Chullin 65b — the Talmud in English

I have only

to learn [this concerning] the arbeh

but a locust that comes

before us

and

has no

forehead,

for we now derive it by means of a generalization, specification, and generalization. [As explained below:] It is written, “which has legs”—this is a generalization. “Arbeh”—this is a specification. “According to its kind”—the verse returned and generalized. And I learn by the measure of “generalization, specification, and generalization” every creature resembling the specification. That is, those locusts that have the four signs mentioned in the Mishna [four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and wings covering most of it], and the fifth sign—that they do not have a forehead !

But a locust

that comes

before us

and has a forehead,

which resembles the arbeh only in the four signs mentioned in the Mishna, whereas in the fifth sign it differs from it —

from where

do I expand to include it as well?

The verse states, “sal'am” —

this is the nippul

[and below it challenges this, for above we say that sal'am is this rishon]. And the sal'am has a forehead, and the verse declared it permitted.

“According to its kind” —

to include the ushkaf.

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

Generalization—“which has legs.” Specification—arbeh.

“According to its kind”—it returned and generalized. And from this I expand to include the ushkaf and the Jerusalem yuchna, which have a forehead.

And I have only

to include

the one that comes

before us

and has no forehead,

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

the one that comes

before us

and has a forehead

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

and the one that comes

before us

and has no tail.

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

But a locust

that comes

before us

and has a tail, from where

do we know that it too is pure, even though it does not have the fifth sign?

The verse

states, “chargol” —

this is rishon!

And the chargol has a tail, and the verse declared it permitted.

And since the Torah wrote after the chargol ,

“according to its kind,”

we expound: —

to include the karsafet and the shachlanit,

and the same law applies to the artzuvya mentioned above [and we expound them by means of a generalization, specification, and generalization, as we expounded above: “which has legs”—a generalization; chargol—a specification; “according to its kind”—it returned and generalized ].

And I have only

to include

the one that comes

before us

and

has

no forehead,

and likewise

the one that comes before us and has a forehead.

And likewise a locust

that comes

before us

and has no tail,

and

the one that comes

before us

and has a tail,

for all of them are included through what is written: “according to its kind,” “according to its kind,” “according to its kind.”

And

the one that comes

before us

and its head is not long.

For I include these locusts when their heads are not long, resembling the arbeh, sal'am, and chargol, none of whose heads are long, and resembling them in five signs.

But a locust

that comes

before us

and its head is long

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

from where

do we know that it too is pure?

You have said: Behold, you reason an av binyan from the three—

from the arbeh, sal'am, and chargol.

It is not seen,

it is not similar:

the arbeh

which has no forehead and has no tail,

to the appearance of the chargol,

which has a forehead and a tail.

Nor is the appearance of the chargol,

which has a forehead and a tail,

like the appearance of the arbeh,

which has no forehead and no tail.

Nor is the appearance of both,

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

like the appearance of the sal'am,

which has a forehead and has no tail.

Nor is the appearance of the sal'am,

which has a forehead and has no tail,

like the appearance of both,

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

And it is demonstrated that the purity of locusts depends neither on a tail nor on a forehead, for there are some among them that have a tail and a forehead, and there are some among them that have neither a tail nor a forehead, and all these species are pure. Therefore, by the inference of “what do we find,” we derive the other locusts from the locusts mentioned in the Torah.

The common feature among them,

among the locusts mentioned in the Torah,

which it has

the locust:

four legs, four wings, and jumping legs,

and its wings cover

the

majority of it,

and they are pure.

So too, every

locust

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

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 its wings cover most of it.”

Could it be permitted

since it has the four signs of purity?

The verse states “

“and the

locust

according to its kind.” And is not the word “locust” superfluous, since we include every locust that has the four signs of purity?

Rather, we expound:

that its name

shall be

“locust”!

And 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,” could

even

if it does not have

the

whole

of the four

signs הללו, also

be pure?

The verse states, “

and the locust

according to its kind,”

and we expound:

until it has all these signs.

And if one of the signs is lacking, it is not pure.

[And the word “locust” is the one that the beraita wrote above—these are all the generalizations, while the word “according to its kind” is the specifications that the beraita wrote. Both of them were written for an extra exposition ].

Rav Aḥai challenges: What is true of these

locusts mentioned in the Torah,

that their heads are not long.

And from where do you know to learn and include even locusts whose heads are long!?

And if you would say: Since they are equal

these locusts to the locusts written in the Torah

in four signs, we bring

them and declare them pure even though their heads are long,

and we do not challenge

“What is true of the common feature, that their heads are not long? Say so concerning other locusts whose heads are long”—because they resemble these locusts written in the Torah in part, we include them.

The tannaim disagreed concerning the exposition of the measure of generalization, specification, and generalization.

There is one who says that the first generalization is the principal one, and it is like a generalization and specification, where the generalization contains only what is 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 the principal one, and adds to the specification, and we include everything that resembles the specification, even something that resembles it only in part. The first generalization serves to expound it as resembling a generalization and specification, and to exclude something that does not completely resemble the specification. But everything that resembles the specification in part we include.

And the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael 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 long. Since they resemble it in part, it is not necessary that they resemble the specification completely.

If so,

that we include everything that resembles the specification in part,

the chargol also, since it is equal to them

to the arbeh and sal'am,

should not be written

in the Torah,

and let it come,

let us learn the chargol

from the arbeh and sal'am,

even though they have no tail, whereas the chargol has a tail [as we learned by the inference of “what is the common feature,” that even one whose head is long is pure, although it does not resemble the locusts mentioned in the Torah, whose heads are not long ]!?

And the Gemara continues:

Rather,

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

there is room to challenge: What is true of these,

the arbeh and sal'am,

that they have no tail,

whereas the chargol has a tail, and therefore we do not derive it from them.

If so,

here too there is room to challenge: What is true of these

locusts mentioned in the Torah,

that their heads are not long!

And you cannot learn from them concerning a locust whose head is long. And the difficulty returns to its place: from where do we include a locust whose head is long, which is also pure, since you cannot learn it by the inference of “what is the common feature” !?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Aḥai said: sal'am

mentioned in the Torah —

is superfluous.

[And the Torah wrote it to include a locust whose head is long ].

And the Gemara explains:

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

and let us learn it

from the arbeh and the chargol

by the common feature, for both the sal'am and the arbeh and chargol have the four signs of purity.

For what could you challenge,

what could you challenge the common feature:

What is true of the arbeh, that it has no forehead,

whereas in the case of the sal'am it has a forehead?

The chargol

will prove

that it has a forehead

and it is pure!

And if you challenge:

What is true of the chargol, that it has a tail,

whereas in the case of the sal'am it has no tail !?

The arbeh

will prove

that it has no tail

and it is pure!

And the judgment returns. The common feature among them is that they are alike in the four signs and their heads are not long. I too will bring the sal'am, which has the four signs and whose head is not long.

And if so,

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

Rather, we derive by the measure of “a matter that is not relevant to itself, assign it to another matter,” and we say:

if

the sal'am

is not relevant to itself

[for it is superfluous],

assign it

to include a locust

whose head is long.

And from the superfluity of the word sal'am we derive the inclusion of locusts whose heads are long.