Chullin 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

It presently has

fins and scales

but is destined to shed them when it emerges from the water, such as

akonas, aponas, kasפטias, akhsפטias, and atonas

the names of species of fish in Persian] —

this fish 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 fins,

it is

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

it is

a non-kosher fish.

And we raised a difficulty:

Granted,

we

rely on the scales

with regard to the kosher status of fish [as, since you said that any fish with scales has fins, while fins alone are not a sign of kosher status, since a non-kosher fish can also have fins]; if so,

let the Merciful One write scales and not write fins,

and we would know that any fish with scales is a kosher fish. And why did the Torah write: “Anything that has fins and scales, etc., you may eat”?

And we answer:

If the Merciful One had written scales

alone

and had not written fins, I would have said: What is the meaning of scales?

That the word “scales” means

fins,

with which the fish swims on the surface of the water;

even a non-kosher fish

would then be rendered fit for consumption. That is, we would think that the fins with which the fish swims are the signs of kosher fish. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote fins and scales,

to teach us that one of the signs mentioned is scales [which are the fish’s covering]. From this we know that a fish that has only fins is a non-kosher fish.

And we challenge this:

And now, once the Merciful One has written fins and scales,

and the Mishna has stated that scales are those attached to it [that is, the fish’s covering],

from where

do we know that the tanna of the Mishna understood

scales

to mean

the covering

of the fish

?

It must be from the fact that

it is written

in the book of Samuel [chapter 17], concerning Goliath: “

And he wore a coat of scale armor as clothing,”

and from this we learn that scales are a covering. And since it is obvious to us that scales are the fish’s covering, the difficulty arises:

Let the Merciful One write scales

alone

and not write fins,

since the principal sign of kosher status is scales [and as for what scales are, we already know]!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said, and so the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

The reason the Torah wrote fins is to magnify and glorify the Torah, as it is written, “

The Torah will be magnified and glorified.”

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

It is written in the Torah, in Parashat Shemini, concerning the signs of fish: “This you may eat from everything that is in the water: anything that has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the streams, those you may eat.

“And anything that does not have fins and scales, in the seas and in the streams, of every swarming creature 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.

“Anything that does not have fins and scales in the water, it is an abomination to you.”

The Sages taught: From the implication of what is stated

in the case of fish,

eat that which has fins and scales, as the verse says, “Anything that has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the streams, those you may eat,” it follows that

I might understand: Do not eat that which does not have

the signs of kosher status! And this is a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment, whose legal status is that of a positive commandment.

And from the implication of what is stated, ‘Do not eat that which does not have’

the signs of kosher status, as the verse says, “You shall not eat of their flesh,”

I might understand —

eat that which has

the signs of kosher status!

And why did it repeat this?

Why did the Torah write both verses, since from each of the two verses alone I could have understood that it is prohibited to eat fish without the signs of kosher status

!?

In order

to violate it with a positive commandment

that is, with a prohibition inferred from the positive commandment “those you may eat,” implying that one may not eat a fish that has no fins and scales, and

with a

negative commandment,

“You shall not eat of their flesh.”

And the beraita continues: This is what the verse stated at the beginning: “This

you may eat from everything that is in the water,

anything that has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the streams.”

What does this teach?

Since the Torah wrote at the end of the verse, “those you may eat,” we already know from the end of the verse that fish possessing the signs of kosher status are permitted.

And we answer:

It could have been thought

that I would say:

Since the verse permitted

the swarming creatures of the water even when they lack the signs of kosher status, in two verses—the verse stated this

explicitly, and

in a second verse

permitted them without qualification,

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

I might say: Let the obscure passage be derived from the explicit one:

Just as, when it permitted

the matter

explicitly, the verse did not permit

all swarming creatures of the water without fins and scales,

but

permitted only those abominations that grow in water

in vessels,

such as worms that grow in water contained in vessels [and below we will explain where the Torah permitted them];

so too,

when it permitted

the matter

without qualification [as will be explained below],

the verse did not permit

the creatures

but

only those that grow

in vessels,

and not those that grow in “ditches,” which contain flowing water and resemble seas and streams, nor those that grow in cisterns that do not contain flowing water, even though they do not resemble seas and streams.

From where do we include

also creatures that grow in

cisterns, pits, and caves, from which a person bends down

and drinks

these

waters,

and does not refrain

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

But creatures that grow in wells, which do not resemble seas and streams because their water is not flowing, do not require signs of purity according to the Torah, just as signs of purity are required in seas and streams.

the verse states

at the beginning of the verse, “This

you may eat from everything that is in the water.”

And this is what the verse is saying: You may eat everything that is in the water, even things that do not have the signs of kosher status. That is, specifically the swarming creatures of the water found in other places, which are not seas and streams—you may eat those. But as for what grows in seas and streams, only that which has fins and scales in the water may you eat, and not those that have no fins and scales. Those that grow in seas and streams require the signs of kosher status.

But with regard to those that grow in cisterns, since these places do not resemble seas and streams, as their waters are not flowing, the Torah did not require signs of kosher status in them as it required them in seas and streams.

And we explain:

Where

do we find that

the verse permitted

creatures that grow

in vessels?

As it is written: ‘This you may eat from everything that is in the water —

anything that has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the streams, those you may eat.’ And we interpret it: Those found

in the seas and in the streams are

the ones concerning whom I wrote to you

that when it has

fins and scales,

eat it;

you may eat them, whereas those

that do not have

fins and scales,

you may not eat.

But

those fish and creatures that grow

in vessels, even though they do not have

fins and scales—

eat them!

You are permitted to eat them.

And we raise a difficulty: Since the verse is discussing permission to eat fish,

say

that we should expound the verse as follows: In seas and streams, you may eat those that have fins and scales;

but

those found

in vessels —

even though they have

fins and scales,

you may not eat them?!

And we reject this:

It does not enter your mind

to expound it in this manner,

as it is written

afterward in the verse: “

And anything that does not have fins and scales in the seas and in the streams, of every swarming creature in the water,”

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

in the seas and in the streams that do not have

the signs of kosher status—those

you may not eat. But

fish and other swarming creatures of the water found

in vessels, even though they do not have

fins and scales,

eat them!

They are permitted for consumption.

And since, at the end of the passage, the verse must exclude cases and state that fish found in vessels are permitted even when they lack the signs of kosher status, it follows that 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 signs of kosher status are required, but in vessels even those without the signs of kosher status are permitted.

in the water,”

And we challenge this:

But say

that we should expound the verse according to the hermeneutical principle of a generalization followed by a specification.

For it is written at first, “from everything that is

in the water,”

which is

a generalization,

stating that signs of kosher status are required for every swarming creature of the water.

And afterward the verse states

“

in the seas and in the streams,

those you may eat,” which is

a specification,

indicating that signs of kosher status are required only for those.

And it is established that

a generalization followed by a specification —

the generalization includes only what is stated in the specification!

And nothing beyond the specification is included.

And let us say:

Seas and streams —

yes,

in them fins and scales are required,

but ponds

and ditches,

which are long or short, although they resemble seas and streams, since they too contain flowing water,

no,

signs of kosher status are not required in them, and certainly they are not required in cisterns. If so, we do not need the verse’s inclusion, “you may eat everything that is in the water,” to include cisterns as permitted, since we would know from the generalization and specification that they are permitted!?

And we answer: This is not a generalization followed by a specification, but a generalization, specification, and generalization, because

‘in the water’ returns and generalizes.

For the Torah wrote “in the water” twice [“This you may eat from everything that is in the water”; “anything that has fins and scales in the water”].

And we challenge this: But are

these

“waters”

two adjacent generalizations!

For the two generalizations [“water”] are written one immediately after the other, and only after the two generalizations is the specification “in the seas and in the streams” written. From where do we derive that even in such a case, where the specification is not stated between the two generalizations but after both generalizations, we likewise expound it according to the principle of “a generalization, specification, and generalization”?

And we answer:

Ravina said: As they say in the West,

in Eretz Yisrael:

Whenever you find two adjacent generalizations

written in proximity

to one another,