The gemara compares the two braitot regarding signs of kosher locusts. Then the discussion moves to signs of kosher fish.
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ellen Cherrick in loving memory of her mother, Udy Katz Cherrick, z”l, on her 13th yahrzeit.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ellen Cherrick in loving memory of her mother, Udy Katz Cherrick, z”l, on her 13th yahrzeit.
Chullin 66
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַב וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? בְּרֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַב סָבַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְּרָעַיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״אַרְבֶּה״ ״סׇלְעָם״ ״חַרְגֹּל״ ״חָגָב״ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט, דְּמִינֵיהּ – אִין, דְּלָאו (דמיניה) [מִינֵּיהּ] – לָא, וּמְרַבֵּי דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין.
The Gemara elaborates: The tanna of the study hall holds that the previous verse, permitting all species “which have jointed legs” (Leviticus 11:21), is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, ḥargol, and ḥagav, and the phrase “after its kinds,” 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 “after its kinds” 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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְרָעַיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״אַרְבֶּה״ ״סׇלְעָם״ ״חַרְגֹּל״ ״חָגָב״ – פָּרַט, ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט, וּמְרַבֵּי כֹּל דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ בְּחַד צַד.
By contrast, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds that the phrase “which have jointed legs” is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, ḥargol, and ḥagav are a detail. And by the phrase “after its kinds” 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.
וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי כְּלָלָא קַמָּא לִכְלָלָא בָּתְרָא? כְּלָלָא קַמָּא – ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְרָעַיִם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, דְּאִית לֵיהּ אֱכוֹל, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל. כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא – עַד דְּשָׁווּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין.
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: “Which have jointed legs,” 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: “After its kinds,” indicates that no grasshopper is kosher unless it shares all four signs with the named species.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא דָּאֵין, וּדְאָמְרִינַן נָמֵי בְּעָלְמָא דְּדָאֵין תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מֵהָכָא.
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.
אָמַר מָר: אִי שְׁמוֹ ״חָגָב״, יָכוֹל אֵין בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ. אֵין בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי? ״אַרְבֶּה״ וְ״חַרְגּוֹל״ כְּתִיב!
The Gemara analyzes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Master said: If its name must be ḥagav, one might have thought that any ḥagav is kosher, even if it does not have all these four signs. Therefore, the verse states: “After its kinds,” 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 ḥargol are written beforehand, indicating that all kosher grasshoppers must share the signs they both possess.
אִי לָא כְּתִיב ״סׇלְעָם״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״סׇלְעָם״ – לְרַבּוֹיֵי רֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ, אֵימָא לִירַבֵּי נָמֵי כֹּל דְּהוּ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara responds: If solam had not been written as well, it would be as you said. But now that it is written: “Solam,” 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 ḥagav. Therefore, the phrase “after its kinds” teaches us that this is not so.
מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״סׇלְעָם״ – זֶה ״רָשׁוֹן״, ״חַרְגֹּל״ – זֶה ״נִיפּוּל״, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״סׇלְעָם״ – זֶה ״נִיפּוּל״, ״חַרְגֹּל״ – זֶה ״רָשׁוֹן״? מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ.
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 ḥargol 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 ḥargol 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.
וּבַדָּגִים כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְעָתִיד לְגַדֵּל לְאַחַר זְמַן, כְּגוֹן הַסּוּלְתָּנִית וְהָעַפְיָאן – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר. יֵשׁ לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְעָתִיד לְהַשִּׁירָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹלֶה מִן הַמַּיִם, כְּגוֹן
§ 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
אֲקוּנָס וַאֲפוּנָס כְּסֶפַּתְיָאס וְאֶכְּסְפַּטְיָאס וַאֲטוּנָס – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר.
the akunas, and the afunas, and the kesaftiyas, and the akhsaftiyas, and the atunas, it is permitted.
תְּנַן הָתָם: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. יֵשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר – דָּג טָהוֹר, יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת – דָּג טָמֵא.
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.
מִכְּדֵי אַקַּשְׂקֶשֶׂת קָא סָמְכִינַן, לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב סְנַפִּיר! אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא כְּתַב סְנַפִּיר, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת? סְנַפִּיר, וַאֲפִילּוּ דָּג טָמֵא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת.
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 “scales” as the sign of a kosher fish and let Him not write “fins” 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: “Senappir and kaskeset,” to leave no room for error.
וְהַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת, מִמַּאי דְּקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת לְבוּשָׁא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״וְשִׁרְיוֹן קַשְׂקַשִּׂים הוּא לָבוּשׁ״, וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב סְנַפִּיר?
The Gemara asks: But now that the Merciful One has written: “Senappir and kaskeset,” from where is it derived that kaskeset denotes clothing, i.e., scales, rather than fins? As it is written: “And he was clad with a coat of scale armor [kaskasim]” (I Samuel 17:5). And if it is certain that kaskeset refers to scales, the question resurfaces: Let the Merciful One write only “kaskeset,” and let Him not write “senappir.”
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר״.
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: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). He consequently expanded some aspects of the Torah more than strictly necessary.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אֱכוֹל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי ״אַל תֹּאכַל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ״, וּמִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַל תֹּאכַל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי ״אֱכוֹל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ״. וְלָמָּה שְׁנָאָן? לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states the prohibition of non-kosher fish both positively and negatively: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales…them you may eat. And all that have not fins and scales…they are a detestable thing unto you” (Leviticus 11:9–10). 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.
״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוֹאִיל וְהִתִּיר בִּמְפוֹרָשׁ וְהִתִּיר בִּסְתָם, מָה כְּשֶׁהִתִּיר בִּמְפוֹרָשׁ לֹא הִתִּיר אֶלָּא בְּכֵלִים, אַף כְּשֶׁהִתִּיר בִּסְתָם לֹא הִתִּיר אֶלָּא בְּכֵלִים. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁשּׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״.
Given that the verse states: “Whatever has fins and scales…them may you eat,” what is the meaning when the verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters?” 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 bend down and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures in them? The verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters,” to indicate that this is permitted.
הֵיכָן הִתִּיר בְּכֵלִים? דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם וְגוֹ׳״, בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים הוּא דְּכִי אִית לֵיהּ – אֱכוֹל, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ – לָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ – אֱכוֹל.
The Gemara elaborates: Where did the Torah permit them in vessels? It did so in the following verse, as it is written: “These 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.” It would have been sufficient to write simply: “In the waters.” The addition of “in the seas and in the rivers” 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.
אֵימָא: בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם״ – בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים דְּלֵית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֱכוֹל.
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: “And 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.” 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.
וְאֵימָא: ״בַּמַּיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט – אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט; יַמִּים וּנְחָלִים – אִין, נְעִיצִין וַחֲרִיצִין – לֹא.
The Gemara objects: But one can prove whether it is permitted to drink from pits, ditches, and caves differently. Say instead that the phrase “whatever has fins and scales in the waters” is a generalization, and the phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” 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 “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” is unnecessary.
״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
The Gemara responds: This deduction is not sound. The term “in the waters” 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 “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” is necessary to teach that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
הָנֵי תְּרֵי כְּלָלֵי דִּסְמִיכִי לַהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, אָמַר רָבִינָא: כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִין זֶה לָזֶה –
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 “in the waters” 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,
Follow
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Hullin 18: Serration, Cartilage, and the Stringencies of Babylonia
05.18.2026 | ב׳ בסיון תשפ״ו
Hullin 15: Shechting and Cooking on Shabbat: A Decree against Temptation
05.15.2026 | כ״ח באייר תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment.
Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Chullin 66
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַב וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? בְּרֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַב סָבַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְּרָעַיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״אַרְבֶּה״ ״סׇלְעָם״ ״חַרְגֹּל״ ״חָגָב״ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט, דְּמִינֵיהּ – אִין, דְּלָאו (דמיניה) [מִינֵּיהּ] – לָא, וּמְרַבֵּי דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין.
The Gemara elaborates: The tanna of the study hall holds that the previous verse, permitting all species “which have jointed legs” (Leviticus 11:21), is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, ḥargol, and ḥagav, and the phrase “after its kinds,” 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 “after its kinds” 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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְרָעַיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״אַרְבֶּה״ ״סׇלְעָם״ ״חַרְגֹּל״ ״חָגָב״ – פָּרַט, ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט, וּמְרַבֵּי כֹּל דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ בְּחַד צַד.
By contrast, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds that the phrase “which have jointed legs” is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, ḥargol, and ḥagav are a detail. And by the phrase “after its kinds” 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.
וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי כְּלָלָא קַמָּא לִכְלָלָא בָּתְרָא? כְּלָלָא קַמָּא – ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְרָעַיִם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, דְּאִית לֵיהּ אֱכוֹל, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל. כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא – עַד דְּשָׁווּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין.
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: “Which have jointed legs,” 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: “After its kinds,” indicates that no grasshopper is kosher unless it shares all four signs with the named species.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא דָּאֵין, וּדְאָמְרִינַן נָמֵי בְּעָלְמָא דְּדָאֵין תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מֵהָכָא.
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.
אָמַר מָר: אִי שְׁמוֹ ״חָגָב״, יָכוֹל אֵין בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ. אֵין בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי? ״אַרְבֶּה״ וְ״חַרְגּוֹל״ כְּתִיב!
The Gemara analyzes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Master said: If its name must be ḥagav, one might have thought that any ḥagav is kosher, even if it does not have all these four signs. Therefore, the verse states: “After its kinds,” 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 ḥargol are written beforehand, indicating that all kosher grasshoppers must share the signs they both possess.
אִי לָא כְּתִיב ״סׇלְעָם״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״סׇלְעָם״ – לְרַבּוֹיֵי רֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ, אֵימָא לִירַבֵּי נָמֵי כֹּל דְּהוּ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara responds: If solam had not been written as well, it would be as you said. But now that it is written: “Solam,” 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 ḥagav. Therefore, the phrase “after its kinds” teaches us that this is not so.
מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״סׇלְעָם״ – זֶה ״רָשׁוֹן״, ״חַרְגֹּל״ – זֶה ״נִיפּוּל״, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״סׇלְעָם״ – זֶה ״נִיפּוּל״, ״חַרְגֹּל״ – זֶה ״רָשׁוֹן״? מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ.
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 ḥargol 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 ḥargol 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.
וּבַדָּגִים כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְעָתִיד לְגַדֵּל לְאַחַר זְמַן, כְּגוֹן הַסּוּלְתָּנִית וְהָעַפְיָאן – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר. יֵשׁ לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְעָתִיד לְהַשִּׁירָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹלֶה מִן הַמַּיִם, כְּגוֹן
§ 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
אֲקוּנָס וַאֲפוּנָס כְּסֶפַּתְיָאס וְאֶכְּסְפַּטְיָאס וַאֲטוּנָס – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר.
the akunas, and the afunas, and the kesaftiyas, and the akhsaftiyas, and the atunas, it is permitted.
תְּנַן הָתָם: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. יֵשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר – דָּג טָהוֹר, יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת – דָּג טָמֵא.
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.
מִכְּדֵי אַקַּשְׂקֶשֶׂת קָא סָמְכִינַן, לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב סְנַפִּיר! אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא כְּתַב סְנַפִּיר, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת? סְנַפִּיר, וַאֲפִילּוּ דָּג טָמֵא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת.
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 “scales” as the sign of a kosher fish and let Him not write “fins” 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: “Senappir and kaskeset,” to leave no room for error.
וְהַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת, מִמַּאי דְּקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת לְבוּשָׁא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״וְשִׁרְיוֹן קַשְׂקַשִּׂים הוּא לָבוּשׁ״, וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב סְנַפִּיר?
The Gemara asks: But now that the Merciful One has written: “Senappir and kaskeset,” from where is it derived that kaskeset denotes clothing, i.e., scales, rather than fins? As it is written: “And he was clad with a coat of scale armor [kaskasim]” (I Samuel 17:5). And if it is certain that kaskeset refers to scales, the question resurfaces: Let the Merciful One write only “kaskeset,” and let Him not write “senappir.”
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר״.
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: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). He consequently expanded some aspects of the Torah more than strictly necessary.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אֱכוֹל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי ״אַל תֹּאכַל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ״, וּמִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַל תֹּאכַל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי ״אֱכוֹל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ״. וְלָמָּה שְׁנָאָן? לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states the prohibition of non-kosher fish both positively and negatively: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales…them you may eat. And all that have not fins and scales…they are a detestable thing unto you” (Leviticus 11:9–10). 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.
״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוֹאִיל וְהִתִּיר בִּמְפוֹרָשׁ וְהִתִּיר בִּסְתָם, מָה כְּשֶׁהִתִּיר בִּמְפוֹרָשׁ לֹא הִתִּיר אֶלָּא בְּכֵלִים, אַף כְּשֶׁהִתִּיר בִּסְתָם לֹא הִתִּיר אֶלָּא בְּכֵלִים. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁשּׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״.
Given that the verse states: “Whatever has fins and scales…them may you eat,” what is the meaning when the verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters?” 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 bend down and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures in them? The verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters,” to indicate that this is permitted.
הֵיכָן הִתִּיר בְּכֵלִים? דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם וְגוֹ׳״, בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים הוּא דְּכִי אִית לֵיהּ – אֱכוֹל, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ – לָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ – אֱכוֹל.
The Gemara elaborates: Where did the Torah permit them in vessels? It did so in the following verse, as it is written: “These 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.” It would have been sufficient to write simply: “In the waters.” The addition of “in the seas and in the rivers” 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.
אֵימָא: בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם״ – בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים דְּלֵית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֱכוֹל.
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: “And 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.” 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.
וְאֵימָא: ״בַּמַּיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט – אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט; יַמִּים וּנְחָלִים – אִין, נְעִיצִין וַחֲרִיצִין – לֹא.
The Gemara objects: But one can prove whether it is permitted to drink from pits, ditches, and caves differently. Say instead that the phrase “whatever has fins and scales in the waters” is a generalization, and the phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” 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 “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” is unnecessary.
״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
The Gemara responds: This deduction is not sound. The term “in the waters” 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 “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” is necessary to teach that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
הָנֵי תְּרֵי כְּלָלֵי דִּסְמִיכִי לַהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, אָמַר רָבִינָא: כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִין זֶה לָזֶה –
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 “in the waters” 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,
Follow
