Clarification: The Rivam explains that Rebbi Yossi is explaining the words of the Tana Kama, and is not arguing with him ...

Proof: ... as is evident from the Gemara - where Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who Darshens 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' and includes whatever is similar to the P'rat in that it has four Simanim, and he Darshens "Chagav" to include that it must be called 'Chagav' ...

Proof (cont.): ... whereas Tana de'bei Rav does not Darshen "Chagav" to require that it is called 'Chagav', only the Torah writes "Chagav", which is synonymous with 'Gadi'an', and includes nothing from what is similar to the 'P'rat', since he requires five Simanim, the four that are mentioned plus that it may not have a long head, invalidating it if it has.

Proof (cont.): And the Tana of our Mishnah, which requires four Simanim and does not require it not to have a long head - a proof that he holds like Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who validates even a locust with a long head.

Question: Why does the Torah need to write "Chagav" to teach us that it must be called 'Chagav', why can we not learn it from the P'rat, like the other four Simanim?

Answer: Because the Siman that it is called a Chagav is not as Chashuv as the other four Simanim, and we would not have required it, just as we don't require it not to have a long head, and include even those that do.

Answer to a Similar Question #1: And it is for exactly the same reason that the Torah needs to specifically insert "Kera'ayim" (jumping legs).

Answer to a Similar Question #2: Alternatively, it needs to insert "Kera'ayim" for the D'rashah cited in the Gemara - that even if it does not have the jumping legs now, but it will grow them at a later stage ... .

Answer to Other Question 3#: Or for the 'K'lal u'P'rat', as the Gemara will say later "asher Lo Kera'ayim" - 'K'lal'.

Rejected Answer: One cannot however explain that there is a species of Arbeh, Sal'am or Chargol that is not called 'Chagav' or that does not have Kera'ayim, and that had the Torah therefore not inserted them, we would have validated it, since it is included in Arbeh, Sal'am or Chargol ...

Rejection: ... because if that was the case, then, when the Gemara states that the difference between Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael and Tana de'bei Rav lies in Rosho Aruch, why did it not cite the difference between them as 'Ein Sh'mo Chagav' - which will be permitted according to Tana de'bei Rav, and forbidden according to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael.

Question: And the same question will apply when the Gemara defines "asher Lo Kera'ayim" as a 'K'lal', and "Arbeh, Sal'am and Chargol" as a 'P'rat'. ...

Question (cont.): It emerges that the P'ratim incorporate more than the K'lal, since the 'K'lal' excludes all kinds of Arbeh, Sal'am and Chargol that do not have Kera'ayim, whereas the K'lal Includes them.

Question (cont.): And nowhere do we find a 'K'lal u'P'rat' that works in thatq way?

Clarification: He Darshens this from the fact that the Torah writes "Lo" (with an 'Alef'), which one cannot explains to mean that it has no jumping legs at all ...

Proof: ... because, to the contrary - Sal'am, Arbeh and Chargol all have jumping legs, as the Gemara specifically states in the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'.

Precedent #1: Similarly, regarding the Pasuk "asher Lo Chomah" (in connection with Batei Arei Chomah), the Gemara in the first Perek of Megilah (Daf 3b) the Gemara Darshens 'even though it does not have a wall now, but it had one before' ...

Proof: ... there too, it cannot be speaking where it never had a wall, seeing as the Pasuk is speaking about a house in 'a walled city'.

Precedent #2: And likewise the Pasuk "asher Lo Ye'adah Vehefdah", which Unklus translates as 'de'Kayma lah' - meaning 'that he (the master) ought to have retained her (the Amah ha'Ivriyah) and betrothed her, since the Mitzvah of Yi'ud takes precedence.

Proof: As a matter of fact, the Gemara in Bechoros (13a) learns from here that 'The Mitzvah of Yi'ud takes precedence over that of redemption', as the Torah writes "asher Lo Ye'adah ve'Hefdah" ...

Proof (cont.): ... because even though "Lo" is written with an 'Alef', we explain it as if it was written with a 'Vav' - that "He should have performed Yi'ud with her (but didn't), so he must "enable her to be redeemed".

Precedent #2 (cont.): The basis for this is - because otherwise, why does the Torah need to write "asher Lo Ye'adah", since it is obvious that the Pasuk is talking about a case where he did not perform Yi'ud; because if he had, a. she would require a Get and b. she would not need her father to redeem her, seeing as once the master performs Yi'ud, his jurisdiction over her as a maidservant terminates.

Question: In Perek K'shem (Sotah 31a) the Gemara asks whether it is true that wherever the Torah writes "Lo" with an 'Alef' it is literal; But does the Pasuk not write "be'Chol Tzarasam Lo Tzar, u'Mal'ach Hash-m Hoshi'am"? Why did the Gemara not cite all the above examples?

Answer: Because in all of those cases there is an indication from the Pasuk itself that it really means "asher Lo" with a 'Vav', even though it is written with an 'Alef' - since Arbeh, Sal'am and Chargol all have jumping legs; Arei Chomah is speaking about towns with walls, and Ya'adah, from the fact that it inserts it in the first place, as Tosfos explained earlier ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas from the Pasuk "Tzarasam Lo Tzar" itself there is no indication that Hash-m suffers with the suffering of Yisrael, only from the Pasuk "Imo Anochi be'Tzarah".

Question: How can the Gemara here and with regard to Batei Arei Chomah Darshen from the fact that it writes "Lo" with an 'Alef' that it wants to say 'even though it does not have them now', seeing as the Gemara in 'K'shem' (Ibid.) concludes that "Lo" with the letter 'Alef' has connotations of both 'yes' and 'no'?

Answer: We nevertheless Darshen it in this way, since the Torah changes to write it with an 'Alef' more than all the places where it writes it with a 'Vav', where it wants to say 'Yes', indicating that here it means 'No'.

Answer (cont.): In fact the Medrash too, Darshens from "Lo Tzar" - because it is written with an 'Alef' that 'Any Tzarah that does not come upon Yisrael from the nations of the world, is not a (genuine) Tzarah.

Clarification: As we will Darshen shortly "asher Lo Kera'ayim" is a K'lal, Arbeh Sal'am Chargol", a P'rat and "le'Mineihu", a K'lal ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and it is La'av Davka that Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael includes "Sala'm" in the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', since "Sal'am" is superfluous, and comes to permit a locust with a long head, as we will conclude shortly ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and as for "le'Mineihu" of "Sal'am", the Rivam explains that the Torah needs to insert it, because had it omitted it, we would have thought that it is specifically in connection with the species of Sal'am that the Torah permits those with a long head, but not by the other species of locust. So the Torah wrote "le'Mineihu" to include them all .

Alternative: We would have thought that "Sal'am" comes to forbid other species of Sal'am; Therefore "le'Mineihu" teaches us that they are permitted.

Clarification (cont.): The Tana does not say 'K'lalei K'lalos' to learn that each of these is fit to teach us an individual 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal'. What it does mean is - that they are K'lalos that come after K'lalos and P'ratos that come after P'ratos, and one therefore needs to Darshen them, each one as befits it.

Clarification (cont.): In fact, "Arbeh" and "Chargol" alone come to teach a 'K'lal u'P'rat', as is evident from the Sugya, where "Sal'am" comes to permit locusts with a long head, as we conclude; "Chagav" to require that it must be called 'Chagav'. Whereas "le'Mineihu" of Chagav comes to require all the Simanim as the Beraisa specifically explains.

Clarification (cont.): And "le'Mineihu" of "Sal'am" as the Tana Darshens, based on his own logic, as Tosfos just explained.

Question: Why does the Torah need to write "le'Mineihu by each one ("Arbeh" "Sal'am" and "Chargol"). Why will it not suffice to write "le'Mineihen" at the end, with reference to all three?

Answer: Because "Arbeh" and "Chargol" alone come as a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', as Tosfos explained earlier, so that they ought to have been paced next to one another, and the Pasuk interrupted between them with "Sal'am", placing it in the middle for some D'rashah or other (since it inserts it not in its right location for no apparent reason).

Answer (cont): In any event, now that it found it necessary to place it in the middle for whatever reason, it is no longer possible to insert "le'Mineihen" at the end ...

Answer (cont): ... since it would not be correct for "le'Mineihen" to act with regard to "Arbeh" and 'Chargol" as the last K'lal, and with regard to "Sal'am" to teach us some other D'rashah, as we are now Darshening it.

Clarification: And because "Arbeh" and 'Chargol" each have their own K'lal, and they are not learned together in one Din of K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', only in two separate Dinim, where each is learned independently as a 'K'lal u'Prat u'Klal', it is necessary to make a Binyan Av from both of them (from "Arbeh" and 'Chargol") and to learn from from the Tzad ha'Shaveh that pertains to both of them.

Implied Question: And when the Tana says that one learns a Binyan Av from all three of them ...

Answer: ... that is before he concludes that "Sal'am" is superfluous.

Explanation: So what the Beraisa now means, according to its conclusion is that one can now learn a Binyan Av from all three with a Tzad ha'Shaveh. That being the case, one requires only four Simanim ...

Explanation (cont.): ... and if one will examine "Arbeh" and "Chargol" carefully, it will suffice to make a Binyan Av from the two of them, rendering "Sal'am" superfluous, to include a locust with a long head.

Implied Question: Why do we include 'Rosho Aruch', rather than a locust that does not possess one of the four Simanim, and 'Ein Rosho Aruch will be required together with the remaining three Simanim?

Answer: Because it is logical to include the Siman that is the weakest of them all.

Explanation #2: The Riva however, explains that there is no species of Chagav that lacks any of the four Simanim of our Mishnah, unless it also lacks either Rosho Aruch or another Siman together with it.

Explanation #2 (cont.): But is it possible that it lacks the Siman of Rosho Aruch and it possesses the four Simanim of our Mishnah.

Question: It is now implied that according to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael and the Tana of our Mishnah, that Rosho Aruch is permitted.

Question (cont.): In Maseches Shabbos, Perek Rebbi Akiva (Daf 90b) too, we cite the incident where Rav Kahana was passing a Shushifa (a species of locust) past his mouth, where Rav said to him 'Take it away, to avoid people saying that you ate it, thereby transgressing the prohibition of "Do not abominate yourselves" - implying that there was no Isur of eating a Tamei Chagav - only because it was still alive ...

Question (cont.): ... now a Shushifa has a long head, as the Gemara explains in Perek Ein Ma'amidin, where Yossi ben Yo'ezer testified that 'Eil Kamtza is Tahor. And Rav Papa there equates 'Eil Kamtza' with 'Shushifa', and explains that Yossi ben Yo'ezer and the Rabbanan argue regarding Roshan Aruch.

Question (cont.): Whereas Rav Chiya bar Ami equates it with a species called 'Susbal', in which case they are arguing over whether where the wings cover the majority of it, it needs to be a majority that is easily discernable ('Ruba de'Minkar') o not; but everyone agrees that 'Rosho Aruch' is forbidden.

Conclusion: Now this is very difficult to understand; because, seeing as we rule that Rosho Aruch is permitted, why does Rebbi Chiya bar Ami say there that it is unanimously forbidden?

Answer: It therefore seems to Rabeinu Tam that the correct wording there is 'Everyone agrees that it is permitted'. And so he found in an old text.

Implied Question: The reason that the Beraisa first discusses "Arbeh" and "Chargol", leaving "Sal'am" for the end, even though in the Torah it precedes Chargol, is ...

Answer #1: ... because the difference between Arbeh and Chargol is greater than the difference between each of them and Sal'am ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... since each of them is different than Sal'am only in one point - either in that it is bald in front (Yesh lo Gabachas) or that it has a tail (Zanav); whereas Arbeh and Chargol are different in two points - since Arbeh is neither bald in front, not does it have a tail, whereas Chargol is both bald in front as well as possessing a tail.

Proof: And it is clear in the Sugya - that Chargol also has a Gabachas, when it comes to explain that Sal'am is superfluous.

Answer #2: Another reason as to why the Gemara begins with "Arbeh" and "Chargol" is because they are the primary D'rashah, as is evident shortly, where the Gemara concludes that "Sal'am" is superfluous, and is mentioned to permit locusts with long heads.

Clarification: Because he holds that the last K'lal is specific (determines the nature of the general rule regarding what is included), as Rashi explains.

Clarification (cont.): ... and that explains why it need not be similar in all respects (to the first K'lal, as the opinion that the last K'lal is specific understands what is included must only be somewhat similar to the first K'lal) ...

Source: ... as the Gemara states in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin 28a) that, according to the opinion that considers the last K'lal specific, we include whatever is similar to the P'rat in two regards ...

Source (cont.): ... whereas those who hold that the first K'lal is specific, will only include what is similar to the P'rat in three regards.

Source (cont.): In that case, Chargol that has a tail would not need to be written.

Conclusion: We must therefore say that, since the Torah sees fit to write "Chargol", due to the fact that we would not otherwise learn it from Arbeh and Sal'am (because it has a tail), the Tana must therefore consider the first K'lal specific ...

Conclusion (cont.): ... and that is why it needs to be similar in all respects, since we also require that its head should be long (before we can include it in this teaching).

Question: Even if the Tana would hold that the first K'lal is specific, why should we require more than three similarities to the P'rat ...

Source: ... seeing as in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Ibid. 28a) we only rit to be similar in three respects, even according to the (more stringent) opinion that considers the first K'lal specific.

Answer #1: One could answer that here too we only learn from the P'rat two characteristics - namely that it has four wings and that its wings cover most of it. However, the similarity of (two) jumping legs and (four) regular legs is written explicitly, as the Pasuk states, "which has Kera'ayim (jumping legs) above its legs" (Vayikra 11:21) - and these characteristics are not derived from the P'rat.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, if he holds that the first K'lal is specific, we will need a third similarity (as per the Gemara in Eruvin ibid.) which would either be that it has a tail or that its head is not long.

Conclusion: It will then transpire that we only require three similarities due to the P'rat (although we require two more similarities due to the explicit Pasuk regarding the two types of legs), just as the Gemara does in Eruvin (Ibid.)

Answer #2: It is not necessary to answer like this however, because, even if the jumping legs are counted here in the three similarities and we will say that that they are not written in order to add ... (cont. on the next page)