G. But then consider this: “[In the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar,] Ched-or-laomer [king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim]” (Gen. 14:1), where the scribe left a space between the two words, will you say that here too there are two separate names [in the verse]? You could say [there is a difference between the two examples]. Here he left a space between the two words. He did not put them on two separate lines. But there he even put them on two separate lines. [So there is more justification in the former case to say they are separate names.]
A. It was taught on Tannaite authority: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “Any fowl that has an extra talon [and a craw, and the skin of the stomach of which can be stripped off] is clean. Any fowl that seizes [prey] is unclean” [M. Hul. 3:6 C]. R. Eleazar bar Sadoq says, “They stretch out a cord for it. Any that, when placed on a cord divides [its toes], two before it and two behind it, is unclean" [M. Hul. 3:6 D]. [Any bird that divides its toes] three on one side and one on the other, is clean [T. 3:22 A-C].
B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, “Any bird that can catch in mid-air [an object thrown to it] is unclean.” [But consider:] A humming-bird also can catch [an object in mid-air]! Said Abayye, “We speak of [the ability of the bird] to catch [food in mid-air] and to eat it.”
C. Others say, “That which nests among unclean [birds] and is like unclean [birds] is unclean. That which nests among clean ones and is like clean ones is clean” [T. 3:22 D]. In accord with whose view is this? In accord with R. Eliezer. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Eliezer says, “It is not an accident that the starling [nests] near the raven. But it is because it is of the same kind [as the raven].” You might even maintain that this is in accord with the view of the Rabbis. For we speak of nesting among and looking like [unclean birds].
A. And among locusts: Any that has (1) four legs, (2) four wings, and (3) jointed legs (Lev. 11:21), and (4) the wings of which cover the greater part of its body [M. 3:7 A]. What is the greater part of its body? Said R. Judah, said Rab, “The greater part of its length.” And some say, “The greater part of its circumference.” Said R. Pappa, “Therefore, we must have [them cover both] the greater part of its length and the greater part of its circumference.”
B. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: [R. Eleazar bar Yosé says,] “[If] it does not now have [these signs] but is going to produce them after a while, for example, the zahal, it is valid [T. 3:25 E].”
C. R. Eleazar b. R. Yosé says, “`[Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat] those which have legs [above their feet, with which to leap on the earth]' (Lev. 11:21) — even though its does not now have them, but is going to produce them after a while.” [The verse is written l', that is, have no legs, but is read lw, that is, have legs. Eleazar's rule accounts for both, that is, now it has none but later it will.]
D. What is the zahal? Said Abayye, “The 'sqrn.”
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind” (Lev. 11:22). [Following Cashdan who relies on Lewysohn:] “The locust,” this is the migratory locust. “The bald locust,” this is the bald locust. “The cricket,” this is the green grasshopper. And “the grasshopper,” this is the cricket.
B. What does it come to teach by repeating “according to its kind” four times? To include [in the rules] the vine-hopper, the Jerusalem ywhn', the `rzwby', and the rzbnyt.
C. The House of R. Ishmael taught: Some of these are general rules added to general rules. And some of these are specific rules added to specific rules. [Here is how you should interpret the verse.] “The locust,” this is the migratory locust. “According to its kind” includes [65b] the vine-hopper. I only have [a rule that includes a locust] that migrates and is not bald. Based on what [would I have a rule for a locust] that migrates and is bald? It comes to teach, “The bald locust [sl`m],” this is the nypwl. “According to its kind” includes the 'yškp [that is bald]. I only have [a rule that includes a locust] that migrates and is not bald, or that migrates and is bald. Based on what [would I have a rule for a locust] that migrates and has no tail or that migrates and has a tail? It comes to teach, “The cricket,” that is the ršwn. “According to its kind” includes the krspt and the šlhpt [that have tails]. I only have [a rule that includes a locust] that migrates and is not bald, or that migrates and is bald or that migrates and has no tail or that migrates and has a tail. Based on what [would I have a rule for a locust] that migrates and has not got a long head or that migrates and has got a long head?
D. State then, lo you should deduce this from the generative principle of all three. The locust does not resemble [in all its features] the cricket. And the cricket does not resemble the locust. And the two of them do not resemble the bald cricket. And the bald cricket does not resemble the two of them. The common denominator of all of them is that they have four legs and four wings and jointed legs and wings that cover the greater part of their bodies. So all those that have four legs and four wings and jointed legs and wings that cover the greater part of their bodies.
E. But do not the zarzor have four legs and four wings and jointed legs and wings that cover the greater part of their bodies? You might infer that it is permitted. It comes to teach us [with a fourth category,] “the grasshopper” [that includes in the rule] any that is called a grasshopper [in ordinary parlance]. If it is called a grasshopper, you might infer that [it comes under the rule] even if it does not have all these tokens [as discussed]. It comes to teach us, “according to its kind” [it does not come under the rule] unless it has all these tokens.
F. R. Ahai asked, “What about those that do not have a long head? And if you maintain that since they match four of the tokens, we may subsume it [in the rule] and we may not question [its appropriateness], then [based on this logic] the cricket as well that matches them [in the other tokens], let it not be written [in the verse], and derive it from the locust and the bald locust. But you can question [this inference as follows:] what is the case regarding those? It is the case that they have no tails. Here too [in our case] we can question [this inference on the basis that] what is the case regarding those? It is the case that their heads are not long.”
G. But said R. Ahai, “[Including in the verse] the bald locust is superfluous. The Torah need not have written the bald locust and we could have derived it by inference from the inclusion of the locust and the cricket. For what question did you have? What is the case regarding the locust? It is not bald. Lo, we have the cricket that is bald. What is the case regarding the cricket. It has no tail. Lo, we have the locust that has a tail. The bald locust that the Torah wrote, why do I need [to state it]? If it is not a matter stated for its own sake, then apply it to the matter of [a case of a locust] whose head is long.”