Avodah Zarah 40a — the Talmud in English

and

one or two kilbites ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

were floating in it,

this is brine in which there is a kilbite.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

now

after the tan­nnay taught us that through

one kilbite, you say it is permitted,

the brine is permitted, if it contains

two kilbites, is it necessary

for the tannay to say this!?

And the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult. Here,

where there are two kilbites, it is speaking

of

open barrels of brine

.

And since there is concern lest this fish fell into them from outside, and in truth this brine is impure, it must contain at least two kilbites.

But

here,

where one kilbite is sufficient, it is speaking

of

barrels

that are sealed.

For in them there is no concern lest the fish fell from outside.

Every fish that has a fin and a scale—the Torah permitted its eating, as it is stated [Leviticus 11:9–12]: “This you may eat from all that is in the waters: everything that has a fin and a scale in the waters and in the streams, them you may eat.”

And the Sages explained: a fin is that with which it swims; a scale is scales fixed to its body, which fold easily without leaving a mark beneath them on the skin.

And further, anyone that has even one scale in the water—it is known that it has a fin.

And even if, when it is lifted from the water, its scale falls off, nevertheless it is pure.

And the Sages added and taught additional signs of fitness that exist only in pure fish. And they are:

a. A broad, round head. b. A distinction between the head and the tail. c. A spinal cord. d. It has intestines. e. Inside it there is an air bladder [according to Rashi below in the passage].

It was stated: Rav Huna said

a tarit is not fit, except

until both a head and a spine are

—both of them—

recognizable

in the fish.

Rav Naḥman said:

It is not necessary that both of them be recognizable, rather

either

the

head or

the

spine

of the fit fish is recognizable; that is sufficient.

He raised an objection

He challenged

Rav Ukva bar Hama

from what we learned in the Mishna [Ḥullin 59a]:

And concerning fish,

their sign of purity is

anything that has a fin and a scale.

But these signs of a head and a spine are not included among the signs of purity!

Abaye said:

When that

Mishna

was taught,

it was speaking of fish called

“bara,” and “palmoda,” whose heads resemble

whose heads resemble

the

heads of fish

that are impure

in that they are pointed. Therefore it was stated there that one must rely on fin and scale, and not on the shape of the head and the spine. But with other fish, even the head and the spine constitute signs of purity.

Rav Yehuda said in the name

in the name

of Ulla:

The

dispute

between Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman is only concerning whether it is permitted

to dip in their brine

of these fish.

But

to eat

their bodies

themselves—

everyone agrees that it is forbidden,

until there is

also

a head and

also

a recognizable spine.

Rabbi Zeira said: At first I would dip

At first I would dip

in their brine

even on the basis of one sign, either a head or a spine, because I thought that the dispute concerned their bodies. But concerning their brine, even Rav Huna agrees that it is permitted.

Once I heard

that I heard

that which Rav Yehuda said in the name

in the name

of Ulla,

that the

dispute

concerns whether it is permitted

to dip in their brine, but

to eat

their bodies

themselves,

everyone agrees that it is forbidden until a head and a spine are recognizable—

from then on,

I also no longer dipped in their brine.

I likewise do not dip, because I hold like Rav Huna.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha

the halakha is that the crushed tarit of gentiles may not be permitted except

until the head and spine of each and every one are recognizable

of the fish.

He raised an objection

from what we learned in the Tosefta:

Pieces

of fish belonging to gentiles

that have a sign, whether

the sign is

in all of them

or

in some of them, and even in one out of a hundred of them—

all of them are permitted!

And

so there was

an incident involving one idolater who brought a large vessel

a large vessel

of pieces, and a sign was found in one of them, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted the entire vessel,

on the basis of that piece!

And if so, it is proven that the halakha is not as stated, but that even a sign in one fish is sufficient to permit all of them!?

And the Gemara answers:

Interpret it:

Rav Pappa

interpreted

that here it is speaking in a case

where the pieces are equal.

That is, when they are joined together, it is recognizable that all of them were cut from one fish.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

if indeed it is speaking of a case where all the pieces of fish are equal and are from one fish,

what is it teaching us,

what novelty is there in this? Surely in this manner it is certainly fit? And the Gemara answers:

Lest you say

perhaps you would say,

let us be concerned lest it happened by chance,

let us be concerned lest it happened by chance that all the pieces joined into the shape of one fish, but in truth they are from different fish,

it teaches us

that we are not concerned about this; rather, we suppose that all the pieces are from one fish.

There was that ship of chopped fish

a ship of chopped fish,

that came

that came

to

a place called

Sikhra. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana went out

went out

and saw

and saw

scales in it,

scales,

and permitted it.

and permitted it.

Rava said to him

to Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana:

And is there anyone who permits in this manner in a place where scales are common?

Is there anyone who permits in this manner, where many scales are found? Surely it is possible that the scales remained from pure fish that had been in this ship, while these fish are impure!?

Rava’s shofar-call went out, and it is forbidden!

Proclamations went out, the shofar-blowers on behalf of Rava, to announce that Rava had forbidden .

And conversely,

shofar-calls

the proclamations, the shofar-blowers,

of Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana, and it is permitted,

and they permitted it in his name.

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: As for me,

for me personally,

Rav Pappi told me, when he permitted,

when he permitted

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana

these fish on the basis of the scales found in them, he permitted them only

with regard to their brine.

But with regard to their bodies, he did not

permit.

Rav Ashi said: As for me, Rav Pappa told me, when he permitted

when he permitted

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana

these fish on the basis of the scales,

even with regard to their bodies

he permitted them.

And I—I do not forbid them,

and I cannot forbid them because

Rav Pappa told me

that Rav Huna permitted even the eating of their bodies.

But conversely,

I also do not permit them.

I do not permit,

for

for he said

(to me)

Rav Yehuda in the name of Ulla,

when the signs are not clear and decisive in each and every one of the fish, there is a

dispute

concerning whether it is permitted

to dip in their brine. But

to eat

their bodies—

everyone

agrees that it is forbidden, except

until the head and spine of each and every one are recognizable

of the fish.

Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi sat

he sat

before

before

Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he sat

and sat

and was saying:

A gentile who brought a small ship

a small ship

full of barrels

of fish brine,

and a kilbite was found

a small impure fish that grows in the brine of pure fish

in one of them—

If all the barrels were

open—

all of them are permitted.

For we suppose that there were kilbites in all of them, as in this one, but since the barrel was open, the kilbites went away from it.

But if the others were

sealed—

it,

the open one,

is permitted, while all of them

all the others—

are forbidden.

Since the kilbite was not found in them, it is proven that it had never been in them.

He said to him

Rav Adda bar Ahava:

From where do you have this?

from where do you derive this law?

He replied to him:

From three great sages,

from three great sages

I heard it,

I heard this matter, and it is proper to rely upon them as though the matter had been written in the Torah!

From Rav, and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rav Bruna said in the name of Rav: The innards

of

fish, and their eggs,

their eggs,

may be purchased only from an expert,

who knows how to distinguish between the species of fish.

Ulla raised

a difficulty

to Rabbi Dostai from

from the place called

“Biri”:

Since he said,

from what

Rav said: The innards of fish and their eggs may be purchased only from an expert, it follows

you learn from this

, that an impure fish has

it has

an embryo

[eggs]. And for this reason the expert must distinguish between the eggs of an impure fish and those of a pure fish.

And he juxtaposed a contradiction,

and this is difficult, for we learned —

an impure fish gives birth

to the fish itself from its mother’s womb, and it does not hatch from an egg. Whereas

a pure fish lays eggs.

And it is proven that an impure fish has no eggs!?

He replied to him:

Remove

erase

from here “their eggs,”

and teach it as follows: the innards of fish may not be purchased from gentiles.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do not remove it,

there is no need to erase “eggs.” Rather, indeed

both of them,

both of them, including impure fish,

are of those that lay eggs.

Rather, this one,

the pure fish,

gives birth outside,

after the egg has left the mother’s womb, the fish hatches by itself,

and

whereas

this one,

the impure fish,

gives birth

it hatches from the egg while it is

inside

in its mother’s womb. Therefore the expert is needed to distinguish between the egg of an impure fish and that of a pure fish.

The Gemara asks:

Why do I need an expert,

in order to check whether the eggs are from an impure or pure fish,

let him check by the signs

of the egg?

For so we learned in the beraita,

as it was taught—

as are the signs of the eggs

of a pure bird,

so are the signs of fish.

Would you think that the signs of eggs are like the signs of

fish—is this conceivable,

would it enter your mind to say this!? Surely

the signs

of fish—“fin and scale”—are written concerning them.

What connection is there between the signs of eggs and the signs of fish?

Rather, as are the signs of eggs, so are the signs of embryos

of the eggs of

fish.

And these are the signs of eggs:

a.

Any that is elongated

stretched out—that is, one side is broad, and it gradually becomes narrow until the other end.

and rounded

it is not flat on its sides, but rounded.

And

one of its ends is like a jug,

broad, like the bottom of a jug, which is broad, whereas as the jug rises it becomes narrow,

and one of its ends is sharp—

this is the sign of an egg

that is pure.

And

if

both of its ends are sharp, and

or

both of its ends are like jugs,

broad—

it is impure.

b. If the

yolk

[the yellow] is

on the outside, and

the

white

[the white] is

inside,

inside the yolk—

it is impure.

But if the

white is on the outside, and the yolk is inside—

it is pure.

c. If the

white and the yolk are mixed with one another, this is the egg of a creeping animal,

such as a tortoise or lizard, which lay eggs. And since these signs are so clear, why is an expert needed in order to distinguish between the eggs of an impure fish and those of a pure fish?

Rava said: When they have dissolved

the eggs in their mothers’ wombs, and their signs are no longer recognizable. Then the discernment of an expert is required.

And the Gemara discusses:

And

the words of

Rabbi Dostai from Biri, who said: Remove

erase

from here “embryos,”

and it is possible to purchase fish eggs from a gentile, since an impure fish gives birth and has no eggs—this is difficult,