Chullin 60b — the Talmud in English

According to Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa,

who said that the various grasses emerged of their own accord and were not commanded to do so,

what is the ruling?

Is it permitted to graft them, and is there no prohibition of mixed species in doing so?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Since it is not written concerning them

“according to its kind,” he is not liable

for grafting one species with a different species.

Or perhaps, since

the Holy One, blessed be He,

agreed with them [

—

it is considered as though it were written concerning them

explicitly

“according to its kind.”

And it is prohibited to graft one species onto another species.

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi raised a contradiction,

he challenged the apparent contradiction between the verses:

It is written

at the beginning of Genesis:

“And God made the two great luminaries,”

indicating that the sun and the moon were both great.

And

in another verse

it is written: “the great luminary

to rule by day,

and the small luminary

to rule by night,” indicating that one luminary was great and one luminary was small!?

And he explained the two verses as follows:

The moon said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to make use of a single crown?!

After all, a king must be alone.

He said to her,

the Holy One, blessed be He:

Go and diminish yourself!

And the sun will be the one king, with one crown.

She said

the moon

before Him: Master of the Universe!

Is it

because I said something proper before You

that I deserve

to diminish myself?!

He said to her,

the Holy One, blessed be He:

Go and rule by day and by night,

so that you will shine both by day and by night.

She said to Him: What is the greatness of that?

What benefit is there in my shining by day,

for a lamp

—

a lamp ]

when the day is at its brightest, illuminated by the light of the sun—

what benefit does it provide?!

After all, it is of no use.

He said to her: Go! Let Israel count by you,

by you Israel will count

days and years!

For Israel calculates the year according to the moon.

She said to Him,

the moon:

The day,

the sun,

also—there is no possibility that the seasons will not be reckoned by it,

the four seasons of the year. After all, the seasons of Nisan, Tammuz, Tishrei, and Tevet are reckoned according to the sun.

As it is written: “And they shall be

the luminaries

for signs and for appointed times and for days and years”?!

He said to her,

the Holy One, blessed be He:

Go!

Go,

let the righteous be called by your name,

so that the righteous will be called by your name. Just as you are called the “small” luminary, so the righteous are called “small.” And it proceeds to explain:

Jacob the small one—

—

“Who will arise for Jacob, for he is small.”

Samuel the small one.

David the small one,

as it is written in the book of Samuel I [17]:

“And David was the smallest.”

He saw

the Holy One, blessed be He, that the moon

was not consoled.

The moon was not appeased.

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Bring an atonement for Me, because I diminished the moon.

And this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: What is different about the goat of the New Moon

from the goats of the Festivals,

that

in the goat of the New Moon

it is stated

in the portion of Pinhas: “And one young male goat as a sin-offering

to the Lord.”

Whereas concerning the goats of the Festivals it is written: “And one goat as a sin-offering to atone for you,” and “to the Lord” is not mentioned there!?

Rather, the explanation is:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: This goat

of the New Moon

shall be an atonement because I diminished the moon.

And, as it were, the offering comes to atone for the Holy One, blessed be He Himself.

Rav Asi raised a contradiction: It is written

[Genesis 1 ]

“And the earth brought forth grass” on the third day,

on the third day, indicating that the grasses emerged then.

And

on the other hand,

it is written

in another verse:

“And every plant of the field was not yet in the earth,”

and this verse was stated

on the eve of Shabbat,

on Friday evening, indicating that the plants of the field emerged only on the sixth day!?

This teaches

that the verse

that the grasses emerged and stood at the opening of the ground,

but did not emerge outside because rain had not yet fallen.

Until the first man came

on the sixth day

and pleaded for mercy on their behalf; rain fell, and they grew.

This teaches you that the Holy One, blessed be He, longs for the prayer of the righteous!

Therefore the plants did not emerge from the opening of the earth until the first man prayed on their behalf.

Rav Nahman bar Pappa had a certain garden,

a garden.

He sowed seeds in it,

he sowed seeds in it,

but they did not grow. He pleaded for mercy,

he pleaded for mercy on their behalf,

rain came

rain,

and it grew,

what he had sown.

Rav Nahman said:

Rav Nahman:

This is what Rav Asi said,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, longs for the prayer of the righteous; therefore my garden did not grow until I prayed.

Rav Hanan bar Rava said:

This is what is written [Deuteronomy 14]: “However, these you shall not eat, among those that bring up the cud and those that have split hooves,

the shesu'a—

the camel and the hare.” The “shesu'a” mentioned in this verse

is a creature unto itself, which has two backs and two spinal columns.

And Rav Hanan bar Rava deduces:

Was Moses our teacher a hunter

a hunter

or a marksman

an archer,

was he?

If so, from where did he know what a “shesu'a” was? After all, no one who is not engaged in hunting is familiar with it!?

Rather, from here there is an answer

and proof

to one who says that the Torah is not from Heaven.

For certainly Moses our teacher recognized these animals through divine inspiration.

Rav Hisda said to Rav Tahlifa bar Avina: Go, write

this statement about

the hunter and the marksman—

in your aggadic writings.

In the aggadic statements that you write [“aggada” means matters written in fine writing and polished language],

and explain,

and explain the words “hunter” and “marksman.”

It is written in the book of Joshua [13]:

“The five lords of the Philistines—

the Gazite, the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite, and the Avvim.”

And we inquire concerning the interpretation of this verse: At first

it said

that there were

five

lords of the Philistines,

and

afterward

it counted

among them

six,

six lords!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yonatan said: Their principal one,

their important lords

were five,

and the sixth was not important.

Rav Hisda said to Rav Tahlifa bar Avina: Write

this interpretation of

their principal one,

which explains why the verse mentions only five lords of the Philistines,

in your aggadic writings,

in the aggada that you write,

and explain,

and explain the meaning of the word “their principal one.”

And it disagrees

with this interpretation that Rabbi Yonatan gave for why the verse says “five lords of the Philistines,”

on the contrary.

As Rav said: The Avvim,

who are mentioned last in the verse, were not Philistines; rather,

they came from Teman.

They were descendants of Teman, son of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and they desired to worship the god of the Philistines. They left their place and came to dwell among the Philistines; therefore they were not included in the number of the lords of the Philistines. For the verse that says “the five lords of the Philistines” refers only to the lords of the Philistines themselves, and therefore it did not say “the six lords of the Philistines.”

It was taught likewise,

in accordance with the words of Rav:

The Avvim came from Teman. And why were they called “Avvim”? Because they devastated their place,

they left there, thereby causing their place to become distorted and ruined.

Alternatively: “Avvim”—

because they desired many forms of divinity!

For they also wished to worship the god of the Philistines.

Alternatively: “Avvim”—

because anyone who saw them was seized by a convulsion,

trembling and horror on account of their appearance.

Rav Yosef said: And they had,

the Avvim,

sixteen rows of teeth,

sixteen rows of teeth

for each one

of them; therefore anyone who saw them was seized by a convulsion because of their appearance.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

There are

many verses

that seem to their readers

worthy of being burned,

because it appears to them that there is no need for them to have been written in the Torah, and they think that it is degrading to join them to the sacred Torah. But—

they are themselves the essence of Torah!

That is, great teachings depend upon them, and from these verses we learn great matters.

And the Gemara explains several verses of this kind.

It is written in the portion of Devarim:

“And the Avvim who dwell in villages as far as Gaza,

the Caphtorim who emerged from Caphtor destroyed them.”

What practical difference does it make to us

that this was not originally the place of the Caphtorim, but that the Avvim originally dwelled there, and the Caphtorim drove them out and settled in their place!?

Rather, the verse comes to teach this:

Since he made him swear,

since

Abimelech made Abraham swear—

“If you deal falsely with me, or with my son, or with my grandson,”

and the generations bound by Abraham’s oath had not yet passed, Israel could not conquer the land of the Philistines because of the oath that Abraham had sworn. Therefore

the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let the Caphtorim come,

who were not descendants of the Philistines,

and let them take it,

let them remove the land

from the Avvim—that is, [

who were ]

Philistines,

and let Israel come

so that Israel would then be able

to take it,

to take the land from the Caphtorim.

Similarly, you can say:

In a similar manner, the verse [Numbers 21] is explained:

“For Heshbon is the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and he fought against the king of Moab

and took all his land.”

What practical difference

does it make

to us

that Sihon fought against Moab?

Rather, the verse comes to teach this: Since

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Do not distress Moab,”

the Children of Israel could not conquer the land of Moab. Therefore

the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let

Sihon

come and take

and remove and conquer the land

from Moab, and let

the Children of Israel

come and take it,

and conquer and remove the land from Sihon.

And this is

what

Rav Pappa said: Ammon and Moab—

were purified through Sihon.

By Sihon’s conquest of them, they were “purified,” so that the Children of Israel could conquer them.

It is written in the portion of Devarim [chapter 2]:

“The Sidonians call Hermon Sirion,

and the Amorites call it Senir.”

A tanna taught: Senir and Sirion

are names of mountains

from the mountains of the Land of Israel.

Mount Hermon was close both to the Sidonians and to the Amorites, and they built cities upon it. The Sidonians called the city they built on Mount Hermon “Sirion,” while the Amorites called the city they built on Hermon “Senir.” Both intended to name their cities after the mountains of Israel, because the mountains of Israel were dear to them.

The verse teaches

that

each and every one of the nations of the world went and built a great city for himself, and elevated it,

and gave

it a name,

after the name of

the mountains of the Land of Israel. This teaches you—

—

Similarly,

the verse is written in the portion of Vayigash [Genesis 47]:

“And he transferred the people to the cities.” What practical difference

does it make

to us

that Joseph transferred the people of Egypt to other cities? Rather, the verse teaches us that Joseph did this intentionally,

in order

to

prevent them from calling his brothers “exiles.”

That is, so that the Egyptians would not later call his brothers “exiles, sons of exiles,” Joseph exiled the Egyptians themselves.

We learned in the Mishna:

The signs of a bird were not stated

in the Torah.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?!

Were the signs of a bird not stated in the Torah!?

But it was taught:

It is written in the Torah, in the passage concerning impure birds: “the

nesher.”