POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 66
CHULIN 66-68 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
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?
2) THE "SIMANIM" OF KOSHER FISH
(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.)
(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.
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
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.
(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
(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
3) FISH THAT ARE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE "SIMANIM"
(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
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
(d) Question: What do we learn from "You may eat all that is
(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?
(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):
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
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
i. From the Klal, Prat, Klal we learn cases that
are like the Prat, namely, flowing water.
7. Question: Why don't we say, the Prat is bodies of
water (in the ground, not in vessels), all such
cases are forbidden!
ii. This includes flowing channels (fish without
Simanim in channels are forbidden); fish in
pits are permitted.
8. Answer: If so, the repetition "You may eat" would
not teach anything.
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);
2. Question: We should say that pits are included (to
forbid fish without Simanim), vessels are excluded
(to permit fish without Simanim)?
ii. We exclude enclosed pits (fish in pits are
permitted even 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
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.)