B"H
8th of Kislev Anno Mundi 5766 / 9th of December 2005 C.E.

My dear Rav Chaim, Shalom!

Our communication on the 8th instant concerning locusts has brought me to read more about this subject. First, I have a confession to make. In all my thirty years among the Yemenites, the old timers have spoken incessantly about their having eaten locusts in Yemen, which they called "Jarad." I assumed that this was the only kind eaten by them of those mentioned in Veyikra 11:22. Yet, upon further considerations of this subject, and while looking at the words of Maharitz (Acronym for: Moreinu Harav Yehehiya Saleh) who was the greatest exponent of Jewish law ever produced by Yemen, it would appear that the Yemenite Jews ate both locusts (ארבה) and grasshoppers (חגבים). I have come across a Responsum which treats upon this subject, which I shall forthwith bring down here, in this posting.
In the Questions & Responsa "Peulath Sadiq" belonging to Maharitz, Vol. III, Responsum # 202, we find the following: (translated by me into English)

"Concerning grasshoppers (חגבים) that are found here in our land (Yemen), when they grow to a considerable size their stomachs then become bloated and worms are found within their entrails, many of them sticking and clinging one to another, like fine threads. Now we have received from [the] elders, those possessing knowledge and who were of a most inquisitive nature, that they be not worms, [rather] only small grasshoppers that are inseminated within them, and that at length, she gives birth unto them, and that they are [considered] one and the same kind. These have the same status as eggs that are found in the entrails of a hen [after slaughtering]…
Now in the earlier days, during the time of my youth, the blessed G-d happened to bring my way [a book called] 'Sefer Ha-Mizrachi,' and I saw therein a marginal note on [tractate] Hullin in the handwriting of our teacher, [even] our Rabbi, Rabbi Yehiya Bashiri of blessed memory, regarding the worm of the grasshoppers (חגבים), [and] how that we are not to be apprehensive about them by forbidding them altogether, for of themselves they do grow. As for the book, here you have it from my hand, [so that you might] copy down his words just as they are found written. Likewise do the people have it as their practice to eat them, and no one raises an objection…
…There are no grounds at all for stating that [the worm] entered through its mouth, since it is not its way to eat a small worm. And had it been, it is not possible that he swallow it whole while it were alive, since it would be masticated in [its] palate and by [its] teeth! Now from it you are able to draw an inference from minor to major premise (A fortiori) concerning the locust (ארבה), whose mouth is narrow, and whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, that it's plainly clear [for all to see] that it would be masticated and crushed, as also nostrils for them to pass through they do not have whereby we would then suspect that it (the worm) may have entered through its nostrils…"
המקור:
"בענין החגבים הנמצאים כאן בארצינו כשגדלים הרבה אז הבטן שלהם מתנפח ומוצאים במעים שלהם תולעים דבוקים ונאחזים זה בזה לרוב כחוטים דקים וקבלנו מזקנים בעלי דיעה וחקירה כי אינן תולעים רק חגבים קטנים שנזרעים בהם ולבסוף יולדת אותם והמה מינם ודינם כביצים הנמצאים במעי התורנגולת...
ובימים קדמונים בימי חרפי אינה לידי השי"ת ס' המזרחי וראיתי שם הגה"ה בחולין בכתיבת יד מהר"ר (מורנו הרב רבי) יחיא בשירי ז"ל לענין תולעת החגבים שאין לחוש בהם לאסור כלל דמנייהו קא גבלי (גדלי) והספר הֵלָּךְ מידי להעתיק דבריו כהוייתן. וכן עמא דבר לאכלם ואין פןצה פה ומצפצף. . . .
. . . אין [כאן] מקום כלל לתלות שנכנס דרך פיו כי אין דרכו לאכול תולע דק. ולו יהי כן לא יתכן שיבלענו שלם חי שמתרוסס בחיך ובשנים ומינה תדון בק"ו (בקל וחומר) לארבה דפיו צר דשיניו שיני אריה דפשיטא דמתרוסס ומתמעך וגם נחירים אין לו שיכנס דרך שם שנתלה שנכנס דרך נחיריו. . ."

Rav Chaim, if I might add one more thing, it would seem that there is no contradiction as you surmised between Maran (Shulhan 'Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, 85:1) and Rav Alfassi (Rif) regarding the type of locust that can be eaten. Rather, Maran mentions "Chugov" (חגב) in a general way, meaning, the family of locusts in general, just as the Gemara (Hullin 65.b) uses this word in order to rule out the possibility of one eating a cockroach (or cricket), although they too have four legs and four wings like as our locusts! Likewise, the Mishnah Hullin, chapter Kol Besar, mentions locusts in a general way by saying, "Chugovim" (חגבים).
Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

from minor to major premise (A fortiori)

Pardon my ignornace of Latin, but I thought "a fortiori" meant a "forward reference" - this description is more like a kal v'chomer.

I took forward reference to be refering to something that comes later in a book or set of books. There is a footnote explanation to a Rashi comment in one of my Chumashim, I think in Sefer Bereishis, where he uses a concept which comes up in one of the other books to explain a point, and the term "a fortiori" is used there.

Would you please clarify your use of this latin term for me, I must have confused myself somewhere along the way.

And by the way, a forward reference in a computer programming language is a common expression if one wishes to refer to something before it is defined, enough of a description can be given to be able to work with it for the current purpose.

And I think this Latin term is the converse of "a-priori".

Dear Rob,
The latin word, "a fortiori," does mean "Kal ve-Chomer" by most peoples' definition. I have seen it used this way by the English translator (M. Friedlander) of that momentous work, "the Guide for the Perplexed," by Maimonides.There, he writes in the chapter known as "On Genesis," the following: "...if the firmament, with that which is over it, be supposed to be above the heavens, it would a fortiori seem to be unreal and uncomprehensible." The sense here is to "Kal ve-Chomer."
The Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines the word "a fortiori" as "Latin: 'for a still stronger reason; even more certain; all the more."
In most schools of logic, they will define it as "an inference from minor to major premise."
For example: If it is wrong to merely cook meat and milk together, how much more then is it wrong to eat them together!

Sincerely,
David

quote:

"a fortiori" as "Latin: 'for a still stronger reason; even more certain; all the more."

Thank you for the clarification. I wonder if the "for" part of fortiori is related to "force" for strength, where somewhere along the line I picked up forward.

I seem to recall there being a footnote comment that there a small countable number of a-fortiori references in the Torah - something like 5 or maybe even 9.

Would "analogy" be a suitable strictly English translation of this term/concept? I thnk my siddur, in their translation of Rabbi Yishmael's list, includes "vice versa" within the first of his 13 rules for learning - "kal v'chomer".

B"H
My friend, Rob,
The first of R. Yishmael's thirteen principles of logic is "Kal ve-Chomer" (Inference from minor to major), found in most prayer books. The word "Gezerah Showa" (Heb. גזירה שוה) -another one of his thirteen principles - and which is usually translated into English as, "analogy," is always used independently of the word, "Kal ve-Chomer." They are not the same thing.
These thirteen principles are sometimes known as the hermeneutic principles. Be apprised that, besides these thirteen principles taught by R. Yishmael, there are many other principles that were used by the Sages when expounding upon words from the Torah. For example, we find another twenty-three principles enumerated in the 6th chapter of "The Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon," among which were "Correlative Ideas" (Heb. הקש), "Juxtapositions" (Heb. סמוכין), etc.

But what does all this have to do with locusts?

Sincerely,
David

So that is the answer to my quarry, that the Yeminites don’t necessary rely on the Simanim alone, as is the Rif’s Shita, but rely on species recognition like the consensus of all the Rishonim that it’s good. (an Arbeh is a subspecies of Choguv, so it’s within the rule that it’s must be called Chugov. I saw written in the name of Rav chaim kanievski that the name Chugov is both the name of a type of species and subspecies, so an Arbeh is the same species as Chugov but a different subspecies. (just like a lion is from the cat family but there is still different from the subspecies of cat)

B"H
Rav Chaim,
Thanks for your clarifications! I, too, came to these same conclusions. For Rambam begins by saying there are four kinds of "Chogovim," and then he goes on to name the four kinds, among which was the "Arbeh" (Heb. ארבה) or "locust."

Sincerely,
David