Talmud Bavli Hullin 66a-b - translation by Tzvee

H.           [66a] On what principle do the Tanna from the house of Rab [in F-G] and the Tanna of the house of Ishmael [VII.2 C] dispute? In the case of [a locust that has] a long head they dispute. The Tanna of the house of Rab reasons [as follows]: “[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) — this is a general rule. “[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) — this is a specification [of the rule]. Where you have a general rule and a specification of the rule, you can only subsume under the rule what you have in the specifications. [This then means] if it is of the same kind, yes [you may subsume it under the rule]. But if it is not of the same kind, no [you may not subsume it]. And we encompass [in the rule] all [kinds] that match it in all manners.

I.              The Tanna of the House of Ishmael reasons [as follows]: “[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) — this is a general rule. “[Of them you may eat:] the locust ... the bald locust ... the cricket ... and the grasshopper...” (Lev. 11:22) — this is a specification [of the rule]. “According to its kind” — this is another general rule. Where you have a general rule and a specification of the rule, and another general rule, you may judge [what is subsumed] only according to the specifications. And we encompass [in the rule] all [kinds] that match it in one manner.

J.              But lo, here the first general rule does not match the latter general rule. According to the first rule, the Torah said, “Those which have legs above their feet.” [This implies that] those that have [legs], you may eat. Those that do not have, you may not eat. According to the latter general rule [you cannot eat them] unless they match in the four tokens [of cleanness].

K.            The House of R. Ishmael explicates [issues] based on general rules and specifications like this very matter. And what we say in general that the House of R. Ishmael explicates [issues] based on general rules and specifications like this very matter, [we derive that statement] from this instance here.

L.            Said the master [see E above]: 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.

M.           If it does not have all these tokens — from what source could we derive this inference? It is written: the locust... and the cricket. If it did not also write, the bald locust, [we might have concluded] as you said. Now that it did write, the bald locust, [does it make sense to maintain] this comes to encompass [a locust whose] head is long? It makes sense to maintain that it comes to encompass any [match of the tokens] at all. It makes the novel point [that this is not the case].

N.           What is the difference between that version that states the bald locust, that is the ršwn; the cricket, that is the nypwl, and this version that states the bald locust, that is the nypwl; and the cricket, that is the ršwn? This master follows [the interpretation of] his locality. And this master follows [the interpretation of] his locality.

VIII.1

A.            And among fish: Any that has fins and scales [M. 3:7 C]. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: If [a species of fish has no fins and scales] now but is going to grow them later on, for example, the sultanit fish and the aphis fish, lo, this [species of fish] is permitted. If it has [fins and scales] now but is going to slough them off when it is taken out of the water, for example, [66b] the colias, scomber, swordfish, anthias, and tunny, it is permitted [b. A.Z. 39a (Neusner's translation)].

B.            It was taught there on Tannaite authority: Whatever has scales has fins, but there is that which has fins and does not have scales [M. Nid. 6:9 A]. Whatever has scales and has fins is a clean fish. If it has a fin but does not have scales, it is an unclean fish. Since we rely on the presence of scales, why did the Torah have to make mention of fins at all?

C.            If the Torah had not made reference to fins, I might have supposed that the word translated as scales refers to fins, so even an unclean fish would be permitted. It was necessary for the Torah to refer explicitly to both fins and scales.

D.            And now that the Torah has written both fins and scales, how do we know that the word translated as scales actually means a covering? As it is written, “[He had a helmet of bronze on his head,] and he was covered with a coat of mail [qsqsym], [and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze]” (I Sam. 17:5).

E.            So why did the Torah not write just scales and there would have been no need to make mention of fins at all? Said R. Abbahu, and so taught a Tannaite authority of the house of R. Ishmael, “To magnify his teaching and make it glorious” (Isa. 42:21).

VIII.2

A.            Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: From what was stated that one may eat [those fish] that do have them [fins and scales], I derive that one may not eat those that do not have them. And from what was stated that one may not eat those that do not have them, I derive that one may eat those that do have them. So why did it teach both? [To inform us that if he eats a fish that is prohibited] he transgresses for that both a positive and a negative commandment. [The verses are: “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you” (Lev. 11:9-10).]

B.            “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters” — what does this come to teach us? You might have inferred that since it permitted specific [water creatures] and permitted them in general, just as when it permitted them in specific it permitted only those that were [grown] in vessels, so too when it permitted them in general it permitted only those that were [grown] in vessels. On what basis do we include [the rule] that from cisterns, ditches and caverns one may bend down and not refrain from drinking [even though he may swallow a creature from the water]? It comes to teach [in the verse], “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters.”

C.            In what source does it permit [water creatures] found in vessels? As it is written, “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat.” Those that have [fins and scales], you may eat. Those that do not have, you may not eat. Lo, those that are found in vessels, even though they do not have [fins and scales], you may eat them. But it makes [just as much] sense to say those that are found in vessels, even though they do have [fins and scales], you may not eat them. No, you cannot have concluded that. For it is written, “But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters...” — [that implies] whatever is in the seas or the rivers that does not have [fins and scales], you may not eat. Lo, those that are found in vessels, even though they do not have [fins and scales], you may eat them.

D.            But it makes sense to say that “in the waters” is a general rule, “in the seas or the rivers” is a specification. Where there is a general rule and a specification of the rule, there can be in the general rule on those features that are found in the specifications. [You should then conclude that] yes, [it refers to creatures] in the seas or the rivers, but no, [it does not refer to creatures] in gutters or trenches. [Scripture says,] “That are in the waters,” once again stating a general rule. These then are two general rules that are juxtaposed to one another.