Chullin Daf 66

All right, daf samech vav, this is Sunday's daf. We're picking up at the top of samech vav aleph. The Gemara is going on the two braces. One was the Taurus Kanim, which we're going to call the Tana Devei Rav. That was on samech chesed aleph, like the three lines that the Gemara quoted by the makor for the which government are going to be mutar. And then we brought the Tana Devei Rebbi Shmuel, which basically took us until the whole end of yesterday's daf, which was more than an amud long, which was a different version of seemingly the same kind of an idea that these are the following kosher chagavim. So the Gemara says, "Ma yikam miflagei Tana Devei Rav v'Tana Devei Rebbi Shmuel?" What's the nafka mina between these two different versions of what appears to be almost the same thing? Which the Gemara says, "B'rashei aroch kamiflagei." Specifically about that kind of grasshopper that has the rashei aroch, the long head. Tana Devei Rav sover meaning from samech chesed aleph because the pasuk says, "Asher lo chirayim klal." If it has these jumping legs, that's a klal. Then the Torah lists the specific names of arbeh, salam, chargol, chagav, and those are all l'mineihu, according to their kind. That'll be a prat, dafka those. So klal u'prat im klal u'prat. It has to be its kind of mineihu d'minei ein d'lav minei loi. And therefore, if it's not that same min, it's not going to be kosher. U'merabi d'damei l'mishnas d'dodin, also the Tana of that Devei Rav of Taurus Kanim is only b'marbeh that which seems to be similar to one of those four that the Torah specifically lists, meaning it has the four characteristics of the four legs and the two jumping legs and the long wings, but not that it and also that does not have a rashei aroch. So it sounds like that rashei aroch would not be kosher. That's all from the samech chesed aleph braysa. But Tana Devei Rebbi Shmuel sover, "Asher lo chirayim is klal." If it has these jumping legs, that's considered a klal. Arbeh, salam, chargol, and chagav, that's going to be a prat, specifically those grasshoppers. L'mineihu, oh, he learns klal over prat. According to Tana Devei Rebbi Shmuel, that mineihu is coming back to me another klal, and therefore klal u'prat u'klal yehei done l'kein ha'prat. U'merabi kol d'damei l'vachad et tzod, therefore the Tana of Tana of Rebbi Yishmael is being mar by anything that seems to be similar to those specific grasshoppers even in one prot. It has one of those characteristics. As long as one of those characteristics will be kosher even if it has the rosh yarach. So there's your nafka mina between Tana of Rebbi Yishmael and Tana of Rebbi Yishmael whether or not rosh yarach will be bechlal. By the way, the Tana of Rebbi Yishmael is a machlokes between Rashi and Rambam what it is. According to Rashi, it's the tairus kainim. But according to the Rambam, it's just something that was learned by a lot of people. The Rebbi Yishmael doesn't mean the person Rebbi Yishmael, it means it was a learned by a lots. Now from the Gemara, according to Rebbi Yishmael, there's a klal uprat uprat. From the Gemara, dummy klal kamah basar. Because the jumping legs is not similar to the minayhu at the end. It's two different kinds of klals. So klal kamah ashrei karayim umrah Rachmana. The shlay choyel those ones you're allowed to eat irrespective of any other kinds of tinayim. The shlay choyel choyel if it doesn't have the jumping legs, you're not allowed to eat it. But klal basar is not the same thing. It's minayhu ad d'shuv b'simanim. It sounds like it has to be doimeh to all four simanim. So how can you combine the klal in the beginning where they're two different kinds of klals? To which the Gemara says, no problem. Tana of Rebbi Yishmael klal uprat key gavna doin. He does these kinds of klal uprat uprat. According to Rebbi Yishmael, that's an okay klal uprat uprat. We learn in the Gemara b'alma, we see in other locations that way. The Tana of Rebbi Yishmael klal uprat key gavna. And how do I know to say that? May hacha. This is going to be the muker for the way Tana of Rebbi Yishmael learns klal uprat uprat. Omar Meyer, eesh my chaga if the name of this kind of insect is called a chagav, that will be mutar. But yochol ain by kol simanim alahu. It sounds like you would have thought that if it's called a chagav, even if it doesn't have any of the other simanim, it'll be okay to be eaten. Talmed lomar l'minayhu. To teach us that actually kol simanim it's not just about the name chagav, but actually has to have the other characteristics. Now from the Gemara, does that make sense? Ain by kol simanim may taysi. If it doesn't have any other simanim, just cuz it's called a chagav, that wouldn't make any sense. If you call a rabbit a chagav, it's going to be kosher all of a sudden? It doesn't work that way. Arba chagav tzid. L'maisa, the tairus spells out that the kashrus is going to be specifically by an arba and a chagav. It's because they have simanim, not just because they're called Chagav. And we think more because it likes the Sulam, Kedei Gamur, that if it's Sulam, which was that extra one on the list of four different kinds of Chagavim, you would have been right that we never would have thought that you could just go with the name Chagav, and that would be enough to be kosher. You need to have the simanim. But Hashas Sulam Lerabui Lerosh Arach, now that we're including this wider definition of even the Rosh Arach that we're learning from Sulam, even though the other specific grasshoppers that the Torah said do not have these long heads, so you see that you don't really need to have all the characteristics of those specific ones that the Torah mentions. So Amar Lerabui Nami Kol Dehu, as long as you have Epis, some kind of Siman of Kashrus, that should be enough, as long as it's called a Chagav. Kamashma the Torah tells us by saying Lemineihu that they have to be Domeh to the ones with all four of the Tenayim. So Ma Ishna Hashas De Ko Amar, so why by the Braisa of Torahs Keinim from the Torah of De Rav, you're saying that Sulam is a Rosh Ein Chagav, and Nipol. Umashna Hashas De Ko Amar, but by Torah of De Rav Ishmael, we say Sulam is a Nipol, and Chagav is a Rosh Ein. So we're trying to steer in these two different Braisas. And the Gemara asks, Makhi Asur, Makhi Asur. Depends where they're from in their respective location, they define these things differently. And that is that. We're done with Chagavim, now we move on to fish. Uvedogim Kol SheYesh Bo Snapir UveKaskeses, fish are kosher as long as they have Snapir, which are fins, and Kaskeses, which are scales. Tana Rabbanan, the Braisa says, Ein Lo Achshav Asur Legodlo Achshav. Let's say the fish doesn't have the fins and scales now, cuz it's still a little baby fish, but it's going to grow them later. Kegain Hasultonis, Afyon, Halacha is Harei Zeh Mutar, they're allowed to be eaten now. Yesh Lo Achshav, also likewise, if a fish has fins and scales now, but Ve'osid Lehashir, and later on they're going to come off Veshosha Oilam UveOilam, when they come out of the water. Kegain Turning Over Tam UveBayis, Akunas, Uve'apunas, Kesiftias, Achasiftias, and Ve'atunas. These different five kind of fish are all going to be Mutar, even though when they take them out of the water, their scales seem to have fallen off. And these seem to be different kinds of tuna. And one might say this is Yaldai Tuna Tuna, as the Gemara sometimes says, Tuna Tuna. Okay, that's a terrible joke. Now the Gemara brings from the Mishna in Niddah, Tana Hasham, Kol SheYesh Bo Kaskeses Yesh Bo Snapir, any fish that has scales will certainly have fins. It doesn't work the other way around. Sometimes they can have fins and no scales. It has both simanim, dog tohar. But the mission is telling us that we automatically know if it has scales because it will also have fins. So michti, bottom line is just look to see if it has the scales. So lift kaskeses Why do I even have to talk about snappers? Everything is because he talks Snapper but only works if kaskeses have a meaner my kaskeses. Snapper I would define kaskeses as snapper. That feel dog tummy and that would even go on a not kosher fish that has fins but doesn't have scales. So kaskeses to see that they're two different things. Frankly kaskeses once I say both things mean my the kaskeses lavushu Who says that the kaskeses is this coat of armor? It's the scales. And therefore the snapper is the fish. Maybe it's the other way around. Who lavush because it says by Goliath that he was wearing coat of kaskeses which is this chain mail armor. And since we know the kaskeses certainly means the scales. Again we lift kaskeses below lift because it always has the snapper if it has a kaskeses. Everything which sounds like it's like a dry for kibble scar kind of an answer. Although the Niddah actually says that the reason why it's because the Torah wants to stress that it's kosher because it has the simanim. I think it's the kaskeses. The kaskeses is the iker one that makes it kosher. And remember Gross pointed out it was clear Niddah that taking sides in what that the mentioned about siman versus sibah by the simanim kashrus that it seems to be pretty clearly a sibah and not a siman. That it's actually the kaskeses that makes it kosher. And that's what the Torah is actually stressing. This is connected to it says it's clearly a siman. But either way the reason why we just have snapper and kaskeses is Torah Torah says that you can eat a fish that has the snapper and kaskeses. If you don't have a snapper If it doesn't have a snapper cascasas, I'm not allowed to eat it. If it doesn't have those you're not allowed to eat it. So why is the Torah seem to repeat it in both the negative and the positive? So therefore I know to have a the Torah says you're allowed to eat from everything that's in the water. So what is it coming to tell me that you're allowed to eat everything in the water? She I might have thought since this is being that these water the fairish and it's also matter them stuff without listing them with both the positive and the negative, I might have said because you hit the first just like we have this header. It's only those that kind of produce themselves in as we're going to learn more about the kinds of things that just spontaneously create or created in those are not the Torah's offering. Those you're allowed to eat or drink in the case of that may be drinking the water. After she hit the those that matter stuff without speaking out what what you're allowed to specifically eat are only the ones that are in the water. I mean I love it by which are not in this you can just bend down and drink in these by which we don't have to stop him from drinking even though he might be consuming the that have grown inside these bodies of water telling us that even some kind of creature in the water that has no fins and scales these kinds of that germinate in the kind of creature in the water that has no fins and scales these kinds of germinate in the will be now let's go to the of that kind of where do we know that that are found in are matter because they anything has fins and scales which are in the water which are in the bodies of water you're allowed to eat that's the ones that are in these bodies of water that the Torah is saying that if these kinds of creatures have fins and scales you can eat them but if they don't you're not allowed to eat them it's but we take out from this that those are in all You're always allowed to eat them. We'll practice tomorrow. Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe you're never allowed to eat them in Kaylin. Why should you take it to the extreme? Maybe it's extreme. That's what the Torah is saying. But they came to be only in Kaylin. You're always allowed to eat them. Maybe I could interpret the verse differently. But I'm going to interpret it differently. But I'm going to interpret it differently. Which would teach us that in the bodies of water, that's when you have the requirement of not having scales. But if they're only in these ponds and little canals, then you don't have this requirement of not having scales. So what do we learn? So therefore we learn that even if it does not have scales, those in these bodies of water and little canals are going to be allowed. And certainly the ones that are going to be allowed. So why does the verse need to tell me that you're allowed to eat the ones from the bodies of water and little canals? And since it has two different clauses, we treat this as a clause and a clause. And the verse is going to go further into this. I know I'm stopping in the middle, but we're going to pause and we'll pick this up. Maybe we'll roll it back a little bit for tomorrow. And I think tomorrow, yeah, we're going to finish the chapter tomorrow.