Chullin 130

ציפורת כרמים

the zipporeth keramim.

אין לי אלא הבא ואין לו גבחת הבא ויש לו גבחת מנין

Now from this I know to include all types that are not bald,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that comes and has no baldness'. The class of locust comprehended under arbeh and its kind is distinctive in that none of them have any baldness at the top of the head. According to Aruch: 'they have no protuberance above the head'.');">¹</span>

ת"ל

but whence would I learn to include even those that are bald?

(ויקרא יא, כב) סלעם זה ניפול למינהו להביא את האושכף

The verse therefore states the 'sol'am' which is the nippol [the bald locust], and 'after its kind' [stated with it] includes the ushkaf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is likewise bald.');">²</span>

ואין לי אלא הבא ואין לו גבחת הבא ויש לו גבחת הבא ואין לו זנב

I would now include all types whether they are bald or not, provided they are tailless,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the varieties of arbeh and sol'am are peculiar in that they have no tails.');">³</span>

הבא ויש לו זנב מנין

but whence would I learn to include even those that have a tail?

ת"ל

The verse therefore adds the hargol which is the rashon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has a tail.');">⁴</span>

חרגול זה רשון למינהו להביא את הכרספת ואת השחלנית

and 'after its kind' [stated with it] includes the karsefeth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which also have tails.');">⁵</span>

ואין לי אלא הבא ואין לו גבחת הבא ויש לו גבחת הבא ואין לו זנב הבא ויש לו זנב הבא ואין ראשו ארוך

and the shahlanith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which also have tails.');">⁵</span>

הבא וראשו ארוך מנין

I would now include all types, whether bald or not, and whether tailless or not, provided they are not long-headed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All types mentioned until now have short heads.');">⁶</span>

אמרת הרי אתה דן בנין אב משלשתן

but whence would I learn to include even those that are long-headed?

לא ראי ארבה כראי חרגול ולא ראי חרגול כראי ארבה ולא ראי שניהם

I say, you can derive them from the general principle underlying these three classes.

כראי סלעם ולא ראי סלעם כראי שניהם הצד השוה שבהן שיש לו ד' רגלים וארבע כנפים וקרצולים וכנפיו חופין את רובו

Thus, the distinctive feature of the arbeh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The arbeh, it must be remembered, is not bald and has no tail, the hargol is bald and has a tail, and the sol'am is bald but has no tail.');">⁷</span>

אף כל שיש לו ארבע רגלים וארבע כנפים וקרצולים וכנפיו חופין את רובו

is not that of the hargol, neither is the distinctive feature of the hargol tha the arbeh, and the distinctive feature of each of these two is not that of the sol'am, neither is the distinctiv feature of the sol'am that of either of these two.

והלא הצרצור הזה יש לו ארבע רגלים וד' כנפים וקרצולים וכנפיו חופין את רובו יכול יהא מותר

The characteristics, however, which are common to all are: each have four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covering the greater part of the body; hence we may include all types that have four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covering the greater part of the body.

ת"ל

But has not the zarzur also four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covering the greater part of its body?

חגב ששמו חגב

Will you also say that it is permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The zarzur was known as an unclean species.');">⁸</span>

אי שמו חגב יכול אין בו כל הסימנין הללו

The verse therefore adds the 'hagab', that is to say, all mus go by the name of hagab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This qualification excludes the zarzur which is not known as a hagab.');">⁹</span>

ת"ל

Then will you say that if it goes by the name of hagab [it is permitted] even though it has none of the abovementioned characteristics?

למינהו עד שיהא בו כל הסימנין הללו

The Verse therefore states 'after its kind',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the term hagab.');">¹⁰</span>

פריך רב אחאי

to teach that every one must have all the abovementioned characteristics.

מה להנך שכן אין ראשן ארוך

R'Ahai asked: But in the case of those [mentioned in the verse] none are long-headed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How than can we include those that have long heads?');">¹¹</span>

וכי תימא כיון דשוו בד' סימנין מייתינן ולא פרכינן

Should you, however, suggest that as long as they are all alike in that they each have the four abovementioned characteristics, an analogy may be drawn and no objection can be raised, in that case the hargol need not have been mentioned, for since it has these four characteristics it could have been derived from the arbeh and the sol'am.

אי הכי חרגול נמי דשוו להו לא ליכתוב ותיתי מארבה וסלעם

But you would certainly object to this on the ground that they are tailless [and the hargol is not]; then here also you must object on the ground that none of them are long-headed.

אלא איכא למיפרך

- Rather said R'Ahai [argue thus]: The Divine Law need not have stated 'sol'am' for it could be derived from the 'arbeh' and the 'hargol'.

מה להנך שכן אין להן זנב ה"נ איכא למיפרך

Indeed, what objection could you raise?

מה להנך שכן אין ראשן ארוך

That the arbeh is not bald [and the sol'am is]?

אלא אמר רב אחאי

But the hargol is [also] bald.

סלעם יתירא הוא

Or, that the hargol has a tail [and the sol'am has not]?

לא ליכתוב רחמנא סלעם ותיתי מארבה ומחרגול

But the arbeh is [also] tailless Why then did the Divine Law state sol'am?

דמאי פרכת

Since it is of no purpose unto itself it can serve [to include all] those that are long-headed.

מה לארבה דאין לו גבחת הרי חרגול דיש לו גבחת

מה לחרגול דיש לו זנב הרי ארבה דאין לו זנב

סלעם דכתב רחמנא ל"ל

אם אינו ענין לגופו תנהו ענין לראשו ארוך