Chullin 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

Remove

the

specification between them, and interpret it

according to the principle of

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization.

Therefore, here we expound: “Everything that is

in the water,”

this is

a generalization. “In the seas and in the streams,”

this is

a specification. “Fin and scale

in the water,”

the verse returned

and

generalized.

Here, then, there is a generalization, a specification, and a generalization. And

with a generalization, a specification, and a generalization, you may derive

and include

only

something that is

similar to the specification.

Just as the specification,

the seas and the streams,

explicitly indicates

that they are

flowing waters, so too, all flowing waters

are included.

And we explain:

What does it include?

What thing that is similar to the specification do we include?

Crevices and channels—for prohibition!

Since the crevices and channels contain flowing waters, similar to the seas and streams, we include them as prohibited, as the fish that grow in them must have fins and scales.

And what does it exclude,

what thing was excluded because it is not similar to the specification [for every specification comes to exclude]?

Pits, ditches, and caves—

to permit them!

Since the pits, ditches, and caves do not have flowing waters, they are not similar to the seas and streams. The fish in them need not 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 the streams,

explicitly

indicates that they are

waters that grow

and are found

on the surface of the ground, so too, all waters

similar to the specification, which

grow on the surface of the ground.

And what does it include,

what do we include as similar to the specification?

Even pits, ditches, and caves—as prohibited.

The fish in them, too, must have fins and scales in order to render them permitted.

And what does it exclude,

from among the things similar to the specification, which is not similar to it?

It excludes vessels,

as fins and scales are not required in them, for they are not at all similar to the seas and streams.

And we answer:

If so,

if we exclude only vessels, in which fins and scales are not required, what benefit is there from the inclusion that we derive from the verse,

“You may eat”

“of everything that is in the water”

?

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

Rather, certainly, the inclusion of “you may eat” comes to permit the fish in pits, ditches, and caves, in which fins and scales are not required. Only crevices and channels, which resemble the seas and streams in two respects [they are on the surface of the ground and they have flowing waters], require fins and scales.

There is one of the interpretive principles through which the Torah is expounded called “a generalization, a specification, and a generalization,” and there is the principle of “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 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 teaches us not to include everything, but only things similar to the exclusion. And if a second inclusion follows it, the second inclusion, which comes after the exclusion, teaches us to include everything. The exclusion serves only to exclude something that is entirely dissimilar to the exclusion.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

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

“in the water” appears twice

consecutively,

is not

this

verse

to be interpreted according to the principle of

a generalization and a specification

when you insert the specification “in the seas and in the streams” between them.

Rather,

this verse

includes and excludes,

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

Of everything

that is in the water”—it includes.”

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

Everything that has fins and scales

in the water,”

this

again includes.

And it is established

that an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion

includes everything!

What does it include?

What do we include by means of the inclusion?

Crevices and channels—

as prohibited.

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

And what does it exclude

from the exclusion of the seas and streams?

Pits, ditches, and caves—

to permit them!

Fins and scales are not required in them.

And we challenge this: How do you know to exclude pits, ditches, and caves in order to permit them?

Perhaps, what does it include?

Pits, ditches, and caves—as prohibited,

so that fins and scales are required in them as well.

And what does it exclude

from the exclusion of the seas and streams?

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,

what benefit is there from the verse, “This

you may eat

of everything that is in the water”

?

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

And we challenge this: Since you did not interpret it according to the principle of a generalization, a specification, and a generalization [according to which things similar to the specification are included], but according to the principle of an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion,

then perhaps I should reverse it,

and say that “you may eat of everything that is in the water” comes to permit crevices and channels, in which fins and scales are not required, while the inclusion comes to include pits as prohibited, so that fins and scales are required in them as well.

And we answer: It cannot be said so,

as Mattityah taught!

As Mattityah bar Yehuda taught: What did you see that led you to include pits, ditches, and caves as permitted,

so that fins and scales are not required in them,

and to exclude crevices and channels as prohibited,

where fins and scales are required?

I include pits, ditches, and caves

as permitted because

they are enclosed,

as they have no outlet or inlet like vessels, and they are not similar to the seas and streams, which flow.

And I exclude crevices and channels, which are not

as

enclosed as vessels,

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

We learned earlier in the beraita: Since it explicitly permitted and permitted implicitly. This indicates that there is one explicit verse in the Torah that permits [fish] in vessels, and there is one non-explicit verse that permits fish without the signs of purity in vessels.

And we explain:

Which

verse is

implicit? And which

verse is

explicit?

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about it:

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

has

fins and scales, is the

explicit

verse.

And

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

does

not have fins and scales, that would be the

implicit verse.

And one said: The verse that speaks of what

does

not

have fins and scales is the

explicit verse.

And the verse that speaks of what

does

have

fins and scales is the

implicit verse.

And we explain:

What is the reason 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.

As it is written: “Everything that has fins and scales in the seas and in the streams, you may eat”; and we expound: You may eat them, but not those that do not have fins and scales!

This exclusion applies to those found in the seas and in the streams. But those found in vessels, although they do not have fins and scales, are permitted. However, regarding the verse “Everything that does not have fins and scales in the seas and in the streams,” from which we expound: In the seas and in the streams you may not eat them, but in vessels you may eat them—this is not an explicit permission. For the continuation of the verse is as follows: “And 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.” The plain meaning of the verse is that the Torah warned everywhere not to eat fish that do not have fins and scales. Only by expounding the verse according to a generalization, a specification, and a generalization do we permit fish in vessels even without fins and scales. Therefore, this is not an explicit verse.

What is the reason of the one who says

that the verse speaking

of what does not have

fins and scales is

the explicit verse?

Because this verse

is what establishes the meaning of that one!

This verse, which speaks of what does not have fins and scales, is what 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 that

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 this is how we might expound it: “And in the streams—you may eat them”; but in vessels, you may not eat even them. 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, although they do not have fins and scales, are permitted. 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 branches,

by means of small sticks used as a strainer,

at night,

when it is dark.

Perhaps it will emerge

the worm

above the branches,

above the sticks,

and then

afterward

fall into the cup.

He will not see, because of the darkness, that it fell into the cup from the branches, and he will think that it is an aquatic worm found in the cup [which is permitted to eat, as we said above, since it is found in a vessel].

And he will transgress,

for when he eats it he will transgress

because of “Every

creature that

creeps upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.” Since the worm moved and crawled somewhat on the hard branches, it becomes a creature that creeps upon the earth.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since you said that once it has moved somewhat it becomes a creature that creeps upon the earth, why did you prohibit straining specifically through branches? Even

in a

vessel,

by the vessel alone,

also

it should be prohibited to pour out date beer, even without doing so through branches,

perhaps it will emerge

the worm

onto the side of the vessel,

onto the wall of the vessel,

and then

afterward

fall into the vessel,

and become prohibited on account of the creature that creeps upon the earth. For it emerged onto the wall of the vessel—so what is the difference between the wall of the vessel and the branches?

And we answer:

There,

when it does not emerge onto the branches,

that is its natural growth,

as it is its normal way to crawl inside a vessel; it is considered as though it did not emerge, and it is not prohibited on account of a creature that creeps upon the earth.

And we explain:

And from where do you say

that such crawling on the walls of a vessel does not prohibit the worm on account of a creature that creeps upon the earth?

As it was taught

above:

From where is it derived to include pits, ditches, and caves, from which one bends down

and

drinks, 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—

of everything that is

in the water”! This indicates 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 emerged,

that some worm emerged

onto the wall

of the pits and ditches,

and then fell back

into the pits and ditches, and became prohibited on account of a creature that creeps upon the earth!?

Rather,

we must say:

That is its natural growth,

as this is their normal way and the place where these worms grow. Therefore, it is not considered that they crawled outside the pits, and they are not prohibited. If so,

here too,

in the case at hand, when he poured the beer into the vessel, we are not concerned that the worms emerged onto the walls of the vessel, because

that is their natural growth!

The inside wall of the vessel is likewise part of the manner in which they grow.

Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: A beraita that supports you was taught,

indicating that there is a distinction between when they emerge inside the vessel and when they emerge outside the vessel.

As it is written: “

Every creature that creeps upon the earth”—

to include yeḇushin,

gnats found in wine cellars,

that one strained,

which are likewise prohibited to eat!

And we infer:

The reason is that one strained them,

meaning that they emerged from the place where they were formed and are therefore prohibited;

but if he did not strain them—

they are permitted!

We are not concerned that perhaps they emerged from the place where they were formed to the outside. For their crawling inside the wine vessel is not considered crawling that renders them prohibited.