Baraita - “Orev” means black crow; “every orev” includes the valley crow; “after its kinds” includes the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons - Leviticus 11:15

תנו רבנן:

1. ״עורב״ –

   1. זה עורב,

2. ״את כל עורב״ –

   1. להביא עורב העמקי,

3. ״למינו״ –

   1. להביא עורב הבא בראשי יונים.

[...]

With regard to the verse: “Every orev after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:15),

A baraita states:

1. As for the orev,

   1. this is the crow.1

2. When the verse states: “Every orev,”

   1. this serves to include the valley crow as non-kosher.

3. And the verse states: “After its kinds,”

   1. to include the crow that comes at the heads of pigeons.

[...]

Baraita - “Netz” (נץ - list item #10 in Leviticus 11) means the hawk; “after its kinds” includes bar ḥireya - Leviticus 11:16

תנו רבנן:

1. ״הנץ״ –

   1. זה הנץ,

2. ״למינהו״ –

   1. להביא את בר חיריא.

With regard to the verse: “And the netz after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:16), A baraita states:

1. As for the netz,

   1. this is the hawk.

2. The verse states: “After its kinds,”

   1. to include the bird called bar ḥireya.

Abaye - Bar ḥireya is the shurineka

מאי בר חיריא?

אמר אביי:

שורינקא.

The Talmud asks: What is the bar ḥireya?

Abaye said:

It is the bird commonly called the shurineka.

Rav Yehuda - Ḥasida (חסידה - list item #17 in Leviticus 11) is the white dayya, named because it acts kindly toward its fellows; anafa (אנפה - list item #18 in Leviticus 11) is the irritable dayya, named because it quarrels with its fellows - Leviticus 11:19

אמר רב יהודה:

1. ״החסידה״ –

   1. זו דיה לבנה.

   2. למה נקרא שמה חסידה?

   3. שעושה חסידות עם חברותיה.

2. ״האנפה״ –

   1. זו דיה רגזנית.

   2. למה נקרא שמה אנפה?

   3. שמנאפת עם חברותיה.

With regard to the verse: “And the ḥasida, and the anafa after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:19), Rav Yehuda says:

1. As for the ḥasida --

   1. this is the white dayya.

   2. And why is it called ḥasida?

   3. Since it performs charity2 for its fellows, giving them from its own food.

2. As for the anafa,

   1. this is the irritable dayya.

   2. And why is it called anafa?

   3. Since it quarrels3 with its fellows.

Rav Ḥanan b, Ḥisda citing Rav Ḥisda citing Rav Ḥanan b. Rava citing Rav - There are 24 non-kosher birds

1. אמר רב חנן בר רב חסדא

2. אמר רב חסדא

3. אמר רב חנן בריה דרבא

4. אמר רב:

עשרים וארבעה עופות טמאין הן.

1. § Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda says that

2. Rav Ḥisda says that

3. Rav Ḥanan, son of Rava, says that

4. Rav says:

There are 24 non-kosher birds.4

Rav Ḥisda citing Rav Ḥanan b. Rava citing Rav - The four “after its kinds” phrases add four species to the Torah’s bird lists - Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14

אמר ליה רב חנן בר רב חסדא לרב חסדא:

דהיכא?

• אי דויקרא –

  • עשרים הוו,

• אי דמשנה תורה –

  • עשרים וחד הוו,

וכי תימא

דאה דכתיבא בויקרא ולא כתיבא במשנה תורה שדייה עלייהו –

אכתי עשרין ותרין הוו!

Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Ḥisda, his father:

From where in the Torah is this number obtained?

• If you are referring to the list of Leviticus (11:13–19),

  • there are only 20 birds listed there.5

• If you are referring to the list of Deuteronomy (14:12–18),

  • there are only 21 there.6

And if you would say:

“Add the da’a” which is written in Leviticus but is not written in Deuteronomy, to the others in Deuteronomy,

still there are only 22.

אמר ליה:

הכי אמר אבוה דאמך משמיה דרב:

1. ״למינה״

2. ״למינה״

3. ״למינו״

4. ״למינהו״ –

הרי כאן ארבע.

[...]

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

This is what your mother’s father, Rav Ḥanan, son of Rava, said in the name of Rav:

The phrases

1. “after its kinds,”

2. “after its kinds,”

3. “after its kinds,”

4. and “after its kinds,”

that appear in each list indicate additional cases.7 Here, then, are 4 more.

[...]

R’ Yehuda HaNasi - The Torah writes both ayya and dayya to prevent disputes caused by different regional names for the same bird - Deuteronomy 14:13

(See footnote.)8

תניא,

רבי אומר:

אקרא אני איה,

דיה למה נאמרה?

כדי שלא תתן פתחון פה לבעל דין לחלוק,

שלא תהא

• אתה קורא איה

  • והוא קורא דיה,

• אתה קורא דיה

  • והוא קורא איה,

לכך כתב במשנה תורה:

1. ״והראה

2. ואת האיה

3. והדיה

למינה״.

[...]

it is taught in a baraita that

R’ Yehuda HaNasi says:

Given that the two are one species, I will read ayya and know that it is forbidden.

Why is dayya stated?

It is so as not to give a claim to a litigant to disagree,

and it should not occur that

• you call it an ayya

  • and he calls it a dayya and eats it.

• you call it a dayya

  • and he calls it an ayya and eats it.

Therefore, the Torah writes in Deuteronomy:

1. “And the ra’a,

2. and the ayya,

3. and the dayya

after its kinds” (Deuteronomy 14:13).

Consequently, both the list in Leviticus and that in Deuteronomy enumerate 24 birds, in accordance with the statement attributed to Rav.

[...]

Baraita - The animal list is repeated in Deuteronomy because of the shesua; the bird list is repeated because of the ra’a - Deuteronomy 14:7, 13

למה נשנו?

• בבהמה –

  • מפני השסועה,

• ובעופות –

  • מפני הראה.

[...]

a baraita:

Why are the lists of non-kosher animals and birds in Leviticus repeated in Deuteronomy?

• The list of non-kosher animals is repeated

  • It is due to the necessity of adding the shesua (Deuteronomy 14:7), which was not listed in Leviticus.

• And the list of non-kosher birds is repeated

  • due to the ra’a.

[...]

R’ Abbahu - The ra’a is the ayya

אמר רבי אבהו:

ראה --

זו איה,

R’ Abbahu says:

The ra’a --

is the ayya.

named for its exceptional sight

ולמה נקרא שמה ראה?

שרואה ביותר,

And why is it called the ra’a?

Since it sees [ro’ah] most vividly.

Prooftext - Job 28:7

וכן הוא אומר:

״נתיב לא ידעו עיט

ולא שזפתו עין איה״,

And so the verse states:

“That path no bird of prey knows,

neither has the eye of the ayya seen it” (Job 28:7).

Baraita - The ra’a/ayya can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael

תנא:

עומדת בבבל ורואה נבלה בארץ ישראל.

[...]

And a Sage taught:

The ra’a can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael.

[...]

Isi ben Yehuda - There are 100 non-kosher birds in the East, all species of ayya - Leviticus 11:14

תניא,

איסי בן יהודה אומר:

מאה עופות טמאין יש במזרח,

וכולן מין ״איה״ הן.

§ With regard to the phrase: “The ayya after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:14),

it is taught in a baraita that

Isi ben Yehuda says:

There are 100 non-kosher birds in the East,

and they are all species of ayya.

Avimi b. Abbahu - There are 700 (non-kosher) fish species, 800 (non-kosher) grasshopper species, and countless birds

תני אבימי בריה דרבי אבהו:

1. שבע מאות מיני דגים הן,

2. ושמונה מאות מיני חגבים,

3. ולעופות אין מספר.

[...]

Avimi, son of R’ Abbahu, taught:

1. There are 700 types of non-kosher fish,

2. and 800 types of non-kosher grasshopper,

3. and there are countless birds.

[...]

R’ Yehuda HaNasi - Since non-kosher animals are more numerous than kosher animals, the Torah lists the kosher animals; since kosher birds are more numerous than non-kosher birds, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds

תניא,

רבי אומר:

• גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם

  • שבהמה טמאה מרובה מן הטהורות,

  • לפיכך מנה הכתוב בטהורה.

• גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם

  • שעופות טהורין מרובין על הטמאין,

  • לפיכך מנה הכתוב בטמאין.

[...]

It is taught in a baraita:

R’ Yehuda HaNasi says:

• It is revealed and known before God (“ the One Who spoke and the world came into being”)

  • that the species of non-kosher animals are more numerous than the kosher ones.

  • Therefore, the Torah lists the kosher animals, teaching that all the rest are non-kosher.

• On the other hand, it is revealed and known before God

  • that the species of kosher birds are more numerous than the non-kosher ones.

  • Therefore, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds.

[...]

R’ Yitzḥak - A kosher bird may be eaten based on tradition

אמר רבי יצחק:

עוף טהור נאכל במסורת,

R’ Yitzḥak says:

A kosher bird may be eaten on the strength of a tradition (מסורת) that it is kosher,

without inspecting for the signs listed in the Mishnah.

a hunter is trusted to say his teacher transmitted that a bird is kosher

נאמן הצייד לומר:

עוף זה טהור, מסר לי רבי.

And the hunter is deemed credible to say:

My teacher conveyed to me that this bird is kosher.

R’ Yoḥanan - A hunter’s tradition is reliable only if the teacher knows the non-kosher birds and their names

אמר רבי יוחנן:

והוא שבקי בהן ובשמותיהן.

R’ Yoḥanan said:

And this is the halakha only when the teacher is familiar with the non-kosher birds and with their names.

Rav Yehuda - Shalakh (שלך - list item #17 in Leviticus 11) is the bird that scoops fish from the sea; dukhifat (דוכיפת - list item #19 in Leviticus 11) is the bird whose comb appears bent - Leviticus 11:17; Leviticus 11:19

אמר רב יהודה:

1. ״שלך״,

   1. זה השולה דגים מן הים.

2. ״דוכיפת״,

   1. שהודו כפות.

Rav Yehuda says:

1. As for the shalakh, listed as a non-kosher bird (see Leviticus 11:17),

   1. this is the bird that scoops [שולה - sholeh] fish out of the sea.1

2. The dukhifat (see Leviticus 11:19)

   1. is the bird whose comb seems bent [hodo kafut] due to its thickness.

Baraita - Dukhifat is the bird with a bent-looking comb, and it brought the shamir to the Temple - I Kings 6:7

תניא נמי הכי:

דוכיפת --

שהודו כפות,

וזהו שהביא שמיר לבית המקדש.

The Talmud notes: This is also taught in a baraita:

The dukhifat --

is the bird whose comb seems bent,

and this is the bird that brought the shamir to the Temple.2

Anecdote - R’ Yoḥanan on seeing a shalakh, would recite “Your judgments are like the great deep”; on seeing an ant, “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains” - Psalms 36:7

רבי יוחנן,

1. כי הוה חזי שלך,

   1. אמר: ״משפטיך תהום רבה״.

2. כי הוה חזי נמלה,

   1. אמר: ״צדקתך כהררי אל״.

The Talmud recounts:

R’ Yoḥanan

1. When he would see a shalakh,

   1. he would say: “Your judgments are like the great deep” (Psalms 36:7),

   2. as God exacts retribution even upon the fish in the sea.

2. When he would see an ant,

   1. he would say the first half of the same verse: “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,”

   2. as God provides sustenance for the tiny ant just as He does for the largest creatures.

Ameimar - Laknei and batnei birds are permitted

אמר אמימר:

1. לקני

2. ובטני –

שריין,

Ameimar says:

The

1. laknei

2. and batnei

birds --

are permitted.

Sakna’ei and batna’ei birds depend on local custom: permitted where peres and ozniyya are absent, forbidden where they are present

1. שקנאי

2. ובטנאי –

• מקום שנהגו לאכול

  • אוכלין,

• מקום שנהגו שלא לאכול

  • אין אוכלין.

[...]

As for the

1. sakna’ei

2. and batna’ei

birds --

• in any place that it is customary to eat them,

  • one may eat them;

• in any place that it is customary not to eat them,

  • one may not eat them.

[...]

Abaye - Kevai and kakvai are forbidden; kakvata is permitted

אמר אביי:

• קואי וקקואי

  • אסירי,

• קקואתא

  • שריא.

Abaye says:

• The birds called kevai and kakvai

  • are forbidden,

• but the kakvata

  • is permitted.

In Eretz Yisrael they flogged for eating kakvata, and called it taḥveta

במערבא מלקו עילוה,

וקרו לה תחוותא.

Still, in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they flog one who eats it on its account,

and they call it taḥveta.

Baraita - The tinshemet (תנשמת - list item #14 in Leviticus 11) among birds is the ba’ut among birds - Leviticus 11:18

תנו רבנן:

״תנשמת״ --

באות שבעופות.

A baraita states:

The tinshemet, listed in the Torah as non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:18) --

is the ba’ut3 among birds.

Not creeping animal, derived from the biblical context

אתה אומר באות שבעופות,

או אינו אלא באות שבשרצים?

One might ask: Do you say that it is the ba’ut among birds,

or is it only the ba’ut among creeping animals (שרצים)?

The tinshemet is also listed among the creeping animals (see Leviticus 11:30).

אמרת:

צא ולמד משלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן,

דבר הלמד מענינו.

• במה הכתוב מדבר?

  • בעופות,

• אף כאן

  • בעופות.

Say:

Go out and learn from the 13 hermeneutical principles (שלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן),

of which one is: A matter derived from its context.

• What are the adjacent verses speaking about?

  • They are speaking about birds.

• So too here,

  • the word tinshemet is referring to birds.

Baraita - The tinshemet among creeping animals is the ba’ut among creeping animals - Leviticus 11:30

תניא נמי גבי שרצים כהאי גוונא:

״תנשמת״ --

באות שבשרצים.

The Talmud notes: It is also taught in a baraita in this way with regard to the tinshemet listed among the creeping animals:

The tinshemet here --

is the ba’ut among creeping animals.

derived from context

אתה אומר באות שבשרצים,

או אינו אלא באות שבעופות?

One might ask:

Do you say that it is the ba’ut among creeping animals,

or it is only the ba’ut among birds?

אמרת:

צא ולמד משלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן,

דבר הלמד מענינו –

• במה הכתוב מדבר?

  • בשרצים,

• אף כאן

  • בשרצים.

Say:

Go out and learn from the 13 hermeneutical principles,

of which one is: A matter derived from its context.

• What are the adjacent verses speaking about?

  • They are speaking about creeping animals.

• So too here,

  • the word tinshemet is referring to creeping animals.

Abaye - The bird-ba’ut is the kifof; the creeping-animal-ba’ut is the kurpedai

אמר אביי:

1. באות שבעופות –

   1. קיפוף,

2. באות שבשרצים –

   1. קורפדאי.

Abaye says:

1. The ba’ut among birds

   1. is commonly called the kifof.4

2. The ba’ut among creeping animals

   1. is commonly called the kurpedai.5

Rav Yehuda - Ka’at (קאת - list item #15 in Leviticus 11) is the kuk; raḥam (רחם - list item #16 in Leviticus 11) is the sherakrak - Leviticus 11:18

אמר רב יהודה:

1. ״קאת״ –

   1. זו הקוק,

2. ״רחם״ –

   1. זו שרקרק.

Rav Yehuda says:

1. As for the ka’at listed in the Torah as non-kosher (see Leviticus 11:18),

   1. this is the bird called a kuk.6

2. As for the raḥam,

   1. this is the sherakrak.7

R’ Yoḥanan - The raḥam is so called because when it comes, mercy comes to the world

(See footnote.)8

אמר רבי יוחנן:

למה נקרא שמו רחם?

כיון שבא רחם --

באו רחמים לעולם.

R’ Yoḥanan says:

Why is it called the raḥam?

Because when the raḥam comes to Eretz Yisrael --

mercy [raḥamim] comes to the world,

as it appears at the beginning of the winter.

Rav Beivai bar Abaye - The raḥam signals rain when it sits on something and cries “sherakrak”

אמר רב ביבי בר אביי:

והוא דיתיב אמידי ועביד ״שרקרק״,

Rav Beivai bar Abaye said:

And it is a sign of rain only when it sits on something and makes a sherakrak sound.

If it sits on the ground and hisses, it signals the Messiah’s coming

וגמירי

דאי יתיב אארעא ושריק –

אתא משיחא,

And it is learned as a tradition that

if it sits on the ground and hisses [ve-shareik] --

this is a sign that the Messiah is coming,

Prooftext - Zechariah 10:8

שנאמר:

״אשרקה להם

ואקבצם״.

as it is stated:

“I will hiss [eshreka] for them,

and gather them” (Zechariah 10:8).

Mar bar Rav Idai & Rav Adda bar Shimi - A raḥam falsely signaled messianic arrival, was killed was punished as a liar

אמר ליה רב אדא בר שימי למר בר רב אידאי:

והא ההוא דיתיב בי כרבא ושרק,

ואתא גלל אפסקיה למוחיה!

אמר ליה:

ההוא ביידא הוה.

Rav Adda bar Shimi said to Mar bar Rav Idai:

But wasn’t there a certain raḥam that sat on a plowed field and hissed,

and a stone came and broke its head?

Mar bar Rav Idai said to him:

That raḥam was a liar and was punished for prophesying falsely.

Baraita - “Orev” means the crow - Leviticus 11:15

תניא:

״עורב״ –

זה עורב,

It is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Every orev after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:15).

With regard to the orev,

this is the well-known crow;

“after its kinds” includes the zarzir

״למינו״ –

רבי אליעזר אומר:

להביא את הזרזיר.

as for the phrase “after its kinds,”

R’ Eliezer says:

It is written to include the zarzir,1

another type of crow, to teach that it is non-kosher.

Rabbis disputing R’ Eliezer - The people of Kefar Temarta ate the zarzir because it has a crop

אמרו לו לרבי אליעזר:

והלא אנשי כפר תמרתא שביהודה היו אוכלים אותן

מפני שיש להן זפק!

The rabbis said to R’ Eliezer:

But wouldn’t the people of Kefar Temarta in Judea eat the zarzir,

because it has a crop?

R’ Eliezer - The people of Kefar Temarta will be (divinely) judged for eating the zarzir

אמר להם:

אף הן עתידין ליתן את הדין.

R’ Eliezer said to them:

They too will be judged in the future for their transgression.

Alternative version - R’ Eliezer - “After its kinds” also includes the white senunit as non-kosher - Leviticus 11:15

דבר אחר:

״למינהו״ להביא סנונית לבנה,

דברי רבי אליעזר.

Alternatively,

the phrase “after its kinds” is written to include the white senunit2 and teach that it is non-kosher;

this is the statement of R’ Eliezer.

Rabbis disputing R’ Eliezer - The people of the Upper Galilee ate the white senunit because its gizzard can be peeled

אמרו לו:

והלא אנשי גליל העליון אוכלים אותו,

מפני שקרקבנו נקלף!

The Rabbis said to him:

But don’t the people of the upper Galilee eat it,

because its gizzard can be peeled?

R’ Eliezer - The people of the Upper Galilee will be judged for eating the white senunit

אמר להם:

אף הן עתידין ליתן את הדין.

[...]

R’ Eliezer said to them:

They too will be judged in the future for their transgression.

[...]

Ameimar - The halakha is that a bird with one kosher sign is permitted, provided it does not claw prey

אמר אמימר:

הלכתא:

עוף הבא בסימן אחד –

טהור,

והוא דלא דריס.

Ameimar said:

The halakha is:

Any bird that comes before a person with one sign --

is kosher,

provided that it does not claw (דריס) its food.

אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר:

הא דרב נחמן מאי?

אמר ליה:

לא שמיע לי,

כלומר: לא סבירא לי.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar:

What about that which Rav Naḥman said, that if one finds a bird with exactly one sign, he may eat it only if he can identify all the non-kosher birds in the Torah, to be sure that it is not one of them?

Ameimar said to him:

I did not hear this statement;

that is to say: I do not hold accordingly.

מאי איכא?

משום פרס ועזניה?

ליתנהו בישוב.

What concern is there?

Is one concerned because of the peres and ozniyya, which have only one sign?

They are not found in settled areas (ישוב),

and one need not be concerned about them.

Rav Yehuda - The “scratching bird” is fit for the purification of a metzora

אמר רב יהודה:

עוף המסרט –

כשר לטהרת מצורע,

§ Rav Yehuda says:

The bird known as the scratching (מסרט) bird --

is fit for use in the purification of a metzora,

i.e., it is kosher. Only kosher birds are fit for this rite, as the verse states: “Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be purified two living pure birds” (Leviticus 14:4).

it is the white senunit disputed by R’ Eliezer and the Rabbis

וזו היא סנונית לבנה שנחלקו בה רבי אליעזר וחכמים.

[...]

And this is the white senunit about which R’ Eliezer and the Rabbis disagreed in the baraita.

[...]

Raḥava citing R’ Yehuda - The young tasil is unfit as a mature dove offering, but fit as a young pigeon offering

אמר רחבה, אמר רבי יהודה:

תסיל

• פסול

  • משום תורין,

• וכשר

  • משום בני יונה,

§ Raḥava says that R’ Yehuda says:

A young tasil,3 which is similar to a dove --

• is unfit

  • for sacrifice as a dove (תורין), which is fit only when mature,

• but it is fit

  • for sacrifice as a pigeon (בני יונה),

which is fit only when immature. In other words, the tasil is considered a type of pigeon, not a dove.

Datzifi and Reḥava’s doves are fit as mature doves, but unfit as young pigeons

1. דאציפי

2. ותורין של רחבה

• כשרין משום תורין,

• ופסולין משום בני יונה.

[...]

1. A mature datzifi bird,

2. and mature doves of Reḥava,

• are fit

  • as doves,

• but are unfit

  • as pigeons,

since they are types of doves.

[...]

Rav Yehuda - Tzutzeyanei doves are fit for the altar; they are Reḥava’s doves

אמר רב יהודה:

הני כופשני צוצייני --

כשרים לגבי מזבח,

והן הן תורין של רחבה.

[...]

Rav Yehuda says:

The tzutzeyanei doves (כופשני צוצייני) --

are fit for sacrifice on the altar,

and they are the doves of Reḥava mentioned earlier.

[...]

Rav Yehuda - Grasshoppers from shrubs are permitted; those from cabbages are forbidden

אמר רב יהודה:

• הני כרזי דבי חילפי --

  • שרו,

• ודבי כרבי --

  • אסירי.

Rav Yehuda says:

• These grasshoppers (כרזי) found among the shrubs (בי חילפי)

  • are kosher and permitted for consumption.

• And those found among the cabbages

  • are forbidden.

Ravina - One who eats the forbidden cabbage grasshoppers is flogged for eating winged swarming creatures - Deuteronomy 14:19

אמר רבינא:

ומלקינן עלייהו משום שרץ העוף.

Ravina said:

And we flog those who eat them on their account, due to the prohibition: “And all winged swarming things are impure unto you” (Deuteronomy 14:19).

Rav Yehuda - Tzarda is permitted, barda is prohibited, and marda is uncertain

ואמר רב יהודה:

1. צרדא –

   1. שרי,

2. ברדא –

   1. אסיר,

      1. וסימניך: ״בר מיניה״,

3. מרדא –

   1. ספקא.

And Rav Yehuda says:

1. The bird called tzarda

   1. is permitted for consumption,

2. and the barda

   1. is prohibited.

      1. And your mnemonic to remember which is which is this: Eat any bird except [bar] for it.

3. As for the marda,

   1. it is uncertain whether it is kosher.

Rav Asi - There are 8 uncertain birds: ḥuva, ḥuga, suga, harnuga, tushelemi, marda, kuḥilna, and bar nappaḥa

אמר רב אסי:

שמונה ספיקות הן:

1. חובא,

2. חוגא,

3. סוגא,

4. והרנוגא,

5. תושלמי,

6. ומרדא,

7. כוחילנא,

8. ובר נפחא.

[...]

Rav Asi says:

There are 8 uncertain cases:

1. The ḥuva,

2. ḥuga,

3. suga,

4. and harnuga,

5. tushelemi,

6. and marda,

7. kuḥilna,

8. and bar nappaḥa.

[...]

Abaye - The swamp rooster is one of the 8 uncertain birds; it is the mardu

אמר אביי:

תרנגולא דאגמא --

חד משמונה ספיקות הוא,

והיינו מרדו.

Abaye says:

The swamp (אגמא) rooster --

is one of the 8 uncertain cases,

and this is the mardu,

i.e., the marda mentioned earlier.

Rav Pappa - The swamp rooster is forbidden, but the swamphen is permitted - Deuteronomy 23:4

אמר רב פפא:

• תרנגולא דאגמא

  • אסירא,

• תרנגולתא דאגמא

  • שריא,

וסימניך –

״עמוני ולא עמונית״.

Rav Pappa says:

• The swamp rooster

  • is forbidden,

• but the swamphen

  • is permitted.

And your mnemonic to remember this is

the statement of the rabbis with regard to the verse: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of YHWH” (Deuteronomy 23:4), that an Ammonite man is unfit to enter the assembly, but not an Ammonite woman.

Mareimar - The swamphen is forbidden, because it was seen clawing and eating prey; it is the giruta

דרש מרימר:

תרנגולתא דאגמא --

אסירא,

חזיוה דדרסה ואכלה,

והיינו גירותא.

Mareimar taught:

The swamphen --

is forbidden,

because the rabbis saw that it claws its prey and eats it.

And this is the giruta,4

a non-kosher bird (see 109b).

Rav - Shabor anderafta is permitted; piruz anderafta is forbidden

אמר רב:

• שבור אנדרפטא –

  • שרי,

• פירוז אנדרפטא –

  • אסיר,

וסימניך –

פירוז רשיעא.

Rav says:

• The bird called the shavor anderafta

  • is permitted,

• but the piruz anderafta

  • is forbidden.

And your mnemonic to remember this is

the known personality Piruz the Evil.5

Rav Huna - Bunya is permitted; parva is forbidden

אמר רב הונא:

• בוניא –

  • שרי,

• פרוא –

  • אסיר,

וסימניך –

פרואה אמגושא.

Rav Huna says:

• The bird called the bunya

  • is permitted.

• The parva

  • is forbidden.

And your mnemonic to remember this is

the known personality Parva’a the Sorcerer.6

Rav Pappa - The reclining-and-eating mardu is permitted; the bowing-and-eating mardu is forbidden - Exodus 34:14

אמר רב פפא:

• מרדו זגיד ואכיל –

  • שרי,

• סגיד ואכיל –

  • אסיר,

וסימניך:

״לא תשתחוה לאל אחר״.

Rav Pappa says:

• The bird known as the reclining and eating mardu

  • is permitted,

• while the bowing and eating mardu

  • is forbidden.

And your mnemonic to remember this is

the verse: “You shall bow down to no other god” (Exodus 34:14).

Shmuel - The “wine drinker” bird is forbidden

אמר שמואל:

שתיא חמרא –

אסירא,

וסימניך:

״שתויי יין פסולין לעבודה״.

Shmuel says:

The bird called the wine drinker --

is forbidden.

And your mnemonic to remember this is

the halakha: Those who drank wine are unfit for service in the Temple.7

Shmuel - The “wine pourer” bird is forbidden, but the “little wine pourer” is permitted

ואמר שמואל:

• מזגא חמרא –

  • אסירא,

• בת מזגא חמרא –

  • שריא,

וסימניך

״יפה כח הבן מכח האב״.

And Shmuel says:

• The bird called the wine pourer (מזגא חמרא)

  • is forbidden.

• But the bird called the little wine pourer

  • is permitted.

And your mnemonic to remember this is

the idiom of the rabbis: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father,

i.e., the larger is forbidden while the smaller is permitted.

Rav Yehuda - Among shekitena: long-shanked red ones are permitted; small red ones are forbidden; long-shanked green/yellow ones are forbidden

אמר רב יהודה:

שקיטנא --

1. אריכי שקי וסומקי –

   1. שריא,

   2. וסימניך: מורזמא.

2. גוצי וסומקי –

   1. אסירי,

   2. וסימניך ״ננוס פסול״.

3. אריכי שקי וירוקי –

   1. אסירי,

   2. וסימניך ״ירוקין פסולין״.

Rav Yehuda says:

There are several types of shekitena.8

1. The long-shanked red ones

   1. are permitted.

   2. And your mnemonic to remember this is the murzema bird, which is similar in appearance and known to be kosher.

2. The little (גוצי) red ones

   1. are forbidden,

   2. and your mnemonic for this is the halakha that a dwarf (ננוס) priest is unfit for Temple service.9

3. The long-shanked green, i.e., yellow, ones

   1. are forbidden,

   2. and your mnemonic for this is the Mishnah (56a): Innards that have turned green render an animal a tereifa and unfit for consumption.

Appendix - Permitted Parallels to Things Forbidden by the Torah: A Catalogue of Eight Prohibitions and their Permitted Counterparts (Chullin 109b)

Chullin/109b#12 thru #15

Rav Naḥman’s wife Yalta argues that Torah prohibitions are often matched by some permitted analogue. She therefore says: since meat cooked in milk is prohibited, she wants to taste a permitted analogue of it.

Table summarizing:

אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן:

מכדי,

כל דאסר לן רחמנא —

שרא לן כוותיה

§ Yalta said to her husband Rav Naḥman:

Now as a rule,

for any item that God prohibited to us —

He permitted to us a similar item.

1. אסר לן דמא –

   1. שרא לן כבדא,

2. נדה –

   1. דם טוהר.

3. חלב בהמה –

   1. חלב חיה,

4. חזיר –

   1. מוחא דשיבוטא,

5. גירותא –

   1. לישנא דכוורא.

6. אשת איש –

   1. גרושה בחיי בעלה,

7. אשת אח –

   1. יבמה,

8. גויה –

   1. יפת תאר,

בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא

אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי:

זויקו לה כחלי

1. He prohibited to us the consumption of blood,

   1. yet He permitted to us the consumption of liver, which is filled with blood and retains the taste of blood.

2. God prohibited sex with a menstruating woman,

   1. but permitted sex with one’s wife while she discharges the blood of purity. During a particular period after giving birth, even if she experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and remains permitted to her husband by Torah law.

3. The Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal (בהמה),

   1. but permitted the fat of a wild animal (חיה), which has the same flavor.

4. It is prohibited to eat pork,

   1. but one may eat the brain of a shibuta fish, which has a similar taste.

5. One may not eat giruta, a non-kosher fish,

   1. but one may eat the tongue of a fish, which tastes similar.

6. The Torah prohibits sex with the wife of another man

   1. but permitted one to marry a divorced woman in her previous husband’s lifetime.

7. The Torah prohibits sex with one’s brother’s wife,

   1. and yet it permits one to marry his yevama, i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless.

8. The Torah prohibits sex with a non-Jew woman

   1. but permitted one to marry a beautiful woman (יפת תאר) who is a prisoner of war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14).

Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits the consumption of meat cooked in milk; I wish to eat a dish that tastes like meat cooked in milk.

Upon hearing this, Rav Naḥman said to his cooks:

Roast on a spit (זויקו) udders (כחלי) for her.

Intro

Part 1

See Wikipedia, “Kosher animals”, section “Birds”:

With regard to birds, no general rule is given, instead Leviticus 11:13–19 and Deuteronomy 14:11–18 explicitly list prohibited birds.

In the Shulchan Aruch,2 3 signs are given to kosher birds: the presence of a crop, an extra finger, and a gizzard that can be peeled. The bird must also not be a bird of prey [...]

The list in Deuteronomy has an additional bird, the dayyah, which seems to be a combination of ‘da’ah‘ and ‘ayyah‘, and may be a scribal error; the Talmud regards it as a duplication of ayyah.

This, and the other terms, are vague and difficult to translate, but there are a few further descriptions, of some of these birds, elsewhere in the Bible [...]

This sugya in Chullin develops the rabbinic system for identifying kosher and non-kosher birds. Its starting point is the Torah’s lists of forbidden birds in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Unlike land animals and fish, where the Torah gives clear physical signs of permissibility, birds are handled mainly through a negative list: the Torah names the non-kosher birds, and all others are presumed kosher. The sugya explains how this list works, how many forbidden birds it contains, how the physical signs of birds function, and how far one may rely on signs, names, local custom, or received tradition.

The opening rule is based on a received tradition: there are 24 non-kosher birds, and there are four signs associated with kosher birds. The sugya assumes a complex distribution of these signs among the forbidden birds. Twenty of the forbidden birds have three kosher signs. The crow has two. The peres and ozniyya each have one, but the one sign found in one is absent from the other. The nesher has none. This structure creates the central legal problem: if a bird has even one kosher sign, can it be eaten, or must one fear that it is the peres or ozniyya? The Torah’s mention of the nesher becomes important because the nesher has no kosher signs at all. The sugya initially reads this to imply that a bird with even one kosher sign should be permitted unless it is otherwise known to be one of the listed forbidden birds.

This leads to the practical rule stated by Rav Naḥman. If a person is familiar with the 24 non-kosher birds and their names, then a bird with one kosher sign may be eaten, because he can exclude the peres and ozniyya. If he is not familiar with them, a bird with one sign is forbidden, because it might be one of those two. A bird with two signs is permitted only if the person can recognize the crow and its varieties, since the crow is the only forbidden bird with exactly two signs. Ameimar later gives a more permissive ruling: a bird with one kosher sign is permitted, provided that it does not claw prey. When Rav Ashi challenges him from Rav Naḥman’s stricter formulation, Ameimar rejects that concern, explaining that the peres and ozniyya are not found in settled areas.

The sugya also explains why the Torah mentions doves, even though the general logic from nesher would make birds with signs permissible. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama answers that doves are not listed to prove that they are kosher for eating; they are mentioned because they alone are valid as bird offerings. This moves the discussion from dietary law to sacrificial eligibility. Later statements continue that theme by classifying particular dove-like birds. A young tasil is invalid as a mature dove offering but valid as a young pigeon offering. Datzifi and the doves of Reḥava are valid as mature doves but invalid as young pigeons. Rav Yehuda identifies the tzutzeyanei doves as valid for the altar and equates them with Reḥava’s doves. Thus, the sugya distinguishes between dietary kashrut and the narrower categories of birds acceptable for Temple sacrifice.

Part 2

A major part of the sugya is devoted to identifying the Torah’s bird names. The Torah often writes a bird name followed by “after its kind,” and the sugya uses those phrases to include related varieties. With regard to orev, the basic meaning is the crow. R’ Eliezer uses “after its kind” to include the zarzir, while the Rabbis object that the people of Kefar Temarta ate the zarzir because it has a crop. R’ Eliezer responds that they will be judged for doing so. In another version, R’ Eliezer uses the phrase to include the white senunit, while the Rabbis object that the people of the Upper Galilee ate it because its gizzard can be peeled. Again, R’ Eliezer says that they will be judged. These exchanges show the tension with local eating practice. The Rabbis invoke observed kosher signs and actual communal practice; R’ Eliezer treats the strict halacha as decisive.

The white senunit reappears in a statement of Rav Yehuda, who says that the “scratching bird” is fit for the purification of a metzora and identifies it as the white senunit disputed by R’ Eliezer and the Rabbis. Since the metzora ritual requires “pure birds,” this statement effectively supports the view that the white senunit is kosher. This is another example of the sugya’s method: a bird’s status may be inferred also from its suitability for ritual use.

The sugya then turns to numerous bird names known in rabbinic Aramaic or local speech. Rav Yehuda distinguishes permitted and forbidden grasshoppers by habitat: those among shrubs are permitted, those among cabbages are forbidden; Ravina adds that one who eats the forbidden type is flogged for eating a winged swarming creature. Rav Yehuda also lists tzarda as permitted, barda as forbidden, and marda as uncertain. Rav Asi gives a list of eight uncertain birds: ḥuva, ḥuga, suga, harnuga, tushelemi, marda, kuḥilna, and bar nappaḥa. Abaye identifies the swamp rooster as one of these uncertain cases, namely the mardu. Rav Pappa distinguishes between the swamp rooster, which is forbidden, and the swamphen, which he permits. Mareimar later reverses the swamphen’s status, teaching that it is forbidden because it was seen clawing and eating prey; he identifies it as the giruta. This sequence shows how uncertainty, behavior, and later observation can alter classification.

Many of the rulings preserve short practical identifications with mnemonics. Rav says that shavor anderafta is permitted while piruz anderafta is forbidden, with the mnemonic “Piruz the Evil”.3 Rav Huna says bunya is permitted and parva is forbidden, remembered through “Parva’a the Sorcerer.” Rav Pappa distinguishes between a mardu that reclines and eats, which is permitted, and one that bows and eats, which is forbidden, using “You shall not bow down to another god” as the mnemonic. Shmuel forbids the “wine drinker” and the “wine pourer,” but permits the “little wine pourer,” using Temple-service and father-son sayings as memory aids. Rav Yehuda classifies types of shekitena by color and leg length: long-shanked red ones are permitted, small red ones are forbidden, and long-shanked green/yellow ones are forbidden. These passages form a catalog of practical bird lore, organized by names, appearances, feeding posture, color, habitat, and memorable verbal tags.

Part 3

The sugya also includes identifications of biblical birds with explanations based on etymology or behavior. Rav Yehuda identifies shalakh as the bird that draws fish from the sea, and dukhifat as the bird whose comb appears bent. A baraita confirms this and adds that the dukhifat brought the shamir to the Temple, connecting it to the Solomonic Temple-building tradition.4 R’ Yoḥanan’s reaction to seeing a shalakh is theological: he recites “Your judgments are like the great deep,” interpreting the bird as a sign of divine judgment even in the sea. When he sees an ant, he recites the first half of the same verse, “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,” seeing divine provision even for small creatures.

The identification of tinshemet is handled through context. Since tinshemet appears both among birds and among creeping animals, the baraita applies the hermeneutical principle of “a matter derived from its context.” In the bird list, tinshemet means the ba’ut among birds; in the creeping-animal list, it means the ba’ut among creeping animals. Abaye then gives the common names: the bird-ba’ut is the kifof, and the creeping-animal-ba’ut is the kurpedai. This section shows a more formal interpretive method: the same biblical word may refer to different creatures depending on its immediate literary setting.

The sugya’s treatment of ka’at and raḥam combines identification, etymology, weather signs, and messianic symbolism. Rav Yehuda identifies ka’at as the kuk and raḥam as the sherakrak. R’ Yoḥanan explains that the raḥam is so named because when it comes, mercy comes to the world, apparently because it signals the arrival of rain. Rav Beivai bar Abaye qualifies this: it is a rain sign only when it sits on something and makes the sherakrak sound. If it sits on the ground and hisses, tradition says it signals the coming of the Messiah, supported by Zechariah 10:8, “I will hiss for them and gather them.” A story then limits this omen: when a raḥam once hissed in a plowed field and was struck by a stone, Mar bar Rav Idai explains that it was a liar. Here the sugya records omen traditions but also contains them through the category of false signaling.

Part 4

A later section returns to the biblical lists and the number 24. Rav states, through a chain of transmission, that there are 24 non-kosher birds. The sugya asks how this number is derived. Leviticus lists only 20; Deuteronomy lists 21; even combining the unique names gives only 22. The answer is that the repeated “after its kind” phrases add four more cases. This also explains several earlier expansions, such as the varieties of orev and netz. Another baraita explains that the animal list is repeated in Deuteronomy because of the shesua, and the bird list because of the ra’a. R’ Abbahu identifies the ra’a with the ayya and explains its name from its exceptional sight, citing Job 28:7. A further tradition says that it can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael. Isi ben Yehuda expands the point further, stating that there are 100 non-kosher birds in the East, all species of ayya.

The sugya closes with a broad taxonomic principle. Avimi son of R’ Abbahu teaches that there are 700 types of non-kosher fish, 800 types of non-kosher grasshoppers, and countless birds. R’ Yehuda HaNasi explains the Torah’s method of listing: since non-kosher animals are more numerous than kosher animals, the Torah lists the kosher animals; since kosher birds are more numerous than non-kosher birds, the Torah lists the forbidden birds. This gives a rationale for the entire structure of the biblical bird laws.

The final practical rule emphasizes tradition. R’ Yitzḥak states that a kosher bird may be eaten based on a received tradition. A hunter is trusted to say that his teacher transmitted to him that a particular bird is kosher. R’ Yoḥanan qualifies this: the teacher must be familiar with the non-kosher birds and their names.

This ending brings the sugya back to its central issue: Bird kashrut depends on a combination of biblical lists, physical signs, predatory behavior, expert recognition, regional naming, local custom, and reliable transmission.

Leviticus 11:13-19 - a list of 20 non-kosher birds

Leviticus 11:13-19:

ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף

לא יאכלו

שקץ הם:

And these are they which you shall have in abomination among the birds;

they shall not be eaten,

they are abominable:

1. את הנשר

2. ואת הפרס

3. ואת העזניה

4. ואת הדאה

5. ואת האיה למינה

6. את כל ערב למינו

7. ואת בת היענה

8. ואת התחמס

9. ואת השחף

10. ואת הנץ למינהו

11. ואת הכוס

12. ואת השלך

13. ואת הינשוף

14. ואת התנשמת

15. ואת הקאת

16. ואת הרחם

17. ואת החסידה

18. האנפה למינה

19. ואת הדוכיפת

20. ואת העטלף

1. the eagle,

2. and the bearded vulture

3. and the black vulture.

4. And the kite,

5. and the buzzard after its kind;

6. every raven after its kind;

7. and the owl,

8. and the kestrel,

9. and the gull,

10. and the sparrow hawk after its kind.

11. And the little owl,

12. and the fish fowl,

13. and the great owl,

14. and the barn owl,

15. and the jackdaw,

16. and the gier eagle.

17. And the stork,

18. the heron after her kind,

19. and the hoopoe,

20. and the bat.

Deuteronomy 14:12-18 - a list of 21 non-kosher birds

Deuteronomy 14:12-18:

וזה אשר לא תאכלו מהם:

But these are they of which you shall not eat:

1. הנשר

2. והפרס

3. והעזניה

4. והראה

5. ואת האיה

6. והדיה למינה

7. ואת כל ערב למינו

8. ואת בת היענה

9. ואת התחמס

10. ואת השחף

11. ואת הנץ למינהו

12. את הכוס

13. ואת הינשוף

14. והתנשמת

15. והקאת

16. ואת הרחמה

17. ואת השלך

18. והחסידה

19. והאנפה למינה

20. והדוכיפת

21. והעטלף

1. the griffon vulture,

2. and the bearded vulture,

3. and the black vulture,

4. and the buzzard,

5. and the kite,

6. and the hawk after its kind,

7. and every raven after its kind,

8. and the dark desert owl,

9. and the kestrel,

10. and the gull,

11. and the sparrow hawk after its kind,

12. the little owl,

13. and the long eared owl,

14. and the barn screech owl,

15. and the night prowler,

16. and the gier eagle,

17. and the fish owl,

18. and the stork,

19. and the heron after its kind,

20. and the hoopoe,

21. and the bat.

Outline

Intro

Leviticus 11:13-19 - a list of 20 non-kosher birds

Deuteronomy 14:12-18 - a list of 21 non-kosher birds

The Passage

1. Tradition - There are 24 non-kosher birds, and 4 signs of kosher birds

   1. 20 of the non-kosher birds have 3 (out of the 4) signs, the crow (ערב - list item #6 in Leviticus 11) has 2 (out of the 4) signs, and peres (פרס - list item #2 in Leviticus 11) and ozniyya (עזניה - list item #3 in Leviticus 11) each have only 1 sign

   2. With the sign of one absent from the other

   3. The Torah writes nesher (נשר - list item # 1 in Leviticus 11) to teach that only a bird with no kosher signs at all is prohibited on that basis; a bird with even one kosher sign may be eaten, unless otherwise known to be non-kosher

2. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama - The Torah mentions doves not to prove they are kosher, but to teach that they alone are fit as bird offerings

3. Rav Naḥman - If one knows the 24 non-kosher birds and their names, a bird with one kosher sign is permitted

   1. If not, one sign is treated as non-kosher

   2. Two signs are permitted only if one recognizes the crow and its kinds

Part 2

1. Baraita - “Orev” means the crow - Leviticus 11:15

   1. “after its kinds” includes the zarzir

   2. Rabbis disputing R’ Eliezer - The people of Kefar Temarta ate the zarzir because it has a crop

   3. R’ Eliezer - The people of Kefar Temarta will be judged for eating the zarzir

2. Alternative version - R’ Eliezer - “After its kinds” also includes the white senunit as non-kosher - Leviticus 11:15

   1. Rabbis disputing R’ Eliezer - The people of the Upper Galilee ate the white senunit because its gizzard can be peeled

   2. R’ Eliezer - The people of the Upper Galilee will be judged for eating the white senunit

3. Ameimar - The halakha is that a bird with one kosher sign is permitted, provided it does not claw prey

4. Rav Yehuda - The “scratching bird” is fit for the purification of a metzora

   1. it is the white senunit disputed by R’ Eliezer and the Rabbis

5. Raḥava citing R’ Yehuda - The young tasil is unfit as a mature dove offering but fit as a young pigeon offering

   1. datzifi and Reḥava’s doves are fit as mature doves but unfit as young pigeons

6. Rav Yehuda - Tzutzeyanei doves are fit for the altar; they are Reḥava’s doves

7. Rav Yehuda - Grasshoppers from shrubs are permitted; those from cabbages are forbidden

8. Ravina - One who eats the forbidden cabbage grasshoppers is flogged for eating winged swarming creatures - Deuteronomy 14:19

9. Rav Yehuda - Tzarda is permitted, barda is prohibited, and marda is uncertain

10. Rav Asi - There are 8 uncertain birds: ḥuva, ḥuga, suga, harnuga, tushelemi, marda, kuḥilna, and bar nappaḥa

11. Abaye - The swamp rooster is one of the 8 uncertain birds; it is the mardu

12. Rav Pappa - The swamp rooster is forbidden, but the swamphen is permitted - Deuteronomy 23:4

13. Mareimar - The swamphen is forbidden, because it was seen clawing and eating prey; it is the giruta

14. Rav - Shavor anderafta is permitted; piruz anderafta is forbidden

15. Rav Huna - Bunya is permitted; parva is forbidden

16. Rav Pappa - The reclining-and-eating mardu is permitted; the bowing-and-eating mardu is forbidden - Exodus 34:14

17. Shmuel - The “wine drinker” bird is forbidden

18. Shmuel - The “wine pourer” bird is forbidden, but the “little wine pourer” is permitted

19. Rav Yehuda - Among shekitena: long-shanked red ones are permitted; small red ones are forbidden; long-shanked green/yellow ones are forbidden

Part 3

1. Rav Yehuda - Shalakh (שלך - list item #17 in Leviticus 11) is the bird that scoops fish from the sea; dukhifat (דוכיפת - list item #19 in Leviticus 11) is the bird whose comb appears bent - Leviticus 11:17; Leviticus 11:19

2. Baraita - Dukhifat is the bird with a bent-looking comb, and it brought the shamir to the Temple - I Kings 6:7

3. Anecdote - R’ Yoḥanan on seeing a shalakh, would recite “Your judgments are like the great deep”; on seeing an ant, “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains” - Psalms 36:7

4. Ameimar - Laknei and batnei birds are permitted

   1. Sakna’ei and batna’ei birds depend on local custom: permitted where peres and ozniyya are absent, forbidden where they are present

5. Abaye - Kevai and kakvai are forbidden; kakvata is permitted

6. In Eretz Yisrael they flogged for eating kakvata, and called it taḥveta

7. Baraita - The tinshemet (תנשמת - list item #14 in Leviticus 11) among birds is the ba’ut among birds - Leviticus 11:18

   1. Not creeping animal, derived from the biblical context

8. Baraita - The tinshemet among creeping animals is the ba’ut among creeping animals - Leviticus 11:30

   1. derived from context

9. Abaye - The bird-ba’ut is the kifof; the creeping-animal-ba’ut is the kurpedai

10. Rav Yehuda - Ka’at (קאת - list item #15 in Leviticus 11) is the kuk; raḥam (רחם - list item #16 in Leviticus 11) is the sherakrak - Leviticus 11:18

11. R’ Yoḥanan - The raḥam is so called because when it comes, mercy comes to the world

12. Rav Beivai bar Abaye - The raḥam signals rain when it sits on something and cries “sherakrak”

    1. If it sits on the ground and hisses, it signals the Messiah’s coming

    2. Prooftext - Zechariah 10:8

13. Mar bar Rav Idai & Rav Adda bar Shimi - A raḥam falsely signaled messianic arrival, was killed was punished as a liar

Part 4

1. Baraita - “Orev” means black crow; “every orev” includes the valley crow; “after its kinds” includes the crow whose head resembles a pigeon - Leviticus 11:15

2. Baraita - “Netz” (נץ - list item #10 in Leviticus 11) means the hawk; “after its kinds” includes bar ḥireya - Leviticus 11:16

3. Abaye - Bar ḥireya is the shurineka

4. Rav Yehuda - Ḥasida (חסידה - list item #17 in Leviticus 11) is the white dayya, named because it acts kindly toward its fellows; anafa (אנפה - list item #18 in Leviticus 11) is the irritable dayya, named because it quarrels with its fellows - Leviticus 11:19

5. Rav Ḥanan b, Ḥisda citing Rav Ḥisda citing Rav Ḥanan b. Rava citing Rav - There are 24 non-kosher birds

6. Rav Ḥisda citing Rav Ḥanan b. Rava citing Rav - The four “after its kinds” phrases add four species to the Torah’s bird lists - Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14

7. R’ Yehuda HaNasi - The Torah writes both ayya and dayya to prevent disputes caused by different regional names for the same bird - Deuteronomy 14:13

8. Baraita - The animal list is repeated in Deuteronomy because of the shesua; the bird list is repeated because of the ra’a - Deuteronomy 14:7, 13

9. R’ Abbahu - The ra’a is the ayya

   1. named for its exceptional sight

   2. Prooftext - Job 28:7

10. Baraita - The ra’a/ayya can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael

11. Isi ben Yehuda - There are 100 non-kosher birds in the East, all species of ayya - Leviticus 11:14

12. Avimi b. Abbahu - There are 700 non-kosher fish species, 800 non-kosher grasshopper species, and countless kosher birds

13. R’ Yehuda HaNasi - Since non-kosher animals are more numerous than kosher animals, the Torah lists the kosher animals; since kosher birds are more numerous than non-kosher birds, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds

14. R’ Yitzḥak - A kosher bird may be eaten based on tradition

    1. a hunter is trusted to say his teacher transmitted that a bird is kosher

15. R’ Yoḥanan - A hunter’s tradition is reliable only if the teacher knows the non-kosher birds and their names

The Passage

Chullin.61b.6-63b.11

Tradition - There are 24 non-kosher birds, and 4 signs of kosher birds

גמירי:

1. עשרים וארבעה עופות טמאים הוו,

2. וארבעה סימנין.

The Talmud states: It is learned as a tradition that

1. there are 24 non-kosher birds,

2. and 4 signs5 of a kosher bird.

20 of the non-kosher birds have 3 (out of the 4) signs, the crow (ערב - list item #6 in Leviticus 11) has 2 (out of the 4) signs, and peres (פרס - list item #2 in Leviticus 11) and ozniyya (עזניה - list item #3 in Leviticus 11) each have only 1 sign

תלתא הדרי בכולהו,

1. עשרים מהם --

   1. שלשה שלשה,

2. ותרי --

   1. בעורב,

3. חד

   1. בפרס

4. וחד

   1. בעזניה,

The same 3 signs can be found in all of them, with the exception of either the peres or the ozniyya (as will be explained)

1. 20 of them --

   1. have all 3 signs,

2. and two of those signs --

   1. can be found in a crow.

3. One sign

   1. is found in a peres

4. and one

   1. in an ozniyya,

With the sign of one absent from the other

דאיתיה בהא —

ליתיה בהא.

and the sign present in this —

is absent in that,

i.e., one of them has the 4th sign, which is absent from the other 23 non-kosher birds.

The Torah writes nesher (נשר - list item # 1 in Leviticus 11) to teach that only a bird with no kosher signs at all is prohibited on that basis; a bird with even one kosher sign may be eaten, unless otherwise known to be non-kosher

מהו דתימא

ליליף מיניה –

כתב רחמנא ״נשר״,

נשר דלית ליה כלל הוא דלא תיכול,

הא איכא דאית ליה חד –

אכול.

Lest you say:

Derive from it that any other bird with only that sign is non-kosher,

God wrote about the nesher to indicate: It is a nesher,

which has none of the signs of a kosher bird, that you shall not eat.

But if there is any bird that has even one of the signs, you may eat it.

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama - The Torah mentions doves not to prove they are kosher, but to teach that they alone are fit as bird offerings

אלא,

תורין דכתב רחמנא למה לי?

אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא:

לקרבן.

The Talmud asks: But if one learns from nesher that a bird with even one sign is kosher, why do I need the doves that God wrote are kosher, which have all 4?

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said:

The dove was not mentioned to teach that it is kosher, but rather to teach that it is the only bird fit to be sacrificed as an offering.

Rav Naḥman - If one knows the 24 non-kosher birds and their names, a bird with one kosher sign is permitted

אמר רב נחמן:

היה בקי בהן ובשמותיהן –

עוף הבא בסימן אחד —

טהור,

Rav Naḥman says:

If one is familiar with the non-kosher birds and their names --

any bird that comes before him with only one sign —

is kosher,

since he can be sure that it is not the peres or ozniyya, which have only one sign.

If not, one sign is treated as non-kosher

לא היה בקי בהן ובשמותיהן –

בסימן אחד —

טמא,

If he is not familiar with them and their names,

any bird that he finds with one sign —

is non-kosher,

since it may be the peres or ozniyya.

Two signs are permitted only if one recognizes the crow and its kinds

בשני סימנין —

טהור,

והוא שיכיר עורב.

[...]

But if he finds a bird with exactly two signs —

it is kosher,

provided that he can recognize a crow,

since the crow is the only non-kosher bird with exactly two signs.

[...]

R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R’ Yonatan - In the messianic future, the righteous will resurrect the dead

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:

עתידים צדיקים שיחיו מתים,

This idea1 is derived from a different source as well.

R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that R’ Yonatan said:

In the messianic future the righteous will resurrect the dead,

Prooftexts - the “staff” of the aged in Jerusalem is linked to Elisha’s staff used in the attempted revival of the Shunamite’s son - Zechariah 8:4; II Kings 4:29

• שנאמר:

  • ״עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחבות ירושלים, ואיש משענתו בידו מרב ימים״,

• וכתיב:

  • ״ושמת משענתי על פני הנער״.

• as it is stated:

  • “Old men and old women shall yet again dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff (משענתו) in his hand for very age” (Zechariah 8:4).

• And the staff will then be used as it was used by Gehazi when Elisha sent him to bring the son of the Shunamite woman back to life, as it is written:

  • “And you shall lay my staff on the face of the child” (II Kings 4:29).

Ulla - Apparent contradiction, re the messianic future: one verse says death will be destroyed forever, while another says the youngest will die at age 100

עולא רמי:

• כתיב:

  • ״בלע המות לנצח״,

• וכתיב:

  • ״כי הנער בן מאה שנה ימות״!

As we have been discussing the world of the messianic future and the resurrection of the dead, the Talmud cites additional statements on these topics.

Ulla raised a contradiction between two verses:

• In one verse it is written:

  • “He will destroy death forever, and YHWH God will wipe away tears from off all faces, and the insult of His people shall He take away from off all the earth; for YHWH has spoken” (Isaiah 25:8).

• And in another verse it is written:

  • “There shall be no more there an infant who lives a few days, nor an old man who has not filled his days; for the youngest shall die 100 years old” (Isaiah 65:20), implying that people will live long lives, but death will not be totally eradicated.

Resolution: no death for Israel, long life but eventual death for non-Jews - Isaiah 25:8; Isaiah 65:20

לא קשיא:

• כאן

  • בישראל,

• כאן

  • בגוים.

Ulla answers:

This is not difficult:

• Here, in the first verse,

  • it is referring to Jews,

• who will not die at all, while there, in the second verse,

  • it is referring to non-Jews, who will live exceedingly long lives but eventually die.

Non-Jews are present in the future messianic era as servants of Israel - Isaiah 61:5

וגוים מאי בעו התם?

The Talmud asks:

What are non-Jews doing there in the future messianic world?

דכתיב:

״ועמדו זרים ורעו צאנכם

ובני נכר אכריכם וכרמיכם״.

The Talmud answers:

As it is written:

“And strangers (זרים) shall stand and feed your flocks,

and the sons of the alien (נכר) shall be your plowmen and your vineyard workers” (Isaiah 61:5).

Rav Ḥisda - Apparent contradiction re the future messianic era: one verse says the moon and sun will be ashamed, while another says their light will be greatly increased

רב חסדא רמי:

• כתיב:

  • ״וחפרה הלבנה, ובושה החמה״,

• וכתיב:

  • ״והיה אור הלבנה כאור החמה, ואור החמה יהיה שבעתים, כאור שבעת הימים״!

Rav Ḥisda raised a contradiction between two verses re the future messianic era:

• In one verse it is written:

  • “Then the moon shall be confounded (חפרה), and the sun ashamed, when YHWH of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before His elders will be His glory” (Isaiah 24:23), which indicates that in the future there will be no light at all from the sun or the moon.

• And elsewhere it is written:

  • “Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of 7 days, on the day that YHWH binds up the breach of His people and heals the stroke of their wound blow” (Isaiah 30:26), which indicates that the light of the sun and moon will be even brighter than before.

Resolution: the first refers to the World-to-Come; the second to the messianic era - Isaiah 24:23; Isaiah 30:26

לא קשיא:

• כאן

  • לעולם הבא,

• כאן

  • לימות המשיח.

The Talmud answers:

This is not difficult:

• Here, where it says that the sun and the moon will be ashamed before the glow of the Shekhina,

  • it is referring to the World-to-Come, which is an entirely different world;

• while there, where it says that their light will increase,

  • it is referring to the days of the Messiah.2

Since Shmuel holds that the messianic era differs from the present only in political subjugation, both verses must refer to the World-to-Come: one to the camp of the Shekhina, the other to the camp of the righteous

ולשמואל דאמר:

אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח

אלא שיעבוד מלכיות בלבד,

מאי איכא למימר?

The Talmud asks:

And according to the opinion of Shmuel,

who said that there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah

except for subjugation to foreign kingdoms,

but in all other ways, including the illumination of the celestial bodies, the world order will remain unchanged, what is there to say to reconcile these verses?

אידי ואידי לעולם הבא,

ולא קשיא:

• כאן —

  • במחנה שכינה,

• כאן —

  • במחנה צדיקים.

The Talmud answers:

This and that refer to the World-to-Come,

and it is not difficult:

• Here, where it says that the sun and the moon will be totally ashamed,

  • it refers to the camp of the Shekhina;

• while there, where it says that the light of the sun and moon will be greatly magnified,

  • it refers to the camp of the righteous.

Rava - “I put to death and I make live” means God revives the very same people He killed, just as He heals the very same people He wounded - Deuteronomy 32:39

רבא רמי:

• כתיב:

  • ״אני אמית ואחיה״,

• וכתיב:

  • ״מחצתי ואני ארפא״.

השתא אחויי מחיי,

מרפא לא כל שכן!

Rava raised a contradiction between two parts of a verse.

• It is written:

  • “I put to death and I make live” (Deuteronomy 32:39)

• and in that same verse it is written:

  • “I wound and I heal.”

Now once it says that He gives life to the dead,

all the more so is it not clear that He can heal those who are still alive?

What then does the second clause add to the first?

אלא,

אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא:

• מה שאני ממית —

  • אני מחיה,

• כמו שמחצתי —

  • ואני ארפא.

Rather,

the second clause clarifies the first one: God said:

• Those same people whom I put to death

  • I will bring to life,

• just as those people whom I wounded

  • I will heal.

In other words, the verse means to say that just as God will heal the same people He wounded, so will He revive those He put to death; and not, as the verse might otherwise have been understood, that He puts some people to death and gives life to others.

Baraita - “I put to death and I make live” cannot mean death for one person and life/birth for another, because “I wounded and I heal” clearly refers to the same person; This proves resurrection from the Torah - Deuteronomy 32:39

תנו רבנן:

״אני אמית ואחיה״

יכול

• מיתה באחד

• וחיים באחד,

כדרך שהעולם נוהג,

Similarly, A baraita states:

“I put to death and I make live”;

one might have thought that this refers to

• death for one person

• and life, i.e., birth, for another person,

As in the customary manner of the world.

תלמוד לומר:

״מחצתי ואני ארפא״,

• מה מכה ורפואה

  • באחד,

• אף מיתה וחיים

  • באחד.

Therefore, the verse states:

“I wound and I heal”;

• just as the wounding and the healing mentioned here

  • clearly refer to the same person,

• so too death and life

  • refer to the same person.

מכאן תשובה לאומרים:

אין תחיית המתים מן התורה.

From this verse, there is a refutation to those who say that

there is no Torah source for the resurrection of the dead,

for it is clearly indicated in this verse.3

Alternative interpretation - At resurrection, God first revives the dead with their wounds, and only afterward heals them - Deuteronomy 32:39

דבר אחר:

• בתחלה

  • מה שאני ממית -- אני מחיה,

• והדר

  • מה שמחצתי -- ואני ארפא.

Alternatively, the verse can be explained as follows:

• At first,

  • those whom I put to death -- I will bring to life, but they will be revived with the same injuries that they had when they died;

• and subsequently,

  • those whom I wounded -- I will heal, meaning that their injuries will be healed after they are resurrected.

Part 1

This sugya begins with a technical sacrificial question and then moves into a broad aggadic discussion of resurrection, the messianic future, and the World-to-Come. The starting point is the Mishnah’s statement that cleaning the intestines of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Talmud asks what “cleaning” (מיחוי קרביו) means. Rav Huna explains it as puncturing the intestines with a knife so that the excrement exits. Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav explains it differently: the term refers to removing the secretions that are pressed out by the knife and that would otherwise spoil the sacrificial meat. R’ Eliezer supports Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav’s reading from Isaiah 5:17, treating the word מחים as a degraded or repulsive term. Rav Yosef’s Aramaic rendering of the verse confirms this sense by translating “the ruins of the fat ones” as the property of the wicked that the righteous will inherit. Thus, a narrow halakhic clarification about preparing the Paschal lamb becomes linked to a prophetic verse about the downfall of the wicked and the inheritance of the righteous.

The sugya then continues interpreting the same verse in Isaiah: “Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture, and the ruins of the fat ones shall wanderers eat.” Menashya bar Yirmeya, citing Rav, interprets כדברם as “as was spoken concerning them,” meaning that the verse alludes to a prior prophetic promise. Abaye identifies the promise with the continuation of the verse itself: “and the ruins of the fat ones shall wanderers eat.” Rava rejects this because the conjunction “and” in וחרבות indicates a second, separate clause, not an explanation of the first clause. Rava therefore connects the verse to another teaching of Rav, transmitted by Rav Ḥananel: in the messianic future, the righteous will resurrect the dead. This is derived through a verbal and thematic link between Isaiah’s “the lambs shall feed” and Micah’s “let them feed in Bashan and Gilad as in the days of old.” Bashan is read as an allusion to Elisha, by linking Shafat in Bashan with Elisha ben Shafat. Gilad is read as an allusion to Elijah, who is described elsewhere as from the inhabitants of Gilad. Since Elijah and Elisha both revived the dead, the verse is taken to mean that the righteous in the messianic future will possess a similar power.

Part 2

A parallel teaching is then cited in the name of R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R’ Yonatan: in the messianic future, the righteous will resurrect the dead. This version derives the idea from Zechariah’s image of elderly men and women sitting in Jerusalem, each with a staff in hand. The “staff” is linked to Elisha’s staff, which was sent with Gehazi to revive the Shunamite woman’s son. The future Jerusalem of Zechariah is therefore read as a world in which the righteous possess life-restoring power.

The sugya then broadens into a series of apparent contradictions between biblical verses about the end-time. Ulla contrasts Isaiah 25:8, “He will destroy death forever,” with Isaiah 65:20, which speaks of someone dying at one hundred years old. The resolution distinguishes between Israel and the non-Jewish nations: Israel will no longer die, while the non-Jewish nations will live extremely long lives but eventually die. The Talmud then asks why non-Jews are present in the future world at all, and answers from Isaiah 61:5: “Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vineyard workers.” In this reading, the future world includes non-Jews, but in a subordinate economic role serving Israel.

Rav Ḥisda then raises another contradiction. One verse says that the moon will be ashamed and the sun embarrassed before God’s glory, while another says that the moon’s light will be like the sun and the sun’s light will be sevenfold. The first answer distinguishes between the World-to-Come and the messianic era: the celestial lights are shamed before the divine presence in the World-to-Come, but intensified during the days of the Messiah. The Talmud then adjusts this answer according to Shmuel, who holds that the messianic era differs from the present only in the end of political subjugation. According to that view, both verses must refer to the World-to-Come: one describes the camp of the Shekhina, where divine glory overwhelms the sun and moon, and the other describes the camp of the righteous, where cosmic light is magnified.

The sugya concludes with a proof from the Pentateuch for the principle of the future messianic resurrection of Jews. Rava analyzes Deuteronomy 32:39: “I put to death and I make live; I wound and I heal.” If God can revive the dead, healing the wounded seems obvious. Rava therefore reads the second clause as clarifying the first: the same people whom God kills, He will revive, just as the same people whom He wounds, He will heal. A baraita makes the same point explicitly. One might have read “I put to death and I make live” as referring to ordinary mortality and birth: one person dies, another is born. But the parallel clause, “I wound and I heal,” clearly concerns one and the same person. Therefore, “I put to death and I make live” also refers to the same person. This becomes a refutation of those who deny that resurrection is sourced in the Pentateuch. A final interpretation adds a sequence: first God revives the dead with the wounds they had at death, and only afterward heals them.

Isaiah 5:17

Isaiah 5:17:

ורעו כבשים כדברם

וחרבות מחים גרים יאכלו

And (in the messianic future) shall the lambs feed (רעו) as in their pasture (דברם),

and fat ones (מחים) and strangers (גרים) shall feed in the ruins (חרבות).

Outline

Intro

Isaiah 5:17

The Passage

1. Rav Huna - “Cleaning the intestines” means puncturing them with a knife so the excrement exits

2. Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav - “Cleaning the intestines” means removing intestinal secretions that come out under knife-pressure and would otherwise spoil the sacrifice

3. R’ Eliezer - Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav’s interpretation is supported by the word מוחים/מיחוי (understood as something degraded or repulsive) - Isaiah 5:17

4. Rav Yosef’s targum - “The ruins of the fat ones/wicked” means that the righteous will inherit the possessions of the wicked - Isaiah 5:17

5. Menashya bar Yirmeya citing Rav - “The lambs shall feed כדברם” means “as was said about them,” referring to a prior prophecy - Isaiah 5:17

6. Abaye - The prophecy referred to by כדברם is the continuation of the same verse, “and the ruins of the fat ones shall wanderers eat” - Isaiah 5:17

7. Rava - Abaye’s reading is incorrect because the conjunctive “and” indicates that the second clause is a separate matter - Isaiah 5:17

8. Rav Ḥananel citing Rav - In the messianic future, the righteous will resurrect the dead

   1. Prooftexts - like Elijah and Elisha, derived by linking “feed” in Isaiah with “feed” in Micah, - Isaiah 5:17; Micah 7:14

   2. ... where Bashan alludes to Elisha, and Gilad to Elijah - I Chronicles 5:12; II Kings 3:11; I Kings 17:1

Part 2

1. R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R’ Yonatan - In the messianic future, the righteous will resurrect the dead

   1. Prooftexts - the “staff” of the aged in Jerusalem is linked to Elisha’s staff used in the attempted revival of the Shunamite’s son - Zechariah 8:4; II Kings 4:29

2. Ulla - Apparent contradiction, re the messianic future: one verse says death will be destroyed forever, while another says the youngest will die at age 100

   1. Resolution: no death for Israel, long life but eventual death for non-Jews - Isaiah 25:8; Isaiah 65:20

3. Non-Jews are present in the future messianic era as servants of Israel - Isaiah 61:5

4. Rav Ḥisda - Apparent contradiction re the future messianic era: one verse says the moon and sun will be ashamed, while another says their light will be greatly increased

   1. Resolution: the first refers to the World-to-Come; the second to the messianic era - Isaiah 24:23; Isaiah 30:26

5. Since Shmuel holds that the messianic era differs from the present only in political subjugation, both verses must refer to the World-to-Come: one to the camp of the Shekhina, the other to the camp of the righteous

6. Rava - “I put to death and I make live” means God revives the very same people He killed, just as He heals the very same people He wounded - Deuteronomy 32:39

7. Baraita - “I put to death and I make live” cannot mean death for one person and life/birth for another, because “I wounded and I heal” clearly refers to the same person; This proves resurrection from the Torah - Deuteronomy 32:39

   1. Alternative interpretation - At resurrection, God first revives the dead with their wounds, and only afterward heals them - Deuteronomy 32:39

The Passage

ChavrutAI: Pesachim/68a#9 thru #19

Rav Huna - “Cleaning the intestines” means puncturing them with a knife so the excrement exits

ומיחוי קרביו וכו׳.

מאי מיחוי קרביו?

רב הונא אמר:

שמנקבן בסכין.

We learned in the Mishnah that cleaning (מיחוי) the intestines of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat.

The Talmud asks: What is meant by cleaning the intestines?

Rav Huna said:

It means that he punctures them with a knife allowing the excrement to exit.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav - “Cleaning the intestines” means removing intestinal secretions that come out under knife-pressure and would otherwise spoil the sacrifice

(רב) חייא בר רב אמר:

שירקא דמעייא

דנפקא אגב דוחקא דסכינא.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav said:

It refers to the removal of the secretions (שירקא) of the intestine,

which come out through the pressure1 of the knife

and would ruin the entire sacrifice and cause it to become putrid were they allowed to remain in the intestines.

R’ Eliezer - Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav’s interpretation is supported by the word מוחים/מיחוי (understood as something degraded or repulsive) - Isaiah 5:17

אמר רבי (אליעזר):

מאי טעמא דחייא בר רב?

דכתיב:

״וחרבות מחים --

גרים יאכלו״,

R’ Eliezer said:

What is Ḥiyya bar Rav’s reason for explaining the term in this manner?

As it is written:

“Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture, and the ruins of the fat ones [meḥim] --

shall wanderers (גרים) eat” (Isaiah 5:17).

Rav Yosef’s targum - “The ruins of the fat ones/wicked” means that the righteous will inherit the possessions of the wicked - Isaiah 5:17

מאי משמע?

כדמתרגם רב יוסף:

״ונכסיהן דרשיעיא --

צדיקיא יחסנון״.

From where may it be inferred that this verse is in any way connected to our discussion?

As Rav Yosef translates this verse:

“And the possessions of the wicked --

the righteous shall inherit.”

This indicates that the Hebrew word meḥim, understood by Rav Yosef as referring to “the wicked”, is a term of degradation. This led Ḥiyya bar Rav to interpret the Mishnah’s clause with regard to “cleaning [miḥui] the intestines” as referring to removing the repulsive matter inside.

Menashya bar Yirmeya citing Rav - “The lambs shall feed כדברם” means “as was said about them,” referring to a prior prophecy - Isaiah 5:17

״ורעו כבשים כדברם״,

אמר מנשיא בר ירמיה, אמר רב:

כמדובר בם.

Having explained the latter part of the verse in Isaiah, the Talmud turns to the beginning of that same verse.

“Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture [ke-davram].”

Menashya bar Yirmeya said that Rav said:

As was said about them [ka-medubar bam],

i.e., as the prophet promised.

Abaye - The prophecy referred to by כדברם is the continuation of the same verse, “and the ruins of the fat ones shall wanderers eat” - Isaiah 5:17

מאי כמדובר בם?

אמר אביי:

״וחרבות מחים --

גרים יאכלו״.

To what prophecy does the verse refer with the expression “as was said about them”?

Abaye said:

It is referring to the continuation of the verse: “And the ruins of the fat ones --

shall wanderers eat.”

Rava - Abaye’s reading is incorrect because the conjunctive “and” indicates that the second clause is a separate matter - Isaiah 5:17

אמר ליה רבא:

בשלמא אי כתיב ״חרבות״ —

כדקאמרת,

השתא דכתיב ״וחרבות״,

מילתא אחריתי קאמר.

Rava said to him that this cannot be:

Granted, were it written only “the ruins of the fat ones” --

it would be possible to explain as you said.

Now that it is written “and the ruins,” with the addition of the word “and,”

this indicates that it states something else,

and the verse contains two separate prophecies.

Rav Ḥananel citing Rav - In the messianic future, the righteous will resurrect the dead

אלא אמר רבא:

כדרב חננאל, אמר רב.

דאמר רב חננאל, אמר רב:

עתידין צדיקים שיחיו את המתים.

Rather,

Rava said:

This verse should be understood in accordance with what Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said.

For Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said:

In the messianic future, the righteous will resurrect the dead.

Prooftexts - like Elijah and Elisha, derived by linking the shared word “feed” (רעו) - Isaiah 5:17; Micah 7:14

• כתיב הכא:

  • ״ורעו כבשים כדברם״,

• וכתיב התם:

  • ״ירעו בשן וגלעד כימי עולם״.

• It is written here:

  • “Then shall the lambs feed [ve-ra’u] as in their pasture,” the lambs serving as an allusion to the righteous,

• and it is written there:

  • “Tend your people with your staff, the flock of your heritage, who dwell alone in the wood, in the midst of Carmel; let them feed [yiru] in Bashan and Gilad as in the days of old” (Micah 7:14).

... where Bashan alludes to Elisha, and Gilad to Elijah - I Chronicles 5:12; II Kings 3:11; I Kings 17:1

• בשן —

  • זה אלישע, הבא מן הבשן,

  • שנאמר: ״ויעני ושפט בבשן״,

  • וכתיב: ״פה אלישע בן שפט, אשר יצק מים על ידי אליהו״.

• גלעד —

  • זה אליהו,

  • שנאמר: ״ויאמר אליהו התשבי, מתושבי גלעד וגו׳״.

• “Bashan”

  • is an allusion to the prophet Elisha, who came from the Bashan.

  • How do we know that Elisha came from Bashan? As it is stated: “Joel the chief, and Shafam the next, and Yanai and Shafat in the Bashan” (I Chronicles 5:12),

  • and it is written: “Here is Elisha ben Shafat, who poured water on the hands of Elijah” (II Kings 3:11).

• “Gilad”

  • is an allusion to Elijah,

  • as it is stated: “And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilad, said” (I Kings 17:1).

Based on the similarity of the verses and the verbal analogy between the two instances of the Hebrew verb for “feed [pasture]” (רעו), we learn that in the future the righteous will be like Elijah and Elisha, who resurrected the dead.

It begins with R’ Shimon’s rule that a Torah scholar may not benefit from any meal that is not a mitzvah meal. The Talmud then asks what kind of meal counts as non-mitzvah, and R’ Yoḥanan gives two examples: a daughter of a kohen marrying an Israelite, and a daughter of a Torah scholar marrying an am ha’aretz. In both cases, the wedding feast is formally attached to marriage, but the match itself is treated as religiously and socially defective, and therefore the feast is not treated as a proper mitzvah meal.

The first part of the sugya focuses on the marriage of a kohen’s daughter to a non-kohen. R’ Yoḥanan states that such a union “does not go well.” Rav Ḥisda explains this by riffing on Leviticus 22:13, which describes a priest’s daughter returning to her father’s house after becoming widowed, divorced, or childless. The sugya reads these as possible negative outcomes of the marriage. A baraita gives a parallel formulation: either he buries her, she buries him, or she brings him to poverty. This frames the marriage as dangerous, unstable, and socially demoting for the priestly family.

The sugya then complicates this negative view. R’ Yoḥanan also says that one who wants wealth should attach himself to the descendants of Aaron (i.e. priests), since the combination of Torah and priesthood can generate wealth.

This produces a series of anecdotes about rabbis who married daughters of kohanim. R’ Yehoshua married a kohen’s daughter and became ill, interpreting his illness as a sign that Aaron did not want him as a son-in-law. Rav Idi bar Avin married a kohen’s daughter and produced two ordained sons, Rav Sheshet bar Rav Idi and R’ Yehoshua bar Rav Idi. Rav Pappa attributes his wealth to having married a kohen’s daughter.

Rav Kahana, by contrast, attributes his exile to the same kind of marriage. When others object that he was exiled to a place of Torah, he answers that his exile was not ordinary relocation but forced flight. The sugya thus presents priestly marriage as a source of blessing, danger, prestige, or punishment, depending on the person and circumstance.

The next section returns to the theme of “optional” (i.e. non-mitzva) feasts. R’ Yitzḥak states that anyone who benefits from an optional feast will ultimately be exiled. He proves this from Amos 6:4 and 6:7: those who indulge in choice animals and luxurious eating are later described as going into exile at the head of the exiles. The sugya thus links elite dining, indulgence, and displacement. Optional feasting becomes a sign of moral disorder and social vulnerability.

A baraita then expands the critique specifically against a Torah scholar who eats excessively at feasts everywhere. Such a person will destroy his household, widow his wife, orphan his children, forget his learning, become involved in disputes, lose public authority, and desecrate the names of Heaven, his teacher, and his father. He also creates a bad reputation for himself and for his descendants. The sugya then interprets that “bad name” through four amoraic labels: Abaye says his son will be called the son of the oven-heater, meaning that the father was constantly involved in feast preparation. Rava says he will be called the son of the man who dances in inns, meaning that the father became a public entertainer at meals. Rav Pappa says he will be called the son of the bowl-licker, emphasizing gluttony. Rav Shemaya says he will be called the son of the man who folds his garment and crouches, referring to drunken collapse. These labels translate moral failure into public ridicule and inherited shame.

The final unit shifts from feasting to marriage strategy. A baraita teaches that a man should sell all he has in order to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar, because if he dies or is exiled, his sons can still be expected to become Torah scholars. Conversely, he should not marry the daughter of an am ha’aretz, because if he dies or is exiled, his sons will become amei ha’aretz. This brings together several themes of the sugya: marriage determines lineage, education, and social identity; exile threatens paternal control; and the mother’s household background is treated as decisive for the children’s future.

Outline

Intro

The Passage

1. R’ Shimon - A Torah scholar may not benefit from any meal that is not a mitzvah meal

2. R’ Yoḥanan - Examples of non-mitzvah meals: a daughter of a kohen marrying an Israelite, or the daughter of a Torah scholar marrying an am ha’aretz

3. R’ Yoḥanan - A daughter of a kohen marrying an Israelite is an inauspicious match

4. Rav Ḥisda - The bad outcome of such a marriage (a daughter of a kohen marrying an Israelite) will be one of three: she becomes widowed, divorced, or childless - Leviticus 22:13

5. Baraita - The bad outcome will be: he buries her, she buries him, or she brings him to poverty

6. R’ Yoḥanan - One who wants wealth should attach himself to the descendants of Aaron (=priests); Torah and priesthood together bring wealth

7. Anecdote re R’ Yehoshua - married a kohen’s daughter, became ill, and interpreted this as Aaron not wanting him as a son-in-law

8. Anecdote re Rav Idi b. Avin - married a kohen’s daughter and had two ordained sons: Rav Sheshet b. Idi and R’ Yehoshua b. Idi

9. Rav Pappa - His marriage to a kohen’s daughter caused his wealth

10. Rav Kahana - His marriage to a kohen’s daughter caused his exile (from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael)

    1. Rav Kahana, responding to others - Although he was exiled to a place of Torah, it was still coercive exile, not voluntary relocation

11. R’ Yitzḥak - Whoever benefits from an optional feast will ultimately be exiled

    1. Prooftext - Amos 6:4; 7

12. Baraita - A Torah scholar who feasts excessively everywhere will destroy his household, harm his family, forget his learning, face disputes, lose authority, desecrate the names of God, his teacher, and his father, and create a lasting bad reputation for his descendants

13. Meaning of “bad reputation” in this context - 4 amoraic interpretations - “son of the oven-heater / one who dances in inns / bowl-licker / folds his garment and crouches”

14. Baraita - A man should sell all he has to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar, because if he dies or is exiled, his sons will still become Torah scholars; should not marry the daughter of an am ha’aretz, because if he dies or is exiled, his sons will become amei ha’aretz

The Passage

Pesachim/49a#11 thru #21

R’ Shimon - A Torah scholar may not benefit from any meal that is not a mitzvah meal

תניא,

רבי שמעון אומר:

כל סעודה שאינה של מצוה —

אין תלמיד חכם רשאי להנות ממנה.

Having discussed whether a betrothal feast is a mitzva, the Talmud addresses a related issue.

It was taught in a baraita that R’ Shimon says:

any feast that is not a mitzva --

A Torah scholar may not derive benefit from partaking in it

R’ Yoḥanan - Examples of non-mitzvah meals: a daughter of a kohen marrying an Israelite, or the daughter of a Torah scholar marrying an am ha’aretz

כגון מאי?

אמר רבי יוחנן:

כגון

1. בת כהן

   1. לישראל,

2. ובת תלמיד חכם

   1. לעם הארץ.

The Talmud asks: In what case does this statement apply?

R’ Yoḥanan said:

In a case

1. where the daughter of a priest

   1. marries an Israelite,

2. or where the daughter of a Torah scholar

   1. marries an am ha’aretz.

R’ Yoḥanan - A daughter of a kohen marrying an Israelite is an inauspicious match

דאמר רבי יוחנן:

בת כהן לישראל —

אין זווגן עולה יפה.

Although a wedding feast is generally a mitzva, it is not in this case, as R’ Yoḥanan said:

When the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite --

their union (זווגן) will not be auspicious,

as it is disgraceful for the priesthood when the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite.

Rav Ḥisda - The bad outcome of such a marriage (a daughter of a kohen marrying an Israelite) will be one of three: she becomes widowed, divorced, or childless - Leviticus 22:13

מאי היא?

אמר רב חסדא:

1. או ״אלמנה״,

2. או ״גרושה״,

3. או ״זרע אין לה״.

The Talmud asks: What is meant by this statement that their union will be inauspicious?

Rav Ḥisda said:

1. she will either be a widow,

2. a divorcee,

3. or without children2

Baraita - The bad outcome will be: he buries her, she buries him, or she brings him to poverty

במתניתא תנא:

1. קוברה

2. או קוברתו,

3. או מביאתו לידי עניות.

[...]

It was taught in a baraita:

1. Either her husband will bury her

2. or she will bury him, because one of them will die young,

3. or she will cause him to become poor.

[...]

R’ Yoḥanan - One who wants wealth should attach himself to the descendants of Aaron (=priests); Torah and priesthood together bring wealth

אמר רבי יוחנן:

הרוצה שיתעשר --

ידבק בזרעו של אהרן,

כל שכן שתורה וכהונה מעשרתן.

[...]

R’ Yoḥanan says:

One who wishes to become wealthy --

should cling to the descendants of Aaron (זרעו של אהרן, i.e., priests),

and all the more so should the merit of the Torah and the priesthood cause them to become wealthy.

[...]

Anecdote re R’ Yehoshua - married a kohen’s daughter, became ill, and interpreted this as Aaron not wanting him as a son-in-law

רבי יהושע נסיב כהנתא,

חלש.

אמר:

לא ניחא ליה לאהרן דאדבק בזרעיה,

דהוי ליה חתנא כי אנא.

The Talmud relates that R’ Yehoshua married a daughter of a priest

and became ill.

He said:

Apparently, it is not satisfactory to Aaron the priest that I cling to his descendants,

so that he has a son-in-law like me.

Anecdote re Rav Idi b. Avin - married a kohen’s daughter and had two ordained sons: Rav Sheshet b. Idi and R’ Yehoshua b. Idi

רב אידי בר אבין נסיב כהנתא,

נפקו מיניה תרי בני סמיכי:

1. רב ששת בריה דרב אידי,

2. ורבי יהושע בריה דרב אידי.

The Talmud also relates that Rav Idi bar Avin married a daughter of a priest.

Two sons who were ordained (סמיכי) to decide halakhic matters came from him:

1. namely Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi,

2. and R’ Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi.

Rav Pappa - His marriage to a kohen’s daughter caused his wealth

אמר רב פפא:

אי לא נסיבנא כהנתא --

לא איעתרי.

Similarly, Rav Pappa said:

Had I not married a daughter of a priest --

I would not have become wealthy.

Rav Kahana - His marriage to a kohen’s daughter caused his exile (from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael)

אמר רב כהנא:

אי לא נסיבנא כהנתא --

לא גלאי.

On the other hand, Rav Kahana, who was not a priest, said:

Had I not married a daughter of a priest --

I would not have been exiled,3

Rav Kahana, responding to others - Although he was exiled to a place of Torah, it was still coercive exile, not voluntary relocation

אמרו ליה: והא למקום תורה גלית!

לא גלאי כדגלי אינשי.

They said to him: But you were exiled to a place of Torah, which is not a punishment at all.

He answered: I was not exiled as people are generally exiled,

i.e., I did not emigrate of my own free will; rather, I was forced to flee from the authorities.

R’ Yitzḥak - Whoever benefits from an optional feast will ultimately be exiled

אמר רבי יצחק:

כל הנהנה מסעודת הרשות --

לסוף גולה,

R’ Yitzḥak said:

Anyone who benefits from partaking in an optional feast (סעודת הרשות) --

which is not a mitzva, will ultimately be exiled,

Prooftext - Amos 6:4; 7

• שנאמר:

  • ״ואכלים כרים מצאן ועגלים מתוך מרבק״,

• וכתיב:

  • ״לכן עתה יגלו בראש גולים״.

• as it is stated:

  • “And eat the lambs of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall” (Amos 6:4),

• and it is written:

  • “Therefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles; and the revelry of those who stretched themselves out shall pass away” (Amos 6:7).

Baraita - A Torah scholar who feasts excessively everywhere will destroy his household, harm his family, forget his learning, face disputes, lose authority, desecrate the names of God, his teacher, and his father, and create a lasting bad reputation for his descendants

תנו רבנן:

כל תלמיד חכם המרבה סעודתו בכל מקום --

סוף

1. מחריב את ביתו,

2. ומאלמן את אשתו,

3. ומייתם את גוזליו,

4. ותלמודו משתכח ממנו,

5. ומחלוקות רבות באות עליו,

6. ודבריו אינם נשמעים,

7. ומחלל

   1. שם שמים

   2. ושם רבו

   3. ושם אביו,

8. וגורם שם רע

   1. לו

   2. ולבניו

   3. ולבני בניו, עד סוף כל הדורות.

The Talmud continues discussing a Torah scholar who benefits from optional feasts.

A baraita states:

Any Torah scholar who feasts excessively (מרבה סעודתו) everywhere degrades himself and brings suffering upon himself --

He will ultimately

1. destroy his house,

2. widow his wife,

3. orphan his chicks (גוזליו), i.e., his children,

4. and his studies (תלמודו) will be forgotten.

5. Much dispute (מחלוקות) will come upon him,

6. his words will not be heeded,

7. and he will desecrate (מחלל)

   1. God’s name (שם שמים)

   2. and the name of his master

   3. and the name of his father.

8. And he will cause a bad name

   1. for himself,

   2. his children,

   3. and his descendants throughout future generations.

Meaning of “bad reputation” in this context - 4 amoraic interpretations - “son of the oven-heater / one who dances in inns / bowl-licker / folds his garment and crouches”

1. Abaye - The bad reputation is that his son4 is called “son of the oven-heater” (meaning his father was always involved in feast preparation)

2. Rava - The bad reputation is that his son is called “son of the one who dances in inns (כובי)” (meaning his father was known as a feast entertainer)

3. Rav Pappa - The bad reputation is that his son is called “son of the bowl-licker” (meaning his father was known for gluttony)

4. Rav Shemaya - The bad reputation is that his son is called “son of the one who folds his garment and crouches” (meaning his father was known for drunken collapse at feasts)

מאי היא?

1. אמר אביי: קרו ליה בר מחים תנורי.

2. רבא אמר: בר מרקיד בי כובי.

3. רב פפא אמר: בר מלחיך פינכי.

4. רב שמעיה אמר: בר מך רבע.

The Talmud asks: What is this bad reputation that he causes to himself and his descendants?

1. Abaye said: His son is called the son [bar] of the one who heats ovens, since this person continually heated ovens in order to prepare food for feasts.

2. Rava said: His son will be called the son of the one who dances in inns [bei kuvei], as he seems to be invited to every feast to entertain the guests.

3. Rav Pappa said: His son will be called the son of the one who licks bowls [pinkhei].

4. Rav Shemaya said: His son will be called the son of the one who folds (מך) his garment and crouches (רבע), i.e., falls asleep drunk.

Baraita - A man should sell all he has to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar, because if he dies or is exiled, his sons will still become Torah scholars; should not marry the daughter of an am ha’aretz, because if he dies or is exiled, his sons will become amei ha’aretz

תנו רבנן:

• לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת תלמיד חכם,

  • שאם מת או גולה —

  • מובטח לו שבניו תלמידי חכמים.

• ואל ישא בת עם הארץ,

  • שאם מת או גולה —

  • בניו עמי הארץ.

On the topic of proper marriage partners, the Talmud cites the following discussion.

A baraita states:

• One should always be willing to sell all he has in order to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar,

  • as if he dies or if he is exiled and he cannot raise his children --

  • he can be assured that his sons will be Torah scholars, since their mother will ensure that they are well educated.

• And one should not marry the daughter of an am ha’aretz,

  • as if he dies or is exiled --

  • his sons will be commoners [amei ha’aretz].

רבי שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עכו אמר, משום רבי שמעון:

אין לך מצוה ומצוה שכתובה בתורה שלא נכרתו עליה ארבעים ושמנה בריתות של שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים.

R’ Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko said in the name of R’ Shimon:

There is no mitzva written in the Torah for which 48 covenants1 were not established 603,550 times2

R’ Yehuda HaNasi - According to R’ Shimon b. Yehuda citing R’ Shimon, each individual Israelite had 603,550 covenantal responsibilities

אמר רבי:

לדברי רבי שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עכו שאמר משום רבי שמעון --

אין לך כל מצוה ומצוה שבתורה שלא נכרתו עליה ארבעים ושמנה בריתות של שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים.

נמצא לכל אחד ואחד מישראל שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים.

[...]

R’ Yehuda HaNasi says:

According to the statement of R’ Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko, who spoke in the name of R’ Shimon --

there is no mitzva in the Torah for which 48 covenants were not established 603,550 times;

it follows that for every one of the Jewish people there were 603,550 covenants.

[...]

R’ Yehuda b. Naḥmani, interpreter of R’ Shimon b. Lakish - The whole blessings-and-curses passage concerns adultery: even idolatry is interpreted as resulting from forbidden relations that produce a child alienated from Israel - Deuteronomy 27:15

דרש רבי יהודה בן נחמני, מתורגמניה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש:

כל הפרשה כולה לא נאמרה אלא בנואף ונואפת,

§ R’ Yehuda ben Naḥmani, the disseminator of R’ Shimon ben Lakish, taught:

The entire passage of the blessings and curses is stated only in reference to an adulterer (נואף) and adulteress.

״ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה וגו׳״,

ב״ארור״ סגי ליה?

This is proved from the verse: “Cursed is the man who makes a graven or molten image” (Deuteronomy 27:15).

Is a curse a sufficient consequence for the actions of an idol worshipper?

He has rebelled against the fundamental tenet of the Torah.

אלא:

זה הבא על הערוה

והוליד בן,

והלך לבין אומות העולם

ועבד עבודה זרה.

ארורין אביו ואמו של זה שכך גרמו לו.

Rather,

this is referring to one who had sex with a forbidden relative (ערוה)

and bore her a mamzer son.

And the son, who is not allowed to marry a Jew of unflawed lineage, went to live among the other non-Jewish nations

and engaged in idol worship.

His father and mother are cursed for causing him to worship idols.

Likewise, the rest of the curses refer to sins that are the result of adultery.

Baraita - The verse requiring blessing on Gerizim and curse on Ebal teaches that each blessing precedes its paired curse, not that all blessings precede all curses - Deuteronomy 11:29, 27:12–13

תנו רבנן:

״ונתת את הברכה על הר גרזים

ואת הקללה וגו׳״,

מה תלמוד לומר?

אם ללמד שתהא ברכה על הר גרזים וקללה על הר עיבל,

הרי כבר נאמר ״אלה יעמדו לברך את העם על הר גרזים״,

וכתיב ״ואלה יעמדו על הקללה בהר עיבל״!

אלא להקדים ברכה לקללה.

A baraita states:

“And you shall give the blessing on Mount Gerizim

and the curse on Mount Ebal” (Deuteronomy 11:29).

Why must the verse state this?

If it is to teach that the blessing must be given on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal,

it is already stated: “These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people” (Deuteronomy 27:12),

and it is written: “And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse” (Deuteronomy 27:13).

Rather, the verse teaches that the proclamation of the blessing must precede the curse.

יכול יהיו כל הברכות קודמות לקללות,

תלמוד לומר:

״ברכה״ ו״קללה״ —

• ברכה אחת

  • קודמת לקללה,

• ואין כל הברכות

  • קודמות לקללות.

One might have thought that all of the blessings should precede the curses.

Therefore, the verse states

“blessing” and “curse” in the singular, to teach that

• one blessing

  • precedes each curse,

• But not all of the blessings

  • precede the curses.

The blessings and curses were recited alternately, first one blessing and then one curse.

Blessing is compared to curse - List of 5 similarities: both are said by Levites, aloud, in Hebrew, in general and specific form, and answered “Amen” by both groups

(See footnote.)3

ולהקיש ברכה לקללה,

לומר לך:

1. 1. מה קללה בלוים,

   2. אף ברכה בלוים.

2. 1. ומה קללה בקול רם,

   2. אף ברכה בקול רם.

3. 1. ומה קללה בלשון הקודש,

   2. אף ברכה בלשון הקודש.

4. 1. ומה קללה בכלל ופרט,

   2. אף ברכה בכלל ופרט.

5. 1. ומה קללה — אלו ואלו עונין ואומרים ״אמן״,

   2. אף ברכה — אלו ואלו עונין ואומרים ״אמן״.

And furthermore, the verse comes to juxtapose the blessing with the curse,

to say to you that

1. 1. just as the curse is recited by the Levites,

   2. so too, the blessing is uttered by the Levites;

2. 1. and just as the curse is proclaimed loudly (קול רם),

   2. so too, the blessing is proclaimed loudly;

3. 1. and just as the curse is proclaimed in the sacred tongue, Hebrew,

   2. so too, the blessing is proclaimed in the sacred tongue;

4. 1. and just as the curse is proclaimed both in general and in detail,

   2. so too, the blessing is proclaimed in general and in detail.

5. 1. And just as after the curse is uttered, both groups of people on each mountain respond and say Amen,

   2. so too, after the blessing is uttered, both groups respond and say Amen.

Appendix - Who Entered the Red Sea First? Judah, Benjamin, and the Rewards of Temple and Kingship (Sotah 36b-37a)

Sotah.36b.23-37a.6

This sugya gives two tannaitic accounts of the tribes at the Red Sea (right before the sea split, at the time of Exodus). According to R. Meir, the tribes competed for the honor of entering first. Benjamin jumped into the sea, and Judah’s princes pelted them for taking precedence. Benjamin was rewarded by becoming the territory of the Temple, “host” to the Shekhina.

R. Yehuda gives a different account. The tribes hesitated to enter the sea, until Nahshon son of Amminadab of Judah jumped in first. Psalms 69 is read as his prayer while the waters rose around him. At that moment, Moses was praying, and God told him that action was required: “Speak to the children of Israel that they go forward.”

The passage concludes that Judah’s courage at the sea explains its later kingship. Psalms 114 is read as linking Judah’s sanctification of God with the sea’s retreat: “Judah became His sanctuary, Israel His dominion; the sea saw and fled.”

R’ Meir - At the Red Sea, the tribes competed to enter

יהודה מאי היא?

דתניא,

היה רבי מאיר אומר:

כשעמדו ישראל על הים --

היו שבטים מנצחים זה עם זה,

• זה אומר:

  • אני יורד תחלה לים,

• וזה אומר:

  • אני יורד תחלה לים,

§ What was the incident where Judah sanctified God’s name in public?

As it is taught in a baraita that R’ Meir would say:

When the Jewish people stood at the Red Sea --

the tribes were arguing4 with one other.

• This one was saying:

  • I am going into the sea first,

• and that one was saying:

  • I am going into the sea first.

Benjamin jumped in first - Psalms 68:28

קפץ שבטו של בנימין וירד לים תחילה,

שנאמר:

״שם בנימין

צעיר

רדם״,

אל תקרי ״רדם״

אלא ״רד ים״.

Then, in jumped the tribe of Benjamin and descended into the sea first,

as it is stated:

“There is Benjamin,

the youngest,

ruling them [rodem]” (Psalms 68:28).

Do not read it as: “Ruling them [rodem]”;

Rather, read it as: “Descending [red] into the sea [yam]”

Judah’s princes pelted Benjamin

והיו שרי יהודה רוגמים אותם,

שנאמר:

״שרי יהודה

רגמתם״.

And the princes of the tribe of Judah were stoning them [rogmim otam] for plunging in first and not in the proper order,

as it is stated in the continuation of the verse:

“The princes of Judah,

their council [rigmatam]” (Psalms 68:28).

Benjamin was rewarded by “hosting God” (=the Temple) in its territory - Deuteronomy 33:12

לפיכך זכה בנימין הצדיק ונעשה אושפיזכן לגבורה,

שנאמר:

״ובין כתפיו שכן״.

Therefore,

Benjamin the righteous was privileged to serve as host (אושפיזכן) to the Shekhina of God, as the Temple was built in the territory of Benjamin,

as it is stated in Moses’ blessing for the tribe of Benjamin:

“The beloved of YHWH shall dwell in safety by Him; He covers him all the day, and He rests between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12).

R’ Yehuda - The tribes actually avoided entering first

אמר לו רבי יהודה:

לא כך היה מעשה,

אלא

• זה אומר:

  • אין אני יורד תחילה לים,

• וזה אומר:

  • אין אני יורד תחילה לים,

R’ Yehuda said to R’ Meir:

That is not how the incident took place.

Rather,

• this tribe said:

  • I am not going into the sea first,

• and that tribe said:

  • I am not going into the sea first.

Nahshon b. Amminadab of Judah jumped in first - Hosea 12:1

קפץ נחשון בן עמינדב וירד לים תחילה,

שנאמר:

״סבבני בכחש אפרים

ובמרמה בית ישראל

ויהודה עד רד עם אל״.

Then, in jumped the prince of Judah, Nahshon ben Amminadab, and descended into the sea first, accompanied by his entire tribe,

as it is stated:

“Ephraim surrounds Me with lies

and the house of Israel with deceit,

and Judah is yet wayward toward God [rad im El]” (Hosea 12:1),

which is interpreted homiletically as: And Judah descended [rad] with God [im El].

Psalms 69:2–3, 16

ועליו מפרש בקבלה:

״הושיעני אלהים

כי באו מים עד נפש ...

טבעתי ביון מצולה

ואין מעמד וגו׳״,

״אל תשטפני שבלת מים

ואל תבלעני מצולה וגו׳״.

And in this regard, the tradition, i.e., the Writings, explicates Nahshon’s prayer at that moment:

“Save me, God;

for the waters are come in even unto the soul.

I am sunk in deep mire,

where there is no standing…

let not the water flood overwhelm me,

neither let the deep swallow me up” (Psalms 69:2–3, 16).

Exodus 14:15–16

באותה שעה היה משה מאריך בתפלה,

אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא:

ידידיי טובעים בים

ואתה מאריך בתפלה לפני?!

At that time, Moses was prolonging his prayer.

God said to him:

My beloved ones are drowning in the sea

and you prolong your prayer to me?!

אמר לפניו:

רבונו של עולם!

ומה בידי לעשות?!

אמר לו:

״דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו.

ואתה --

הרם את מטך ונטה את ידך וגו׳״.

Moses said before Him:

God!

but what can I do?!

God said to him:

“Speak to the children of Israel that they go forward.

And you --

lift up your rod and stretch out your hand” (Exodus 14:15–16).

Judah therefore merited kingship over Israel - Psalms 114:2–3

לפיכך,

זכה יהודה לעשות ממשלה בישראל,

שנאמר:

״היתה יהודה לקדשו ישראל ממשלותיו״,

מה טעם ״היתה יהודה לקדשו וישראל ממשלותיו״ ?

משום ד״הים ראה וינס״.

For this reason, because Nahshon and the tribe of Judah went into the sea first,

the tribe of Judah merited to govern (ממשלה) Israel,

as it is stated:

“Judah became His sanctuary,

Israel His dominion.

The sea saw it and fled” (Psalms 114:2–3).

The baraita interprets the verses in this manner: What is the reason that Judah became His sanctuary and Israel came under His dominion?

It is because “the sea saw it and fled.”

Part 1

This sugya analyzes the covenantal ceremony of blessings and curses at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal.

The biblical passages in Deuteronomy and Joshua appear, at first, to give different accounts of where the Levites stood. Deuteronomy states that Levi stood “on Mount Gerizim” for the blessing, while Joshua describes Israel standing below, around the Ark, before “the priests, the Levites.” The sugya opens by resolving this tension through several tannaitic interpretations. R’ Eliezer b. Yaakov distinguishes between the elders of the priests and Levites, who stood below, and the remaining Levites, who stood above. R’ Yoshiya gives a functional distinction: Levites fit for Temple service stood below, while the others stood above. R’ Yehuda HaNasi rejects the assumption that anyone stood on the mountain itself; in his view, both Levites and Israelites stood below, turning toward Mount Gerizim for the blessing and toward Mount Ebal for the curse.

This interpretation depends on a broader reading of the Hebrew word al ( עַל). Although al typically means “on,” R’ Yehuda HaNasi argues that it can also mean “adjacent to.” He supports this from two Temple-related verses: the frankincense placed al the rows of showbread, and the curtain placed al the Ark. In the latter case, the curtain was not literally on top of the Ark, but positioned near it. The same usage is then applied to Gerizim and Ebal: the people stood beside the mountains, not necessarily upon them.

The sugya then shifts from the physical arrangement of the ceremony to its covenantal structure. A baraita explains that every mitzva was accompanied by blessing and curse, each in both general and specific form. These were further linked to four obligations: to learn, to teach, to keep, and to perform. The result is a numerical system: four aspects in general form and four in specific form make eight; blessing and curse double this to sixteen; and these sixteen covenants are counted at three covenantal moments—Sinai, Gerizim/Ebal, and the Plains of Moab—yielding forty-eight covenants for each mitzva. R’ Shimon modifies the count by excluding Gerizim and Ebal and including the Tent of Meeting instead, in line with the broader dispute between R’ Yishmael and R’ Akiva over whether only general principles were given at Sinai, or whether both general principles and details were given at Sinai and later repeated.

Part 2

The covenantal arithmetic is then intensified. R’ Shimon b. Yehuda of Kefar Akko, citing R’ Shimon, teaches that each mitzva carried forty-eight covenants multiplied by the 603,550 Israelites in the wilderness, since each Israelite became a guarantor for the others. R’ Yehuda HaNasi formulates the result as a massive multiplication of individual responsibility: covenant is not merely personal obligation, but mutual responsibility across the entire people.

The final section returns to the content and order of the blessings and curses. R’ Yehuda b. Naḥmani, speaking as the interpreter of R’ Shimon b. Lakish, reads the whole passage as fundamentally about sexual transgression, especially adultery and forbidden unions. Even the curse against idolatry is interpreted through this lens: a child born from forbidden relations may be socially alienated, leave Israel, and become an idolater, making the parents responsible for the outcome. The sugya also establishes procedural rules for the ceremony: each blessing precedes its corresponding curse, rather than all blessings being recited before all curses. Blessing and curse are closely compared: both are recited by Levites, aloud, in Hebrew, in general and specific form, and both receive an “Amen” response from the assembled groups.

Overall, the sugya turns the ceremony at Gerizim and Ebal into a dense model of covenantal responsibility. It combines biblical harmonization, semantic interpretation, ritual reconstruction, numerical expansion, and moral theology. The central concern is how the Torah’s obligations were publicly accepted, multiplied, and distributed across the entire collective of Israel.

Outline

Intro

The Passage

Part 1

1. R’ Eliezer b. Yaakov - the elders of the priests and Levites stood below, while the rest stood above - Deuteronomy 27:12; Joshua 8:33

2. R’ Yoshiya - Levites fit for Temple service stood below; the rest stood above - Deuteronomy 27:12; Joshua 8:33

3. R’ Yehuda HaNasi - Both Levites and Israelites stood below; they faced Gerizim for the blessing and Ebal for the curse; “On” means “adjacent to” - Deuteronomy 27:12; Joshua 8:33

4. R’ Yehuda HaNasi - The word “al” can mean “adjacent to,” as with frankincense placed near the showbread rows and the curtain screening the Ark - Leviticus 24:7; Exodus 40:3

5. Baraita - Each mitzva involved general/specific blessing/curse (4), and obligations to learn, teach, keep, and perform (4), across Sinai, Gerizim/Ebal, and Moab (3), yielding 48 covenants per mitzva

   1. Obligations to learn, teach, keep, and perform - list of 4 obligations

   2. Also at Mount Sinai and Plains of Moab - so total of 3 places - Deuteronomy 28:69, 29:8

6. R’ Shimon - Excludes Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal from the covenant count and includes the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness instead - Deuteronomy 28:69; Deuteronomy 29:8

7. R’ Yishmael - General principles were given at Sinai; details were given in the Tent of Meeting

8. R’ Akiva - Both general principles and details were given at Sinai, repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and stated a third time in the Plains of Moab

9. Every mitzva in the Torah had 48 covenants established for it

Part 2

1. R’ Shimon b. Yehuda of Kefar Akko citing R’ Shimon - Every mitzva had 48 covenants multiplied by 603,550 Israelites (since each Jew became guarantor for the others)

2. R’ Yehuda HaNasi - According to R’ Shimon b. Yehuda citing R’ Shimon, each individual Israelite had 603,550 covenantal responsibilities

3. R’ Yehuda b. Naḥmani, interpreter of R’ Shimon b. Lakish - The whole blessings-and-curses passage concerns adultery: even idolatry is interpreted as resulting from forbidden relations that produce a child alienated from Israel - Deuteronomy 27:15

4. Baraita - The verse requiring blessing on Gerizim and curse on Ebal teaches that each blessing precedes its paired curse, not that all blessings precede all curses - Deuteronomy 11:29, 27:12–13

   1. Blessing is compared to curse - List of 5 similarities: both are said by Levites, aloud, in Hebrew, in general and specific form, and answered “Amen” by both groups

Appendix - Who Entered the Red Sea First? Judah, Benjamin, and the Rewards of Temple and Kingship (Sotah 36b-37a)

1. R’ Meir - At the Red Sea, the tribes competed to enter

   1. Benjamin jumped in first - Psalms 68:28

   2. Judah’s princes pelted Benjamin

   3. Benjamin was rewarded by “hosting God” (=the Temple) in its territory - Deuteronomy 33:12

2. R’ Yehuda - The tribes actually avoided entering first

   1. Nahshon b. Amminadab of Judah jumped in first - Hosea 12:1

   2. Psalms 69:2–3, 16

   3. Exodus 14:15–16

   4. Judah therefore merited kingship over Israel - Psalms 114:2–3

The Passage

Sotah/37a#7 thru 37b#12

https://chavrutai.com/sugya-viewer?Sotah.36b.23-37b.12

R’ Eliezer b. Yaakov - the elders of the priests and Levites stood below, while the rest stood above - Deuteronomy 27:12; Joshua 8:33

תניא,

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר:

• אי אפשר לומר לוי למטה,

  • שכבר נאמר למעלה.

• ואי אפשר לומר למעלה,

  • שכבר נאמר למטה.

§ The Talmud returns to discussing the blessing and curses.

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:9) that

R’ Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:

• It is impossible to say that the tribe of Levi stood below, between the two mountains,

  • as it is already stated that they were above, in the verse: “These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people when you have passed over the Jordan: Shimon and Levi and Judah” (Deuteronomy 27:12).

• And it is impossible to say that they stood above on the mountain

  • because it is already stated: “And all of Israel, and their elders and officers, and their judges, stood on this side of the Ark and on that side before the priests the Levites” (Joshua 8:33). This shows that the Levites stood below, between the mountains, with the Ark.

הא כיצד?

• זקני כהונה ולויה

  • למטה,

• והשאר

  • למעלה.

How is this possible?

• Only the Elders of the priesthood and the Levites

  • stood below,

• and the rest of the Levites

  • stood above on the mountain.

R’ Yoshiya - Levites fit for Temple service stood below; the rest stood above - Deuteronomy 27:12; Joshua 8:33

רבי יאשיה אומר:

• כל הראוי לשרת

  • למטה,

• והשאר

  • למעלה.

R’ Yoshiya says:

• Any Levite who was fit to serve (לשרת) in the Temple

  • stood below, between the mountains,

• and the rest of the tribe, who were too young or too old to serve in the Temple,

  • stood above on the mountain.

R’ Yehuda HaNasi - Both Levites and Israelites stood below; they faced Gerizim for the blessing and Ebal for the curse; “On” means “adjacent to” - Deuteronomy 27:12; Joshua 8:33

רבי אומר:

אלו ואלו למטה הן עומדים,

• הפכו פניהם כלפי הר גריזים

  • ופתחו בברכה,

• כלפי הר עיבל

  • ופתחו בקללה.

מאי ״על״?

על בסמוך.

R’ Yehuda HaNasi says:

Both the Levites and the Israelites were standing below.

• They turned to face Mount Gerizim

  • and opened with a blessing,

• and then they turned toward Mount Ebal

  • and opened with a curse.

Therefore, what is the meaning of the verse: “These shall stand on [al] Mount Gerizim to bless the people” (Deuteronomy 27:12)?

“Al” means adjacent to the mountain but not actually on the mountain itself.

R’ Yehuda HaNasi - The word “al” can mean “adjacent to,” as with frankincense placed near the showbread rows and the curtain screening the Ark - Leviticus 24:7; Exodus 40:3

כדתניא:

״ונתת על המערכת לבונה זכה״,

רבי אומר:

״על״ — בסמוך.

אתה אומר ״על״ בסמוך,

או אינו אלא על ממש?

כשהוא אומר ״וסכת על הארן״,

הוי אומר ״על״ בסמוך.

As it is taught in a baraita that discusses the shewbread:

“And you shall put pure frankincense on [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7).

R’ Yehuda HaNasi says:

“Al” in this instance means adjacent to.

Do you say that “al” means adjacent to,

or perhaps it carries only its literal meaning of “on”?

When it says in the verse: “And you shall screen the Ark [al ha-Aron] with the curtain” (Exodus 40:3), the word “al” cannot mean on, as the curtain that separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was not placed on top of the Ark, but near it.

Therefore, you must say that “al” means adjacent to.

Baraita - Each mitzva involved general/specific blessing/curse (4), and obligations to learn, teach, keep, and perform (4), across Sinai, Gerizim/Ebal, and Moab (3), yielding 48 covenants per mitzva

The overall calculation is as follows:

4 duties × 2 scopes × 2 sanction-types × 3 ceremonies = 48 covenants per mitzvah.

Table summarizing:

הפכו פניהם כלפי הר גריזים ופתחו בברכה כו׳,

§ It is stated in the Mishnah: They turned to face Mount Gerizim and opened with a blessing: Blessed be the man who does not make a graven or molten image (see Deuteronomy 27:15), and these people and those people, i.e., the two groups standing on either mountain, answered: Amen. Then they turned to face Mount Ebal and opened with the curse: “Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image” (Deuteronomy 27:15), and these people and those people answered: Amen.

Obligations to learn, teach, keep, and perform - list of 4 obligations

תנו רבנן:

1. 1. ״ברוך״ בכלל,

   2. ״ברוך״ בפרט.

2. 1. ״ארור״ בכלל,

   2. ״ארור״ בפרט,

1. 1. ללמוד

   2. וללמד

2. 1. לשמור

   2. ולעשות,

הרי ארבע,

• ארבע וארבע

  • הרי שמונה,

• שמונה ושמונה

  • הרי שש עשרה.

A baraita states (Tosefta 8:10):

The blessings and curses include

1. 1. a general (בכלל) blessing for one who fulfills the entire Torah,

   2. and a particular (בפרט) blessing for each individual statement mentioned in the blessings and curses.

2. Likewise,

   1. there is a general curse for one who does not fulfill the entire Torah

   2. and a particular curse for each individual statement.

And for each of the blessings and curses there is a mitzva

1. 1. to learn

   2. and to teach,

2. 1. and to keep

   2. and to perform.

Thus,

every mitzva contains 4 aspects.

• 4 general aspects and 4 specific aspects

  • add up to 8.

• 8 blessings and 8 curses

  • add up to 16.

Also at Mount Sinai and Plains of Moab - so total of 3 places - Deuteronomy 28:69, 29:8

וכן בסיני,

וכן בערבות מואב,

• שנאמר:

  • ״אלה דברי הברית אשר צוה ה׳ את משה וגו׳,

• וכתיב:

  • ״ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת וגו׳״.

נמצא ארבעים ושמונה בריתות על כל מצוה ומצוה.

And so too at Mount Sinai,

and so too at the Plains of Moab,

• as it is stated:

  • “These are the words of the covenant that YHWH commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant that He made with them in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 28:69).

• And it is written:

  • “Observe therefore the words of this covenant” (Deuteronomy 29:8).

We thus find that between the 3 events where 16 covenants were made, God established 48 covenants (בריתות) for each and every mitzva.

R’ Shimon - Excludes Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal from the covenant count and includes the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness instead - Deuteronomy 28:69; Deuteronomy 29:8

רבי שמעון --

מוציא הר גריזים והר עיבל,

ומכניס אהל מועד שבמדבר.

[...]

R’ Shimon --

excludes Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal from this list because only some of the mitzvot were mentioned there,

and he includes instead the covenant at the Tent of Meeting in the desert.

[...]

R’ Yishmael - General principles were given at Sinai; details were given in the Tent of Meeting

תניא,

רבי ישמעאל אומר:

• כללות

  • נאמרו בסיני

• ופרטות

  • באהל מועד.

it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:11):

R’ Yishmael says:

• General statements (כללות)

  • were said at Sinai, i.e., Moses received general mitzvot at Sinai, including the 10 Commandments.

• And the details (פרטות) of the mitzvot

  • were explained to Moses at a later time in the Tent of Meeting.

R’ Akiva - Both general principles and details were given at Sinai, repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and stated a third time in the Plains of Moab

רבי עקיבא אומר:

כללות ופרטות

1. נאמרו בסיני,

2. ונשנו באהל מועד,

3. ונשתלשו בערבות מואב.

R’ Akiva says:

Both general statements and the details of mitzvot

1. were said at Sinai,

2. and later repeated (נשנו) in the Tent of Meeting,

3. and reiterated a third time (נשתלשו) by Moses to the Jewish people in the Plains of Moab.

Every mitzva in the Torah had 48 covenants established for it

ואין לך כל דבר מצוה ומצוה שכתובה בתורה שלא נכרתו עליה ארבעים ושמנה בריתות.

The baraita concludes:

And there is no mitzva written in the Torah for which 48 covenants were not established.

Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa - God delays punishment of a nation/king until its “sending away” (banishment)

אמר רב חיננא בר פפא:

אין הקדוש ברוך הוא נפרע מן האומה עד שעת שילוחה,

Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa says:

God does not punish a nation deserving of punishment until its time to be banished (שילוחה),

i.e., until the time of its final eradication from the world,

Prooftext - Isa 27:8

שנאמר:

״בסאסאה

בשלחה וגו׳״.

[...]

as it is stated:

“In full measure,

when you send her away,

you contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8).1

[...]

Rava - 3 cups of Egypt correspond with the multiple punishments across eras (Moses, Pharaoh Neco, future) - Gen 40:11–13

(See footnote.)2

אמר רבא:

שלש(ה) כוסות האמורות במצרים --

למה?

Rava said:

three cups of misfortune that are stated with regard to Egypt in the dream of its chief butler (see Genesis 40:11–13) --

Why are there specifically three?

1. אחת ששתת בימי משה,

2. ואחת ששתת בימי פרעה נכה,

3. ואחת שעתידה לשתות עם חברותיה

[...]

They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall Egypt:

1. One that it drank in the days of Moses during the ten plagues and the Exodus;

2. one that it drank in the days of Pharaoh Neco, the king of Egypt who was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar;

3. and one that it will drink in the (messianic) future with its companions, i.e., the other nations, when they are punished during the days of the Messiah.

[...]

R’ Yehuda’s anecdote about Minyamin the Egyptian convert - Counters the “those Egyptians are gone” move: in R’ Akiva’s circle Egypt still treated as biblical Egypt (re: 3rd-generation rule) - Deut 23:8–9 (Egyptian convert, 3rd generation)

תניא,

אמר רבי יהודה:

מנימין גר המצרי היה לי חבר מתלמידי רבי עקיבא.

אמר מנימין גר המצרי:

1. אני

   1. מצרי ראשון,

2. ונשאתי

   1. מצרית ראשונה,

3. אשיא לבני

   1. מצרית שניה

4. כדי שיהא בן בני

   1. מותר לבא בקהל

[...]

taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (Kiddushin 4:3):

R’ Yehuda said:

Minyamin, an Egyptian convert,3 was a friend of mine from among the students of R’ Akiva,

and Minyamin the Egyptian convert said:

1. After I converted I was

   1. a 1st-generation Egyptian convert,

2. and so I married

   1. another 1st-generation Egyptian convert.

3. I will marry off my son, who is a 2nd-generation Egyptian convert,

   1. to another 2nd-generation Egyptian convert,

4. in order that my grandson

   1. will be permitted to enter into the congregation.4

[...]

Ameimar’s version of Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa’s statement - Reads “I, YHWH, have not changed” as “I do not strike a nation twice”; contrasts Israel: struck repeatedly yet not consumed - Mal 3:6; Deut 32:23

אמימר מתני להא דרב חיננא בר פפא אהא,

מאי דכתיב:

״כי אני ה׳ לא שניתי

ואתם בני יעקב לא כליתם״?

Ameimar teaches that statement of Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa with regard to this:

What is the meaning of that which is written:

“For I YHWH change not;

and you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6)?

״אני ה׳ לא שניתי״ —

לא הכיתי לאומה ושניתי לה.

“For I YHWH change [shaniti] not”

is interpreted to mean: I did not strike a nation and repeat [shaniti] striking it,

as a stricken nation never recovers from the initial strike.

״ואתם בני יעקב לא כליתם״ —

היינו דכתיב:

״חצי אכלה בם״.

• חצי

  • כלין,

• והן

  • אינן כלין.

“And you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed,”

is interpreted to mean: Despite the fact that I strike you many times for your sins, I do not let you perish.

This is the same as that which is written:

“I will heap evils upon them; I will consume My arrows (חצי) upon them” (Deuteronomy 32:23),

which is interpreted to mean:

• My arrows

  • are consumed and used up,

• and they, the Jewish people,

  • are not consumed

but will continue to endure despite the many calamities that will befall them.

Rav Hamnuna - God does not punish a person until his “se’a” is filled (punishment waits for a threshold) - Job 20:22

אמר רב המנונא:

אין הקדוש ברוך הוא נפרע מן האדם עד שתתמלא סאתו,

שנאמר:

״במלאות שפקו יצר לו וגו׳״.

Rav Hamnuna says:

God does not punish a person until his se’a, the measure that is suitable for him, is filled,

as it is stated:

“In the fullness of his sufficiency he shall be in straits;

the hand of every one that is in misery shall come upon him” (Job 20:22).

In other words, when the sufficient measure of sin has been reached, then the trouble will overtake him.

Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa - Moses and David’s achievements (sanctuary/city gates) were not ruled over by enemies - Ps 33:1

דרש רב חיננא בר פפא,

מאי דכתיב:

״רננו צדיקים בה׳

לישרים נאוה תהלה״?

Having mentioned Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa, the Talmud quotes another of his interpretations.

Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa interpreted a verse homiletically:

What is the meaning of that which is written:

“Rejoice in YHWH, you righteous,

praise is comely for the upright [nava tehilla]” (Psalms 33:1)?

אל תקרי ״נאוה תהלה״,

אלא ״נוה תהלה״,

זה משה ודוד,

שלא שלטו שונאיהם במעשיהם.

Do not read the conclusion of the verse as: “Praise is comely [nava]”;

Rather, read it as: “A house [naveh] of praise.”5

This is referring to Moses and David,

whose enemies did not rule over their achievements,

as they each built a naveh, a house for YHWH, and this house remained in existence.

Prooftext for David: “her gates sunk into the ground” (ie, not destroyed)

דוד —

דכתיב: ״טבעו בארץ שעריה״.

With regard to David,

the citadel that housed his home and city, was not destroyed, as it is written:

“Her gates are sunk into the ground” (Lamentations 2:9),

as the gates of Jerusalem built by David were not destroyed by enemies, but sunk into the ground and were buried there.

Moses: Mishkan equipment hidden

משה —

דאמר מר:

משנבנה מקדש ראשון --

נגנז אהל מועד,

1. קרשיו

2. קרסיו

3. ובריחיו

4. ועמודיו

5. ואדניו.

This is also so with regard to Moses,

as the Master said:

When the First Temple was built (c. 10th century BCE)--

the Tent of Meeting was sequestered,6

including

1. its boards,

2. its clasps,

3. and its bars,

4. and its pillars,

5. and its sockets.7

Rav Ḥisda citing Avimi - Mishkan equipment was hidden under the Sanctuary tunnels

היכא?

אמר רב חסדא, אמר אבימי:

תחת מחילות של היכל.

The Talmud asks: Where is it sequestered?

Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says:

Beneath the tunnels (מחילות) of the Sanctuary (היכל)

Baraita - Sota set her eyes on one unfit → she loses both what she sought and what she had; generalizes: one who covets what is not his loses both

תנו רבנן:

סוטה נתנה עיניה במי שאינו ראוי לה,

• מה שביקשה —

  • לא ניתן לה,

• ומה שבידה —

  • נטלוהו ממנה.

שכל הנותן עיניו במה שאינו שלו —

• מה שמבקש --

  • אין נותנין לו,

• ומה שבידו —

  • נוטלין הימנו.

§ A baraita states in the Tosefta (4:16–19):

The sota placed her eyes, fixed her gaze, on one who is unfit for her, i.e., another man, so this is her punishment:

• That which she desired, i.e., to be with her paramour,

  • is not given to her,

  • as she becomes forbidden to him forever.

• And that which she had, i.e., her husband,

  • was taken away from her,

  • as she is now forbidden to him as well.

This teaches that anyone who places his eyes on that which is not his

• what he desires,

  • is not given to him

• and that which he had

  • is taken from him.

Primeval snake desired Eve → didn’t get her

(See footnote.)8

וכן מצינו בנחש הקדמוני,

שנתן עיניו במה שאינו ראוי לו —

• מה שביקש

  • לא נתנו לו,

• ומה שבידו

  • נטלוהו ממנו.

And, so too, we found with regard to the primeval snake who seduced Eve,

for he placed his eyes on that which was unfit for him, as he wanted to marry Eve.

Consequently,

• that which he desired

  • was not given to him,

• and that which was in his possession

  • was taken from him.

Primeval snake lost former status; curse details (belly, dust, enmity) - Gen 3:14–15

Table summarizing:9

אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא:

1. 1. אני אמרתי

      1. יהא מלך על כל בהמה וחיה,

   2. ועכשיו

      1. ״ארור הוא מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה״.

2. 1. אני אמרתי

      1. יהלך בקומה זקופה,

   2. עכשיו —

      1. ״על גחונו ילך״.

3. 1. אני אמרתי

      1. יהא מאכלו מאכל אדם,

   2. עכשיו —

      1. ״עפר יאכל״.

4. 1. הוא אמר

      1. אהרוג את אדם ואשא את חוה,

   2. עכשיו —

      1. ״איבה אשית בינך ובין האשה ובין זרעך ובין זרעה״.

God said:

1. 1. I initially said that

      1. the snake will be king over every domesticated animal (בהמה) and wild animal (חיה),

   2. but now

      1. he is cursed more than all the domesticated animals and all the non-domesticated animals of the field, as it is stated: “And YHWH God said unto the serpent: Because you have done this, you are cursed from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:14).

2. 1. I said that

      1. the snake will walk upright,

   2. but now

      1. he shall go on his belly;

3. 1. I said that

      1. his food will be the same as the food eaten by a person,

   2. but now

      1. he shall eat dust.

4. 1. The snake said:

      1. I will kill Adam and marry Eve,

   2. but now:

      1. “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed” (Genesis 3:15).

Catalogue of major wicked Biblical figures who desired the unfit--they lose sought goal and existing holdings: A list of 10 figures (Cain, Korah, Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, Gehazi, Absalom, Adonijah, Uzziah, Haman)

(See footnote.)10

וכן מצינו ב

1. קין

2. וקרח

3. ובלעם

4. ודואג

5. ואחיתופל

6. וגחזי

7. ואבשלום

8. ואדוניהו

9. ועוזיהו

10. והמן —

שנתנו עיניהם במה שאינו ראוי להם.

• מה שביקשו —

  • לא ניתן להם,

• ומה שבידם —

  • נטלוהו מהם.

The baraita continues:

And so we found with regard to

1. Cain,

   1. who desired to inherit the whole world alone (see Genesis 4);

2. and Korah,

   1. who desired the priesthood (see Numbers 16);11

3. and Balaam,

   1. who desired Balak’s money (see Numbers 22);12

4. and Doeg,

   1. who was jealous of David (see I Samuel 21–22);13

5. and Ahithophel,

   1. who was also jealous of David (see II Samuel 16);14

6. and Gehazi,

   1. who took Naaman’s money (see II Kings 5);15

7. and Absalom,

   1. who wanted the kingdom (see II Samuel 15);16

8. and Adonijah,

   1. (David’s 4th son,) who also wanted the kingdom (see I Kings 1);

9. and Uzziah,

   1. (the 10th king of Judah,) who wanted to be the High Priest (see II Chronicles 26);

10. and Haman,

    1. who wanted to kill all the Jews (see Esther 3:13).17