Chullin 120b (קכ:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

Let the Merciful One write it with regard to creeping creatures, and let these others come

nevela],

and let them be derived from them

with regard to creeping creatures?

And we answer:

Because there is room to refute the derivation: What is distinctive about creeping creatures

is that they are more stringent,

as their ritual impurity

and their prohibition are

in the smallest amount,

that is, in the measure of a lentil—for its prohibition is derived from its ritual impurity: Just as its ritual impurity is transmitted in the measure of a lentil, so too its prohibition applies in the measure of a lentil. Can you say the same with regard to nevela, whose ritual impurity and prohibition apply only in the measure of an olive? Therefore, the word “person” must be written with regard to nevela.

And concerning that which was taught in a baraita: Untithed produce, and the new produce

—new grain, which is forbidden for consumption before the sacrifice of the omer—

and consecrated property

—produce consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, which is forbidden to derive benefit from—

and the Sabbatical-year produce

—produce of the seventh year, which possesses the sanctity of the Sabbatical year and is forbidden for consumption after the time of removal—

and diverse kinds—

all of them: the liquids that issue from them

are forbidden

like them.

From where do we know

that the liquids that issue from them are also forbidden to drink, even though they are not part of the body of the produce?

And if you would say: Let us derive it from these,

from forbidden fat, leaven, nevela, and creeping creatures, there is room to refute the derivation:

What is distinctive about these? Their prohibition comes about by itself,

for forbidden fat, leaven, nevela, and creeping creatures were not prohibited by a person; rather, they are forbidden on their own. If so,

this works wherever the prohibition comes about by itself,

such as untithed produce, the new produce, Sabbatical-year produce, and diverse kinds: they can be learned from the above through the common denominator. But

where it is not a prohibition that comes about by itself,

such as consecrated property, whose prohibition comes about through the person who consecrated it,

from where do we know

that the liquids that issue from it are prohibited?

And we answer:

We derive

consecrated property

from first fruits,

for their prohibition too does not come about by itself, but through the person who designated them as first fruits; nevertheless, the liquids of the produce are also considered first fruits.

And we challenge this:

But from where do we know with regard to first fruits themselves

that the liquids that issue from them are considered like them?

And we answer:

As Rabbi Yosei taught:

It is stated with regard to first fruits: “From the first of all

the fruit

of the land,” and we expound:

“Fruit” you bring

as first fruits,

but you do not bring liquid.

But if he

brought

to the Temple

grapes

of first fruits

and pressed them,

meaning that he brought the wine to the Temple,

from where

do we know that, after the fact, he fulfilled his obligation,

the verse states: “That you

the verse states: “That you

shall bring

from your land.” We derive from the superfluous word “shall bring” [as the verse could have said, “that is from your land”] that the liquids issuing from first fruits are included, and that after the fact one fulfills the obligation of bringing first fruits with them.

From this we likewise derive with regard to consecrated property that the liquids that issue from it are forbidden like it.

And we challenge this: How can you derive consecrated property from first fruits?

There is room to refute the derivation: What is distinctive about first fruits? They require the recitation

of the passage “An Aramean sought to destroy my father”

and placing

them before the altar, unlike consecrated property.

And we answer:

Rather, derive

consecrated property

from teruma,

for its prohibition too comes through the person who designated the teruma; nevertheless, the liquids that issue from it are forbidden like it.

And we challenge this:

But from where do we know with regard to teruma itself

that the liquids issuing from it are forbidden?

And we answer:

Teruma was equated

with

first fruits. For the Master said:

It is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain and the teruma of your hand.” We expound that

“the teruma of your hand”

refers to first fruits,

as “hand” is stated with regard to them, as it is written: “And the kohein shall take the basket from your hand.” Since first fruits are called teruma, teruma and first fruits are thereby equated with one another. Just as the liquids that issue from first fruits are forbidden, so too with teruma; and we then derive consecrated property from teruma.

And we challenge this: It is impossible to derive consecrated property from teruma, for

what is distinctive about teruma? One who eats it intentionally is liable to death,

while one who eats it unintentionally is liable to

an additional payment of a fifth,

unlike consecrated property.

And we answer:

Rather, derive

consecrated property

from both—

from teruma and first fruits.

For if one were to challenge: What is distinctive about first fruits? They require recitation and placement; teruma proves otherwise. And if one were to challenge: What is distinctive about teruma? One who eats it is liable to death and an additional fifth; first fruits prove otherwise.

And we challenge this: There is still room to refute the derivation:

What is distinctive about teruma and first fruits? One is liable for them to death and an additional fifth,

for first fruits too have the status of teruma, and a non-kohein who eats them is liable to death and an additional fifth.

And we answer:

Rather, consecrated property comes

from

teruma and

from

one of the other sources,

either leaven or nevela;

or from first fruits and

from

one of the other sources, through a common-denominator derivation. There is no basis for refuting this derivation, since we do not find a stringency that applies to both of these and does not apply to consecrated property.

through the method of the common aspect. There is no basis for refuting this derivation, because we do not find a stringency that applies to both of these cases and does not apply to consecrated property.

And concerning that which we learned in the Mishna: Honey

that issues from

dates, and wine

made from

apples, and vinegar

made from

sithoniyyot,

inferior grapes,

and other fruit liquids

—apart from oil and wine made from olives and grapes—

of teruma—

Rabbi Eliezer obligates one who drinks them unintentionally to pay the principal and an additional fifth,

as in the law of teruma.

And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

And we raise an objection:

With regard to what do these tannaim disagree?

For we learned that teruma is derived from first fruits, and that the liquids issuing from them are like them. Why, then, does Rabbi Yehoshua exempt him?

And we answer:

They disagree over whether one says, “Judge from it and from it,” or, “Judge from it and leave it in its place.”

They disagree

about the following principle: Whenever a matter is learned from another matter through a verbal analogy or a binyan av, one must determine whether we say, “Judge from it and from it”—that is, whether we learn from the source both the essential law and the other details found in the source—or whether we say, “Judge from it,” meaning that we learn from the source only the essential law, and then “leave it in its place,” establishing the derived matter in its own context with regard to the other details that can be learned from its own substance.

For Rabbi Eliezer holds: Judge from it and from it.

That is, judge teruma entirely from first fruits, for

just as with first fruits the liquids that issue from them are like them, so too with teruma the liquids that issue from it are like it. And from it,

we also learn the details from first fruits:

just as with first fruits, even

with

the other species

we say that the liquids issuing from them are like them—for first fruits are brought from all seven species, and not only from grain and oil—

so too with teruma, even

with

the other species.

All produce that is teruma has the status of teruma with regard to the liquids that issue from it.

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Judge from it

alone, for

just as with first fruits the liquids issuing from them are like them, so too with teruma the liquids issuing from it are like it.

But from this point onward—

leave it in its place.

We establish teruma in its own context, so that we learn from first fruits only those liquids with regard to which we find that the status of teruma takes effect while they are liquids—namely, oil and wine. With regard to these, we say that if one designated them as teruma while they were olives and grapes, the liquids issuing from them are also like them. But we do not derive other liquids, with regard to which we do not find that teruma takes effect while they are liquids, from first fruits. Rather, we say that even if they issue from teruma produce, they are not forbidden like it.

And the derivation is as follows:

Just as the liquids of consecrated produce with regard to teruma—

meaning the liquids that we find are consecrated and designated as teruma—

grain wine and oil,

which are written in the Torah with regard to teruma and tithes—

yes,

but

nothing else

do we find.

So too, the liquids that issue from them are like them,

as we learn from first fruits:

grain wine and oil—

yes; nothing else—

no!

Therefore, he exempts one from payment of the principal and an additional fifth for other liquids, with regard to which we do not say that the liquids issuing from them are like them.

And concerning that which we learned in the Mishna: One does not bring liquid as first fruits

to the Temple

except

liquid

that issues from olives and grapes,

meaning that after the fact one may bring wine and oil to the Temple as first fruits.

Whose opinion is this

?

It is Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion, for he says

with regard to teruma:

Judge from it and leave it in its place.

And since teruma is learned from first fruits only with regard to grain wine and oil—that is, olives and grapes—Rabbi Yehoshua then

derived them for first fruits from teruma

since first fruits and teruma were equated with one another: in the case of first fruits too, the liquid issuing from them is considered like them only with regard to olives and grapes.

Unlike Rabbi Eliezer: according to him, teruma is learned from first fruits also with regard to other liquids. Therefore, liquids issuing from other produce too have the status of first fruits, and after the fact one may bring them to the Temple.

And concerning that which we learned in the Mishna: One does not receive forty lashes

for violating the prohibition of

orla

if he drank liquid that issued from fruit of orla,

except for

liquid

issuing from olives and grapes.

Whose opinion is this

?

It is Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion, who says, “Judge from it and leave it in its place,” and derived them for first fruits from teruma,

so that liquids issuing from them are considered like them only with regard to olives and grapes.