In this daf, we continue our deep dive into the halachos of a tereifa, focusing on the status of its offspring and eggs. The Gemara explores whether an egg laid by a tereifa bird is mutar, distinguishing between the first clutch of eggs that grew while the mother was already a tereifa and subsequent eggs fertilized by a kosher male. We also look into a major machlokes between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding whether the offspring of a tereifa animal may be brought as a korban on the Mizbe'ach, which hinges on the fundamental question of whether a fetus is considered a part of its mother's body (ubar yerech imo).
Additionally, the Gemara transitions into the physical signs and lifespans of various creatures to determine their halachic status. We learn about the twelve-month rule for determining if a doubtful animal is a tereifa, and Rav Huna's famous principle regarding boneless creatures. This leads to practical halachic applications regarding the prohibition of eating worms found in fruits and vegetables, such as cucumbers and stored dates.
שִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא אֲסִירָא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – הָוֵה לֵיהּ זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם, וּמוּתָּר.
The first clutch of eggs that were in its body when it became a tereifa is prohibited, but from here and onward, any egg fertilized is a case of this and that causing it, i.e., a tereifa mother and a kosher father, and the rule is that it is permitted.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וְשָׁוִין בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵיפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּדְלָה בְּאִיסּוּר!
Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a Mishnah: And they agree with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited, because it grew in a state of prohibition! This implies that even eggs that grew after it became a tereifa are prohibited.
הָתָם בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא.
Ameimar answered: There, the Mishnah is dealing with a bird that is warmed by the ground, meaning it was not fertilized by a male, so the tereifa mother is the sole cause.
וְלִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ בְּשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא?
The Gemara asks: And let him answer him that the Mishnah is dealing with the first clutch of eggs, which were already in its body when it became a tereifa?
אִם כֵּן, ״גָּדְלָה״? ״גָּמְרָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: If so, why does the Mishnah say "it grew"? "It was finished" in a state of prohibition it should have said.
אֶלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: וְלַד טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
Rather, that which we learned in a Mishnah: The offspring of a tereifa animal, Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall not be sacrificed upon the Altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It may be sacrificed. In what case do they disagree?
בְּשֶׁנִּטְרְפָה וּלְבַסּוֹף עִיבְּרָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם מוּתָּר.
They must disagree in a case where it became a tereifa and afterwards became pregnant from a kosher male, where Rabbi Eliezer holds: An offspring brought about by this and that causing it is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds: An offspring brought about by this and that causing it is permitted.
אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי לְגָבוֹהַּ, לִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט?
The Gemara asks: If so, rather than disagreeing regarding whether it may be offered to the Most High on the Altar, let them disagree regarding whether it is permitted for an ordinary person to eat!
לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ נָמֵי שָׁרֵי.
The Gemara answers: The Tanna chose this case to let you know the power of Rabbi Yehoshua, that even for the Most High it is also permitted.
וְלִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי אָסַור!
The Gemara objects: But let them disagree regarding an ordinary person, to let you know the power of Rabbi Eliezer, that even for an ordinary person it is also prohibited!
כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The power of leniency is preferable to the Tanna to emphasize.
וּמוֹדִים בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא, דְּחַד גּוֹרֵם הוּא.
And they agree with regard to the egg of a tereifa that it is prohibited, in a case where it is warmed by the ground, because it is a case of only one cause.
רַב אַחָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לִדְאַמֵּימָר כְּדַאֲמַרַן.
Rav Acha holds in accordance with Rav Acha bar Yaakov that a tereifa can give birth, and he teaches this statement of Ameimar as we have said.
רָבִינָא לָא סָבַר לַהּ כִּדְרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לִדְאַמֵּימָר בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא:
Ravina does not hold in accordance with Rav Acha bar Yaakov, and he teaches this statement of Ameimar in this version:
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הָנֵי בֵּיעֵי דִּסְפֵק טְרֵפָה, דְּשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא מְשַׁהֵינַן לְהוּ, אִי הָדְרָה וְטָעֲנָה – שַׁרְיָין, וְאִי לָא – אֲסִירָן.
Ameimar said: These eggs of a doubtful tereifa bird, of the first clutch, we set them aside; if it goes back and conceives again, they are permitted because she is clearly not a tereifa, and if not, they are prohibited.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וּמוֹדִים בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּדְלָה בְּאִיסּוּר.
Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar: And they agree with regard to the egg of a tereifa that it is prohibited, because it grew in a state of prohibition. This implies a tereifa can lay eggs!
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם בִּדְשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא.
Ameimar said to him: There, the Mishnah is dealing with the first clutch of eggs that were in its body before it became a tereifa.
אִם כֵּן, ״גָּדְלָה״? ״גָּמְרָה״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
Rav Ashi asked: If so, why does it say "it grew"? "It was finished" in a state of prohibition it should have said!
תְּנִי: גָּמְרָה.
Ameimar replied: Teach the emended version: "It was finished."
אֶלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: וְלַד טְרֵפָה, ר׳ אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, ר׳ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב, בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
Rather, that which we learned in a Mishnah: The offspring of a tereifa animal, Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall not be sacrificed upon the Altar, Rabbi Yehoshua says: It may be sacrificed. In what case do they disagree?
כְּשֶׁעִיבְּרָה וּלְבַסּוֹף נִטְרְפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא.
They must disagree in a case where it became pregnant and afterwards became a tereifa, where Rabbi Eliezer holds: A fetus is considered the thigh of its mother and becomes a tereifa with it, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds: A fetus is not considered the thigh of its mother.
אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי לְגָבוֹהַּ, לִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט!
The Gemara asks: If so, rather than disagreeing regarding whether it may be offered to the Most High, let them disagree regarding whether it is permitted for an ordinary person!
לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara answers: It is to let you know the power of Rabbi Yehoshua, that it is permitted even for the Altar.
וְלִיפַּלְגוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?
The Gemara asks: And let them disagree regarding an ordinary person, to let you know the power of Rabbi Eliezer that it is forbidden even to eat?
כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The power of leniency is preferable to the Tanna.
וּמוֹדִים וַדַּאי בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵיפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, בִּדְשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא, מַאי טַעְמָא? גּוּפַהּ הִיא.
And they certainly agree with regard to the egg of a tereifa that it is prohibited, in a case of the first clutch. What is the reason? It is considered part of its body.
וְהִלְכְתָא בְּזָכָר – כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, בִּנְקֵבָה – כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת.
And the halakha is: Regarding a male animal suspected of being a tereifa, if it lives all of twelve months it is kosher; regarding a female, any animal that does not give birth within twelve months is a tereifa.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כֹּל (בְּרִיָּה) שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם אֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
Rav Huna said: Any creature that has no bone does not survive twelve months.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא, הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קִישּׁוּת (שהתליע) [שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה] בְּאִיבֶּיהָ אֲסוּרָה.
Rav Papa said: Learn from it, from this statement of Rav Huna, that which Shmuel said: A cucumber that became infested with worms while on its stalk is prohibited, because the worms must have developed while still attached to the ground.
הָנֵי תַּמְרֵי דְּכַדָּא לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שַׁרְיָין.
These dates of a jar, which are stored in a jar, after twelve months of the year have passed are permitted to be eaten, even if they are found to contain worms. Since worms have no bones, they cannot survive twelve months, so any worms found must have hatched inside the jar after the dates were picked, and are therefore permitted.
אָמַר רַב: לֵית בָּקָא בַּר יוֹמָא, וְלֵית דִּידְבָא בַּת שַׁתָּא.
Rav said: There is no mosquito that is a day old, because all mosquitoes die before they have lived a full day; and there is no fly that is a year old.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שַׁב שְׁנֵי אִימְּרַאי בָּקְתָּא מִבָּקָא. דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְבַר מָחוֹזָא דִּסְחָא בְּמַיָּא, וּסְלֵיק וְאִיכְּרֵךְ בִּסְדִינִין, וְאִיתֵּיבְתְּ עֲלֵיהּ וּמְצֵת מִינֵּיהּ, וְלָא הוֹדַעְתְּ לִי.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But don't people say in a popular adage: For seven years the female mosquito rebelled against the male mosquito? As she said to him: I saw a resident of Mechoza who swam in the water, and he came up and wrapped himself in sheets, and you sat on him and sucked blood from him, and you did not inform me of this source of food! This indicates that some boneless creatures can live for seven years.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי ״שִׁיתִּין מָנֵי פַּרְזְלָא תְּלוּ לֵיהּ לְבָקָא בְּקוּרְנָסֵיהּ״, מִי אִיכָּא? אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ כַּמָּה הָוֵי?
Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, that which people say: "Sixty maneh of iron hang for the mosquito in its mallet (its stinger)," is there really such a thing? The mosquito itself, how much does it weigh altogether?
אֶלָּא בְּמָנֵי דִּידְהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּשְׁנֵי דִּידְהוּ.
Rather, that adage must refer to their own maneh, i.e., the tiny units of weight of the mosquitoes themselves; here too, the adage of seven years refers to their own years, which are much shorter than human years.
תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.
We learned in a Mishnah there in Maseches Bechoros: An animal that has five legs, or that has only three legs, behold, this is a blemish that disqualifies it from being offered as a korban.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָסֵר וְיָתֵר בַּיָּד, אֲבָל חָסֵר וְיָתֵר בָּרֶגֶל – טְרֵפָה נָמֵי הָוְיָא.
Rav Huna said: They only taught this as a mere blemish where it was missing or had an extra foreleg; but if it was missing or had an extra hind leg, it is also a tereifa, which renders the animal forbidden to be eaten.
מַאי טַעְמָא? כׇּל יָתֵר כְּנָטוּל דָּמֵי.
What is the reason? Any extra limb is considered as if it were removed. Since an animal missing a hind leg is a tereifa, one with an extra hind leg is likewise a tereifa.
הָהִיא חֵיוְתָא דַּהֲוָה לַהּ תַּרְתֵּי סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי, אַיְיתוּהָ לְרָבִינָא, וְטַרְפַהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא.
There was a certain animal that had two ceca (blind guts). They brought it before Ravina, and he declared it a tereifa based on the principle of Rav Huna that an extra organ is like a missing organ.
וְאִי שָׁפְכָן לַהֲדָדֵי – כְּשֵׁרָה.
But if they empty into each other, so that food can pass freely between them, the animal is kosher, because they are considered a single organ.
הָהִיא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה נָפְקָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לְהוּבְלִילָא, סָבַר רַב אָשֵׁי לְמִיטְרְפַהּ.
There was a certain tube that exited from the reticulum (the second stomach) to the omasum (the third stomach). Rav Ashi thought to declare it a tereifa as an extra organ.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא מָר בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּל הָנֵי חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא הָכִי אִית לְהוּ.
Rav Huna Mar bar Chiyya said to Rav Ashi: All these animals that graze in the wild have this kind of tube, and it is completely normal, so it does not render the animal a tereifa.
הָהוּא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה מְעַבְּרָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לִכְרֵסָא, סְבַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ.
There was a certain tube that passed from the reticulum to the rumen (the first stomach). Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to declare it kosher, comparing it to the previous case.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא מְחִיתָא מַחֵתִינְהוּ? הֵיכָא דְּאִתְּמַר – אִתְּמַר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִתְּמַר – לָא אִתְּמַר.
Rav Oshaya said to him: Is that to say that all of them are woven in one weave, that they are all the same? Where it was stated by the Sages that a tube is normal, it was stated; where it was not stated, it was not stated, and this animal is indeed a tereifa.
הֵעִיד נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא רַב טַבָּחַיָּא דְּצִיפּוֹרִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, עַל שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם הַיּוֹצְאִין מִן הַבְּהֵמָה כְּאֶחָד, שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה, וּכְנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף – כְּשֵׁרָה.
Natan bar Sheila, the head of the butchers of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi regarding two intestines that exit from the abomasum of the animal as one, that it is a tereifa; but their counterpart in a bird is kosher, because this is common in birds.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת, אֲבָל יוֹצְאִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְכָלִין עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע – כְּשֵׁרָה.
In what case are these words said, that two intestines render an animal a tereifa? When they exit from two different places; but if they exit from one place, and they end within a fingerbreadth, meaning they merge back into one, the animal is kosher.
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, וְחַד אָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי.
Rav Ami and Rav Asi disagree regarding this halacha. One says: It is kosher only where they return and merge into one; and one says: Even though they do not return and merge, it is kosher.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, מַאי ״עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע״?
Granted, according to the one who says: It is kosher only where they return and merge, that is consistent with that which the baraita teaches: "Within a fingerbreadth," meaning they must merge within that distance. But according to the one who says: Even though they do not return and merge they are kosher, what is the meaning of "within a fingerbreadth"?
עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע מִלְּמַטָּה.
It means that they remain separate until within a fingerbreadth from below, near the anus, where they finally join.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִיטְּלָה הַנּוֹצָה – פְּסוּלָה.
We learned in the Mishnah: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the down (the feathers) was removed from the bird's body, it is unfit as a tereifa, just like an animal whose hide was removed.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.
Rabbi Yochanan said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing, as both hold that the down of a bird is treated like the hide of an animal.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹצָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת.
Rabbi Yehuda said so in that which we just said in our Mishnah. Rabbi Yishmael said so, as we learned in a Mishnah elsewhere: Rabbi Yishmael says: The down joins with the meat of a bird offering to constitute an olive-bulk for the purpose of rendering the offering piggul if the Kohen had improper intent.
אָמַר רָבָא: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָכָא אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה, דְּלֵיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמַגֵּין עֲלֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי – כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה – אַגּוֹנֵי לָא מַגֵּין.
Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, and they do not agree. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda only says so here with regard to a tereifa, because there is nothing to protect the bird once the down is gone, so its life is in danger; but with regard to piggul, he holds in accordance with the Rabbis that down is not considered food. And perhaps Rabbi Yishmael only says so there with regard to piggul because he holds down is fit for consumption; but with regard to a tereifa, he holds that the down does not protect the bird, and its removal does not make it a tereifa.
מַתְנִי׳ אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְהַמְצוּנֶּנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנֵי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָת מַיִם הָרָעִים – כְּשֵׁרָה.
MISHNAH: An animal that is congested with blood, or that was smoked (suffered smoke inhalation), or that was chilled, or that ate oleander (which is poisonous), or that ate chicken excrement, or that drank foul water—it is kosher, even though it is in danger of dying.
אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת.
If it ate deadly poison, or if a snake bit it, it is permitted from the standpoint of the laws of tereifa, but it is forbidden because of danger to human life if one eats its meat.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִלְעִיטָהּ חִלְתִּית – טְרֵפָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּמְינַקְּבָה לְהוּ לְמַעְיָינַהּ.
GEMARA: Shmuel said: If one fed it asafoetida, it is a tereifa. What is the reason? Because it perforates its intestines due to its extreme sharpness.
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנֵי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, וְשָׁתָת מַיִם הָרָעִים, הִלְעִיטָהּ תִּיעָה, חִלְתִּית וּפִלְפְּלִין, אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה.
Rav Sheizvi raised an objection from a baraita: An animal that is congested with blood, or that was smoked, or that ate oleander, or that ate chicken excrement, or that drank foul water, or if one fed it ti'ah, asafoetida, or peppers, or if it ate deadly poison—it is kosher! This contradicts Shmuel's ruling regarding asafoetida.
הִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכָהּ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת.
The baraita continues: If a snake bit it, or if a mad dog bit it, it is permitted from the standpoint of the laws of tereifa, but it is forbidden because of danger to human life.
קַשְׁיָא חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית, קַשְׁיָא סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת!
The Gemara notes: There is a difficulty between one ruling on asafoetida and the other ruling on asafoetida (Shmuel vs. the baraita), and there is a difficulty between one ruling on deadly poison and the other ruling on deadly poison (our Mishnah, which says it is forbidden only due to danger, vs. the baraita, which says it is kosher)!
חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעָלִין, כָּאן בִּקְרָטִין.
The Gemara answers: The contradiction between asafoetida and asafoetida is not a difficulty: Here, where the baraita rules it is kosher, it refers to the leaves of the plant; there, where Shmuel rules it is a tereifa, it refers to the resinous resin-drops, which are extremely sharp and perforate the organs.
סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּידַהּ, הָא דְּאָדָם.
The contradiction between deadly poison and deadly poison is also not a difficulty: This case, where the baraita rules it is kosher, refers to a poison that is deadly to her (the animal); that case, where our Mishnah rules it is forbidden only due to danger, refers to a poison that is deadly to man but not to the animal.
סַם הַמָּוֶת דִּבְהֵמָה הַיְינוּ הַרְדּוּפְנֵי?
The Gemara asks: But is a poison that is deadly to an animal not the same as oleander, which was already mentioned separately in the baraita?
תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי סַם הַמָּוֶת.
The Gemara answers: There are two types of deadly poison that affect animals, and both had to be mentioned.
מַאי תִּיעָה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה:
The Gemara asks: What is "ti'ah" mentioned in the baraita? Rav Yehuda said:
The Gemara begins by analyzing the status of eggs from a tereifa bird, debating whether they are prohibited as having grown in a state of prohibition, or permitted if they were fertilized by a kosher male under the principle of "zeh v'zeh gorem" (two factors causing the outcome). This discussion connects to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding the offspring of a tereifa animal on the Mizbe'ach, highlighting the rule that the power of leniency (kocha d'heteira) is preferred by the Tanna of the Mishnah. Finally, the Gemara establishes that a boneless creature cannot survive for twelve months, a rule that Shmuel and Rav Papa apply to permit worms found in stored dates after a year has passed, while also discussing the lifespans of mosquitoes and flies.
In today’s daf, we encounter a beautiful and famous principle of our Sages: "Koach d'heteira adif"—the power of leniency is preferable. When the Gemara asks why the Mishnah frames a dispute around the high standard of the Altar rather than the everyday standard of common food, it answers that the Tanna preferred to teach us the view of Rabbi Yehoshua, who permits the offering. Our Sages went out of their way to find the path of permission and purity wherever the halakha truthfully allowed it, showing us that Torah is a pathway of life, not of unnecessary restriction.
This is a profound lesson for our own daily avodah, especially in how we view ourselves and other Yidden. The yetzer hara loves to make us adopt a posture of strictness and negativity, constantly looking for the "treif" in our neighbor or the flaws in our own neshama. We can easily become spiritual prosecutors, finding reasons why a situation is hopeless or why a person is beyond repair. But the Torah teaches us that the true strength of a Torah perspective is the "koach d'heteira"—the holy effort to find the merit, the permission, and the spark of goodness.
To live with the "koach d'heteira" means looking at a struggling child, a difficult neighbor, or even your own flawed self, and actively searching for the kosher element. It takes no wisdom to simply declare everything forbidden or ruined. The real greatness, the way of Rabbi Yehoshua, is to find the path of connection and elevation, even when things look compromised.
Today, when you feel tempted to judge someone harshly or write off a situation as hopeless, pause and look for the "koach d'heteira"—find one genuine merit or positive point in them, and focus your mind on that.