Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 120

1) DRINKING "CHELEV"

QUESTION: Reish Lakish teaches that we derive from the verse, "Nefesh" (Vayikra 7:25), that one is Chayav not only for eating Chelev in the normal manner, but also for drinking Chelev that was liquefied (see RASHI DH l'Rabos).

Why, though, is a special verse needed to teach that one is Chayav for drinking Chelev? The Gemara in Shevuos (23a) derives that drinking is included in eating from the verse, "And you shall give the money for whatever your soul desires, for bulls, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink... and you shall eat there before Hashem" (Devarim 14:26). From the fact that the verse says "you shall eat" with regard to wine, we learn that whenever the Torah mentions eating, it also refers to drinking. Why, then, do we need a special verse with regard to Chelev to teach that drinking is included in eating? (TOSFOS DH l'Rabos)

ANSWER: TOSFOS answers that we say that drinking is included in eating only with regard to something that is normally consumed in its liquid form, such as wine. The fat of an animal, though, is normally consumed in a solid form, without being liquefied.

(TOSFOS (120b, DH Hevi) adds that even with regard to wine, drinking is considered like eating only where the Torah mentions "Achilah." Where the Torah does not mention "Achilah," we cannot derive from the word "fruit" that wine and oil are included (such as with regard to Bikurim).)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a number of cases involving forbidden foods that were liquefied and consumed as a drink. In some of these cases, the liquid form of the Isur is also prohibited by the Torah. One of the cases the Gemara discusses is the Isur d'Oraisa of eating a Neveilah of a Kosher species of bird. The Beraisa teaches that one who liquefies the meat through the heat of a flame and then drinks the Neveilah liquid is Chayav. However, one who drinks a similar liquid Neveilah that was liquefied by being left in the sun is Patur.

The Gemara asks that the Torah prohibits *eating* Neveilah, but not drinking it. Why, then, should one be Chayav for drinking Neveilah that was liquefied through the heat of a flame? Reish Lakish teaches that we derive from the verse, "Nefesh" (Vayikra 7:15), that one is Chayav not only for eating Neveilah in the normal manner, but also for drinking Neveilah that was liquefied (see RASHI DH l'Rabos).

The Gemara then asks that if this verse specifically includes drinking liquid Neveilah in the Isur, then why is one Patur when he drinks Neveilah that was liquefied by the sun? The Gemara answers that when it is heated in the sun, it becomes spoiled (and one is not Chayav for drinking or eating a forbidden food that has become spoiled).

The CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN and others are bothered by the words of the Gemara. The Beraisa states as a fact that there is a difference between Neveilah which is liquefied by the heat of a fire and Neveilah which is liquefied by the heat of the sun. Prior to Reish Lakish's answer, the Gemara did not question this difference. Why, though, did the Gemara not question this difference immediately, even before Reish Lakish's teaching? The Gemara should have asked what the difference is between liquefying an Isur through the heat of a fire and liquefying it through the heat of the sun. Why does the Gemara only ask this question on the words of Reish Lakish?

ANSWERS:

(a) The CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN explains that the Gemara at first thought that the Beraisa is discussing an Isur d'Rabanan and that the Torah does not prohibit drinking Neveilah juice. The Gemara, accordingly, assumed that the Rabanan only prohibited this mixture in a case in which it was heated up in a normal way (by fire). However, when Reish Lakish teaches that this is an Isur d'Oraisa, we no longer can differentiate between a normal way of heating and an unusual way of heating. The Gemara therefore asks at this point that if Reish Lakish holds that this is a Torah prohibition, then why is one Patur when he drinks Neveilah that was liquefied by the heat of the sun? The Gemara answers that the sun causes the Neveilah to spoil, and a person is not Chayav for eating a forbidden food that is spoiled and not fit for consumption.

(b) The LEV ARYEH answers that the Gemara did not ask why there is a difference between the heat of a fire and the heat of the sun, because it was working with the premise found in Menachos (21a) that when blood is heated by fire it changes to such a degree that it can no longer revert back to its original consistency. However, when it is heated by the sun, it *can* revert to its original form (see Rashi in Menachos there, DH b'Chamah). The Gemara here applied this rule to Neveilah, and therefore it understood that the reason why one who drinks Neveilah that was liquefied by fire is Chayav is because the person wanted to have pleasure from a Neveilah liquid, and with that goal in mind he successfully changed the Neveilah into such a liquid. The Lev Aryeh explains that this is similar to the Gemara's comment earlier that one who eats blood that he hardened is Chayav, because he gave importance to the hardened blood, giving it the status of food. The Gemara understands that if one wants to eat or drink a prohibited item in a unusual form, the Torah still prohibits it.

In contrast, Neveilah heated by the sun has not really changed, since it can still return to its previous form. Consequently, the Neveilah liquid is not considered "Chashuv," as he has not really changed it completely. Since it is now in a non-significant state, one does not transgress the prohibition of Neveilah by drinking it. On this understanding of the logic of the Beraisa the Gemara asks there still should be no difference between heating by sun and heating by fire; the prohibition of Neveilah is against eating it, not drinking it.

When Reish Lakish says that the prohibition against drinking is also learned from the verse, the Gemara asks that if the logic of the Beraisa is *not* that the person makes the Neveilah liquid Chashuv, but rather that the Torah says that one is Chayav even for drinking a Neveilah liquid, then one should be Chayav for drinking Neveilah that was liquefied by the sun as well.

The Gemara answers that one is not Chayav for Neveilah liquid heated by the sun, because it spoils. (Y. Montrose)

OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that teaches that one is Chayav for congealing blood and then eating it. While we know that blood congeals on its own after it is left unstirred (Yoma 43b), the Beraisa implies that the person himself caused the blood to solidify. How is this done?

(a) RASHI (DH Hikpah) explains that the person congealed the blood by heating it over a flame.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Hikpah) disagrees with Rashi, because blood that is heated over a flame is considered to be cooked, and the Isur d'Oraisa of eating blood does not apply to cooked blood. Tosfos instead explains that the person congealed the blood by placing it in the light of the sun.

Rashi, however, is consistent with his own view expressed earlier (end of 109a, DH ha'Lev; see Insights there), where he writes explicitly that one is Chayav Kares for eating blood in the heart of an animal after it was cooked.

Tosfos (109a, DH ha'Lev) argues with Rashi and maintains that cooked blood is prohibited only mid'Rabanan.

120b

QUESTION: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Terumos (11:2) in which Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua regarding the liquids of fruit of Terumah, other than wine and oil. According to Rebbi Eliezer, liquids of all fruits are considered to be Terumah (assuming the liquid was attained after the fruit was declared Terumah). According to Rebbi Yehoshua, the laws of Terumah are limited to wine and oil.

The Gemara explains that the argument is based on whether we apply the principle of, "Don Minah u'Minah," or the principle of, "Don Minah v'Uki b'Asrah." Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a law derived through a Gezeirah Shavah or a Hekesh is derived in its entirety. Since we learn through a Gezeirah Shavah from Bikurim that that a liquid is considered like the fruit itself, we learn that this applies to all fruits to which Terumah applies, both mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan.

The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is difficult to understand. How can we apply a principle ("Don Minah") used for deriving laws that are mid'Oraisa to laws that are only mid'Rabanan?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH Af Terumah Nami) explains that the application of the principle "Don Minah" here is not meant to be literal. Rather, the Gemara means that since the principle of "Don Minah" *would* have taught that Terumah also applies to the liquids of these fruits had these fruits themselves been obligated mid'Oraisa, the Rabanan enacted an obligation for both the fruits and their liquids.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Don Minah) suggests that Rebbi Eliezer applies the principle of "Don Minah u'Minah" to teach that Terumah applies to liquefied *wheat* mid'Oraisa (since Terumah applies to wheat itself mid'Oraisa). Rebbi Yehoshua argues and applies "Don Minah v'Uki b'Asrah" to teach that Terumah does not apply to liquefied wheat.

(c) According to the RAMBAM (Hilchos Terumos 2:1), this question is not problematic at all, because the Rambam maintains that the obligation to separate Terumah from other fruits is also mid'Oraisa. (He maintains that only Terumah of vegetables is mid'Rabanan.)