardened fall out of the fallow deer’s body.

אמר רב הונא עור הבא כנגד פניו של חמור מותר מ"ט פירשא בעלמא הוא

Rav Huna says: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a donkey when it is born, i.e., the fetal sac that envelopes it during birth, is permitted to be consumed. What is the reason? It is merely a secretion, and is not an integral part of the mother or the offspring.

א"ל רב חסדא תניא דמסייע לך עור הבא כנגד פניו של אדם בין חי בין מת טהור מאי לאו בין הוא חי ואמו חיה בין הוא מת ואמו מתה

Rav Ḥisda said to him: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a person, i.e., a newborn baby, whether the newborn is alive or dead, is ritually pure and does not transmit ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. What, is it not the case that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, it is not considered a part of the body of the fetus or the mother, but merely a secretion, and therefore even when they are both dead it does not transmit impurity?

לא בין הוא חי ואמו מתה בין הוא מת ואמו חיה והתניא בין הוא חי ואמו חיה בין הוא מת ואמו מתה אי תניא תניא:

Rav Huna answered him: No, there is no proof from this baraita, as it may mean that whether it is alive and its mother is dead or whether it is dead and its mother is alive, meaning only one is alive, the skin is ritually pure. But if both are dead it is impure. Rav Ḥisda said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, the skin is pure? Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥisda: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot dispute it.

מתני׳ דג טמא שבלע דג טהור מותר באכילה וטהור שבלע דג טמא אסור באכילה לפי שאינו גידולו:

MISHNA: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish, consumption of the kosher fish is permitted. And in the case of a kosher fish that swallowed a non-kosher fish, consumption of the non-kosher fish is prohibited due to the fact that the host fish is not the place of its development.

גמ׳ טעמא דחזיניה דבלע הא לא חזיניה דבלע אמרי אשרוצי אשריץ

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the language of the mishna: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish: The reason consumption of the kosher fish is permitted is that we saw that the non-kosher fish swallowed the kosher fish. But if we did not see it swallow the kosher fish we say that perhaps the non-kosher fish spawned the kosher fish, and it is forbidden.

מנלן דתניא דג טמא משריץ דג טהור מטיל ביצים אי הכי כי חזינא דבלע אמרי' האי איעכלא והאי אשרוצי אשריץ

From where do we derive that we must have this concern? As it is taught in a baraita: A non-kosher fish spawns offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs from which the offspring hatch. The Gemara challenges: If so, even when we saw it swallowing a kosher fish we should say that that fish that it swallowed was digested, and this one, which was found inside of the non-kosher fish, it spawned, and should be forbidden.

אמר רב ששת כגון שמצאו דרך הריעי רב פפא אמר כגון שמצאו דרך בית הבליעה רב נחמן אמר כגון שמצאו שלם

Rav Sheshet says: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the digestive tract, which is not where the non-kosher fish normally spawns its offspring. Rav Pappa says similarly: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the passageway of the gullet. Rav Naḥman says: It is referring to a case where one found it whole and in complete form, and not as a newly hatched fish.

רב אשי אמר רוב דגים במינן משריצין וכמי שבלע לפנינו דמי:

Rav Ashi says: Do not infer from the mishna that it is referring to a case where the non-kosher fish was seen swallowing the kosher fish. Rather, the reason it is permitted to consume the swallowed fish is that the majority of fish spawn offspring of their own species, and therefore the case of a kosher fish discovered inside a non-kosher fish is considered as if the non-kosher fish had swallowed the kosher fish in our presence.

ת"ר דג טמא משריץ דג טהור מטיל ביצים כל המוליד מניק וכל המטיל ביצים מלקט חוץ מעטלף שאף על פי שמטיל ביצים מניק

§ The Gemara cites the entirety of the previously mentioned baraita. The Sages taught that a non-kosher fish spawns its offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs. Any animal that gives birth to its offspring nurses them, and any animal that lays eggs gathers food and feeds it to its young. This applies to all animals except for a bat [atallef ], as although it lays eggs, it nurses its young.