Daf Ditty Yoma 80: Bar Yochni

1
All the measures in the Torah connected to eating are the volume of an olive-bulk, except for
the amount of food that renders objects impure, because the verse changed its expression in this
case, and the Sages altered the measure accordingly. The proof of this, that the Sages gave it a
different measure because the verse used different language for it, is from Yom Kippur. Also in
the case of Yom Kippur the Sages assigned a different measure because the verse used a different
phrase. The Gemara asks: How did the Sages learn that the verse changed its expression? They
learned from: “Any soul which shall not be afflicted” (Leviticus 23:29). The verse does not state:
Any soul that shall eat, but rather: “Any soul which shall not be afflicted.” How did the Sages
change its measure? One does not violate the prohibition unless he has eaten the volume of a
large date-bulk, as opposed to the usual olive-bulk.

2
The Gemara asks: And what does the baraita mean when it says: A proof for this is from Yom
Kippur? Why is the verse pertaining to ritual impurity not sufficient to show that the Sages
changed the measure based on the different words in the verse? The Gemara answers: If we learned
it only from there, the case of impurity, I would have said that that is the style of the verse, and
no halakha can be derived from it. Therefore, the verse pertaining to Yom Kippur teaches that
whenever a verse deviates from the usual language, it implies a change in the halakha as well.

§ The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the measure for impure foods is the volume
of an egg-bulk? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said that the verse states:

‫שׁר ָיבוֹא‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬,‫שׁר ֵיָאֵכל‬

ֶ ‫ָהֹאֶכל ֲא‬-‫לד ִמָכּל‬ 34 All food therein which may be eaten, that on which
‫ַמְשֶׁקה ֲאֶשׁר‬-‫ ִיְטָמא; ְוָכל‬--‫ָﬠָליו ַמ ִים‬ water cometh, shall be unclean; and all drink in every
.‫ְכִּלי ִיְטָמא‬-‫ ְבָּכל‬,‫ִיָשֶּׁתה‬ such vessel that may be drunk shall be unclean.
Lev 11:34

“Of all food [okhel] which may be eaten [ye’akhel], on which water comes shall be ritually
impure”

The double usage of the root akhal teaches that the ritual impurity of food applies even to the
amount which can be described as food that comes on account of food, i.e., food that comes from
another food. And which food is that? A chicken egg.

The Gemara asks: And say it is referring to a kid, which comes from a mother goat, and is
therefore also food that comes from another food. The Gemara answers: It lacks ritual slaughter.
The young goat is not yet food, since it is not edible until it has been slaughtered.

The Gemara asks further: And say it is referring to a ben pekua. Since the slaughter of its mother
made it fit to eat, the fetus itself need not be slaughtered, even if it survives and continues to live

3
independently of its mother. The Gemara answers: The calf still requires cutting, since it cannot
be eaten live, but it does not require ritual slaughter.

The Gemara asks: Even if we claim that the measure for impure foods is an egg-bulk, one could
say it is referring to the giant egg-bulk of the bird called bar yokhani. The Gemara answers: If
you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something.
This means that in a case of doubt, take the smaller number, as it is included in the larger number.
Therefore, the correct measure is the volume of a chicken egg. The Gemara questions this: If so,
say it is referring to a very small bird’s egg. Consequently, no proof can be brought from the
verse that the volume of a chicken egg is the measure for ritual impurity.

Jastrow

Rabbi Abbahu himself said: The verse states: “Of all food which may be eaten.” This is referring
to food that you can eat at one time. The Sages estimated: The esophagus cannot hold more
than the volume of a chicken’s egg, and therefore this is the measure used for the ritual impurity
of foods.

HOW MANY EGGS CAN A PERSON HOLD IN HIS MOUTH AT ONCE

4
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1
The Beraisa quotes Rebbi who says that the Shi'ur for all Halachos that involve food is a
k'Zayis. The only exception to this rule is the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlin, which is a k'Beitzah.
Rebbi Avahu says that the source for the Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah for Tum'as Ochlin is the verse,
"mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" -- "All food that is eaten... will become Tamei" (Vayikra
11:34). This verse teaches that the amount of food which can be swallowed at one time is
Mekabel Tum'as Ochlin, and the Chachamim assessed this Shi'ur to be a k'Beitzah.

The Gemara continues and discusses the Mishnah (73b) which teaches that the amount of
liquid for which a person is liable for drinking on Yom Kippur is "Melo Lugmav," a mouthful.
Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel says that the Mishnah does not mean an actual mouthful
of liquid. Rather, it refers to the amount which, if concentrated to one side of the mouth, would
create the appearance of a full mouth.

The Gemara notes that the Mishnah implies that a "Melo Lugmav" is an actual mouthful and
not the amount that merely appears to be a mouthful. The Gemara responds that the Mishnah
means "k'Melo Lugmav," not an actual "Melo Lugmav." The Gemara challenges this
statement from the Beraisa, in which Beis Shamai says that one is liable for drinking a Revi'is
on Yom Kippur, and Beis Hillel says that the Shi'ur is a "Melo Lugmav." If "Melo Lugmav"
means "k'Melo Lugmav," then the Shi'ur that Beis Hillel prescribes is less than the Shi'ur of
Beis Shamai. Consequently, Beis Hillel is more stringent than Beis Shamai. If, however, Beis
Hillel means literally a "Melo Lugmav," then his Shi'ur -- two cheeks-full -- is more than a
Revi'is, and he is more lenient than Beis Shamai. The Gemara clearly implies that a person
can hold more than a Revi'is in both of his cheeks at one time.

The Gemara here apparently contradicts the famous opinion of the Noda b'Yehudah with
regard to the size of a Beitzah.

The NODA B'YEHUDAH (d. 5553/1793; see TZELACH to Pesachim 109a and 116b) used
his thumbs (Etzba'os) to determine the volume of an egg, based on the figure that the
Chachamim set for the size of an egg. The Gemara in Pesachim (109a) describes
a Revi'is (which is a measure of liquid volume) in terms of a cubic Etzba (which is a measure
of length). Rav Chisda there explains that a Revi'is is equal to the volume contained within a
box that is 2 Etzba'os long, 2 Etzba'os wide, and 2.7 Etzba'os high (2 X 2 X 2.7 cubic
Etzba'os), or 10.8 cubic Etzba'os.

He then measured the volume of an average egg and found that it was only half of the volume
that he calculated with his thumbs. He deduced that either thumbs had become larger than
they were in the times of the Gemara, or eggs had shrunk. He argued that it is illogical to
presume that thumbs had grown larger, because it is known that each generation is weaker
than the previous one. Rather, he concluded that modern-day eggs are only half as large as
ancient ones. Therefore, for any Mitzvah that involves the Shi'ur of a Beitzah (or Revi'is), one
should use twice the amount that the Gemara requires. (For example, since the Gemara says
that one must eat "one k'Beitzah" of Matzah on the first night of Pesach, today one must
eat two k'Beitzim of Matzah, based on today's average egg size, in order to compensate for

1
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-080.htm

5
the decrease in the size of eggs.) This opinion is cited as the Halachah by the CHASAM
SOFER (Teshuvos OC 127), the VILNA GA'ON (Ma'aseh Rav #105), and the CHAZON
ISH (Kuntrus ha'Shi'urim OC 39).

The MINCHAS BARUCH challenges the Noda b'Yehudah's opinion from the Gemara's
statement that "the opening to one's esophagus (Beis ha'Beli'ah) cannot hold more than one
Beitzah," which implies that it can hold exactly one Beitzah. However, it is clearly impossible
to fit two modern eggs at once into the Beis ha'Beli'ah.

The CHAFETZ CHAIM in BI'UR HALACHAH (OC 271:13, DH Shel Revi'is) notes that the
Gemara here says that a person can hold more than a Revi'is (or the volume of 1.5 eggs) in
both of his cheeks at one time. The Chafetz Chaim further writes that after considerable
experimentation, he observed that the average person can hold, at most, the volume of two
modern eggs in his mouth at once. According to the Noda b'Yehudah, who says that a Revi'is
contains twice the amount of eggs than it did in the times of the Gemara, a person should be
able to hold at least three modern eggs in his mouth at once. No average-sized person is
able to do this.2

The CHAZON ISH (Kuntrus ha'Shi'urim OC 39) addresses both questions.

(a) The Chazon Ish (ibid. 39:10) answers the first question with the idea that "Beis ha'Beli'ah"
refers to the area of the throat which holds all of the chewed-up food which can be swallowed
in a protracted act of swallowing, and not only the amount that fits into the entrance to the
esophagus.
(b) He (ibid. 39:16) answers the second question by suggestion that the Chafetz Chaim's
measurement might not have been accurate. Perhaps the people whom the Chafetz Chaim
asked to fill their cheeks did not stuff them to their absolute capacity. The Chazon Ish cites
the RAN who implies that the amount which the average person can hold in his cheeks
cannot be measured by experimentation. Apparently, either the amount that it takes to fully
stuff a mouth is not measurable, or the definition of an average-sized person is not
quantifiable.3

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

Our daf continues the discussion of shi’urim – the amount necessary to be held liable for eating
on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted by the Gemara as saying that shi’urim and onashim –
both the amount that is considered significant and the punishment that will be meted out on the
individual who eats forbidden foods according to those measurements – are halakha le-Moshe mi-

2
The TOSFOS RID here preceded the Chafetz Chaim with this observation. He writes that even 1.5 eggs cannot be held in the
cheeks at once unless a person holds his head in an unnatural downwards position in order to prevent himself from swallowing the
liquid in his cheeks. The Tosfos Rid suggests that the words "Im Ken" ("if so") are a mistake and should be omitted from the text
of the Gemara. According to this Girsa, the Gemara would maintain that not only is a single cheek-full less than a Revi'is, but even
"Melo Lugmav" (two cheeks-full) is less than a Revi'is. Accordingly, the Gemara here would not contradict the Noda b'Yehudah.
3
RAV YOSEF BEN-ARZA points out that the proof from the Ran that the amount the mouth can hold is not measurable may
not be accurate, because the Ran refers to the minimum amount for which one is liable on Yom Kippur. The Ran says that the
exact amount is not measurable because perhaps it is actually less than experimentation shows. However, the Shi'ur which the
Chazon Ish says is not measurable is the maximum amount the cheeks can hold.
4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_7985/

6
Sinai, they are traditions handed down from Moses on Mount Sinai, which have the weight and
significance of Biblical law. In response to the question raised that the onashim are clearly written
in the Torah, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yochanan was teaching that the shi’urim upon which
the onashim are based (for without a standard minimum measurement, how could we know when
the punishments are appropriate?) are halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.

A baraita that is brought in support of this understanding of Rabbi Yochanan adds another
opinion, as well. According to Acherim they were established – or, more correctly, were forgotten
and reestablished – by the court of Yaabetz. Rashi identifies Yaabetz as Otni’el ben Kenaz, based
on a Rabbinic tradition. The name appears in I Divrei ha-Yamim 2:55 and 4:9-10 as one of the
descendants of Yehuda, and from the context it appears that he was one of the Jewish leaders of
his time. He is identified as the head of one of the “the families of soferim (scribes) who lived in
Yaabetz” so it appears that he was head of the soferim – the Sages in his generation.

The rules of shi’urim notwithstanding, there are times when a person can eat more than a shi’ur,
yet still not transgress the prohibition of eating forbidden foods. Resh Lakish teaches that someone
who overeats – in the terminology of the Gemara, eats akhilah gasah – on Yom Kippur will not be
held liable. The Tosafot Yeshanim point out that there are different levels of akhilah gasah. One
level is overeating – when a person is full and continues to eat.

Resh Lakish is referring to a different level, when a person continues eating to the extent that he
finds the food disgusting. Resh Lakish derives this rule from the passage (Vayikra 23:29) which
teaches that a person who does not suffer inuy – deprivation – on Yom Kippur will be punished
with karet. Someone who does damage to himself by way of eating has not transgressed this
prohibition.

The Sha’agas Aryeh (#76) writes that we only find Reish Lakish exempting an ‫( גסה אכילה‬a coarse
and repulsive over-eating), because this constitutes a wasteful consumption where no benefit is
derived from the food.

In fact, this can arguably be construed only as damaging to the food. However, one would still be
liable if he ate food in an unusual manner (‫ כדרכה שלא אכילה‬.

The difference is ( rooted in the verse itself. Whenever the Torah forbids “‫—אכילה‬eating,” it only
refers to a type of consumption which is natural and normal. An act of eating unnaturally ( ( ‫כדרכה‬
‫ שלא‬would not fulfill this constraint.

7
However, in reference to Yom Kippur the Torah expresses the laws of abstaining from eating in
terms of ‫—עינוי‬i.e., whether it satisfies a person or not. Here, even if the food is consumed in an
unusual manner, the need to abstain has been violated.

Noda B’Yehuda (2, O.C. #115) quotes his son, R’ Shmuel, who argues and offers an approach
opposite of that of the Sha’agas Aryeh. In fact, eating in an excessive manner (‫ (גסה אכילה‬should
be considered a legal form of eating even more than eating in an unusual manner. When one
grotesquely over eats, he is actually doing a form of eating, and for anyone else who might be
hungry, this act should be defined as a bona-fide ‫ אכילה‬.

However, eating unnaturally has no validity for anyone under any circumstances, hungry or
otherwise. Therefore, if the Torah exempts someone who is grossly over-eating, although he is
doing a genuine act of eating, then we would certainly understand that the Torah is also exempting
one who eats.

The conclusion of the Gemara is that a cheekful/ ‫ מלא לוגמיו‬is determined by measuring the amount
of food or liquid that could be pressed into one cheek so that it protrudes and is visible (1).
Furthermore, this measurement is calculated subjectively because it is that quantity that puts a
person’s mind at ease (2) . Chazal estimate that for an average person a ‫ לוגמיו מלא‬is less than a
quarter of a log –‫(רביעית‬3) .

In the opinion of some Poskim(4) this represents slightly less than a revi’is whereas according to
others it would be slightly more than half a revi’is (5) . A third position is that the ‫ לוגמיו מלא‬of an
average person should be estimated at a majority of a revi’is (6) . In practical terms it is measured
at 40cc, or 30cc for a small person (7) .

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (8) expressed uncertainty whether dentures diminish the size of a
person’s ‫ לוגמיו מלא‬. More specifically, if a person gets dentures on Erev Yom Kippur or loses a
tooth on Erev Yom Kippur does that change cause an immediate change to his ‫? לוגמיו מלא‬

The reason for his uncertainty is that on the one hand Chazal stated explicitly that a subjective
‫ לוגמיו מלא‬puts a person’s mind at ease which indicates that the size of a ‫ לוגמיו מלא‬should change
according to a person’s circumstance. On the other hand he considers it illogical that in a small
amount of time the quantity of liquid necessary to put a person’s mind at ease would change. He
leaves the question unresolved.

8
Mark Kerzner wrote:5

We have seen that in order to transmit ritual impurity, the food must have at least the volume of
an egg. But, how do we know this?

Since the Torah said, " Any food that is eaten ", we understand that we are talking about food
which is coming from another food. And what is it? - Chicken egg: it is food, and it comes from
another food, a chicken. But maybe it is a young goat, which comes from its mother, who is also
food? - No, it does not just "come," but it requires slaughter. But perhaps it is an egg of a bar-
yuchani bird, which is as big as sixty cities? - No, because we have a rule: one, who tries to grab
a little, succeeds in that, and may even be added more, but one who tries to grab a lot - he may not
be given anything at all, and so we have to limit ourselves to a chicken egg. But perhaps the Torah
meant an egg of a very small bird?

The last question is indeed irrefutable, and we abandon this complete chain of questions and
answers. Rather, "Any food that is eaten" implies that it is eaten in one gulp, and the Sages
estimated that the throat cannot hold more than a hens egg.

Back to measures of food for which one bears a responsibility if he eats it on Yom Kuppur: solids
in the amount of a large date, and liquid - a full cheek. How can we have one measure that depends
on an objective average large date, and another - on his personal cheek capacity? - The Sages
estimated that this much assuages the suffering of the fast, and less than that does not. This is even

5
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma80.html

9
true for a giant called Og , whose full cheek was very large, but whose limit of solid on Yom
Kippur would also be a large date.

Measurements.
RABBI JEREMY ROSEN WRITES:6

On our daf, the Talmud is trying to work out what minimum amount of food one has to eat to be
found guilty of breaking the Yom Kippur fast. Best, of course, is not to eat or drink anything. But
if you accidentally put something into your mouth, are you liable? It depends on how much you
accidentally swallow.

Normally, a minimal unit of food, according to the rabbis, is an olive’s bulk — meaning the volume
of an olive (a small bite, essentially). In the case of Yom Kippur, however, the sages understand it
to be a different measure — the volume of a large date — because the Torah doesn’t use language
of “eating” but rather “self-affliction” (as we discussed on Yoma 74). The language shift serves as
a subtle clue that a different minimal volume is required for transgression.

The most common measures of food volume in the talmudic era were an olive, an egg, a dried fig
or date — and a revi’it, a mouth or cheekful of drink. In modern measurements, an olive, egg and
revi’itare considered about 1, 2.5 and 4 fluid ounces, respectively. It should come as no surprise
that authorities have argued about these measurements and most notably the Chazon Ish (1878-
1953) controversially increased all the measurements by at least a third.

But given that the Torah does not specify these volumes at all, where do they come from? How
does the Talmud “know” that accidentally consuming a large date’s bulk of food is the difference
between fasting and not fasting? Our Gemaraquotes an early rabbinic teaching that explains:

It was taught: Measures of punishments (such as the amount of food that qualifies someone as
no longer self-afflicting on Yom Kippur) are halakhah transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

Others say: These measures were instituted by the court of Yavetz.

The first opinion is that Moses received all the measurements not stated explicitly in the Written
Torah on Mount Sinai and passed that information along as part of the Oral Law. But the second
opinion says the measures were instituted later, by the court of Yavetz. Haven’t heard of Yavetz?
He’s pretty obscure. The name is first mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:55 where it is a place. But later,
in 1 Chronicles 4:9, Yavetzis a person: “Yavetz was more esteemed than his brothers; and his
mother named him Yavetz, ‘Because,’ she said, ‘I bore him in pain (otzev).’” So, how come the
rabbis think he’s a halakhic expert?

To understand why Yavetz was considered an early halakhic expert, we need to dive into some
biblical associations. The place Yavetz is called a place of scribes and known as the home to the
Kenites, descendants of Yitro (Moses’ father-in-law who was known as a just and fair judge). This

6
Myjewishlearning.com

10
links Yavetzwith Moses and the law. In the Talmud, the character Yavetzis identified with another
biblical character, Otniel ben Kenaz, who appears in the Book of Judges (3:9) and who is
identified as the brother of Caleb and the conqueror of Kiriat Sefer (literally the City of the Book).
The Talmud credits him with deducing all the laws — a total of 1,700 — that were forgotten after
Moses died. Otniel is said to have restored them entirely through his logic. (Temurah 16a)

When our daf identified the minimum measure of food that, upon being accidentally consumed,
breaks one’s Yom Kippur fast (a large date’s worth), and then asks whether this was a halakhah
given to Moses at Sinai and passed down through the generations, or one of the forgotten halakhot
that were re-derived by Yavetz (a.k.a. Otniel ben Kenaz) one thing it does not question is that this
law, which is found nowhere in the Torah, comes directly from God. In fact, the Talmud is so
serious about this idea, that it essentially reiterates it in the next few lines:

And isn’t it written: “These are the mitzvot which the Lord commanded Moses for the children
of Israel at Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34)? The word “these” underscores that a prophet is
not permitted to introduce anything new from here on. Rather, the people forgot some laws,
and the prophets later reestablished them.

On the part of the rabbis, it’s a large claim to authority — that their whole corpus comes directly
from God.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

We have previously noted in the Mishna (Yoma 8:1) that one who eats the equivalent of a ‫כותבת‬
‫( הגסה‬a large date) on Yom Kippur is liable. Additionally, the Mishna also states that ‘all foods
combine for the volume equivalent of a large date’ – meaning that if someone ate two or more
pieces of food which – only when combined together – were the size of a large date, they are still
liable.

In light of this rule of ‘all foods combine’, today’s daf (Yoma 80b) records a fascinating question
raised by Rav Pappa about whether a piece of meat which is just less than the size of a large date
combines with the salt – which is not considered to be a ‘food’ – on the surface of the meat?

On the one hand, should the salt be considered as ‘food’ since meat is often sprinkled or seasoned
with salt? According to this logic, one would be liable for eating this combination of meat and salt.
Or might it be argued that since salt is not eaten alone, it does not fall into the category of ‘food’
and thus one would not be liable for eating this combination of meat and salt?

Rav Pappa concludes that the salt does combine with the meat, and this is the halacha as codified
by the Rambam (Shevitat Assor 2:7) and the Shulchan Aruch (OC 612:2). And from here we learn
that even the small things which we may consider inconsequential on their own, are consequential
when combined with other things – which ultimately means that nothing is ever truly
inconsequential.

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

11
Bar Juchne or Bar-Yuchnei is a colossal legendary bird from Jewish mythology which was
believed to have a wingspan large enough to block out the sun.
The Talmud tells of a Bar Juchne egg falling from its nest and destroying 300 cedars and flooding
60 villages/cities. After questioning how the egg could have fallen, if the Bar Juchne normally lays
its eggs on the ground, the Talmud answers that the bird threw this particular egg to the ground
because it was unfertilized.
The Talmud raises the possibility that food impurify should only apply to a volume of food equal
to the Bar Juchne's gigantic egg, before deciding that the relevant volume is rather that of a chicken
egg.
It is said that it would be roasted, along with Leviathan and Behemoth, and served at a banquet for
the Children of Israel at the coming of the Messiah.

Rabbi Dr Natan Slifkin writes:8

8
Sacred Monsters, Biblical Museum of Natural History Gefen Books, 2007 3rd ed 2018

12
13
14
15
Berachot 57b

16
Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel also testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Once an egg of the bird
called bar yokhani fell, and the contents of the egg drowned sixty cities and broke three
hundred cedar trees. The Gemara asks: And does the bar yokhani bird throw its eggs to the
ground?

But isn’t it written:

-‫ִאם‬ ;‫ ְרָנ ִנים ֶנֱﬠָלָסה‬-‫ יג ְכַּנף‬13 The wing of the ostrich beateth joyously; but are her
.‫ ֲחִסיָדה ְוֹנָצה‬,‫ֶאְב ָרה‬ pinions and feathers the kindly stork's?

-‫ַתֲﬠֹזב ָלָא ֶרץ ֵבֶּציָה; ְוַﬠל‬-‫ יד ִכּי‬14 For she leaveth her eggs on the earth, and warmeth them
.‫ָﬠָפר ְתַּחֵמּם‬ in dust,
Job 39:13-14

“The kenaf renanim bird rejoices, but are her wings and feathers those of the stork? For she
leaves her eggs on the earth, and warms them in dust” ?

The Sages understood that kenaf renanim is another name for the bar yokhani bird. If so, how
could its egg fall if it lays its eggs on the ground? Rav Ashi said in explanation: That egg was
unfertilized, and since it would never hatch the bird threw it to the ground.

The Ziz

Legends of the Jews 1:1:52-56 Ginzburg

(52) As leviathan is the king of fishes, so the ziz is appointed to rule over the birds. His name comes
from the variety of tastes his flesh has; it tastes like this, zeh, and like that, zeh. The ziz is as
monstrous of size as leviathan himself. His ankles rest on the earth, and his head reaches to the
very sky.

(53) It once happened that travelers on a vessel noticed a bird. As he stood in the water, it merely
covered his feet, and his head knocked against the sky. The onlookers thought the water could not
have any depth at that point, and they prepared to take a bath there. A heavenly voice warned them:
"Alight not here! Once a carpenter's axe slipped from his hand at this spot, and it took it seven
years to touch bottom." The bird the travelers saw was none other than the ziz. His wings are so
huge that unfurled they darken the sun. They protect the earth against the storms of the south;

17
without their aid the earth would not be able to resist the winds blowing thence. Once an egg of
the ziz fell to the ground and broke. The fluid from it flooded sixty cities, and the shock crushed
three hundred cedars. Fortunately such accidents do not occur frequently. As a rule the bird lets
her eggs slide gently into her nest. This one mishap was due to the fact that the egg was rotten, and
the bird cast it away carelessly. The ziz has another name, Renanin, because he is the celestial
singer. On account of his relation to the heavenly regions he is also called Sekwi, the seer, and,
besides, he is called "son of the nest," because his fledgling birds break away from the shell without
being hatched by the mother bird; they spring directly from the nest, as it were. Like leviathan, so
ziz is a delicacy to be served to the pious at the end of time, to compensate them for the privations
which abstaining from the unclean fowls imposed upon them.

Legends of the Jews 1:1:5

(5) Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several
worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created
ours. But even this last world would have had no permanence, if God had executed His original
plan of ruling it according to the principle of strict justice. It was only when He saw that justice by
itself would undermine the world that He associated mercy with justice, and made them to rule
jointly. Thus, from the beginning of all things prevailed Divine goodness, without which nothing
could have continued to exist. If not for it, the myriads of evil spirits had soon put an end to the
generations of men. But the goodness of God has ordained, that in every Nisan, at the time of the
spring equinox, the seraphim shall approach the world of spirits, and intimidate them so that they
fear to do harm to men. Again, if God in His goodness had not given protection to the weak, the
tame animals would have been extirpated long ago by the wild animals. In Tammuz, at the time of
the summer solstice, when the strength of behemot is at its height, he roars so loud that all the
animals hear it, and for a whole year they are affrighted and timid, and their acts become less
ferocious than their nature is. Again, in Tishri, at the time of the autumnal equinox, the great bird
ziz flaps his wings and utters his cry, so that the birds of prey, the eagles and the vultures, blench,
and they fear to swoop down upon the others and annihilate them in their greed. And, again, were
it not for the goodness of God, the vast number of big fish had quickly put an end to the little ones.
But at the time of the winter solstice, in the month of Tebet, the sea grows restless, for then
leviathan spouts up water, and the big fish become uneasy. They restrain their appetite, and the
little ones escape their rapacity.

Yaacov Deane writes:9

There are essentially two special birds in the Torah:

The first is the "Bird of the Field" (‫ )זיז שדי‬mentioned in many places within the Torah. Here are a
few citations: Tehillim 50:11, Bava Batra 73b, Yalkut Shimoni Bereshit 27, Yalkut Shimoni
Pinchas 776, Yalkut Shimoni Shmuel 94, Yalkut Shimoni Iyov 926, and Yalkut Shimoni Esther
1054.

9
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/65088/whats-this-about-a-magical-spitting-bird

18
This "Ziz Sadai" is the paradigm or archetype for all birds and is discussed extensively in both
Midrash and kabbalistic literature. It is associated with the famous Moshiach's seudah for the
righteous destined to take place literally in the future. So the concept of whether this bird is kosher
would be relevant.

This feast will also include Leviathan (paradigm for fish), Shor HaBor (paradigm for domesticated
animals) and the ancient wine stored away from the beginning of the creation.

These three creatures comprise three different types of flesh, white, red and pink. This corresponds
to the kabbalistic concept of the three general paths within Torah found in all of creation, namely
the two extremes of "Chesed" (kindness), and "Gevurah" (strength or overpowering as in
domination), and the intermediate, "Rachamim or Tiferet" (mercy or beauty). According to the
Midrash, the Ziz Sadai has eternal life and is mentioned as being "tahor", meaning fit for kosher
consumption.

The second mythical bird mentioned in the Torah is what in English is referred to as the Phoenix.
In Hebrew it is called the "Chol" (‫)חול‬. It is also called the "Avarashna" (‫ )אוורשנא‬in Aramaic. A
few citations are:

Iyov 29:18, Sanhedrin 108a, Bereshit Rabbah 19, Yalkut Shimoni Iyov 915, and Midrash Shmuel
12.

This bird lives for 1000 years and the offspring arises from ashes or carcass of the expired parent.
This is also discussed extensively in both midrashic and kabbalistic literature.

19
20
 Was the Bar Yochni an Ostrich?

Josh Waxman writes:10

When Rabbi Slifkin visited Kew Gardens Hills last, I purchased a copy of his Sacred Monsters.
This post is not a review -- those take too long -- but it is a very good read, and I would encourage
others to check it out.

Of course, being the radical that I am, and having a somewhat different methodology, I would
approach some of the sources he brings in a slightly different manner. Here is one such example.
He discusses the possible identification of the Bar Yochni as the ostrich, since the pesukim in Iyov
appear to be speaking of an ostrich, and a Rashi in Menachot, and a gemara in Bechorot, equates
the two. There are reasons he brings to doubt it, such as a gemara that talks of it bringing its eggs
up, which the ostrich does not do; but also a gemara which discusses the face of the Bar Yochni
as something much larger than a tefach -- while the face of an ostrich is about a tefach -- maybe a
bit larger, but not much.

10
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/09/was-bar-yochni-ostrich.html

21
From my perspective, not all Talmudic sources should be weighted equally. I'll consider three
sources in this post.

The first, a gemara in Bechorot:

‫ ב גמרא‬,‫בכורות דף נז‬

‫פעם אחת נפלה ביצת בר יוכני וטבעה ששים כרכים ושברה שלש מאות ארזים‬
‫כנף רננים נעלסה )איוב לט( ומי שדיא ליה והא כתיב‬
‫אמר רב אשי ההוא מוזרתא הואי‬:

This quite clearly comes from the Tannaim and Amoraim. The first statement I believe is stated
by Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel, a Tanna, while the clarification comes from Rav Ashi, an Amora.
The question which prompts the statement might have been filled in by the setama de-gemara, and
perhaps not -- but regardless, we have named Tannaim and Amoraim for a good portion of it.

In contrast, consider our daf (Yoma 80a):

:
‫ א גמרא‬,‫דף פ‬
‫טומאת אוכלין כביצה מנלן‬
‫מכל האוכל אשר יאכל )ויקרא יא( א"ר אבהו א"ר אלעזר דאמר קרא‬
‫אוכל הבא מחמת אוכל ואיזה זה ביצת תרנגולת‬
‫ואימא גדי מחוסר שחיטה‬
‫ואימא בן פקועה טעון קריעה‬
‫ואימא ביצת בר יוכני‬
‫תפסת מרובה לא תפסת תפסת מועט תפסת‬
‫ואימא ביעתא דציפורתא דזוטר טובאץ‬...‫ש‬

Here again, the Bar Yochni appears as a bird with an exceptionally large egg. But while Rabbi
Abahu, a named Amora, makes the initial statement, the question and answer is anonymous and
in Aramaic, and of the style of the setama. And furthermore, as I argue in the general case, you
can almost always find what is stated by the setama stated elsewhere, in another context, attributed
to a named Amora, which means that the setama, while creative, will rely on existing Talmudic
material and will apply it to new contexts. Here, I would posit, the anonymous setama is taking
the gemara in Bechorot as evidence for the existence of this large egg of the Bar Yuchni and
applying it to his systematic analysis of the Amoraic-level gemara.

The third reference to the Bar Yochni can be found in Sukkah 5a-b:

‫ א גמרא‬,‫סוכה דף ה‬
‫על פני הכפורת קדמה ואין פנים פחות מטפח )ויקרא טז( רב הונא אמר מהכא‬
‫ואימא כאפי‬
‫ ב גמרא‬,‫סוכה דף ה‬
‫דבר יוכני‬

22
 ‫תפשת מרובה לא תפשת תפשת מועט תפשת‬
‫ואימא כאפי דציפרתא דזוטר טובא‬
...
Once again, while Rav Huna, a named Amora, makes a statement, the give and take is anonymous,
in Aramaic, and in the style of the setama di-gemara. Indeed, they are the same questions as we
find in the gemara in Yoma.

I would posit that the setamaist never saw a bar yochni. He is relying entirely on the account in
Bechorot. The gemara in Bechorot described the Bar Yochni as a bird with an extraordinarily-
sized egg. The setama in Yoma used this to ask a question and provide an answer. And
the setama in Sukkah saw this precedent and asked a similar question, just based on the face of
the Bar Yochni rather than its egg. While the gemara in Bechorot does not describe the size of the
Bar Yochni's face, it stands to reason that with such an exceptionally large egg, capable or
drowning 60 towns, it is a large bird in general and therefore has an exceptionally large face.

Therefore, the application of the setama in Sukkah should not be used to define features of the
actual Bar Yochni bird, and it should then not discount the ostrich as a candidate, even though the
ostrich has a face indeed the size of a tefach.

Even an ostrich is not this exceptional size, that its egg can drown 60 cities. Should we conclude
that the Bar Yochni in general is an allegory, and that they did not intend any actual bird? Well,
the number 60 in terms of 60 towns is what Maharatz Chayos would call a guzma, and perhaps

23
these "magic numbers" indeed should convey to us that it is intended as allegory. But I am not at
all positive that the Bar Yochni was a fictional bird. Let us reexamine the context in the gemara in
Bechorot:

‫העיד רבי ישמעאל בן סתריאל מערקת לבינה לפני רבי במקומנו מפשיטין את המתה ומלבישין את החי‬
‫אמר רבי נתגלה טעמא של משנתינו‬
‫חזירין שבמקומנו יש להם ששים רבוא קלפים בבית המסס שלו‬
‫פעם אחת נפל ארז אחד שבמקומנו ועברו שש עשרה קרונות על חודו אחת‬
‫פעם אחת נפלה ביצת בר יוכני וטבעה ששים כרכים ושברה שלש מאות ארזים‬
‫כנף רננים נעלסה )איוב לט( ומי שדיא ליה והא כתיב‬
‫אמר רב אשי ההוא מוזרתא הואי‬:
Thus, this Rabbi Yishmael is talking about the strange and excessively large dimensions in Arkat
Levena. And so he speaks about arazim, cedars, of exceptionally large size such that one fell and
sixteen wagons were able to pass over it. This does not mean that cedars are metaphorical, and
don't exist. It means that the particular cedars in Arkat Levena were this size.

It reminds me of a joke about Texas:

There once was a blind man who decided to visit Texas. When he arrived on the plane, he felt the
seats and said, "Wow, these seats are big!" The person next to him answered, "Everything is big
in Texas."

When he finally arrived in Texas, he decided to visit a bar. Upon arriving in the bar, he ordered a
beer and got a mug placed between his hands. He exclaimed, "Wow these mugs are big!" The
bartender replied, "Everything is big in Texas."

After a couple of beers, the blind man asked the bartender where the bathroom was located. The
bartender replied, "Second door to the right." The blind man headed for the bathroom, but
accidentally tripped over and skipped the second door. Instead, he entered the third door, which
lead to the swimming pool and fell into the pool by accident.

Scared to death, the blind man started shouting, "Don't flush, don't flush!"

Perhaps there is a metaphorical explanation, or perhaps things were large and this is mere
exaggeration. Either way, this does not mean that there were no cedars elsewhere, which were real.
Just like there are indeed airplane seats, mugs, and toilets outside of Texas.

The cedar is a big tree, so it makes sense that the typical Bar Yochani is a big bird, and a real one
-- just not typically, or really, as big as described in Bechorot.

24
The egg, outside of Arkat Levena and Texas, might be big -- for example the size of an ostrich
egg -- but not typically so big as to drown 60 towns. If so, the Bar Yochni can be a real creature;
perhaps an ostrich, or perhaps an entirely separate bird.

While Rabbi Slifkin notes that the Musaf HaAruch notes that it is a metaphorical, rather than actual
bird, I see that Jastrow's entry on the bar Yochani (page 568) says that it is a fabulous bird; but in
square brackets, he writes [Koh. Ar. Compl. s.v. ‫בר‬, vol. II pg. 176 refers to Varaghna (Bactrian)
ostrich.]

This Persian etymology for ‫ בר יוכני‬makes sense to me, gh is more or less a kh sound, and that it
refers to a large bird such as the ostrich is compelling -- even aside from the other basis of declaring
it an ostrich, based on Talmudic linkages to the bird in Iyov, which is likely an ostrich. See here for
other fantastic features of Varaghna birds, though not at all necessarily the same one.

There is one major problem with declaring the Bar Yochani the ostrich. The gemara in Menachot
66b describes a feature which seems not to match the ostrich. And this is the bird linked to the Bar
Yochani. Thus, in Menachot:

‫נתעל"סה באהבים נשא ונתן ונעלה ונשמח ונתחטא באהבים )משלי ז( ואומר‬
‫כנף רננים נע"לסה נושא עולה ונתחטא )איוב לט( ואומר‬

Job 39:13. The word ‫( נעלסה‬ne'elasah: wave joyfully, like a peacock?) is explained acrostically
(Men. 66b): ‫( נושא‬it carries) ‫( עולה‬it goes up) ‫( למעלא‬above) ‫( נתחטא‬it comes down). It carries its
large egg, ascends aloft and then comes down to lay it gently in its nest on the ground without
smashing it.

Rashi there equates it with the Bar Yochni, and also explains the gemara (correctly) to mean
that ‫ נע"לסה‬is an acronym for "it carries it (=the egg), ascends, and descends (placing it down in
the nest). Yet an ostrich does not do this!

I would guess that Rashi's basis for associating this with the Bar Yochni is that in the gemara in
Bechorot, prior to Rav Ashi's elaboration, the gemara cites this pasuk, with the impled question of
why the egg would drop and shatter in this way, which is why Rav Ashi explains that it was an
unfertilized egg.

We could say that where the gemara posed this question, it was merely the setama filling in
the shakla vetarya to help it flow better -- indeed, this occurs often -- such that this was never Rav
Ashi's question. I wonder if one could fill in a different cause, such as making it not a hard egg
containing a baby Bar Yochni, but one which would shatter over a large area, and also explaining
‫וטבעה‬. But if we do, we not only cut away the "problematic" behavior for an ostrich, but the very
connection to the ostrich in the first place. Aside from the having of large eggs -- and the
exaggeration would be perhaps greater for Texas and Arkat Levana if the Bar Yochani were
generally a small bird -- the connection to the ostrich is via the verses in Iyov, which Rabbi Slifkin
demonstrates are quite descriptive of the ostrich. Cut out the question, and we cut out Iyov, and

25
we have almost no basis for claiming the Bar Yochni is an ostrich! Well, not really -- we still have
the etymology relating it to the Varghna ostrich.

But it does make sense, based on the egg size, that we are referring to an ostrich. And it seems that
this was the assumption in our gemara in Bechorot as well. For otherwise, why pose this question,
and relate it to the gemara in Iyov? And it works out nicely based on etymology. What then, are
we to do with this "difficult" feature of the Bar Yochni / kenaf rananim?

I would merely be forced into the position that not all zoological knowledge put forth in the gemara
is entirely accurate. Either we can reinterpret the gemara in Menachot (and perhaps also Bechorot)
about the animal's behavior, or else we could say that it was based on faulty contemporary
knowledge. This is what I say about certain aggadot regarding techelet. There is sufficient and
convincing evidence, based on archaeological evidence as well as some gemaras, that murex
trunculus was indeed the techelet of Chazal. But a brayta about how often the chilazon surfaced
may be based on faulty contemporary Greek accounts of how often the chilazon frequented the
shores. And it is overly pious to insist that therefore we have not identified the chilazon, for we
would never find a creature that truly matches it.

Just as we would not say that the gemara, and Tosafot, were not talking about elephants because
they refer to an elephant jumping. And just as we would not say that our bovines are not the same
as the bovines of Chazal because Chazal's bovines were constructed in a way that a needle could
get to the liver in a normal way after being consumed. And that ancient accounts of lions were not
of lions, because they claimed that lions were stillborn, and only came to life after three days.

We are faced with a derasha from a pasuk, perhaps one that accords with contemporary zoological
beliefs in the time of Chazal; but that does not mean that Chazal made a careful study of the nesting
habits of ostriches.

And so, to conclude, I believe that an ostrich is a solid candidate for the Bar Yochani, and that it
was believed to be a real bird; though the gemara in Bechorot might have involved Chazal's true
beliefs, in which case it would have been intended literally (for our beliefs, and sense of
plausibility, is not the same as Chazal's); or allegorically; or else as an exaggeration.

The So-called Ostrich in the God Speeches of the Book of Job (Job
39,13-18)

Arthur Walker-Jones writes:11

11
Biblica , 2005, Vol. 86, No. 4 (2005), pp. 494-510

26
27
28
29
30
31