place the detail between the two generalizations and then expound them as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Therefore, the first instance of the phrase “in the waters” is a generalization. The phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” is a detail. And by the second instance of the phrase “in the waters,” it then generalized again.

Therefore, as in any instance of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the detail, seas and rivers, is referring explicitly to flowing water, so too, fish without fins and scales found in all flowing water are forbidden. What does this include? It includes trenches and water channels, to prohibit fish without fins and scales found in them. And what does it exclude? It excludes pits, ditches, and caves, which are collections of still water, to permit all fish found in them.

The Gemara asks: But why not say: Just as the detail refers explicitly to water that grows, i.e., is found, on the ground, so too, it includes all water that grows on the ground? And what would this include? It would include even pits, ditches, and caves, to prohibit fish found in them that do not have fins and scales. And what would it exclude? It would exclude only those found in vessels.

The Gemara responds: If so, what use is the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters”? Even without it, vessels would be excluded, since they are not at all similar to seas and rivers. Rather, the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” serves to indicate that only trenches and water channels are considered similar to the detail, but all fish found in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.

§ The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse’s use of the phrase “in the waters,” “in the waters” twice is not to be interpreted as a generalization and a detail, but rather as an instance of amplification and restriction. By the first phrase “in the waters,” the verse amplifies, by the phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” it restricts, and by the second instance of “in the waters” it then amplifies again. According to a hermeneutical principle, when a verse amplified, and then restricted, and then amplified, it amplified the relevant category to include everything except for the specific matter excluded by the restriction, i.e., in the seas and in the rivers. What, then, does it include? It includes trenches and water channels, to prohibit fish without fins and scales found in them. And what does it exclude? It excludes fish found in pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them.

The Gemara objects: Why not say: What does it include? It includes fish found in pits, ditches, and caves, to prohibit them if they do not have fins and scales. And what does it exclude? It excludes only fish found in vessels. The Gemara responds: If so, what use is the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters”? Even without it, vessels would be excluded. Rather, it indicates that pits, ditches and caves are excluded by the restriction, and all fish found in them are permitted.

The Gemara objects: But perhaps l should reverse the statement and claim that fish without fins and scales in pits, ditches, and caves are prohibited, and those in trenches and water channels are permitted. The Gemara responds: One must say as Mattitya taught, as Mattitya bar Yehuda taught: What did you see that caused you to include pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them, and to exclude trenches and water channels, to prohibit them? I include pits, ditches, and caves, which contain still water like vessels, and I exclude trenches and water channels, which are not still like vessels, as water flows through them.

§ The baraita on the previous amud states that the Torah permits all fish without fins and scales in vessels both explicitly and implicitly. The Gemara asks: Which verse is the implicit source and which is the explicit source? Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to it. One says: The verse permitting “whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers,” is the explicit source, and the verse prohibiting “all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,” is the implicit source. And one says the opposite, i.e., that the verse prohibiting “all that have not fins and scales” is the explicit source and the verse that permits “whatever has fins and scales” is the implicit source.

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that “whatever has fins and scales” is the explicit source? The Gemara responds: That Sage could have said to you: It is from this verse that the Gemara derives on the previous amud that fish without fins and scales found in vessels are permitted.

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that “all that have not fins and scales” is the explicit source? The Gemara responds: The reasoning is that it is this verse that proves that the other verse permits all fish in vessels. As, if one attempted to derive whether fish in vessels are permitted from the other verse alone, I would say the opposite: The verse indicates that a fish with fins and scales is permitted only in the seas and rivers; but in vessels, even if it has fins and scales, you may still not eat it. The phrase in the verse “and all that have not fins and scales” indicates that these restrictions apply only to fish in the seas and rivers.

§ Rav Huna says: A person should not pour beer into a vessel through straw to filter it at night, lest a creeping animal emerge from the beer above the straw and then fall into the cup. Since the drinker poured the beer through a filter, he will assume that all creatures found in the vessel originated there and are permitted despite lacking fins and scales. He will therefore drink the beer along with the creature, and in doing so, he violates the prohibition: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).

The Gemara objects: If so, that one must be concerned that a creeping animal may have fallen from the straw into the cup, one should also be concerned about any beer found in a vessel, as perhaps some creature emerged from the beer onto the side of the vessel, thereby becoming forbidden, and then fell back into the vessel. The Gemara responds: There, that is the creature’s normal manner of growth, to attach itself to the sides of the vessel, and it is not considered to have emerged from the liquid.

And from where do you say that emerging in its normal manner of growth does not render it forbidden? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived to include pits, ditches, and caves, that one may dig them and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures inside them? The verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters,” indicating that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted. And one might ask: Let one be concerned that perhaps a creature emerged from the water onto the side of the pit or cave, thereby becoming forbidden, and then fell back into it. Rather, one must say that since that is the creature’s normal manner of growth, it does not render it forbidden. Here too, with regard to beer in a vessel, that is the creature’s normal manner of growth and does not render it forbidden.

Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: A baraita is taught that supports your statement that one need be concerned only about filtered beer: The verse: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:41), serves to include gnats found in liquid that one filtered. One may infer: The reason they are prohibited is because one filtered the liquids, but if one did not filter them, the gnats are permitted. Evidently, one need not be concerned that they emerged from the water onto the side of the vessel.

§ With regard to the prohibition against consuming creeping animals, Shmuel says: A cucumber that became infested with worms