## Chullin Daf 120b

###### Chullin 120b:1
[Chullin 120b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:1)

וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּשְׁרָצִים, וְלֵיתוֹ הָנָךְ וְלִיגְמְרוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Let the Merciful One write** the prohibition against consuming the juice, gravy, and sediments of **creeping animals and let these** *halakhot* of consuming liquefied forbidden fat, dissolved leavened bread, and a melted carcass of a bird **come and be learned from** it. The Torah does not need to state those *halakhot* explicitly.


###### Chullin 120b:2
[Chullin 120b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:2)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִשְׁרָצִים, שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It is not possible to derive those *halakhot* in such a manner **because** that derivation **can be refuted: What** is notable **about creeping animals?** They are notable **in that their impurity** is imparted **in any amount.** Those other *halakhot*, on the other hand, do not apply to less than an olive-bulk.


###### Chullin 120b:3
[Chullin 120b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:3)

וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַטֶּבֶל, וְהֶחָדָשׁ, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם – כּוּלָּן מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן. מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The Gemara continues to examine the source for the status of liquids with regard to various *halakhot* based on **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **untithed produce; and the new crop** of grain of the year, which is forbidden until after the *omer* offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan (see Leviticus 23:14); **and consecrated** produce; **and** the produce of **the Sabbatical** Year after the designated time when it must be removed from one’s house; **and diverse kinds,** i.e., the produce of a vineyard in which grains were sown; with regard to **all of them,** it is prohibited to consume **liquid that emerges from them just as** it is prohibited to consume them **themselves.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*?


###### Chullin 120b:4
[Chullin 120b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:4)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִיגְמַר מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ – שֶׁכֵּן אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו הָווּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let** those prohibitions **be learned from these** prohibitions of consuming the liquid that seeps from creeping animals, liquefied fat, dissolved leavened bread, and liquefied bird carcasses, one can respond that this derivation can be refuted. **What** is notable **about these** prohibitions? They are notable **in that** each of them is **a prohibition that develops on its own** without any human intervention, as opposed to the prohibitions in the *baraita*, which do not necessarily share this element of stringency.


###### Chullin 120b:5
[Chullin 120b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:5)

תִּינַח הֵיכָא דְּאִיסּוּר בָּא מֵאֵלָיו, הֵיכָא דְּלָאו אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו – מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **it works out well** to derive the prohibition against consuming liquids that emerged from a solid **where the prohibition** is one that **develops on its own,** such as untithed produce, the new crop, Sabbatical Year produce and diverse kinds. But with regard to consecrated produce, **where the prohibition does not develop on its own** but rather only after a person consecrates the produce, **from where do we** derive that it is prohibited to consume the liquid that emerges from the produce just as it is prohibited to consume the produce itself?


###### Chullin 120b:6
[Chullin 120b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:6)

גָּמְרִינַן מִבִּכּוּרִים, וּבִכּוּרִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We learn** this *halakha* **from** the case of **first fruits.** Consumption of first fruits is a prohibition that does not develop on its own, because the owner must set aside the first fruits. And consumption of the liquid that emerges from first fruits is prohibited like consumption of the fruit itself. The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive this *halakha* with regard to **first fruits themselves?**


###### Chullin 120b:7
[Chullin 120b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:7)

דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״פְּרִי״ – פְּרִי אַתָּה מֵבִיא, וְאִי אַתָּה מֵבִיא מַשְׁקֶה. הֵבִיא עֲנָבִים וּדְרָכָן – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּבִיא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that first fruits can be brought as wine, **as Rabbi Yosei teaches:** The verse states with regard to first fruits: “You shall take of the first of all the **fruit** of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land” (Deuteronomy 26:2). Since the verse mentions fruit, this indicates that **you must bring** actual **fruit, and you may not bring** the first fruits in the form of **beverages.** But if one **brought grapes and** he had already **pressed them** into wine, **from where** is it derived that he has fulfilled his obligation? **The verse states: “You shall bring in** from your land.” This superfluous term serves to teach that if one brings wine for the mitzva of first fruits, he has fulfilled his obligation.


###### Chullin 120b:8
[Chullin 120b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:8)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְבִכּוּרִים שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין קְרִיָּיה וְהַנָּחָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But this derivation from the case of first fruits **can be refuted: What** is notable **about first fruits?** They are notable **in that they require reciting** the passage which begins: “My father was a wandering Aramean” (Deuteronomy 26:5), **and placing** the fruits in the Temple, whereas no such requirements exists with regard to consecrated produce.


###### Chullin 120b:9
[Chullin 120b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:9)

אֶלָּא גָּמַר מִתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one can **derive** the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges from consecrated produce **from** the prohibition against consuming liquid that emerges from ***teruma*,** i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest.


###### Chullin 120b:10
[Chullin 120b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:10)

וּתְרוּמָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְבִכּוּרִים, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ״ – אֵלּוּ בִּכּוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive this *halakha* with regard to ***teruma* itself?** the Gemara answers: It is derived from the fact **that** *teruma* **is compared to first fruits, as** it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your cattle and of your flocks, or any of your vows that you will vow, or your pledges, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and **the Master said** with regard to the phrase **“nor the offering [*teruma*] of your hand”** that **these are** the **first fruits.** Since the verse uses the term “*teruma*” with regard to first fruits, the *halakha* of *teruma* is compared to the *halakha* of first fruits: Just as liquid that emerges from first fruits is forbidden like the fruit itself, so too liquid that emerges from *teruma* is forbidden like the produce itself. Consequently, the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges from consecrated produce can be derived from *teruma*.


###### Chullin 120b:11
[Chullin 120b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:11)

מָה לִתְרוּמָה, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this derivation from *teruma*: **What** is notable **about *teruma*?** It is notable **in that** a non-priest **is liable** to receive the punishment of **death** at the hand of Heaven **for** consuming *teruma*, **and** he must restore the value of the produce he ate, adding **one-fifth** of its value as a fine. This element of stringency does not exist with regard to one who consumes consecrated produce.


###### Chullin 120b:12
[Chullin 120b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:12)

אֶלָּא, גָּמַר מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ, מִתְּרוּמָה וּבִכּוּרִים – מָה לִתְרוּמָה וּבִכּוּרִים, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one can **learn** the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges from consecrated produce **from both *teruma* and first fruits.** The Gemara refutes this derivation: **What** is notable **about *teruma* and first fruits?** They are notable **in that** a non-priest **is liable** to receive the punishment of **death** at the hand of Heaven **for** consuming *teruma* or first fruits, **and** he must restore the value of the produce he ate, adding **one-fifth** of its value as a fine. This is not true with regard to one who consumes consecrated produce.


###### Chullin 120b:13
[Chullin 120b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:13)

אֶלָּא, אָתְיָא מִתְּרוּמָה וְחַד מֵהָנָךְ, אוֹ מִבִּכּוּרִים וְחַד מֵהָנָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges from consecrated produce **is derived from *teruma* and one of these** prohibitions, i.e., a liquefied carcass of a bird or dissolved leavened bread; **or** it can be derived **from first fruits and one of these** prohibitions.


###### Chullin 120b:14
[Chullin 120b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:14)

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: דְּבַשׁ תְּמָרִים, וְיֵין תַּפּוּחִים, וְחוֹמֶץ סִיתְוָונִיּוֹת, וּשְׁאָר מִינֵי פֵירוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The Gemara elaborates on the comparison between *teruma* and first fruits with regard to the *halakha* that the status of liquid that emerges from produce is like that of the produce itself, **and** it explains **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 11:2): If a non-priest ate **date honey, or apple wine, or vinegar** made **from grapes of autumn** that grow stunted at the end of the season and are unfit for wine production, **or** any of the **other types of** juice made from **fruits of *teruma*, Rabbi Eliezer deems** him **obligated** to repay **the principal and** an additional **fifth,** like the penalty for one who ate the *teruma* produce itself. **And Rabbi Yehoshua deems** him **exempt** from payment.


###### Chullin 120b:15
[Chullin 120b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:15)

בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? בְּדוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, וּבְדוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With regard to what** principle do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua **disagree? They disagree with regard to** the principles governing the process of deriving one *halakha* from another *halakha*. One maintains the exegetical principle: **Infer from it, and** again **from it,** i.e., when one case is derived from another all the details of the source case are applied to the other case; **and** one maintains the principle: **Infer from it but interpret** the *halakha* **according to its** own **place,** i.e., one derives only the basic principle of the source case, whereas all other aspects of the source case are not applied to the case at hand.


###### Chullin 120b:16
[Chullin 120b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:16)

דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, מָה בִּכּוּרִים – מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצֵא מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן, אַף תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי – מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצֵא מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן, וּמִינַּהּ – מָה בִּכּוּרִים אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר מִינִין, אַף תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר מִינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Eliezer holds: Infer from it, and** again **from it. Just as** with regard to **first fruits,** the status of the **liquid that emerges from them is like** that of the produce itself, **so too** with regard to ***teruma*,** the status of the **liquid that emerges from it is like** that of the produce itself. **And** again infer **from it: Just as** the *halakha* of **first fruits** includes not only olives and grapes but **even other types** of produce from the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised, and the status of liquid that emerges from that produce is like that of the produce itself, **so too** with regard to ***teruma*,** although oil and wine are the only liquids from which one is obligated to separate *teruma*, **even** liquid that emerges from **other types** of produce designated as *teruma* besides olives and grapes has the same status as the produce itself.


###### Chullin 120b:17
[Chullin 120b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:17)

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר, דּוּן מִינַּהּ: מָה בִּכּוּרִים – מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן, אַף תְּרוּמָה – מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן. וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ: מָה מַשְׁקִין דְּקָדָשִׁים בִּתְרוּמָה, תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא, אַף מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן כְּמוֹתָן, תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Infer from it** that **just as** with regard to **first fruits** the status of the **liquid that emerges from them is like** that of the produce itself, **so too** with regard to ***teruma*,** the status of the **liquid that emerges from it is like** that of the produce itself. **But interpret** the *halakha* **according to its** own **place: Just as** in the case of **liquids that are consecrated as *teruma*,** with regard to **wine and oil, yes,** they are included, **but other** types are **not** included, **so too** in the case of **liquid that emerges from** *teruma*, as with regard to **wine and oil, yes,** they **are like** the produce itself, **but any other** type of liquid that emerges from *teruma* is **not** like the produce itself. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua deems exempt a non-priest who consumed any of the beverages mentioned in the mishna.


###### Chullin 120b:18
[Chullin 120b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:18)

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: אֵין מְבִיאִין בִּכּוּרִים מַשְׁקֶה אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַזֵּיתִים וּמִן הָעֲנָבִים – מַנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 11:3): **One may bring beverages** made from **first fruits** to the Temple **only** in the case of **that which emerges from the olives,** i.e., oil, **or from the grapes,** i.e., wine. The Gemara asks: In accordance with **whose** opinion is that mishna?


###### Chullin 120b:19
[Chullin 120b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:19)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְאַתְרַהּ, וְגָמַר לְהוּ לְבִכּוּרִים מִתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Infer from it but interpret** the *halakha* **according to its** own **place.** He derives the *halakha* of liquid that emerges from *teruma* from first fruits only with regard to wine and oil, **and** in the opposite direction, **he derives** the *halakha* **of** liquid that emerges from **first fruits from *teruma*.** Therefore, even with regard to first fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce itself only with regard to wine and oil. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the *halakha* of liquid that emerges from *teruma* is derived from first fruits even with regard to other types of produce besides grapes and olives, contrary to the statement of that mishna, one may bring beverages extracted from other first fruits besides wine and oil to the Temple.


###### Chullin 120b:20
[Chullin 120b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:20)

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: אֵין סוֹפְגִין אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים מִשּׁוּם עׇרְלָה, אֶלָּא עַל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַזֵּיתִים וּמִן הָעֲנָבִים – מַנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites **that which we learned** in the same mishna (*Terumot* 11:3): **One incurs the forty** lashes **due to** drinking the juice squeezed from ***orla*,** i.e., the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting, **only for that which emerges from the olives or from the grapes.** The Gemara asks: In accordance with **whose** opinion is that mishna?


###### Chullin 120b:21
[Chullin 120b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120b:21)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ, וְגָמַר לְהוּ לְבִכּוּרִים מִתְּרוּמָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Infer from it but interpret** the *halakha* **according to its** own **place, and he derives** the *halakha* **of** liquid that emerges from **first fruits from *teruma*.** Therefore, even with regard to first fruits, the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce itself only with regard to wine and oil.