Bekhorot 7b — the Talmud in English

that which comes forth from the impure" - "

impure, and that which comes forth from the pure" - "

pure"; "

that which comes forth

from"—whose meaning is that it comes forth from the body of the impure—

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

he did not say

the tanna,

but "

that which comes forth

from" ![](pamud.bmp "

precise column location")

the impure"; as though the tanna said "an impure species," and included in this also the urine of a donkey, and even if you should say that water enters and water comes out,

and

because

these—

the urine of a donkey—

are also a species of the impure, that is, since they are turbid and resemble milk, they are "an impure species," for milk is impure.

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

And some say: the reason that the scholars of the academy did not raise a doubt concerning the urine of horses and camels is not because there is a distinction in the substance of the prohibition between the urine of a donkey and that of horses and camels, but

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

because concerning horses and camels they did not raise the question,

because

people do not drink them [people do not drink them] -

[люди не пьют эту мочу].

When they raised the question only concerning

the urine

of a donkey, for people drink it and it is beneficial for jaundice [which people are accustomed to drink, and it is beneficial for an illness expressed by yellowing of the body], and concerning this they raised the question:

[ее обычно пьют, и она помогает при болезни, проявляющейся пожелтением тела], о ней и спросили:

what?

And the resolution of the doubt according to the ikka de-amrei is also in a different manner:

Rav Sheshet said to them: You have learned it

in our Mishna: "

That which comes forth from the impure" -

impure, and that which comes forth from the pure -

pure,"

and these too—

the urine—

come from the impure [they come from the impure and are forbidden].

[они происходят от нечистого и запрещены].

He objected from a beraita to what Rav Sheshet said according to both expressions, that what comes forth from the impure is forbidden even when it is not extracted from its body:

против слов Рава Шешета согласно обоим объяснениям: происходящее от нечистого запрещено даже тогда, когда оно не выжимается из тела животного:

For what reason did they say that the honey of bees is permitted, even though the bee is impure?

even though the bee itself is impure?

Because they bring it into their bodies

from the nectar of the flowers and take it out,

but do not extract it from their bodies—

This shows explicitly that if they do not extract it from their bodies there is no prohibition, whereas Rav Sheshet according to both expressions holds that urine is forbidden even though they do not extract it from their bodies!?

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

And we answer:

he—

Rav Sheshet—

speaks according to Rabbi Yaakov, who says: Honey

would, according to the strict law, have to be forbidden—even though they do not extract it from their bodies—but

the Merciful One permitted it [the Torah permitted it], as he proceeds to explain.

[Тора разрешила его], как далее объясняется.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yaakov says:

It is written [Leviticus 11:21]: "

But this you may eat from every winged swarming creature

that walks on four, which has jointed legs above its feet, with which to leap upon the earth,"

this you may eat, but you may not eat an impure winged swarming creature.

The Gemara asks: But

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

[то есть потомство нечистой птицы]

is explicitly written [it is explicit in the Torah] as forbidden, so why do we need to learn it through a derivation!?

[оно прямо запрещено Торой], так зачем же выводить это толкованием?!

Rather,

this is the derivation:

You may not eat an impure winged swarming creature, but you may eat what an impure bird produces; and what is this? This is bee honey, meaning, we infer from the verse that you may not eat the winged swarming creature, and the inference is not needed for its own subject, but to teach that you may not eat the winged swarming creature, but you may eat the honey that they produce.

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.

Could even the honey of locusts and hornets [a species of locust] be permitted?

would be permitted?

You say: No,

the honey of this one is not permitted.

And what have you seen to include bees and exclude

honey

of locusts and hornets?

I include bee honey, which has no accompanying name, for it is called simply "honey" and is not called by the name of an impure bird,

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

and I exclude the honey of locusts and hornets, which has an accompanying name, for they are called "locust honey" and "hornet honey."

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

It is thus explicit according to Rabbi Yaakov's method that honey ought according to the strict law to be forbidden, but the Torah included it.

The Gemara explains:

According to whom does this which was taught in a beraita go [according to whose view is the beraita]:

является

the honey of locusts and hornets

is

pure

from becoming impure with food impurity [as it proceeds to explain the reason],

and is permitted for eating—

not according to Rabbi Yaakov, for Rabbi Yaakov forbids the honey of locusts and hornets for eating.

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

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

pure"—

apparently

this honey

requires [it needs]

it requires]

intention to eat it in order that it become impure, but as long as one has not intended it for eating, it is not designated for eating and does not become impure with food impurity.

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 locusts and hornets—

does not require intention in order to receive food impurity!

in order to become susceptible to ritual impurity of food!

It was also taught so: Honey in its hive,

that is, bee honey [for only it is placed in a hive],

becomes impure with food impurity

even

without intention.

These are the testicles of a yachmurt,

like male eggs, which the yachmurt—which is a pure animal— expels from its womb],

the Sages before Rav Safra thought to say: They are eggs, and they are forbidden [the students thought, and thus said to Rav Safra: They are eggs and are forbidden], that is, they are male eggs which were uprooted from the male and entered the womb of the yachmurt, and are forbidden as a limb from a living creature.

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:

Not so; rather, they are permitted, for

it is the seed of the ram that goes after the hind, and since its womb is narrow, it does not unite

with it,

and it goes after the yachmurt, and is discharged [this is only the seed of the ram that wanted to unite with the hind, but its womb is narrow and at times it cannot unite with it, and it goes to the yachmurt, pours out much seed there, and it congeals].

подобная оболочке, в которой рождается осел, —

Rav Huna said:

The hide that comes opposite the face of a donkey,

like the afterbirth in which the donkey is born—

is permitted.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

it is merely excrement.

Rav Hisda said to

Rav Huna:

There is a beraita that supports you:

The hide that comes opposite a person's face, whether alive or dead [he explains it below], is

его мать мертва?

pure

from becoming impure with corpse impurity.

Is it not so

that the intention of the beraita is:

whether he [the fetus]

is alive and his mother is alive,

is alive and his mother is alive, whether

the mother

is dead and

even

his mother is dead, so it is clearly merely excrement, and therefore it does not become impure like a corpse?

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

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

not

as you explained, but rather:

whether he is alive and his mother is alive

whether he is dead and his mother is alive, that is, since his mother is alive, he is pure even if the fetus is dead, for that hide is from the mother's body, and since she is alive it does not become impure like a corpse; and if so, you cannot learn from this concerning eating, for even if it is from the mother's body, it must be forbidden because of eating an impure animal.

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 Hisda said to Rav Huna:

But it was taught

explicitly as I explained:

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

Rav Huna said to him:

If it was taught—

it was taught.

Mishna:

Although it was explained in the preceding Mishna that what comes forth from the impure is impure, and what comes forth from the pure is pure, nevertheless:

An impure fish that swallowed a pure fish

that fish is

permitted for eating;

and

a

pure fish that swallowed an impure fish

is

forbidden for eating, since it is not its growth, but was swallowed into it, and it is not included in what comes forth from the impure and what comes forth from the pure.

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," that it is implied: we saw with our own eyes that it swallowed it:

The reason

that what was swallowed is pure is

because we saw it swallow it [we saw that it swallowed it],

we saw it swallow it];

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

presumably

it produced it, that is, it is its fetus, and it is forbidden, like a cow that gave birth to a donkey-species, which is forbidden, for what comes forth from the impure is impure.

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.

For it was taught: An impure fish produces [it produces its fetus within its body, like other animals and wild beasts], whereas

Рав Папа сказал: речь идет о случае, когда ее нашли через глотательное отверстие.

a pure fish lays eggs

from which the fish hatch; and since an impure fish produces, we attribute it to having produced an offspring of the species of a pure fish—

And this is difficult:

If so—

if ordinarily we do not attribute it to being a swallowed fish—then

even when we see that it swallowed it, we say:

поскольку найдена рыба другого вида,

this one was digested, and this one was produced, [the swallowed fish was digested in its intestines, and the fish found is the fetus of the impure fish], and it should be forbidden!?

и поэтому Мишна сказала: «Нечистая рыба, проглотившая чистую рыбу».

Rav Sheshet said:

What we learned, "an impure fish that swallowed a pure fish," does not mean that we saw the swallowing, but rather

for example, when they found it through the digestive tract,

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

Rav Pappa said: for example, when they found it through the mouth.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: for example, when they found it whole, that is, its entire form was complete and it was large, whereas if it were a fetus, it would not remain after it had become complete in its mother's womb.

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:

Always, even ordinarily, we attribute it to being a swallowed fish, and consequently there is no difficulty; and regarding what is difficult to you—that our Mishna teaches "a fish that swallowed," implying that the Mishna permitted it only when we saw the swallowing—that is not so, but rather:

most fish produce within their own species [a species like themselves]

of their own species]

and

since a different species was found,

it is considered as though it swallowed it before us, and this is why the Mishna stated "an impure fish that swallowed a pure fish."

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

The Sages taught:

An impure fish produces [its way is through producing], that is, the fetus is in its intestines, like a wild beast and an animal.

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

A pure fish lays eggs

and does not produce within its intestines.

Anyone that gives birth

to a live fetus is

a nursing animal

of its offspring;

and anything that lays eggs

does not nurse, but

gathers

food for them

; except for a bat,

for even though it lays eggs,

it is

a nursing animal.