Chullin

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.1 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?2 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’.3 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?2 And why should I not accept the reverse argument?4 — 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 it5 implied and in which express? — R. Aha and Rabina differ. One says: The verse which treats of those that have [fins and scales]6 indicates the express permission, but that which treats of those that have not [fins and scales]7 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.8 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.9 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.10 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.11 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.12 Samuel said: A cucumber which became wormy 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 and Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 12, n. 3, and Sanh., p. 301, n. 1. 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. the seas and in the rivers, as is stated explicitly in the verse, and not to creatures found in the water of vessels. 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.