לר' חנינא בר פפא מהו כיון דלא כתב בהו למינהו לא מיחייב או דילמא כיון דהסכים אידיהו כמאן דכתיב בהו למינהו דמיא תיקו:

what is the halakha according to Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa? Shall one say that since the phrase “after its kind” is not written as a mitzva with regard to them, one is not liable for transgressing the prohibition against mixing diverse kinds? Or perhaps, since God agreed with them after the fact, as the verse states: “Let the Lord rejoice in His works,” it is as if the mitzva “after its kind” is written with regard to them. The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

רב אסי רמי כתיב (בראשית א, יב) ותוצא הארץ דשא בתלת בשבתא וכתיב (בראשית ב, ה) וכל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ במעלי שבתא מלמד שיצאו דשאים ועמדו על פתח קרקע עד שבא אדם הראשון ובקש עליהם רחמים וירדו גשמים וצמחו ללמדך שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים

§ Rav Asi raises a contradiction between two verses. It is written: “And the earth brought forth grass” (Genesis 1:12), on the third day of the week of Creation. And it is also written: “No shrub of the field was yet in the earth” (Genesis 2:5), on Shabbat eve, the sixth day of Creation, immediately before Adam was created. Rav Asi explains: This teaches that the grasses emerged on the third day and stood at the opening of the ground, but they did not grow until Adam, the first man, came and prayed for mercy upon them, and rain came, and they sprouted. And this is meant to teach you that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the prayers of the righteous.

רב נחמן בר פפא הויא ליה ההיא גינתא שדי ביה ביזרני ולא צמח בעא רחמי אתא מיטרא וצמח אמר היינו דרב אסי:

The Gemara recounts: Rav Naḥman bar Pappa had a certain garden. He planted seeds but they did not sprout. He prayed for mercy, and rain came, and they sprouted. He said: This is what is meant by the statement of Rav Asi, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the prayers of the righteous.

אמר רב חנן בר רבא (דברים יד, ז) השסועה בריה בפני עצמה היא שיש לה שני גבין ושני שדראות וכי משה רבינו קניגי היה או בליסטרי היה מכאן תשובה לאומר אין תורה מן השמים

§ In one of the passages discussing kosher and non-kosher animals, the Torah states: “Nevertheless, these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that have split hooves that are cloven [hashesua]: The camel, and the hare, and the hyrax” (Deuteronomy 14:7). Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: “Hashesua” is not a redundant description of the split hooves but a distinct creature, which has two backs and two spines and therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal. One might ask: But was Moses our teacher a hunter, or was he an archer, who was familiar with the most exotic animals? Rather, from here there is a refutation to those who say that the Torah is not from Heaven, since Moses could not have known of the existence of such an animal save by divine revelation.

א"ל רב חסדא לרב תחליפא בר אבינא זיל כתוב קניגי ובליסטרי באגדתיך ופרשה

Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa bar Avina: Go write this statement about the hunter [kinnigi] and the archer [ballisteri] in your book of aggada, and explain those two words, since some are unfamiliar with them.

(יהושע יג, ג) (ואת) חמשת סרני פלשתים העזתי והאשדודי האשקלוני הגתי והעקרוני והעוים אמר חמשה וחשיב שיתא אמר ר' יונתן ארונקי שלהן חמשה א"ל רב חסדא לר' תחליפא בר אבינא כתוב ארונקי באגדתיך ופרשה ופליגא דרב דאמר רב עוים מתימן באו

The Gemara relates another statement. The verse states: “The five lords of the Philistines: The Gazite, and the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite; also the Avvim” (Joshua 13:3). The verse is difficult, since it first said there are five lords of the Philistines, but it then lists six. Rabbi Yonatan said: There were in fact six lords, but the greatest of them were only five. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa bar Avina: Write this statement about the greatest [arunekei] in your book of aggada, and explain that word. The Gemara notes: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav says: The Avvim were not Philistines; rather, they came from Teiman.

תניא נמי הכי עוים מתימן באו ולמה נקרא שמן עוים שעיותו את מקומן ד"א עוים שאיוו לאלהות הרבה ד"א עוים שכל הרואה אותם אוחזתו עוית א"ר יוסף ואית להו שיתסרי דרי שיני לכל חד וחד

This is also taught in a baraita: The Avvim came from Teiman. And why were they called Avvim and not Teimanim? Because they corrupted [ivvetu] and destroyed their place of origin when they left. Alternatively, they were called Avvim since they desired [ivvu] many deities. Alternatively, they were called Avvim since they were so fearsome that all who saw them were seized by convulsions [avit]. Rav Yosef said: And each one of them has sixteen rows of teeth.

אמר ר"ש בן לקיש הרבה מקראות שראויין לשרוף והן הן גופי תורה (דברים ב, כג) והעוים היושבים בחצרים עד עזה מאי נפקא לן מינה

The Gemara cites another statement related to the Avvim: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: There are many verses that are seemingly fit to be burned as books of the heretics, since they appear redundant or frivolous, and yet they are themselves the essence of Torah. For example, the verse states: “And the Avvim, that dwelt in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, that came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead” (Deuteronomy 2:23). What practical difference does this make for us?

מדאשבעיה אבימלך לאברהם (בראשית כא, כג) אם תשקור לי ולניני ולנכדי אמר הקב"ה ליתו כפתורים ליפקו מעוים דהיינו פלשתים וליתו ישראל ליפקו מכפתורים

The verse teaches the following: Since Abimelech, king of the Philistines, administered an oath to Abraham: “That you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my grandson” (Genesis 21:23), the Jewish people were prohibited from conquering the land of the Philistines until four generations had passed. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let the Caphtorim come and remove the land from the Avvim, who are the same as the Philistines, and let Israel come and remove it from the Caphtorim, circumventing the prohibition.

כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר כא, כו) כי חשבון עיר סיחון מלך האמורי היא והוא נלחם במלך מואב וגו' מאי נפקא מינה דאמר להו הקב"ה לישראל (דברים ב, ט) אל תצר את מואב אמר הקב"ה ליתי סיחון ליפוק ממואב וליתו ישראל וליפקו מסיחון והיינו דאמר רב פפא עמון ומואב טיהרו בסיחון

Similarly, you say with regard to another apparently unnecessary verse, describing a city that the Israelites conquered: “For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand” (Numbers 21:26). What is the practical difference in knowing this information? It teaches that since the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: “Be not at enmity with Moab” (Deuteronomy 2:9), the Jewish people were prohibited from conquering the land of Moab. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Sihon come and remove the land from Moab, and let Israel come and remove it from Sihon. The Gemara notes: And this is what Rav Pappa says: The lands of Ammon and Moab were purified by Sihon, i.e., rendered permitted for conquest.

(דברים ג, ט) צידונים יקראו לחרמון שריון תנא שניר ושריון מהרי ארץ ישראל מלמד שכל אחד ואחד מאומות העולם הלך ובנה לו כרך גדול לעצמו והעלה לו על שם הרי ארץ ישראל ללמדך שאפילו הרי ארץ ישראל חביבין על האומות העולם

The Gemara cites another seemingly superfluous verse, describing Mount Hermon: “Which Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir” (Deuteronomy 3:9). A Sage taught: Senir and Sirion are mountains of Eretz Yisrael. The verse teaches that every one of the nations of the world went and built itself a great city on Mount Hermon, and named it after one of the mountains of Eretz Yisrael, teaching you that even the mountains of Eretz Yisrael are beloved by the nations of the world.

כיוצא בו (בראשית מז, כא) ואת העם העביר אותו לערים מאי נפקא מינה דלא ליקרו לאחיו גלוותא:

Similarly, a difficult verse describes Joseph’s treatment of the Egyptians: “And as for the people, he removed them city by city” (Genesis 47:21). What is the practical difference of this information? It teaches Joseph’s love for his brothers, as he transferred the entire Egyptian population so that they would not call his brothers exiles.

סימני העוף לא נאמרו: ולא והתניא (ויקרא יא, יג) נשר

§ The mishna states: The signs of the kosher bird were not explicitly stated in the Torah. The Gemara asks: And is it true that they were not stated in the Torah? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “The nesher” (Leviticus 11:13) is a non-kosher bird.