Chullin 66a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Over what do the tanna of the school of Rav

[the preceding beraita, which was taught in the Sifra of the school of Rav and is called the Sifra of the school of Rav because it was familiar in the beit-midrash], which holds that all four locusts mentioned in the Torah are needed for themselves

and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael,

who holds that selaam comes to include one whose head is long, while “locust” comes to exclude tzartzor, for it is an impure locust

—over a locust whose

head is long, they disagree!

The tanna of the school of Rav holds:

that what is written

“which has legs”

is

a generalization. “Arbeh, selaam, hargol, locust according to its kinds,” is a specification.

And he does not hold that “according to its kinds,” which is written concerning each one of the locusts, is a generalization.

And therefore he does not expound it by the rule of a generalization, specification, and generalization! For since in the first generalization he was particular only about legs, whereas “according to its kinds,” written beside each one, comes to be particular to include specifically locusts resembling the locusts mentioned in the Torah in all four signs, therefore, since the two generalizations—the first and the second—are not similar, they are not judged by the rule of a generalization, specification, and generalization.

And therefore the tanna of the school of Rav expounds by the rule of

a generalization and a specification—

that

the generalization contains only what is in the specification!

Accordingly,

that which is of its kind,

something that is truly its kind,

yes,

only that do we include; but something

that is not of its kind, no,

we do not include it.

And he includes

only a locust

that resembles it on two sides,

which does not have a long head and possesses the four signs.

But

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael holds:

that what is written

“which has legs”

is

a generalization. “Arbeh, selaam, hargol, locust”—

a specification. “According to its kinds,” returned and generalized.

And we expound it by the rule of a generalization, specification, and generalization:

With a generalization, specification, and generalization, you judge only according to what resembles the specification. And he includes everything that resembles it in one respect,

in that it possesses the four signs. And therefore we learn selaam from arbeh and hargol, which possess the four signs. And the word selaam is superfluous, and from it we learn to include locusts whose heads are long.

And we challenge: How does the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael learn the verses by the rule of a generalization, specification, and generalization?

But the first generalization is not similar to the last generalization.

The first generalization: “which has legs,” the Merciful One said.

And therefore only a locust

that has

legs is

eaten.

Whereas a locust

that does not have

legs,

you may not eat.

And by contrast,

the last generalization,

which is “according to its kinds,” comes to teach us: you may not eat

until it is equal in the four signs!

And the last generalization is not at all similar to the first, and therefore it is impossible here to expound by the rule of a generalization, specification, and generalization.

And we answer:

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael,

even

with generalizations and specifications such as this

where the generalizations are not equal and are not similar to one another,

does

he expound. That is to say, he expounds and derives them by the rule of a generalization, specification, and generalization.

And when we likewise say elsewhere that the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael expounds with generalizations and specifications such as this,

and what we always say is that the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael expounds a generalization, specification, and generalization even if the last generalization is not similar to the first—

from here

we learn it! For here we find that the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael derives a generalization, specification, and generalization even in such a case.

The Master said: If it is called a locust, one might have thought that even if it does not have all

four

of these signs

it would also be fit?

The verse teaches: “according to its kinds,” until it has all

four

of these signs.

And we examine it: If it

does not have all

four

of these signs—

from where would you derive

that this locust would be pure!? For

“arbeh” and “hargol” are written

in the Torah, and they possess the four signs; and from where would you derive to include locusts that do not resemble them?

And we answer:

If not

there

were written

in the Torah

“selaam,”

we would say

as you say,

that it is impossible to include a locust that does not possess the four signs.

But

now that “selaam” is written,

and we expound from it

to include

a locust

whose head is long,

even though it does not resemble the other locusts mentioned in the verse,

let us say that we should also include anything at all,

every locust, even one that resembles the other locusts only in one sign. For we have seen from “selaam” that we do not require the locust that we include to resemble the locusts written in the Torah in all its aspects.

It teaches us: “according to its kinds”—until it has all four of these signs!

And we challenge:

And we answer:

What is different there,

in the beraita of the tanna of the school of Rav [on folio 65a],

where you said, “This selaam is a rishon, and this hargol is a nippul”; and what is different here,

in the beraita of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael [on folio 65b],

where you said, “This selaam is a nippul, and this hargol is a rishon”!?

And we answer:

One according to his place, and the other according to his place. The “rishon” of the tanna of the school of Rav is the same one that is called “nippul” by the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael. And that locust which is called “rishon” by the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael is called “nippul” by the tanna of the school of Rav. And according to both this one and that one, selaam has no tail, whereas hargol has a tail.

We learned in the Mishna:

And with fish—

anything that has a fin and a scale.

The Sages taught: If it does not have now

a fin and a scale

but is destined to grow them after some time, such as the soletanit and the afiyan,

which are a species of small fish,

it is permitted.