OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes its discussion of which types of Chagavim are Kosher. What is the Halachah with regard to Shechitah for Chagavim? (See also Insights to Chulin 27:7.)

(a) RASHI (DH u'Mar) quotes the BEHAG who rules that Chagavim do not require Shechitah. He writes that this is derived from the placement of Chagavim in the verse. The verse (Vayikra 11:46) first mentions animals, which require Shechitah on both Simanim. The first then mentions birds, which require Shechitah on one of the Simanim. The verse then mentions fish, which do not require Shechitah at all. Since Chagavim are listed after fish in the verse, it can be inferred that they, too, do not require Shechitah.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shechitah 1:3) writes that the source for this Halachah is the verse "Osef ha'Chesil" (Yeshayah 33:4). The verse implies that one may eat Chagavim after merely "gathering" them, like fish (see 27b).

(c) The RASHBA (27b) explains that Shechitah is required only when the Torah explicitly states that it is required. Since there is no source in the Torah that says that Chagavim require Shechitah, we may assume that they are permitted to be eaten without Shechitah.

(d) The ME'IRI (65b) suggests that since Chagavim are not animals but rather Sheratzim (the Torah calls them "Sheretz ha'Of"), they obviously lack Simanim. The laws of Shechitah do not apply to them, since Shechitah is defined as the act of cutting the Simanim.

OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes its discussion of which types of Chagavim are Kosher. As discussed earlier (see previous Insight), Shechitah is not required for Chagavim. Since Chagavim do not require Shechitah, may one eat them alive?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shechitah 1:3) rules that one may eat a live Chagav and he does not transgress the prohibition of Ever Min ha'Chai. His ruling is based on a Tosefta in Temurah.

(b) TOSFOS (DH b'Mai) points out that biting into a live Chagav is prohibited because of a different Isur, that of "Al Teshaktzu" (Vayikra 11:43; see Shabbos 90b), the prohibition against doing a disgusting act.

However, Tosfos in Shabbos (90b, DH d'Lo) rules that one is permitted to cut off a piece of a live Chagav, rinse it, and eat it. Since once does not bite into a live Chagav, the prohibition of "Al Teshaktzu" does not apply. (Z. Wainstein)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah says that in order for a fish to be Kosher, it must have both fins and scales (as the Torah teaches in Vayikra 11:9). The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Nidah (51b) that states that any fish that has scales also has fins, but some fish have fins but not scales.

According to the Mishnah there, any fish that has scales is presumed to be Kosher, because if it has scales then it also must have fins. Is this an absolute rule, or are there exceptions?

(a) The KEREISI U'PLEISI (YD 83:3) asserts that the Mishnah means that a Rov, a majority, of fish that have scales also have fins, but not that all fish that have scales also have fins. Accordingly, he writes that if a fish is found that has scales and not fins, it does not contradict the statement of the Mishnah that most fish that have scales also have fins.

(b) The TAZ (YD 83:3) writes that it is impossible that there could be any fish in the world that can have scales and not have fins. The PRI MEGADIM in MISHBETZOS ZAHAV proves this from the Gemara here. The Gemara asks that if one needs to know only that a fish has scales in order to determine that it is Kosher, then the Torah should require only that a fish have scales in order to be Kosher. The Gemara's question does not make sense if the rule that all fish that have scales also have fins is not an absolute rule. If there exist certain fish that indeed have scales but no fins and therefore are not Kosher, then it certainly is necessary for the Torah to require the one find both scales and fins on the fish in order to permit the fish! The Gemara's question clearly indicates that this is an absolute rule. This is also the opinion of the MACHZIK BERACHAH (YD 83:8). (For a possible refutation of this argument, see HA'KESAV VEHA'KABALAH to Vayikra 11:9.)

The Pri Megadim continues to prove that this is also the view of the PERISHAH (YD 83:7). The Perishah writes that if one finds a fish that has scales and not fins, he may assume that its fins fell off in the water. The Pri Megadim says that if it is possible that there exist fish that have only scales and not fins, then how can one assume that the fins fell into the water? It certainly is unusual for fins -- which are attached to the fish quite strongly -- to fall into the water. It is more likely that the fish is a member of the species that have scales but not fins. If, however, the rule of the Mishnah is absolute and there is no fish that has scales and not fins, then the only possibility is that the fish that was found had fins but its fins fell off while it was in the water, as the Perishah says.

The MA'ADANEI YOM TOV (3:67:5) also maintains that the Mishnah is teaching that there is no fish that has scales but not fins. He relates that RABEINU AHARON ROFEI ("the doctor") brought him a poisonous fish called the "Stincus marinus," which was used for medical purposes after its poison was extracted. It has a spine and a wide head (which some write is another sign of a Kosher fish; see REMA YD 83:4), scales, and no fins, but four small legs like those of an animal. The Madanei Yom Tov initially thought that this fish developed only through crossbreeding after the tradition was established that all fish that have scales also have fins.

However, he concludes that there is a different reason for why the Stincus does not contradict the Mishnah's principle. The Torah states, "Any [fish] that has fins and scales... you shall eat them" (Vayikra 11:9), and in the next verse it states, "And any [fish] that does not have fins and scales... of all that crawl in the water, and of all living creatures that are in the water, they are disgusting to you" (Vayikra 11:10). Why does the Torah mention in the second verse things that crawl in the water and things that are living creatures in the water? The Ma'adanei Yom Tov concludes that the Torah is distinguishing between fish that live in the water from other creatures and animals that live in the water. The Gemara here -- which asks that once the Torah requires that a fish have scales in order for it to be permitted, it does not need to mention the requirement of fins -- refers to the first verse (11:9), since all fish that have scales also have fins. In contrast, the second verse is discussing other creatures and animals that live in the water. It is necessary for the Torah to explicitly prohibit such creatures, because it is possible to find one that has scales and not fins (such as the Stincus).

The DARCHEI TESHUVAH (83:27) quotes a similar approach proposed by the YA'AVETZ. (See Pri Megadim there for further discussion about the Kashrus status of the Stincus.) See also the CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER here who writes that the Stincus poses no problem whatsoever, because it is not a fish, but a terrestrial lizard of the skink family. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Mishnah says that in order for a fish to be Kosher, it must have both fins and scales (as the Torah teaches in Vayikra 11:9). The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Nidah (51b) that states that any fish that has scales also has fins, but some fish have fins but not scales. TOSFOS (DH Kol) explains that this is either a tradition that goes back to Adam ha'Rishon, or it is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Accordingly, the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 83:3) rules that if one finds a piece of fish that has scales on it, he may assume with certainty that it came from a Kosher fish and he may eat it.

The Gemara asks that if one needs to know only that a fish has scales in order to determine that it is Kosher, then the Torah should write only that a fish needs to have scales in order to be Kosher. The Gemara first suggests that the Torah writes "Senapir" in addition to "Kaskeses" in order to clarify what the word "Kaskeses" means. The Gemara rejects this suggestion, because we already know that "Kaskeses" means "scales" from a different verse: "v'Shiryon Kaskasim Hu Lovesh" -- "And he was wearing armor of scales" (Shmuel I 17:5).

How does the Gemara prove, from the verse in Shmuel, the meaning of the word "Kaskeses" in the Torah? How did people know what "Kaskeses" meant before the book of Shmuel was written?

(a) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH explains that the word "Kaskeses" clearly means "scales." The verse in Shmuel is quoted only to reinforce this understanding. According to this approach, when the Gemara suggests that "Senapir was written only to reveal the meaning of "Kaskeses," the Gemara may mean that it was written for those who are not erudite in the language of the Torah.

(b) However, TOSFOS (23a, end of DH Itztrich) seems to understand that the word "Kaskeses" has two meanings. The general meaning is "a rough (or grooved) object," and thus it may refer to either scales or fins. According to Tosfos, how did they know what the word meant before the book of Shmuel was written?

Perhaps Tosfos understands that the Gemara's question from the verse in Shmuel was indeed not a strong question, and that is why it does not give an answer to the question other than saying, "Yagdil Torah v'Ya'adir." (M. KORNFELD)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah says that in order for a fish to be Kosher, it must have both fins and scales (as the Torah teaches in Vayikra 11:9).

What type of external covering of a fish constitutes scales?

(a) The RAMBAN (Vayikra 11:9) writes that only scales that can be removed are considered scales. If they are attached to the skin of the fish such that they cannot be removed, then they are not considered scales and the fish is not Kosher. His explanation is based on a Tosefta that says that Kaskasim are a "Levush" (as mentioned in Shmuel I 17:5), or "garment." The REMA (YD 83:1) follows his ruling, stating that only scales that can be removed either by hand or with a utensil are considered scales.

(b) The NODA B'YEHUDAH (YD 2:28, cited by the PISCHEI TESHUVAH YD 83:1) was asked about a fish that had scales that did not come off even through scraping with a utensil. The Noda b'Yehudah soaked the fish in chemically-treated water, and after about three hours the scales were able to be removed easily. The Noda b'Yehudah ruled that scales that come off with any method are considered scales, and therefore he permitted the fish.

The BIGDEI KEHUNAH (YD #4) disagrees with the Noda b'Yehudah's ruling for a number of reasons. He says that we should not rely on our own methods of testing the Kashrus of a fish, since we are dealing with a Torah prohibition. Moreover, the custom was always not to eat the particular fish in question.

(c) The BEIS HILLEL mentions a type of carp that has scales beneath a thin membrane, and the scales can be removed only after the thin membrane has been torn open. The Poskim in Vilna permitted the fish, but the CHASAM SOFER prohibited it, arguing that "Levush" implies something which is on the surface of the fish. (Z. Wainstein)