Chullin

the zipporeth keramim. Now from this I know to include all types that are not bald,1 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.2 I would now include all types whether they are bald or not, provided they are tailless,3 but whence would I learn to include even those that have a tail? The verse therefore adds the hargol which is the rashon,4 and ‘after its kind’ [stated with it] includes the karsefeth5 and the shahlanith.5 I would now include all types, whether bald or not, and whether tailless or not, provided they are not long-headed,6 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 arbeh7 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?8 The verse therefore adds the ‘hagab’, that is to say, all must go by the name of hagab.9 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’,10 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.11 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. that none of them have any baldness at the top of the head. According to Aruch: ‘they have no protuberance above the head’. but has no tail.