Reference for Niddah 102:44

לאתויי

what need then was there for the All Merciful to mention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As one of the marks of a clean fish in Lev. XI, 9ff. ');">³⁷</span> fins?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., fins which the All Merciful has written, wherefore to me'. ');">³⁸</span> — If the All Merciful had not written fins it might have been presumed that the written word kaskeseth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word rendered scales'. ');">³⁹</span> meant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what kaskeseth that is written.' ');">⁴⁰</span> fins and that even an unclean fish [is, therefore, permitted]. Hence has the All Merciful written 'fins' and 'scales'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus indicating that each is a distinctive mark. ');">⁴¹</span> But now that the All Merciful has written both 'fins' and 'scales', whence is it deduced that kaskeseth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word rendered scales'. ');">³⁹</span> means the covering? Because it is written, And he was clad with a coat of mail.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kaskasim (of the same rt, as kaskeseth). I Sam. XVII, 5. ');">⁴²</span> Then why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the meaning of kaskeseth is definitely established and cannot be mistaken for that of fins. ');">⁴³</span> did not the All Merciful write kaskeseth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word rendered scales'. ');">³⁹</span> and there would be no need for the mention of fins?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since WHATSOEVER HAS SCALES HAS FINS. ');">⁴⁴</span> — R. Abbahu replied and so it was also taught at the school of R. Ishmael: To make the teaching great and glorious.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XLII, 21. Even an apparently superfluous word adds to the greatness and glory of the Torah. ');">⁴⁵</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHATSOEVER REQUIRES A BENEDICTION AFTER IT REQUIRES ONE BEFORE IT, BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT REQUIRE A BENEDICTION BEFORE THEM AND NOT AFTER THEM. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [What was the last clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BUT THERE ARE etc. ');">⁴⁶</span> intended] to include? — To include vegetables. But according to R. Isaac who did say a benediction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '… who createst many living beings' (cf. P.B. p. 290). ');">⁴⁷</span> after the eating of vegetables, what was this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BUT THERE ARE etc. ');">⁴⁶</span> intended to include? — To include water. But according to R. Papa who said a benediction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '… who createst many living beings' (cf. P.B. p. 290). ');">⁴⁷</span> after he drank water, what was it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BUT THERE ARE etc. ');">⁴⁶</span> intended to include? — To include the performance of commandments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those, for instance, of lulab, shofar, zizith and tefillin which require a benediction only before and not after they are performed. ');">⁴⁸</span> But according to the Palestinians<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the sons of the west'. Palestine lay to the west of Babylon where the discussion took place. ');">⁴⁹</span> who after removing their tefillin say the benediction of '&nbsp;… who hath sanctified us by his commandments, and hath commanded us to keep his statutes', what does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BUT THERE ARE etc. ');">⁵⁰</span> include? — It includes

Jastrow

Jastrow