QUESTION: Reish Lakish derives 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 is a special verse needed to teach that one is Chayav for drinking Chelev? The Gemara in Shevuos (23a; see Insights there) 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 Hash-m" (Devarim 14:26). The verse's usage of the words "you shall eat" with regard to wine teaches that whenever the Torah mentions eating, it also refers to drinking. Why, then, is a special verse needed in the case of Chelev to teach that drinking is included in eating? (TOSFOS DH l'Rabos)

ANSWER: TOSFOS answers that, generally, drinking is included in eating only in the case of something that is normally consumed in its liquid form, such as wine. The fat of an animal, in contrast, is normally consumed in a solid form, without being liquefied.

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

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a number of cases in which forbidden foods 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 flesh 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 derives 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 in the Isur drinking liquid Neveilah, 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 liquefied by the heat of a fire and Neveilah 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?

(a) The CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN explains that the Gemara initially thought that the Beraisa is discussing an Isur d'Rabanan and that the Torah does not prohibit drinking Neveilah juice. Accordingly, the Gemara assumed that the Rabanan prohibited this mixture only 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, the Gemara 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 maintains 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 expressed in Menachos (21a) that when blood is heated by fire it changes to such a degree that it no longer can revert 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 that 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 still can 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 that there still should be no difference between heating by sun and heating by fire; the Isur of Neveilah prohibits eating it, not drinking it.

When Reish Lakish says that the prohibition against drinking is also derived 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 who congealed blood and then ate it is Chayav. Although blood congeals on its own when it is left unstirred (see Yoma 43b), the Beraisa implies that the person himself caused the blood to solidify. How did he do this?

(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 explains instead 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 there (109a, DH ha'Lev) disagrees with Rashi and maintains that cooked blood is prohibited only mid'Rabanan.

QUESTION: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Terumos (11:2) in which Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua disagree about the liquids of fruit of Terumah, other than wine and oil. According to Rebbi Eliezer, liquids of all fruits are considered Terumah (assuming that the liquid was attained after the fruit was declared Terumah). According to Rebbi Yehoshua, the laws of Terumah are limited to wine and oil and do not apply to the liquids of other fruits.

The Gemara explains that the argument is based on whether the principle of "Don Minah u'Minah" is implemented, or the principle of "Don Minah v'Uki b'Asrah" is implemented. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a law derived through a Gezeirah Shavah or a Hekesh is derived in its entirety. Since a Gezeirah Shavah from Bikurim teaches that a liquid is considered like the fruit itself, "Don Minah" teaches 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 a principle ("Don Minah") used for deriving laws that are mid'Oraisa be applied to laws that are only mid'Rabanan?

(a) RASHI (DH Af Terumah Nami) explains that the application of the principle of "Don Minah" here is not meant intended 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 in Terumah 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 view of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Terumos 2:1), this question is not problematic at all. 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.)