Talmud su Levitico 11:9

Rebbi Avina³⁷In the Babli, Ḥulin 67b, the argument, in different style, is declared to be tannaïtic; the same in Sifra Šemini Paraša 3(1) in a text closely parallel to the Yerushalmi. said: Would one not understand that, since it is said (Lev. 11:9): “Any [creature in the water] having fins and scales you shall eat” we know that any creature having no fins and scales you shall not eat. To give both positive commandment and prohibition on the impure. Because it³⁸The prohibition “any having no fins or scales you shall not eat” is spelled out in Lev. 11:10. is written. If it were not written, it would be a positive commandment. Therefore, any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment³⁹It is impossible to say that a Jew who never eats fish transgresses the positive commandment of v. 9. Therefore, the positive formulation must have a negative implication. The eater of seafood is obligated for a purification offering as atonement for the violation of the prohibition and an elevation offering for the violation of the positive commandment..

It is written²⁷¹Deut. 17:3. If not for R. Zeˋira’s interpretation, one would translate or to the sun, or to the moon.: He went and worshipped other powers and prostrated himself before them, and to the sun, and to the moon. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is not said to the sun but and to the sun. That is not principle and detail but addition²⁷²By the rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “principle, detail, and principle: nothing is covered but the detail,” the verse seems to imply that only worship of sun or moon are capital crimes, not the worship of other gods (cf. Note 213). Since the detail is not standing alone but is connected to the general category by and, even R. Ismael will agree that the verse adds the worship of celestial bodies as bodies, rather than deities, to the definition of pagan worship.. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina objected before Rebbi Ze`ura; is it not written any which have fins and scales, and any which do not have fins and scales²⁷³Lev. 11:9: This you may eat from anything which is in the water: Any with fin and scale in the water, in seas and rivers, those you may eat. On the face of it, the verse declares a principle of what may be eaten from the water, followed by a detail, from lakes (standing water) and rivers (flowing water).? Then this is not principle and detail but additions since there is written and²⁷⁴As explained later, the preceding argument would allow to eat seafood grown in barrels and aquariums, against the received rules, unless one accepts every and, even those needed by the rules of grammar, as additions. This may be R. Aqiba’s approach; it certainly is unacceptable for R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules. Babli Ḥulin66b.? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, anywhere I am encountering and, I am deleting it²⁷⁵This is essentially R. Ismael’s approach that “the Torah speaks human speech;” no word needed by the basic rules of grammar and syntax carries a hidden meaning.. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, I would have said that anything in the oceans is forbidden, what is in barrels and vivaria²⁷⁶Latin vivarium “game, fish preserve”. should be permitted. The verse says, and anything which lives in water, an addition²⁷⁷Because of the introductory clause, the verse must be read as principle, principle, and detail; this does not fit the scheme of “principle and detail” but the wordiness must be interpreted as intended to cover all possible cases.
The verse as quoted does not exist; in Lev. 11:9–10, Deut. 14:9 one reads מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמָּ֑יִם, the partitive mem indicating that not everything living in the water can be eaten, but not referring to the varieties of water..