Chullin Daf 65 (חולין דף ס״ה)
Daf: 65 | Amudim: 65a – 65b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (65a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of Chizkiyya’s derashah: the scribal split into two words proves ‘bat ya’ana’ is two names
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּתַרְתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּרֵי שֵׁמוֹת נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
into two words, conclude from it that they are two names, prohibiting the egg as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud opens by completing the argument carried over from daf 64b. Chizkiyya derived that a non-kosher bird’s egg is Torah-forbidden from ‘bat ha-ya’ana,’ and the proof is sealed here: because the scribe writes ‘bat ya’ana’ as two separate words, we conclude they function as two distinct names — so ‘bat’ independently denotes the egg, which is thereby prohibited.
Key Terms:
- תַּרְתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת = two [separate] words
- תְּרֵי שֵׁמוֹת = two [distinct] names
- בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה = ‘bat ha-ya’ana,’ read so that ‘bat’ denotes the egg
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Objection from ‘Chedorlaomer’ (also split); resolved by whether it can split across two lines
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״אֶת כְּדׇר לָעֹמֶר״ דְּפָסֵק לְהוּ סָפְרָא בִּתְרֵי, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּתְרֵי שְׁמֵי נִינְהוּ? אָמְרִי: הָתָם בִּשְׁתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת פָּסֵיק לְהוּ, בִּשְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין לָא פָּסֵיק לְהוּ, אֲבָל הָכָא אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין נָמֵי פָּסֵיק לְהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the two-words principle from ‘Chedorlaomer’ (Genesis 14:1), which the scribe also writes as two words — yet it is plainly one person, not two names. The resolution refines the rule: Chedor Laomer may be split into two words but never across two lines, whereas bat ya’ana may be split even across two lines. The greater scribal separability of bat ya’ana confirms it functions as two genuinely independent names.
Key Terms:
- אֶת כְּדׇר לָעֹמֶר = ‘Chedorlaomer’ (Genesis 14:1), written as two words but one name
- בִּשְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין = across two lines [of the scroll]
- פָּסֵיק = splits/separates
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
The bird-signs baraita: dores; the three positive signs; R’ Elazar’s line-test; R’ Shimon’s air-catching sign
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: כׇּל עוֹף. תַּנְיָא, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, יֵשׁ לוֹ אֶצְבַּע יְתֵירָה וְזֶפֶק וְקֻרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלָף – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: מוֹתְחִין לוֹ חוּט שֶׁל מְשִׁיחָה, אִם חוֹלֵק אֶת רַגְלָיו, שְׁתַּיִם לְכָאן וּשְׁתַּיִם לְכָאן – טָמֵא, שָׁלֹשׁ לְכָאן וְאַחַת לְכָאן – טָהוֹר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עוֹף הַקּוֹלֵט מִן הָאֲוִיר – טָמֵא.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s statement that any dores (clawing) bird is non-kosher, citing a baraita of tannaitic positions on identifying kosher birds. Rabban Gamliel gives the standard rule — a dores is certainly non-kosher; a bird with an extra toe, a crop, and a peelable gizzard is certainly kosher. Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Tzadok adds a behavioral test: perch the bird on a stretched cord — splitting its toes two-and-two marks it non-kosher, three-and-one possibly kosher. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar offers another: a bird that catches food from midair is non-kosher.
Key Terms:
- דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל = claws [its prey] and eats — the disqualifying trait
- אֶצְבַּע יְתֵירָה = an extra/raised hind toe
- חוּט שֶׁל מְשִׁיחָה = a stretched cord, used for R’ Elazar’s perching test
- הַקּוֹלֵט מִן הָאֲוִיר = that catches food from the air
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The kosher tziparta also catches from the air; Abaye limits it to catching AND eating in the air
Hebrew/Aramaic:
צִיפַּרְתָּא נָמֵי מִקְלָט קָלְטָה! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״קוֹלֵט וְאוֹכֵל״ קָאָמְרִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s air-catching sign: the tziparta (a small kosher bird) also snatches food from the air, yet it is kosher. Abaye narrows the criterion: the sign disqualifies only a bird that both catches and eats its food in the air. The tziparta first alights and only then eats, so it is not caught by the rule.
Key Terms:
- צִיפַּרְתָּא = the tziparta, a kosher bird that catches from the air
- קוֹלֵט וְאוֹכֵל = catches and eats [in the air] — the precise disqualifying behavior
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
‘Others say’: a bird that dwells with non-kosher birds is non-kosher; with kosher, kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: שָׁכֵן עִם טְמֵאִים – טָמֵא, עִם טְהוֹרִים – טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita closes with the view of ‘Others’: a bird’s company indicates its status — dwelling among non-kosher birds marks it non-kosher, and dwelling among kosher birds marks it kosher. This habitat-based sign treats a bird’s natural associations as evidence of its species, and prompts the Gemara’s next question about whose halachic opinion it reflects.
Key Terms:
- אֲחֵרִים = ‘Others [say]’ — the anonymous tannaitic view
- שָׁכֵן = dwells/nests [with]
- עִם טְמֵאִים / עִם טְהוֹרִים = with non-kosher [birds] / with kosher [birds]
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Whose view? Not necessarily R’ Eliezer (zarzir); even the Rabbis agree when it both dwells-with and resembles
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא לְחִנָּם הָלַךְ זַרְזִיר אֵצֶל עוֹרֵב, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִינוֹ. אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, שָׁכֵן וְנִדְמֶה קָאָמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks whether ‘Others’ follows Rabbi Eliezer, who held the zarzir kosher-forbidden because ‘it did not go to the crow for nothing — it is its species.’ It rejects the equation: ‘Others’ can even accord with the Rabbis (who permit the zarzir), because their rule requires both dwelling-together and resemblance. The zarzir dwells with the crow but does not resemble it, so the Rabbis still permit it; the habitat sign alone disqualifies only when paired with physical likeness.
Key Terms:
- זַרְזִיר = the zarzir (starling), which dwells with the crow
- מִינוֹ = its [own] species — Rabbi Eliezer’s claim about the zarzir
- שָׁכֵן וְנִדְמֶה = both dwells-with and resembles — the combined criterion
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
The grasshopper mishna: ‘most of its body’ — Rav: most of its length / circumference; Rav Pappa requires both
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבַחֲגָבִים, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כּוּ׳. מַאי רוּבּוֹ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רוֹב אׇרְכּוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רוֹב הֶקֵּיפוֹ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ בָּעֵינַן רוֹב אׇרְכּוֹ, וּבָעֵינַן רוֹב הֶקֵּיפוֹ.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens the locust section, citing the mishna’s fourth kosher sign — that the wings cover most of its body (rubo). It asks what ‘most’ means: Rav (per Rav Yehuda) is reported as ‘most of its length,’ and in another version ‘most of its circumference.’ Rav Pappa rules stringently that both readings must be satisfied — the wings must cover most of the grasshopper’s length and most of its circumference.
Key Terms:
- חֲגָבִים = grasshoppers/locusts
- כְּנָפָיו חוֹפִין אֶת רוּבּוֹ = its wings cover most of its body — the fourth kosher sign
- רוֹב אׇרְכּוֹ / רוֹב הֶקֵּיפוֹ = most of its length / most of its circumference
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
A grasshopper lacking wings now but destined to grow them (the zachal) is kosher; R’ Elazar b’R’ Yosei’s derashah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְעָתִיד לְגַדֵּל לְאַחַר זְמַן, כְּגוֹן הַזַּחַל – מוּתָּר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא כְרָעַיִם״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְעָתִיד לְגַדֵּל לְאַחַר זְמַן. מַאי זַחַל? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַסְקְרָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita teaches that a grasshopper without wings now but that will grow them later — e.g. the zachal — is kosher. Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Yosei anchors this in the verse ‘asher lo kera’ayim’ (Leviticus 11:21): reading ‘lo’ (spelled with an alef, ‘not’) as ‘which does not [yet] have jointed legs,’ the verse includes the grasshopper that lacks them now but will develop them. Abaye identifies the zachal as the askara.
Key Terms:
- הַזַּחַל = the zachal, a grasshopper that will grow wings later
- אֲשֶׁר לֹא כְרָעַיִם = ‘which has [not] jointed legs’ (Leviticus 11:21) — the alef read as ‘not’
- אַסְקְרָא = the askara, Abaye’s Aramaic identification of the zachal
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
The four named kosher species (arbeh, solam, chargol, chagav) and the four ‘after its kinds’ inclusions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶת אֵלֶּה מֵהֶם תֹּאכֵלוּ אֶת הָאַרְבֶּה וְגוֹ׳״. אַרְבֶּה – זֶה גּוֹבַאי, סַלְעָם – זֶה רָשׁוֹן, חַרְגּוֹל – זֶה נִיפּוּל, חָגָב – זֶה נַדְיָאן. מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְמִינוֹ״ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים? לְהָבִיא צִיפּוֹרֶת כְּרָמִים, וְיוֹחָנָא יְרוּשַׁלְמִית, וְהָעַרְצוּבְיָא, וְהָרַזְבָּנִית.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita identifies the Torah’s four kosher grasshopper-names (Leviticus 11:22) with the species known in the rabbis’ day: arbeh = govai, solam = rashon, chargol = nippul, chagav = gadyan. It then reads the fourfold repetition of ‘after its kinds’ as four inclusions, adding four further kosher species — the vineyard-bird, the Jerusalem yochana, the artzuveya, and the razbanit.
Key Terms:
- אַרְבֶּה / סׇלְעָם / חַרְגּוֹל / חָגָב = the four named kosher grasshopper species (Leviticus 11:22)
- לְמִינוֹ / לְמִינֵהוּ = ‘after its kind(s)’ — read four times as inclusions
- צִיפּוֹרֶת כְּרָמִים = the ‘vineyard bird,’ one of the four added species
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה
School of R’ Yishmael begins a klal-prat-klal reading of the grasshopper verses (continues 65b)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: אֵלּוּ כְּלָלֵי כְלָלוֹת, וְאֵלּוּ פְּרָטֵי פְרָטוֹת. ״אַרְבֶּה״ – זֶה ״גּוֹבַאי״, ״לְמִינוֹ״ לְהָבִיא
English Translation:
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
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael recasts the same verses through its own hermeneutic of klal u-frat u-khlal (generalization, detail, generalization). Read with the prior verse’s general signs, the structure is: a general signs-verse (klal), ‘arbeh’ = govai (a prat/detail), and ‘after its kinds’ (a second klal). By Rabbi Yishmael’s rule, the closing generalization extends the category to whatever resembles the detail — here beginning to include the vineyard-bird. The derashah continues onto 65b.
Key Terms:
- דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = the school of Rabbi Yishmael
- כְּלָלֵי כְלָלוֹת / פְּרָטֵי פְרָטוֹת = generalizations / details — the klal-prat framework
- לְהָבִיא = ‘to include’ — the function of the closing klal
Amud Bet (65b)
Segment 1
TYPE: דרשה
The arbeh’s klal includes the vineyard-bird (a hairy, non-smooth forehead like the arbeh)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
צִיפּוֹרֶת כְּרָמִים.
English Translation:
the vineyard bird, which is similar to the arbeh in that its forehead is not smooth but has small hairs.
קלאוד על הדף:
Completing the thought from 65a: the generalization after ‘arbeh’ includes the tzipporet keramim (vineyard-bird), which resembles the arbeh in having a non-smooth, slightly hairy forehead. This establishes the first category — grasshoppers lacking a smooth forehead (gabbachat) — as kosher along with their look-alikes.
Key Terms:
- צִיפּוֹרֶת כְּרָמִים = the vineyard-bird, included via the arbeh’s generalization
- גַּבַּחַת = a smooth/bald forehead — the arbeh lacks it
Segment 2
TYPE: דרשה
The solam’s klal adds smooth-foreheaded species (the ushkaf), extending kashrut to that type
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַבָּא וְאֵין לוֹ גַּבַּחַת. הַבָּא וְיֵשׁ לוֹ גַּבַּחַת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״סׇלְעָם״ – זֶה נִיפּוּל, ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – לְהָבִיא אֶת הָאוּשְׁכָּף.
English Translation:
I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead is kosher. From where is it derived that even one that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead is kosher? The verse states: “Solam,” and this is the nippul, which has a smooth forehead. The phrase “after its kinds” that follows solam is another generalization, which serves to include a case similar to the detail, i.e., the ushkaf, which has a smooth forehead like the solam.
קלאוד על הדף:
So far only the no-smooth-forehead type is included. The verse therefore names ‘solam’ = nippul, which does have a smooth forehead (gabbachat), and its ‘after its kinds’ generalization includes the ushkaf — a similar smooth-foreheaded species. This adds a second kosher category: grasshoppers with a smooth forehead and their look-alikes.
Key Terms:
- סׇלְעָם / נִיפּוּל = the solam, identified as the nippul, which has a smooth forehead
- הָאוּשְׁכָּף = the ushkaf, included via the solam’s generalization
- גַּבַּחַת = smooth forehead — the feature defining this category
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה
The chargol’s klal adds tailed species (karsefet, shachlanit), extending kashrut to grasshoppers with a tail
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַבָּא וְאֵין לוֹ גַּבַּחַת. הַבָּא וְיֵשׁ לוֹ גַּבַּחַת, הַבָּא וְאֵין לוֹ זָנָב, הַבָּא וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זָנָב מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חַרְגֹּל״ – זֶה רָשׁוֹן, ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – לְהָבִיא אֶת הַכַּרְסֶפֶת וְאֶת הַשַּׁחֲלָנִית.
English Translation:
And I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead, like the arbeh, or one that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead, like the solam, or one that comes before a person and has no tail, is kosher, since none of the previously mentioned grasshoppers have a tail. From where is it derived that even one that comes before a person and has a tail is kosher? The verse states: “Ḥargol,” and this is the rashon, which has a tail. The phrase “after its kinds” that follows ḥargol is another generalization, and it serves to include the karsefet and the shaḥlanit, which also have tails.
קלאוד על הדף:
The species named so far all lack a tail. The verse therefore names ‘chargol’ = rashon, which has a tail (zanav), and its ‘after its kinds’ generalization includes the karsefet and the shachlanit — further tailed species. A third kosher category is thereby established: grasshoppers possessing a tail and their look-alikes.
Key Terms:
- חַרְגֹּל / רָשׁוֹן = the chargol, identified as the rashon, which has a tail
- זָנָב = a tail
- כַּרְסֶפֶת / שַׁחֲלָנִית = the karsefet and shachlanit, included via the chargol’s generalization
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
What about a long-headed grasshopper? The question is posed before deriving it via a binyan av
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַבָּא וְאֵין לוֹ גַּבַּחַת. הַבָּא וְיֵשׁ לוֹ גַּבַּחַת, הַבָּא וְאֵין לוֹ זָנָב, הַבָּא וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זָנָב, הַבָּא וְאֵין רֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ, הַבָּא וְרֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ מִנַּיִן?
English Translation:
And I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead, or that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead, or that comes and has no tail, or that comes and has a tail, or that comes and its head is not long, is kosher, since every grasshopper mentioned until this point does not have a long head. From where is it derived that even one that comes and its head is long is kosher?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having covered the forehead and tail variations, the baraita raises the remaining case: every species derived so far has a short head, so from where do we learn that a long-headed grasshopper is kosher? This sets up the binyan av (paradigm-derivation) from the three named species in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- רֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ = its head is long — the case not yet covered
- מִנַּיִן = ‘from where [is it derived]?’ — the question driving the next step
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה
A binyan av from arbeh, chargol, solam: the common denominator is the four signs — so any with them is kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַרְתָּ: הֲרֵי אַתָּה דָן בִּנְיַן אָב מִשְּׁלׇשְׁתָּן, לֹא רְאִי אַרְבֶּה כִּרְאִי חַרְגּוֹל, וְלֹא רְאִי חַרְגּוֹל כִּרְאִי אַרְבֶּה, וְלֹא רְאִי שְׁנֵיהֶם כִּרְאִי סׇלְעָם, וְלֹא רְאִי סׇלְעָם כִּרְאִי שְׁנֵיהֶם. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם, וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם, וְקַרְצוּלַּיִם, וּכְנָפָיו חוֹפִין אֶת רוּבּוֹ; אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם, וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם, וְקַרְצוּלַּיִם, וּכְנָפָיו חוֹפִין אֶת רוּבּוֹ.
English Translation:
You will say: You derive a paradigm from the three of them, as follows: The aspect [re’i] of the arbeh, which has neither smooth forehead nor tail, is not similar to the aspect of the ḥargol, which has both; and the aspect of the ḥargol is not similar to the aspect of the arbeh. And the aspect of neither of them is similar to the aspect of the solam, which has a smooth forehead but no tail, and the aspect of the solam is similar to neither of their aspects. The characteristic that renders them all kosher can only be an aspect common to all of them. Their common denominator is that each has four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body. So too, any other species that has four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body is kosher, even if its head is long.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita derives the long-headed case by a binyan av from all three named species. The arbeh, chargol, and solam differ from one another (smooth forehead vs. not, tail vs. not), so no single feature unites them; their only common denominator is the four signs — four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and wings covering most of the body. Therefore any grasshopper bearing these four signs is kosher, even one with a long head.
Key Terms:
- בִּנְיַן אָב = a paradigm-derivation from shared features
- הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה = the common denominator
- אַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם… וְקַרְצוּלַּיִם = four legs, four wings, and jumping legs — part of the four signs
- קַרְצוּלַּיִם = the jumping legs (above the feet)
Segment 6
TYPE: דרשה
But the tzartzur has all four signs too! ‘Chagav’ teaches the species must actually be named chagav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲלֹא הַצַּרְצוּר הַזֶּה יֵשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם, וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם, וְקַרְצוּלַּיִם, וּכְנָפָיו חוֹפִין אֶת רוּבּוֹ, יָכוֹל יְהֵא מוּתָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חָגָב״, שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ חָגָב.
English Translation:
One might ask: But doesn’t this tzartzur have four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body? Consequently, one might have thought that it should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: “Ḥagav,” to indicate that its name must be ḥagav. This includes all of the species previously mentioned, but not the tzartzur.
קלאוד על הדף:
The binyan av threatens to permit too much: the tzartzur also has all four signs, yet should not be kosher. The verse therefore adds ‘chagav,’ teaching that a species qualifies only if it bears the name chagav (i.e., belongs to the recognized grasshopper family) — which excludes the tzartzur despite its matching signs.
Key Terms:
- הַצַּרְצוּר = the tzartzur, which has the four signs but is excluded
- שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ חָגָב = ‘whose name is chagav’ — the additional naming requirement
Segment 7
TYPE: דרשה
And ‘after its kinds’ teaches that even a named chagav needs all four signs (end of R’ Yishmael’s baraita)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי שְׁמוֹ חָגָב, יָכוֹל אֵין בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ.
English Translation:
But if its name must be ḥagav, one might have thought that any ḥagav is kosher, even if it does not have all these signs. Therefore, the verse states: “After its kinds,” indicating that even if it is called a ḥagav it is not kosher unless it has all these signs. This concludes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.
קלאוד על הדף:
Conversely, lest one think any creature called chagav is automatically kosher, the verse adds ‘after its kinds’ to require that even a named chagav possess all four signs to be kosher. The two clauses together fix the rule: the species must both be named chagav and bear all four signs. This concludes the school of Rabbi Yishmael’s baraita.
Key Terms:
- לְמִינֵהוּ = ‘after its kinds’ — requiring all the signs even for a named chagav
- כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ = all these signs — the full set of four
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Achai refutes the binyan av: the three species also share ‘short head,’ so long-headed ones might be excluded
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי: מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין רֹאשָׁן אָרוֹךְ? וְכִי תֵּימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁווּ בְּאַרְבַּע סִימָנִין מַיְיתִינַן וְלָא פָּרְכִינַן – אִי הָכִי, חַרְגּוֹל נָמֵי דְּשָׁווּ לְהוּ, לָא לִיכְתּוֹב וְתֵיתֵי מֵאַרְבֶּה וְסׇלְעָם!
English Translation:
Rav Aḥai refutes the baraita: The four signs listed are not the sole common denominators between the arbeh, ḥargol, and solam. What is also unique about these grasshoppers in addition to these signs? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher. And if you would say: Since they share these four signs, we include all others with these four signs and we do not refute them, since the included species need not be identical in all their aspects, if so, the Torah should not even write the ḥargol, which shares these four signs with the arbeh and the solam, and let it be derived that the ḥargol is kosher by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and solam.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Achai attacks the binyan av: besides the four signs, the arbeh, chargol, and solam share another trait — none has a long head. That shared feature could be the reason for their kashrut, leaving long-headed grasshoppers excluded. He blocks the easy reply (that we include despite differences) by noting that on such reasoning even the chargol would be redundant, derivable from arbeh and solam — yet the Torah wrote it, showing such refutations are entertained.
Key Terms:
- פָּרֵיךְ = refutes/objects
- מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן אֵין רֹאשָׁן אָרוֹךְ = ‘what of these — their heads are not long’ — the refuting feature
- דְּשָׁווּ בְּאַרְבַּע סִימָנִין = that they share the four signs
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Why chargol is still needed (its tail blocks derivation from arbeh+solam) — so long-head can likewise be refuted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לָהֶן זָנָב. הָכִי נָמֵי אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן אֵין רֹאשָׁן אָרוֹךְ?
English Translation:
Rather, it was necessary for the verse to write ḥargol because if it were omitted, its inclusion could be refuted as follows: What is unique about these, the arbeh and solam? They are unique in that they both have no tail. Since the ḥargol has a tail, its kosher status cannot be inferred from theirs. So too, the inclusion of grasshoppers with long heads can be refuted as follows: What is unique about these, the arbeh, ḥargol, and solam? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains why the chargol could not simply be derived from arbeh and solam: those two share that they have no tail, so a tailed grasshopper like the chargol could be refuted out, requiring its own verse. Rav Achai presses the parallel: just as the no-tail commonality blocks that derivation, the no-long-head commonality of all three blocks deriving the long-headed grasshopper — so the binyan av genuinely fails for it.
Key Terms:
- אֵין לָהֶן זָנָב = that they have no tail — why chargol needs its own verse
- אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ = there is [room] to refute
- בִּנְיַן אָב = the paradigm-derivation, shown to be refutable here
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Achai’s resolution: ‘solam’ is redundant (im eino inyan), so apply it to teach the long-headed grasshopper
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחַאי: סׇלְעָם יַתִּירָא הוּא, לָא לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״סׇלְעָם״, וְתֵיתֵי מֵאַרְבֶּה וּמֵחַרְגּוֹל, דְּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ? מָה לְאַרְבֶּה דְּאֵין לוֹ גַּבַּחַת – הֲרֵי חַרְגּוֹל דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ גַּבַּחַת, מָה לְחַרְגּוֹל דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ זָנָב – הֲרֵי אַרְבֶּה דְּאֵין לוֹ זָנָב, סׇלְעָם דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְגוּפוֹ – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְרֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ.
English Translation:
Rather, Rav Aḥai said: One can derive that grasshoppers with long heads are kosher as follows: The solam mentioned in the verse is redundant. How so? Let the Merciful One not write solam, and instead let it be derived by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and ḥargol, that they have four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and that their wings cover most of their body. As what can you say to refute this? If you say: What can be derived from the arbeh, which, unlike the solam, does not have a smooth forehead; one can respond: But there is the ḥargol, which has a smooth forehead. And if you say: What can be derived from the ḥargol, which, unlike the solam, has a tail, one can respond: But there is the arbeh, which has no tail. If so, why do I need the solam that the Merciful One wrote? Rather, if the solam is not necessary for the matter itself, apply it to the matter of a long-headed grasshopper, to teach that it is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Achai resolves it differently. The solam is textually redundant: it could be derived from arbeh and chargol, since any refutation fails — the arbeh’s lack of a smooth forehead is offset by the chargol (which has one), and the chargol’s tail is offset by the arbeh (which has none). Since ‘solam’ is therefore unnecessary for its own sake (im eino inyan le-gufo), the verse is redirected (tenehu inyan) to teach the otherwise-underivable case: the long-headed grasshopper is kosher.
Key Terms:
- סׇלְעָם יַתִּירָא = the solam is redundant/superfluous
- אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְגוּפוֹ = ‘if it is not needed for its own matter’ — a redirection rule
- תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְרֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ = apply it to the matter of the long-headed [grasshopper]