Chullin 65aחולין ס״ה א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 65a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
65aס״ה א

בתרתי תיבות ש"מ תרי שמות נינהו

into two words, conclude from it that they are two names, prohibiting the egg as well.

אלא מעתה (בראשית יד, ד) את כדר לעומר דפסק להו ספרא בתרי הכי נמי דתרתי שמי נינהו אמרי התם בשתי תיבות פסיק להו בשני שיטין לא פסיק להו אבל הכא אפי' בשני שיטין נמי פסיק להו:

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what about the name: “Chedorlaomer” (Genesis 14:4), which the scribe splits in two so that it appears as: Chedor Laomer? Is it also true there that they are two names? The verse is clearly referring to only one person. They say in response: There, with regard to Chedor Laomer, the scribe splits the name into two words, but he may not split it into two lines if the first half nears the end of one line. But here, he may split the name bat ya’ana even into two lines, indicating that they are completely separate.

אבל אמרו חכמים כל עוף [וכו']: תניא רבן גמליאל אומר דורס ואוכל בידוע שהוא טמא יש לו אצבע יתירה וזפק וקרקבנו נקלף בידוע שהוא טהור ר"א בר' צדוק אומר מותחין לו חוט של משיחה אם חולק את רגליו שתים לכאן ושתים לכאן טמא שלש לכאן ואחת לכאן טהור ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר כל עוף הקולט מן האויר טמא

§ The mishna states: But the Sages stated that any bird that claws its prey and eats it is non-kosher. It is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel says: A bird that claws its prey and eats it is certainly non-kosher. If it has an extra digit and a crop, and its gizzard can be peeled, it is certainly kosher. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: One stretches a line, and the bird perches on it. If it splits its feet on the line, with two digits here and two there, it is non-kosher. If it places three digits here and one there, it is possibly kosher. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Any bird that catches food out of the air is non-kosher.

ציפרתא נמי מקלט קלטה אמר אביי קולט ואוכל קאמרי

The Gemara interjects: But the tziparta also catches food out of the air, and it is kosher. Abaye said: We say this only for a bird that both catches and eats its food in the air. The tziparta lands before eating what it has caught.

אחרים אומרים שכן עם טמאים טמא עם טהורים טהור

The baraita concludes: Others say: If a bird dwells with non-kosher birds, it is non-kosher; if it dwells with kosher birds, it is kosher.

כמאן כר' אליעזר דתניא ר"א אומר לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב אלא מפני שהוא מינו אפי' תימא רבנן שכן ונדמה קאמרינן:

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this last statement? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: It was not for naught that the zarzir went to dwell with the crow, but because it is of the same species. The Gemara rejects this: You may even say that the opinion introduced with the words: Others say, is like that of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and deem the zarzir kosher. The statement introduced with the words: Others say, is understood as follows: We say that a bird is non-kosher whenever it both dwells with a non-kosher bird and resembles it. The zarzir, though, does not resemble the crow.

ובחגבים כל שיש לו כו': מאי רובו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רוב ארכו ואמרי לה רוב הקיפו אמר רב פפא הלכך בעינן רוב ארכו ובעינן רוב הקיפו

§ The mishna states: And with regard to grasshoppers, any grasshopper that has four legs, and four wings, and two additional jumping legs, and whose wings cover most of its body, is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is considered most of its body? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Most of its length. And some say that he said: Most of its circumference. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, one must satisfy both versions of the statement. We require that the wings cover most of its length, and we also require that they cover most of its circumference.

ת"ר אין לו עכשיו ועתיד לגדל לאחר זמן כגון הזחל מותר ר"א בר' יוסי אומר (ויקרא יא, כא) אשר לא כרעים אף על פי שאין לו עכשיו ועתיד לגדל לאחר זמן מאי זחל אמר אביי אסקרין

The Sages taught in a baraita: A grasshopper that has no wings now but will grow them after a time, e.g., the zaḥal, is permitted. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: The verse states: “Yet these may you eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all fours, which have [lo] jointed legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:21). The word lo is written with the letter alef, meaning not, so that it can be understood as: Do not have jointed legs. This teaches that even though it has no jointed legs now but will grow them after a time, it is still kosher. The Gemara asks: What is the zaḥal? Abaye said: It is called askarin in Aramaic.

ת"ר (ויקרא יא, כב) את אלה מהם תאכלו את הארבה וגו' ארבה זה גובאי סלעם זה רשון חרגול זה ניפול חגב זה גדיאן מה ת"ל (ויקרא יא, טו) למינו למינהו למינהו למינהו ד' פעמים להביא ציפורת כרמים ויוחנא ירושלמית והערצוביא והרזבנית

The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: “These of them you may eat: The arbeh after its kinds, and the solam after its kinds, and the ḥargol after its kinds, and the ḥagav after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:22). The arbeh is the insect known as the govai. The solam is the rashon. The ḥargol is the nippul. The ḥagav is the gadyan. Why must the verse state: “After its kinds,” “after its kinds,” “after its kinds,” and “after its kinds,” four times? It is to include four similar species: The vineyard bird, and the Jerusalem yoḥana, and the artzuveya, and the razbanit, which are also kosher.

דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא אלו כללי כללות ואלו פרטי פרטות ארבה זה גובאי למינו להביא

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: These appearances of the phrase “after its kinds” in the verse are generalizations, and these species mentioned explicitly are details. The verse must be understood in light of the previous verse, which offers general signs of a kosher grasshopper. The two verses together are a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, in the following manner: The first verse is a generalization, arbeh is a detail referring to the species govai, and the phrase “after its kinds” is another generalization. According to Rabbi Yishmael’s hermeneutical principles, the second generalization serves to include a case similar to the detail. In this case, the phrase “after its kinds” serves to include