Bava Kamma 109

נאמר בהם טוב אמר לו עד שאתה שואלני למה נאמר בהם טוב שאלני אם נאמר בהן טוב אם לאו שאיני יודע אם נאמר בהן טוב אם לאו כלך אצל ר' תנחום בר חנילאי שהיה רגיל אצל ר' יהושע בן לוי שהיה בקי באגדה

there is a mention of wellbeing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. V, 16, where the following occurs, That thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with the&nbsp;… ');">¹</span> — He replied: While you are asking me why wellbeing is mentioned there, ask me whether wellbeing is in fact mentioned or not, as I do not know whether wellbeing is mentioned there or not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As no Halachic point was involved, R. Hiyya b. Abba did not observe the difference; see also Tosaf. B.B. 113a. ');">²</span>

אזל לגביה א"ל ממנו לא שמעתי אלא כך אמר לי שמואל בר נחום אחי אמו של רב אחא ברבי חנינא ואמרי לה אבי אמו של רב אחי ברבי חנינא הואיל וסופן להשתבר

Go therefore to R. Tanhum b. Hanilai who was intimate with R. Joshua b. Levi, who was an expert in <i>Aggadah</i>. When he came to him he was told by him thus: 'From R. Joshua b. Levi I have not heard anything on the matter. But R. Samuel b. Nahum the brother of the mother of R. Aha son of R. Hanina, or as others say the father of the mother of R. Aha son of R. Hanina, said to me this: Because the [first tablets containing the] Commandments were destined to be broken.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXII, 19. ');">³</span> But even if they were destined to be broken, how should this affect [the mention of wellbeing]? — R. Ashi thereupon said: God forbid! Wellbeing would then have ceased in Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. if it would have been inserted in the first Decalogue it would have ceased altogether when the two tablets were broken. ');">⁴</span>

וכי סופן להשתבר מאי הוי אמר רב אשי חס ושלום פסקה טובה מישראל

R. Joshua<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some add 'b. Levi'. ');">⁵</span> said: He who sees [the letter] <i>teth</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ninth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. ');">⁶</span>

א"ר יהושע הרואה טי"ת בחלומו סימן יפה לו מ"ט אילימא משום דכתיב טוב אימא (ישעיהו יד, כג) וטאטאתיה במטאטי השמד חד טי"ת קאמרינן

in a dream [may regard it as] a good omen for himself. Why so? If because it is the initial letter of [the word] <i>'Tob'</i> ['good'] written in Scripture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On so many occasions. ');">⁷</span> why not say [on the contrary that it is also the initial letter of the verb <i>'ta'atea'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. to sweep with a besom. ');">⁸</span>

אימא (איכה א, ט) טומאתה בשוליה טי"ת בי"ת קאמרינן אימא (איכה ב, ט) טבעו בארץ שעריה

commencing the Scriptural verse] <i>And I will sweep it with the besom of destruction</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XIV, 23. ');">⁹</span> — We are speaking [here of where he saw in a dream only] one <i>teth</i> [whereas <i>ta'atea</i> contains two such letters]. But still why not say [that it might have referred to the word <i>'tum'ah'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning defilement and filthiness. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב לטובה תחילה שמבראשית עד (בראשית א, ד) וירא אלהים את האור לא כתיב טי"ת

as in the verse] <i>Her filthiness is in her skirts</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lam. I, 9. ');">¹¹</span> — We are speaking of [where he saw in a dream the letters] <i>'teth'</i> and <i>'beth'</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second letter of the Alphabet. ');">¹²</span>

וא"ר יהושע בן לוי הרואה הספד בחלומו חסו עליו מן השמים ופדאוהו הני מילי בכתבא:

But again why not say [that it might have referred to the verb tabe'u<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they sunk. ');">¹³</span> as in the verse], <i>Her gates were sunk in to the ground</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lam. II, 9. ');">¹⁴</span>

וכן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן וכו': אמר ר"ל כאן שנה רבי תרנגול טווס ופסיוני כלאים זה בזה

— The real reason is that Scripture used this letter on the very first occasion to express something good, for from the beginning of Genesis up to [the verse] <i>And God saw the light</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 4. ');">¹⁵</span> no <i>teth</i> occurs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the first teth in Scriptures commences the word denoting 'good' it is a good omen to see it in a dream. ');">¹⁶</span>

פשיטא אמר רב חביבא משום דרבו בהדי הדדי מהו דתימא מין חד הוא קמ"ל:

R. Joshua b. Levi similarly said: He who sees [the word] <i>hesped</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which denotes an elegy and a lamentation. ');">¹⁷</span> in a dream [may take it as a sign that] mercy has been exercised towards him in Heaven, and that he will be released [from trouble].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the word hesped could be divided thus: has pad [ah]. i.e. mercy has been exercised and release granted. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר שמואל אווז ואווז הבר כלאים זה בזה מתקיף לה רבא בר רב חנן מאי טעמא אילימא משום דהאי אריך קועיה והאי זוטר קועיה אלא מעתה גמלא פרסא וגמלא טייעא דהאי אלים קועיה והאי קטין קועיה הכי נמי דהוו כלאים זה בזה

provided, however, [he saw it] in script. SO ALSO BEASTS AND BIRDS ARE LIKE THEM etc. Resh Lakish said: Rabbi taught here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By stating that the law of heterogeneity applies also to birds. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא אמר אביי זה ביציו מבחוץ וזה ביציו מבפנים רב פפא אמר הא טעונה חדא ביעתא בשיחלא והא טעונה כמה ביעתא בשיחלא

that a cock, a peacock and a pheasant are heterogeneous with one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we are justified in maintaining so. ');">²⁰</span> Is this not obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are birds of different kinds. ');">²¹</span>

א"ר ירמיה אמר ריש לקיש המרביע שני מינים שבים לוקה מאי טעמא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה משמיה דעולא אתיא למינהו למינהו מיבשה

— R. Habiba said: Since they can breed from one another it might have been thought that they constitute a homogeneous species; we are therefore told [by this that this is not the case]. Samuel said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 8a. ');">²²</span> The [domestic] goose and the wild goose are heterogeneous with each other. Raba son of R. Hanan demurred [saying:] What is the reason? Shall we say because one has a long neck and the other has a short neck? If so, why should a Persian camel and an Arabian camel similarly not be considered heterogeneous with each other, since one has a thick neck and the other a slender neck? — Abaye therefore said: [It is because] one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wild goose. ');">²³</span>

בעי רחבה המנהיג בעיזא ושיבוטא מהו מי אמרינן כיון דעיזא לא נחית בים ושיבוטא לא סליק ליבשה לא כלום עביד או דלמא השתא מיהת קא מנהיג

has its genitals discernible from without while the other one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The domestic goose. ');">²⁴</span> has its genitals within. R. Papa said: [It is because] one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wild goose. ');">²³</span>

מתקיף לה רבינא אלא מעתה חיבר חטה ושעורה בידו וזרע חטה בארץ ושעורה בחוצה לארץ הכי נמי דמחייב

becomes pregnant with only one egg at fecundation, whereas the other one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are birds of different kinds. ');">²¹</span> becomes pregnant with several eggs at one fecundation. R. Jeremiah reported that Resh Lakish said: He who couples two species of sea creatures becomes liable to be lashed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As be transgressed the negative commandment of Lev. XIX, 19. ');">²⁵</span>

אמרי הכי השתא התם ארץ מקום חיובא חוצה לארץ לא מקום חיובא הכא אידי ואידי חיובא הוא:

On what ground?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is not 'cattle' specified in Lev. XIX, 19? ');">²⁶</span> R. Adda b. Ahabah said in the name of 'Ulla: This rule comes from the expression 'after its kind'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I. 21. ');">²⁷</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך שור שנגח את הפרה</strong></big><br><br>

[in the section dealing with fishes] by comparison with 'after its kind'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 25. ');">²⁸</span> [in reference to creatures] of the dry land. Rehabah inquired: If a man drove [a waggon] by means of a goat and a mullet together, what would be the legal position? Should we say that since a goat could not go down into the sea and a mullet could not go up on to the dry land, no transgression has been committed, or do we say that after all they are now pulling together?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a sin has been committed. ');">²⁹</span> Rabina demurred to this: If this is so, supposing one took wheat and barley together in his hand and sowed the wheat on the soil of Eretz Yisrael<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is subject to the law of not being sown with mingled seed. ');">³⁰</span> and the barley on the soil outside Eretz Yisrael,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not subject to this law. ');">³¹</span> would he be liable [as having transgressed the law]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he would not be liable, what doubt could be entertained in the case of a goat and mullet? ');">³²</span> — I might answer: Where is the comparison? There [in your case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of sowing a field with mingled seed. ');">³³</span> Eretz Yisrael is the place subject to this obligation whereas any country outside Eretz Yisrael is not subject to this obligation; but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a goat and a mullet. ');">³⁴</span> both one place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dry land. ');">³⁵</span> and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sea. ');">³⁶</span> are subject to the obligation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As derived above from the similarity of expressions 'after its kind'.] ');">³⁷</span>