Avodah Zarah 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

and

one or two kilbiyyot

precise page location

are floating in it,

this is brine that contains a kilbit.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

now

after the tanna taught us that through

one kilbit, you said the brine is permitted,

the brine is permitted if it contains

two kilbiyyot, is it necessary to say so

and does the tanna need to teach this as well!?

And the Gemara answers:

This is not difficult. Here,

where there are two kilbiyyot, it is speaking

of

brine barrels

that are open.

And since there is concern that perhaps this fish fell into them from outside, and in fact this brine is impure, they must contain at least two kilbiyyot.

Whereas

here,

where one kilbit suffices, it is speaking

of

barrels

that are sealed,

in which there is no concern that perhaps the fish fell in from outside.

Any fish that has fins and scales, the Torah permitted its consumption, as it is stated [Leviticus 11:9–12]: “These you may eat from all that are in the waters: everything in the waters, in the seas and in the streams, that has fins and scales, these you may eat.”

And the Sages explained: “fin” means that with which it swims; “scale” means plates attached to its body that can be folded easily without leaving a mark on the skin beneath them.

Furthermore, any fish that has even one scale in the water certainly has fins as well.

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

The Sages further added and taught additional signs of fitness that exist only in pure fish. They are:

a. A broad, rounded head. b. A distinction between the head and the tail. c. A spinal column. d. It has intestines. e. It contains an air bladder [according to Rashi below in the sugya].

It was stated: Rav Huna said

that tarit is not fit

until both a head and a spinal column—

both of them—

are recognizable

in the fish.

Rav Naḥman said:

It is not necessary for both of them to be recognizable; rather,

either

the

head or

the

spinal column

of the kosher fish is recognizable, and that suffices.

He raised an objection

and

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama

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

And with regard to fish,

their sign of purity is

any fish that has fins and scales.

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

Abaye said:

When that was taught,

the Mishna

was referring

to fish called

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

heads that resemble

the

heads of

impure

fish, in that they are pointed. Therefore, it was stated there that one must rely on fins and scales, and not on the form of the head and the spinal column. But with regard to other fish, the head and the spinal column are also signs of purity.

Rav Yehuda said in the name

in the name of

Ulla:

The

dispute

between Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman concerns only the question of whether it is permitted

to dip into their brine

of these fish.

But

to eat them

in their bodies

themselves—

everyone agrees that it is forbidden,

until there is

also

a recognizable head and

also

a recognizable spinal column.

Rabbi Zeira said: At first I would dip

At first I would dip

into their brine

even on the basis of one sign, either a head or a spinal column, because I had thought that the dispute concerned their bodies. But with regard to their brine, even Rav Huna agrees that it is permitted.

Once I heard

that I had heard

this statement that Rav Yehuda said in the name

in the name of

Ulla,

that the

dispute

concerns the question of whether it is permitted

to dip into their brine, but

to eat them

in their bodies

themselves,

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

from then on,

I no longer dipped into their brine either.

I also do not dip into it, since I hold in accordance with Rav Huna.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha

is that tarit that has been minced by gentiles may not be permitted

until the head and spinal column of each and every one

of the fish are recognizable.

He raised an objection

from what we learned in a Tosefta:

Pieces

of fish belonging to gentiles

that contain 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 was

the incident involving one gentile who brought a garav

a large vessel

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

on the basis of that one piece!

If so, this proves that the halakha is not as stated; rather, even a sign in one fish suffices to permit all of them!?

And the Gemara answers:

Interpret it:

Rav Pappa

established

that here it is speaking

when the pieces are identical.

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

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

if the case is indeed one in which all the pieces of fish are identical and are from one fish,

what is it coming to teach?

What novelty is there in this? Surely in such a case it is certainly fit? And the Gemara answers:

Lest you say

that perhaps you would say,

let us be concerned, perhaps it happened

by coincidence that all the pieces happened to combine into the form of one fish, but in fact they are from different fish,

it teaches us

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

There was a certain ship of chopped fish

a ship carrying chopped fish

that came

that arrived

at

a place called

Sikhra. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana went out

and went out

and saw

and saw

scales in it,

scales,

and permitted it

and permitted it.

Rava said to

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana:

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

Is there anyone who permits in such a case, where many scales are found there? Perhaps the scales remained from pure fish that had been in this ship, while these fish are impure!?

Rava’s heralds went out, and proclaimed it forbidden!

Heralds, sounding trumpets, went out on behalf of Rava to announce that Rava had prohibited it.

And conversely,

heralds

the heralds sounding trumpets

of Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana went out, and permitted it

and permitted it in his name.

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: As for me,

personally,

Rav Pappi told me that when he permitted it,

when

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana

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

with regard to their brine.

But with regard to their bodies he did not

permit them.

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

when

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana

permitted these fish on the basis of the scales,

he permitted even their bodies

and permitted them.

And I cannot prohibit them,

and I cannot prohibit them because

Rav Pappa told me

that Rav Huna permitted even the consumption of their bodies.

But conversely,

I cannot permit them either.

I do not permit them,

for

since

(he) said to me

Rav Yehuda in the name of Ulla,

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

dispute

concerning whether it is permitted

to dip into their brine. But

to eat them

in their bodies—

everyone agrees

that it is forbidden,

until the head and spinal column of each and every one

of the fish are recognizable.

Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi sat

sitting

before

before

Rav Adda bar Ahava, and sat

and was sitting

and said:

A gentile who brought a small boat

a small ship

full of barrels

of fish brine,

and a kilbit was found

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

in one of them—

If all the barrels were

open—

all of them are permitted.

For we assume that there had been kilbiyyot in all of them, as in this one; but since the barrel was open, the kilbiyyot went away.

But if the remaining barrels were

sealed—

it,

the open one,

is permitted, while all of them

all the rest

are forbidden.

Since the kilbit was not found in them, it is evident that it had never been in them.

He said to him

Rav Adda bar Ahava:

From where do you derive this?

From where do you derive this law?

He replied to him:

I heard it from three verses,

from three great Sages

it was transmitted to me,

I heard this matter from them, and it is worthy of being relied upon as though it had been written in the Torah!

From Rav, and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rav Baruna said that Rav said: The innards

of

fish, and their roe,

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 of

from the place called

Biri:

From the fact that

from what

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

that you learn from this

, that an impure fish has

it has

roe

[eggs]. And therefore the expert is needed to distinguish between the eggs of an impure fish and those of a pure fish.

And he raises a contradiction,

for this contradicts what 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.

This proves that an impure fish has no eggs!?

He replied to him:

Delete

the word

“its roe” from here,

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

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do not delete it.

There is no need to delete “eggs.” Rather, indeed,

both of them,

both pure and impure fish, are included among

those that lay eggs.

Rather, this one,

the pure fish,

hatches externally,

after the egg has emerged from the mother’s womb, the fish hatches on its own,

and

whereas

this one,

the impure fish,

hatches

from the egg while it is

inside

the mother’s womb. Therefore an 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

to determine whether the eggs are from an impure or pure fish

, let him examine the signs

of the egg?

For so we learned in a beraita,

as it was taught—

just as the signs of the eggs

of a pure bird are such,

so are the signs of fish.

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

fish?

Can this enter your mind!? After all,

the signs

of fish are explicitly written as fins and scales.

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

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

the eggs of

fish.

And these are the signs of eggs:

a.

Any egg that is tapered

is elongated; that is, one side is broad and gradually becomes narrow toward the other end.

and rounded

rather than flat on its sides, but rounded.

And

one end is broad like a jar

broad like the bottom of a jar, whereas higher up the jar becomes narrower,

and one end is pointed—

This is the sign of an egg that is

pure.

And

if

both ends are pointed, or

or

both ends are broad like a jar

and broad—

it is impure.

b. If the

yolk

the yellow part is

on the outside, and

the

albumen

the white part is

inside,

within the yolk—

it is impure.

But if the

albumen is on the outside and the yolk is inside—

it is pure.

c. If the

albumen and yolk are mixed together, 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 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. In that case, the expertise of an expert is required.

And the Gemara discusses:

And

according to the words of

Rabbi Dostai of Biri, who said: Delete

the word

“roe” from here,

and it is possible to purchase fish eggs from a gentile, since an impure fish gives birth and has no eggs, this is difficult,We need issue duplicated! I inserted twice because source SEG is in image only, but wrote outside and inside. Requirement exactly one. Need fix, remove first textual marker phrase, image title only marker translation. Also output all IDs exactly once. Currently twice. Need final answer corrected entire? We can provide correction? Must output only finished. Need redo likely same with remove "