הַטָּמֵא״, וְהָנֵי נַמִי מִינָא דְּטָמֵא הוּא.

the non-kosher animal [ min hattamei ], one can infer that any type [ min ] of non-kosher substance is included. And these fluids, i.e., the urine of a donkey, are also a type of non-kosher substance,

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּסוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ – דְּלָא שָׁתוּ אֱינָשֵׁי. כִּי קָמִיבָּעֲיָא לְהוּ דַּחֲמוֹר, דְּשָׁתוּ אֱינָשֵׁי וּמַעֲלוּ לְיַרְקוֹנָא, מַאי?

And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion about the urine of a donkey: With regard to the urine of horses and camels, the students of Rav Sheshet did not raise the dilemma, because people do not drink it. When they raised the dilemma it was with regard to the urine of a donkey, which people drink and which is beneficial for curing jaundice. What, then, is the halakha ?

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא – טָמֵא, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּהוֹר – טָהוֹר; וְהָנֵי נַמִי מִטָּמֵא קָאָתֵי.

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned the answer to your dilemma in the mishna: That which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher, and these fluids also come from a donkey, which is non-kosher. Therefore, they are forbidden.

מֵיתִיבֵי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים מוּתָּר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְנִיסוֹת אוֹתוֹ לְגוּפָן, וְאֵין מְמַצּוֹת אוֹתוֹ מִגּוּפָן!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : For what reason did the Sages say that the honey of bees is permitted? It is because they bring the nectar from the flowers into their body, but they do not excrete it from their body as a bodily excretion. So too, the urine of a donkey is not an excretion produced by the body itself. Rather, it is simply ejected in the same form that it entered the body. Why, then, should it be forbidden?

הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמַר: דּוּבְשָׁא רַחֲמָנָא שַׁרְיֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet stated his answer in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who says that with regard to honey, the Merciful One permits it as an exception to the principle that a substance that emerges from a non-kosher animal is non-kosher.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ״אַךְ אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף״ – זֶה אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, וְאִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל שֶׁרֶץ עוֹף טָמֵא.

This is as it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Ya’akov says that it is stated: “Yet these may you eat of all winged creatures” (Leviticus 11:21). The word “these” indicates that you may eat these, but you may not eat a non-kosher winged creature.

שֶׁרֶץ עוֹף טָמֵא בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב! אֶלָּא, שֶׁרֶץ עוֹף טָמֵא אִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל מַה שֶּׁעוֹף טָמֵא מַשְׁרִיץ, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה – זֶה דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים.

The Gemara asks: Why is this inference necessary? The prohibition against eating a non-kosher winged creature is written explicitly: “All winged creatures that go upon all fours are a repugnance to you” (Leviticus 11:20). Rather, the inference must be understood as follows: You may not eat a non-kosher winged creature, but you may eat that which a non-kosher winged creature discharges from its body, and what is that? That is the honey of bees.

יָכוֹל אַף דְּבַשׁ הַגִּזִּין וְהַצִּירְעִין? אָמַרְתָּ: לֹא. וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת דְּבוֹרִים וּלְהוֹצִיא הַגִּזִּין וְהַצִּירְעִין? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים – שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי דְּבַשׁ הַגִּזִּין וְהַצִּירְעִין – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי.

The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita : One might have thought that even the honey of gizzin and wasps should be permitted. Nevertheless, you should say no. The baraita asks: And what did you see to include the honey of bees as being permitted to eat and to exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps as being forbidden? The baraita answers: I include the honey of bees, as its name does not have a modifier, i.e., the word honey alone always refers to the honey of bees. And I exclude the honey of gizzin and wasps, which have a modifier, i.e., one must always add the word gizzin or wasp to specify these particular types of honey.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: דְּבַשׁ הַגִּזִּין וְהַצִּירְעִין – טָהוֹר, וּמוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita : The honey of gizzin and wasps is not susceptible to ritual impurity and is permitted for consumption? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov.

״טָהוֹר״ – אַלְמָא בָּעֵי מַחֲשָׁבָה. תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: דְּבַשׁ בְּכַוַּורְתּוֹ מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה.

The Gemara infers from the expression: Is not susceptible to ritual impurity, that apparently, in order for the honey of gizzin and wasps to become susceptible to ritual impurity it requires specific intention to eat it, which renders it food. Furthermore, the baraita indicates that honey from bees does not require specific intention to eat it in order for it to become susceptible, because it is normally used for food. This is also taught in a baraita : The honey of bees that is still in its hive is susceptible to ritual impurity as food even without intent.

חֲלֵי דְּיַחְמוּרְתָּא, סְבוּר רַבָּנַן לְמֵימַר: בֵּיעֵי נִינְהוּ, וַאֲסִירַן. אֲמַר רַב סַפְרָא: זַרְעָא דְּאַיָּלָא הוּא, דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר אַיַּלְתָּא, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּרַחְמָהּ צַר לָא מִזְדַּקְּקָא, וְאָזִיל בָּתַר יַחְמוּרְתָּא, וְנָתְרִי.

§ The Gemara discusses additional cases of animal secretions. With regard to chunks that are discharged from the womb of a female fallow deer, the Sages thought to say that they are its egg cells, and therefore are forbidden as a limb severed from a living animal. Rav Safra said: It is the semen of a hart, which pursues the hind, but since the hind’s womb is narrow it does not mate with the hart, and instead the hart pursues the female fallow deer and mates with it, and chunks of its semen that have hardened fall out of the fallow deer’s body.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: עוֹר הַבָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו שֶׁל חֲמוֹר – מוּתָּר, מַאי טַעֲמָא? פִּירְשָׁא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

Rav Huna says: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a donkey when it is born, i.e., the fetal sac that envelopes it during birth, is permitted to be consumed. What is the reason? It is merely a secretion, and is not an integral part of the mother or the offspring.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּע לָךְ: עוֹר הַבָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו שֶׁל אָדָם, בֵּין חַי בֵּין מֵת – טָהוֹר; מַאי לָאו, בֵּין הוּא חַי וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּה, בֵּין הוּא מֵת וְאִמּוֹ מֵתָה?

Rav Ḥisda said to him: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: The skin that emerges opposite the face of a person, i.e., a newborn baby, whether the newborn is alive or dead, is ritually pure and does not transmit ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. What, is it not the case that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, it is not considered a part of the body of the fetus or the mother, but merely a secretion, and therefore even when they are both dead it does not transmit impurity?

לָא, בֵּין הוּא חַי וְאִמּוֹ מֵתָה, בֵּין הוּא מֵת וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּה. וְהָתַנְיָא: בֵּין הוּא חַי וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּה, בֵּין הוּא מֵת וְאִמּוֹ מֵתָה! אִי תַּנְיָא, תַּנְיָא.

Rav Huna answered him: No, there is no proof from this baraita , as it may mean that whether it is alive and its mother is dead or whether it is dead and its mother is alive, meaning only one is alive, the skin is ritually pure. But if both are dead it is impure. Rav Ḥisda said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that whether it is alive and its mother is alive or whether it is dead and its mother is dead, the skin is pure? Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥisda: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot dispute it.

מתני׳ דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁבָּלַע דָּג טָהוֹר – מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וְטָהוֹר שֶׁבָּלַע דָּג טָמֵא – אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גִּידּוּלוֹ.

In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish, consumption of the kosher fish is permitted. And in the case of a kosher fish that swallowed a non-kosher fish, consumption of the non-kosher fish is prohibited due to the fact that the host fish is not the place of its development.

גמ׳ טַעְמָא דַּחֲזִינֵיהּ דְּבָלַע, הָא לָא חֲזִינֵיהּ דְּבָלַע – אָמְרִי: אַשְׁרוּצֵי אַשְׁרִיץ.

The Gemara infers from the language of the mishna: In the case of a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish: The reason consumption of the kosher fish is permitted is that we saw that the non-kosher fish swallowed the kosher fish. But if we did not see it swallow the kosher fish we say that perhaps the non-kosher fish spawned the kosher fish, and it is forbidden.

מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: דָּג טָמֵא – מַשְׁרִיץ, דָּג טָהוֹר – מֵטִיל בֵּיצִים. אִי הָכִי, כִּי חָזֵינָא דְּבָלַע אָמְרִינַן: הַאי – אִיעַכְּלָא, וְהַאי – אַשְׁרוּצֵי אַשְׁרִיץ!

From where do we derive that we must have this concern? As it is taught in a baraita : A non-kosher fish spawns offspring, a kosher fish lays eggs from which the offspring hatch. The Gemara challenges: If so, even when we saw it swallowing a kosher fish we should say that that fish that it swallowed was digested, and this one, which was found inside of the non-kosher fish, it spawned, and should be forbidden.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ דֶּרֶךְ הָרִיעִי. רַב פַּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ שָׁלֵם.

Rav Sheshet says: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the digestive tract, which is not where the non-kosher fish normally spawns its offspring. Rav Pappa says similarly: It is referring to a case where one found the kosher fish in the passageway of the gullet. Rav Naḥman says: It is referring to a case where one found it whole and in complete form, and not as a newly hatched fish.

רַב אַשִׁי אָמַר: רוֹב דָּגִים בְּמִינָן מַשְׁרִיצִין, וּכְמִי שֶׁבָּלַע לְפָנֵינוּ דָּמֵי.

Rav Ashi says: Do not infer from the mishna that it is referring to a case where the non-kosher fish was seen swallowing the kosher fish. Rather, the reason it is permitted to consume the swallowed fish is that the majority of fish spawn offspring of their own species, and therefore the case of a kosher fish discovered inside a non-kosher fish is considered as if the non-kosher fish had swallowed the kosher fish in our presence.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דָּג טָמֵא – מַשְׁרִיץ, דָּג טָהוֹר – מֵטִיל בֵּיצִים. כָּל הַמּוֹלִיד – מֵנִיק, וְכָל הַמֵּטִיל בֵּיצִים – מְלַקֵּט, חוּץ מֵעֲטַלֵּף, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּטִיל בֵּיצִים – מֵנִיק.

§ The Gemara cites the entirety of the previously mentioned baraita . The Sages taught that a non-kosher fish spawns its offspring, while a kosher fish lays eggs. Any animal that gives birth to its offspring nurses them, and any animal that lays eggs gathers food and feeds it to its young. This applies to all animals except for a bat [ atallef ], as although it lays eggs, it nurses its young.