Eruvin 54

לא נצרכה אלא שנתן לתוכן שמן

That<a rel="footnote" href="#1">¹</a> refers only to a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was not required, but'.');">²</span> where oil was mixed with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that he put into'.');">³</span> them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water and the salt. Oil is a produce.');">⁴</span>

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

Said Abaye to him: [In that case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That oil was contained in the mixture.');">⁵</span> might not the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 186, n. 12.');">⁶</span> be obvious<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and let it go out to (or 'be inferred by') him'.');">⁷</span> on account of the oil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need then was there to state it? vgkcvc gkc');">⁸</span>

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

The ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 186, n. 12.');">⁶</span> was necessary in that case only where one covered the cost of the water and the salt by paying an inclusive price<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' lit., 'by absorption' (rt. 'to absorb') .');">⁹</span> [for the oil]. ¹¹ teaches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since otherwise this detail would be superfluous after the general statement, 'And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth'. (ibid.) .');">¹²</span>

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

that an ox may be purchased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With money of the second tithe.');">¹³</span> together with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'upon the back', 'at the side of'.');">¹⁴</span> its skin;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. though the skin is not a foodstuff it may be bought together with the animal at an inclusive price and it nevertheless remains unconsecrated. There is no need to re-sell the skin in order to buy foodstuffs with its proceeds.');">¹⁵</span> 'or for sheep'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26.');">¹¹</span>

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

teaches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since otherwise this detail would be superfluous after the general statement, 'And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth'. (ibid.) .');">¹²</span> that a sheep may be bought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With money of the second tithe.');">¹³</span> together with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'upon the back', 'at the side of'.');">¹⁴</span> its wool;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though both the skin (as in the case of the ox supra) and the wool are no foodstuffs (v. previous note) and both remain unconsecrated.');">¹⁶</span>

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

'or for wine'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26.');">¹¹</span> teaches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since otherwise this detail would be superfluous after the general statement, 'And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth'. (ibid.) .');">¹²</span> that wine may be bought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With money of the second tithe.');">¹³</span> together with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'upon the back', 'at the side of'.');">¹⁴</span>

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

its jar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. II mutatis mutandis.');">¹⁷</span> 'or for strong drink'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26.');">¹¹</span> teaches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since otherwise this detail would be superfluous after the general statement, 'And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth'. (ibid.) .');">¹²</span> that tamad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An inferior kind of wine made of the stalks of pressed grapes and husks.');">¹⁸</span>

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

may be purchased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' with money of the second tithe.');">¹⁹</span> after its fermentation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, since the skin, the wool and the jar are not articles of food and may nevertheless be bought with second tithe 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.');">²⁰</span> Said R'Johanan: Should any person explain to me [the necessity for the expression of] 'for oxen'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26.');">¹¹</span> in accordance with the view of Ben Bag-Bag<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That oil was contained in the mixture.');">⁵</span>

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

would carry his clothes after him into the bath house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he would be willing to act as the attendant of such a genius if such a one could be found.');">²¹</span> What is the reason? - Because all [the other expressions]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26.');">¹¹</span> were required with the exception of 'for oxen,' which is quite unnecessary. What [is the purpose for which the others] were required? - If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'because if'.');">²²</span>

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

the All Merciful had written only 'for oxen' it might have been assumed that only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'.');">²³</span> an ox may be purchased together with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'upon the back', 'at the side of'.');">²⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it was necessary to have the expression of 'for sheep'.');">²⁵</span> And if the All Merciful had only written: 'for sheep'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIV, 26.');">²⁶</span>

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

[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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS. M. Cur. edd. insert, 'the All Merciful wrote strong drink'.');">²⁷</span> if the All Merciful had written 'for strong drink,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIV, 26.');">²⁶</span>

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

Sit might have been assumed that by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'.');">²⁸</span> 'strong drink' [was meant the purchase of] the pressed fig cakes of Keilah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town in the lowland district of Judea.');">²⁹</span> 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'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIV, 26.');">²⁶</span>

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

[to indicate] that [it may be bought] even together with its wool. What however, was the need for the expression of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore to me'.');">³⁰</span> 'for oxen'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIV, 26.');">²⁶</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'.');">³¹</span>

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

together with its skin but not together with its wool, for if that were so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the expression of 'sheep' was not intended to include the animal with its wool.');">³²</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore to me'.');">³³</span> 'for oxen,?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIV, 26.');">³⁴</span> If [it may be argued] a sheep may be bought together with its wool<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not a vital Part of the animal.');">³⁵</span>

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

was there any need [to state that] an ox may be bought together with its skin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a vital part of its body.');">³⁶</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the variant readings of the name v. supra 27a.');">³⁷</span> and R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who agree that fish may be bought but are at variance on the question whether the purchase of brine is also permitted. (On the reading of 'R. Eliezer' v. marg. note supra 27a) .');">³⁸</span>

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

and the following Tannas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who forbid the purchase of fish and much more so that of brine. hhucr vcr hyugnu ygn');">³⁹</span> differ? - R'Judah B'Gadish and R'Eliezer base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] amplification, and limitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (rt. 'to increase') (rt. 'to decrease') . hyrpu hkkf');">⁴⁰</span> while those Tannas base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] general statements and specific details.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . V. Sheb., Sonc. ed., p. 12, n. 3.');">⁴¹</span> 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'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIV, 26.');">³⁴</span>

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

is an amplification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Whatsoever . . desireth', i.e., anything.');">⁴²</span> 'for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIV, 26.');">³⁴</span> is a limitation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only these things may be bought but no others.');">⁴³</span> 'or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIV, 26.');">³⁴</span>

ומי אמר אביי דגים גידולי קרקע נינהו והאמר אביי

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'judge'.');">⁴⁴</span> only such things as are similar to those in the specification; as the specification explicitly mentions [things that are] the produce of produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal is born from an animal and grapes are produced from the seed of the grape.');">⁴⁵</span> that derive their nourishment from<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'growth of'.');">⁴⁶</span> the earth so [you may include] all [other things that are] the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from] the earth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 54b, 63a, Naz. 35b.');">⁴⁷</span> Another [Baraitha], however, taught: As the specification mentions explicitly [things that are] produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'child'.');">⁴⁸</span> of the products of the earth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the creation (v. Gen. I, 24ff) .');">⁴⁹</span> so [you may include] all produce that was of the products of the earth. What is the practical difference between these?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two cited Baraithas.');">⁵⁰</span> - 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'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the creation (v. Gen. I, 24ff) .');">⁴⁹</span> fish [are excluded since they] were created from the water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gen. I. 20f.');">⁵¹</span> But could Abaye maintain that fish derive their nourishment from] the earth seeing that he ruled: