the vineyard bird, which is similar to the arbeh in that its forehead is not smooth but has small hairs.

I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead is kosher. From where is it derived that even one that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead is kosher? The verse states: “Solam,” and this is the nippul, which has a smooth forehead. The phrase “after its kinds” that follows solam is another generalization, which serves to include a case similar to the detail, i.e., the ushkaf, which has a smooth forehead like the solam.

And I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead, like the arbeh, or one that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead, like the solam, or one that comes before a person and has no tail, is kosher, since none of the previously mentioned grasshoppers have a tail. From where is it derived that even one that comes before a person and has a tail is kosher? The verse states: “Ḥargol,” and this is the rashon, which has a tail. The phrase “after its kinds” that follows ḥargol is another generalization, and it serves to include the karsefet and the shaḥlanit, which also have tails.

And I have derived only that a species that comes before a person and does not have a smooth forehead, or that comes before a person and has a smooth forehead, or that comes and has no tail, or that comes and has a tail, or that comes and its head is not long, is kosher, since every grasshopper mentioned until this point does not have a long head. From where is it derived that even one that comes and its head is long is kosher?

You will say: You derive a paradigm from the three of them, as follows: The aspect [re’i] of the arbeh, which has neither smooth forehead nor tail, is not similar to the aspect of the ḥargol, which has both; and the aspect of the ḥargol is not similar to the aspect of the arbeh. And the aspect of neither of them is similar to the aspect of the solam, which has a smooth forehead but no tail, and the aspect of the solam is similar to neither of their aspects. The characteristic that renders them all kosher can only be an aspect common to all of them. Their common denominator is that each has four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body. So too, any other species that has four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body is kosher, even if its head is long.

One might ask: But doesn’t this tzartzur have four legs, and four wings, and jumping legs, and its wings cover most of its body? Consequently, one might have thought that it should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: “Ḥagav,” to indicate that its name must be ḥagav. This includes all of the species previously mentioned, but not the tzartzur.

But if its name must be ḥagav, one might have thought that any ḥagav is kosher, even if it does not have all these signs. Therefore, the verse states: “After its kinds,” indicating that even if it is called a ḥagav it is not kosher unless it has all these signs. This concludes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rav Aḥai refutes the baraita: The four signs listed are not the sole common denominators between the arbeh, ḥargol, and solam. What is also unique about these grasshoppers in addition to these signs? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher. And if you would say: Since they share these four signs, we include all others with these four signs and we do not refute them, since the included species need not be identical in all their aspects, if so, the Torah should not even write the ḥargol, which shares these four signs with the arbeh and the solam, and let it be derived that the ḥargol is kosher by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and solam.

Rather, it was necessary for the verse to write ḥargol because if it were omitted, its inclusion could be refuted as follows: What is unique about these, the arbeh and solam? They are unique in that they both have no tail. Since the ḥargol has a tail, its kosher status cannot be inferred from theirs. So too, the inclusion of grasshoppers with long heads can be refuted as follows: What is unique about these, the arbeh, ḥargol, and solam? They are unique in that their heads are not long. If so, grasshoppers with long heads might not be kosher.

Rather, Rav Aḥai said: One can derive that grasshoppers with long heads are kosher as follows: The solam mentioned in the verse is redundant. How so? Let the Merciful One not write solam, and instead let it be derived by inference from the common denominators between the arbeh and ḥargol, that they have four legs, four wings, jumping legs, and that their wings cover most of their body. As what can you say to refute this? If you say: What can be derived from the arbeh, which, unlike the solam, does not have a smooth forehead; one can respond: But there is the ḥargol, which has a smooth forehead. And if you say: What can be derived from the ḥargol, which, unlike the solam, has a tail, one can respond: But there is the arbeh, which has no tail. If so, why do I need the solam that the Merciful One wrote? Rather, if the solam is not necessary for the matter itself, apply it to the matter of a long-headed grasshopper, to teach that it is kosher.