Shevuot 45
ותירוש חמרא הוא וכתיב ואכלת
<br> Now, tirosh is wine, and yet it is written, 'thou shalt eat'. Perhaps [Scripture means] when used in elaiogaron? For Raba b. Samuel said: Elaiogaron contains the juice of beets, oxygaron the juice of all kinds of boiled vegetable! - But, said R. Aha b. Jacob: [We deduce that drinking is included in eating] from the verse, And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink . . . [and thou shalt eat there]. Now, yayin is certainly wine; and yet it is written, 'thou shalt eat'. Perhaps here also [Scripture means] in elaiogaron? - 'Strong drink' is written, implying that which can cause intoxication. Perhaps pressed figs from
ודלמא על ידי אניגרון דאמר רבה בר שמואל אניגרון מיא דסילקי אכסיגרון מיא דכולהו סילקי
Keilah [are intended]; for it was taught: If he ate a pressed fig from Keilah, or drank honey, or milk, and entered the Temple, and ministered, he is liable? - Well then, we deduce [that drinking is included in eating] by analogy from 'strong drink' [used here and in connection with a nazirite]: just as there it implies wine, so here it implies wine. <br>
אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב מהכא (דברים יד, כו) ונתתה הכסף בכל אשר תאוה נפשך בבקר ובצאן וביין ובשכר יין חמרא הוא וכתיב ואכלת
Raba said: We have also learnt thus: 'I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,' AND HE ATE AND DRANK, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE. Granted, if you say that drinking is included in eating, it is necessary for the Tanna to teach us that [nevertheless] he is liable only once. But if you say that drinking is not included in eating, [if he says.] I SWEAR I shall not eat,' and he ate, and did work, would it be necessary [for the Tanna] to teach us that he is liable only once? Abaye said to him: What then, drinking is included in eating! [If so,] read the second clause, I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT, AND I SHALL NOT DRINK,' AND HE ATE AND DRANK, HE IS LIABLE TWICE. Now, since he said, I shall not eat,' he is already prohibited from drinking; then when he says, I shall not drink,' why should he be liable? If he had said, I shall not drink' twice, would be have been liable twice? - He replied to him: There [the Mishnah means] he [first] said, I shall not drink,' and then he said, I shall not eat;' for drinking is included in eating, but eating is not included in drinking. But if he said, I SWEAR I shall not eat and I shall not drink,' and he ate and drank, he would be liable only once? If so, why does he teach in the first clause: I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,' AND HE ATE AND DRANK, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE? Let him teach: I SWEAR I shall not eat and I shall not drink,' he is liable only once; and most certainly [we should know, when he says:] I shall not eat' alone [he is liable only once]! We must therefore read the Mishnah as it stands; but here it is different. Since he said, I shall not eat,' and then he said, I shall not drink,' he revealed his mind that this 'eating' that he mentioned meant eating only. <br>
ודלמא ה"נ על ידי אניגרון
R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah also proves it: I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT;' AND HE ATE FOODS WHICH ARE NOT FIT TO BE EATEN, AND DRANK LIQUIDS WHICH ARE NOT FIT TO BE DRUNK, HE IS EXEMPT. [This implies that] if they are fit, he is liable. But why so? Surely he said [merely]: I SWEAR I shall not eat'! - Perhaps he said both: I SWEAR I shall not eat; I swear I shall not drink.' I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,' AND HE ATE WHEAT BREAD, etc. But perhaps he wished to exempt himself from other kinds? - [In that case,] he should have said: '[I shall not eat] wheat, barley, and spelt.' But perhaps, [that would have meant] 'to chew'? - He could have said, '[I shall not eat] the bread of wheat, barley, and spelt.' - But perhaps, [that would have meant] the bread of wheat to eat, and barley and spelt to chew? - He could have said: '[I shall not eat] the bread of wheat, and of barley, and of spelt'.