Chullin

The Divine Law then could have stated it1 with regard to creeping things and the other cases2 would have been inferred therefrom? Such inference could be refuted thus: It is so with the case of creeping things since they convey uncleanness no matter what their size. 3 And as for [the Baraitha] which was taught: ‘The liquids that exuded from produce of tebel,4 or from new produce,5 or from consecrated produced or from seventh year produce,6 or from the produce of diverse kinds,7 are like [the produce] themselves’ — whence is this derived? Should you say it can be inferred from the other cases,8 [but it will be refuted thus,] It is so with the others since each is an original prohibition.9 Now this [inference] could stand in respect of those that are original prohibitions, but whence would we know it in respect of prohibitions which are not original?10 — We could infer it from the law of the firstfruits.11 And whence do we know it with regard to the firstfruits? — From the following teaching of R. Jose:12 It is written: The fruit,13 that is to say, you shall bring fruit but not liquids. And whence do we know that where a man brought grapes and trod them [into wine they are acceptable as firstfruits]? The verse therefore says: Thou shalt bring.14 But the inference can be refuted thus: It is so with firstfruits since they require the recital [of a passage]15 and also setting down!16 — Rather it17 must be inferred from terumah. And whence do we know it with regard to terumah itself? Because it has been likened to the firstfruits, for a Master has said: The offering if thine hand18 refers to the firstfruits. But [it will be refuted thus]: It is so with regard to terumah since on account of it people incur the penalty of death19 and the penalty of the [added] fifth!20 — Rather it must be inferred from the two, from terumah and the firstfruits. But [it will be refuted thus], It is so with regard to terumah and the firstfruits since on account of them people incur the penalty of death and the penalty of the [added] fifth! — Rather it must be inferred either from terumah and one of the other cases21 or from the firstfruits and one of the other cases.21 And as for [the Mishnah] which we learnt: ‘[If a non-priest drank in error] date-honey, cider, vinegar from wintergrapes, or any other juices,22 of terumah, R. Eliezer declares him liable to the payment, of the value and the [added] fifth, but R. Joshua declares him exempt [from the added fifth]’23 — on what principle do they differ?24 — They differ as to [whether we say], ‘Deduce from it and [entirely] from it’, or, ‘Deduce from it and establish it ln its own place’.25 R. Eliezer holds, ‘Deduce from it and [entirely] from it’: thus, ‘deduce from it’ — just as in the case of firstfruits the liquids which exude from them are like [the fruits] themselves, so in the case of terumah, too, the liquids which exude from it are like [the fruit] itself; ‘and [entirely] from it’ — just as this law of firstfruits applies even to the other kinds,26 so with regard to terumah, too, this law applies even to ,the other kinds.27 R. Joshua holds, ‘Deduce from it and establish it in its own place’: thus ‘deduce from it’ — just as in the case of firstfruits the liquids which exude from them are like [the fruits] themselves, so in the case of terumah, too, the liquids which exude from it are like [the fruit] itself; ‘and establish it in its own place’ — just as the liquids that can be consecrated as terumah are only wine and oil but no other liquids, so, too, the rule that the liquids which exude from it are like [the fruit] itself, applies only to wine and oil, but to no other liquids. 28 And as for [the Mishnah] which we learnt: ‘No liquid may be brought as firstfruits excepting the product of olives and grapes’29 — who is the author thereof? — It is R. Joshua who holds the principle, ‘Deduce from it and establish it in its place’, and then he infers the law as to firstfruits from terumah.30 And as for [the Mishnah] which we learnt: ‘One would not suffer the penalty of forty stripes incurred through the transgression of the law of ‘orlah31 [for the liquid which issued from any orlah fruits] save for that which issued from olives and grapes’29 — who is the author thereof’? — It is R. Joshua who holds the principle, ‘Deduce from it and establish it in its own place’, he then infers the law as to firstfruits from terumah, prohibition. Isaiah Berlin in the margin of the text quoting the Adreth Hiddushim. mentioned in this passage are original except that of consecrated produce. mentioned (cf. Deut. XXVI, 4); hence terumah is equated with Firstfruits. V. Mak. 17a. XXII, 9, 10. inference is drawn by reducing these cases to their common features, that is, each is a forbidden substance and the liquid made from it is forbidden like the substance itself. always arises as to extent to which the inference must be carried. We may say that the inference is ‘from it and again from it’, i.e., the subjects must be alike in every respect and on every point, or we may say that the inference is ‘from it and then put in its place’. i.e., the inference is made with regard to one point only, and as for the rest each subject is regulated by the rules which govern its other aspects. pomegranates, olive-oil and date-honey. V, Deut. VIII, 8. Deut. XVIII, 4. So, juice which exuded from grapes and olives of terumah is as the terumah itself. that the liquid derived from terumah fruits is consecrated like the fruit itself; (b) this deduction must be governed by the conditions of terumah, i.e., this rule applies only to those liquids which are expressly mentioned in the Torah as terumah, sc., wine and oil; and finally (c) it is inferred from terumah that only the liquids from olives and grapes are acceptable as firstfruits.