Talking Talmud

A debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir, as to whether a first-born donkey is permitted for benefit. Whether the animal is decapitated is a relevant element to the disagreement. Plus, the question of food impurity -- that which isn't forbidden for benefit is food, and vice versa, but then it can become impure. But then what about meat and milk that are cooked together, and prohibited for benefit? Because that's not Rabbi Shimon's opinion. The system of food impurity seems to be internal to itself. Also, the case of slaughtering a first-born animal for practice in slaughtering. [Who's Who? Nimos (and Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi)] Plus, Rashi's comment, as well as that of Rabbenu Gershom.

A new mishnah! When two donkeys are born at the same time, and it's not clear which one should be offered as a first-born (or a male and female and not clear which was born first). Also, the redemption of the first-born donkey with a lamb (or a kid). Note that a lamb can be used multiple times to redeem a donkey, given the proper procedure. Also, the Gemara delves into the case of designating a lamb as a possible redeemer -- with the sharp question why the owner who designates the lamb has to designate, since it will remain in his possession regardless.

Non-kosher fish "spawn" their offspring and nurse, where kosher fish lay eggs - with the exception of a bat, which lays eggs and also nurses, with many more factors to characterize the various animals (including wild geese and domesticated geese). Also, "dulfanim" -- "children of the sea" -- reproduce like people, and they may be dolphins or mermaid or sirens or something else. Plus, a question about the gestation of the snake. Also, philosophical discussion of the length of snakes gestation - 7 years? 3 years? 4 years? Note the Athenian sages. Eventually to debate the sages before the Roman caesar. Plus, social status and other timely decisions of the ancient world (12 of them).

When an impure animal appears to be born to a pure animal, the animal can be consumed if and only if its head and more resembles the kosher mother. But can a kosher animal and a non-kosher animal truly mate? It seems not. To the extent that an animal that looks like it's the progeny of both perhaps may have been born of two kosher animals, but where one had a mutation to look like a non-kosher animal. Also, the question of how practical the concern was about this kind of progeny of kosher-and-non-kosher animals. Plus, a new mishnah! On fish, where the non-kosher fish swallowed a kosher fish or the reverse. Note that the distinction between non-kosher fish (usually sea creatures or sea food) and kosher fish is the difference between spawning progeny vs. laying eggs. The link to Dr. Jeremy Brown's Talmudology post: https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2016/8/14/pigxsheep-y7df4

When the progeny of an animal doesn't quite resemble the mother animal, but has some similar traits, will it require the first-born status? Note the complicating factors of a kosher animal giving birth to a non-kosher animal, or vice versa. Also, the Gemara delves into the non-kosher animals here, because the question of their milk (say, a camel), their brine, and more might seem logical -- that the milk would be prohibited as much as the non-kosher elements of the animals. But maybe the milk is allowed. Because even milk from a kosher animal (like cow's milk from a cow) seems a radical thing to be permitted.

Rabbi Yochanan came to Rabbi Elazar in a dream, and it was a harbinger for a good day. And the sanctification of the first-borns would not end, because of his own learning. Also, the story of a Roman official (Kunterukus) who bothers Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai about the number of Levites in the wilderness and in the final count in the Torah. Also, on the census count of the half-shekel. Where there shenanigans in the census money? Poor accounting? Plus, a new mishnah: A cow that gives birth to a kind of donkey... The question is when the first-born law kicks in, but the other question is how does a cow deliver a kind of donkey? Even given the exceptional status of the donkey.

A new mishnah! Establishing additional exemptions for the first-born donkey offerings. The initial exemptions took place in the wilderness, and exempted the Levites, because the people themselves were going to be exempted. But other - kosher - animals were still subject to the laws of the first-born (cattle, sheep, and goats). But why are the Levites exempt from the first-born son and the first-born donkey, but subject to the regular, other animals' first-borns? Also, the first-born sanctification seems to have first taken place in the wilderness -- or were they not? (A dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish) Note the original role of the first-born (people), before the kohanim were selected for their role. Then, the sanctification of the first-borns made a different kind of sense.

If one sold a first-born, and had to buy it back, the question is whether that's buying it back for 10x the value of the animal specifically, or just some random large amount. Or maybe it's for 100x. Plus, the concern of blemishes -- and permanent blemishes -- in the first-born (what if it's jointly owned with a non-Jew?). Also, different kinds of blemishes could make the animal look like a pig or a goose or other kinds of mutations that aren't connected to the animal's real appearance.

A new tractate, taking the first-born animals as its major focus: including human first-born sons, first male domesticated animals, and first-born donkeys, commemorating the first-borns who were saved in Egypt. We open with the focus on the donkeys. And, of course, with a new mishnah. The mitzvah applies only to donkeys that are owned fully by Jews. The question is, then, what happens if the donkey is jointly owned, and it lists 5 cases. The Gemara addresses why all of those 5 cases were necessary to spell out (instead of learning from one to the other).

A new mishnah! The last one, to be sure. Taking the mother bird for the fledglings or eggs -- you take the mother bird for the sake of the purification of the person recovering from tzara'at. Meaning, the mitzvah of that purification doesn't make it permitted to take the bird under the circumstances of her being on her chicks/eggs. Also, the philosophical conundrum of one who sends away the mother bird, for which long life is promised, and at the behest of his father, so honoring his parent, for which long life is promised, and then dies on the descent. How to reconcile or resolve this contradiction? [Who's Who: Elisha ben Avuya, aka "Aher"]

New mishnayot! 1 - If you send away the mother bird, and she comes back (even several times), you still have to send her away, if you want the eggs. Plus, when a positive commandment comes together with a negative commandment. Also, the implementation of lashes -- where the obligation begins with the sending of the mother bird away, but once she's been taken without sending her away, then what? Can she be sent away after she wasn't? And practically speaking, lift the bird! (What does that accomplish??).

More on the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird from sitting on her eggs or fledgling birds. If someone approached the nest with a knife, and began slaughtering the birds, or nearly so, does he send away the mother bird? What does it mean to take the birds for yourself? What state does the bird need to be in? The Gemara proffers several cases for several "teiku" lack-of-conclusions. Also, the positioning of the mother bird at the time of sending her away -- the obligation to do so only kicks in if she's actually sitting on the eggs or fledgling and touching the nest itself.

Consecrated birds are exempt from the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird -- what is the case? Well, what if a person consecrated the baby birds in the nest? Returning them to the nest if the mother bird returns to them, then there's no requirement to send her away anyway! Maybe he's consecrating the mother bird. Plus, what happens if a consecrated bird escapes to the wild?! Note that the Gemara narrows the mishnah's halakhah to a very specific case, in contrast to the original phrasing. Also, the case of finding a nest in the head of a person. And the ostensible sources, or allusions, anyway, in the Torah, for Moshe, Haman, Esther, and Mordechai. [Where's Where? Papuniya]

Finishing the 11th chapter and beginning the 12th chapter. First, how much wool must one give in terms of worth? And how must it be presented? And how do we know how much wool counts as this gift to the kohen? The source is in the verses in the same context as the "first fleece" mitzvah in the Torah, in Deuteronomy. Note the famous proverb about reaching for too much as an unsuccessful project, whereas a less ambitious grasp will be successful. Plus, the discussion of the kohen's sash -- namely, if there was no wool in the kohen's sash, then why the first fleece? The Gemara steps back to say that wool is used for the kohen gadol's clothing, and the sash applies to everyone, basically, and therefore the measure of how much fleece is required. Also, chapter 12! And a new mishnah -- all about the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird to take the eggs/baby birds, which, together with honoring parents, carry a biblical promise of long life.

The "first fleece" mishnah applies only to sheep - and the question is how is that known (from the Torah). Along the way, other first-born rules are raised, like the first-born ox doesn't work. Can it be that "shearing" isn't specific to sheep, but removing any animal's hair? And was this a serious inquiry? Also, the minimum number of sheep required for the prescribed shearing -- perhaps 5. Or perhaps according to the value of the fleece. Which comes to a comparable value.

3 universally accepted lenient halakhot at that time: 1. The first shearing of the wool applied only in the land of Israel (a reduction of obligation, as compared to the mishnah). 2. The words of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity. 3. The complicated requirements to violate the law of "mixing kinds," wherein 3 separate elements had to be planted together. Also, note that the "first fleece" had other stringencies that were part of it (eg - whether the treyfot of these sheep would be obligated in the first fleece). And how that is learned from the verses, including a "gezerah shavah" (but which one?).

A new chapter! A new mishnah! The first shearing of your sheep's wool goes to the kohanim. But only from non-consecrated animals. And only when you have "numerous" sheep -- which may be as few as two, or maybe five. Plus, what happens if the owner would dye the wool? Also, partnership in ownership of the flocks that would be required in gifts from the first-sheared wool but are not, because of the partnership (depending on the partnership). Note the contrasts when compared to terumah. Also, the categorization of retroactive clarification -- which shows up again (yesh/ein bereirah). Plus, the ramifications of a partnership with a non-Jew, including those who are not necessarily idolators.

A new mishnah! A convert who had a cow -- and it was slaughtered before the conversion, no gifts to the kohen; if after the conversion, then the convert is obligated in the gifts. But if it's not clear which happened first -- then the convert would be exempt from giving those gifts. [Who's Who: Rav Dimi] Plus, a contradiction raised by a different case -- as based on the information provided by ant holes in grain to determine how long ago that grain was moved, and whether it was harvested after the gifts for the poor had been left. Also, more on the gifts to the poor -- leket, shikchah, and pe'ah, and how they have different constraints/leniencies, as compared to terumah, which goes to the kohen.

Rav Yosef tested Rava and Abaye, regarding the gifts that are supposed to go to the kohen - when the kohen grabs the goods, he presents himself with the defense of obtaining the materials. Abaye explains how he used to reach of the gifts, but was schooled by others to simply wait. Plus, did Abaye teach Torah when he should have been functioning as a kohen? Also, partnered ownership of animals with an idolator -- how far can that be taken?

Do the gifts to the kohen include the daughter of the kohen as a recipient, or is she considered like a yisrael for this purpose, and the gifts are only to male kohanim? Also, more on the koi (the animal that is neither "behamah" nor "haya," but has indications of each). Plus, a new mishnah! On the case of a first-born animal that is blemished, which then exempts the owner from giving the gifts to the kohanim. And if that blemished animal is mixed among 100 other (unblemished) animals, it would exempt all of them from the gifts. Also, the question of joint ownership, and how that might exempt one from those same gifts. Plus, the understanding that this mishnah is speaking to the butcher, and not the owner or the kohen, for example.

A particular levi would grab the gifts going to the kohanim, before they reached the kohanim. The people complained to Rav... which raises the question of the gifts that are not required of the levites for the kohanim. But why aren't they required of the levites? Where does Rav find this approach? The difference seems to hinge on whether the levites are part of the people. Also, any foods that are considered sacred are taken from the levites, but not the things that are not sacred. But at the end of the long discussion, it seems that Rav's view is refuted, and the levites really did have to give these gifts.

A new chapter, and a new mishnah! The mitzvah of gifts from slaughtered animals that went to the kohanim - leg, jaw, and maw (the 4th stomach of the cow). Even not during the time of the Temple. Specifically about non-consecrated animals, and not about sacrifices, which have their own set of laws regarding the kohanim. And the many details surrounding these gifts. Also, delving into the gifts, and the specifics of the gifts to the kohanim. Including Rav Hisda's exemption for paying those gifts if they were lost, for example.

When something that is made of food is not being used for the purposes of food -- and then is not subject to the rules that pertain to food, such as those of impurity, for example. Thus, what a thing is used for has impact on its status and other areas of halakhah, and not just what it was originally designed to be. Also, a new mishnah! More on a dangling limb, and when it is considered to be attached to a dead body, to investigate for impurity, while it can be kept from being considered a dangling limb, whether from a living animal or not.

When a dangling limb might become susceptible to impurity. Plus, cases that conclude "Teiku" -- the conclusion is not known with surety. Does the whole body function as a "handle" for the dangling limb? It's a machloket. And several other cases that are not resolved, but conclude "teiku." Plus, flesh that is severed and becomes susceptible to impurity, with attention to the difference between a limb from a live animal in contrast to a limb from a carcass. Note the careful interpretation of the biblical texts here.

A list of the creeping-crawlies... which diverts us to the fire that a salamander can generate, and the glory of God's creations, including animals that grow on land vs. those from sea vs. those from fire, and the wonder of Rabbi Akiva. Plus, the corruption of the people of Neresh, and various different strengths (or weaknesses) of various locations. Also, a new mishnah! The impurity of partially severed limbs.

The question of impure marrow from bone - if closed, it doesn't matter, but if punctured, it will impart impurity. Thus, bones become a whole discussion unto themselves, as exceptional cases. Also, the eggs of creepy crawlies - when would they render a person impure? (Begin with the perforation of the egg -- much as the hole in the bone to access the marrow makes a difference too). Note: Ahistorical scientific assumptions included. Also, consider the pervasiveness of impurity and the implications of that for society - much like our own.

The marrow of a bone - in a sacrificial offering, that was then leftover - leads to impurity, as do the bones themselves. But that can depend on whether they are opened or closed. Also, touching impurity turns out to have the same status as one would have after carrying impurity. And raises the question of the "ohel," tent, for when impurity is transferred as a matter of being there, as per all of the different categories. Also, the "list' of the Mishnah plays out in the Gemara. Plus, defining the impurity of the tent ("ohel").

A new mishnah! But first, procedure about how that which is rendered impure becomes pure again by virtue of an action, though that action is not necessarily needed. Plus, when is the impurity of such an item lasting? Some of the description are very fast, in contrast to some others. Plus, how one applies the cautionary tale of this verse. So, when is nevelah meat a debate? And would one want to prove the nevelah meat, and the correct kinds of all of these losses would happen?

A new mishnah! More on the hide, and how, without flesh, it doesn't transmit impurity. But in the process of flaying the hide, there is a short time when convey impurity is possible. Also, note that impurity can be removed by changes to the item itself, and not just ridding the item of its ritual impurity.

A new mishnah! But a difficult one. Specifically about skin and when it conveys impurity -- with specific reference to creepie-crawlies, but there is also discussion about the skin of other animals, and even of a dead body (human). And the gruesome discussion of skin being used functionally. With a different level of impurity for human skin -- from a Torah level and from a rabbinic level, which is more cautious and stringent than the Torah level (including the question of tanning). Also, a review of different statuses of different kinds of skin, and the potential of imparting impurity.

More on items that join with meat to achieve a volume of food that would lead to the imparting of impurity. Including "allal" - which this daf defines (nuchal ligaments?). With a focus on what aspects can join with meat. Also, if a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal for a non-Jew's consumption (or the converse) -- the implications of that case, as to when impurity would be imparted, or when there would be halakhic complications to begin with.

When do spices join together with the meat to yield an amount that can impart impurity of food -- even though the spices alone wouldn't get that impurity to begin with, because spices aren't quite food for this purpose. The Gemara clarifies that it really means the scrapings - including meat - at the bottom of the pot. But what if that includes forbidden fats or coagulated blood or the like? Also, liquids that come from foods with special halakhic statuses -- and how those liquids have the special statuses as well.

A pod that has beans that come in contact with a creepy-crawly will not impart impurity (the beans are protected well enough on their own). In contrast to a pod with smaller legumes. What kind of "protections" of the food can come together to make the food large enough to impart impurity? For example, the 3 peels of an onion have different practical implications with regard to this kind of protection.

How handling impure food can become its own issue, and using a handle or an item of protection for the food will have different implications for the impurity and transfer thereof. The connection between the accouterments of food and the food itself is derived from the Torah verses. Also, in the case of something that was impure from a carcass falls on food - then the handle can import or export impurity, depending. Is logic the basis of the conclusion or is that based on the verses? The Gemara provides both.

A new mishnah! Both blood and forbidden fats are prohibited by Torah law, but there are ways in which each is more stringent than the other, and also more lenient than the other. But one would not be liable for the other prohibitions that are more connected to the sacrifices, like "pigul," at that same time. Also, a new chapter (9) with a new mishnah! Parts of an animal that are not edible that can still come together with meat to make a "ke-beitzah," an eggs-worth, the minimum needed to impart impurity from one food to the next.

The distinction between Rabbi Akiva's leniencies regarding cooking undomesticated animals and fowl in milk vs. those of Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's permission and stringency in that regard. Plus, the respect afforded Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's opinion because it was his opinion, in his own region -- even by those who strongly disagreed, like Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Also, a new mishnah! On curdling milk to make cheese -- even when the process is done within the stomach of an animal. With implications when the animal was kosher or non-kosher, and dependent also on whether that "meat" gives flavor to the cheese.

More on the abominable products that are the result of actions that are prohibited -- for example, food that was cooked on shabbat, which violates shabbat and then is itself problematic. Also, the prohibition against benefitting from meat cooked in milk -- an inference that comes not only from the 3-fold repetition about the kid and its mother's milk, but together with the Pesach sacrifice.

How literal is the Torah's phrasing of "mother's milk"? Does it really mean the milk of the mother of the given animal, or all milk? Clearly, all milk - and the Gemara provides the logic for that as well as a verse to teach it too. But why both? Also, how do we know that it is prohibited to consume meat and milk that have been cooked together? The product of that which is prohibited (the cooking) is considered abominable, which would prohibit eating that product. Plus, Rambam's inference that there was once an idolatry where the worship was done via cooking milk and meat together, which was determined to be true, centuries later.

Beginning with a mnemonic to help remember the cases that are exceptions -- for example, the way salting (and rinsing, depending on the order and location) renders some meat kosher. Also, what happens if the blood from one piece of meat can be absorbed elsewhere? And - a new mishnah! What if you have cheese and fowl on the table? Does that violate the meat/milk-on-the-same-table problem? It would seem not, and that it's only prohibited at the rabbinic level. And a second new mishnah - on the 3 statements about not cooking a kid in its mother's milk - and what we learn from them. Plus, the implications with regard to non-domesticated animals and also birds/fowl. And the fact that this statement is repeated in the Torah 3x.

Can you put a jug of salt alongside a jug of kutch - milk and grain reality....? The Gemara seems to say other substances would not be allowed - and that the kutach would not allowed.... depending on whether it was mixed with salt, or maybe vinegar. Also, bread that was used as something under the meat that you're cooking - that bread is a complicated situation, for the blood that emerges from unsalted, but roasted meat and is absorbed by the bread. Plus, other conditions that make it clear that blood was absorbed.

What if you roast a liver with other meat? Over a fire is acceptable, because the blood would be burned out, but an udder is not, because of the milk being absorbed. Except that there's a machloket, where the reverse positions are taken. Also, fish that was put in a meat bowl that doesn't have meat in it at the time -- can that same fish be eaten with kutach (the very dairy sourdough fermented food)? Will that meat give off flavor that would combine (in a prohibited way) with the kutach? Plus, the pressure from the edge of the knife as a factor, and the sharpness of a food itself, like radishes (as compared to cucumbers).

More on the udder. And the different practices with regard to eating udder, as per different places. Plus, the story of Rami bar Dekuli, who went to Sura from Pompedita (where they don't eat udders) on the day before Yom Kippur. But in Sura, they don't eat udder, and so they were shocked when he collected them to eat. Leading to an intensive discussion about minhag, basic practice. Also, more on liver. R. Safra is tasked with asking the sages of the land of Israel how they manage liver -- in terms of preparing to eliminate the blood.

When milk flavor is imparted to a plate of meat -- it's prohibited even if the milk flavor would be squeezed out of it. With a 3-way machloket, on the efficacy of squeezing out the flavor. Also, a new mishnah! On the udder and the heart, filled with milk and blood, respectively. Also, a story of Yalta [Who's Who: Yalta!]. She is clear on the fact that every prohibited area of halakhah has a foil that has a comparable permitted area, and she's looking for the foil to meat and milk cooked together - what has the kosher version of that taste?

A new mishnah! A drop of milk falls on a piece of meat that is cooking in a pot -- is there enough milk to give over some flavor? Note the Torah-level of prohibition regarding the milk. Also, when the milk can be nullified and when it cannot. And likewise, meat, which sometimes disappears against its backdrop, as it were, and sometimes renders a whole pot of meat unkosher.

More on the laws pertaining to the ritual washing of hands: What if you hold the bread via a cloth or gloves or some such and don't wash? What if the reason you don't touch the food with your hands is because you're finicky, and not about ritual washing? Also, a woman who is feeding her child on Yom Kippur and rinses a hand before doing so -- clearly is not in violation of not-washing on Yom Kippur. Shammai the Elder didn't want to wash even one hand, and he was told he must wash both hands -- on Yom Kippur, because he was avoiding doing so inappropriately. OR it was to rid himself of "shivta" on Yom Kippur, for not having washed ritually in the morning. Plus, the question of whether the person eating needs to wash or the person feeding (a child, for example). Also: a new mishnah! Meat and cheese in the same cloth, and guests at an inn who share a table, though one is eating dairy and one meat.

Rav Dimi tells the story of how not washing before the meal in the ceremonial washing that precedes a meal led to a Jew eating pork. Likewise, a story of a woman who ended up divorced because of not washing after the meal. Another version of the story -- replace "pork" with non-kosher meat and "divorce" with death. Also, the difference between ritual washing and washing for cleanliness, or washing for produce. Plus, the proper way to wash your hands for eating regular meat, in contrast to the extra washing done for terumah.

On using bread as a napkin, to wipe your mouth from a given flavor. Also, how long to wait between milk (cheese) and meat -- perhaps no time at all, as it turns out. Though some were known for waiting a full 24 hours, no less, from meat to dairy. Plus, salt from Sodom -- a very fine salt -- that gave rise to the practice of washing one's hands after the given meal. At one point, it was a very widespread practice, though less so nowadays. Which leads into the discussion of washing one's hands first thing in the morning. And other tidbits that seem to be about kashrut, but may really be about customs.

Chapter 8! And the 3 verses that repeat not to cook a kid in its mother's milk. Also 2 mishnayot. 1 - No meat and milk together, not even on the same table, where "meat" refers to domesticated animals, non-domesticated animals, and birds, but not to fish or grasshoppers. 2 - That policy of no meat and milk on the table together is a matter of dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Note that this is one of the 6 unusual times when Beit Hillel is more stringent than Beit Shammai is, as per a mishnah in Eduyot. Plus, the construction of the mishnah for the sake of mentioning the name of the source, as that is said to bring redemption (and for which the Book of Esther is, perhaps oddly, used for the prooftext).

Finishing chapter 7! But first, a case of several sins in one period of time, including non-kosher meat, and in which it seems that 2 sets of lashes would be sufficient. Or should it be three sets? What is the focal point of this dispute? When did it become a treyfa - quite young, as it turns out. With 3 explanations for the various cases. Plus, a discussion of the measure of eating for a prohibition against certain foods - regardless of whether the food itself gets stuck between a person's teeth. So how does this measure of an olive's worth work? And what if one ingested half an olive's worth? Or what if it were thrown up and reswallowed? Is the measure of benefit for the throat? Or for the stomach?

More on the prohibition of eating a limb from a live animal - which applies to everyone, and regardless of whether the animal itself is kosher or non-kosher (though for Jewish, this prohibition would only apply to kosher animals). Also, the Noahides! Plus, one who has intent to eat a tiny bird - alive - or eating limb by limb... and when that intent has impact on one's liability for the physical prohibited act.

On the sciatic nerve of the carcass of a kosher animal -- is there a way out of the punishment for the forbidden food? What happens when there's more than one prohibition, but they are only tangentially connected? Plus, the Gemara does some digging to determine which sage was partial to which approach. Plus, the order of factors that make a given piece of meat prohibited - that order can make a difference in the consequences as well. Also, Jacob and the angel, again. But is the prohibition contingent on the people being called "the Children of Israel"?!? Was the Torah given piecemeal, or all at once at Sinai?