Eruvin — Daf 27b

לא נצרכה אלא שנתן לתוכן שמן

אמר ליה אביי ותיפוק ליה משום שמן לא צריכא שנתן דמי מים ומלח בהבלעה

ובהבלעה מי שרי אין והתניא בן בג בג אומר (דברים יד, כו) בבקר מלמד שלוקחין בקר על גב עורו ובצאן מלמד שלוקחין צאן על גב גיזתה וביין מלמד שלוקחין יין על גב קנקנו ובשכר מלמד שלוקחין תמד משהחמיץ

א"ר יוחנן מאן דמתרגם לי בבקר אליבא דבן בג בג מובילנא מאניה אבתריה לבי מסותא

מאי טעמא כולהו צריכי לבר מבבקר דלא צריך מאי צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא בבקר הוה אמינא בקר הוא דמזדבן על גב עורו משום דגופיה הוא אבל צאן על גב גיזתה דלאו גופיה הוא אימא לא

ואי כתב רחמנא בצאן על גב גיזתה הוה אמינא משום דמחובר בה אבל יין ע"ג קנקנו אימא לא

ואי כתב רחמנא ביין הוה אמינא משום דהיינו נטירותיה אבל תמד משהחמיץ דקיוהא בעלמא הוא אימא לא כתב רחמנא שכר

ואי כתב רחמנא בשכר הוה אמינא מאי שכר דבילה קעילית דפירא הוא אבל יין על גב קנקנו אימא לא

ואי כתב רחמנא יין על גב קנקנו דהיינו נטירותיה אבל צאן על גב גיזתה אימא לא כתב רחמנא צאן דאפילו על גב גיזתה

בבקר למה לי וכ"ת אי לא כתב רחמנא בבקר הוה אמינא צאן על גב עורה אין על גב גיזתה לא כתב רחמנא בבקר לאתויי עורו אייתר ליה צאן לאתויי גיזתה

אי לא כתב רחמנא בקר לא הוה אמינא צאן על גב עורה אין על גב גיזתה לא דאם כן לכתוב רחמנא בקר דממילא אייתר ליה צאן

וכיון דכתב רחמנא צאן דאפילו על גב גיזתה בבקר למה לי השתא צאן על גב גיזתה מיזדבנא בקר על גב עורו מיבעיא היינו דקאמר רבי יוחנן מאן דמתרגם לי בבקר אליבא דבן בג בג מובילנא מאניה לבי מסותא

במאי קא מיפלגי רבי יהודה בן גדיש ור"א והני תנאי דלקמן ר' יהודה בן גדיש ור"א דרשי רבויי ומיעוטי והני תנאי דרשי כללי ופרטי

ר' יהודה בן גדיש ור"א דרשי ריבויי ומיעוטי (דברים יד, כו) ונתתה הכסף בכל אשר תאוה נפשך ריבה בבקר ובצאן וביין ובשכר מיעט ובכל אשר תשאלך נפשך חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי רבי רבי כל מילי ומאי מיעט לר"א מיעט ציר לר' יהודה בן גדיש מיעט מים ומלח

והני תנאי דרשי כללי ופרטי דתניא ונתתה הכסף בכל אשר תאוה נפשך כלל בבקר ובצאן וביין ובשכר פרט ובכל אשר תשאלך נפשך חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע אף כל פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע

ותניא אידך מה הפרט מפורש ולד ולדות הארץ אף כל ולד ולדות הארץ

מאי בינייהו אמר אביי דגים איכא בינייהו למאן דאמר פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע הני דגים גידולי קרקע נינהו למאן דאמר ולד ולדות הארץ דגים ממיא איברו

ומי אמר אביי דגים גידולי קרקע נינהו והאמר אביי

That refers only to a case where oil was mixed with them. Said Abaye to him: [In that case] might not the ruling be obvious on account of the oil? The ruling was necessary in that case only where one covered the cost of the water and the salt by paying an inclusive price [for the oil]. But is this permissible by paying an inclusive price? — Yes; and so it was in fact taught: Ben Bag-Bag ruled: ‘For oxen’ teaches that an ox may be purchased together with its skin; ‘or for sheep’ teaches that a sheep may be bought together with its wool; ‘or for wine’ teaches that wine may be bought together with its jar; ‘or for strong drink’ teaches that tamad may be purchased after its fermentation. Said R. Johanan: Should any person explain to me [the necessity for the expression of] ‘for oxen’ in accordance with the view of Ben Bag-Bag would carry his clothes after him into the bath house. What is the reason? — Because all [the other expressions] were required with the exception of ‘for oxen,’ which is quite unnecessary. What [is the purpose for which the others] were required? — If the All Merciful had written only ‘for oxen’ it might have been assumed that only an ox may be purchased together with its skin, because it is [a part of] its body, but not a sheep together with] its wool which is not [a part of] its body. And if the All Merciful had only written: ‘for sheep’ [to teach us that] a sheep may be bought together with its wool it might have been assumed [that this only is permitted] because [the wool] clings to its body but not [the purchase of] wine together with its cask. And had the All Merciful written ‘for wine’ it might have been assumed [that the purchase of its jar only is permitted] because It is in this way only that it can be preserved but not tamad after its fermentation, which is a mere [liquid] acid. And if the All Merciful had written ‘for strong drink, Sit might have been assumed that by ‘strong drink’ [was meant the purchase of] the pressed fig cakes of Keilah which are a fruit but not wine with its jar. And if the All Merciful had written ‘wine’ [to indicate that it may be purchased] together with its jar it might have been assumed [that the purchase of its jar only is permitted] since in this way only it can be preserved but not a sheep together with its wool; hence did the All Merciful write ‘sheep’ [to indicate] that [it may be bought] even together with its wool. What however, was the need for the expression of ‘for oxen’? And should you reply that if the All Merciful had not written ‘for oxen’ it might have been assumed that a sheep may be bought together with its skin but not together with its wool [and that] the All Merciful has therefore written ‘for oxen’ to include its skin so that ‘sheep’ remained superfluous in order to include its wool [it could be retorted that even] if the All Merciful had not written ‘oxen’ no one would have suggested that a sheep may be bought only together with its skin but not together with its wool, for if that were so the All Merciful should have written ‘oxen’ so that ‘sheep’ would for this reason have remained superfluous; now, since the All Merciful did write ‘sheep’ [to indicate obviously] that [it may be purchased] even together with its wool [the question arises again:] What need was there for the expression of ‘for oxen,? If [it may be argued] a sheep may be bought together with its wool was there any need [to state that] an ox may be bought together with its skin? It is this [line of reasoning that was followed] when R. Johanan sand, ‘Should any person explain to me [the necessity for the expression of] ‘for oxen’ in accordance with the view of Ben Bagbag I would carry his clothes after him into the bath house’. On what principle do R. Judah b. Gadish and R. Eliezer and the following Tannas differ? — R. Judah b. Gadish and R. Eliezer base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] amplification, and limitation while those Tannas base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] general statements and specific details . ‘R. Judah b. Gadish and R. Eliezer base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] amplification and limitation’ [thus:] ‘And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth’ is an amplification, ‘for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,’ is a limitation, ‘or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee’ is again an amplification. [Now since Scripture] has amplified, limited and amplified again it has [thereby] included all. What has it included? It included all things. And what has it excluded? According to R. Eliezer it excluded brine; according to R. Judah b. Gadish it excluded water and salt. ‘While those Tannas base their expositions [on the hermeneutic rules of] general statements and specific details’ for it was taught: ‘And thou, shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth’ is a general statement, ‘for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink’ is a specification, ‘or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee’ is again a general statement. [Now where] a general statement, a specification and a general statement [follow each other in succession] you may include only such things as are similar to those in the specification; as the specification explicitly mentions [things that are] the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from the earth so [you may include] all [other things that are] the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from] the earth. Another [Baraitha], however, taught: As the specification mentions explicitly [things that are] produce of the products of the earth so [you may include] all produce that was of the products of the earth. What is the practical difference between these? — Abaye replied: The practical difference between them is [the question of including] fish. According to him who holds [that the things included must be] ‘the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from] the earth’ fish [also may be included since] they derive their nourishment from the earth. According to him, however, who maintains [that the things included must be] ‘produce of the produce of the earth’ fish [are excluded since they] were created from the water, But could Abaye maintain that fish derive their nourishment from] the earth seeing that he ruled: