| לא נצרכה אלא שנתן לתוכן שמן,אמר ליה אביי ותיפוק ליה משום שמן לא צריכא שנתן דמי מים ומלח בהבלעה,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,א"ר יוחנן מאן דמתרגם לי בבקר אליבא דבן בג בג מובילנא מאניה אבתריה לבי מסותא,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,ואי כתב רחמנא בצאן על גב גיזתה הוה אמינא משום דמחובר בה אבל יין ע"ג קנקנו אימא לא,ואי כתב רחמנא ביין הוה אמינא משום דהיינו נטירותיה אבל תמד משהחמיץ דקיוהא בעלמא הוא אימא לא כתב רחמנא שכר,ואי כתב רחמנא בשכר הוה אמינא מאי שכר דבילה קעילית דפירא הוא אבל יין על גב קנקנו אימא לא,ואי כתב רחמנא יין על גב קנקנו דהיינו נטירותיה אבל צאן על גב גיזתה אימא לא כתב רחמנא צאן דאפילו על גב גיזתה,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,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,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,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,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,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,ותניא אידך מה הפרט מפורש ולד ולדות הארץ אף כל ולד ולדות הארץ,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,ומי אמר אביי דגים גידולי קרקע נינהו והאמר אביי | Rabbi Yitzḥak’s ruling that water and salt mixed together may be bought with second-tithe money was only necessary in a case where one added oil to them. But a mixture of water and salt alone may not be purchased with second-tithe money.,Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If so, let him derive that the mixture may be bought with second-tithe money because of the oil alone. The Gemara refutes this argument: No, it was necessary for a case in which one paid the value of the water and salt by including it in the payment for the oil. Although ostensibly the money that he paid was for the oil, he added to the price of the oil in order to include payment for the water and salt that were mixed with it.,The Gemara asks: But if something may not be bought with second-tithe money, is one permitted to buy it by including it in the payment for something which may be bought with second-tithe money? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so it was taught in the following baraita: Ben Bag Bag says in exposition of the verse: “And you shall bestow that money on all that your heart desires, on oxen, on sheep, on wine, on strong drink, on whatever your soul requests” (Deuteronomy 14:26): “On oxen” teaches that one may buy an ox and include in its price payment for its hide. Although the hide cannot be eaten, it may be bought together with the ox, and it does not acquire the sanctity of the second tithe. “On sheep” teaches that one may buy a sheep and include in its price payment for its fleece, which is used for purposes other than eating. “On wine” teaches that one may buy wine and include in its price payment for its jug. “On strong drink” teaches that one is permitted to buy not only actual wine, but one may buy even mead, water in which grape seeds are soaked, once it has fermented and acquired the flavor of wine.,Having cited ben Bag Bag’s exposition of the verse, the Gemara continues: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever interprets the words “on oxen” for me in accordance with the opinion of ben Bag Bag, I will carry his clothes after him into the bathhouse, i.e., I will honor him to such an extent that I will be prepared to treat him as a servant treats his master.,What is the reason for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s difficulty? All parts of the verse cited above are necessary, except for the expression “on oxen,” which is not necessary. The Gemara clarifies: For what purpose are all the other words necessary? As, if the Torah had written only “on oxen,” I might have said that it is only an ox that may be bought together with its hide with second-tithe money because the hide is an inseparable part of its body, and therefore it is not considered an independent entity from its flesh. But as for buying a sheep together with its fleece, which is not an inseparable part of its body because the fleece can be removed from the sheep while it is alive, you might say no, second-tithe money may not be spent in this manner. It was therefore necessary to state “on sheep.”,And if the Torah had also written “on sheep,” teaching that one may buy even a sheep with second-tithe money together with its fleece, I might have said that it is only a sheep that may be bought together with its fleece because the fleece is attached to it, and therefore it is considered part of the animal. But as for buying wine together with its jug, you might say no, second-tithe money may not be spent this way. It was therefore necessary to state “on wine.”,And if the Torah had also written “on wine,” indicating that one may even buy wine together with its jug with second-tithe money, I might still have said that this is because the jug is needed for the wine’s preservation, as there is no way to carry wine without some sort of container. But as for mead that has fermented, which is mere acidity, you might say no, it should not be included among the items that may be bought with second-tithe money. Therefore, the Torah wrote: “On strong drink.”,The necessity of each word much be proven in the opposite order as well. And if the Torah had only written “on strong drink,” I might have said: What is meant by strong drink? Dried figs from the town of Ke’ila, which are choice and juicy figs that can have an intoxicating effect. They are therefore considered produce and not merely mead. But as for buying wine together with its jug, you might say no, this may not be done with second-tithe money, and therefore it was necessary to state “on wine.”,And if the Torah had also written “on wine,” indicating that one may buy even wine together with its jug with second-tithe money, I might have said that this is because the jug is needed for the wine’s preservation. But as for buying a sheep together with its fleece, you might say no, this may not be done with second-tithe money. Therefore, the Torah stated “on sheep,” to teach that a sheep may be bought with second-tithe money even together with its fleece.,If so, why do I need the words “on oxen”? If one may purchase a sheep together with its fleece with second-tithe money, it should certainly be permitted to buy an ox together with its hide. And if you say that if the Torah had not written “on oxen,” I might have said that a sheep together with its hide, yes, it may be bought with second-tithe money, but together with its fleece, no, it may not be bought; therefore, the Torah wrote “on oxen,” to include its hide, and so “on sheep” remains available for interpretation to include its fleece, i.e., that a sheep may be bought even together with its fleece. Therefore, the words “on oxen” are necessary, for without them I would have understood “on sheep” differently.,This argument can, however, be refuted: Even if the Torah had not written “on oxen,” I would not have said that a sheep together with its hide, yes, it may be bought with second-tithe money, but together with its fleece, no, it may not. For if it were so, the Torah should have written “on oxen,” in which case the words “on sheep” would remain available for interpretation. “On sheep” can be explained in two ways, both in reference to its hide as well as in reference to its fleece. Had the Torah wanted to teach only that an animal may be bought together with its hide but not with its fleece, it would have written “on oxen” only, which would have left no room for error, as oxen do not have fleece.,And since the Torah writes “on sheep,” teaching that a sheep may be bought with second-tithe money even together with its fleece, why do I need the words “on oxen”? These words are now entirely superfluous. If a sheep may be bought together with its fleece, is it necessary to state that an ox may be bought together with its hide? This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan meant when he said: Whoever interprets the words “on oxen” for me in accordance with the opinion of ben Bag Bag, I will carry his clothes after him into the bathhouse.,The Gemara now returns to the tannaitic disagreement pertaining to buying fish brine with second-tithe money: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda ben Gadish, and Rabbi Eliezer, and these tanna’im whose views will be cited below, disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda ben Gadish and Rabbi Eliezer expound the verse based on the principle of amplifications and restrictions, and these tanna’im expound it based on the principle of generalizations and details, which is a different approach to biblical exegesis.,Rabbi Yehuda ben Gadish and Rabbi Eliezer expound the verse based on the principle of amplifications and restrictions. When the verse states: “And you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires” (Deuteronomy 14:26), it has amplified. When it then states: “On oxen, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink,” it has restricted its discussion to certain specific items. When it concludes with the phrase: “On whatever your soul requests,” it has once again amplified. According to this exegetical approach, we conclude that since it amplified and restricted and once again amplified, it has amplified the general category to include everything. What has it amplified the category to include? It has amplified the category to include everything. And what has it restricted from inclusion in the category? Only one thing: According to Rabbi Eliezer, it restricted brine from inclusion because brine is not at all similar to the items listed in the verse; according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Gadish, it restricted water and salt.,And these other tanna’im expound the verse according to the principle of generalizations and details, as it was taught in a baraita: The phrase: “And you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires” is a generalization, as no particular type of food is specified. The phrase: “On cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink” is a detail, as specific types of food are mentioned. When the verse concludes: “On whatever your soul requests,” it has generalized again, as no specific type of food is mentioned. Since the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as the produce of produce, i.e., not only the produce itself but also things that come from it, such as the calf that comes from a cow or grapes from a seed, and they are also things grown from the ground, as all of these items grow from the ground or receive their main sustenance from it, so it includes all things that are the produce of produce and are grown from the ground.,And it was taught in another baraita: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as the offspring of the offspring of the earth, i.e., things that come from items that came from the ground, so it includes all things that are the offspring of the offspring of the earth.,The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two baraitot? Abaye said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to fish. According to the one who said that we apply the law to that which is the produce of produce and grown from the ground, fish are regarded as having grown from the ground. However, according to the one who said we apply it to that which is the offspring of the offspring of the earth, fish were created from water. Therefore, they are not of the offspring of the earth, and consequently they are not included among the items that may be purchased with second-tithe money.,The Gemara asks: Did Abaye say that fish are regarded as having been grown from the ground? Didn’t Abaye say the following? |
