Meilah — Daf 16b

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אכילת שרצים לוקה עליו בכזית מאי טעמא אכילה כתיב בהו

והתני רבי יוסי בר ר' חנינא קמיה דרבי יוחנן (ויקרא כ, כה) והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהורה לטמאה ובין העוף הטמא לטהור ולא תשקצו את נפשותיכם בבהמה ובעוף ובכל אשר תרמוש האדמה אשר הבדלתי לכם לטמא פתח הכתוב באכילה וסיים בטומאה

מה טומאה בכעדשה אף אכילה בכעדשה וקלסיה ר' יוחנן וקשיא לדרב

לא קשיא כאן במיתתן כאן בחייהן

אמר ליה אביי והא רב אמתני' קאי ומתני' כל השרצים קתני אפילו במיתתן (לאו דאיכא פורתא מהאי ופורתא מהאי) אמר ליה רב יוסף ההיא דיוקא דילך הוא רב שמעתא בעלמא קאמר

וקלסיה ר' יוחנן מיתיבי האיברין אין להן שיעור אפי' פחות מכזית נבלה ופחות מכעדשה מן השרץ מטמאין ואמר רבי יוחנן אין לוקין עליהן אלא בכזית

אמר רבא במובדלין דבר הכתוב

א"ל רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא אלא מעתה בהמה נמי ליפלגי בין מובדלת לשאינה מובדלת

Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: As to the eating of unclean reptiles, one is liable to the penalty of lashes only when one has consumed an olive-size.1 Why? Because the expression ‘eating’2 is used in that connection. But did not R. Jose son of R. Hanina recite before R. Johanan: [It is written]: Ye shall therefore separate between the clean beast and the unclean and between the unclean fowl and the clean and ye shall not make your souls3 detestable by beast or by fowl or by anything wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.4 Scripture speaks at the be ginning of eating and ends with defilement, in order to indicate that as with reference to defilement the lentil is the standard size so also with regard to eating. Whereupon R. Johanan praised him. Now, does this not contradict Rab's ruling? — No, there is no difficulty, for the one5 deals with reptiles while they are dead6 the other while they are alive. But, said Abaye to him, does not Rab refer his statement to the Mishnah7 and our Mishnah speaks of ALL REPTILES, [apparently] even though they are dead? — Replied R. Joseph: This8 is your assumption. The fact is that Rab made an independent statement. [It said]: ‘R. Johanan praised him’.9 To this an objection was raised. [We have learnt]: ‘There is no standard size for entire limbs [of unclean animals]. Even less than an olive-size of nebelah and less than a lentil-size of a reptile effect defilement’,10 And R. Johanan remarked: The penalty of lashes, however, is inflicted only for an olive-size!11 — Said Raba: Scripture speaks only of those that are separated.12 Said R. Adda son of Ahabah, to Raba: If so, why not draw a distinction also with reference to beasts between those that are separated13 and those that are not sepa rated?14 standard size is an olive. bulk the standard quantity. a little from here and a little from there’. olive-size is required. the eight reptiles which have been singled out in Lev. XI, 29f for their uncleanness, and whose standard size with regard to defilement is a lentil; while the latter saying of R. Johanan relates to other reptiles which do not effect uncleanness,: so that no analogy can be drawn between eating and defilement with regard to the legal size. This dictum of R. Johanan is not to be taken as comment on the Mishnah quoted from Oh. which explicitly mentions uncleanness in connection with reptiles and must therefore relate to the eight reptiles, but as a statement made independently by him. these two kinds. Also in the case of beasts, therefore, should some distinction be made as to the standard size between those that are separated and the standard quantity of those that are not separated, an olive-size being prescribed only with regard to the former; but as to the latter, a greater quantity should be required, e.g., that of an egg.