The gemara compares the two braitot regarding signs of kosher locusts. Then the discussion moves to signs of kosher fish.
Chullin 66
02.01.2019 | כ״ו בשבט תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
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 
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 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
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, 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
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
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 started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
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
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
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 no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, 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
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, 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
