Chullin 67a — the Talmud in English

Remove

the

intervening specific term, and interpret them

according to the principle of

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization.

Therefore, here we interpret the verse, “Everything that is

in the water

as a

generalization. “In the seas and in the rivers”

is a

specification. “

Fins and scales

in the water,” the

verse

returns to a generalization.

There is therefore here a generalization, a specification, and a generalization.

In the case of a generalization, a specification, and a generalization, one derives

and includes

only

a matter that is

similar to the specification.

Just as the specification,

the seas and rivers,

explicitly indicates

that they are

flowing waters, so too we include all flowing waters

within the scope of the law.

And we explain:

What does he include?

What matter similar to the specification do we include?

Channels and ditches, for prohibition!

Since the channels and ditches are flowing waters, similar to seas and rivers, we include them for prohibition, meaning that the fish growing in them must have fins and scales.

And what does he exclude,

what matter is excluded by the specification because it is not similar to it [for every specification serves to exclude something]?

Pits, cisterns, and caves —

for permission!

Since pits, cisterns, and caves are not flowing, they are not similar to seas and rivers. The fish in them therefore do not need to have fins and scales.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps

we should interpret the generalization, specification, and generalization differently:

Just as the specification,

the seas and rivers,

explicitly indicates

that they are

waters that grow

and are found

upon the ground, so too all waters

similar to the specification, which are

upon the ground.

And what does he include,

what do we include as similar to the specification?

Even pits, cisterns, and caves, for prohibition.

The fish in them likewise require fins and scales in order to be permitted.

And what does he exclude

as not similar to the specification?

He excludes vessels,

in which fins and scales are not required, since vessels are not at all similar to seas and rivers.

And we answer:

If so,

if we exclude only vessels, in which fins and scales are not required, what purpose does the inclusion that we learn from the verse

you may eat

from everything that is in the water”]] —

serve?!

After all, even without this inclusion we would know that fish in vessels are permitted without fins and scales.

Rather, certainly the inclusion conveyed by “you may eat” comes to permit the fish in pits, cisterns, and caves, where fins and scales are not required. Only the fish in channels and ditches, which resemble seas and rivers in two respects [they are upon the ground and are also flowing], require fins and scales.

Among the interpretive principles used to derive laws from the Torah, there is one called “a generalization, a specification, and a generalization,” and there is another principle called “an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion

”. The basis of the principle of a generalization, a specification, and a generalization is that the specification explains the generalization, and the generalization includes only what is stated in the specification. Thus, if there were only a generalization and a specification, we would not include even something similar to the specification. But if a second generalization follows the specification, the second generalization serves to include something similar to the specification.

The basis of the principle of an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion is that if there were only an inclusion and an exclusion, the exclusion would not explain the inclusion. Rather, it would teach us not to include everything, but only matters similar to the exclusion. But if a second inclusion follows it, that second inclusion, coming after the exclusion, teaches us to include everything. The exclusion serves only to exclude something entirely unlike the exclusion.

A tan­nnait of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

The verse, “From everything that is in the water, everything that has fins and scales in the water,” in which the words

“in the water” appear twice

next to one another,

is not

the verse

here

interpreted according to the principle of

a generalization and a specification

when the specification “in the seas and in the rivers” is placed between them.

Rather,

this verse

contains an inclusion and an exclusion,

and is interpreted according to the principle of an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion. “

From everything that is

in the water”—it includes.

“In the seas and in the rivers”—it excludes. “

That has fins and scales

in the water

—this

returns and includes.

And we have an established principle:

an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion —

includes everything!

What does it include?

What do we include by virtue of the inclusion?

Channels and ditches —

for prohibition.

Fins and scales are required in them, since we include everything. [This is the principle of an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion.]

And what does it exclude

by means of the exclusion “seas and rivers”?

Pits, cisterns, and caves —

for permission!

Fins and scales are not required in them.

And we challenge this: From where do you know to exclude pits, cisterns, and caves for permission?

Perhaps, what does the inclusion include? —

Pits, cisterns, and caves for prohibition,

so that fins and scales are also required in them.

And what does it exclude

by means of the exclusion “seas and rivers”? —

It excludes vessels,

in which fins and scales are not required.

And we answer: If you say that fins and scales are not required only in vessels,

if so,

the verse, “This

you may eat

from everything that is in the water,”

what purpose does it serve?

After all, even without it we would know that fins and scales are not required in vessels. Rather, from the word “you may eat” we derive the exclusion of pits, cisterns, and caves, where fins and scales are not required. Only in channels and ditches are fins and scales required.

And we challenge this: Since you did not interpret the verse according to the principle of a generalization, a specification, and a generalization [which includes matters similar to the specification], but according to the principle of an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion, then

let us reverse it,

and say that “you may eat from everything that is in the water” comes to permit channels and ditches, where fins and scales are not required, while the inclusion comes to include pits for prohibition, so that fins and scales are also required in them.

And we answer: It is not possible to say this,

as Matitya taught!

For Matitya bar Yehuda taught: What have you seen that leads you to include pits, cisterns, and caves for permission,

so that fins and scales are not required in them,

and to exclude channels and ditches for prohibition,

so that fins and scales are required in them?

I include pits, cisterns, and caves

for permission, because

they are enclosed,

for they have no outlet or entrance like vessels, and they are not similar to seas and rivers, which flow.

And I exclude channels and ditches, which are not

as

enclosed like vessels

but flow like seas and rivers. Therefore, fins and scales are required in them, just as they are required in seas and rivers.

We learned earlier in a beraita: Since the verse explicitly permits and permits without qualification. This implies that there is one explicit verse in the Torah permitting fish in vessels, and another non-explicit verse permitting fish without signs of purity in vessels.

And we explain:

Which

verse is

non-explicit? And which

verse is

explicit?

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about this:

One said: “Everything that has fins and scales in the water,” which speaks of what

has

has fins and scales, is the

explicit

explicit verse.

And

And the verse “And everything that does not have fins and scales,” which speaks of what

does not have

fins and scales, is the

non-explicit verse.

And one said: The verse that speaks of what

does

does not

have fins and scales is the

explicit verse.

And the verse that speaks of what

has

fins and scales is the

non-explicit verse.

And we explain:

What is the reasoning of the one who says

that the verse speaking of what

has

fins and scales is the

explicit verse?

He could say to you: From it,

from this verse,

it is

that we know

that vessels are permitted.

For it is written: “Everything that has fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, you shall eat,” and we interpret it: “You shall eat them,” but not those that do not have fins and scales!

This exclusion applies to those found in seas and rivers. But those found in vessels are permitted even if they do not have fins and scales. By contrast, the verse “Everything that does not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers,” which we interpret to mean that in seas and rivers you may not eat them, and that in vessels you may eat them, is not an explicit permission. For the continuation of the verse is: “And every living creature that is in the water, they are an abomination to you; they shall be an abomination to you; from their flesh you shall not eat.” The meaning of the verse is that everywhere the Torah warned against eating fish that do not have fins and scales. It is only through interpretation according to a generalization, a specification, and a generalization that we permit fish in vessels even without fins and scales. Therefore, this is not an explicit verse.

What is the reasoning of the one who says

that the verse speaking

of what does not have them

is

the explicit verse?

For this verse,

is what clarifies the other one!

This verse, which speaks of what does not have fins and scales, reveals regarding the verse that speaks of what has fins and scales that fish found in vessels are permitted even without fins and scales.

For if it were only from the other

verse, which speaks of what has fins and scales,

I might have said that in vessels, even though it has

fins and scales,

you may not eat it either.

For we would have interpreted it as follows: “And in the rivers—you shall eat them”; therefore, in vessels, you may not eat even those fish. The verse that speaks of what does not have fins and scales is what reveals to us regarding the verse that speaks of what has fins and scales that fish found in vessels are permitted even if they do not have fins and scales. Therefore, it is called an explicit verse.

Rav Huna said: A person should not pour

and strain date beer in which worms are found

through small wooden sticks,

which serve as a strainer,

at night,

at night.

Perhaps the worm will separate

perhaps the worm will separate

above the sticks,

above the sticks,

and then

afterward

fall into the cup,

fall into the cup. Because of the darkness, he will not see that it fell into the cup from the sticks, and he will think that it is a water worm that was already in the cup [which is permitted to eat, as stated above, since it is found in a vessel].

And he will transgress

when he eats it,

because of

and “every

creeping creature that crawls upon the earth,

which is an abomination; it may not be eaten.” Since the worm moved and crawled somewhat upon the sticks, it becomes a creature that crawls upon the earth.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since you said that once it crawls a little it becomes a creature that crawls upon the earth, why did you prohibit straining specifically through the sticks? Even

in a vessel,

using the vessel alone,

also

it should be prohibited to pour date beer, even without using the sticks,

perhaps the worm will separate

and crawl

onto the wall of the vessel,

onto the wall of the vessel,

and then

afterward

fall back into the vessel,

and become prohibited as a creature that crawls upon the earth. After all, it separated onto the wall of the vessel; how is the wall of the vessel different from the sticks?

And we answer:

There,

when it did not separate onto the sticks,

that is its ordinary manner of growth,

for it is normal for it to crawl within a vessel, and it is considered as though it did not separate; therefore, it is not prohibited as a creature that crawls upon the earth.

And we explain:

And from where do you say

that such crawling upon the walls of a vessel does not prohibit the worm as a creature that crawls upon the earth?

For it was taught

earlier:

From where is it derived to include pits, cisterns, and caves, so that one bends over

bends down

and drinks from them, and need not refrain

from drinking from them out of concern that he might also eat the worms found inside them?

The verse states: “You may eat —

from everything

that is in the water”! This implies that even if the fish and worms found there do not have signs of purity, they are permitted to eat.

And the Gemara continues:

But let us be concerned that perhaps it separated

that some worm separated

onto the wall

of the pits and cisterns,

and then fell back

into the pits and cisterns, and became prohibited as a creature that crawls upon the earth!?

Rather,

we must say:

that is its ordinary manner of growth,

for this is the manner and place in which these worms grow. Therefore, this is not considered crawling outside the pits, and they do not become prohibited. If so,

here too,

in the case at hand, when he pours the beer into the vessel, we are not concerned that the worms may have separated onto the walls of the vessel, because

that is their ordinary manner of growth!

For the inside wall of the vessel is also part of their ordinary place of growth.

Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: A teaching has been stated that supports you,

showing that there is a distinction between worms that separated within the vessel and those that separated outside the vessel.

As it is written: “

Every creeping creature that crawls upon the earth” —

to include gnats,

mosquito-like insects found in wine cellars,

that one strained out,

which are also prohibited to eat!

And we infer:

The reason is that he strained them,

because they separated from their place of growth and are therefore prohibited;

but if he did not strain them —

they are permitted!

We are not concerned that they may have separated from their place of growth to the outside. Their crawling within the wine vessel is not considered the type of crawling that causes prohibition.