E. Said Rabina, “This is what they stated in the West [i.e., Israel]: In every instance where you find two general rules juxtaposed to one another [67a], you may place the specifications between them and treat this as if it constituted a general rule, a specification and a general rule.” [Accordingly here you have] “in the waters” that it a general rule; “in the seas or the rivers” that is a specification; “that are in the waters” that is once again a general rule. [Where you have] a general rule, a specification and a general rule [the principle we follow is that] you can only subsume under the rule what you have in the specification. What does the specification define? That you have flowing water. So all [instances where you have] flowing water. What does this subsume? [Creatures without fins and scales that are found in] gutters and trenches that are prohibited. And what does it exclude? [Creatures without fins and scales that are found in] cisterns, ditches, or caverns that are permitted.
F. But why does it not make sense to say [the following]? What does the specification define? That you have water that emanates from the ground. So all [instances where you have] water that emanates from the ground. What does this subsume? [Creatures without fins and scales that are found] in cisterns, ditches or caverns that are prohibited. And what does it exclude? [Creatures that are in] vessels [that are permitted].
G. [This alternative line of reasoning in F does not make sense because you could object to it:] If this is the case, what is the implication of the phrase, “you may eat?”
H. The Tannaite authority of the house of R. Ishmael taught, “In the waters... in the waters,” [it is written] two times. This does not represent an general rule followed by specification, but rather, an inclusionary and exclusionary usage [b. Bekh. 51a (Neusner)].
I. [Accordingly here you have] “in the waters” that it an inclusionary usage; “in the seas or the rivers” that is an exclusionary usage;“that are in the waters” that is once again an inclusionary usage. Where it stated and inclusionary usage, an exclusionary usage and an inclusionary usage, it included all [possibilities in the rule]. What does this subsume? [Creatures without fins and scales that are found in] gutters and trenches that are prohibited. And what does it exclude? [Creatures without fins and scales that are found in] cisterns, ditches, or caverns that are permitted.
J. But why does it not make sense to say [the following]? What does this subsume? [Creatures without fins and scales that are found in] cisterns, ditches or caverns that are prohibited. And what does it exclude? [Creatures that are in] vessels [that are permitted].
K. [This alternative line of reasoning in F does not make sense because you could object to it:] If this is the case, what is the implication of the phrase, “you may eat?”
L. And why not let me teach the opposite? In accord with that taught by Mattiah. For taught Mattiah bar Judah, “Why did you see fit to include [creatures without fins and scales that are found in] gutters and trenches that are permitted. And [why do you see fit] to exclude [creatures without fins and scales that are found in] cisterns, ditches, or caverns that are prohibited? I prefer to include [creatures without fins and scales that are found in] gutters and trenches because they are closed up [and hence] in the same category with vessels. And I prefer to exclude [creatures without fins and scales that are found in] cisterns, ditches, or caverns because they are not closed up like vessels.”
M. In which phrase is it [referring back to B, permitted to eat the creatures without fins and scales found in vessels] in general and in which phrase is it [permitted] in specific? There is a dispute regarding this between R. Aha and Rabina. One authority said, “There is a specific, but not a general [permission].” And the other authority said, “There is no specific, but there is general [permission].”
N. What is the basis for the view of the authority who holds there is a specific [permission]? He would say to you, “From [the verse] itself we derive the permission [for creatures found] in vessels.”
O. What is the basis for the view of the authority who holds there is a general [permission]? [He would say to you,] “This one [verse] demonstrates what the other one means. For if we derived it from the other [verse] alone, I would have reasoned that in regards to [creatures found in] vessels even if they have [fins and scales], you should not eat them.”
VIII.3
A. Said R. Huna, “A person should not pour his beer through a filter at night lest a worm fall off from the filter into the cup. And he would thereby transgress [the prohibition in Scripture against eating it, to wit], `Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten' (Lev. 11:41).” [Once the worm crawls on the filter it is forbidden to eat it.]
B. If this is the case then even [when he pours it without filtering directly] into the container [it should be forbidden because we should fear] lest [a worm] fell off onto the side of the container and then fell into the container itself. [It crawls when it falls on the side of the container.] This is the normal process [of pouring the liquid and so we do not consider that the worm separated from the liquid and crawled on the surface].
C. And based on what source do I say this? From what was taught on Tannaite authority: 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.” [Cf. above, VIII.2 B.]
D. And why not suspect that perhaps [a worm] fell off onto the side of the container and then fell [back into the container itself]. But [we say] this is the normal process [and a worm that falls on the side of the container does not take on the status of a creature that creeps on the ground]. Here too it is the normal process [when he pours the beer and we say that we do not take into account the possibility that the worm would crawl on the side of the container].
E. Said R. Hisda to R. Huna, “There is a teaching on Tannaite authority that supports you: `Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten' (Lev. 11:41) — this includes [in the rule of forbidden creatures] insects [gnats found in wine (Rashi)] after it was strained. The basis for this is that he strained it [and the insects crawled on the strainer before they entered back into the wine]. Lo, if he did not strain it, it is permitted [to drink these insects].”
F. Said Samuel, “A cucumber that became infested with worms [67b] while growing on the vine is prohibited on account of [the verse], `Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten' (Lev. 11:41).”
G. Let us say there is support for this view as one Tanna taught on Tannaite authority: `[Every swarming thing that swarms] upon the earth [is an abomination; it shall not be eaten' (Lev. 11:41)] — this excludes the mites in lentils, and the mosquitoes in peas, and the worms in the dates and the dried figs.
H. And there is another teaching on Tannaite authority: `Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten' (Lev. 11:41) — this includes [as prohibited] the worms that are found in the roots of olive trees and in the roots of grape vines.
I. What then [can we say to explain the apparent contradiction between these two teachings]? Both refer to [insects found in] produce. And this one [refers to produce] still growing and the other refers to [produce] no longer growing.
J. No. Both refer to [produce] still growing. And there is no contradiction. This one refers to [insects found in the] produce [and that is prohibited]. And this one refers to [insects found in the] tree [and that is permitted].
K. Let us revert to the body of the prior text [H]: You may derive this as well from what was taught, “The worms that are found in the roots of olive trees and in the roots of grape vines.” You may indeed derive this [conclusion because it refers to roots].
VIII.4
A. R. Joseph posed questions [regarding the definition of a prohibited creeping thing]: If it [i.e., and insect] detached [from the produce] and died [without ever crawling on the ground], what is the law? If part [of the insect detached and crawled on the ground], what is the law? [If it detached, but a person ate it before it touched the ground, i.e.,] while in mid-air, what is the law? These questions stand unresolved.
B. R. Ashi posed questions [regarding the definition of a prohibited creeping thing]: [If it crawled from the inside of the fruit] to the surface of a date, what is the law? [If it crawled] to the surface of the date pit, what is the law? [If it crawled] from one date into another [without going outside], what is the law? These questions stand unresolved.
C. Said R. Sheshet the son of R. Idi, “Parasites [found in an animal or in a fish] are prohibited.” What is the basis for this rule? [It is because] they came [into the animal or fish] from the exterior [and must have crawled in the process]. [If so] they should be found in the intestinal passages [where we presume they entered the animal].
D. Another version: Said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi, “Parasites [found in an animal or in a fish] are permitted.” What is the basis for this rule? [It is because] they grow within [the animal] spontaneously. Said R. Ashi, “This is obvious. For if they came in from the exterior, they should be found in the intestinal passages.”
E. And the law is that parasites are prohibited. What is the basis for this rule? When the animal is asleep they may enter through its snout [and accordingly they would not be found in the intestinal passages].
F. Worms [Cashdan: maggots; Lewysohn: gadfly] under the skin [of an animal] are prohibited. [Worms found] in fish are permitted. Rabina said to his mother, “Hide them for me [in the fish] and I will eat them.”
G. Said R. Mesharshayya the son of R. Aha to Rabina, “What is the difference [between this case] and that taught on Tannaite authority, `[They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat,] and their carcasses you shall have in abomination' (Lev. 11:11) — this serves to include [in the prohibition] maggots that are found in a beast.”
H. He said to him, “Are these cases [of meat and fish] comparable? A beast is made permitted through the act of slaughter. But [concerning] these [maggots on the beast they grow before the beast is rendered permitted]. Since the act of slaughter has no effect on them, they remain prohibited. But fish are made permitted [for eating] by the mere act of catching them. And [so concerning] these [maggots on a fish], when it grows them, it grows them after it was rendered permitted.”
VIII.5
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “[Scripture states: Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, all the swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat; for they are an abomination” (Lev. 11:42).] “Whatever goes on its belly” — this includes the snake; “whatever” — this includes the earthworm and any like it; “on all fours” — this is the scorpion; “and whatever goes” — this includes the beetle and any like it; “has many feet” — this is the centipede; “or whatever” — this includes any like it or any like those that are like it.
B. It was taught on Tannaite authority: The Leviathan is a clean fish as it says, “His back is made of rows of shields” (Job 42:15 RSV)... “His underparts are like sharp potsherds” (Job 42:30 RSV). “His back is made of rows of shields” — these are its scales. “His underparts are like sharp potsherds” — these are the fins with which it propels itself.
These units introduce Tosefta text in the criticism of Mishnah 3:6-7. They also provide several secondary digressions and intricate and technical discussions of the biblical sources. I.1 cites the appropriate verse and a relevant Tosefta-rule and discusses the tokens of clean and unclean animal species. II.1 invokes Tosefta's rule to further clarify Mishnah and examines a related rule regarding fats of a wild beast. II.2 digresses from the topic with several stories. III.1-3 supplies further digressions unrelated to Mishnah.
IV.1 first returns to comment on a term in the verse that lists the categories of clean species. Then it digresses. V.1-3 expands upon Mishnah's generalization on tokens of clean fowl. V.4-5 goes on to a secondary issue concerning the identification of birds valid for a sacrifice. V.6-8 gives a catalogue of varieties of birds and their respective rules and related traditions. V.9-10 provides extended discussion of the number of categories of the unclean birds. Then V.11 concludes with secondary matters on clean birds.
Now that the primary considerations have been exposed, V.12 introduces the new issue of tokens for clean eggs. It gives a variant of Tosefta's text on the subject and a second Tosefta-text. V.13-15 provides additional materials regarding the rules for eggs. VI.1 reverts to Mishnah's rules relating to birds and cites the relevant Tosefta-texts. VII.1-2 directly comments on locusts, the next issue in Mishnah, cites Tosefta, and comments and expounds on the verse regarding categories of locusts. VIII.1 cites material directly relevant to Mishnah's rule regarding tokens for clean fish. VIII.2 comments and expounds upon at length the verses regarding clean fish. Finally, VIII.3-5 states several of the rules for worms and the like. The materials continue the established program closely investigating the Mishnah-text with few digressions or deviations from the line of inquiry.
No comments:
Post a Comment