Chullin 133

הטל פרט ביניהם ודונם בכלל ופרט וכלל במים כלל

you insert the subsequent specification between them and treat the whole as if it were two general propositions separated by the specification.

בימים ובנחלים פרט במים חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש מים נובעים אף כל מים נובעים

[Now the argument here will run as follows:] 'In the waters' is a general proposition, 'in the seas and in the rivers' is a specification, 'in the waters is another general proposition; we thus have two general propositions separated by the specification, in which case they include such things as are similar to the particulars specified.

מאי רבי חריצין ונעיצין לאיסורא ומאי מיעט בורות שיחין ומערות להתירא

Therefore, as the particulars specified clearly indicate running water, so everything to be included must be found in running water.

ואימא

What does it include?

מה הפרט מפורש מים גדלין על גבי קרקע אף כל מים גדלין על גבי קרקע

It includes gutters and trenches, namely, that [all creeping things found therein] are subject to the restriction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is, they must have fins and scales in order to be permitted.');">¹</span>

ומאי רבי אפי' בורות שיחין ומערות לאיסורא ומאי מיעט מיעט כלים

And what does it exclude?

אם כן תאכלו מאי אהני ליה

It excludes cisterns, ditches and caverns, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is free from all restriction.

דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא

But perhaps [I ought to say], as the particulars specified clearly refer to water contained in the ground, so everything to be included must be found in water contained in the ground! What does it include?

במים במים שתי פעמים אין זה כלל ופרט אלא ריבה ומיעט

It includes cisterns, ditches and caverns, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is subject to the restriction.

במים ריבה בימים ובנחלים מיעט במים חזר וריבה

And what does it exclude?

ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל

It excludes vessels, [namely, that whatsoever found therein is free from all restriction].

מאי רבי חריצין ונעיצין לאיסורא ומאי מיעט בורות שיחין ומערות להתירא אימא

- If this were right, then what does the previous exposition of the verse: These ye may eat [of all that are in the waters], teach us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even without the exposition of this verse, it is now suggested that the creeping things found in the water of vessels are free from the restriction of fins and scales. This verse therefore serves to indicate the line of argument that is to bc adopted in the interpretation of the general propositions and specifications, namely, that only the creeping things found in running water, e.g. in gutters and trenches, are restricted to the qualification of fins and scales, but those found in cisterns, ditches and caverns, are permitted in all circumstances. ohnc ohnc');">²</span>

מאי ריבה בורות שיחין ומערות לאיסורא ומאי מיעט מיעט כלים

A Tanna of the school of R'Ishmael taught: Since there is written in this verse: In the waters.

א"כ תאכלו מאי אהני ליה

in the waters [without any specification of particulars between them], it must not be interpreted by the principle of 'general proposition and specification' but rather by the principle of 'amplification and limitation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the logical basis of interpretation of these two principles and the differences between them, v. Rashi s.v. and Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 12, n. 3, and Sanh., p. 301, n. 1.');">³</span>

ואיפוך אנא

Thus, 'In the waters' is an amplifying proposition, 'in the seas and in the rivers' is a limitation, 'in the waters' is another amplifying proposition; we thus have two amplifying propositions separated by a limitation, in which case [well-nigh] everything is to be included.

כדתני מתתיה דתני מתתיה בר יהודה

What does it include?

מאי ראית לרבות בורות שיחין ומערות להתירא ולהוציא חריצין ונעיצין לאיסורא

It includes gutters and trenches, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is subject to the restriction.

מרבה אני בורות שיחין ומערות שהן עצורים ככלים ומוציא אני חריצין ונעיצין שאין עצורין ככלים

And what does it exclude?

הי סתום והי מפורש

It excludes cisterns, ditches and caverns, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is free from all restriction.

פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר

But perhaps I ought to say: What does it include?

יש לו מפורש ואין לו סתום

It includes cisterns, ditches and caverns, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is subject to the restriction.

וחד אמר

And what does it exclude?

אין לו מפורש ויש לו סתום

It excludes vessels [namely, that whatsoever found therein is free from all restriction]! - If this were right, then what does the previous exposition of the verse: These ye mat eat [of all that are in the waters], teach us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even without the exposition of this verse, it is now suggested that the creeping things found in the water of vessels are free from the restriction of fins and scales. This verse therefore serves to indicate the line of argument that is to bc adopted in the interpretation of the general propositions and specifications, namely, that only the creeping things found in running water, e.g. in gutters and trenches, are restricted to the qualification of fins and scales, but those found in cisterns, ditches and caverns, are permitted in all circumstances. ohnc ohnc');">²</span>

מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר

And why should I not accept the reverse argument?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the argument by the principle of amplification and limitation is to a certain extent arbitrary, for on what ground should one thing be excluded rather than the other? Consequently the last argument ra1sed in the text by way of objection could well be adopted, and as for the rejoinder, 'what does the verse: These ye may eat of all that are in the waters, teach us'? it would refer to creeping things found in gutters and trenches, and would reach us that even these would be free from the restriction of fins and scales. On the other hand, it would be said that the scope of the amplification would be extended to bring creeping things found in cisterns etc. under the restriction! This hypothetical reasoning is, however, nullified by the analytic argument of R. Mattithiah below.');">⁴</span>

יש לו מפורש

- Because of the view expressed by R'Mattithiah.

אמר לך

For R'Mattithiah B'Judah taught: Why do you prefer to conclude that [creeping things found in] cisterns, ditches and caverns, are free from all restriction, but [those found in] gutters and trenches are under the restriction?

מיניה הוא דקא משתרו כלים

I say that [those found in] cisterns, ditches and caverns, are free from all restriction because the water therein is as it were, enclosed as in vessels, whereas [those found in] gutters and trenches are under the restriction since the water thereof can in no wise be regarded as enclosed in vessels.

מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר

In which verse is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the permission to eat all creeping things found in the water of vessels even though they have not fins and scales.');">⁵</span>

אין לו מפורש

implied and in which express? - R'Aha and Rabina differ.

דהאי הוא דקמוכח אהאיך

One says: The verse which treats of those that have [fins and scales]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 9.');">⁶</span>

דאי מהאיך הוה אמינא

indicates the express permission, but that which treats of those that have not [fins and scales]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 10.');">⁷</span>

בכלים אע"ג דאית ליה נמי לא תיכול

indicates the implied permission.

אמר רב הונא

The other says: The verse which treats of those that have not [fins and scales] indicates the express permission, but that which treats of those that have [fins and scales] indicates the implied permission.

לא לשפי אינש שיכרא בצבייתא באורתא דילמא פריש לעיל מצבייתא והדר נפיל לכסא והוי עובר משום (ויקרא יא, כט) שרץ השורץ על הארץ

What is the reason of him who holds that the verse which treats of those that have [fins and scales] indicates the express permission? - He would say: It is from this verse that we derive the permission [for the creeping things found] in vessels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 357. This verse clearly suggests that the qualification of fins and scales applies only to creatures found in the seas and in the rivers, as is stated explicitly in the verse, and not to creatures found in the water of vessels.');">⁸</span>

אי הכי במנא נמי דלמא פריש לדפנא דמנא והדר נפיל למנא

And what is the reason of him who holds that the verse which treats of those that have not [fins and scales] indicates the express permission? - He would say: It is this verse which suggests the true interpretation of the other, for from the other verse alone I might have argued [that those found] in vessels, even though they have [fins and scales], you must not eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 357.');">⁹</span>

התם היינו רביתיה

R'Huna said: A man should not pour beer [into a vessel] at night, and strain it through twigs, for fear tha a worm [from the beer] might drop on to the twigs and thence fall into the vessel, and he would [if he swallowed the worm with the beer] infringe the law of Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 41. If the worm had crawled upon the twigs it would be regarded as having crawled upon the earth, and consequently included in the prohibition of this verse. On the other hand the law is clearly established, supra, that worms found in any liquid in any vessel are permitted.');">¹⁰</span>

ומנא תימרא

If so, even [when he pours it directly] into the vessel we should apprehend lest the worm drop on to the side of the vessel and then fall into the vessel! - That would be the natural way of things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would not be regarded in law as having crawled out of the water; it is therefore permitted.');">¹¹</span>

דתניא

Whence do you know [to make such a distinction]? - From [the following Baraitha] which was taught: Whence should I have known that one may bend down and swallow without any hesitation even those found in cisterns, ditches and caverns?

מנין לרבות בורות שיחין ומערות ששוחה ושותה מהן ואינו נמנע

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

ת"ל

Now perhaps these creeping things had at some time previously crawled to the edge [of the cistern] and had fallen back [into the cistern].

(ויקרא יא, ט) תאכלו מכל אשר במים

You must therefore say that that would be the natural way of things; then here, too, we say that that is the natural way of things.

וליחוש דלמא פריש לדפנא והדר נפיל

R'Hisda said to R'Huna, There is [a Baraitha] taught that supports your contention: [The verse,] 'And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth [is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten]', includes insects found in liquids that have been passed through a strainer.

אלא היינו רביתיה ה"נ היינו רביתיה

The reason [then that they are forbidden] is because they had passed through a strainer, but had they not passed through a strainer they would be permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there is nothing to suggest that the insects had crawled upon the earth.');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה רב חסדא לרב הונא תניא דמסייע לך

Samuel said: A cucumber which became wormy

כל השרץ השורץ על הארץ לרבות יבחושין שסיננן

טעמא דסיננן הא לא סיננן שרי

אמר שמואל

קישות שהתליעה