ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 66
CHULIN 66-68 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(a) The ramifications of the Machlokes between Tana de'bei Rav (the author
of the first Beraisa) and Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael are - that a locust
with a long head is permitted according to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael (as we
explained), but forbidden according to Tana de'bei Rav.
(b) We refer to the first Tana as Tana de'bei Rav - (the Toras Kohanim,
better known as the Sifra) because it was known in all the Batei Medrash,
whereas Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael was only known by Rebbi Yishmael's
(c) Tana de'bei Rav Darshen the Pasuk ("Asher Lo Kera'ayim" ... "Arbeh,
Sol'am, Chargol, Chagav") - as a 'K'lal u'P'rat (ve'Ein bi'K'lal Ela Mah
(d) What do we mean when we explain that he requires the Limud to be similar
to the P'rat in two ways ('mi'Shenei Tzedadin', he means (in the context of
our Sugya) - that it must possess the four Simanim and be of the same kind
as it [see Rashash]).
(a) We have already explained how Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmel arrives by his
conclusion. When we say 'u'Marbi Kol de'Dami Leih be'Chad Tzad', we mean -
that it resembles the P'rat regarding the four Simanim (which is why we
learn Sol'am from Arbeh and Chargol, as we explained earlier).
(b) The problem regarding the two K'lalim that Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael
Darshens is - that they do not imply the same things, seeing as the former
one ("Asher Lo Kera'ayim") implies that it resembles the P'rat in only one
respect, whereas the latter ("le'Miyno") implies that it must resemble it in
all respects i.e. regardng all four Simanim).
(c) We resolve it - by pointing out that Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael does
indeed learn a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', even though the two K'lalim imply
different things (and our Sugya is the source for that).
(d) Tana de'bei Rav argues with Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael - regarding the
previous point. He does not consider it a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' unless the
two Kelalim imply the same thing.
(a) If not for "le'Miyneihu" (written in connection with Chagav), the Tana
would not have required the other Simanim. In spite of Arbeh and Chargol
(were it not for "le'Miyneihu" which is written together with it) - we would
have learned from Sol'am, that the Limud need resemble the P'rat in only one
(b) The 'discrepancy' between the first Beraisa, which translates Sol'am as
Nipol and Chargol as Rishon, and the second Beraisa, which switches the
translations is - merely a matter of Lashon, in one place translated the
words like this, and in the other, like that.
(c) According to Tana de'bei Rav, Sol'am does not possess a tail, whereas
Chargol does. Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael says precisely the same (because
it is in the translation that they differ, not in the meaning).
(a) "Zos Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of" refers to animals and birds
respectively, and "ve'Chol Nefesh ha'Chayah ha'Romeses ba'Mayim" to fish -
and "u'le'Chol Nefesh ha'Shoretzes al ha'Aretz" to locusts.
(b) From the fact that the Torah places locusts last after fish - the Behag
learns that they do do not require Shechitah.
(a) The Beraisa now discusses the specifications of fish. The Tana needs to
inform us that ...
1. ... a Sultanis (tunny-fish) and an Afian are permitted - because they are
born without fins and scales, which only grow later.
(b) The Mishnah in Nidah states that any fish that has ...
2. ... Akunas, Afunas ... Atunas (possibly a tuna fish) are permitted -
because they shed their fins and scales as they are taken out of the water.
1. ... scales - also has fins.
(c) Consequently, the Tana rules that a fish on which one sees only ...
2. ... fins - does not necesssarily have scales.
1. ... scales - is Kasher.
2. ... fins - is a Tamei fish.
(a) The Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to write fins ("S'napir") -
because we might otherwise have thought - that "Kaskeses" means fins (in
which case, the criterion for a Kasher fish will be fins [though following
the next answer, this is no longer possible]).
(b) Now that the Torah does write them both, we know that "Kaskeses" means
'scales' and "S'napir", 'fins' (and not vice-versa) - because of the Pasuk
in Shmuel (in connection with Goli'as) "ve'Siryon Kaskasim Hu Lavush" (where
it is clear that "Kaskasim" means 'scales').
(c) The Torah nevertheless sees fit to mention fins - 'le'Hagdil Torah
ve'Yadir' (to teach us that a Kasher fish has fins too, even though it is
(d) We learn from the fact that the Torah both permits fish that have fins
and scales and forbids those that don't (rather than imply one from the
other) - that someone who eats a non-Kasher fish transgresses both an Asei
and a La'av.
(a) The Beraisa now discusses Sheretz ha'Mayim. We query the Torah's
insertion of the Pasuk "es Zeh Tochlu mi'Kol Asher ba'Mayim" - because
seeing as the Pasuk ends "Osam Tochelu", it could have omitted the words "es
(b) The Kashya is strange - because one would have normally have queried why
we need the Seifa, not the Reisha (however, the D'rashah that we are about
to make answers that automatically).
(a) Initially, we extrapolate from the Seifa of the Pasuk, ''ba'Yamim
u'va'Nechalim Tochelu" - that the concession to eat Sheretz ha'Mayim is
confined to those Sheratzim that are found inside Keilim (but not to water
flowing in ditches, rivers or seas, or to pits and caves [where the water is
still] none of which are comparable to water inside Keilim).
(b) We therefore learn from the Reisha - "es Zeh Tochlu Asher ba'Mayim ... "
that it is only in rivers and seas (where the water is flowing) that one
differentiates between fish with fins and scales and fish without them, but
in pits and caves, where the water is still, even 'fish' without fins and
scales are permitted.
(c) We are bound to learn this from "Tochlu" of the Reisha and not from
"Tochlu" of the Seifa - because the latter refers to "S'napir ve'Kaskeses"
that precedes it, implying a Chumra rather than a Kula.
(a) We query this Kula however, on the grounds that we might just as well
extrapolate a Chumra from the Pasuk (to forbid inside Keilim even fish that
possess fins and scales), which is more logical - because the Pasuk is
talking about what is permitted (in which case one would expect any
inference to preclude from the Heter).
(b) To answer this Kashya, we quote the Pasuk "ve'Chol Asher Ein Lo S'napir
ve'Kaskeses ba'Yamim u'va'Nechalim ... Sheketz Heim Lachem" - implying that
water in Keilim is permitted even if it has no fins and scales.
(a) We then suggest that the second "ba'Mayim" (in the Pasuk "es Zeh
Tochlu") is a 'K'lal' and "ba'Yamim u'va'Nechalim", a 'P'rat' - in which
case, based on the principle 'Ein bi'Ch'lal Ela Mah she'bi'P'rat', we would
preclude even ditches and trenches from the prohibition of fish without fins
and scales (and certainly those that one finds in Keilim).
(b) We answer this however, by citing the first "ba'Mayim" - turning it into
a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', including (in the prohibition) Sheratzim in
ditches and trenches, but precluding those found in Keilim.
(c) The problem with the juxtaposition of the two "ba'Mayim" is - that, even
though they both serve as 'K'lalim', they are written next to each other
(whereas normally, the P'rat is in between them).
(d) Ravina answers by establishing the Beraisa like 'they said in Eretz
Yisrael' - namely, that if two K'lalim are juxtaposed, one simply places the
'P'rat' in between them. and treats them as a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal'.