Chullin 120b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

And let the Merciful One write it concerning creeping creatures, and let the following be brought forth from them [

an animal carcass ],

and let them be learned from them

concerning creeping creatures?

And we answer:

Because one can challenge: What is distinctive about creeping creatures

that they are more stringent,

for their ritual impurity

and their prohibition are

by any amount, [that is, by an amount the size of a lentil, for we derive its prohibition from its impurity: just as its impurity is by an amount the size of a lentil, so too its prohibition is by an amount the size of a lentil], shall you say the same concerning an animal carcass, whose impurity and prohibition are by an olive-sized amount? Therefore it is necessary to write “soul” concerning an animal carcass.

And concerning that which was taught in a baraita: Untithed produce, and the new produce [new grain, which is prohibited for eating before the offering of the omer]],

and consecrated property [a fruit consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, which is prohibited for benefit ],

and the Sabbatical produce [fruit of the seventh year, which is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical year and is prohibited for eating after removal],

and diverse kinds—

all of them, the liquids that come forth from them

are prohibited

like them.

From where do we know that the liquids that come forth from them are also prohibited for drinking, even though they are not from the substance of the fruit ? And if you would say: Let it be learned from these, from fat, leavened bread, an animal carcass, and creeping creatures, one can challenge: What is distinctive about these? Their prohibition is one that comes of itself, for fat, leavened bread, an animal carcass, and creeping creatures were not prohibited by a person, but are prohibited of themselves. If so, this works wherever the prohibition comes of itself,

“all liquids that emerge from them”

are prohibited

“like them.”

such as untithed produce, new produce, Sabbatical produce, and diverse kinds: they can be learned from those above by the common side. But

where it is not a prohibition that comes of itself

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

from where do we know

to prohibit the liquids that come forth from them?

And we answer: We learn consecrated property from first fruits, for their prohibition too does not come of itself, but through the person who separated them for the purpose of first fruits; nevertheless, the liquids of the fruits too are considered first fruits. And we challenge: And concerning first fruits themselves, from where do we know that the liquids that come forth from them are considered like them?

“this works wherever the prohibition arises on its own,”

such as untithed produce, new produce, produce of the Sabbatical year, and diverse kinds. These can be derived from the cases mentioned above by means of the common aspect. But

“where the prohibition does not arise on its own,”

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

“from where do we know”

that the liquids emerging from it are prohibited?

And we answer:

For Rabbi Yosei taught:

It is stated concerning first fruits, “from the first of every

fruit

of the land,” and we expound:

“Fruit” you bring

for first fruits,

but you do not bring a 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 says “which

you shall bring

from your land”? And we expound from the extra word “you shall bring” [for Scripture could have said “which is from your land”]—to include the liquids that come forth from first fruits, so that they too are considered like the substance of the fruit, and through them one fulfills, after the fact, the obligation of bringing first fruits .

designated as first fruits

and pressed them,

so that he brought the wine to the Temple,

from where

do we know that after the fact he has fulfilled his obligation?

The verse states: “That you

bring

And from now we also learn concerning consecrated property that the liquids that come forth from them are prohibited like them.

And we challenge: How do you learn consecrated property from first fruits? For one can challenge: What is distinctive about first fruits? They require the recitation of the passage “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” and the placing before the altar, which is not so concerning consecrated property? And we answer: Rather, learn consecrated property from teruma, for its prohibition too comes through the person who separated the teruma; nevertheless, the liquids that come forth from them are prohibited like them.

And we challenge:

And concerning teruma itself, from where do we know

that the liquids that come forth from it are prohibited?

And we answer:

For teruma was compared

to first fruits.

As the master said: It is written, “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain and your teruma.” And we expound that this

“teruma of your hand”—

these are first fruits,

for its prohibition also comes through the person who designated the produce as teruma, and nevertheless liquids that emerge from it are prohibited like it.

And we challenge: But it is impossible to learn consecrated property from teruma, for

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

and one who eats it unintentionally is liable for

a fifth, which is not so concerning consecrated property ?

Teruma was linked

to first fruits.

And we answer:

Rather, learn

consecrated property

from both of them—

from teruma and first fruits.

For if one challenges: What is distinctive about first fruits, which require recitation and placing? Teruma proves otherwise. And if one challenges: What is distinctive about teruma, for one is liable to death and a fifth on account of it? First fruits prove otherwise.

And we challenge: There is still room to challenge:

What is distinctive about teruma and first fruits? For one is liable to death and a fifth on account of them,

for the law of first fruits is like that of teruma, and a non-priest who eats them is liable to death and a fifth ?

And we answer: Rather, consecrated property comes

from teruma and

one of the others,

from leavened bread or from an animal carcass.

Or from first fruits and

one of the others, by a common-side teaching; and there is nothing with which to challenge this, since we do not find a stringency that applies to both of these and does not apply to consecrated property .

For if one were to object: What is unique about first fruits? They require recitation and placement; teruma proves that the derivation is valid. And if one were to object: What is unique about teruma? One who eats it is liable to death and an additional fifth; first fruits prove that the derivation is valid.

And we ask: There is still room to refute the derivation:

“What is unique about teruma and first fruits? One who eats them is liable to death and an additional fifth,”

And concerning that which we learned: Honey

that comes forth from dates, and wine made from apples, and vinegar

made from

poor-quality grapes, [inferior grapes],

and the other fruit juices [apart from oil and wine made from olives and grapes]

of teruma—

Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable to the principal and a fifth

if he drinks them unintentionally, as with teruma.

And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts.

And we raised it:

In what do these tannaim disagree

? For we learned that teruma is learned from first fruits, that the liquids that come forth from them are like them. Why, then, does Rabbi Yehoshua exempt?

And we answer: They disagree concerning “judge from it and from it,” and “judge from it and establish it in its place”— they disagree, meaning that in every matter learned from another through a gezerah shavah or an av binyan, one must consider whether we say “judge from it and from it”—that is, whether we learn from the source both the substance of the law and the other details present in the source—or perhaps “judge from it”: we learn from the source only the substance of the law, and afterward establish the matter learned in its place, so that we establish it in its own place with regard to the other details that can be learned from its own nature. For Rabbi Eliezer holds: “Judge from it and from it.” That is, judge teruma from first fruits completely, for just as concerning first fruits the liquids that come forth from them are like them, so too concerning teruma the liquids that come forth from them are like them. And from it,

and we further learn the details from first fruits:

just as concerning first fruits, even

among

other kinds

we say that the liquids that come forth from them are like them—for first fruits are brought from all seven kinds, and not only from grain and wine—

so too concerning teruma, even

among

other kinds.

All fruits that are teruma—the liquids that come forth from them are like them .

of teruma—

Rabbi Eliezer holds the drinker liable for the principal and an additional fifth

if he drinks them unintentionally, as is the law with teruma.

And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

And we discussed this:

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: “Judge from it”

alone, for

just as concerning first fruits the liquids that come forth from them are like them, so too concerning teruma the liquids that come forth from them are like them.

But from now—

“and establish it in its place.”

We establish teruma in its place, so that we learn from first fruits only those liquids concerning which we find that the designation teruma takes effect upon them while they are liquids, namely oil and wine. Concerning them we say that if he designated them as teruma while they were olives and grapes, the liquids that come forth from them are also like them. But other liquids, concerning which we do not find that teruma takes effect upon them while they are liquids, we do not learn from first fruits; rather, we say that even if they came forth from teruma fruits, they are not prohibited like them .

Rabbi Eliezer holds: “Derive both the law and its details.”

And the teaching is as follows:

Just as the liquids of consecrated produce in teruma,

namely, the liquids that we find are consecrated and separated as teruma,

wine and oil

that are written in the Torah concerning teruma and tithes—

yes,

but

anything else, no,

we find.

So too the liquids that come forth from them are like them,

as we learn from first fruits:

wine and oil— yes; anything else— no! Therefore he exempts from the principal and a fifth in the case of the other liquids, concerning which we do not say that the liquids that come forth from them are like them. And concerning that which we learned: One does not bring a liquid as first fruits to the Temple, except

a liquid

that comes forth from olives and grapes,

for after the fact he may bring wine and oil to the Temple as first fruits .

“leave it in its original context.”

Whose view

is it? It is Rabbi Yehoshua’s view! For he says

concerning teruma:

“Judge from it and establish it in its place.”

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

and learned them for first fruits from teruma [for first fruits and teruma were compared to one another], so that concerning first fruits too, the liquid that comes forth is like them only in the case of olives and grapes.

But this is not so according to Rabbi Eliezer: teruma is learned from first fruits even with regard to the other liquids. If so, the liquids that come forth from the other fruits too have the law of first fruits, and after the fact he may bring them to the Temple.

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

lashes

because of forbidden mixtures,

if he drank a liquid that came forth from fruits subject to the prohibition of forbidden mixtures,

except for

a liquid

that comes forth from olives and grapes.

Whose view

is it?

It is Rabbi Yehoshua’s view! For he says, “Judge from it and establish it in its place,” and he learned them for first fruits from teruma,

that the liquids that come forth from them are like them only in the case of olives and grapes.

“except”

for liquid

“that emerges 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 said

with regard to teruma:

“Derive the law and leave it in its original context.”

Since teruma is derived from first fruits only with regard to wine and oil—that is, olives and grapes—Rabbi Yehoshua then

derived the law concerning first fruits from teruma

[for first fruits and teruma were linked to one another], so that with regard to first fruits as well, liquids emerging from the produce are considered like it only in the case of olives and grapes.

This is not so according to Rabbi Eliezer. He derives teruma from first fruits even with regard to other liquids, and therefore liquids emerging from other produce also 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 emerged from produce subject to the prohibition of orla,

“except for”

liquid

“that emerges from olives and grapes.”

Whose opinion

is this?

It is Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion! For he says: “Derive the law and leave it in its original context,” and he derived the law concerning first fruits from teruma

so that liquids emerging from them are considered like them only in the case of olives and grapes.