Chullin 120bחולין ק״כ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 120b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
120bק״כ ב

וליכתוב רחמנא בשרצים וליתו הנך וליגמרו מינייהו

The Gemara objects: Let the Merciful One write the prohibition against consuming the juice, gravy, and sediments of creeping animals and let these halakhot of consuming liquefied forbidden fat, dissolved leavened bread, and a melted carcass of a bird come and be learned from it. The Torah does not need to state those halakhot explicitly.

משום דאיכא למיפרך מה לשרצים שכן טומאתן במשהו

The Gemara explains: It is not possible to derive those halakhot in such a manner because that derivation can be refuted: What is notable about creeping animals? They are notable in that their impurity is imparted in any amount. Those other halakhot, on the other hand, do not apply to less than an olive-bulk.

והא דתניא הטבל והחדש וההקדש והשביעית והכלאים כולן משקין היוצאין מהן כמותן מנלן

§The Gemara continues to examine the source for the status of liquids with regard to various halakhot based on that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to untithed produce; and the new crop of grain of the year, which is forbidden until after the omer offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan (see Leviticus 23:14); and consecrated produce; and the produce of the Sabbatical Year after the designated time when it must be removed from one’s house; and diverse kinds, i.e., the produce of a vineyard in which grains were sown; with regard to all of them, it is prohibited to consume liquid that emerges from them just as it is prohibited to consume them themselves. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha?

וכי תימא ליגמר מהנך מה להנך שכן איסור הבא מאליו הוו

And if you would say: Let those prohibitions be learned from these prohibitions of consuming the liquid that seeps from creeping animals, liquefied fat, dissolved leavened bread, and liquefied bird carcasses, one can respond that this derivation can be refuted. What is notable about these prohibitions? They are notable in that each of them is a prohibition that develops on its own without any human intervention, as opposed to the prohibitions in the baraita, which do not necessarily share this element of stringency.

תינח היכא דאיסור בא מאליו היכא דלאו איסור הבא מאליו מנלן

Therefore, it works out well to derive the prohibition against consuming liquids that emerged from a solid where the prohibition is one that develops on its own, such as untithed produce, the new crop, Sabbatical Year produce and diverse kinds. But with regard to consecrated produce, where the prohibition does not develop on its own but rather only after a person consecrates the produce, from where do we derive that it is prohibited to consume the liquid that emerges from the produce just as it is prohibited to consume the produce itself?

גמרינן מבכורים ובכורים גופייהו מנלן

The Gemara answers: We learn this halakha from the case of first fruits. Consumption of first fruits is a prohibition that does not develop on its own, because the owner must set aside the first fruits. And consumption of the liquid that emerges from first fruits is prohibited like consumption of the fruit itself. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha with regard to first fruits themselves?

דתני ר' יוסי פרי פרי אתה מביא ואי אתה מביא משקה הביא ענבים ודרכן מנין תלמוד לומר (דברים כו, ב) תביא

The Gemara answers that first fruits can be brought as wine, as Rabbi Yosei teaches: The verse states with regard to first fruits: “You shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land” (Deuteronomy 26:2). Since the verse mentions fruit, this indicates that you must bring actual fruit, and you may not bring the first fruits in the form of beverages. But if one brought grapes and he had already pressed them into wine, from where is it derived that he has fulfilled his obligation? The verse states: “You shall bring in from your land.” This superfluous term serves to teach that if one brings wine for the mitzva of first fruits, he has fulfilled his obligation.

איכא למיפרך מה לבכורים שכן טעונין קרייה והנחה

But this derivation from the case of first fruits can be refuted: What is notable about first fruits? They are notable in that they require reciting the passage which begins: “My father was a wandering Aramean” (Deuteronomy 26:5), and placing the fruits in the Temple, whereas no such requirements exists with regard to consecrated produce.

אלא גמר מתרומה

Rather, one can derive the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges from consecrated produce from the prohibition against consuming liquid that emerges from teruma, i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest.

ותרומה גופה מנלן דאיתקש לבכורים דאמר מר (דברים יב, יז) ותרומת ידך אלו בכורים

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha with regard to teruma itself? the Gemara answers: It is derived from the fact that teruma is compared to first fruits, as it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your cattle and of your flocks, or any of your vows that you will vow, or your pledges, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and the Master said with regard to the phrase “nor the offering [teruma] of your hand” that these are the first fruits. Since the verse uses the term “teruma” with regard to first fruits, the halakha of teruma is compared to the halakha of first fruits: Just as liquid that emerges from first fruits is forbidden like the fruit itself, so too liquid that emerges from teruma is forbidden like the produce itself. Consequently, the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges from consecrated produce can be derived from teruma.

מה לתרומה שכן חייבין עליה מיתה וחומש

The Gemara refutes this derivation from teruma: What is notable about teruma? It is notable in that a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven for consuming teruma, and he must restore the value of the produce he ate, adding one-fifth of its value as a fine. This element of stringency does not exist with regard to one who consumes consecrated produce.

אלא גמר מתרוייהו מתרומה ובכורים מה לתרומה ובכורים שכן חייבין עליהם מיתה וחומש

Rather, one can learn the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges from consecrated produce from both teruma and first fruits. The Gemara refutes this derivation: What is notable about teruma and first fruits? They are notable in that a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven for consuming teruma or first fruits, and he must restore the value of the produce he ate, adding one-fifth of its value as a fine. This is not true with regard to one who consumes consecrated produce.

אלא אתיא מתרומה וחד מהנך או מבכורים וחד מהנך

Rather, the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges from consecrated produce is derived from teruma and one of these prohibitions, i.e., a liquefied carcass of a bird or dissolved leavened bread; or it can be derived from first fruits and one of these prohibitions.

והא דתנן דבש תמרים ויין תפוחים וחומץ סיתווניות ושאר מיני פירות של תרומה רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש ור' יהושע פוטר

§The Gemara elaborates on the comparison between teruma and first fruits with regard to the halakha that the status of liquid that emerges from produce is like that of the produce itself, and it explains that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 11:2): If a non-priest ate date honey, or apple wine, or vinegar made from grapes of autumn that grow stunted at the end of the season and are unfit for wine production, or any of the other types of juice made from fruits of teruma, Rabbi Eliezer deems him obligated to repay the principal and an additional fifth, like the penalty for one who ate the teruma produce itself. And Rabbi Yehoshua deems him exempt from payment.

במאי פליגי בדון מינה ומינה ובדון מינה ואוקי באתרה קמיפלגי

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree? They disagree with regard to the principles governing the process of deriving one halakha from another halakha. One maintains the exegetical principle: Infer from it, and again from it, i.e., when one case is derived from another all the details of the source case are applied to the other case; and one maintains the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, i.e., one derives only the basic principle of the source case, whereas all other aspects of the source case are not applied to the case at hand.

דר' אליעזר סבר דון מינה ומינה מה בכורים משקין היוצא מהן כמותן אף תרומה נמי משקין היוצא מהן כמותן ומינה מה בכורים אפי' שאר מינין אף תרומה נמי אפילו שאר מינין

As Rabbi Eliezer holds: Infer from it, and again from it. Just as with regard to first fruits, the status of the liquid that emerges from them is like that of the produce itself, so too with regard to teruma, the status of the liquid that emerges from it is like that of the produce itself. And again infer from it: Just as the halakha of first fruits includes not only olives and grapes but even other types of produce from the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised, and the status of liquid that emerges from that produce is like that of the produce itself, so too with regard to teruma, although oil and wine are the only liquids from which one is obligated to separate teruma, even liquid that emerges from other types of produce designated as teruma besides olives and grapes has the same status as the produce itself.

ורבי יהושע סבר דון מינה מה בכורים משקין היוצאין מהן כמותן אף תרומה משקין היוצאין מהן כמותן ואוקי באתרה מה משקין דקדשים בתרומה תירוש ויצהר אין מידי אחרינא לא אף משקין היוצאין מהן כמותן תירוש ויצהר אין מידי אחרינא לא

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Infer from it that just as with regard to first fruits the status of the liquid that emerges from them is like that of the produce itself, so too with regard to teruma, the status of the liquid that emerges from it is like that of the produce itself. But interpret the halakha according to its own place: Just as in the case of liquids that are consecrated as teruma, with regard to wine and oil, yes, they are included, but other types are not included, so too in the case of liquid that emerges from teruma, as with regard to wine and oil, yes, they are like the produce itself, but any other type of liquid that emerges from teruma is not like the produce itself. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua deems exempt a non-priest who consumed any of the beverages mentioned in the mishna.

והא דתנן אין מביאין בכורים משקה אלא היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים מני

The Gemara cites that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 11:3): One may bring beverages made from first fruits to the Temple only in the case of that which emerges from the olives, i.e., oil, or from the grapes, i.e., wine. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that mishna?

רבי יהושע היא דאמר דון מינה ואוקי באתרה וגמר להו לבכורים מתרומה

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place. He derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from teruma from first fruits only with regard to wine and oil, and in the opposite direction, he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from first fruits from teruma. Therefore, even with regard to first fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce itself only with regard to wine and oil. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the halakha of liquid that emerges from teruma is derived from first fruits even with regard to other types of produce besides grapes and olives, contrary to the statement of that mishna, one may bring beverages extracted from other first fruits besides wine and oil to the Temple.

והא דתנן אין סופגין את הארבעים משום ערלה אלא על היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים מני

The Gemara cites that which we learned in the same mishna (Terumot 11:3): One incurs the forty lashes due to drinking the juice squeezed from orla, i.e., the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting, only for that which emerges from the olives or from the grapes. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that mishna?

רבי יהושע היא דאמר דון מינה ואוקי באתרה וגמר להו לבכורים מתרומה

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, and he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from first fruits from teruma. Therefore, even with regard to first fruits, the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce itself only with regard to wine and oil.