הָנֵי תַּמְרֵי דְּכַדָּא, לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסָר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שַׁרְיָין.

These dates stored in a jar are permitted after remaining there for twelve months of the year. Since worms have no bones, they cannot last twelve months. Consequently, any worms found in the dates must have hatched after they were picked and are therefore permitted.

אָמַר רַב: לֵית בָּקָא בַּר יוֹמָא, וְלֵית דִּידְבָא בַּת שַׁתָּא.

Rav says: There is no one-day-old mosquito, since all mosquitoes die before they have lived a day. And there is no one-year-old fly.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פַּפָּא לְאַבַּיֵי, וְהָא אָמְרִי אֱינָשֵׁי: שַׁב שְׁנֵי אִימְּרָא בַּקְתָּא מִבָּקָא, דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְבַר מְחוֹזָא דִּסְחָא בְּמַיָּא, וּסְלִיק וְאִיכָּרַךְ בִּסְדִינִין, וְאוֹתִיבַת עֲלֵיהּ וּמְצַת מִינֵּיהּ, וְלָא הוֹדַעַת לִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעֲמִיךְ, הָא דְאָמְרִי אֱינָשֵׁי: שִׁיתִּין מָנֵי פַּרְזְלָא תָּלוּ לֵיהּ לְבָקָא בְּקוּרְנְסֵיהּ, מִי אִיכָּא אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ כַּמָּה הָוֵי? אֶלָּא – בְּמָנֵי דִּידְהוּ, הָכָא נַמִי – בִּשְׁנֵי דִּידְהוּ.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn’t there the adage that people say that the female mosquito revolted against the male mosquito seven years, since she said to him: I saw a townsman swimming in the water, and he came out and wrapped himself in sheets, and you sat on him and sucked blood from him, and you did not inform me? Apparently, some boneless creatures can survive at least seven years. Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, what about that adage that people say: Six thousand iron dinars hang in a mosquito’s mallet, i.e., its bite is powerful? Is there really such a thing? How much does the mosquito itself weigh? Rather, the saying must be referring to hundreds of their own dinars, i.e., the mosquitoes’ coins. Here, too, the adage is referring to their own years, not human years.

תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָסֵר וְיָתֵר בַּיָּד, אֲבָל חָסֵר וְיָתֵר בָּרֶגֶל – טְרֵפָה נַמִי הָוְיָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? כָּל יָתֵר כְּנָטוּל דָּמֵי.

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere ( Bekhorot 40a): With regard to an animal with five legs, or one that has only three, this is a blemish, and the animal may not be brought as an offering. Rav Huna said: They taught this halakha only in a case where the animal was missing or had an additional foreleg. But if it was missing or had an additional hind leg, it is also a tereifa . What is the reason? It is that any extra limb is considered like a removed limb. tereifa ; the same applies if it had an extra leg.

הַהִיא חֵיוָתָא דַּהֲוָה לָהּ תַּרְתֵּי סָנְיָא דִּיבִי, אַיְיתוּהָ לְרָבִינָא, וְטַרְפָהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא. וְאִי שָׁפְכָן לַהֲדָדֵי – כְּשֵׁרָה.

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain animal that had two ceca. They brought it to Ravina, and he deemed it a tereifa based on the statement of Rav Huna that an extra limb is like a missing limb. Since an animal missing a cecum is a tereifa , an animal with an extra cecum is likewise a tereifa . The Gemara adds: But if they empty into each other, such that food can move freely between them, the animal is kosher, because they are considered one organ.

הַהִיא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה נָפְקָא מִבֵּי כָּסֵי לְהוּבְלִילָא, סָבַר רַב אַשִׁי לְמִיטְרְפָהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא מָר בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב אַשִׁי: כָּל הָנֵי חֵיוֵי בָּרַיְיתָא הָכִי אִית לְהוּ.

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain tube that exited from the reticulum into the omasum. Rav Ashi thought to deem the animal a tereifa . Rav Huna Mar bar Ḥiyya said to Rav Ashi: All animals that dwell outside have tubes like this, and one need not be concerned.

הַהוּא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה מְעַבְּרָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לִכְרֵסָא, סָבַר מָר בַּר רַב אַשִׁי לְאַכְשׁוּרָהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעֲיָא: אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא מְחִיתָא מַחְתִּינְהוּ? הֵיכָא דְּאִתְּמַר – אִתְּמַר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִתְּמַר – לָא אִתְּמַר.

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain tube that passed from the reticulum to the rumen. Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to deem the animal kosher, as in the above case. Rav Oshaya said to him: Is that to say all such cases are woven in one weave? Where it was stated that such an organ is normal, it was stated; where it was not stated, it was not stated. This animal is a tereifa .

הֵעִיד נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא רַב טַבָּחַיָּא דְּצִיפּוֹרִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, עַל שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם הַיּוֹצְאִין מִן הַבְּהֵמָה כְּאֶחָד – שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה, וּכְנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף – כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת, אֲבָל יוֹצְאִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְכָלִין עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע – כְּשֵׁרָה.

Natan bar Sheila, head of the butchers of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about two intestines that exit the abomasum of the animal as one, that this renders the animal a tereifa . But if this phenomenon occurs likewise in a bird, it is kosher, because it is common in birds. In what case is this statement said, i.e., that two intestines render an animal a tereifa ? It is said in a case where they exit at two different points. But if they exit at one point, adjacent to each other, and they end, i.e., they merge into one intestine, within a fingerbreadth, the animal is kosher.

פְּלִיגִי בָּהּ רַב אַמִּי וְרַב אַסִי, חַד אָמַר: הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעַרְבִי, וְחַד אָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעַרְבִי.

Rav Ami and Rav Asi disagree with regard to this halakha . One says: It is kosher when the two intestines exit at one point only in a case where they subsequently merge into one intestine; and one says: It is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעַרְבִי – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעַרְבִי, מַאי עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע? עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע מִלְּמַטָּה.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that it is kosher only in a case where they subsequently merge, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches: Within a fingerbreadth. That is, the two intestines must merge within a fingerbreadth for the animal to be kosher. But according to the one who says: It is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge, what is the meaning of the phrase: And they end within a fingerbreadth? The Gemara responds: It means within a fingerbreadth below. As long as the intestines merge before the final fingerbreadth near the anus, the animal is kosher.

״רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִיטְּלָה הַנּוֹצָה פְּסוּלָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן; רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹצָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת.

§ The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the down covering its body was removed, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption, like an animal whose hide was removed. With regard to this, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Yehuda said that which we said here, that the removal of the feathers is like removal of the hide. Rabbi Yishmael agrees, as we learned in a baraita : Rabbi Yishmael says: The down joins the flesh to constitute an olive-bulk for purposes of piggul . If a priest pinches the nape of the neck of a bird with intent to consume a combined olive-bulk of its meat and its down beyond the permitted time, the offering is rendered piggul . Evidently, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael agree that the down of a bird is considered like the hide of an animal.

אֲמַר רָבָא: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא! עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָכָא אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה, דְּלֵיכָּא מִידֵי דְּמָגֵין עֲלֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוּלֵי – כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוּלֵי, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה – אַגּוּנֵי לָא מָגֵין.

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, and they disagree. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda says that the down is like the hide of an animal here only with regard to a tereifa , since when the down is removed, there is nothing that protects the bird, and its life is in danger; but with regard to piggul , he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the down is not treated like the hide of an animal, because piggul applies only if one had intent to consume an item that is normally consumed. And perhaps Rabbi Yishmael says so there only with regard to piggul , since he holds that the down is in fact fit for consumption; but with regard to a tereifa , he holds that the down does not protect the bird, and its removal does not endanger it.

מתני׳ אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְהַמְצוּנֶּנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנִי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתַת מַיִם הָרָעִים – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת.

With regard to an animal that is congested with excess blood, or that was smoked, i.e., that suffered from smoke inhalation, or that was chilled and subsequently became sick, or that ate oleander, which is poisonous, or that ate the excrement of chickens, or that drank foul water, although in all these cases the animal is in danger, it is kosher. By contrast, if the animal ate deadly poison, or if a snake bit the animal, with regard to the prohibition of tereifa , consumption of the animal would be permitted, but it is prohibited due to the threat to one’s life if he eats it.

גמ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִלְעִיטָהּ חִלְתִּית – טְרֵפָה, מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּמִינַקְּבָה לְהוּ לְמַעֲיָינָהּ.

Shmuel says: If one fed an animal asafoetida, a very sharp plant, it is a tereifa . What is the reason? Since it perforates its intestines.

מְתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנִי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, וְשָׁתַת מַיִם הָרָעִים, הִלְעִיטָהּ תִּיעָה, חִלְתִּית וּפִלְפְּלִין, אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה; הִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכָהּ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת. קַשְׁיָא חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית, קַשְׁיָא סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת!

Rav Sheizvi raises an objection from a baraita : An animal that is congested with excess blood, or that suffered from smoke inhalation, or that ate poisonous oleander, or that ate the excrement of roosters, or that drank foul water, or if one fed it tia , asafoetida, or peppers, or if it ate deadly poison, it is kosher. But if a snake bit the animal, or if a mad dog bit it, with regard to the prohibition of tereifa its consumption is permitted, but it is nevertheless prohibited due to the threat to one’s life. The statement of the baraita concerning an animal that was fed asafoetida poses a difficulty to Shmuel’s statement that asafoetida renders the animal a tereifa , and the statement concerning deadly poison poses a difficulty to the mishna’s statement that deadly poison renders the animal prohibited due to the threat to one’s life.

חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – בֶּעָלִין, כָּאן – בִּקְרָטִין. סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא – דִּידָהּ, הָא – דְּאָדָם. סַם הַמָּוֶת דִּבְהֵמָה הַיְינוּ הַרְדּוּפְנִי! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי סַם הַמָּוֶת.

The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between one statement about asafoetida and the other statement about asafoetida is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the animal ate asafoetida leaves, which are less dangerous. There, Shmuel is referring to a case where the animal ate slivers of asafoetida, which are very sharp. Likewise, the apparent contradiction between one statement about deadly poison and the other statement about deadly poison is not difficult. This statement of the baraita that it is permitted is referring to a case where the animal consumed poison that is deadly only to itself. That statement of the mishna that it is prohibited is referring to a case where it consumed poison deadly to a person. The Gemara asks: Poison deadly to an animal is the same as oleander; why should the baraita mention both? The Gemara responds: The tanna is referring to two types of deadly poison.

מַאי תִּיעָה? אֲמַר רַב יְהוּדָה:

The above baraita teaches that if an animal was fed tia , it is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is tia ? Rav Yehuda said: