Bava Kamma

there is a mention of wellbeing?  — He replied: While you are asking me why wellbeing is mentioned there, ask me whether wellbeing is in fact mentioned or not, as I do not know whether wellbeing is mentioned there or not.  Go therefore to R. Tanhum b. Hanilai who was intimate with R. Joshua b. Levi, who was an expert in Aggadah. When he came to him he was told by him thus: 'From R. Joshua b. Levi I have not heard anything on the matter. But R. Samuel b. Nahum the brother of the mother of R. Aha son of R. Hanina, or as others say the father of the mother of R. Aha son of R. Hanina, said to me this: Because the [first tablets containing the] Commandments were destined to be broken.'  But even if they were destined to be broken, how should this affect [the mention of wellbeing]? — R. Ashi thereupon said: God forbid! Wellbeing would then have ceased in Israel. R. Joshua  said: He who sees [the letter] teth  in a dream [may regard it as] a good omen for himself. Why so? If because it is the initial letter of [the word] 'Tob' ['good'] written in Scripture,  why not say [on the contrary that it is also the initial letter of the verb 'ta'atea'  commencing the Scriptural verse] And I will sweep it with the besom of destruction?  — We are speaking [here of where he saw in a dream only] one teth [whereas ta'atea contains two such letters]. But still why not say [that it might have referred to the word 'tum'ah'  as in the verse] Her filthiness is in her skirts?  — We are speaking of [where he saw in a dream the letters] 'teth' and 'beth'.  But again why not say [that it might have referred to the verb tabe'u  as in the verse], Her gates were sunk in to the ground?  — The real reason is that Scripture used this letter on the very first occasion to express something good, for from the beginning of Genesis up to [the verse] And God saw the light  no teth occurs.  R. Joshua b. Levi similarly said: He who sees [the word] hesped  in a dream [may take it as a sign that] mercy has been exercised towards him in Heaven, and that he will be released [from trouble].  provided, however, [he saw it] in script. SO ALSO BEASTS AND BIRDS ARE LIKE THEM etc. Resh Lakish said: Rabbi taught here  that a cock, a peacock and a pheasant are heterogeneous with one another.  Is this not obvious?  — R. Habiba said: Since they can breed from one another it might have been thought that they constitute a homogeneous species; we are therefore told [by this that this is not the case]. Samuel said:  The [domestic] goose and the wild goose are heterogeneous with each other. Raba son of R. Hanan demurred [saying:] What is the reason? Shall we say because one has a long neck and the other has a short neck? If so, why should a Persian camel and an Arabian camel similarly not be considered heterogeneous with each other, since one has a thick neck and the other a slender neck? — Abaye therefore said: [It is because] one  has its genitals discernible from without while the other one  has its genitals within. R. Papa said: [It is because] one  becomes pregnant with only one egg at fecundation, whereas the other one  becomes pregnant with several eggs at one fecundation. R. Jeremiah reported that Resh Lakish said: He who couples two species of sea creatures becomes liable to be lashed.  On what ground?  R. Adda b. Ahabah said in the name of 'Ulla: This rule comes from the expression 'after its kind'  [in the section dealing with fishes] by comparison with 'after its kind'  [in reference to creatures] of the dry land. Rehabah inquired: If a man drove [a waggon] by means of a goat and a mullet together, what would be the legal position? Should we say that since a goat could not go down into the sea and a mullet could not go up on to the dry land, no transgression has been committed, or do we say that after all they are now pulling together?  Rabina demurred to this: If this is so, supposing one took wheat and barley together in his hand and sowed the wheat on the soil of Eretz Yisrael  and the barley on the soil outside Eretz Yisrael,  would he be liable [as having transgressed the law]?  — I might answer: Where is the comparison? There [in your case]  Eretz Yisrael is the place subject to this obligation whereas any country outside Eretz Yisrael is not subject to this obligation; but here,  both one place  and the other  are subject to the obligation.