Chullin 66b — the Talmud in English

It now has

fins and scales

and is destined to shed them when it rises from the water, such as ![](pamud.bmp "

")

Akons and Apons, Kasפטias and Akhsפטias, and Atons [מיני דגים שזהו שמם בפרסית] -

names of fish in Persian] -

this one is permitted!

We learned there

in tractate Niddah [51]:

every

fish

that has scales -

it is known that

it has fins!

And there is a fish

that has fins but does not have scales.

If it has scales, and it has fins

it is

a pure fish. If it has fins but does not have scales

it is

an impure fish.

And we raised it:

since

after all

we rely upon scales

for the matter of the purity of fish [for you said that anyone who has scales has fins, whereas fins alone are not a sign of purity, since an impure fish can also have fins], if so,

let the Merciful One write scales, and not write fins,

and we would know that any fish that has scales is a pure fish. And why did the Torah write, “Every one that has fins and scales, et cetera, you shall eat them”!?

And we answer:

if the Merciful One had written scales

alone,

and had not written fins, I would have said: What is “scales”?

namely, the meaning of the word “scales” is

fins,

with which the fish swims upon the surface of the water,

and even an impure fish

would come to be declared permitted. That is, we would think that the fins with which the fish swims are the signs of purity of fish. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote fins and scales,

to inform us that one of the signs mentioned is scales [which are the garment of the fish]. And from this we know that a fish that has only fins is an impure fish.

And we challenge:

and now, since the Merciful One wrote fins and scales,

and the Mishna wrote that scales are those that are fixed upon it [namely, the garment of the fish],

from where

do we know for the tanna of the Mishna

that scales

are

the garment

of the fish

?

Rather, necessarily, from

that it is written

in the Book of Samuel [chapter 17], concerning Goliath,

“and he was clothed with a coat of mail of scales,”

and from this we learn that scales are a garment. And since it is obvious to us that scales are the garment of the fish, this is difficult:

let the Merciful One write scales

alone,

and not write fins,

since the principal sign of purity is scales [and what scales are, we already know]!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said, and likewise the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael:

the fact that the Torah wrote fins is in order to magnify the Torah and glorify it, as it is written:

“He will magnify the Torah and glorify it.”

For although we would not have confused scales with fins, nevertheless the Torah wrote both of them so that we would know what scales are and would not err concerning this.

It is written in the Torah, in the portion of Shemini, concerning the signs of fish:

“These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the streams, them you may eat.

And whatever does not have fins and scales in the seas and in the streams, of all that swarm in the water and of every living creature that is in the water, they are an abomination to you.

And they shall be an abomination to you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall make their carcasses an abomination.

Whatever does not have fins and scales in the water is an abomination to you.”

The Sages taught: From the implication of that which is stated

concerning fish

“Eat that which has

fins and scales,” and as the verse says, “Whatever has fins and scales in the water, them you may eat,” from this

I understand: Do not eat that which does not have

the signs of purity! And this is a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment, and its law is that of a positive commandment.

And from the implication of that which is stated, “Do not eat that which does not have

the signs of purity,” and as the verse says, “You shall not eat of their flesh,”

I understand -

eat that which has

the signs of purity!

And why did it repeat them?

Why did the Torah write the two verses, since from each of the two verses separately I could understand the prohibition against eating fish without the signs of purity!?

In order

to transgress it through a positive commandment [namely, a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment: “Them you may eat,” from which it follows that fish without fins and scales may not be eaten], and through

a prohibition, “You shall not eat of their flesh.”

a negative commandment,

“You shall not eat of their flesh.”

And the beraita continues: And this that the verse said at the beginning, “These

you may eat of all that are in the water,

whatever has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the streams,”

what does it come to teach?

Since the Torah wrote at the end of the verse, “Them you may eat,” from the end we know that fish that have the signs of purity are permitted.

And we answer:

I might have said

I would say:

since the verse permitted

the water swarm even when it does not have signs of purity, in two verses—in one verse Scripture said this

explicitly, and

in a second verse

permitted it without specification,

in an unspecified manner that is not explicit [and below we explain which verses these are].

I would say: Let the unspecified be learned from the explicit,

just as when

the verse

explicitly permitted, the verse did not permit

all water swarms without fins and scales

but

permitted only the abominations that grow in water

in vessels,

such as worms that grow in the water in vessels [and below we explain where we find that the Torah permitted them].

So too

when

the verse

permitted without specification [כדמפרשינן לקמן] [as we explain below],

only swarming creatures that grow

the verse did not permit

the verse

but

the swarms that grow

in vessels,

and not the swarms that grow in “ditches,” which are flowing waters that resemble seas and streams, nor the swarms that grow in pits that are not flowing, even though they do not resemble seas and streams.

From where [do we derive] to include

also swarms that grow in

pits, cisterns, and caves, where one bends down,

a person bends

and drinks from them

from these waters,

and does not refrain

from drinking from them together with the worms in them, since—

the verse says

at the beginning of the verse, “These

you may eat of all that are in the water.”

And thus the verse says: You may eat of all that is in the water, even things that do not have signs of purity. And this means specifically a water swarm in other places, which are not seas and streams; them you may eat. But what grows in seas and streams—only one that has fins and scales in the water, that one you may eat, and not those that do not have fins and scales! For those that grow in seas and streams require signs of purity.

But those that grow in pits, since these places do not resemble seas and streams, for their waters are not flowing waters, the Torah did not require signs of purity in them as it required them in seas and streams.

And we explain:

where

do we find that

the verse permitted

the swarms that grow

in vessels?

As it is written: “These you may eat of all that are in the water -

whatever has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the streams, them you may eat.” And we expound: Those that are found

in the seas and in the streams, it is

that I wrote to you

that when it has

fins and scales,

eat it,

you may eat them, and those

that do not have

fins and scales,

do not eat.

But

those fish and swarms that grow

in vessels, although they do not have

fins and scales -

eat!

You are permitted to eat them.

And we raised it: Since the verse speaks about the permissibility of eating the fish,

say

let us expound the verse as follows: In seas and streams, it is that you shall eat those that have fins and scales,

but

those that are found

in vessels -

even though they have

fins and scales,

you shall not eat?!

And we reject this:

It should not enter your mind

to expound it so.

For it is written

afterward in the verse,

“And whatever does not have fins and scales in the seas and in the streams, of all the swarms of the water,

they are an abomination to you. You shall not eat of their flesh.” And since this verse speaks of the prohibition against eating fish without signs of purity, it follows that the verse comes to exclude from the prohibition and to say: Only fish found

in the seas and in the streams that do not have

signs of purity, those

you shall not eat. But

fish and other water swarms found

in vessels, although they do not have

fins and scales,

eat!

They are permitted for consumption.

And since at the end, necessarily, the verse comes to exclude and say that fish found in vessels are permitted even when they do not have signs of purity, so too in the first verse, where it is written “in the seas and in the streams,” the verse also comes to say that specifically in streams and seas we require signs of purity, but in vessels, even those that do not have signs of purity are permitted. [והיינו שני הפסוקים, הסתום והמפורש, שהוזכרו לעיל, שהותרו בהם דגים הנמצאים בכלים בלי סימני טהרה]And these are the two verses, the unspecified and the explicit, mentioned above, through which fish found in vessels without signs of purity were permitted.

in the water,”

And we challenge:

but say,

let us expound the verse by the rule of a generalization and a specification.

For it is written first, “of all that

is in the water,”

this is

a generalization,

that for every water swarm we require signs of purity.

And afterward the verse said

“in the seas and in the streams,

them you may eat,” this is

a specification.

For only for them do we require signs of purity.

And we hold,

a generalization and a specification -

the generalization contains only what is in the specification!

And we do not include anything beyond the specification.

And let us say:

Seas and streams -

yes,

in them it is that we require fins and scales,

but pools,

like broad water lakes,

and ditches,

which are long and narrow, although they resemble seas and streams, since they too have flowing waters,

we do not

require signs of purity in them, and all the more so in pits we would not require them. And if so, we do not need the additional teaching of the verse “you may eat of all that is in the water” to include pits for permissibility, since from the teaching of a generalization and a specification we would know to permit them!?

And we answer: This is not a generalization and a specification; rather, it is a generalization, a specification, and a generalization! For

“in the water” returned and generalized.

For the Torah wrote “in the water” twice [“These you may eat of all that is in the water,” “whatever has fins and scales in the water”].

And we challenge: But

these [מים] [water],

Ravina said: As they say in the West,

are two generalizations adjacent to one another!

For the two generalizations [“water”] are written one next to the other, and only after the two generalizations is the specification “in the seas and in the streams” written. And from where do we also derive that in such a case, where the specification is not stated between the two generalizations but after the two generalizations, we likewise learn it by the rule of “a generalization, a specification, and a generalization”?

And we answer:

Ravina said: As they say in the West,

in the Land of Israel:

Every place where you find two adjacent generalizations

that are written next to each other

one next to the other,