מפת הסוגיא — חולין ס״הSugya map — Chullin 65

המשנה אמרה שחכמים מסרו סימן: כל עוף הדורס — טמא. ברייתא מפרטת: רבן גמליאל — הדורס ואוכל בידוע שטמא; ויש לו אצבע יתירה (אחורית), זפק, וקרקבן הנקלף ביד — בידוע שטהור. ר׳ אלעזר בר׳ צדוק: מותחים חוט והעוף עומד עליו — אם חולק רגליו שתיים מכאן ושתיים מכאן טמא, שלוש ואחת טהור. רשב״א: כל עוף הקולט מזונו מן האויר — טמא.

§ 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.

קושיא: הרי גם הציפרתא (עוף טהור) קולטת מזון מן האויר, ולשיטת רשב״א הייתה צריכה להיות טמאה! תירוץ אביי: רשב״א דיבר דווקא בעוף הקולט ואוכל באויר, אבל הציפרתא נוחתת קודם שאוכלת.

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.

סיום הברייתא: אחרים אומרים סימן נוסף — עוף השוכן (גר) עם עופות טמאים טמא, ועם טהורים טהור.

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.

כמאן ננקטה דעת ״אחרים״? כר׳ אליעזר, ששנינו: לא לחינם הלך הזרזיר אצל העורב אלא מפני שהוא מינו (ולכן הזרזיר טמא). דחייה: אפשר אפילו כרבנן (המכשירים את הזרזיר), שכן ״אחרים״ אמרו ״שכן ונדמה״ — טמא רק כשגם שוכן עמו וגם נדמה לו, והזרזיר אינו נדמה לעורב.

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.

המשנה: ״ובחגבים — כל שיש לו ארבע רגלים, ארבע כנפים, קרצולים, וכנפיו חופין את רובו״. הגמרא שואלת: מהו ״רובו״? רב יהודה בשם רב: רוב אורכו; ויש אומרים: רוב היקפו. רב פפא: לכן צריך גם רוב אורכו וגם רוב היקפו.

§ 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.

ברייתא: חגב שאין לו כנפים (או קרצולים) עכשיו אך עתיד לגדלן לאחר זמן, כגון הזחל — מותר. ר׳ אלעזר בר׳ יוסי לומד זאת מן הכתוב ״אשר לא כרעיים״ (נכתב באל״ף) — אף שאין לו כרעיים עתה אך עתיד לגדלן. מאי זחל? אביי: אסקרא.

The Sages taught in a baraita: A grasshopper that has no wings now but will grow them after a time, e.g., the zaḥal, is permitted. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: The verse states: “Yet 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” (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 zaḥal? Abaye said: It is called askarin in Aramaic.

ברייתא: הכתוב מונה ארבעה מיני חגבים טהורים — ארבה (גובאי), סלעם (רשון), חרגול (ניפול), חגב (נדיאן). מדוע נכתב ״למינו/למינהו״ ארבע פעמים? להביא (להוסיף) ארבעה מינים נוספים: ציפורת כרמים, יוחנא ירושלמית, ערצוביא, ורזבנית.

The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: “These of them you may eat: The arbeh after its kinds, and the solam after its kinds, and the ḥargol after its kinds, and the ḥagav after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:22). The arbeh is the insect known as the govai. The solam is the rashon. The ḥargol is the nippul. The ḥagav is the gadyan. Why must the verse state: “After its kinds,” “after its kinds,” “after its kinds,” and “after its kinds,” four times? It is to include four similar species: The vineyard bird, and the Jerusalem yoḥana, and the artzuveya, and the razbanit, which are also kosher.

בית מדרשו של ר׳ ישמעאל שנה דרך אחרת: הכתובים ״למינהו״ הם כללות, והמינים המפורשים הם פרטות. ״ארבה״ — זה גובאי (פרט), ״למינו״ — כלל הבא להביא (לרבות) —

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: These appearances of the phrase “after its kinds” 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 “after its kinds” is another generalization. According to Rabbi Yishmael’s hermeneutical principles, the second generalization serves to include a case similar to the detail. In this case, the phrase “after its kinds” serves to include

— את ציפורת כרמים, הדומה לארבה בכך שמצחו אינו חלק אלא יש בו שערות דקות.

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

אין לי אלא מין הבא ואין לו מצח חלק (גבחת), כמו ארבה. מנין שאף מין שיש לו מצח חלק כשר? ת״ל ״סלעם״ — זה ניפול (שמצחו חלק), ו״למינהו״ — כלל המרבה את האושכף, הדומה לסלעם במצחו החלק.

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: “Solam,” and this is the nippul, which has a smooth forehead. The phrase “after its kinds” 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.

עדיין אין לי אלא מין בלא מצח חלק, או עם מצח חלק, או בלא זנב. מנין שאף מין שיש לו זנב כשר? ת״ל ״חרגול״ — זה רשון (שיש לו זנב), ו״למינהו״ — להביא את הכרספת ואת השחלנית, שאף להן זנב.

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: “Ḥargol,” and this is the rashon, which has a tail. The phrase “after its kinds” that follows ḥargol is another generalization, and it serves to include the karsefet and the shaḥlanit, which also have tails.

ועדיין אין לי אלא המינים שאין ראשם ארוך. מנין שאף מין הבא וראשו ארוך כשר?

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?

תשובה: אתה דן בנין אב משלושת המינים — אין צד אחד דומה לחברו לגמרי, והצד השווה שבהם: ארבע רגלים, ארבע כנפים, קרצולים, וכנפיו חופין את רובו. אף כל מין שיש בו ארבעת הסימנים — כשר, אף שראשו ארוך.

You will say: You derive a paradigm from the three of them, as follows: The aspect [re’i] of the arbeh, which has neither smooth forehead nor tail, is not similar to the aspect of the ḥargol, which has both; and the aspect of the ḥargol 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.

ועדיין יש מקום לטעות: הרי גם הצרצור יש לו ארבעת הסימנים — יכול שאף הוא מותר? ת״ל ״חגב״ — דווקא מי ששמו חגב, ולא הצרצור.

One might ask: But doesn’t 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: “Ḥagav,” to indicate that its name must be ḥagav. This includes all of the species previously mentioned, but not the tzartzur.

ואם שמו חגב, יכול שכשר אף בלא כל הסימנים? ת״ל ״למינהו״ — אינו כשר עד שיהיו בו כל הסימנים הללו. כאן מסתיימת ברייתא דבי ר׳ ישמעאל.

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

רב אחאי פורך את בנין האב: מה לשלושת המינים שכן אין ראשם ארוך — אולי דווקא בכך כשרים? ואם תאמר: כיון ששווים בארבעת הסימנים מרבים ואין פורכים — אם כן, אף החרגול שווה להם, לא היה צריך הכתוב לכותבו, ויבוא בבנין אב מארבה וסלעם!

Rav Aḥai refutes the baraita: The four signs listed are not the sole common denominators between the arbeh, ḥargol, 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 ḥargol, which shares these four signs with the arbeh and the solam, and let it be derived that the ḥargol is kosher by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and solam.

אלא יש לפרוך: צריך הכתוב לכתוב חרגול, כי בלעדיו אפשר היה לפרוך — מה לארבה וסלעם שכן אין להם זנב? כיון שלחרגול יש זנב. וכך גם אפשר לפרוך על ראש ארוך: מה לשלושתם שכן אין ראשם ארוך?

Rather, it was necessary for the verse to write ḥargol 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 ḥargol 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, ḥargol, and solam? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher.

אלא אמר רב אחאי: סלעם מיותר — שהרי אפשר ללמדו בבנין אב מארבה ומחרגול, ואין מה לפרוך (מצח חלק יש בחרגול, זנב יש בארבה). ואם כן למה כתבה התורה ״סלעם״? אם אינו ענין לגופו — תנהו ענין לרבות חגב שראשו ארוך.

Rather, Rav Aḥai 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 ḥargol, 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 ḥargol, which has a smooth forehead. And if you say: What can be derived from the ḥargol, 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.

במה נחלקו תנא דבי רב (הברייתא הראשונה) ותנא דבי ר׳ ישמעאל? בחגב שראשו ארוך — לתנא דבי רב אסור, ולתנא דבי ר׳ ישמעאל מותר.

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.

תנא דבי רב סובר: ״אשר לו כרעיים״ — כלל, ושמות המינים עם ״למינהו״ — פרט. כלל ופרט — אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט: רק מין כיוצא בהם כשר, ושאינו ממינם פסול; ו״למינהו״ מרבה רק מה שדומה להם משני צדדים (ולכן ראש ארוך אסור).

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.

תנא דבי ר׳ ישמעאל סובר: ״אשר לו כרעיים״ — כלל, שמות המינים — פרט, ו״למינהו״ — חזר וכלל. כלל ופרט וכלל — אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט, ולכן מרבה כל הדומה להם אפילו בצד אחד (וכך ראש ארוך מותר).

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.

קושיא: והרי הכלל הראשון אינו דומה לכלל האחרון (תנאי לכלל ופרט וכלל)! הכלל הראשון ״אשר לו כרעיים״ — כל שיש לו כרעיים אכול, ואם אין לו לא תאכל. הכלל האחרון ״למינהו״ — עד שיהיו בו כל ארבעת הסימנים. שני כללים שונים בהיקפם.

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.

תירוץ: תנא דבי ר׳ ישמעאל דורש כללי ופרטי כי האי גוונא — אף כשהכללים אינם דומים זה לזה. ומה שאומרים בעלמא שתנא דבי ר׳ ישמעאל דורש כך — מקורו מכאן.

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.

הגמרא חוזרת לברייתא דבי ר׳ ישמעאל: אמר מר — אם שמו חגב, יכול שכשר אף בלא כל הסימנים? ת״ל ״למינהו״ — עד שיהיו בו כולם. ושואלת: מהיכן בכלל היה עולה שכשר בלא כל הסימנים? והרי ״ארבה״ ו״חרגול״ כתובים, ומהם למדים שצריך את כל הסימנים!

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.

תירוץ: אילו לא נכתב ״סלעם״ — הדין כדבריך (היו צריכים כל הסימנים מעצם הכתוב). אך עכשיו שנכתב ״סלעם״ לרבות ראש ארוך, היה עולה לרבות אף כל מין שהוא — לכן ״למינהו״ משמיענו שצריך כל הסימנים.

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.

קושיא אחרונה: מדוע בברייתא הראשונה ״סלעם זה רשון, חרגול זה ניפול״, ואילו בדבי ר׳ ישמעאל הפוך — ״סלעם זה ניפול, חרגול זה רשון״? תירוץ: כל חכם נקט כלשון מקומו — מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה.

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.