Chullin 65b (סה:) — the Talmud in English

I have only

to derive the ruling concerning the arbeh

but a locust that comes

before us

and

has no

forehead crest,

for now we derive it through the hermeneutical principle of a generalization, specification, and generalization. [As explained below:] It is written: “that has jumping legs”—this is a generalization. “Arbeh”—this is a specification. “according to its kinds”—the verse again generalizes. And through the principle of “generalization, specification, and generalization,” I derive everything that resembles the specification. This refers to those locusts that possess the four signs mentioned in the Mishna [four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and wings that cover most of its body], as well as the fifth sign—that they do not have a forehead crest!

But a locust

that comes

before us

and has a forehead crest,

that resembles the arbeh only in the four signs mentioned in the Mishna, while with regard to the fifth sign it differs from it—

from where

do I derive that I include it as well?

The verse states: “sal'am”—

this is the nippul

[And below the Gemara challenges this, since earlier it was stated that sal'am is the rishon.] The sal'am has a forehead crest, and the verse declares it permitted.

“According to its kinds”—

to include the ushkaf.

After the sal'am, the Torah wrote “according to its kinds,” so that we should derive from the verse by means of a generalization, specification, and generalization:

Generalization: “that has jumping legs.” Specification: “arbeh.”

“According to its kinds”—the verse again generalizes. From this I include the ushkaf and the Jerusalem yuhana, which have a forehead crest.

I have only

to include

one that comes

before us

and has no forehead crest,

for we include it from “according to its kinds” written concerning the arbeh. And similarly I include

one that comes

before us

and has a forehead crest,

for we include it from “according to its kinds” written concerning the sal'am,

and one that comes

before us

and has no tail.

And I include these locusts [both those that have a forehead crest and those that do not have a forehead crest] when they have no tail, as they resemble the arbeh and sal'am, which have no tail, and they resemble them in five signs [the four signs written in the Mishna, and this sign—that they have no tail].

But a locust

that comes

before us

and has a tail—from where

do I know that it too is pure, even though it lacks the fifth sign?

The verse

states: “chargol”—

this is the rishon!

The chargol has a tail, and the verse declares it permitted.

And since the Torah wrote after the chargol

“according to its kinds,”

we expound it:

to include the karsafet and the shachlanit,

and the same applies to the artzuvya mentioned above [and we expound these through a generalization, specification, and generalization, as we expounded above: “that has jumping legs”—a generalization; chargol—a specification; “according to its kinds”—the verse again generalizes].

I have only

to include

one that comes

before us

and

has no

forehead crest,

and likewise

one that comes before us and has a forehead crest.

And likewise a locust

that comes

before us

and has no tail,

and

one that comes

before us

and has a tail,

for all of them are included by the words “according to its kind,” “according to its kinds,” and “according to its kinds.”

And

one that comes

before us

and does not have an elongated head.

I include these locusts when their heads are not elongated, since they resemble the arbeh, sal'am, and chargol, none of which has an elongated head, and they resemble them in five signs.

But a locust

that comes

before us

and has an elongated head

[and has the four signs mentioned in the Mishna],

from where

do I know that it too is pure?

You can derive it by means of a foundational inference from the three:

From the arbeh, sal'am, and chargol.

The case of the arbeh is not conclusive,

it is not comparable to the

arbeh

which has neither a forehead crest nor a tail,

as compared with the chargol,

which has a forehead crest and a tail.

Nor is the case of the chargol conclusive,

which has a forehead crest and a tail,

as compared with the arbeh,

which has neither a forehead crest nor a tail.

Nor are the cases of both conclusive,

the arbeh and the chargol: the arbeh has no forehead crest, while the chargol has a tail.

As compared with the sal'am,

which has a forehead crest but no tail.

Nor is the case of the sal'am conclusive,

which has a forehead crest but no tail,

as compared with the cases of both,

for the arbeh has no forehead crest, while the chargol has a tail.

And it is proven that the purity of locusts is dependent neither on a tail nor on a forehead crest, for some of them have both a tail and a forehead crest, while others have neither a tail nor a forehead crest; and all these species are pure. Therefore, through the inference of “what is found in one case,” we derive the status of the other locusts from the locusts mentioned in the Torah.

The common denominator among them,

among the locusts mentioned in the Torah,

is that it has

the locust

four legs, four wings, and jumping legs,

and its wings cover

its

majority,

and they are pure.

Likewise, every

locust

that has four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and wings that cover most of its body—

it is pure.

And the beraita continues:

“But this tzartzur

[which is a species of impure locust]

has four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and wings that cover most of its body.”

One might have thought that it would be permitted

because it has the four signs of purity.

The verse states: “

and the

locust

according to its kinds.” Now, the word “locust” is superfluous, since we include every locust that has the four signs of purity.

Rather, we expound it:

its name

shall be

“locust”!

All those mentioned in the Torah are called by the name “locust,” whereas the tzartzur is not called by the name “locust.”

If its name is “locust,” one might have thought

even

if it does not have

the

entire

four

set of these signs, as well,

it should be pure.

The verse states: “

and the locust

according to its kinds,”

and we expound it:

until it possesses all these signs.

If one of the signs is lacking, it is not pure.

[And the word “locust” is the word that the beraita mentioned above as the generalization encompassing all generalizations, while the word “according to its kinds” is the specification encompassing all specifications that the beraita mentioned. Both were written for an extra exposition.]

Rav Aḥai challenges: What is distinctive about these

locusts mentioned in the Torah?

Their heads are not elongated.

From where do you derive that even locusts whose heads are elongated may be learned from them and included?

And if you would say: Since these

locusts are similar to the locusts written in the Torah

in four signs, we bring

them within the category of permitted locusts and declare them pure even though their heads are elongated,

and we do not challenge

that the common denominator has non-elongated heads—whereas with regard to other locusts, whose heads are elongated, this distinction should apply; nevertheless, since they resemble those locusts written in the Torah in some respects, we include them.

The tannaim disagreed concerning the method of deriving laws through a generalization, specification, and generalization.

There is one who says that the first generalization is primary, and this is akin to a generalization and specification, where the generalization includes only what is stated in the specification; and the final generalization includes only something that resembles the specification in all its aspects.

And there is one who says that the final generalization is primary: it adds to the specification, and we include everything that resembles the specification, even if it resembles it only in some respects. The first generalization serves to expound it as akin to a generalization and specification, and to exclude something that does not entirely resemble the specification. But anything that resembles the specification in some respect is included.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the one who says that we follow the final generalization. Therefore, it is possible to include even locusts whose heads are elongated. Since they resemble the specification in some respect, it is not necessary that they resemble it completely.

If so,

since we include anything that resembles the specification in some respect,

the chargol also, since it is similar to them

the arbeh and sal'am,

need not be written

in the Torah;

and it should come,

we should derive the chargol

from the arbeh and sal'am,

even though they have no tail, whereas the chargol has a tail [as we learned through the inference of the common denominator, that even one whose head is elongated is pure, despite the fact that it does not resemble the locusts mentioned in the Torah, whose heads are not elongated]!?

And the Gemara continues:

Rather,

for what reason do we not derive the chargol from the arbeh and sal'am?

Because one can challenge: What is distinctive about these,

the arbeh and sal'am,

that they have no tail,

whereas the chargol has a tail; therefore, we do not derive its status from them.

If so,

here too one can challenge: What is distinctive about these

locusts mentioned in the Torah,

that their heads are not elongated!

And you cannot derive from them the status of a locust whose head is elongated. The original difficulty thus returns: From where do we include a locust whose head is elongated, so that it too is pure, since you cannot derive it through the common denominator!?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Aḥai said: The sal'am

mentioned in the Torah

is superfluous.

[The Torah wrote it in order to include a locust whose head is elongated.]

And the Gemara explains:

The Merciful One need not have written the sal'am, and it should come,

and we should derive it

from the arbeh and chargol

through the common denominator, since the sal'am, like the arbeh and chargol, has the four signs of purity.

For what could you challenge,

what could you challenge the common denominator with?

The arbeh has no forehead crest;

would you say the same of the sal'am, which has a forehead crest?

The chargol

will

prove

that a locust can have a forehead crest and still be pure!

And if you would challenge:

The chargol has a tail;

would you say the same of the sal'am, which has no tail!?

The arbeh

will

prove

that a locust can have no tail and still be pure!

The argument has returned to its starting point. The common denominator among them is that they share the four signs and that their heads are not elongated. I, too, will include the sal'am, which has the four signs and whose head is not elongated.

And if so,

why do I need the sal'am that the Merciful One wrote?

Rather, we derive it through the principle: “If a matter does not pertain to itself, apply it to another matter,” and we say:

if

the sal'am

does not pertain to itself

[because it is superfluous],

apply it

to include a locust

whose head is elongated.

From the superfluity of the word sal'am, we derive the inclusion of locusts whose heads are elongated.