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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 1, 2019 | 讻状讜 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 66

The gemara聽compares the two braitot聽regarding signs of kosher locusts. Then the discussion moves to signs of kosher fish.


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

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the tanna of the study hall, who taught the first baraita above, and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael disagree? They disagree with regard to a grasshopper whose head is long. According to the tanna of the study hall it is prohibited, and according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael it is permitted.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘 住讘专 讗砖专 诇讜 讻专注讬诐 讻诇诇 讗专讘讛 住诇注诐 讞专讙诇 讞讙讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讚诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讚诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讜诪专讘讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara elaborates: The tanna of the study hall holds that the previous verse, permitting all species 鈥渨hich have jointed legs鈥 (Leviticus 11:21), is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, 岣rgol, and 岣gav, and the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 that appears after each, are a detail. As a rule, in any instance of a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only that which is spelled out in the detail. Therefore, only grasshoppers of the same species as those detailed in the verse are kosher. Grasshoppers that are not of the same species as them are not kosher. And the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 amplifies the halakha to include grasshoppers that are similar to the named species in two aspects, i.e., that are very similar to them. Since all the named species have short heads, grasshoppers with long heads are forbidden.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讗砖专 诇讜 讻专注讬诐 讻诇诇 讗专讘讛 住诇注诐 讞专讙诇 讞讙讘 驻专讟 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 讜诪专讘讬 讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讞讚 爪讚

By contrast, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds that the phrase 鈥渨hich have jointed legs鈥 is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, 岣rgol, and 岣gav are a detail. And by the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 after each species, it then generalized again. In any instance of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. And the verse therefore amplifies the halakha to include any grasshopper that is similar to the named species in even one aspect, i.e., that has the four signs listed in the mishna, even if its head is long.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讻诇诇讗 拽诪讗 诇讻诇诇讗 讘转专讗 讻诇诇讗 拽诪讗 讗砖专 诇讜 讻专注讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻讜诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 讻诇诇讗 讘转专讗 注讚 讚砖讜讜 讘讗专讘注讛 住讬诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But how can this be considered a generalization, a detail, and a generalization? The first generalization is not similar to the latter generalization. In the first generalization, the Merciful One states: 鈥淲hich have jointed legs,鈥 indicating that you may eat a grasshopper that has jointed legs, but you may not eat one that does not have jointed legs, irrespective of any other sign. However, the latter generalization: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 indicates that no grasshopper is kosher unless it shares all four signs with the named species.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚讗讬谉 讜讚讗诪专讬谞谉 谞诪讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讚讗讬谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael deduces from generalizations and details like this case, even if the generalizations are not similar to one another. The Gemara notes: And that which we also say generally, that the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael deduces from generalizations and details like this case, is derived from here.

讗诪专 诪专 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 砖讬讛讜 讘讜 讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬谉 讛诇诇讜 诪讛讬讻讗 转讬转讬 讗专讘讛 讜讞专讙讜诇 讻转讬讘

The Gemara analyzes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Master said: 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 four signs. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 indicating that it is not kosher unless it has all these signs. The Gemara asks: From where would this be derived, that a grasshopper is kosher even if it does not have all these signs? How could one entertain this possibility? Arbeh and 岣rgol are written beforehand, indicating that all kosher grasshoppers must share the signs they both possess.

讗讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘 住诇注诐 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 住诇注诐 诇专讘讜讬讬 专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 讗讬诪讗 诇讬专讘讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讚讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If solam had not been written as well, it would be as you said. But now that it is written: 鈥Solam,鈥 to include long-headed grasshoppers even though none of the named species have long heads, I will say: Let us also include any grasshopper that is called 岣gav. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 teaches us that this is not so.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讗诪专转 住诇注诐 讝讛 专砖讜谉 讞专讙诇 讝讛 谞讬驻讜诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专转 住诇注诐 讝讛 谞讬驻讜诇 讞专讙诇 讝讛 专砖讜谉 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the baraita of the study hall, that you say that the solam is the rashon, and the 岣rgol is the nippul, and what is different here, in the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, that you say: The solam is the nippul, and the 岣rgol is the rashon? The Gemara responds: This Sage refers to them in accordance with the custom of his locale and that Sage refers to them in accordance with the custom of his locale.

讜讘讚讙讬诐 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转 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 讛住讜诇转谞讬转 讜讛注驻讬讗谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专 讬砖 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜注转讬讚 诇讛砖讬专谉 讘砖注讛 砖注讜诇讛 诪谉 讛诪讬诐 讻讙讜谉

搂 The mishna states: And with regard to fish, any fish that has a fin and a scale is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: If a fish does not have scales now but will grow them after a period of time, such as the sultanit and afyan fish, it is permitted. Likewise, if it has scales now but will shed them when it is caught and rises from the water, such as

讗拽讜谞住 讜讗驻讜谞住 讻住驻转讬讗住 讜讗讻住驻讟讬讗住 讜讗讟讜谞住 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专

the akunas, and the afunas, and the kesaftiyas, and the akhsaftiyas, and the atunas, it is permitted.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽砖拽砖转 讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜讬砖 砖讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 拽砖拽砖转 讬砖 诇讜 拽砖拽砖转 讜讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讚讙 讟讛讜专 讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 拽砖拽砖转 讚讙 讟诪讗

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Nidda 51b): Any fish that has scales certainly has fins, but there are fish that have fins and do not have scales. Any fish that has scales and fins is a kosher fish. If it has fins but no scales, it is a non-kosher fish.

诪讻讚讬 讗拽砖拽砖转 拽讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽砖拽砖转 讜诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 住谞驻讬专 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽砖拽砖转 讜诇讗 讻转讘 住谞驻讬专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽砖拽砖转 住谞驻讬专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讙 讟诪讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转

The Gemara asks: Now, since we rely only on scales to deem a fish kosher, presuming that if it has scales it must have fins as well, let the Merciful One write only 鈥渟cales鈥 as the sign of a kosher fish and let Him not write 鈥渇ins鈥 at all. The Gemara responds: If the Merciful One had written: Scales [kaskeset], and had not written: Fins [senappir], I would say: What is kaskeset? It is fins. And I would thereby come to permit even non-kosher fish. Therefore, the Merciful One stated: 鈥Senappir and kaskeset,鈥 to leave no room for error.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转 诪诪讗讬 讚拽砖拽砖转 诇讘讜砖讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖专讬讜谉 拽砖拽砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讘讜砖 讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽砖拽砖转 讜诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 住谞驻讬专

The Gemara asks: But now that the Merciful One has written: 鈥Senappir and kaskeset,鈥 from where is it derived that kaskeset denotes clothing, i.e., scales, rather than fins? As it is written: 鈥淎nd he was clad with a coat of scale armor [kaskasim]鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:5). And if it is certain that kaskeset refers to scales, the question resurfaces: Let the Merciful One write only kaskeset,鈥 and let Him not write 鈥senappir.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讬讙讚讬诇 转讜专讛 讜讬讗讚讬专

Rabbi Abbahu said, and so the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wished to bestow good upon the Jewish people. Therefore, He made their Torah abundant, as it is written: 鈥淭he Lord was pleased, for His righteousness鈥 sake, to make Torah great and glorious鈥 (Isaiah 42:21). He consequently expanded some aspects of the Torah more than strictly necessary.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讗讻讜诇 讗转 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗诇 转讗讻诇 讗转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讜诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转讗讻诇 讗转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗讻讜诇 讗转 砖讬砖 诇讜 讜诇诪讛 砖谞讗谉 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states the prohibition of non-kosher fish both positively and negatively: 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales鈥hem you may eat. And all that have not fins and scales鈥hey are a detestable thing unto you鈥 (Leviticus 11:9鈥10). From the implication of that which is stated: Eat fish that have these signs, I would derive the inverse: Do not eat fish that do not have them. And from the implication of that which is stated: Do not eat fish that do not have them, I would derive the inverse: Eat fish that have them. If so, why did the Torah teach both of them? It is in order to indicate that one who eats non-kosher fish transgresses, on its account, both a positive mitzva and a prohibition.

转讗讻诇讜 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讘诪讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛转讬专 讘诪驻讜专砖 讜讛转讬专 讘住转诐 诪讛 讻砖讛转讬专 讘诪驻讜专砖 诇讗 讛转讬专 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讛转讬专 讘住转诐 诇讗 讛转讬专 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖砖讜讞讛 讜砖讜转讛 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪谞注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讗讻诇讜 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讘诪讬诐

Given that the verse states: 鈥淲hatever has fins and scales鈥hem may you eat,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters?鈥 Why is this necessary? It is necessary, as without this verse one might have thought: Since the Torah permitted creeping creatures of the water without fins and scales explicitly and also permitted them implicitly, one can infer: Just as when the Torah permitted such creatures explicitly, it permitted them only when in vessels, so too, when it permitted them implicitly, it permitted them only in vessels. From where is it derived to include as kosher even those in pits, ditches, and caves, that one may dig them and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures in them? The verse states: 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters,鈥 to indicate that this is permitted.

讛讬讻谉 讛转讬专 讘讻诇讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讝讛 转讗讻诇讜 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讘诪讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘谞讞诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻讜诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻讜诇

The Gemara elaborates: Where did the Torah permit them in vessels? It did so in the following verse, as it is written: 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them may you eat.鈥 It would have been sufficient to write simply: 鈥淚n the waters.鈥 The addition of 鈥渋n the seas and in the rivers鈥 indicates that it is only in the seas and in the rivers that when it has fins and scales you may eat it, and that you may not eat one that does not have them. But with regard to a creeping creature found in vessels, even if it does not have fins and scales you may eat it.

讗讬诪讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讗讬谉 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘谞讞诇讬诐 诪讻诇 砖专抓 讛诪讬诐 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘谞讞诇讬诐 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻讜诇

The Gemara objects: One could just as easily say the opposite: You may eat a fish that has these signs only when it is found in seas and rivers, but in vessels, even if it has fins and scales, you may not eat it. The Gemara responds: This should not enter your mind, as it is written: 鈥淎nd all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are a detestable thing to you.鈥 The verse indicates that it is only in the seas and in the rivers that you may not eat a fish that does not have fins and scales. But you may eat a creeping creature found in vessels, even if it does not have fins and scales.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪讬诐 讻诇诇 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘谞讞诇讬诐 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讬诪讬诐 讜谞讞诇讬诐 讗讬谉 谞注讬爪讬谉 讜讞专讬爪讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara objects: But one can prove whether it is permitted to drink from pits, ditches, and caves differently. Say instead that the phrase 鈥渨hatever has fins and scales in the waters鈥 is a generalization, and the phrase 鈥渋n the seas and in the rivers鈥 is a detail. In any instance of a generalization and a detail, the generalization only includes that which is spelled out in the detail. Therefore, in the seas and rivers, yes, one may eat only fish with fins and scales, but in water channels and trenches, as well as pits, ditches, and caves, this restriction does not apply. Consequently, the clause 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters鈥 is unnecessary.

讘诪讬诐 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇

The Gemara responds: This deduction is not sound. The term 鈥渋n the waters鈥 appears twice in the verse. When the verse repeated it, it then generalized again. Consequently, there are two generalizations and one detail in the verse, making it an instance of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, which includes all cases similar to the detail, including pits, ditches, and caves, indicating that the restriction applies to them as well. Therefore, the clause 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters鈥 is necessary to teach that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.

讛谞讬 转专讬 讻诇诇讬 讚住诪讬讻讬 诇讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讚讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖谞讬 讻诇诇讜转 讛住诪讜讻讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara asks: How can this verse be an instance of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization? These are two generalizations that are adjacent to each other. Both instances of the term 鈥渋n the waters鈥 precede the detail, such that the verse is actually a generalization, a generalization, and a detail. Ravina said: As they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Wherever you find two generalizations juxtaposed one with the other, followed by a specific detail,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 66

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the tanna of the study hall, who taught the first baraita above, and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael disagree? They disagree with regard to a grasshopper whose head is long. According to the tanna of the study hall it is prohibited, and according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael it is permitted.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘 住讘专 讗砖专 诇讜 讻专注讬诐 讻诇诇 讗专讘讛 住诇注诐 讞专讙诇 讞讙讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讚诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讚诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讜诪专讘讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara elaborates: The tanna of the study hall holds that the previous verse, permitting all species 鈥渨hich have jointed legs鈥 (Leviticus 11:21), is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, 岣rgol, and 岣gav, and the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds,鈥 that appears after each, are a detail. As a rule, in any instance of a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only that which is spelled out in the detail. Therefore, only grasshoppers of the same species as those detailed in the verse are kosher. Grasshoppers that are not of the same species as them are not kosher. And the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 amplifies the halakha to include grasshoppers that are similar to the named species in two aspects, i.e., that are very similar to them. Since all the named species have short heads, grasshoppers with long heads are forbidden.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讗砖专 诇讜 讻专注讬诐 讻诇诇 讗专讘讛 住诇注诐 讞专讙诇 讞讙讘 驻专讟 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 讜诪专讘讬 讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讞讚 爪讚

By contrast, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds that the phrase 鈥渨hich have jointed legs鈥 is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, 岣rgol, and 岣gav are a detail. And by the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 after each species, it then generalized again. In any instance of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. And the verse therefore amplifies the halakha to include any grasshopper that is similar to the named species in even one aspect, i.e., that has the four signs listed in the mishna, even if its head is long.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讻诇诇讗 拽诪讗 诇讻诇诇讗 讘转专讗 讻诇诇讗 拽诪讗 讗砖专 诇讜 讻专注讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻讜诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 讻诇诇讗 讘转专讗 注讚 讚砖讜讜 讘讗专讘注讛 住讬诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But how can this be considered a generalization, a detail, and a generalization? The first generalization is not similar to the latter generalization. In the first generalization, the Merciful One states: 鈥淲hich have jointed legs,鈥 indicating that you may eat a grasshopper that has jointed legs, but you may not eat one that does not have jointed legs, irrespective of any other sign. However, the latter generalization: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 indicates that no grasshopper is kosher unless it shares all four signs with the named species.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚讗讬谉 讜讚讗诪专讬谞谉 谞诪讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讚讗讬谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael deduces from generalizations and details like this case, even if the generalizations are not similar to one another. The Gemara notes: And that which we also say generally, that the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael deduces from generalizations and details like this case, is derived from here.

讗诪专 诪专 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 砖讬讛讜 讘讜 讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬谉 讛诇诇讜 诪讛讬讻讗 转讬转讬 讗专讘讛 讜讞专讙讜诇 讻转讬讘

The Gemara analyzes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Master said: 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 four signs. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎fter its kinds,鈥 indicating that it is not kosher unless it has all these signs. The Gemara asks: From where would this be derived, that a grasshopper is kosher even if it does not have all these signs? How could one entertain this possibility? Arbeh and 岣rgol are written beforehand, indicating that all kosher grasshoppers must share the signs they both possess.

讗讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘 住诇注诐 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 住诇注诐 诇专讘讜讬讬 专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 讗讬诪讗 诇讬专讘讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讚讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If solam had not been written as well, it would be as you said. But now that it is written: 鈥Solam,鈥 to include long-headed grasshoppers even though none of the named species have long heads, I will say: Let us also include any grasshopper that is called 岣gav. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渁fter its kinds鈥 teaches us that this is not so.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讗诪专转 住诇注诐 讝讛 专砖讜谉 讞专讙诇 讝讛 谞讬驻讜诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专转 住诇注诐 讝讛 谞讬驻讜诇 讞专讙诇 讝讛 专砖讜谉 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the baraita of the study hall, that you say that the solam is the rashon, and the 岣rgol is the nippul, and what is different here, in the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, that you say: The solam is the nippul, and the 岣rgol is the rashon? The Gemara responds: This Sage refers to them in accordance with the custom of his locale and that Sage refers to them in accordance with the custom of his locale.

讜讘讚讙讬诐 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转 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 讛住讜诇转谞讬转 讜讛注驻讬讗谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专 讬砖 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜注转讬讚 诇讛砖讬专谉 讘砖注讛 砖注讜诇讛 诪谉 讛诪讬诐 讻讙讜谉

搂 The mishna states: And with regard to fish, any fish that has a fin and a scale is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: If a fish does not have scales now but will grow them after a period of time, such as the sultanit and afyan fish, it is permitted. Likewise, if it has scales now but will shed them when it is caught and rises from the water, such as

讗拽讜谞住 讜讗驻讜谞住 讻住驻转讬讗住 讜讗讻住驻讟讬讗住 讜讗讟讜谞住 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专

the akunas, and the afunas, and the kesaftiyas, and the akhsaftiyas, and the atunas, it is permitted.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽砖拽砖转 讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜讬砖 砖讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 拽砖拽砖转 讬砖 诇讜 拽砖拽砖转 讜讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讚讙 讟讛讜专 讬砖 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 拽砖拽砖转 讚讙 讟诪讗

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Nidda 51b): Any fish that has scales certainly has fins, but there are fish that have fins and do not have scales. Any fish that has scales and fins is a kosher fish. If it has fins but no scales, it is a non-kosher fish.

诪讻讚讬 讗拽砖拽砖转 拽讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽砖拽砖转 讜诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 住谞驻讬专 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽砖拽砖转 讜诇讗 讻转讘 住谞驻讬专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽砖拽砖转 住谞驻讬专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讙 讟诪讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转

The Gemara asks: Now, since we rely only on scales to deem a fish kosher, presuming that if it has scales it must have fins as well, let the Merciful One write only 鈥渟cales鈥 as the sign of a kosher fish and let Him not write 鈥渇ins鈥 at all. The Gemara responds: If the Merciful One had written: Scales [kaskeset], and had not written: Fins [senappir], I would say: What is kaskeset? It is fins. And I would thereby come to permit even non-kosher fish. Therefore, the Merciful One stated: 鈥Senappir and kaskeset,鈥 to leave no room for error.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转 诪诪讗讬 讚拽砖拽砖转 诇讘讜砖讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖专讬讜谉 拽砖拽砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讘讜砖 讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽砖拽砖转 讜诇讗 诇讬讻转讜讘 住谞驻讬专

The Gemara asks: But now that the Merciful One has written: 鈥Senappir and kaskeset,鈥 from where is it derived that kaskeset denotes clothing, i.e., scales, rather than fins? As it is written: 鈥淎nd he was clad with a coat of scale armor [kaskasim]鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:5). And if it is certain that kaskeset refers to scales, the question resurfaces: Let the Merciful One write only kaskeset,鈥 and let Him not write 鈥senappir.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讬讙讚讬诇 转讜专讛 讜讬讗讚讬专

Rabbi Abbahu said, and so the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wished to bestow good upon the Jewish people. Therefore, He made their Torah abundant, as it is written: 鈥淭he Lord was pleased, for His righteousness鈥 sake, to make Torah great and glorious鈥 (Isaiah 42:21). He consequently expanded some aspects of the Torah more than strictly necessary.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讗讻讜诇 讗转 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗诇 转讗讻诇 讗转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讜诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转讗讻诇 讗转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗讻讜诇 讗转 砖讬砖 诇讜 讜诇诪讛 砖谞讗谉 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states the prohibition of non-kosher fish both positively and negatively: 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales鈥hem you may eat. And all that have not fins and scales鈥hey are a detestable thing unto you鈥 (Leviticus 11:9鈥10). From the implication of that which is stated: Eat fish that have these signs, I would derive the inverse: Do not eat fish that do not have them. And from the implication of that which is stated: Do not eat fish that do not have them, I would derive the inverse: Eat fish that have them. If so, why did the Torah teach both of them? It is in order to indicate that one who eats non-kosher fish transgresses, on its account, both a positive mitzva and a prohibition.

转讗讻诇讜 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讘诪讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛转讬专 讘诪驻讜专砖 讜讛转讬专 讘住转诐 诪讛 讻砖讛转讬专 讘诪驻讜专砖 诇讗 讛转讬专 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讛转讬专 讘住转诐 诇讗 讛转讬专 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖砖讜讞讛 讜砖讜转讛 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪谞注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讗讻诇讜 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讘诪讬诐

Given that the verse states: 鈥淲hatever has fins and scales鈥hem may you eat,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters?鈥 Why is this necessary? It is necessary, as without this verse one might have thought: Since the Torah permitted creeping creatures of the water without fins and scales explicitly and also permitted them implicitly, one can infer: Just as when the Torah permitted such creatures explicitly, it permitted them only when in vessels, so too, when it permitted them implicitly, it permitted them only in vessels. From where is it derived to include as kosher even those in pits, ditches, and caves, that one may dig them and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures in them? The verse states: 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters,鈥 to indicate that this is permitted.

讛讬讻谉 讛转讬专 讘讻诇讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讝讛 转讗讻诇讜 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讘诪讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘谞讞诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻讜诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻讜诇

The Gemara elaborates: Where did the Torah permit them in vessels? It did so in the following verse, as it is written: 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them may you eat.鈥 It would have been sufficient to write simply: 鈥淚n the waters.鈥 The addition of 鈥渋n the seas and in the rivers鈥 indicates that it is only in the seas and in the rivers that when it has fins and scales you may eat it, and that you may not eat one that does not have them. But with regard to a creeping creature found in vessels, even if it does not have fins and scales you may eat it.

讗讬诪讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讗讬谉 诇讜 住谞驻讬专 讜拽砖拽砖转 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘谞讞诇讬诐 诪讻诇 砖专抓 讛诪讬诐 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘谞讞诇讬诐 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻讜诇

The Gemara objects: One could just as easily say the opposite: You may eat a fish that has these signs only when it is found in seas and rivers, but in vessels, even if it has fins and scales, you may not eat it. The Gemara responds: This should not enter your mind, as it is written: 鈥淎nd all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are a detestable thing to you.鈥 The verse indicates that it is only in the seas and in the rivers that you may not eat a fish that does not have fins and scales. But you may eat a creeping creature found in vessels, even if it does not have fins and scales.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪讬诐 讻诇诇 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘谞讞诇讬诐 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讬诪讬诐 讜谞讞诇讬诐 讗讬谉 谞注讬爪讬谉 讜讞专讬爪讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara objects: But one can prove whether it is permitted to drink from pits, ditches, and caves differently. Say instead that the phrase 鈥渨hatever has fins and scales in the waters鈥 is a generalization, and the phrase 鈥渋n the seas and in the rivers鈥 is a detail. In any instance of a generalization and a detail, the generalization only includes that which is spelled out in the detail. Therefore, in the seas and rivers, yes, one may eat only fish with fins and scales, but in water channels and trenches, as well as pits, ditches, and caves, this restriction does not apply. Consequently, the clause 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters鈥 is unnecessary.

讘诪讬诐 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇

The Gemara responds: This deduction is not sound. The term 鈥渋n the waters鈥 appears twice in the verse. When the verse repeated it, it then generalized again. Consequently, there are two generalizations and one detail in the verse, making it an instance of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, which includes all cases similar to the detail, including pits, ditches, and caves, indicating that the restriction applies to them as well. Therefore, the clause 鈥淭hese may you eat of all that are in the waters鈥 is necessary to teach that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.

讛谞讬 转专讬 讻诇诇讬 讚住诪讬讻讬 诇讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讚讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖谞讬 讻诇诇讜转 讛住诪讜讻讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara asks: How can this verse be an instance of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization? These are two generalizations that are adjacent to each other. Both instances of the term 鈥渋n the waters鈥 precede the detail, such that the verse is actually a generalization, a generalization, and a detail. Ravina said: As they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Wherever you find two generalizations juxtaposed one with the other, followed by a specific detail,

Scroll To Top