Talking Talmud

Non-kosher fish "spawn" their offspring and nurse, where kosher fish lay eggs - with the exception of a bat, which lays eggs and also nurses, with many more factors to characterize the various animals (including wild geese and domesticated geese). Also, "dulfanim" -- "children of the sea" -- reproduce like people, and they may be dolphins or mermaid or sirens or something else. Plus, a question about the gestation of the snake. Also, philosophical discussion of the length of snakes gestation - 7 years? 3 years? 4 years? Note the Athenian sages. Eventually to debate the sages before the Roman caesar. Plus, social status and other timely decisions of the ancient world (12 of them).

When an impure animal appears to be born to a pure animal, the animal can be consumed if and only if its head and more resembles the kosher mother. But can a kosher animal and a non-kosher animal truly mate? It seems not. To the extent that an animal that looks like it's the progeny of both perhaps may have been born of two kosher animals, but where one had a mutation to look like a non-kosher animal. Also, the question of how practical the concern was about this kind of progeny of kosher-and-non-kosher animals. Plus, a new mishnah! On fish, where the non-kosher fish swallowed a kosher fish or the reverse. Note that the distinction between non-kosher fish (usually sea creatures or sea food) and kosher fish is the difference between spawning progeny vs. laying eggs.

The link to Dr. Jeremy Brown's Talmudology post: https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2016/8/14/pigxsheep-y7df4

When the progeny of an animal doesn't quite resemble the mother animal, but has some similar traits, will it require the first-born status? Note the complicating factors of a kosher animal giving birth to a non-kosher animal, or vice versa. Also, the Gemara delves into the non-kosher animals here, because the question of their milk (say, a camel), their brine, and more might seem logical -- that the milk would be prohibited as much as the non-kosher elements of the animals. But maybe the milk is allowed. Because even milk from a kosher animal (like cow's milk from a cow) seems a radical thing to be permitted.

Rabbi Yochanan came to Rabbi Elazar in a dream, and it was a harbinger for a good day. And the sanctification of the first-borns would not end, because of his own learning. Also, the story of a Roman official (Kunterukus) who bothers Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai about the number of Levites in the wilderness and in the final count in the Torah. Also, on the census count of the half-shekel. Where there shenanigans in the census money? Poor accounting? Plus, a new mishnah: A cow that gives birth to a kind of donkey... The question is when the first-born law kicks in, but the other question is how does a cow deliver a kind of donkey? Even given the exceptional status of the donkey.

A new mishnah! Establishing additional exemptions for the first-born donkey offerings. The initial exemptions took place in the wilderness, and exempted the Levites, because the people themselves were going to be exempted. But other - kosher - animals were still subject to the laws of the first-born (cattle, sheep, and goats). But why are the Levites exempt from the first-born son and the first-born donkey, but subject to the regular, other animals' first-borns? Also, the first-born sanctification seems to have first taken place in the wilderness -- or were they not? (A dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish) Note the original role of the first-born (people), before the kohanim were selected for their role. Then, the sanctification of the first-borns made a different kind of sense.

If one sold a first-born, and had to buy it back, the question is whether that's buying it back for 10x the value of the animal specifically, or just some random large amount. Or maybe it's for 100x. Plus, the concern of blemishes -- and permanent blemishes -- in the first-born (what if it's jointly owned with a non-Jew?). Also, different kinds of blemishes could make the animal look like a pig or a goose or other kinds of mutations that aren't connected to the animal's real appearance.

A new tractate, taking the first-born animals as its major focus: including human first-born sons, first male domesticated animals, and first-born donkeys, commemorating the first-borns who were saved in Egypt. We open with the focus on the donkeys. And, of course, with a new mishnah. The mitzvah applies only to donkeys that are owned fully by Jews. The question is, then, what happens if the donkey is jointly owned, and it lists 5 cases. The Gemara addresses why all of those 5 cases were necessary to spell out (instead of learning from one to the other).

A new mishnah! The last one, to be sure. Taking the mother bird for the fledglings or eggs -- you take the mother bird for the sake of the purification of the person recovering from tzara'at. Meaning, the mitzvah of that purification doesn't make it permitted to take the bird under the circumstances of her being on her chicks/eggs. Also, the philosophical conundrum of one who sends away the mother bird, for which long life is promised, and at the behest of his father, so honoring his parent, for which long life is promised, and then dies on the descent. How to reconcile or resolve this contradiction? [Who's Who: Elisha ben Avuya, aka "Aher"]

New mishnayot! 1 - If you send away the mother bird, and she comes back (even several times), you still have to send her away, if you want the eggs. Plus, when a positive commandment comes together with a negative commandment. Also, the implementation of lashes -- where the obligation begins with the sending of the mother bird away, but once she's been taken without sending her away, then what? Can she be sent away after she wasn't? And practically speaking, lift the bird! (What does that accomplish??).

More on the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird from sitting on her eggs or fledgling birds. If someone approached the nest with a knife, and began slaughtering the birds, or nearly so, does he send away the mother bird? What does it mean to take the birds for yourself? What state does the bird need to be in? The Gemara proffers several cases for several "teiku" lack-of-conclusions. Also, the positioning of the mother bird at the time of sending her away -- the obligation to do so only kicks in if she's actually sitting on the eggs or fledgling and touching the nest itself.