מעילה 16:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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. Why? Because the expression ‘eating’ 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 souls detestable by beast or by fowl or by anything wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. 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 one deals with reptiles while they are dead the other while they are alive. But, said Abaye to him, does not Rab refer his statement to the Mishnah and our Mishnah speaks of ALL REPTILES, [apparently] even though they are dead? — Replied R. Joseph: This is your assumption. The fact is that Rab made an independent statement. [It said]: ‘R. Johanan praised him’. 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’, And R. Johanan remarked: The penalty of lashes, however, is inflicted only for an olive-size! — Said Raba: Scripture speaks only of those that are separated. Said R. Adda son of Ahabah, to Raba: If so, why not draw a distinction also with reference to beasts between those that are separated and those that are not sepa rated?14^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ

^ᵃnote:Unlike defilement where the lentil-size suffices.
^ᵇnote:Viz., Ye shall not cat them, for they are a detestable thing, Lev. XI, 42. The rule is that wherever ‘eating’ is used the standard size is an olive.
^ᶜnote:‘Make your souls detestable’ is understood, through eating.
^ᵈnote:Lev. XX, 25.
^ᵉnote:Viz., R. lose.
^ᶠnote:And effect defilement in which case a comparison may be drawn between eating and defilement, making a lentil's bulk the standard quantity.
^ᵍnote:Cur. edd. insert here in parenthesis the following text which pseudo-Rashi declares to be incomprehensible: ‘and not a little from here and a little from there’.
^ʰnote:That Rab was referring to our Mishnah.
^ⁱnote:Thus agreeing that a lentil is the standard size for the eating of reptiles, and that one is then liable to lashes.
^ʲnote:Oh. I, 7.
^ᵏnote:R. Johanan thus contradicts himself, as this dictum is taken to refer to dead reptiles in analogy to nebelah, and yet an olive-size is required.
^ˡnote:The former dictum of R. Johanan according to which the standard size for the eating of reptiles is a lentil refers to 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.
^ᵐnote:I.e., clean animals.
^ⁿnote:I.e., the unclean. The fact that Lev. XX, 25 mentions beasts and reptiles side by side intimates an analogy between 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.