Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE DIFFERENT WAYS OF EXPOUNDING THE VERSE

(a) Question: What do Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael and Tana #1 (i.e. of Beraisa #1, 65A) argue about?
(b) Answer: They argue if it has the four Simanim, but the head is long:

1. Tana #1 expounds "That it has legs" - Klal; "Arbeh Sal'am Chargol Chagav l'Minehu" - Prat; (l'Minehu is normally a Klal - since it does not resemble the first Klal (see below), Tana #1 does not consider this a Klal, Prat and Klal.)

i. From a Klal and Prat we learn only the Prat, i.e. only that species; we only include (from l'Minehu) what resembles the Prat in two aspects (Tosfos - both the important and non-important aspects.)

2. Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael expounds "That it has legs" - Klal; "Arbeh, Sal'am, Chargol, Chagav" - Prat; "l'Minehu" - Klal;

i. A Klal, Prat and Klal teaches what is similar to the Prat, i.e. what resembles the Prat in one aspect (Tosfos - the important aspects.)

3. Question: The latter Klal is unlike the former!

i. The first Klal ("That it has legs") permits all species with legs; the latter Klal ("l'Minehu") only permits those with all four Simanim!

4. Answer: Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael expounds Klal, Prat and Klal even when the Klalim are dissimilar.

i. This Beraisa is the source that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael expounds thusly.

(c) (Beraisa): One might have thought, if it is called Chagav, even if it lacks the other Simanim (it is permitted) - "L'Minehu" teaches that this is not so.
(d) Objection: Why would we think to permit it without the Simanim - the Pratim (Arbeh...) all have the Simanim!
(e) Answer: This objection would be valid had the Torah not written "Sal'am". However, it wrote Sal'am to include species with a long head - one might have thought, it includes even species without the Simanim - "l'Minehu" teaches, this is not so.
(f) Question: The first Tana said that "Sal'am" is Rashon and "Chargol" is Niful - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael said the opposite!
(g) Answer: Each Tana teaches according to what people call the species in his locale.

(a) (Mishnah): Any fish with Snapir and Kaskeses (fins and scales) is Tahor.
(b) (Beraisa): The following are Tehorim:

1. A fish that doesn't have scales now, but will grow them later, such like Sultanis (sardine or herring) and Afian (anchovy);
2. A fish that has scales, but loses them when it leaves the water, such like Akonas

(c) (Mishnah): Every fish that has scales has fins - such a fish is Tahor; some fish have fins but no scales - they are Teme'im.
(d) Question: Since it only depends on scales, why did the Torah say that it must have fins and scales?
(e) Answer: Had the Torah only written "Kaskeses", one might have thought that the word means 'fins' (and he would permit a Tamei fish)!

1. It wrote both, for clearly one means fins, the other means scales.
2. Question: How do we know that Kaskeses means scales?
3. Answer: "He was clothed in armor of Kaskeses".
4. Question: Since we may learn from here, why did the Torah need to write both?
5. Answer (R. Avahu): The Torah wrote it even though it was not necessary.

(a) (Beraisa): Since the Torah permits fish with Simanim, we know that fish without the Simanim are forbidden; since the Torah forbids fish without Simanim, we know that fish with Simanim are permitted.
(b) Question: Why did the Torah have to write both?
(c) Answer: This forbids eating Tamei fish with a Lav and an Ase.
(d) Question: What do we learn from "You may eat all that is in water..."?
(e) Answer: In two places the Torah permitted fish without the Simanim, once explicitly, once generally;

1. The explicit Heter was for fish in (water in) vessels; one might have thought, the other verse also permits (only) this - "You may eat all that is in water..." permits drinking water from pits (no matter which fish are inside.)

(f) Question: Which verse permits fish in vessels?
(g) Answer #1: "This you will eat, among all that is in water...(in seas and rivers)" - in seas and rivers, we may only eat fish with Simanim, but in vessels, we may eat fish even without Simanim.

1. Suggestion: Why don't we say instead, in vessels we may not eat even fish with Simanim?
2. Rejection: "Any fish that does not have fins and scales, in seas and rivers..." - in seas and rivers, we may not eat fish without Simanim, but in vessels, we may eat them.
3. Question: We should say that "In water" is a Klal, "in seas and rivers" is a Prat - a Klal u'Prat only includes the Prat (seas and rivers, not in channels)!
4. Answer: the Torah gives another Klal "in water".
5. Question: But the two Klalim come together, the Pratim are after them!
6. Answer (Ravina): Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael teach, we may insert a Prat between two Klalim that are written together.

i. From the Klal, Prat, Klal we learn cases that are like the Prat, namely, flowing water.
ii. This includes flowing channels (fish without Simanim in channels are forbidden); fish in pits are permitted.

7. Question: Why don't we say, the Prat is bodies of water (in the ground, not in vessels), all such cases are forbidden!
8. Answer: If so, the repetition "You may eat" would not teach anything.

(h) Answer #2 (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "In water...in water" - we do not expound this according to Klal and Prat, rather like Ribuy and Mi'ut (inclusions and exclusions):

1. "In water" - this is a Ribuy; "in seas and rivers" - Mi'ut; "in water" - Ribuy;

i. We consider that everything is included, i.e. channels (that fish in open channels without the Simanim are forbidden);
ii. We exclude enclosed pits (fish in pits are permitted even without Simanim.)

2. Question: We should say that pits are included (to forbid fish without Simanim), vessels are excluded (to permit fish without Simanim)?
3. Answer: If so, the repetition "You may eat" would not teach anything.
4. Question: We should say the opposite - pits are included to forbid (fish without Simanim), channels are excluded?
5. Answer (Matisyahu ben Yehudah): We include channels (to forbid fish without the Simanim) for they are open, like seas and rivers; we exclude pits, for they are enclosed (like vessels.)