G. Said Amemar, “Regarding these eggs laid by a bird that was deemed terefah [58a]: the first batch [produced after the bird became terefah] are prohibited. [Any eggs produced] thereafter are deemed to fall under the principle of two antecedent causes [i.e., the prohibited-mother and permitted-father produce the offspring] and [therefore the eggs] are permitted.”
H. R. Ashi raised an objection to Amemar, “[The Mishnah rules:] But they agree that an egg from a bird that is terefah is forbidden, since it grew in what was forbidden [M. Ed. 5:1 F].” [That ruling makes no distinction between the first and subsequent batches.]
I. [We can explain that the Mishnah refers to a case where the hen] was impregnated by [rubbing in] the soil. But why not explain that [rule refers to] the first batch [of eggs]? In that case [the Mishnah should not have stated,] it grew. It should have [stated,] it finished [growing].
J. Rather [consider] this that was taught on Tannaite authority: [Concerning] the offspring of [an animal that was deemed] terefah — R. Eliezer says, “It is not to be offered [as a sacrifice] on the altar.” And R. Joshua [M.: sages] says, “It may be offered [M. Tem. 6:5 B-D].” Concerning what [circumstance] do they dispute? Where [the animal] first became terefah and then became pregnant. R. Eliezer reasons [in accord with the principle that] where there are two antecedent causes [one permitted and one prohibited] we rule the result is prohibited. And R. Joshua reasons [in accord with the principle that] where there are two antecedent causes [one permitted and one prohibited] we rule the result is permitted.
K. If this is the case then why is the dispute formulated in relation to consecrated [animals]? They ought to dispute regarding ordinary [animals]. This will inform you of the authority of R. Joshua. For even in regard to consecrated [animals we rule in accord with his view that the offspring of a terefah-animal] is permitted.
L. But why is the dispute not formulated in relation to ordinary [animals]? And this would inform you of the authority of R. Eliezer. For even in regard to ordinary [animals we rule in accord with his view that the offspring of a terefah-animal] is prohibited. [The reason we do not formulate it in this way is that we follow the principle that] the authority of the rule that permits takes precedence [over the authority of the rule that prohibits].
M. And they agree that the egg produced by a terefah-bird is prohibited [where the hen] was impregnated by [rubbing in] the soil because there is one antecedent cause [in that case, i.e., the forbidden mother bird].
N. R. Aha reasons in accord with the view of R. Aha bar Jacob [F] and taught the ruling of Amemar as was stated above [G]. Rabina did not reason in accord with the view of R. Aha bar Jacob and accordingly taught this version of the ruling of Amemar: Said Amemar, “Regarding these eggs laid by a bird about which there was a doubt whether it was terefah: the first batch [produced after the bird became terefah] must be held in abeyance. If she goes on to lay more eggs, they are permitted. And if not, they are forbidden.”
O. R. Ashi raised an objection to Amemar, “[The Mishnah rules:] But they agree that an egg from a bird that is terefah is forbidden, since it grew in what was forbidden [M. Ed. 5:1 F].”
P. He [Amemar] said to him, “[We can explain that the Mishnah refers to] the first batch [of eggs]? In that case [the Mishnah should not have stated,] it grew. It should have [stated,] it finished [growing].
Q. [Indeed] you should teach [the version], It finished [growing].
R. Rather [consider] this that was taught on Tannaite authority: [Concerning] the offspring of [an animal that was deemed] terefah — R. Eliezer says, “It is not to be offered [as a sacrifice] on the altar.” And R. Joshua [M.: sages] says, “It may be offered [M. Tem. 6:5 B-D].” Concerning what [circumstance] do they dispute? Where [the animal] first became pregnant and then became terefah. R. Eliezer reasons [in accord with the principle that as regards to the law] the foetus is considered to be a thigh of the mother [and thus it too is terefah]. And R. Joshua reasons [in accord with the principle that] the foetus is not considered to be a thigh of the mother.
S. If this is the case then why is the dispute formulated in relation to consecrated [animals]? They ought to dispute regarding ordinary [animals]. This will inform you of the authority of R. Joshua. [For even in regard to consecrated [animals we rule in accord with his view that the offspring of a terefah-animal] is permitted.]
T. But why is the dispute not formulated in relation to ordinary [animals]? And this would inform you of the authority of R. Eliezer. [For even in regard to ordinary animals we rule in accord with his view that the offspring of a terefah-animal is prohibited. The reason we do not formulate it in this way is that we follow the principle that] the authority of the rule that permits takes precedence [over the authority of the rule that prohibits].
U. And they certainly agree that the egg produced by a terefah-bird is prohibited where it was part of the first batch. On what basis? It is part of the [mother's] body.
V. And the law is for a male [it is deemed terefah if it lives less than] twelve months. And for a female [it is deemed terefah if it] does not give birth.
VI.1
A. Said R. Huna, “Any creature that does not have a bone [i.e., and invertebrate] does not live longer than twelve months.”
B. Said R. Pappa, “We may derive from the statement of R. Huna the following [rule]: For said Samuel, `A cucumber that was infested with worms while on the vine — it is forbidden [to eat it because the worms have the status of forbidden crawling creatures].'
C. [58b] “Those [worm-infested-] dates in a barrel after twelve months of a year they are permitted [because the worms could not have entered the dates while on the tree and then lived that long].”
D. Said Rab, “No gnat lives more than a day. No fly lives more than a year.”
E. Said R. Pappa to Abayye, “Lo, the folk tell [this story]: For seven years the female gnat bickered with the male gnat. She said to him, ` I have seen a person from Mehoza who was bathing and came out of the water and wrapped himself in a sheet. And you alit on him and sucked his blood and did not tell me about it.” [Apparently, gnats can live more than a day.]
F. He [Abayye] said to him, “According to your logic [consider this tale]. Lo, the folk tell [this story]: Sixty minas [weight] of iron can be hung from the proboscis of a gnat. Could this be for real? By itself how much does it weigh? Rather [what is the explanation of this statement]? It refers to their scale of mina-weights [of the gnats]. Here too [regarding the first story] it must refer to their measure of years [i.e., much less than ours].”
VII.1
A. It was taught there in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: A beast with five legs or that has only three... lo these are deemed blemishes [M. Bekh. 6:7]. Said R. Huna, “They taught this only if a fore-leg was missing or added. But if a hind-leg was missing or added, it is also deemed to be a terefah.” One what basis? [It is based on the principle that] we treat every added limb like a missing limb [and that renders the animal terefah].
B. A certain animal had two inner rumens. They brought it before Rabina [for a ruling]. And he declared it terefah on the basis of the ruling of R. Huna. But if [the two rumens] empty from one to the other it is valid [i.e., we treat them as if they were one].
C. A certain tube that went from the reticulum to the omasum — R. Ashi reasoned to declare it terefah. Said R. Huna mar bar Hiyya to R. Ashi, “All grazing animal have this.”
D. A certain tube that went from the reticulum to the rumen — Mar bar R. Ashi reasoned to declare it valid. Said to him R. Oshaia, “Will you weave all [the laws] together into one fabric? Where it is stated [that the law deems it valid], it is stated. And where it is not stated, it is not stated.”
VIII.1
A. Nathan bar Shila, the chief butcher of Sepphoris, testified before Rabbi that if two intestines protrude from an animal at the same time it is terefah. And the equivalent case for a bird is valid. Under what circumstances? If they protrude from two different places. But if they protrude from the same place and end within a finger's breadth or each other, it is valid.
B. R. Ammi and R. Assi dispute [regarding the interpretation of “end within a finger's breadth”]. One said, “They must merge back together.” And the other said, “Even if they do not merge back together.”
C. Now this is consistent according the authority that holds the view that [to be valid] they must merge back together that they taught [this must be] “within a finger's breadth.” But according to the authority that holds the view that [to be valid it is acceptable] even if they do not merge back together, what is the meaning of the stipulation, “within a finger's breadth?” It means, “within a finger's breadth below [i.e., near the rectum they must merge (Rashi)].”
IX.1
A. R. Judah says, “If the fuzz is removed, it is invalid [M. 3:4 F].” Said R. Yohanan, “R. Judah and R. Ishmael said the same thing. R. Judah, as we stated [in the Mishnah]. And R. Ishmael, as it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, R. Ishmael says, `The down joins together [i.e., the fuzz combines with other parts of the carcass to constitute the minimum quantity to render unclean and to contract uncleanness, M. Toh. 1:2 B].'”
B. Said Raba, “Perhaps this is not a valid assertion. On this point only regarding the matter of terefah R. Judah stated [that the fuzz is significant because without it] there is nothing to protect the bird [from the elements and it will die]. But with regard to matters that spoil the animal [i.e., uncleanness] he holds in accord with the view of the rabbis. And on this point only regarding the matters that spoil the animal [i.e., uncleanness] R. Ishmael stated [that the fuzz is significant]. But with regard to the matter of rendering the animal terefah [he would argue that] it does not afford any protection [for the bird and thus is of no consequence].”
Again the materials adhere closely to Mishnah's operative considerations and issues. I.1 supplies a precedent that relates to Mishnah's primary concern. It goes on to a secondary discussion of that tradition in comparison with Mishnah and then to a related rule. II.1 comments on Mishnah's rule and cites Scripture related to it. B suggests and alternative application of the verse.
II.2 provides a colorful proof that a defect listed by Mishnah need not be lethal. III.1-2 gives precedents and rulings that relate to Mishnah's next rule and to defects in fowl in general. IV.1 provides a precedent to illustrate Mishnah's rule. It then goes off on a tangential discussion. V.1 states some general principles of signs of terefah-defects. G-V takes up the status of the by-products, eggs of a terefah-bird. It cites independent Mishnah-sources and invokes in the discussion the principle of a product of two antecedent causes. VI.1 cites secondary rules and a story derivative of the preceding.
VII.1 introduces an unrelated rule based on an independent Mishnah-source. VIII.1 cites a precedent that has general relevance to Mishnah's rule in E-4. IX.1 returns to cite another Mishnah-source that complements our Mishnah and then briefly discusses its relevance.
3:5
A. (1) [A beast which suffers from] congestion of blood,
(2) and one [which has suffered from] smoke,
(3) and one [which has suffered from] cold,
(4) and one which has eaten oleander,
(5) and one which has eaten chicken excrement,
(6) or which has drunk dirty water
B. is valid.
C. [If] it ate deadly poison, or if a snake bit it, it is permitted [to eat it] in respect to [the laws of] terefah, but it is prohibited as a danger to life.
I.1
A. Said Samuel, “If it chewed asafoetida, it is terefah.” On what basis? [On the assumption that it is so strong it] perforated [the animal's] internal organs.
B. R. Shizbi posed an objection: [A beast which suffers from] congestion of blood, and one [which has suffered from] smoke, [and one which has suffered from cold] [M. Hul. 3:5A1-3] — [if] one force fed it asafoetida, root of crowfoot, oleander, deadly poison, [or] chicken excrement — it is valid. One bitten by a snake, or bitten by a rabid dog in respect to terefah it is permitted, but it is prohibited as a danger to life [M. Hul. 3:5 C] [T. 3:19 A-C].
C. There is a contradiction with regard to asafoetida [between Samuel's rule and T.] And there is a contradiction with regard to deadly poison [between M. and T.].
D. We may explain that there is no contradiction with regard to asafoetida. This one [Samuel] refers to the extract [that is potent] and this one [T.] refers to the leaves [that are milder].
E. We may explain that there is no contradiction with regard to deadly poison. This one [T.] refers to [a beast that ate] animal-poison and this one [M.] refers to [a beast that ate] human-poison [that poses danger if one eats the animal that ingested it].
F. But animal-poison is oleander! [The text of T. is repetitive if we accept this interpretation.] [We can say] there are two distinct kinds of animal-poison [listed by T.].
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.