Parshas Shemini
1. On the verse "ואת הכוס ואת השלך ואת הינשוף" ("And the kos, and the shalach, and the yanshuf")1, Rashi first pauses on the word "השלך" ("the shalach") and explains: "פירשו רבותינו2 זה השולה דגים מן הים, וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס ושלינונא" ("Our Rabbis explained: this is the one that draws up fish from the sea. And this is what Onkelos translated, veshalinuna"). Only afterwards does he explain the other two species, "kos" and "yanshuf" (as will be cited below in section 2).
We need to understand:
a) In the verse, "the kos" is written before "the shalach" — so why does Rashi change their order in his commentary, explaining the word "kos" only after his explanation of "the shalach"3?
b) When Rashi gives the translation of the other species of birds in the parsha (including "kos and yanshuf" in this very verse), he does not bring any source for his explanations. Why, specifically here, regarding "the shalach," does he write "Our Rabbis explained," and even add "And this is what Onkelos translated etc.," rather than being satisfied with simply stating the explanation itself: "this is the one that draws up etc."?
c) The question is even greater: when Rashi brings a proof from Targum Onkelos for one of his explanations (because the explanation is not so smooth), he uses the expression "וכן תרגם" ("and so did [Onkelos] translate") etc. Why in our verse does he use the expression "וזהו שתרגם" ("and this is what [Onkelos] translated") etc., which implies that he is actually setting out (not to bring a proof from Targum Onkelos, but) to explain the Targum? This is not at all understood: Rashi wrote his commentary on the Chumash, not on Targum Onkelos!
d) To know what "shalach" means, it would seemingly have been enough for Rashi to say "the one that draws up fish" (and fish, after all, are found in the sea) — just as Targum Onkelos translates: "veshalinuna"4. Why must Rashi add that it draws up the fish "from the sea"?
2. After Rashi translates the word "the shalach," he continues: "כוס וינשוף — הם צואיטוש הצועקים בלילה ויש להם לסתות כאדם. ועוד אחר דומה לו שקורין ייב"ץ" ("Kos and yanshuf — these are chouettes [owls], which screech at night and have jaws like a human. And there is another similar to it, which is called hibou").
Studying Rashi's explanation at first glance, it appears that the words "and there is another similar to it etc." continue directly from the very beginning of the explanation, "these are chouettes etc." That is, speaking about both species of birds, "kos and yanshuf," Rashi explains: "They" (the two birds — one of them is) "chouettes etc., and there is another similar to it (and the second of them, which is similar to the chouette), which is called hibou."
And the fact that Rashi uses the plural also regarding "chouettes," "which screech etc. and have etc." — even though he is speaking here about only one species of bird ("kos" or "yanshuf") — is because, unlike other species, the species "chouette" is spoken of in the plural (just as we find in the Holy Tongue, for example, that for certain kinds of things, such as water, only the plural is used).
For this same reason Rashi also gives the name of the species as "chouettes" (and not "chouette"), with the added letter shin [s] at the end of the name, which indicates (in the French language) the plural (as in Yiddish and English) — because for this species one always uses an expression that refers to the birds in the plural.
3. In truth, however, one cannot learn it this way. For (besides the fact that Rashi himself, in his commentary on the Talmud, translates the same species in the singular: "chouette"5 or "chouette"6), at the conclusion of this very explanation Rashi says that the second species, "yanshuf," is "similar to it" (to the "chouettes") in the singular. So one can no longer accept that the chouette specifically calls for the plural. It is also difficult to say that in the same explanation Rashi would first speak about the species in the plural and immediately afterwards in the singular.
It is therefore proven that with his explanation "these are chouettes, which screech at night and have jaws like a human" (in the plural), Rashi means to explain both species: that both "kos" and "yanshuf" are the birds called "chouettes." That is, although in French both species are designated by one general name, nevertheless the verse divides them by two separate names — "kos" and "yanshuf" — because in the Holy Tongue there is no such name that would include them together7.
However, since it is difficult to say that in the Holy Tongue there should be no general name for both kinds of chouettes8 (which have something in common between them, for which reason they are called by one name in French), Rashi therefore adds (to broaden the matter) another explanation: "And there is another similar to it, which is called hibou." That is: since the hibou species is also similar to the chouette, one can say that one of the two, "kos" or "yanshuf," is a name for (all kinds of) "chouette," and the second is "hibou"9.
4. But this is not understood: since it is smoother to say, as above, that with the two names the verse means two separate species (and not ones that can be designated as two branches of the same species itself) — why then does Rashi teach, at the beginning (the main part) of his explanation, that "kos" and "yanshuf" are both included in the species chouette?
We must therefore conclude that the words "kos" and "yanshuf" carry within them a certain meaning which shows that they refer to the species "chouette" [on account of which, even in his second explanation, that one of them means hibou, Rashi emphasizes "similar to it"10: that the reason one can say that "kos" or "yanshuf" means hibou is because it is similar to the chouette].
We need to understand: where in the words "kos" and "yanshuf" lies the allusion to the species "chouette"?
5. Seemingly, one could explain: Rashi teaches (at the beginning of his explanation) that "kos" and "yanshuf" are both "chouette" because that is what he heard from his teachers. And since, with regard to knowing which bird is called by a particular name, there is no room for reasoning, and the only source for this is "tradition" — therefore Rashi writes at the beginning of his explanation (which is the main part of his explanation) that both are "chouettes."
And even after Rashi goes on to teach that it may be that one of them is "hibou" (as is logical, that the two words in the verse are two separate species), he nevertheless adds "similar to it." For in order to be able to teach that "kos" or "yanshuf" is "hibou" (unlike what he heard from his teacher, that both are chouettes), Rashi relies on the fact that the hibou resembles the chouette; and because of the similarity between them, the second species, the hibou, was also accepted as a "chouette" (that is, the second explanation is also founded on the tradition).
But this explanation does not hold up. For in his commentary on the Talmud11 Rashi says clearly that "kri" (the Targum of "kos") is "hibou," and "kipufa" (the Targum of "yanshuf") is "chouette" — and it is understood that his explanations in the Talmud (regarding names) he also received from his teachers. It is therefore difficult to understand why in his commentary on the Chumash he takes the position (at the beginning and main part of his explanation) that both "kos" (kri) and "yanshuf" (kipufa) are chouettes — unlike his commentary on the Talmud.
6. Also in the translation of "tinshemes"12 (in a verse further on) we find that in his commentary on the Torah Rashi departs from his commentary on the Talmud:
In his commentary on the Gemara13 Rashi gives two translations of tinshemes: first he translates that it means "chouette," and afterwards he says, "ולי נראה שקורין קלבא שוריץ" ("And it seems to me that it is what is called chauve-souris [bat]")14. In his commentary on the Torah he says simply: "התנשמת היא קלבא שוריץ" ("The tinshemes is the chauve-souris") etc., and he does not mention the explanation of "chouette" at all (not even as a second explanation), even though it is the first one in his commentary on the Talmud.
There is, however, a difference between them. Here, in the explanation of tinshemes, the reason for the change is understood: although for Rashi himself it emerges ("it seems to me") that tinshemes is the "chauve-souris," nevertheless in his commentary on the Talmud, which bears on halachah, he does not build entirely (or even mainly) on the interpretation that appeals to him, and he therefore brings first of all the explanation that he heard from his teacher15.
(And for this very reason, because it bears on halachah, he also brings his own explanation: for just as he must take into account the explanation he heard from his teacher, so too he may not conceal the explanation that emerges for him16. Only that with regard to halachah, the explanation he received from his teachers outweighs it for him, and therefore his own explanation is the second.)
Whereas in his commentary on the Torah, where he studies the verses according to the plain meaning, he does not hold that he must teach according to what he received from his teacher when it "seems" to him that the plain meaning is otherwise — and he therefore brings only his own explanation17.
But regarding the translation of "kos and yanshuf," where logic also suggests, as above, that the two names are two separate species, the above question remains: why does he teach at the beginning (the main part) of his explanation "these are chouettes," and not, as in his commentary on the Talmud, that "kos" is a separate species (hibou)?
It is even more puzzling: even his second explanation (in the Chumash) does not match his explanation in the Talmud. In his commentary on the Talmud Rashi says clearly that kos (kri) is hibou, and yanshuf (kipufa) is chouette; but in his (second) explanation on the Chumash he says only that one of the two (kos and yanshuf) is hibou and the other is chouette, without saying which is which.
7. There is one more thing we need to understand here:
In Rashi's explanations of the names of the birds in the Chumash there are three ways18 in which he translates them. There are names of birds that Rashi translates only into French (without giving any signs by which to recognize them), as with "netz," where he gives only the French name "esprevier" [sparrowhawk]. For others of the birds he gives, on the contrary, only their identifying signs and not what they are called in French — as with "shalach": "the one that draws up fish from the sea." And there is a case where he translates the names of the birds in both ways, as with "kos and yanshuf": "these are chouettes," and he also adds — "which screech at night and have jaws like a human."
Regarding the first two ways, one can say that Rashi uses the foreign ("la'az") words only19 in a case where, by describing the signs of the bird, the "five-year-old beginning Scripture" will still not know exactly what kind of bird it is.
But regarding the third way (where Rashi explains the species of bird by both means — by its French name and also by its distinctive characteristic — as, for example, with kos and yanshuf), an explanation is needed: since Rashi holds that one must resort to the translation into French ("chouettes"), why must he additionally give the translation "which screech at night etc."? If the foreign word is enough for "netz," for example, why should it not suffice for "kos and yanshuf"?
8. The explanation of all this is as follows:
According to the plain meaning, it is reasonable to say that the name of each thing indicates its nature. As the Ibn Ezra (whose commentary is also according to the plain meaning — though not at all Rashi's way of plain meaning) explains regarding all the names of the birds, how the name expresses the characteristic or appearance (and the like) of the bird.
And therefore, for his explanation that "shalach" is "the one that draws up fish etc.," Rashi must preface "Our Rabbis explained." For were it not for this, reasoning would incline toward learning as the Ibn Ezra says, that the shalach is a bird whose "natural custom is to cast off (lehashlich) its young":
Since the word "shalach" is closer (matching in all its letters) to the term hashlachah (casting) than to the term sholeh (drawing up) (especially since in meaning, hashlachah is from above to below, the opposite of "sholeh" — from below to above) —
therefore Rashi says "Our Rabbis explained: this is the one that draws up fish etc.," that this is how "our Rabbis" explained it. That is, since this is not a matter of derush (homiletic interpretation), but (they "explained") a translation that our Rabbis taught us, there is no room to choose a different explanation that is more in line with the plain meaning — as above in section 5, that regarding a translation one must explain according to the tradition.
9. The student asks a question: just as the shalach has the characteristic of drawing up fish, other birds of prey also have the characteristic of drawing up — a different kind of prey. Why then should specifically the one that draws up fish be called by the name shalach?
Because of this Rashi adds "the one that draws up fish from the sea": all birds of prey draw up only things that are on the surface. Whereas this bird, since it draws up fish from the depths20 of the sea — so that the characteristic of lifting up and pulling out ("drawing up") is in it in a prominent and great manner (unlike the other birds, whose drawing up of prey is from dry land, or even from the sea but from its surface) — therefore the name "shalach" is fitting specifically for it.
10. Accordingly we will also understand why Rashi continues, "And this is what Onkelos translated, veshalinuna." For from this he brings a proof that it is fitting to call the bird by the name "shalach" from the term "sholeh" — even though in the general characteristic of "drawing up" it is not distinct from other birds:
From the fact that the name of this bird in Aramaic is shalinuna — for Onkelos, in translating "veshalinuna," does not mean here to explain and clarify the characteristics of the bird; he only translates (as Rashi is precise to say, "And this is what [Onkelos] translated etc."), rendering its name into Aramaic. That is, since the bird is called by that name on account of its drawing up22, it is therefore reasonable to say that the name "shalach" (in the Holy Tongue) is also on account of its drawing up, as above.
And this is why Rashi uses the expression "And this is what [Onkelos] translated etc.": because his proof from the Targum that the term "drawing up" fits "shalach" comes precisely by explaining the Targum21. Through his explanation that Onkelos's translation "veshalinuna" means that the bird is called by that name because it draws up — from this emerges the proof that this is also the reason for the name "shalach" (in the Holy Tongue), as above.
11. According to the above, that Rashi seeks to explain how the names of the birds point to their nature, we will also understand why, after Rashi explains that "kos and yanshuf" are "chouettes," he adds "which screech at night and have jaws like a human" — even though the student understands [what they are from the] French23. For with this he alludes to how the characteristics of the "chouettes" are alluded to in the names "kos" and "yanshuf":
"Kos" is from the term "mechuseh" (covered)24 — this indicates some connection with night (the opposite of light, day), when everything is covered by the darkness of night. So too with "yanshuf," whose very name, from the term "neshef"25, indicates night26. And their connection with night, Rashi teaches, consists in their being the "chouettes which screech at night."
But Rashi is not satisfied with this alone, for there are other species of birds with a characteristic that has a special connection with night — such as the "tinshemes," which "flies at night"26. One must therefore say that the reason "chouettes" are called "kos" and "yanshuf" is (not only because these names point to "night," but) also because of further characteristics of these birds that are alluded to in "kos and yanshuf."
— And this is why Rashi adds "and have jaws like a human": this matter too is alluded to in their names. Since their cheeks are prominent and full, like those of a human (and not sunken, as with other birds), it is fitting to compare them to a "kos" (cup), which can hold water or other drinks;
and likewise regarding "yanshuf": the student has already learned in an earlier parsha27 that "neshifah" means blowing — and when one blows, the cheeks become full and prominent. This is the allusion of the name "yanshuf" to the chouettes, which have "jaws like a human."
But Rashi does not suffice with the matter of "and have jaws like a human" alone. For "and have jaws like a human" has nothing to do with the characteristic, only with the form of the birds — and it is reasonable to say that the name should express the characteristic, which is more essential than the appearance (as we indeed see with "shalach," which points to the characteristic of "drawing up fish"). Therefore Rashi takes as the first detail the matter of "which screech at night," which is the characteristic of the chouettes; but since this is not yet sufficient, as above, he therefore adds "and have jaws like a human."
12. But here the student asks a question28: from the very fact that one bird is called "kos" and another "yanshuf," it is implied that the difference between the two species of birds is expressed in the difference between their names. But according to the above, both names (both "kos" and "yanshuf") point to the same characteristic ("screech at night") and to the same appearance ("jaws like a human") — that is, the names point only to the general characteristics of the chouettes, but not to the particular characteristics by which one kind of chouette is distinguished from the other. Why, then, is one chouette called by the name "kos" and the other by the name "yanshuf"?
Therefore Rashi adds "And there is another similar to it, which is called hibou": there is another bird that is only similar (alike in form29) to the chouettes; that is, it has only "jaws like a human"30, but it does not screech at night31. Consequently, one can say that the difference between "kos" and "yanshuf" is that one of them points also32 to the characteristic of "screeching at night" and is called "chouette," while the other points only to the matter of "jaws like a human," and it is the name for "hibou." But he has no proof (according to the plain meaning33) as to which is the kos and which is the yanshuf34.
Rashi, however, gives this interpretation only as a second explanation. For according to this interpretation it would turn out that one of the two names points only to the form of the bird and not to its characteristic — and logic suggests, as above, that when a thing is called by a name that denotes something in it, this is done first and foremost in connection with the characteristic of the thing. Therefore Rashi takes, at the beginning and main part of his explanation, "these are chouettes," according to which it emerges that the names "kos and yanshuf" point to the characteristic, the characteristic of "which screech at night," as above.
And this is also the reason Rashi places his explanation of "the shalach" before explaining "kos": because his explanation of "the shalach — this is the one that draws up fish" (that the name "shalach" is on account of the bird's characteristic) proves that presumably the same holds for the other names of the birds, on account of which it is reasonable (as in the first explanation) that kos and yanshuf are chouettes, as above.
13. From the matters of the "wine of the Torah" (its inner dimension) in our Rashi:
Regarding the shalach, the Gemara says: "רבי יוחנן כי הוה חזי שלך אמר משפטיך35 תהום רבה" ("When Rabbi Yochanan would see a shalach, he would say: 'Your judgments are [like] the great deep'"35). Rashi explains: "And Your judgments — even in the great deep You prepare the shalach to judge and carry out Your vengeance upon the fish of the sea, to put to death those destined to die."
From this Gemara the Alter Rebbe brought a proof36 for the view of the Baal Shem Tov that all matters are under individual Divine Providence — unlike those who say that individual Providence applies only to the human species37. For we see that even regarding fish there is an individual judgment and ruling, and G‑d prepares the shalach to catch the (particular) fish regarding which the judgment Above was decreed.
And it is this matter that Rashi alludes to with the words "Our Rabbis explained: this is the one that draws up fish from the sea," as will be explained.
14. It is known38 that the word "teva" (nature) is from the term "טבעו בים סוף" ("they sank in the Sea of Reeds")39. The explanation of this is: just as the things that are sunk in the sea are present there in their entirety, only one does not see them (because the sea conceals them), so too is the matter of "nature": in it too there is G‑dliness — as stated above, that all events in the world, in all their details and the details of their details, are under the individual Providence of G‑d — only that the garments of nature are (made, according to the Creator's will, in such a way that they) conceal the G‑dly life-force, so that it should not be seen openly.
And this is the allusion in Rashi's words, "the shalach — Our Rabbis explained: this is the one that draws up fish from the sea": what "our Rabbis explained"40 regarding the "shalach" — the explanation that "our Rabbis" give in connection with it, "Your judgments are [like] the great deep" — this41 ("zeh") is what takes out ("draws up") the "fish" from their concealment and hiddenness — the "sea":
Were it not for the above Gemara concerning the "shalach," one could think that the conduct of fish is by chance, G‑d forbid [as the wording of the Gemara42 seemingly implies: "Just as among the fish in the sea, whoever is larger than his fellow swallows etc."]. But the above explanation of our Rabbis regarding the "shalach" takes the fish out of the concealment of the sea and shows that their conduct is under individual Providence.
And from this one learns also regarding all other living creatures43, and also regarding the vegetative and even regarding the inanimate44 — that all their matters are under individual Divine Providence.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Shemini and Shabbos Parshas Acharei-Kedoshim, 5728)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 11:17.
2) Chullin 63a.
3) It is obvious that one cannot say that since his explanation of "kos" comes together with his explanation of "yanshuf," he therefore explains it after explaining "the shalach," because "the yanshuf" is stated in the verse after "the shalach." For on the contrary: one must explain according to the order of the verse, and since "the kos" is stated in the verse before "the shalach," Rashi should have explained it immediately (and in passing — also the explanation of "the yanshuf") — before explaining "the shalach."
4) Whereas in Targum Yonasan: "shalinuna min yama" ("shalinuna from the sea"). See below, note 21.
5) Chullin, ibid., s.v. kipuf.
6) Ibid., s.v. ba'os. And in Berachos 57b, s.v. kipufa — tzuita (with an alef).
7) And as for the fact that the shalach interrupts between them: (a) we find greater than this, according to the opinion that "one compares striking etc." (Rashi, Mishpatim 21:15); (b) perhaps the shalach has a characteristic that resembles the kos more than the yanshuf. And more can be said.
And as for the fact that in Parshas Re'eh (14:17) the shalach is listed together with the ka'as and the rachamah, one can say that the shalach has a number of characteristics, some of which resemble the kos and yanshuf, and some — the ka'as and racham. (The same applies to the tinshemes, which in Parshas Shemini is listed with the ka'as and racham, and in Parshas Re'eh — with the kos and yanshuf, because it has several characteristics.) And we find greater than this: of Korach it is said "sons of Esav" (Vayishlach 36:5) — because he resembled them, in that they had one mother.
8) In addition: even if we were to say so, it is still difficult — for the verse could have stated only one of them with the addition of the word "after its kind," and then we would know the other as well, since even [species] that are not similar to each other are included in "after its kind" (Rashi above, verse 13). Especially since the "hibou" resembles the "chouette."
9) And one can say that since they are two different species, which are only similar to each other, we would not have learned one from the other — even had "after its kind" been stated.
10) But one cannot say that Rashi's intent with "similar to it" is only so that the student should know which species it is — for the student knows this also from the foreign word (i.e., from the student's spoken language) "hibou" (see below, section 7).
11) Berachos, ibid.
12) The reason for the difference in Rashi's commentary on our parsha (11:19; and likewise in Parshas Re'eh 14:18) regarding the duchifas: in the Chumash he explains that it is "the wild rooster … harupa," and in Chullin, ibid., s.v. shehodo kafos — "paon salvage":
The meaning of the words paon salvage is (see Aruch HaShalem, entry duchifas) "peacock of the forest"* [paon — peacock (Rashi, Bava Kamma 55a; Chullin 116a, end); salvage — of the forest]. And the peacock resembles the rooster, to the extent that one might have thought that they are one species and not only in name (Bava Kamma, ibid.).
Now since Rashi explained several signs of it, and they are the same in his commentary on the Torah and on the Talmud — one cannot say that these are differing opinions. Perhaps one can say that in the Chumash he mentioned the more common species of duchifas — which even a five-year-old (beginning Scripture) sees (and does not need to go to the forest), even though it too is called "wild" (being approximately the size of a hen). Whereas in the Talmud, which concludes "and this is the one that brought the shamir to the Holy Temple," it is a species of duchifas that is not common (for which reason it was necessary to "seek out its nest" — Gittin 68b). — Especially according to the version in Rashi on the Torah, "Targum Onkelos: nagar tura," and not as a continuation of the preceding. Accordingly it is simply understood why Rashi omitted only this in Parshas Re'eh. Though even according to our version it can be explained.
*) And it is an impure bird. Unlike an ordinary peacock (paon) (see Responsa Tzemach Tzedek, vol. 14, sec. 60, par. 6). Just as the rooster is pure, and the wild rooster is impure (Niddah 50b) — and thereby the query of the Chavos Yair is resolved.
13) Chullin, ibid. (63a).
14) And although, according to these words, Rashi's source is what he received from his teachers (or what he saw in the words of the Sages), as above in section 5 — our case is different. For since the proof for the explanation that the tinshemes is the chauve-souris is [not (only?) because the word tinshemes alludes to it — as kos and yanshuf point to the chouette and the hibou (see below, section 11) — but] because it must be that all kinds of tinshemes (among the birds and among the creeping creatures) resemble each other (see below, note 17), this proof is so strong that he explains it differently from what he heard from his teachers.
15) See Yad Malachi, rule 663.
16) See Shevuos 31a.
17) One can say that Rashi's proof that the tinshemes is the chauve-souris is, as he himself explains (Chullin, ibid.), "that it resembles the talpa among the creeping creatures." For it is reasonable to say that the tinshemes among the birds resembles the tinshemes among the creeping creatures (the talpa, which according to all opinions it is).
Accordingly one will also understand what Rashi writes in his commentary on the Torah (s.v. hatinshemes — verse 18): "And the tinshemes mentioned among the creeping creatures resembles it etc."* — for seemingly, this verse speaks about the tinshemes among the birds, so what relevance does the tinshemes among the creeping creatures have here? — Because this is his proof that the tinshemes among the birds is the chauve-souris, as above.
*) In the Rosh here [it is explained] that Rashi's intent is to explain that this tinshemes is not the tinshemes mentioned among the creeping creatures. But: (a) even without Rashi's explanation the student would understand this by himself; (b) this matter is not mentioned in Rashi at all.
18) There are also names of birds that he does not explain at all — and this can be explained in two ways: (a) because the student knows it by himself, as with "nesher" (eagle) (which is why Rashi cites it in his commentary from the verse (Yisro 19:4) and does not explain it there; see Ibn Ezra here, verse 13: "it is known"); (b) because they are not found at all, so the explanation would not help — such as the peres and the ozniyah, which are not found in settled areas (Chullin, ibid.).
And the same can be said regarding the other birds (which the student does not know by himself) that he does not explain. And likewise regarding the "ko'ach" (below, verse 30).
19) For he wrote his commentary in the Holy Tongue.
20) See Chullin, ibid. (cited below in section 13): "When he would see a shalach he would say, 'Your judgments are [like] the great deep.'" And in Rashi there: "until the great deep etc."
21) Accordingly, Rashi's precision in saying "that Onkelos translated" is all the more appreciated — even though it is so also in Targum Yonasan; on the contrary, Targum Yonasan also adds "min yama" ("from the sea") (like Rashi's wording, "from the sea"). For [in addition to the fact that Targum Yonasan is not according to the plain meaning (see Likkutei Sichos, vol. 8, p. 82 and note 2)] regarding Targum Yonasan one can say that "shalinuna" (is not the name of the bird, but) explains its nature, since it also adds "from the sea."
22) See above, section 1, the third question.
23) Which is why he does not explain (above, verse 16) what esprevier is. See above, section 7.
24) See also Ibn Ezra and Baal HaTurim here.
25) The language of the verse — Yeshayahu 5:11; 21:4; and elsewhere. And in Rashi (and other commentators): night.
26) Rashi, verse 18. (And in Ibn Ezra (verse 19), that the bat too is a bird that flies at night.)
27) Beshalach 15:10, and Rashi there.
28) In addition to what was stated in section 3 and in note 8.
29) As is the plain implication of the term "domeh" (from the term demus, form). — Although this term also applies to similarity in "characteristic," "name," and the like (see Rashi above, verse 13).
30) But one cannot say the reverse, that the hibou resembles the chouettes only in that it screeches at night. For — in addition to the fact that the plain implication of the term "domeh" refers to form (as in the previous note) — in Niddah 23a it is stated explicitly that the kri too (which according to Rashi in Berachos, ibid., is the hibou) has jaws like a human; and as regards reality, there is no distinguishing between the commentary on the Torah and that on the Talmud. (See below, note 33.)
31) In Rashi, s.v. kri vekipufa (Niddah, ibid.): "a bird that screeches at night etc." But it is possible that in Niddah there he explains that the kri and the kipufa are both chouettes — like the first (main) explanation in his commentary on the Torah. (And as for what he explains in Berachos 57b, that the kri is the hibou — see below, note 33.)
32) But one cannot say (even according to this) that one of them alludes only to screeching at night, and its having jaws like a human (see above, note 30) is not alluded to in its name — for according to this, how is it different from the tinshemes (as above, section 11)?
33) Whereas in Berachos, ibid., Rashi explains: "kri — hibou; kipufa — chouette." For in Berachos there the matter of the repulsiveness of their form is relevant, and one must say that the order of the birds there follows the pattern of "this, and needless to say this" [for the kurfrai, listed last there, is reasonably the tinshemes*, and the tinshemes is "the repulsive one among the birds" (Chullin, ibid.; see Maharshal there, that ba'os means repulsive)]. Therefore he explains that the kri is the hibou and the kipufa is the chouette, because the chouette is uglier than the kri. (And one can say that this is why Rashi explains there "and it has (in the singular) jaws like a human" — even though this is so also with the kri (Niddah, ibid.; and as he himself concludes there, "therefore they are ugly") — because in the chouette it is more pronounced.) And with this Rashi explains the order in the Gemara there.
*) For if it were another bird, it would be difficult: why does he omit in Berachos there the tinshemes — the most repulsive bird? And as for its being called kurfrai (and not kipuf as in Chullin, ibid.), one can say that it has two names. Note that the name kurfrai is similar to the name kurfdai (with a change of one letter), and in Rashi there it is called talpa — the same name by which the tinshemes, "the repulsive one among the creeping creatures," is called (see above, note 17).
34) Seemingly, it is reasonable to say (according to the second explanation) that the "kos" is the hibou and the "yanshuf" — the chouette. For (a) the form of jaws like human cheeks relates more to "kos" than to "yanshuf": these jaws are like a cup, whereas yanshuf does not indicate the jaws themselves, but only what results from them (that one can then blow). (b) "Neshef" (the content of the name yanshuf) means night, whereas "kos," even when we explain it from the term for covering — covering is not night, only that at night things are covered.
And the reason Rashi leaves it unstated is that there is reasoning for the opposite as well: since, according to the second explanation, the name of each bird indicates (as explained in the text) its unique characteristic (by which it is distinguished from others), it is reasonable to say that the name "kos" indicates not only that its jaws generally resemble human cheeks, but that this resemblance is greater in it than in the yanshuf. Therefore one can say that the kos is the chouette, because its jaws resemble human cheeks more than the jaws of the yanshuf, as in the previous note.
35) Tehillim 36:7.
36) See Yahel Ohr on Tehillim, ibid., sub-par. 3; the maamar beginning Kol HaMa'arich 5686, ch. 3; Mayim Rabbim 5717, ch. 3 (Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, vol. 1, p. 54).
37) Moreh Nevuchim III:17, at the end. But see Derech Chaim (13a–b), that the Rambam's intent there concerns the inner dimension of Providence, that this Providence does not apply to the inanimate, vegetative and animal [realms].
38) See the maamar beginning Mah Tovu 5689, ch. 3.
39) Beshalach 15:4.
40) Note what was discussed elsewhere regarding what the Alter Rebbe writes (Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, at its beginning), "and the Baal Shem Tov explained" — even though it is found in Midrash Shocher Tov (cited in Likkutei Torah, Acharei 25c) — that the Baal Shem Tov explained and revealed etc. (see also the kuntres of Chai Elul 5713, sicha 3 — Sefer HaSichos 5713, p. 146 ff.).
The same applies in our case: the Alter Rebbe "explained" and revealed the teaching of the Sages in Chullin. And one can say that this too is alluded to in "Our Rabbis explained."
41) In the places cited in note 36, the teaching of the Sages (Bereishis Rabbah 79:6), "Even a bird is not caught without [the decree of] Heaven," is also cited. But see Kehillas Yaakov, entry Hashgachah, that one can explain that "this voice was from their [heavenly] minister." Whereas in Chullin it states explicitly "Your judgments." Accordingly it is understood why the Alter Rebbe brought a conclusive answer specifically from Talmud Chullin (and in the wording of the Tzemach Tzedek in Yahel Ohr, ibid.: "And from here etc."; and in the maamarim Kol HaMa'arich and Mayim Rabbim, ibid.: "And from this etc.").
And this too is alluded to in Rashi's wording, "this is the one that draws up etc." — that (the teaching of the Sages regarding) the shalach is (specifically) "the one that draws up etc."
42) Avodah Zarah 4a. But see the places cited in note 36, that on the contrary: from the fact that the Gemara there concludes "so too people etc.," it is proven that "the larger swallows its fellow etc." among fish is by Providence, since "regarding people, Providence is certainly individual according to all opinions."
43) Similar to how, according to the plain meaning, the explanation of "shalach" proves (the explanation of) kos and yanshuf, as above at the end of section 12.
44) For there is no reason to distinguish between them (and those who hold that the inanimate and vegetative are not under individual Providence hold so also regarding animals).
Key Lesson
Rashi's words "this is the one that draws up fish from the sea" hint that the teaching of our Rabbis "draws up" the hidden G‑dliness from beneath the "sea" of nature. Nothing in the world happens by chance: every creature — even a single fish, a plant or a stone — is under G‑d's individual Providence, and recognizing this transforms how we see every event in our lives.