Chullin 240:1

וליכתוב רחמנא בשרצים וליתו הנך וליגמרו מינייהו

The Divine Law then could have stated it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the extracts and juices from forbidden substances or the liquids made from them are included within the prohibition. cu,fk');">¹</span>

משום דאיכא למיפרך

with regard to creeping things and the other cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the carcass of a clean bird, the forbidden fat, and leavened bread. V. Tosaf. s.v. , and also Glos. of Isaiah Berlin in the margin of the text quoting the Adreth Hiddushim. ifa');">²</span>

מה לשרצים שכן טומאתן במשהו

would have been inferred therefrom?

והא דתניא

Such inference could be refuted thus: It is so with the case of creeping things since they convey uncleanness no matter what their size.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even the size of a lentil's bulk; but v. Tosaf. ');">³</span>

הטבל והחדש וההקדש והשביעית והכלאים כולן משקין היוצאין מהן כמותן מנלן

And as for [the Baraitha] which was taught: 'The liquids that exuded from produce of tebel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'mixed'; produce from which the priestly and levitical dues have not been separated.');">⁴</span>

וכי תימא

or from new produce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The harvest of the new season which may not be eaten before the offering of the 'omer; v. Lev. XXIII, 10-14.');">⁵</span>

ליגמר מהנך מה להנך שכן איסור הבא מאליו הוו

or from consecrated produced or from seventh year produce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXIII, 21; Lev. XXV, 2-7.');">⁶</span>

תינח היכא דאיסור בא מאליו היכא דלאו איסור הבא מאליו מנלן

or from the produce of diverse kinds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIX, 19; Deut. XXII, 9.');">⁷</span>

גמרינן מבכורים

are like [the produce] themselves' - whence is this derived?

ובכורים גופייהו מנלן

Should you say it can be inferred from the other cases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the fat, leavened bread and the carcass of a clean bird.');">⁸</span>

דתני ר' יוסי

[but it will be refuted thus,] It is so with the others since each is an original prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the prohibition comes from itself'; as opposed to a prohibition which is brought about by man. All the cases mentioned in this passage are original except that of consecrated produce.');">⁹</span>

פרי פרי אתה מביא ואי אתה מביא משקה

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. consecrated produce.');">¹⁰</span>

הביא ענבים ודרכן מנין

- We could infer it from the law of the firstfruits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXVI, 1ff. Firstfruits are, like consecrated produce, rendered holy by the word of man.');">¹¹</span>

תלמוד לומר

And whence do we know it with regard to the firstfruits? - From the following teaching of R'Jose:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Arak. 11a.');">¹²</span>

(דברים כו, ב) תביא

It is written: The fruit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 2.');">¹³</span>

איכא למיפרך

that is to say, you shall bring fruit but not liquids.

מה לבכורים שכן טעונין קרייה והנחה

And whence do we know that where a man brought grapes and trod them [into wine they are acceptable as firstfruits]?

אלא גמר מתרומה

The verse therefore says: Thou shalt bring.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We thus see that the liquid is like the fruit.');">¹⁴</span>

ותרומה גופה מנלן

But the inference can be refuted thus: It is so with firstfruits since they require the recital [of a passage]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 5ff.');">¹⁵</span>

דאיתקש לבכורים

and also setting down!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., setting down the basket of fruit before the Lord; ibid. 10.');">¹⁶</span>

דאמר מר

- Rather it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the liquid and juice of any substance is like the substance itself in the case of consecrated produce. lsh ,nur,u lsh');">¹⁷</span>

(דברים יב, יז) ותרומת ידך אלו בכורים

must be inferred from terumah.

מה לתרומה שכן חייבין עליה מיתה וחומש

And whence do we know it with regard to terumah itself?

אלא גמר מתרוייהו מתרומה ובכורים

Because it has been likened to the firstfruits, for a Master has said: The offering if thine hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 17. Heb. By , 'thy hand' is meant: Firstfruits, in reference to which 'hand' is mentioned (cf. Deut. XXVI, 4) ; hence terumah is equated with Firstfruits. V. Mak. 17a.');">¹⁸</span>

מה לתרומה ובכורים שכן חייבין עליהם מיתה וחומש

refers to the firstfruits.

אלא אתיא מתרומה וחד מהנך או מבכורים וחד מהנך

But [it will be refuted thus]: It is s regard to terumah since on account of it people incur the penalty of death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a non-priest deliberately consumes terumah he incurs the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven; cf. Lev. XXII, 9, 10.');">¹⁹</span>

והא דתנן

and the penalty of the [added] fifth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a non-priest consumes terumah in error and makes restitution, cf. ibid. 14. tkt');">²⁰</span>

דבש תמרים ויין תפוחים וחומץ סיתווניות ושאר מיני פירות של תרומה רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש ור' יהושע פוטר

- Rather it must be inferred from the two, from terumah and the firstfruits.

במאי פליגי

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 cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., either the case of leavened bread, or of the carcass of a clean bird (Rashi, but v. Tosaf. s.v.) . The 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.');">²¹</span>

בדון מינה ומינה ובדון מינה ואוקי באתרה קמיפלגי

or from the firstfruits and one of the other cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., either the case of leavened bread, or of the carcass of a clean bird (Rashi, but v. Tosaf. s.v.) . The 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.');">²¹</span>

דר' אליעזר סבר

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excepting wine and oil.');">²²</span>

דון מינה ומינה מה בכורים משקין היוצא מהן כמותן אף תרומה נמי משקין היוצא מהן כמותן

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]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. XI, 2. Ber. 38a.');">²³</span>

ומינה מה בכורים אפי' שאר מינין אף תרומה נמי אפילו שאר מינין

- on what principle do they differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is established by analogy with firstfruits that the liquid exuding from terumah is like terumah itself.');">²⁴</span>

ורבי יהושע סבר

- 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whenever one subject is inferred from another by means of analogy, or by 'the common features', the question 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.');">²⁵</span>

דון מינה מה בכורים משקין היוצאין מהן כמותן

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] fro - just as this law of firstfruits applies even to the other kinds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the seven kinds of products for which the Land of Israel was famed: wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olive-oil and date-honey. V, Deut. VIII, 8.');">²⁶</span>

אף תרומה משקין היוצאין מהן כמותן ואוקי באתרה מה משקין דקדשים בתרומה תירוש ויצהר אין מידי אחרינא לא

so with regard to terumah, too, this law applies even to ,the other kinds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the liquids made from apples and dates are subject to the law of terumah.');">²⁷</span>

אף משקין היוצאין מהן כמותן תירוש ויצהר אין מידי אחרינא לא

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, applie only to wine and oil, but to no other liquids.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For wine and oil are the only liquids expressly mentioned in the Torah with regard to terumah; cf. Num. XVIII, 12; Deut. XVIII, 4. So, juice which exuded from grapes and olives of terumah is as the terumah itself.');">²⁸</span>

והא דתנן

And as for [the Mishnah] which we learnt: 'No liquid may be brought as firstfruits excepting the product of olives and grapes'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. XI, 3.');">²⁹</span>

אין מביאין בכורים משקה אלא היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים מני

- 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule stated in this Mishnah is arrived at by the following stages in the argument: (a) it is inferred from firstfruits 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.');">³⁰</span>

רבי יהושע היא דאמר

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 'orlah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³¹</span>

דון מינה ואוקי באתרה וגמר להו לבכורים מתרומה

[for the liquid which issued from any orlah fruits] save for that which issued from olives and grapes'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. XI, 3.');">²⁹</span>

והא דתנן

- 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,

אין סופגין את הארבעים משום ערלה אלא על היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים מני

רבי יהושע היא דאמר

דון מינה ואוקי באתרה וגמר להו לבכורים מתרומה