Chullin 132

אקונס ואפונס כספתיאס ואכספטיאס ואטונס ה"ז מותר

the colias, scomber, swordfish, athrias and tunny, it is permitted.

תנן התם

We have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 51a. ohaeae');">¹</span>

כל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר ויש שיש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת

All [fishes] that have scales have also fins, but there are some that have fins but no scales.

יש לו קשקשת ויש לו סנפיר דג טהור יש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת דג טמא

Those that have fins and scales are clean, but those that have fins and no scales are unclean.

מכדי אקשקשת קא סמכינן ליכתוב רחמנא קשקשת ולא ליכתוב סנפיר

But consider, we rely upon scales, the Divine Law then should have stated scales only [as the distinguishing mark] and not fins! - Had the Divine Law only stated scales and not fins I might have said that the word for scales [Kaskasim]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. .');">²</span>

אי כתב רחמנא קשקשת ולא כתב סנפיר הוה אמינא

meant fins, and even unclean fishes [would have been permitted]; the Divine Law therefore stated fins as well as scales.

מאי קשקשת סנפיר ואפי' דג טמא כתב רחמנא סנפיר וקשקשת

But even now that the Divine Law states fins as well as scales, whence do we know that the term Kaskasim means [the scales that cover the fish like] a garment? - Because it is written: And he was clad with kaskasim [a coat of mail].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XVII, 5. The same word Kaskasim is here used to describe the coat of mail as being made of scales or thin plates of metal.');">³</span>

והשתא דכתב רחמנא סנפיר וקשקשת ממאי דקשקשת לבושא הוא

This being so, the Divine Law need not have stated fins at all but only scales<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there is now no longer any room for doubt since the verse from Sam. clearly indicates the true meaning of kaskasim, namely scales.');">⁴</span>

דכתיב

[kaskasim]! - R'Abbahu said, and so it was taught in the school of R'Ishmael, [It is stated in order] to make the teaching great and glorious.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XLII, 21. Strictly then 'fins' need not have been stated in the verse at all but was written only in order to remove any possible doubt or misunderstanding regarding kaskasim.');">⁵</span>

(שמואל א יז, ה) ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש

Our Rabbis taught: Since the verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 9.');">⁶</span>

וליכתוב רחמנא קשקשת ולא ליכתוב סנפיר

stated that you may eat that which has fins and scales, I would have inferred that you may not eat that which has not; and since the verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10.');">⁷</span>

א"ר אבהו וכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל

stated that you may not eat that which has not fins and scales, I would have inferred that you may eat that which has.

(ישעיהו מב, כא) יגדיל תורה ויאדיר

Why then are both verses stated?

ת"ר

To teach that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who eats a fish that has no fins and scales.');">⁸</span>

ממשמע שנאמר

infringes a positive as well as a negative command.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the express prohibition of Lev. XI, 10, and the implied prohibition of v. 9, which has the force of a positive precept.');">⁹</span>

אכול את שיש לו שומע אני

Why does Scripture state, These ye may eat of all that are in the waters?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. As this verse concludes with 'them ye may eat', the opening words are indeed superfluous.');">¹⁰</span>

אל תאכל את שאין לו

Because [without this verse] I should have argued thus: since Scripture has permitted [to eat the creeping things of the water<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though they have not fins and scales.');">¹¹</span>

וממשמע שנאמר

in two verses], in one verse expressly and in the other impliedly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra ');">¹²</span>

אל תאכל את שאין לו שומע אני

then just as when it expressly permitted them it referred only to those that were in [the water of] vessels, so, too, when it impliedly permitted them it permitted only those that were in vessels.

אכול את שיש לו ולמה שנאן

Whence should I have known that one may bend down and swallow without any hesitation even those found in cisterns, ditches, or caverns?

לעבור עליו בעשה ולא תעשה

It is therefore written: These ye may eat of all that are in the waters.

(ויקרא יא, ט) תאכלו מכל אשר במים מה ת"ל

Where does Scripture permit those [creeping things] found in [the water of] vessels?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though they have not fins and scales.');">¹¹</span>

שיכול הואיל והתיר במפורש והתיר בסתם

In the verse: These ye may eat of all that are in the waters.

מה כשהתיר במפורש לא התיר אלא בכלים

[in the seas and in the rivers], which signifies that [those cree things found] in the seas and in the rivers, if they have [fins and scales) you may eat, and if they have not [fins and scales] you may not eat, whereas all those found in [the water of] vessels you may eat, even though they have not [fins and scales].

אף כשהתיר בסתם לא התיר אלא בכלים מנין לרבות בורות שיחין ומערות ששוחה ושותה מהן ואינו נמנע

But perhaps [I ought to say that] those found in vessels you may not eat at all, even though they have [fins and scales]! - You cannot say so, for it is written: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters.

ת"ל

[they are a detestable thing unt you!],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10.');">¹³</span>

תאכלו מכל אשר במים

which signifies that [those found] in the seas and in the rivers, if they have not [fins and scales], y may not eat, whereas [those found] in vessels, even though they have not [fins and scales], you may eat.

היכן התיר בכלים

Perhaps [I ought to argue thus], 'In the waters'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9.');">¹⁴</span>

דכתיב

is a general proposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that all that are in the waters require fins and scales.');">¹⁵</span>

את זה תאכלו מכל אשר במים וגו' בימים ובנחלים הוא דכי אית ליה אכול דלית ליה לא תיכול

'in the seas and in the rivers' is specification; we thus have a general proposition followed by a specification, in which case the scope of the general proposition is limited to the particulars specified; hence only with regard to those found in the seas and in the rivers [are the distinguishing marks of fins and scales essential], but not with regard to those found in gutters and trenches!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that all creeping things found in gutters and in trenches, and a fortiori those found in standing water as e.g. in cisterns, are permitted. This being so, the previous exposition of v. 9 which establishes that all creeping things found in cisterns etc. are permitted is rendered superfluous.');">¹⁶</span>

הא בכלים אע"ג דלית ליה אכול

- 'In the waters', is repeated thus stating another general proposition.

אימא

But here these two general propositions follow one another!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And are not separated by any specified particulars.');">¹⁷</span>

בכלים אע"ג דאית ליה לא תיכול

- Rabina said, [It is to be interpreted] as said in the West, viz. , Wherever you find two general propositions that follow one another

לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב

(ויקרא יא, י) וכל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת בימים ובנחלים מכל שרץ המים בימים ובנחלים דלית ליה לא תיכול הא בכלים אע"ג דלית ליה אכול

ואימא

במים כלל בימים ובנחלים פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט

ימים ונחלים אין נעיצין וחריצין לא

במים חזר וכלל

הני תרי כללי דסמיכי להדדי נינהו

אמר רבינא כדאמרי במערבא

כל מקום שאתה מוצא שני כללות הסמוכין זה לזה