Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 31, 2019 | 讻状讛 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 65

The gemara finishes its discussion about kosher birds and moves to grasshoppers and discusses what are signs of kosher grasshoppers.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘转专转讬 转讬讘讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专讬 砖诪讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

into two words, conclude from it that they are two names, prohibiting the egg as well.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗转 讻讚专 诇注诪专 讚驻住拽 诇讛讜 住驻专讗 讘转专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚转专转讬 砖诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讘砖转讬 转讬讘讜转 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜 讘砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 诇讗 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 谞诪讬 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what about the name: 鈥淐hedorlaomer鈥 (Genesis 14:4), which the scribe splits in two so that it appears as: Chedor Laomer? Is it also true there that they are two names? The verse is clearly referring to only one person. They say in response: There, with regard to Chedor Laomer, the scribe splits the name into two words, but he may not split it into two lines if the first half nears the end of one line. But here, he may split the name bat ya鈥檃na even into two lines, indicating that they are completely separate.

讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讻诇 注讜祝 转谞讬讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讚讜专住 讜讗讜讻诇 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讬砖 诇讜 讗爪讘注 讬转讬专讛 讜讝驻拽 讜拽专拽讘谞讜 谞拽诇祝 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 诪讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讞讜讟 砖诇 诪砖讬讞讛 讗诐 讞讜诇拽 讗转 专讙诇讬讜 砖转讬诐 诇讻讗谉 讜砖转讬诐 诇讻讗谉 讟诪讗 砖诇砖 诇讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 诇讻讗谉 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注讜祝 讛拽讜诇讟 诪谉 讛讗讜讬专 讟诪讗

搂 The mishna states: But the Sages stated that any bird that claws its prey and eats it is non-kosher. It is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel says: A bird that claws its prey and eats it is certainly non-kosher. If it has an extra digit and a crop, and its gizzard can be peeled, it is certainly kosher. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: One stretches a line, and the bird perches on it. If it splits its feet on the line, with two digits here and two there, it is non-kosher. If it places three digits here and one there, it is possibly kosher. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Any bird that catches food out of the air is non-kosher.

爪讬驻专转讗 谞诪讬 诪拽诇讟 拽诇讟讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽讜诇讟 讜讗讜讻诇 拽讗诪专讬

The Gemara interjects: But the tziparta also catches food out of the air, and it is kosher. Abaye said: We say this only for a bird that both catches and eats its food in the air. The tziparta lands before eating what it has caught.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讻谉 注诐 讟诪讗讬诐 讟诪讗 注诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讟讛讜专

The baraita concludes: Others say: If a bird dwells with non-kosher birds, it is non-kosher; if it dwells with kosher birds, it is kosher.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讞谞诐 讛诇讱 讝专讝讬专 讗爪诇 注讜专讘 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 砖讻谉 讜谞讚诪讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this last statement? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: It was not for naught that the zarzir went to dwell with the crow, but because it is of the same species. The Gemara rejects this: You may even say that the opinion introduced with the words: Others say, is like that of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and deem the zarzir kosher. The statement introduced with the words: Others say, is understood as follows: We say that a bird is non-kosher whenever it both dwells with a non-kosher bird and resembles it. The zarzir, though, does not resemble the crow.

讜讘讞讙讘讬诐 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 专讜讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讜讘 讗专讻讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讜讘 讛拽讬驻讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻讱 讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘 讗专讻讜 讜讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘 讛拽讬驻讜

搂 The mishna states: And with regard to grasshoppers, any grasshopper that has four legs, and four wings, and two additional jumping legs, and whose wings cover most of its body, is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is considered most of its body? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Most of its length. And some say that he said: Most of its circumference. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, one must satisfy both versions of the statement. We require that the wings cover most of its length, and we also require that they cover most of its circumference.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜注转讬讚 诇讙讚诇 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讛讝讞诇 诪讜转专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讻专注讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜注转讬讚 诇讙讚诇 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 诪讗讬 讝讞诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗住拽专讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: A grasshopper that has no wings now but will grow them after a time, e.g., the za岣l, is permitted. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: The verse states: 鈥淵et these may you eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all fours, which have [lo] jointed legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:21). The word lo is written with the letter alef, meaning not, so that it can be understood as: Do not have jointed legs. This teaches that even though it has no jointed legs now but will grow them after a time, it is still kosher. The Gemara asks: What is the za岣l? Abaye said: It is called askarin in Aramaic.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讗诇讛 诪讛诐 转讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛讗专讘讛 讜讙讜壮 讗专讘讛 讝讛 讙讜讘讗讬 住诇注诐 讝讛 专砖讜谉 讞专讙讜诇 讝讛 谞讬驻讜诇 讞讙讘 讝讛 讙讚讬讗谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇诪讬谞讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讗专讘注 驻注诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 爪讬驻讜专转 讻专诪讬诐 讜讬讜讞谞讗 讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 讜讛注专爪讜讘讬讗 讜讛专讝讘谞讬转

The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淭hese of them you may eat: The arbeh after its kinds, and the solam after its kinds, and the 岣rgol after its kinds, and the 岣gav after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:22). The arbeh is the insect known as the govai. The solam is the rashon. The 岣rgol is the nippul. The 岣gav is the gadyan. Why must the verse state: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 and 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 four times? It is to include four similar species: The vineyard bird, and the Jerusalem yo岣na, and the artzuveya, and the razbanit, which are also kosher.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讗诇讜 讻诇诇讬 讻诇诇讜转 讜讗诇讜 驻专讟讬 驻专讟讜转 讗专讘讛 讝讛 讙讜讘讗讬 诇诪讬谞讜 诇讛讘讬讗

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: These appearances of the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 in the verse are generalizations, and these species mentioned explicitly are details. The verse must be understood in light of the previous verse, which offers general signs of a kosher grasshopper. The two verses together are a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, in the following manner: The first verse is a generalization, arbeh is a detail referring to the species govai, and the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 is another generalization. According to Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 hermeneutical principles, the second generalization serves to include a case similar to the detail. In this case, the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 serves to include

爪讬驻讜专转 讻专诪讬诐

the vineyard bird, which is similar to the arbeh in that its forehead is not smooth but has small hairs.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讞转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 住诇注诐 讝讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜砖讻祝

I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead is kosher. From where is it derived that even one that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead is kosher? The verse states: 鈥Solam,鈥 and this is the nippul, which has a smooth forehead. The phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 that follows solam is another generalization, which serves to include a case similar to the detail, i.e., the ushkaf, which has a smooth forehead like the solam.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讝谞讘 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讝谞讘 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞专讙诇 讝讛 专砖讜谉 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讻专住驻转 讜讗转 讛砖讞诇谞讬转

And I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead, like the arbeh, or one that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead, like the solam, or one that comes before a person and has no tail, is kosher, since none of the previously mentioned grasshoppers have a tail. From where is it derived that even one that comes before a person and has a tail is kosher? The verse states: 鈥岣rgol,鈥 and this is the rashon, which has a tail. The phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 that follows 岣rgol is another generalization, and it serves to include the karsefet and the sha岣anit, which also have tails.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讝谞讘 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讝谞讘 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 讛讘讗 讜专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 诪谞讬谉

And I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead, or that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead, or that comes and has no tail, or that comes and has a tail, or that comes and its head is not long, is kosher, since every grasshopper mentioned until this point does not have a long head. From where is it derived that even one that comes and its head is long is kosher?

讗诪专转 讛专讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讘谞讬谉 讗讘 诪砖诇砖转谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讗专讘讛 讻专讗讬 讞专讙讜诇 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讞专讙讜诇 讻专讗讬 讗专讘讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讻专讗讬 住诇注诐 讜诇讗 专讗讬 住诇注诐 讻专讗讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讻谞驻讬诐 讜拽专爪讜诇讬诐 讜讻谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讻谞驻讬诐 讜拽专爪讜诇讬诐 讜讻谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜

You will say: You derive a paradigm from the three of them, as follows: The aspect [re鈥檌] of the arbeh, which has neither smooth forehead nor tail, is not similar to the aspect of the 岣rgol, which has both; and the aspect of the 岣rgol is not similar to the aspect of the arbeh. And the aspect of neither of them is similar to the aspect of the solam, which has a smooth forehead but no tail, and the aspect of the solam is similar to neither of their aspects. The characteristic that renders them all kosher can only be an aspect common to all of them. Their common denominator is that each has four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body. So too, any other species that has four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body is kosher, even if its head is long.

讜讛诇讗 讛爪专爪讜专 讛讝讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讻谞驻讬诐 讜拽专爪讜诇讬诐 讜讻谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 诪讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讙讘 砖砖诪讜 讞讙讘

One might ask: But doesn鈥檛 this tzartzur have four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body? Consequently, one might have thought that it should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥岣gav,鈥 to indicate that its name must be 岣gav. This includes all of the species previously mentioned, but not the tzartzur.

讗讬 砖诪讜 讞讙讘 讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬谉 讛诇诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇诪讬谞讛讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬谉 讛诇诇讜

But if its name must be 岣gav, one might have thought that any 岣gav is kosher, even if it does not have all these signs. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 indicating that even if it is called a 岣gav it is not kosher unless it has all these signs. This concludes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗讬 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 专讗砖谉 讗专讜讱 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讜讜 讘讗专讘注 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讬讬转讬谞谉 讜诇讗 驻专讻讬谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞专讙讜诇 谞诪讬 讚砖讜讜 诇讛讜 诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 讜转讬转讬 诪讗专讘讛 讜住诇注诐

Rav A岣i refutes the baraita: The four signs listed are not the sole common denominators between the arbeh, 岣rgol, and solam. What is also unique about these grasshoppers in addition to these signs? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher. And if you would say: Since they share these four signs, we include all others with these four signs and we do not refute them, since the included species need not be identical in all their aspects, if so, the Torah should not even write the 岣rgol, which shares these four signs with the arbeh and the solam, and let it be derived that the 岣rgol is kosher by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and solam.

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讝谞讘 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 专讗砖谉 讗专讜讱

Rather, it was necessary for the verse to write 岣rgol because if it were omitted, its inclusion could be refuted as follows: What is unique about these, the arbeh and solam? They are unique in that they both have no tail. Since the 岣rgol has a tail, its kosher status cannot be inferred from theirs. So too, the inclusion of grasshoppers with long heads can be refuted as follows: What is unique about these, the arbeh, 岣rgol, and solam? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗讬 住诇注诐 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 住诇注诐 讜转讬转讬 诪讗专讘讛 讜诪讞专讙讜诇 讚诪讗讬 驻专讻转 诪讛 诇讗专讘讛 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛专讬 讞专讙讜诇 讚讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讞转 诪讛 诇讞专讙讜诇 讚讬砖 诇讜 讝谞讘 讛专讬 讗专讘讛 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讝谞讘 住诇注诐 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱

Rather, Rav A岣i said: One can derive that grasshoppers with long heads are kosher as follows: The solam mentioned in the verse is redundant. How so? Let the Merciful One not write solam, and instead let it be derived by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and 岣rgol, that they have four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and that their wings cover most of their body. As what can you say to refute this? If you say: What can be derived from the arbeh, which, unlike the solam, does not have a smooth forehead; one can respond: But there is the 岣rgol, which has a smooth forehead. And if you say: What can be derived from the 岣rgol, which, unlike the solam, has a tail, one can respond: But there is the arbeh, which has no tail. If so, why do I need the solam that the Merciful One wrote? Rather, if the solam is not necessary for the matter itself, apply it to the matter of a long-headed grasshopper, to teach that it is kosher.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 65

讘转专转讬 转讬讘讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专讬 砖诪讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

into two words, conclude from it that they are two names, prohibiting the egg as well.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗转 讻讚专 诇注诪专 讚驻住拽 诇讛讜 住驻专讗 讘转专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚转专转讬 砖诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讘砖转讬 转讬讘讜转 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜 讘砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 诇讗 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 谞诪讬 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what about the name: 鈥淐hedorlaomer鈥 (Genesis 14:4), which the scribe splits in two so that it appears as: Chedor Laomer? Is it also true there that they are two names? The verse is clearly referring to only one person. They say in response: There, with regard to Chedor Laomer, the scribe splits the name into two words, but he may not split it into two lines if the first half nears the end of one line. But here, he may split the name bat ya鈥檃na even into two lines, indicating that they are completely separate.

讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讻诇 注讜祝 转谞讬讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讚讜专住 讜讗讜讻诇 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讬砖 诇讜 讗爪讘注 讬转讬专讛 讜讝驻拽 讜拽专拽讘谞讜 谞拽诇祝 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 诪讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讞讜讟 砖诇 诪砖讬讞讛 讗诐 讞讜诇拽 讗转 专讙诇讬讜 砖转讬诐 诇讻讗谉 讜砖转讬诐 诇讻讗谉 讟诪讗 砖诇砖 诇讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 诇讻讗谉 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注讜祝 讛拽讜诇讟 诪谉 讛讗讜讬专 讟诪讗

搂 The mishna states: But the Sages stated that any bird that claws its prey and eats it is non-kosher. It is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel says: A bird that claws its prey and eats it is certainly non-kosher. If it has an extra digit and a crop, and its gizzard can be peeled, it is certainly kosher. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: One stretches a line, and the bird perches on it. If it splits its feet on the line, with two digits here and two there, it is non-kosher. If it places three digits here and one there, it is possibly kosher. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Any bird that catches food out of the air is non-kosher.

爪讬驻专转讗 谞诪讬 诪拽诇讟 拽诇讟讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽讜诇讟 讜讗讜讻诇 拽讗诪专讬

The Gemara interjects: But the tziparta also catches food out of the air, and it is kosher. Abaye said: We say this only for a bird that both catches and eats its food in the air. The tziparta lands before eating what it has caught.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讻谉 注诐 讟诪讗讬诐 讟诪讗 注诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讟讛讜专

The baraita concludes: Others say: If a bird dwells with non-kosher birds, it is non-kosher; if it dwells with kosher birds, it is kosher.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讞谞诐 讛诇讱 讝专讝讬专 讗爪诇 注讜专讘 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 砖讻谉 讜谞讚诪讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this last statement? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: It was not for naught that the zarzir went to dwell with the crow, but because it is of the same species. The Gemara rejects this: You may even say that the opinion introduced with the words: Others say, is like that of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and deem the zarzir kosher. The statement introduced with the words: Others say, is understood as follows: We say that a bird is non-kosher whenever it both dwells with a non-kosher bird and resembles it. The zarzir, though, does not resemble the crow.

讜讘讞讙讘讬诐 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 专讜讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讜讘 讗专讻讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讜讘 讛拽讬驻讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻讱 讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘 讗专讻讜 讜讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘 讛拽讬驻讜

搂 The mishna states: And with regard to grasshoppers, any grasshopper that has four legs, and four wings, and two additional jumping legs, and whose wings cover most of its body, is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is considered most of its body? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Most of its length. And some say that he said: Most of its circumference. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, one must satisfy both versions of the statement. We require that the wings cover most of its length, and we also require that they cover most of its circumference.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜注转讬讚 诇讙讚诇 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讛讝讞诇 诪讜转专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讻专注讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜注转讬讚 诇讙讚诇 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 诪讗讬 讝讞诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗住拽专讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: A grasshopper that has no wings now but will grow them after a time, e.g., the za岣l, is permitted. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: The verse states: 鈥淵et these may you eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all fours, which have [lo] jointed legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:21). The word lo is written with the letter alef, meaning not, so that it can be understood as: Do not have jointed legs. This teaches that even though it has no jointed legs now but will grow them after a time, it is still kosher. The Gemara asks: What is the za岣l? Abaye said: It is called askarin in Aramaic.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讗诇讛 诪讛诐 转讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛讗专讘讛 讜讙讜壮 讗专讘讛 讝讛 讙讜讘讗讬 住诇注诐 讝讛 专砖讜谉 讞专讙讜诇 讝讛 谞讬驻讜诇 讞讙讘 讝讛 讙讚讬讗谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇诪讬谞讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讗专讘注 驻注诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 爪讬驻讜专转 讻专诪讬诐 讜讬讜讞谞讗 讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 讜讛注专爪讜讘讬讗 讜讛专讝讘谞讬转

The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淭hese of them you may eat: The arbeh after its kinds, and the solam after its kinds, and the 岣rgol after its kinds, and the 岣gav after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:22). The arbeh is the insect known as the govai. The solam is the rashon. The 岣rgol is the nippul. The 岣gav is the gadyan. Why must the verse state: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 and 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 four times? It is to include four similar species: The vineyard bird, and the Jerusalem yo岣na, and the artzuveya, and the razbanit, which are also kosher.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讗诇讜 讻诇诇讬 讻诇诇讜转 讜讗诇讜 驻专讟讬 驻专讟讜转 讗专讘讛 讝讛 讙讜讘讗讬 诇诪讬谞讜 诇讛讘讬讗

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: These appearances of the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 in the verse are generalizations, and these species mentioned explicitly are details. The verse must be understood in light of the previous verse, which offers general signs of a kosher grasshopper. The two verses together are a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, in the following manner: The first verse is a generalization, arbeh is a detail referring to the species govai, and the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 is another generalization. According to Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 hermeneutical principles, the second generalization serves to include a case similar to the detail. In this case, the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 serves to include

爪讬驻讜专转 讻专诪讬诐

the vineyard bird, which is similar to the arbeh in that its forehead is not smooth but has small hairs.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讞转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 住诇注诐 讝讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜砖讻祝

I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead is kosher. From where is it derived that even one that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead is kosher? The verse states: 鈥Solam,鈥 and this is the nippul, which has a smooth forehead. The phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 that follows solam is another generalization, which serves to include a case similar to the detail, i.e., the ushkaf, which has a smooth forehead like the solam.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讝谞讘 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讝谞讘 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞专讙诇 讝讛 专砖讜谉 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讻专住驻转 讜讗转 讛砖讞诇谞讬转

And I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead, like the arbeh, or one that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead, like the solam, or one that comes before a person and has no tail, is kosher, since none of the previously mentioned grasshoppers have a tail. From where is it derived that even one that comes before a person and has a tail is kosher? The verse states: 鈥岣rgol,鈥 and this is the rashon, which has a tail. The phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 that follows 岣rgol is another generalization, and it serves to include the karsefet and the sha岣anit, which also have tails.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讝谞讘 讛讘讗 讜讬砖 诇讜 讝谞讘 讛讘讗 讜讗讬谉 专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 讛讘讗 讜专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 诪谞讬谉

And I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead, or that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead, or that comes and has no tail, or that comes and has a tail, or that comes and its head is not long, is kosher, since every grasshopper mentioned until this point does not have a long head. From where is it derived that even one that comes and its head is long is kosher?

讗诪专转 讛专讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讘谞讬谉 讗讘 诪砖诇砖转谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讗专讘讛 讻专讗讬 讞专讙讜诇 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讞专讙讜诇 讻专讗讬 讗专讘讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讻专讗讬 住诇注诐 讜诇讗 专讗讬 住诇注诐 讻专讗讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讻谞驻讬诐 讜拽专爪讜诇讬诐 讜讻谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讻谞驻讬诐 讜拽专爪讜诇讬诐 讜讻谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜

You will say: You derive a paradigm from the three of them, as follows: The aspect [re鈥檌] of the arbeh, which has neither smooth forehead nor tail, is not similar to the aspect of the 岣rgol, which has both; and the aspect of the 岣rgol is not similar to the aspect of the arbeh. And the aspect of neither of them is similar to the aspect of the solam, which has a smooth forehead but no tail, and the aspect of the solam is similar to neither of their aspects. The characteristic that renders them all kosher can only be an aspect common to all of them. Their common denominator is that each has four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body. So too, any other species that has four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body is kosher, even if its head is long.

讜讛诇讗 讛爪专爪讜专 讛讝讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讻谞驻讬诐 讜拽专爪讜诇讬诐 讜讻谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 诪讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讙讘 砖砖诪讜 讞讙讘

One might ask: But doesn鈥檛 this tzartzur have four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body? Consequently, one might have thought that it should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥岣gav,鈥 to indicate that its name must be 岣gav. This includes all of the species previously mentioned, but not the tzartzur.

讗讬 砖诪讜 讞讙讘 讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬谉 讛诇诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇诪讬谞讛讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬谉 讛诇诇讜

But if its name must be 岣gav, one might have thought that any 岣gav is kosher, even if it does not have all these signs. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 indicating that even if it is called a 岣gav it is not kosher unless it has all these signs. This concludes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗讬 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 专讗砖谉 讗专讜讱 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讜讜 讘讗专讘注 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讬讬转讬谞谉 讜诇讗 驻专讻讬谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞专讙讜诇 谞诪讬 讚砖讜讜 诇讛讜 诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 讜转讬转讬 诪讗专讘讛 讜住诇注诐

Rav A岣i refutes the baraita: The four signs listed are not the sole common denominators between the arbeh, 岣rgol, and solam. What is also unique about these grasshoppers in addition to these signs? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher. And if you would say: Since they share these four signs, we include all others with these four signs and we do not refute them, since the included species need not be identical in all their aspects, if so, the Torah should not even write the 岣rgol, which shares these four signs with the arbeh and the solam, and let it be derived that the 岣rgol is kosher by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and solam.

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讝谞讘 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 专讗砖谉 讗专讜讱

Rather, it was necessary for the verse to write 岣rgol because if it were omitted, its inclusion could be refuted as follows: What is unique about these, the arbeh and solam? They are unique in that they both have no tail. Since the 岣rgol has a tail, its kosher status cannot be inferred from theirs. So too, the inclusion of grasshoppers with long heads can be refuted as follows: What is unique about these, the arbeh, 岣rgol, and solam? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗讬 住诇注诐 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 住诇注诐 讜转讬转讬 诪讗专讘讛 讜诪讞专讙讜诇 讚诪讗讬 驻专讻转 诪讛 诇讗专讘讛 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讞转 讛专讬 讞专讙讜诇 讚讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讞转 诪讛 诇讞专讙讜诇 讚讬砖 诇讜 讝谞讘 讛专讬 讗专讘讛 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讝谞讘 住诇注诐 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱

Rather, Rav A岣i said: One can derive that grasshoppers with long heads are kosher as follows: The solam mentioned in the verse is redundant. How so? Let the Merciful One not write solam, and instead let it be derived by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and 岣rgol, that they have four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and that their wings cover most of their body. As what can you say to refute this? If you say: What can be derived from the arbeh, which, unlike the solam, does not have a smooth forehead; one can respond: But there is the 岣rgol, which has a smooth forehead. And if you say: What can be derived from the 岣rgol, which, unlike the solam, has a tail, one can respond: But there is the arbeh, which has no tail. If so, why do I need the solam that the Merciful One wrote? Rather, if the solam is not necessary for the matter itself, apply it to the matter of a long-headed grasshopper, to teach that it is kosher.

Scroll To Top