floating in it. The Gemara asks: Now that you have said that brine which has only one kilbit in it is permitted, is it necessary to teach that brine that has two kilbiyot in it is also permitted? The Gemara explains that it is not difficult: Here, two kilbiyot are required to permit the brine, as it is contained in open barrels, but there, only one is required, since it is in sealed barrels.

§ It was stated that Rav Huna says: Tarit is not permitted for consumption until its head and spine are recognizable. Rav Naḥman says: It is permitted if either the head or the spine is recognizable. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama raises an objection from a mishna (Ḥullin 59a): And with regard to fish, any that has fins and scales is permitted. Evidently, the kashrut of fish is determined only by its fins and scales, not its head or its spine. Abaye said: When that mishna is taught, it is in reference to the ara’a and falmuda fish, whose heads are similar to the heads of non-kosher fish.

The Gemara analyzes the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Ulla: The dispute applies to dipping foods in their brine, but with regard to eating their actual bodies, everyone agrees that it is prohibited until both the head and the spine are recognizable. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Zeira said: Originally, I would dip foods in their brine, but once I heard that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Ulla: The dispute is only with regard to dipping foods in their brine, but with regard to eating their actual bodies everyone agrees that it is prohibited until both the head and the spine are recognizable; I too no longer dip foods in their brine.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is that tarit is prohibited until the head and spine of each and every fish is recognizable. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa’s statement from a baraita: With regard to pieces of fish that have a sign of kashrut, whether this sign is present in all of them or only in a minority of them, and even if it is present in only one fish out of one hundred of them, they are all permitted. And there was an incident involving a certain gentile who brought a large jug of pieces of fish, and a sign of kashrut was found in one of them, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted the entire jug of fish. This apparently contradicts Rav Pappa’s assertion that all the pieces must be recognizable for them to be permitted.

Rav Pappa interpreted that baraita as referring to a case where the pieces correspond to each other, i.e., they fit together so that it is clear that they are all from the same fish. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating this explicitly? It the pieces correspond it is obvious that they are permitted, as they evidently come from the same kosher fish. The Gemara explains that this was taught lest you say that one should be concerned that perhaps the pieces merely happened to fit together; the baraita therefore teaches us that in such a case the pieces are permitted.

The Gemara relates that there was a certain ship carrying tzaḥanta which came to the city of Sikhra. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana went out and saw that the fish had scales on them and permitted them, as any fish with scales is kosher. Rava said to him: But is there anyone who permits tzaḥanta in a case like this, when it is from a land where fish with scales are common and it is very possible that the scales are from kosher fish that had been in the boat previously? Shofarot went out from the court of Rava to herald a declaration promulgating his ruling, and he thereby prohibited all the fish on that boat. And shofarot went out from the court of Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana, and he thereby permitted the fish.

The Gemara presents two interpretations of the above ruling. Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Rav Pappi said to me that when Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana permitted the fish on the ship, he was referring only to their brine, but with regard to their bodies, no, he did not permit them. Rav Ashi said: Rav Pappa said to me that when Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana permitted the fish, he was referring even to their bodies.

Rav Ashi continued: And I do not prohibit the fish, as Rav Pappa said to me that Rav Huna permitted it, but I also do not permit the fish, as Rav Yehuda said to me in the name of Ulla that the dispute between Rava and Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana is referring to dipping foods in their brine, but with regard to eating their actual bodies, everyone agrees that it is prohibited until both the head and spine of each and every fish are recognizable.

Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi sat before Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he sat and said: With regard to a gentile who brought a boat that was full of barrels of fish brine, and a kilbit was found in one of the barrels, the halakha is as follows: If the barrels were open, they are all permitted; if they were closed, then the barrel with the kilbit is permitted, and all the others are prohibited. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: From where do you know this? Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi responded: I heard this from three verses, i.e., great Sages upon whom one can rely as though their statements were recorded in verses: From Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan.

§ The Gemara discusses the halakha with regard to other parts of fish. Rav Beruna says that Rav says: Fish intestines and their roe may be purchased only from an expert. Ulla raises a contradiction to Rabbi Dostai of Biri: From the fact that Rav says: Fish intestines and their roe may be purchased only from an expert, it may be inferred that a non-kosher fish has roe, as otherwise there would be no reason to permit only roe purchased from an expert. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this claim from the following baraita: A non-kosher fish gives birth whereas a kosher fish lays eggs.

Rabbi Dostai accepted this opinion and said: Delete the phrase: Their roe, from here. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do not delete it, as both kosher and non-kosher fish are fish that lay, i.e., produce, eggs, but this kosher fish propagates externally by laying eggs in the water which later hatch, and that non-kosher fish propagates internally by keeping the eggs in its own body until they develop. Nevertheless, both produce roe, and there is therefore reason to be concerned that a Jew might purchase non-kosher roe.

The Gemara asks: But even so, why do I need an expert? Let one check the signs of kashrut on the roe himself, as it is taught in a baraita: Like the signs of bird eggs, so are the signs of fish. The Gemara interjects: Does it enter your mind to say that the signs of kashrut for fish are the same as the signs of kashrut for eggs? This is not so, as the signs of kosher fish are the possession of fins and scales, as written in the Torah with regard to them. Rather, the baraita means to say: Like the signs of bird eggs, so are the signs of fish roe.

The baraita continues: And these are the signs of bird eggs: Any egg that narrows at the top and is rounded, so that one of its ends is wide and the other one of its ends is pointed is kosher. If both of its ends are sharp or both of its ends are wide, it is non-kosher. If the yolk is on the outside and the albumen is on the inside, it is non-kosher; if the albumen is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside, it is kosher. If the yolk and albumen are mixed with each other, this is the egg of a creeping animal. Considering that one can easily determine the kashrut of such eggs, why are only those purchased from an expert permitted? Rava says: Rav’s ruling refers specifically to a case where the eggs have melted together and it is impossible to determine whether or not they are kosher based on these signs.

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dostai of Biri, who accepted the idea that non-kosher fish do not lay eggs and says: Delete from here the phrase: Their roe, it is difficult.