The Drasha of Gam Shneihem

At the top of a recent Sunday daf, Bava Kamma 94a:

מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם״ – לְרַבּוֹת שִׁינּוּיֵיהֶם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל – אָמַר קְרָא: ״הֵם״ – וְלֹא שִׁינּוּיֵיהֶם.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination unto the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). The word “even” is an amplification, which serves to include in the prohibition these items in their changed form. And what is the reason of Beit Hillel? The verse states “these” to emphasize that the prohibition applies only to these items in their initial form, but not in their changed form.

(1) What is Beit Shammai’s Scriptural derivation? The English Steinsaltz claims that the word “even”, gam, is the source of the derasha. Rav Steinsaltz said the same in his Hebrew commentary, "גם" הוא לשון ריבוי. And Artscroll says the same.

This is readily apparent from the conclusion of the gemara, where it ends: וּבֵית הִלֵּל נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״גַּם״! ״גַּם״ לְבֵית הִלֵּל קַשְׁיָא. That is, the Talmudic Narrator wonders what Beit Hillel would do with the word gam that Beit Shammai expounded, and concludes that nu, nu, it is indeed difficult. (Though it is not a question that entirely destroys Beit Hillel’s position. Perhaps someone can explore that question in the future and resolve what they would do with that extra word.)

While the entire derasha seems to come from the Talmudic Narrator — mai ta’ama is Aramaic, and this isn’t attributed — I don’t know that the formulator of the derasha is the same as the one who asked the question at the end. And sometimes you even see an unattributed derasha in a Yerushalmi, even attributed there.

My point is that I’m not entirely settled that the local derasha is a ribuy inclusion based on the word gam alone, just like the word et.

(2) Digression. Let us first establish what I am arguing against. There is an established hermeneutical principle of interpreting et as well as gam to include something. See this writeup at Yeshiva.org.il. et to include talmidei chachamim. Indeed, there is a parallel gam, indeed a gam shneihem, that appears to include the vlad. Thus, in Arachin 7a, a named Amora plus the Talmudic Narrator:

ואימא ה"נ אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן אמר קרא (דברים כב, כב) ומתו גם שניהם לרבות את הוולד

The Gemara asks: But why not say that indeed the court should delay her execution until she gives birth? Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse states: “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall also both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman” (Deuteronomy 22:22). The amplifying term “both of them” serves to add her fetus, teaching that it dies together with her.

והאי מיבעי ליה עד שיהו שניהן שוין דברי רבי יאשיה כי קאמרת מגם:

The Gemara asks: But this phrase is required for the following halakha: Neither of the two adulterers mentioned in the verse is punished until both of them are equal, i.e., they have both reached majority. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. The Gemara answers: When you say that the child also dies, it is derived from the word “also,” whereas the halakha that they must be equal is learned from the term “both of them.”

(And out local derasha might be patterned after this, if it indeed comes from the systematic Talmudic Narrator who bases himself on named Amoraim.)

Further, based on כן תרימו גם אתם, it comes to include your agents. In Bava Metzia 71b:

איכא דאמרי אמר רב אשי כי אמרינן אין שליחות לנכרי הני מילי אינהו לדידן אבל אנן לדידהו הוינא להו שליח והא דרב אשי ברותא היא מ"ש אינהו לדידן דלא דכתיב אתם גם אתם לרבות שלוחכם מה אתם בני ברית אף שלוחכם בני ברית

There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Rav Ashi said: When we say that there is no agency for a gentile, this matter applies concerning them serving as agents for us, but we can be agents for them. With regard to this comment it was said: And this opinion of Rav Ashi is an error, as what is different that they cannot serve as agents for us? As it is written concerning teruma: “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28). Once the verse states “you,” the addition of the word “also” in the phrase “you also” serves to include your agents. The Sages also derive: Just as you, those who appoint agents, are members of the covenant, i.e., Jews, so too, your agents must be members of the covenant.

So gam, also, is an inclusion.

And the standard understanding of our sugya is that when it says אָמַר קְרָא: ״גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם״ – לְרַבּוֹת שִׁינּוּיֵיהֶם, it comes from the inclusion from the word gam.

(3) The alternative, which somehow isn’t mentioned on the page, is that it is a revocalization derasha. Namely, ״גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם״, don’t read gam sheneihem but gam shinuyeihem, also their changed forms. Perhaps the word gam can contribute slightly, to tell the Biblical interpreter that he should read the word shneihem in a way that will be inclusive of something. Meanwhile, Beit Hillel will take the word שְׁנֵיהֶם literally, that it is these two (the hire of the harlot and price of the dog), and nothing else, because of the hem ending. Just these two we’ve listed, and nothing else.

(4) Once again, there is another instance of Gam Shneihem in Devarim, just one perek earlier, among other instances in Tanach. Regarding adultery:

Why don’t we say gam shinuyeihem? Because there are no changes to be had here. Instead, it is to include the vlad, that if she is pregnant, they do not delay her execution. לרבות את הוולד in Arachin is equivalent to lerabot valdeiheim. And we include that which is relevant, not that which is not relevant.

(5) OK, so local to Bava Kamma, valadeihem is potentially relevant — though vlad as fetus need not be the same as vlad once born — and the gemara actually turns it into an (attributed) debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as to whether to include or exclude the child of the harlot’s hire as invalid for the altar.

This brings us to Tosafot, who have their own interesting contrast. The Tosafot doesn’t appear here, but in the parallel sugya in Bava Kamma 66a. There, they draw a contrast to Avodah Zarah 47a, where children are more likely to be prohibited than changed versions. Tosafot:

הם ולא ולדותיהם. משמע הכא דטפי מסתבר לאסור חטין ועשאן סולת יותר מולדותיהם ותימה דבפ' כל הצלמים (ע"ז דף מז. ושם ד"ה הכא) משמע איפכא גבי יש שינוי לנעבד או לא דבעי למימר דמשתחוה לחטין קמחן מותר למנחות ואע"ג דאמרינן בעיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דברי הכל אסורים דהתם מעיקרא בהמה והשתא בהמה ובבא הוא דאחידה באפה הכא מעיקרא חטין והשתא קמח ואין לומר דהא דשרינן ולד אתנן היינו בנותן לה ואח"כ עיברה דהא משמע בפ' כל האסורין (תמורה דף ל: ושם ד"ה דניחא) דדומיא דולד הנרבעת שרינן ולד אתנן וי"ל דהתם ודאי יש להתיר יותר חטין שנשתנה שנעשה סולת מולד נרבעת דהיא וולדה נרבעו ובבא בעלמא דאחידה באפה אבל גבי אתנן עיקר דעתה משום קמח וגבי בהמה עיקר דעתה אפרה ולא אולד:

That is, on Avodah Zara 46b:

בעי רמי בר חמא המשתחוה לקמת חטים מהו למנחות יש שינוי בנעבד או אין שינוי בנעבד

§ Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: In the case of one who bows to a stalk of wheat, what is the halakha with regard to using it for meal-offerings? Does the wheat lose its forbidden status after it is ground into flour, or not? Does a change in the form of a worshipped object revoke its forbidden status, or does a change in the form of a worshipped object not revoke its forbidden status?

אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן ת"ש כל האסורין לגבי מזבח ולדותיהן מותרים ותני עלה רבי אליעזר אוסר

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in a mishna (Temura 30b): The principle is that concerning all items that are forbidden with regard to sacrificing them the altar, their offspring, i.e., whatever products are derived from them, are permitted. And it is taught with regard to this mishna: Rabbi Eliezer deems the offspring forbidden.

and after a slight skip, on 47a, the Talmudic Narrator objects:

הכי השתא התם מעיקרא בהמה והשתא בהמה דשא הוא דאחיזא באנפה הכא מעיקרא חיטי והשתא קמחא

The Gemara asks: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of offspring that it is prohibited to bring as an offering, it was initially an animal, in its fetal state, and now it is still an animal. A fetus is treated as a full-fledged animal, and the opening of the womb is compared to a closed door that holds it in its place. Here, in the case of the flour, it was initially wheat and now it is flour; it is in a totally new form. Therefore, no proof can be derived from the mishna.

To make it the same case, though, I think we would have needed to have the cow which was the harlot’s hire be pregnant already, such that the fetus was part of the hire. Tosafot answer based on ikkar daatah, her primary focus.

This seems to be Talmudic Narrator (here, since they are attributing these to Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai) with the Talmudic Narrator there in Avoda Zara.

(6) However, it seems like we have a very easy answer based on the mechanics of the derasha. When we do the ribuy here, it isn’t just the word gam, but specifically the revocalization of shinuyeihim from shneihem. Even though vlad might be conceptually closer, the derasha itself will bring in the changed versions. And then, if anything needs to be excluded (“hem”), it would be the next in line for what you would conceptually think to otherwise include, the child.