Eruvin

That1 refers only to a case2 where oil was mixed with3 them.4 Said Abaye to him: [In that case]5 might not the ruling6 be obvious7 on account of the oil?8 The ruling6 was necessary in that case only where one covered the cost of the water and the salt by paying an inclusive price9 [for the oil].10 But is this permissible by paying an inclusive price? — Yes; and so it was in fact taught: Ben Bag-Bag ruled: ‘For oxen’11 teaches12 that an ox may be purchased13 together with14 its skin;15 ‘or for sheep’11 teaches12 that a sheep may be bought13 together with14 its wool;16 ‘or for wine’11 teaches12 that wine may be bought13 together with14 its jar;17 ‘or for strong drink’11 teaches12 that tamad18 may be purchased19 after its fermentation.20 Said R. Johanan: Should any person explain to me [the necessity for the expression of] ‘for oxen’11 in accordance with the view of Ben Bag-Bag5 would carry his clothes after him into the bath house.21 What is the reason? — Because all [the other expressions]11 were required with the exception of ‘for oxen,’ which is quite unnecessary. What [is the purpose for which the others] were required? — If22 the All Merciful had written only ‘for oxen’ it might have been assumed that only23 an ox may be purchased together with24 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.25 And if the All Merciful had only written: ‘for sheep’26 [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. And27 if the All Merciful had written ‘for strong drink,26 Sit might have been assumed that by28 ‘strong drink’ [was meant the purchase of] the pressed fig cakes of Keilah29 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’26 [to indicate] that [it may be bought] even together with its wool. What however, was the need for the expression of30 ‘for oxen’?26 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 only31 together with its skin but not together with its wool, for if that were so32 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 of33 ‘for oxen,?34 If [it may be argued] a sheep may be bought together with its wool35 was there any need [to state that] an ox may be bought together with its skin?36 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. Gadish37 and R. Eliezer38 and the following Tannas39 differ? — R. Judah b. Gadish and R. Eliezer base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] amplification, and limitation40 while those Tannas base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] general statements and specific details .41 ‘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’34 is an amplification,42 ‘for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,’34 is a limitation,43 ‘or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee’34 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 include44 only such things as are similar to those in the specification; as the specification explicitly mentions [things that are] the produce of produce45 that derive their nourishment from46 the earth so [you may include] all [other things that are] the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from] the earth.47 Another [Baraitha], however, taught: As the specification mentions explicitly [things that are] produce48 of the products of the earth49 so [you may include] all produce that was of the products of the earth. What is the practical difference between these?50 — 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’49 fish [are excluded since they] were created from the water,51 But could Abaye maintain that fish derive their nourishment from] the earth seeing that he ruled: well be spent on the purchase of them where they are mixed with oil and a higher and inclusive price is paid for the latter. whatsoever thy soul desireth’. (ibid.). nevertheless remains unconsecrated. There is no need to re-sell the skin in order to buy foodstuffs with its proceeds. remain unconsecrated. money by paying an inclusive price for the animals and the wine respectively, it follows that it is permitted to buy with second tithe money any commodity provided its value is not paid for separately but is included in the price paid for the suitable article. permitted. (On the reading of ‘R. Eliezer’ v. marg. note supra 27a).