Chullin 120b

וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּשְׁרָצִים, וְלֵיתוֹ הָנָךְ וְלִיגְמְרוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ!

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.

מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִשְׁרָצִים, שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.

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.

וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַטֶּבֶל, וְהֶחָדָשׁ, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם – כּוּלָּן מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן. מְנָלַן?

§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 ?

וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִיגְמַר מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ – שֶׁכֵּן אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו הָווּ.

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.

תִּינַח הֵיכָא דְּאִיסּוּר בָּא מֵאֵלָיו, הֵיכָא דְּלָאו אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו – מְנָלַן?

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?

גָּמְרִינַן מִבִּכּוּרִים, וּבִכּוּרִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ מְנָלַן?

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?

דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״פְּרִי״ – פְּרִי אַתָּה מֵבִיא, וְאִי אַתָּה מֵבִיא מַשְׁקֶה. הֵבִיא עֲנָבִים וּדְרָכָן – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּבִיא״.

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.

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְבִכּוּרִים שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין קְרִיָּיה וְהַנָּחָה!

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.

אֶלָּא גָּמַר מִתְּרוּמָה.

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.

וּתְרוּמָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְבִכּוּרִים, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ״ – אֵלּוּ בִּכּוּרִים.

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 .

מָה לִתְרוּמָה, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?

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.

אֶלָּא, גָּמַר מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ, מִתְּרוּמָה וּבִכּוּרִים – מָה לִתְרוּמָה וּבִכּוּרִים, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ!

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.

אֶלָּא, אָתְיָא מִתְּרוּמָה וְחַד מֵהָנָךְ, אוֹ מִבִּכּוּרִים וְחַד מֵהָנָךְ.

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.

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: דְּבַשׁ תְּמָרִים, וְיֵין תַּפּוּחִים, וְחוֹמֶץ סִיתְוָונִיּוֹת, וּשְׁאָר מִינֵי פֵירוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר.

§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.

בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? בְּדוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, וּבְדוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

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.

דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, מָה בִּכּוּרִים – מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצֵא מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן, אַף תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי – מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצֵא מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן, וּמִינַּהּ – מָה בִּכּוּרִים אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר מִינִין, אַף תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר מִינִין.

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.

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר, דּוּן מִינַּהּ: מָה בִּכּוּרִים – מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן, אַף תְּרוּמָה – מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן. וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ: מָה מַשְׁקִין דְּקָדָשִׁים בִּתְרוּמָה, תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא, אַף מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן, תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.

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.

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: אֵין מְבִיאִין בִּכּוּרִים מַשְׁקֶה אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַזֵּיתִים וּמִן הָעֲנָבִים – מַנִּי?

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?

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְאַתְרַהּ, וְגָמַר לְהוּ לְבִכּוּרִים מִתְּרוּמָה.

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.

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: אֵין סוֹפְגִין אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים מִשּׁוּם עׇרְלָה, אֶלָּא עַל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַזֵּיתִים וּמִן הָעֲנָבִים – מַנִּי?

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?

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ, וְגָמַר לְהוּ לְבִכּוּרִים מִתְּרוּמָה,

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.