Parallel
חולין 67
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
you insert the subsequent specification between them and treat the whole as if it were two general propositions separated by the specification. [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. Therefore, as the particulars specified clearly indicate running water, so everything to be included must be found in running water. What does it include? It includes gutters and trenches, namely, that [all creeping things found therein] are subject to the restriction. And what does it exclude? It excludes cisterns, ditches and caverns, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is free from all restriction. 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? It includes cisterns, ditches and caverns, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is subject to the restriction. And what does it exclude? 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 may eat [of all that are in the waters], teach us? A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Since there is written in this verse: In the waters . . . 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’. 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. What does it include? It includes gutters and trenches, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is subject to the restriction. And what does it exclude? It excludes cisterns, ditches and caverns, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is free from all restriction. But perhaps I ought to say: What does it include? It includes cisterns, ditches and caverns, namely, that [whatsoever found therein] is subject to the restriction. And what does it exclude? 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? And why should I not accept the reverse argument? — Because of the view expressed by R. Mattithiah. 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? 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. In which verse is it implied and in which express? — R. Aha and Rabina differ. One says: The verse which treats of those that have [fins and scales] indicates the express permission, but that which treats of those that have not [fins and scales] indicates the implied permission. 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. 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. 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. R. Huna said: A man should not pour beer [into a vessel] at night, and strain it through twigs, for fear that 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. 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. 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? It is therefore written: ‘These ye may eat of all that are in the waters’. Now perhaps these creeping things had at some time previously crawled to the edge [of the cistern] and had fallen back [into the cistern] .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. 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. 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. Samuel said: A cucumber which became wormy
—
during its growth is forbidden because of the prohibition of Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Shall we say that there is [a Baraitha] that supports his view? For one [Baraitha] teaches: [The verse,] ‘[Every creeping thing that creepeth] upon the earth’, excludes mites found in lentils, bugs in pea pods, and insects in dates and dried figs. Another [Baraitha], however, teaches: The verse: ‘Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth’, includes insects found in the roots of the olive and of the vine. Now presumably each [Baraitha] speaks of [insects found in] the fruit, and [yet there is no contradiction between them, for] the latter [Baraitha] refers to fruit during growth, whereas the former to fruit no longer growing! No. In either case the fruit was in the course of growth, nevertheless there is no contradiction, for the former [Baraitha] refers to [insects found in] the actual fruit whereas the latter to [insects found in] the stock of the tree. Indeed there is proof [for this distinction], for it reads [in the latter Baraitha], ‘Insects found in the roots of the olive and of the vine’. This is conclusive. R. Joseph raised the following questions: What is the law if the insect left the fruit and immediately died? or if part of the insect left the fruit? or if it was in mid-air? These questions remain undecided. R. Ashi raised these questions, What if the insect moved [from the inside of a date] to the outside? or to the top of the datestone? or if it moved from one date to another [that was sticking to it]? These questions also remain undecided. R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi said: Parasites are forbidden, because they come from outside. R. Ashi demurred, saying: If they come from the outside then they should surely be found in the excretory passages! Others report this passage thus: R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said: Parasites are permitted, because they are generated within. R. Ashi said: Of course this is so, for if they come from the outside they should surely be found in the excretory passages! The law is: Parasites are forbidden because they might enter through the nostril whilst the animal is asleep. Maggots [found under the skin] of animals are forbidden, of fish are permitted. Rabina once said to his mother, ‘Let me swallow these [maggots with the fish] and I shall eat them’. R. Mesharsheya, son of R. Aha, asked Rabina, Why is this case different from what was taught [in the following Baraitha]: [The verse], And their carcasses ye shall have in detestation, includes maggots of cattle? — He replied: There is no comparison between the two. Cattle are [in a forbidden state until] rendered permitted by slaughtering, and since these maggots had not been rendered fit by slaughtering, they always remain in the forbidden state. Fish, on the other hand, are [always in a permitted state, for they are] permitted by the mere taking up; the maggots therefore generated in a permitted state. Our Rabbis taught: Goeth upon the belly means the snake, ‘whatsoever’ includes the earthworm, and all that are like unto it. ‘Upon all fours’ means the scorpion, ‘whatsoever’ includes the beetle and all that are like unto it. ‘Hath many feet’ means the centipede, ‘whatsoever’ includes all that are like unto it and all that resemble the latter. It was taught: R. Jose, son of the Damascene, says: The leviathan is a clean fish, for it is written: His scales are his pride, and it is also written: ‘Sharpest potsherds are under him’. ‘Scales’, these are the scales that cover him; ‘sharpest potsherds are under him’, these are the fins wherewith he propels himself.
—