Bekhorot 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

That which comes from an impure creature—

is impure; and that which comes from a pure creature—

is pure," "

that which comes

from an impure creature"—

meaning that it emerges from the body of the impure creature—

the tanna did not say

the tanna

rather "

that which comes

from"

the impure creature," and it is as though the tanna said, "an impure species." This also includes the urine of a donkey, even if you say that water enters and water exits,

and

because

these—

the urine of a donkey—

are also a species of impure creature,

meaning that since they are cloudy and resemble milk, they are an "impure species," as milk is impure.

And there are those who say that

the reason the scholars in the study hall did not raise a question concerning the urine of horses and camels is not that there is a distinction in the substance of the prohibition between the urine of a donkey and that of horses and camels, but rather

they did not raise the question concerning horses and camels,

because

people do not drink it [people do not drink it]—

When they raised the question,

it was only concerning urine

of a donkey, which people drink and which is beneficial for jaundice [which people customarily drink, and which is beneficial for an illness manifested by yellowing of the body], and this is what they questioned:

What is the law?

And the obvious resolution of the doubt according to the second version is also different:

Rav Sheshet said to them: You have learned it

in our Mishna: "

That which comes from an impure creature—

is impure; and that which comes from a pure creature—

is pure,"

and these too—

urine—

come from an impure creature [they come from an impure creature and are prohibited].

The objection is raised from a beraita against what Rav Sheshet said according to both versions, namely, that that which comes from an impure creature is prohibited even when it is not extracted from its body:

For what reason did they say that bee honey is permitted,

even though the bee itself is impure?

Because they bring it into their bodies

from the nectar of flowers and expel it,

but do not extract it from their bodies—

It is therefore explicit that when they do not extract it from their bodies it is not prohibited, whereas Rav Sheshet, according to both versions,

holds that urine is prohibited even though it is not extracted from their bodies!?

And we answer:

He—

Rav Sheshet—

spoke in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov, who said: Honey

would, as a matter of strict law, have been prohibited—even though it is not extracted from their bodies—but

the Torah permitted it [the Torah permitted it], as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yaakov says:

It is written [Leviticus 11:21]: "

Only this may you eat among all the winged swarming creatures

that walk on four, which have legs above their feet, to leap with them upon the earth."

This you may eat, but you may not eat the offspring of an impure winged creature.

The Gemara asks: But

the offspring of an impure winged creature [that is, the offspring of an impure bird]

is explicitly written [it is explicitly prohibited in the Torah]; why do we need to derive it through an exposition?

Rather,

this is the exposition:

You may not eat the offspring of an impure winged creature, but you may eat what an impure winged creature produces. And what is this? This is bee honey,

and this is the precision derived from the verse: you may not eat the offspring of the winged creature—not because the prohibition itself requires this precision, but in order to teach that although you may not eat the offspring of a winged creature, you may eat the honey that they produce.

One might have thought that even the honey of grasshoppers and hornets [a species of locust]

would be permitted?

You say: No:

this honey is not permitted.

And what have you seen that led you to include bees and exclude

the honey of

grasshoppers and hornets?

I include bee honey, which has no accompanying designation,

for it is called simply "honey" and is not named after an impure bird,

and I exclude the honey of grasshoppers and hornets, which has an accompanying designation,

as it is called "grasshopper honey" and "hornet honey."

It is therefore explicit according to Rabbi Yaakov that honey should, as a matter of strict law, be prohibited, but the Torah included it in its permission.

The Gemara explains:

In accordance with whose view is this beraita [whose view is the beraita]:

The honey of grasshoppers and hornets

is

pure

from contracting ritual impurity of food [as the reason is explained below],

and is permitted for consumption—

not in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov,

since Rabbi Yaakov prohibits the honey of grasshoppers and hornets for consumption.

The Gemara explains what we learned in the beraita: "The honey of grasshoppers and hornets is

pure."

Apparently,

this honey

requires [

it requires]

designation

for consumption in order to become susceptible to ritual impurity; but as long as one has not designated it for consumption, it is not considered food and does not contract ritual impurity of food.

The Gemara infers:

By implication,

bee honey—

unlike the honey of grasshoppers and hornets—

does not require designation

in order to become susceptible to ritual impurity of food!

It is taught likewise in a beraita: Honey in its honeycomb,

that is, bee honey [which alone is found in a honeycomb],

contracts ritual impurity of food

even

without designation.

These are the ḥallei de-yaḥmurtā [resembling male testicles, which the yaḥmurtā—a pure animal—

produces from its womb—] expels from its womb.

The Sages before Rav Safra thought to say: They are eggs, and they are prohibited [the students thought this and said to Rav Safra: They are eggs and are prohibited],

that is, they are male eggs that detached from the male and entered the womb of the yaḥmurtā, and are prohibited as a limb from a living creature.

He said

to them,

Rav Safra:

No, rather they are permitted, because

it is the seed of the male deer that follows the doe, but since her womb is narrow, it does not mate with her,

with it,

and it follows the yaḥmurtā and discharges, and coagulates [it is merely the seed of the male deer that wished to mate with the doe, but her womb is narrow and sometimes he cannot mate with her; he goes to the yaḥmurtā, discharges much seed there, and it coagulates].

Rav Huna said:

The membrane that comes opposite the face of a donkey,

resembling the amniotic sac in which the donkey is born—

is permitted.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

it is merely excrement.

Rav Ḥisda said

to Rav Huna:

There is a beraita that supports you:

The membrane that comes opposite a person's face, whether he is alive or dead [the beraita proceeds to explain], is

pure

from contracting impurity imparted by a corpse.

Is that not

the intention of the beraita:

whether he [the fetus]

is alive and his mother is alive,

or whether

he

is dead and

even

his mother is dead?

It is therefore clear that it is merely excrement, and consequently it does not contract impurity like a corpse.

Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥisda: You cannot derive support for me from here, since it can be explained

not

as you explained, but rather:

whether he is alive and his mother is alive,

or whether he is dead and his mother is alive,

meaning that as long as his mother is alive, it is pure, even if the fetus is dead, because that membrane is part of the mother's body; and since she is alive, it does not impart impurity like a corpse. If so, this cannot teach anything regarding consumption, for even if it is part of the mother's body, it should be prohibited as the consumption of an impure animal.

Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna:

But it is taught

explicitly as I explained:

whether he is alive and his mother is alive, or whether he is dead and his mother is dead.

Rav Huna said to him:

If it is taught—

it is taught.

Mishna:

Although it was explained in the preceding Mishna that that which comes from an impure creature is impure, and that which comes from a pure creature is pure, nevertheless:

If an impure fish swallowed a pure fish,

that fish is

permitted for consumption;

but

a fish

that is pure and swallowed an impure fish

is

prohibited for consumption, since it is not its offspring,

but was swallowed into it, and is not included in the category of that which comes from an impure creature or that which comes from a pure creature.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna, "An impure fish that swallowed a pure fish," which implies that we saw with our own eyes that it swallowed it:

The reason

that the swallowed creature is pure is

because we saw it swallow it [

we saw it swallow it];

but if we did not see it swallow it, we say

presumably

that it spawned it,

meaning that it is its fetus, and it is prohibited just as a cow that gave birth to a donkey species is prohibited, for that which comes from an impure creature is impure.

As it is taught in a beraita: An impure fish spawns [it carries its fetus within its body, like other animals], whereas

a pure fish lays eggs,

from which the fish hatch. Since an impure fish spawns, we assume that it spawned a pure-fish species—

And this is difficult:

If so—

if, when there is no certainty, we do not assume that it is a swallowed fish—then even

when we see it swallow one, we should say [even when we saw it swallow a pure fish, we should say]:

This one was digested, and this one was spawned, [the fish that was swallowed was digested in its intestines, and the fish found there is the fetus of the impure fish], and it should be prohibited!?

Rav Sheshet said:

What we learned, "An impure fish that swallowed a pure fish," does not mean that we saw it swallow the fish, but rather

for example, when it was found by way of the digestive tract,

and from this we know that it had swallowed it and that this is the fish that was swallowed, because if it were a fetus, it would have been found in its womb.

Rav Pappa said: For example, when it was found by way of the throat.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: For example, when it was found whole,

meaning that its form was fully developed and it was large; if it had been a fetus, it would not have remained in the womb after it had been fully formed.

Rav Ashi said:

The assumption is always that it is a swallowed fish, even when there is no certainty, and consequently there is no difficulty. And as for what is difficult for you—that our Mishna says, "a fish that swallowed," implying that it permitted it only when we saw the swallowing—that is not so. Rather:

Most fish spawn according to their species [

of their own species]

and

since a different species was found,

it is considered as though we saw it swallow it before us,

and this is why the Mishna states, "An impure fish that swallowed a pure fish."

The Sages taught:

An impure fish spawns [its manner is to spawn],

that is, its fetus is in its intestines, like those of animals.

A pure fish lays eggs,

and does not spawn within its intestines.

Any creature that gives birth,

to a live fetus,

nurses

its offspring

; and any creature that lays eggs

does not nurse, but

gathers

food for them

; except for a bat,

which, although it lays eggs,

nevertheless

nurses.