1 into two words it proves that it is two distinct terms). But according to this will you also say that Chedarlaomer. seeing that the scribe has divided it into two, is two distinct names? — I reply, in the latter case it is true that he has divided the word into two but he has not separated them on two lines, but here he has even separated them on two lines. BUT THE SAGES HAVE SAID, EVERY BIRD [THAT SEIZES ITS PREY IS UNCLEAN]. It was taught: Rabban Gamaliel says, [If a bird] seizes prey and eats it, one may be certain that it is unclean; if it has an extra toe, and a crop. and its gizzard can be peeled. one may be certain that it is clean. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok says: A cord is stretched out for it, and if [when perched on it] it divides its toes evenly, two on each side, it is a clean bird, but if it places three toes on one side and one on the other, it is an Unclean bird. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Every bird which catches food [thrown to it] in the air is unclean. (But does not the zipparta catch food in the air? — Abaye answered: It means, catches food and eats it in the air.) Others say: Those that dwell with unclean birds are unclean, those that dwell with clean birds are clean. According to whom is this rule? Is it only according to R. Eliezer? For it was taught: R. Eliezer said: Not for nothing did the zarzir follow the raven but because it is of its kind! — It might even be according to the Rabbis too, for we speak here of those that dwell with and also resemble [unclean birds]. OF LOCUSTS: ALL THAT HAVE . . . [AND WINGS COVERING THE GREATER PART OF THE BODY]. What is meant by THE GREATER PART? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, It means the greater part of the length [of the body]. Others say [in the name of Rab]. The greater part of the girth [of the body]. R. Papa said: We therefore require the [wings to cover the] greater part of the length, as well as the greater part of the girth of the body. Our Rabbis taught: If it has no [leaping legs] now but will grow them later on, as in the case of the zahal, it is permitted. R. Eliezer son of R. Jose says. [The verse], Which have leaping legs, includes those that have none now but will grow them later on. What is the zahal? — Abaye answered: It is the iskera. Our Rabbis taught: Even those of them ye may eat, the arbeh after its kind, etc. The ‘arbeh’ is the gobai, the ‘sol'am’ is the vashon, the ‘hargol’ is the nippol, and the ‘hagab’ is the gadian. Wherefore does the verse add ‘after its kind’ to each? To include the zipporeth keramim, the Jerusalem yohana, the ‘arzubia and the razbonith respectively. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: [In this verse] we have a number of general propositions and a number of particular instances. Thus, the arbeh is the gobai, ‘after its kind’ includesᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿ
2 the zipporeth keramim. Now from this I know to include all types that are not bald, but whence would I learn to include even those that are bald? The verse therefore states the ‘sol'am’ which is the nippol [the bald locust], and ‘after its kind’ [stated with it] includes the ushkaf. I would now include all types whether they are bald or not, provided they are tailless, but whence would I learn to include even those that have a tail? The verse therefore adds the hargol which is the rashon, and ‘after its kind’ [stated with it] includes the karsefeth and the shahlanith. I would now include all types, whether bald or not, and whether tailless or not, provided they are not long-headed, but whence would I learn to include even those that are long-headed? I say, you can derive them from the general principle underlying these three classes. Thus, the distinctive feature of the arbeh is not that of the hargol, neither is the distinctive feature of the hargol that of the arbeh, and the distinctive feature of each of these two is not that of the sol'am, neither is the distinctive feature of the sol'am that of either of these two. 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. But has not the zarzur also four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covering the greater part of its body? Will you also say that it is permitted? The verse therefore adds the ‘hagab’, that is to say, all must go by the name of hagab. 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? The Verse therefore states ‘after its kind’, to teach that every one must have all the abovementioned characteristics. R. Ahai asked: But in the case of those [mentioned in the verse] none are long-headed. 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. 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. — 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’. Indeed, what objection could you raise? That the arbeh is not bald [and the sol'am is]? But the hargol is [also] bald. Or, that the hargol has a tail [and the sol'am has not]? But the arbeh is [also] tailless. Why then did the Divine Law state sol'am? Since it is of no purpose unto itself it can serve [to include all] those that are long-headed.ᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸ