Bekhorot

but FROM THE UNCLEAN,1 and this too [the urine of an ass thick as milk] is from that which is unclean. Some state the argument as follows: With reference to [the urine of] horses or animals, the question was not put forward, because it is not drunk.2 The question, however, arose concerning [the urine of an ass] which people drink and is good for jaundice. What is the ruling? — R. Shesheth replied to this. We have learnt this in the Mishnah: THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN IS UNCLEAN, AND THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE CLEAN IS CLEAN, and this [urine] also comes from an unclean animal.3 An objection was raised. Why did [the Sages] say that honey from bees is permitted? Because the bees store it4 up in their bodies but do not drain it from their bodies.5 — He [the Tanna of the passage quoted above] holds with R. Jacob who said: The Divine Law expressly permitted honey.6 For it was taught: R. Jacob says: Yet these may ye eat of all the winged swarming things.’7 This you may eat, but you are forbidden to eat an unclean winged swarming thing. But is not an unclean winged swarming thing expressly mentioned in the Scripture [as forbidden]? Rather we must explain [thus]: An unclean fowl that swarms you must not eat, but you may eat what an unclean fowl casts forth from its body. And what is this? This is bees’ honey.8 You might think that this also includes gazins’9 honey or hornets’ honey as permissible. You cannot, however, say this. And why should you include bees’ honey and exclude gazins’ honey or hornets’ honey? I include bees’ honey because it has no qualifying epithet10 but I exclude gazins’ honey or hornets’ honey, since they have a qualifying epithet. Whom does this dictum that has been taught follow: Gazins’ honey or hornets’ honey is clean and is permitted to be eaten? Not R. Jacob. [The Baraitha says concerning gazins’ or hornets’ honey] that it is clean, consequently, it requires the intention [of using it as a food].11 We infer from this that bees’ honey does not need the intention [of using it as a food].12 It has also been taught likewise: Honey in its hive becomes unclean13 with the uncleanness of food, even without the intention [of using it as a food]. With regard to ball-like concretions in a fallow-deer, the Rabbis in the presence of R. Safra proposed to lay down that they were real eggs and were therefore forbidden.14 Said R. Safra: It was really the seed of a deer which sought to couple with a hind, but since the latter's womb is narrow and it is unable to copulate, the deer, therefore, seeks to couple with a fallow-deer, releasing its semen into the latter's womb.15 Said R. Huna: The skin which is over the face of an ass at birth16 is permitted to be eaten.17 What is the reason? — It is a mere secretion [but no real skin]. Said R. Hisda to him. There is a [Baraitha] taught which supports you: A skin which is over the face of a man, whether alive or dead, is clean.18 Now does not this mean whether both the offspring and its mother are alive, or whether both the offspring and its mother are dead?19 No. It means, whether the offspring is alive and its mother is dead, or whether the offspring is dead and its mother is alive.20 But has it not been taught: Whether the offspring and its mother are alive, or whether the offspring and its mother are dead, [the ruling is that the skin is clean]? If it has been actually taught in a Baraitha, then it has been taught. 21 MISHNAH. IF AN UNCLEAN FISH SWALLOWED A CLEAN FISH, IT IS PERMITTED TO BE EATEN. BUT IF A CLEAN FISH HAS SWALLOWED AN UNCLEAN FISH, THE LATTER IS FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN, BECAUSE IT IS NOT [THE CLEAN FISH'S] PRODUCT.22 GEMARA. The reason23 is because we actually saw that it swallowed. But if we did not see that it swallowed, we would say that it was bred24 [by the unclean fish]. Whence do we know this? For it has been taught: An unclean fish breeds, whereas a clean fish lays eggs.25 If this is a fact, even if we see that it actually swallowed, we should say that the clean fish had been consumed and [the fish found inside] was bred by the unclean fish!26 — Said R. Shesheth: [It means,] if e.g., he found it in the secretory channel.27 R. Nahman said: if e.g., he found it whole.28 R. Ashi said:29 The majority of fish breed their own kind and therefore [when we discover a different kind of fish inside] it is as if we had witnessed the swallowing. Our Rabbis taught: An Unclean fish breeds, but a clean fish lays eggs. Whatsoever gives birth,30 gives suck.31 And whatsoever lays eggs, supports its brood by picking up [food for it], except the bat, for although it lays eggs,it gives suck [to its young]. although it does not drain from the body itself, it is yet forbidden. which proceeds from an unclean creature is thick although it does not drain from the body, it is prohibited, whereas here, in the case of honey, the reason why it is allowed is because it does not drain the body. And according to the second version, honey, since it comes from an unclean creature, should be forbidden. given for this. contact with an unclean object such as a corpse or carcass. But, an object which is not ordinarily considered as food requires, in order to receive uncleanness, the intention that it is to be used as food. Sh. Mek. expressed his intention of using it as food. owing to its congealed state, it has no effect and issues later in the animal's excrements, in the form of ball concretions. not considered as the after-birth of either the mother or the offspring. explanation. Rashi's explanation, however, is that the Baraitha in both cases supposes the mother to be alive, only In one instance the offspring is also alive, therefore the skin is clean. But where both are dead, R. Hisda cannot find support for R. Huna's ruling. is the ruling with something which proceeds from a clean being.