Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The braita continues with the analysis of the unique laws governing earthenware vessels. Through a series of suggested logical kal v’chomer arguments, they demonstrate how scriptural verses restrict the ways these vessels contract and protect against ritual impurity, each in their own unique manner. Specifically, the verses dictate that an earthenware vessel can only contract impurity through its interior airspace (me’aviro) and never from its outer surface (miggabbo). Conversely, other types of vessels cannot contract impurity from their airspace but do contract it from their outer surface.
The Mishna sets forth an additional rule of contrasting halakhic status: a state that renders a wooden vessel ritually pure leaves a metal vessel impure, and vice versa. A braita clarifies that unfinished wooden vessels are susceptible to impurity while flat wooden vessels are pure. For metal, the law is reversed: unfinished metal vessels are pure while flat metal vessels are susceptible to impurity. The braita explains what is defined as an unfinished vessel in this context.
The Gemara presents a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Nachman regarding the underlying reason for the distinction between unfinished wood vessels and unfinished metal vessels – whether it is because these vessels are made for honor, or because they are expensive and therefore their crafting is not considered complete as long as any detail is missing. There is a practical ramification between these two opinions regarding vessels made of bone. The scriptural source establishing that bone vessels can contract ritual impurity is subsequently derived.
The Mishna introduces contrasting rules regarding the tithing obligations of bitter and sweet almonds. A braita explains that bitter almonds are subject to tithing only when they are young and small, since they are unfit for consumption when they are mature and large, whereas sweet almonds are subject to tithing only when they are large. Rabbi Yishmael b’Rabbi Yosi quotes an opinion that either both stages are completely exempt or both are completely obligated. The Gemara explains the opinion that both are obligated by explaining that mature bitter almonds can be sweetened by roasting them over a fire.
The Mishna outlines the changing legal status of grape-seed water (temed). Prior to fermentation, it does not possess the status of wine and cannot be purchased using second tithe funds, yet it disqualifies a mikveh if three logs of it fall inside a mikveh that does not have the requisite amount of water (forty se’ah). Once it ferments, its status changes to wine, meaning it can be purchased with second tithe funds and no longer disqualifies a mikveh. The Mishna also introduces a contrasting rule regarding brothers who are partners in an estate or partners after already dividing their estate, balancing their obligations toward the Temple half-shekel surcharge (kalbon) against their obligations toward the cattle tithe.
The Gemara analyzes which tanna this Mishna follows regarding the status of temed, since on the surface, it does not appear to align with any opinion appearing in the Mishna in Masechet Maasrot (Chapter 5, Mishna 6).
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Elana & Daniel Storch in honor of Patti Evans on her milestone birthday. “We cherish you as a truly dear and special friend. May Hashem grant you a fullness of years filled with health, happiness, love, and continued bracha. May this year bring you much nachat, joy, and beautiful moments with all those who love you.”
Chullin 25
וַאֲפִילּוּ מְלֹא חַרְדָּל.
that it renders impure everything within it, and this is the halakha even if it is full of mustard seeds, in which case most of the seeds do not come in contact with the sides of the vessel, and nevertheless all the mustard seeds become impure.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: וִיהֵא כְּלִי חֶרֶס מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן – מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן, כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁמִּיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ?
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And let it be derived that an earthenware vessel becomes impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side by means of an a fortiori inference: If all the other types of vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, then with regard to an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, isn’t it logical that it will become ritually impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו״, אֵיזֶהוּ כְּלִי שֶׁטּוּמְאָתוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְפִתְחוֹ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה כְּלִי חֶרֶס, וְכִי אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו הוּא דְּטָמֵא, הָא יֵשׁ צְמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו – טָהוֹר.
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), indicating that its impurity is dependent upon the mouth of the vessel. Which is the vessel whose impurity hastily takes effect just after the impure item enters into its mouth? You must say that is an earthenware vessel. And it is when there is no sealed cover on it that the vessel becomes impure. But when there is a sealed cover on it, the vessel is pure, as the earthenware vessel does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side.
וְיִהְיוּ כׇּל הַכֵּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ – מִיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ, כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁמִּיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמִּיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן?
The Gemara suggests: And let it be derived that all the other vessels become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, then with regard to all the other vessels, which become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, isn’t it logical that they will become ritually impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace?
אָמַר קְרָא ״תּוֹכוֹ״, תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְלֹא תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר.
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states with regard to the carcasses of creeping animals: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls” (Leviticus 11:33), from which it is inferred: Tokho, i.e., the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho, the airspace, of any other kind of vessel.
וְהָנֵי ״תּוֹכוֹ״, הָא דַּרְשִׁינְהוּ!
The Gemara objects: How can the halakha be derived from the term tokho in that verse? But didn’t the Sages interpret these instances of tokho that appear in that verse and derive: Just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity, the food is impure even though it did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even though the impure item did not come into contact with it.
אַרְבְּעָה ״תּוֹכוֹ״ כְּתִיבִי: ״תּוֹכוֹ״, ״תּוֹךְ״; ״תּוֹכוֹ״, ״תּוֹךְ״.
The Gemara explains: Four instances of the term tokho from which halakhot can be derived are written: “Tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written; those are two instances. Then, later in that verse, once again “tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written.
חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, וְחַד ״תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְלֹא תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר״, וְחַד ״תּוֹכוֹ וְלֹא תּוֹךְ תּוֹכוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף.
One instance is to teach the halakha itself, that the vessel renders the food in its airspace ritually impure, and one instance is to teach the verbal analogy from which it is derived that the vessel becomes impure without contact with the impure item; and one source is to teach that tokho, the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho of any other kind of vessel; and one source is to teach tokho, food in the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel becomes impure, but not tokh tokho, not food that is in the airspace of a vessel that is within an earthenware vessel, and even if that inner vessel is one of the other types of vessel purified through rinsing in the water of a ritual bath.
וְלֹא יְהוּ כׇּל הַכֵּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹכָן וּבִנְגִיעָה, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁמִּיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ – אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ, כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן?
The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that all the other vessels do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer sides, but rather from the presence of an impure item inside them and with contact with their inner sides by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, then with regard to all the other vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, isn’t it logical that they do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא״, הַאי הוּא דְּכִי אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא, הָא יֵשׁ צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָהוֹר. הָא כׇּל הַכֵּלִים, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ צָמִיד פָּתִיל עֲלֵיהֶם בֵּין שֶׁאֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עֲלֵיהֶם – מִיטַּמְּאִין.
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), from which it is derived: This earthenware vessel (see Leviticus 11:33) is the one that when there is not a sealed cover upon it, it is impure, but when there is a sealed cover upon it, it is pure. But with regard to all the other vessels, whether there is a sealed cover upon them or whether there is not a sealed cover upon them, they become impure.
מַתְנִי׳ טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי עֵץ, טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת; טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי עֵץ.
MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels; that which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלִי עֵץ טְמֵאִין, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְהוֹרִין; גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת טְהוֹרִין, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין. נִמְצָא טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי עֵץ – טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת – טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי עֵץ.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: Unfinished [golmei] wooden vessels that are receptacles and are fit for use but work remains to complete their crafting are susceptible to becoming impure. Flat wooden utensils are not susceptible to impurity. Unfinished metal vessels are not susceptible to impurity. Flat metal utensils are susceptible to becoming impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels; that which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי עֵץ: כֹּל שֶׁעָתִיד לָשׁוּף, לְשַׁבֵּץ, לְגָרֵר, לְכַרְכֵּב, לְהָטִיחַ בְּטוּנָס, מְחוּסָּר כַּן אוֹ אוֹגֶן אוֹ אוֹזֶן – טָמֵא, מְחוּסָּר חֲטִיטָה – טָהוֹר.
And these are the unfinished wooden vessels: Any vessel that one plans in the future to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it with grooves and protuberances, to rub it and smooth it with the skin of a tuna [tunas], or if it is lacking a base or a rim or a handle, the vessel is susceptible to becoming impure. If the vessel is lacking the hollowing necessary to render it a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity.
מְחוּסָּר חֲטִיטָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּחַק קְפִיזָא בְּקַבָּא.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that if the vessel is lacking hollowing, it is not susceptible to becoming impure, as it is clearly not a vessel? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary only in a case where one hollowed three log [kefiza] in a receptacle that he intends to hold one kav, which contains six log. Even though it is a receptacle, since the receptacle is incomplete it is not susceptible to impurity.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת: כֹּל שֶׁעָתִיד
And these are the unfinished metal vessels: Any vessel that one plans in the future
לָשׁוּף, לְשַׁבֵּץ, לְגָרֵר, לְכַרְכֵּר, לְהַקִּישׁ בְּקוּרְנָס. מְחוּסָּר כַּן אוֹ אוֹגֶן אוֹ אוֹזֶן – טָהוֹר, מְחוּסָּר כְּסוּי – טָמֵא.
to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it, to strike it with a hammer, or if it is lacking a base or a rim or a handle, the vessel is not susceptible to impurity. If the vessel was complete and was lacking a cover, the vessel is susceptible to becoming impure.
מַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּלְכָבוֹד עֲשׂוּיִין. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּדְמֵיהֶן יְקָרִים.
The Gemara asks: What is different about these unfinished wooden vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that provided they are fit for use they are susceptible to impurity, and what is different about those unfinished metal vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that even if they are fit for use they are not susceptible to impurity until their crafting is complete? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The difference is that since metal vessels are crafted for uses of honor, they are not considered vessels until their completion. Rav Naḥman said: The difference is that since the worth of metal vessels is expensive, they cannot be sold at that price unless they are complete.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כְּלֵי עֶצֶם, וְאַזְדָּא רַב נַחְמָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּלֵי עֶצֶם כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת דָּמוּ.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between their opinions? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to bone vessels crafted from horns, which are expensive but are not crafted for uses of honor. And Rav Naḥman follows his line of reasoning, as Rav Naḥman says: The halakhic status of bone vessels with regard to impurity is like that of metal vessels.
מִכְּלָל דִּכְלֵי עֶצֶם מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה? אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים תִּתְחַטָּאוּ״? לְהָבִיא דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הָעִזִּים, מִן הַקַּרְנַיִם וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם. שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עִזִּים״? פְּרָט לְעוֹפוֹת.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that bone vessels are susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And all work of goats…you shall purify” (Numbers 31:20)? It is to include vessels that come from the goats, from the horns and from the hooves, and indicate that they are susceptible to impurity. And from where is it derived that vessels that come from the horns and the hooves of other domesticated animals and undomesticated animals are susceptible to impurity? It is derived from the verse, as the verse states: “And all work,” where the term “all” is an amplification. If so, why must the verse state: “Goats?” It serves to exclude birds, as vessels crafted from the bones of birds are not susceptible to impurity.
מַתְנִי׳ הַחַיָּיב בִּשְׁקֵדִים הַמָּרִים – פָּטוּר בַּמְּתוּקִים, הַחַיָּיב בַּמְּתוּקִים – פָּטוּר בַּמָּרִים.
MISHNA: With regard to the obligation of separating teruma and tithes, the stage of development that is obligated in bitter almonds is exempt in sweet almonds; and the stage in development that is obligated in sweet almonds is exempt in bitter almonds.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁקֵדִים הַמָּרִים, קְטַנִּים – חַיָּיבִין, גְּדוֹלִים – פְּטוּרִין. מְתוּקִים, גְּדוֹלִים – חַיָּיבִין, קְטַנִּים – פְּטוּרִין.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: In the case of bitter almonds, when they are small one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes, as they are not yet bitter and are fit for consumption; when they are large one is exempt from separating teruma and tithes, because they are bitter and unfit for consumption. In the case of sweet almonds, when they are large one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes, because the almonds are ripe and fit for consumption; when they are small one is exempt from separating teruma and tithes, because they are not fit for consumption.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: זֶה וָזֶה לִפְטוּר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: זֶה וָזֶה לְחִיּוּב. אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: הוֹרָה רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּצִפּוֹרִי כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר זֶה וָזֶה לִפְטוּר.
With regard to bitter almonds, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father to exempt both this small almond and that large almond. And some say to obligate both this small almond and that large almond. Rabbi Ela said: Rabbi Ḥanina issued a ruling in Tzippori in accordance with the statement of the one who says to exempt both this small almond and that large almond.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר זֶה וָזֶה לְחִיּוּב, גְּדוֹלִים לְמַאי חֲזוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְמַתְּקָן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says to obligate both this small almond and that large almond, for what use are the large almonds fit? They are bitter and unfit for consumption. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since one can sweeten them by means of roasting them on the fire, this renders them fit for consumption.
מַתְנִי׳ הַתֶּמֶד, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִיץ – אֵינוֹ נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מִשֶּׁהֶחְמִיץ – נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה.
MISHNA: Temed, a beverage produced from grape residue soaked in water, until it fermented, may not be purchased with second-tithe money to be drunk in Jerusalem, because it is not wine. And if three log of it fall into a ritual bath, its halakhic status is that of drawn water and it invalidates the ritual bath. Once it fermented, it is wine, and therefore it may be purchased with second-tithe money and it does not invalidate the ritual bath.
הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָּפִין, כְּשֶׁחַיָּיבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן – פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה; כְּשֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה – פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן.
With regard to brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, when they are obligated to add the premium [kalbon] to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple, they are exempt from animal tithe; when they are obligated to separate animal tithe, they are exempt from adding the premium. Partners who pay the half-shekel are required to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe. If they are not true partners, but their inheritance remains the property of the father, the sons are exempt from paying the premium, and they are obligated to separate animal tithe.
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְתַמֵּד וְנָתַן מַיִם בַּמִּדָּה וּמָצָא כְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב.
GEMARA: With regard to temed, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? Ostensibly, it is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a mishna (Ma’asrot 5:6): With regard to one who prepares temed by placing water over grape byproducts, and he placed a certain measure of water, and when measuring the finished product he found its measure equivalent to the measure of water that he placed, he is exempt from the obligation of tithing it, as although it tastes like wine, there is nothing in it but water. And Rabbi Yehuda obligates him to tithe it because the taste determines that it is wine.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – אַף עַל גַּב דְּהֶחְמִיץ, אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הֶחְמִיץ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ:
Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of the Rabbis, then if there is no more than the initial measure of water that he placed, he should be exempt even if it fermented. If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he holds that one is obligated even if it did not ferment, as taste is his sole criterion. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Bronx, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Chullin 25
וַאֲפִילּוּ מְלֹא חַרְדָּל.
that it renders impure everything within it, and this is the halakha even if it is full of mustard seeds, in which case most of the seeds do not come in contact with the sides of the vessel, and nevertheless all the mustard seeds become impure.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: וִיהֵא כְּלִי חֶרֶס מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן – מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן, כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁמִּיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ?
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And let it be derived that an earthenware vessel becomes impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side by means of an a fortiori inference: If all the other types of vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, then with regard to an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, isn’t it logical that it will become ritually impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו״, אֵיזֶהוּ כְּלִי שֶׁטּוּמְאָתוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְפִתְחוֹ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה כְּלִי חֶרֶס, וְכִי אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו הוּא דְּטָמֵא, הָא יֵשׁ צְמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו – טָהוֹר.
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), indicating that its impurity is dependent upon the mouth of the vessel. Which is the vessel whose impurity hastily takes effect just after the impure item enters into its mouth? You must say that is an earthenware vessel. And it is when there is no sealed cover on it that the vessel becomes impure. But when there is a sealed cover on it, the vessel is pure, as the earthenware vessel does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side.
וְיִהְיוּ כׇּל הַכֵּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ – מִיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ, כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁמִּיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמִּיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן?
The Gemara suggests: And let it be derived that all the other vessels become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, then with regard to all the other vessels, which become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, isn’t it logical that they will become ritually impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace?
אָמַר קְרָא ״תּוֹכוֹ״, תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְלֹא תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר.
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states with regard to the carcasses of creeping animals: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls” (Leviticus 11:33), from which it is inferred: Tokho, i.e., the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho, the airspace, of any other kind of vessel.
וְהָנֵי ״תּוֹכוֹ״, הָא דַּרְשִׁינְהוּ!
The Gemara objects: How can the halakha be derived from the term tokho in that verse? But didn’t the Sages interpret these instances of tokho that appear in that verse and derive: Just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity, the food is impure even though it did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even though the impure item did not come into contact with it.
אַרְבְּעָה ״תּוֹכוֹ״ כְּתִיבִי: ״תּוֹכוֹ״, ״תּוֹךְ״; ״תּוֹכוֹ״, ״תּוֹךְ״.
The Gemara explains: Four instances of the term tokho from which halakhot can be derived are written: “Tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written; those are two instances. Then, later in that verse, once again “tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written.
חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, וְחַד ״תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְלֹא תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר״, וְחַד ״תּוֹכוֹ וְלֹא תּוֹךְ תּוֹכוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף.
One instance is to teach the halakha itself, that the vessel renders the food in its airspace ritually impure, and one instance is to teach the verbal analogy from which it is derived that the vessel becomes impure without contact with the impure item; and one source is to teach that tokho, the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho of any other kind of vessel; and one source is to teach tokho, food in the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel becomes impure, but not tokh tokho, not food that is in the airspace of a vessel that is within an earthenware vessel, and even if that inner vessel is one of the other types of vessel purified through rinsing in the water of a ritual bath.
וְלֹא יְהוּ כׇּל הַכֵּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹכָן וּבִנְגִיעָה, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁמִּיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ – אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ, כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן?
The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that all the other vessels do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer sides, but rather from the presence of an impure item inside them and with contact with their inner sides by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, then with regard to all the other vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, isn’t it logical that they do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא״, הַאי הוּא דְּכִי אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא, הָא יֵשׁ צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָהוֹר. הָא כׇּל הַכֵּלִים, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ צָמִיד פָּתִיל עֲלֵיהֶם בֵּין שֶׁאֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עֲלֵיהֶם – מִיטַּמְּאִין.
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), from which it is derived: This earthenware vessel (see Leviticus 11:33) is the one that when there is not a sealed cover upon it, it is impure, but when there is a sealed cover upon it, it is pure. But with regard to all the other vessels, whether there is a sealed cover upon them or whether there is not a sealed cover upon them, they become impure.
מַתְנִי׳ טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי עֵץ, טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת; טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי עֵץ.
MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels; that which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלִי עֵץ טְמֵאִין, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְהוֹרִין; גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת טְהוֹרִין, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין. נִמְצָא טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי עֵץ – טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת – טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי עֵץ.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: Unfinished [golmei] wooden vessels that are receptacles and are fit for use but work remains to complete their crafting are susceptible to becoming impure. Flat wooden utensils are not susceptible to impurity. Unfinished metal vessels are not susceptible to impurity. Flat metal utensils are susceptible to becoming impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels; that which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי עֵץ: כֹּל שֶׁעָתִיד לָשׁוּף, לְשַׁבֵּץ, לְגָרֵר, לְכַרְכֵּב, לְהָטִיחַ בְּטוּנָס, מְחוּסָּר כַּן אוֹ אוֹגֶן אוֹ אוֹזֶן – טָמֵא, מְחוּסָּר חֲטִיטָה – טָהוֹר.
And these are the unfinished wooden vessels: Any vessel that one plans in the future to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it with grooves and protuberances, to rub it and smooth it with the skin of a tuna [tunas], or if it is lacking a base or a rim or a handle, the vessel is susceptible to becoming impure. If the vessel is lacking the hollowing necessary to render it a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity.
מְחוּסָּר חֲטִיטָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּחַק קְפִיזָא בְּקַבָּא.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that if the vessel is lacking hollowing, it is not susceptible to becoming impure, as it is clearly not a vessel? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary only in a case where one hollowed three log [kefiza] in a receptacle that he intends to hold one kav, which contains six log. Even though it is a receptacle, since the receptacle is incomplete it is not susceptible to impurity.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת: כֹּל שֶׁעָתִיד
And these are the unfinished metal vessels: Any vessel that one plans in the future
לָשׁוּף, לְשַׁבֵּץ, לְגָרֵר, לְכַרְכֵּר, לְהַקִּישׁ בְּקוּרְנָס. מְחוּסָּר כַּן אוֹ אוֹגֶן אוֹ אוֹזֶן – טָהוֹר, מְחוּסָּר כְּסוּי – טָמֵא.
to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it, to strike it with a hammer, or if it is lacking a base or a rim or a handle, the vessel is not susceptible to impurity. If the vessel was complete and was lacking a cover, the vessel is susceptible to becoming impure.
מַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּלְכָבוֹד עֲשׂוּיִין. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּדְמֵיהֶן יְקָרִים.
The Gemara asks: What is different about these unfinished wooden vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that provided they are fit for use they are susceptible to impurity, and what is different about those unfinished metal vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that even if they are fit for use they are not susceptible to impurity until their crafting is complete? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The difference is that since metal vessels are crafted for uses of honor, they are not considered vessels until their completion. Rav Naḥman said: The difference is that since the worth of metal vessels is expensive, they cannot be sold at that price unless they are complete.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כְּלֵי עֶצֶם, וְאַזְדָּא רַב נַחְמָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּלֵי עֶצֶם כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת דָּמוּ.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between their opinions? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to bone vessels crafted from horns, which are expensive but are not crafted for uses of honor. And Rav Naḥman follows his line of reasoning, as Rav Naḥman says: The halakhic status of bone vessels with regard to impurity is like that of metal vessels.
מִכְּלָל דִּכְלֵי עֶצֶם מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה? אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים תִּתְחַטָּאוּ״? לְהָבִיא דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הָעִזִּים, מִן הַקַּרְנַיִם וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם. שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עִזִּים״? פְּרָט לְעוֹפוֹת.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that bone vessels are susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And all work of goats…you shall purify” (Numbers 31:20)? It is to include vessels that come from the goats, from the horns and from the hooves, and indicate that they are susceptible to impurity. And from where is it derived that vessels that come from the horns and the hooves of other domesticated animals and undomesticated animals are susceptible to impurity? It is derived from the verse, as the verse states: “And all work,” where the term “all” is an amplification. If so, why must the verse state: “Goats?” It serves to exclude birds, as vessels crafted from the bones of birds are not susceptible to impurity.
מַתְנִי׳ הַחַיָּיב בִּשְׁקֵדִים הַמָּרִים – פָּטוּר בַּמְּתוּקִים, הַחַיָּיב בַּמְּתוּקִים – פָּטוּר בַּמָּרִים.
MISHNA: With regard to the obligation of separating teruma and tithes, the stage of development that is obligated in bitter almonds is exempt in sweet almonds; and the stage in development that is obligated in sweet almonds is exempt in bitter almonds.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁקֵדִים הַמָּרִים, קְטַנִּים – חַיָּיבִין, גְּדוֹלִים – פְּטוּרִין. מְתוּקִים, גְּדוֹלִים – חַיָּיבִין, קְטַנִּים – פְּטוּרִין.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: In the case of bitter almonds, when they are small one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes, as they are not yet bitter and are fit for consumption; when they are large one is exempt from separating teruma and tithes, because they are bitter and unfit for consumption. In the case of sweet almonds, when they are large one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes, because the almonds are ripe and fit for consumption; when they are small one is exempt from separating teruma and tithes, because they are not fit for consumption.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: זֶה וָזֶה לִפְטוּר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: זֶה וָזֶה לְחִיּוּב. אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: הוֹרָה רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּצִפּוֹרִי כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר זֶה וָזֶה לִפְטוּר.
With regard to bitter almonds, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father to exempt both this small almond and that large almond. And some say to obligate both this small almond and that large almond. Rabbi Ela said: Rabbi Ḥanina issued a ruling in Tzippori in accordance with the statement of the one who says to exempt both this small almond and that large almond.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר זֶה וָזֶה לְחִיּוּב, גְּדוֹלִים לְמַאי חֲזוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְמַתְּקָן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says to obligate both this small almond and that large almond, for what use are the large almonds fit? They are bitter and unfit for consumption. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since one can sweeten them by means of roasting them on the fire, this renders them fit for consumption.
מַתְנִי׳ הַתֶּמֶד, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִיץ – אֵינוֹ נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מִשֶּׁהֶחְמִיץ – נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה.
MISHNA: Temed, a beverage produced from grape residue soaked in water, until it fermented, may not be purchased with second-tithe money to be drunk in Jerusalem, because it is not wine. And if three log of it fall into a ritual bath, its halakhic status is that of drawn water and it invalidates the ritual bath. Once it fermented, it is wine, and therefore it may be purchased with second-tithe money and it does not invalidate the ritual bath.
הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָּפִין, כְּשֶׁחַיָּיבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן – פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה; כְּשֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה – פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן.
With regard to brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, when they are obligated to add the premium [kalbon] to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple, they are exempt from animal tithe; when they are obligated to separate animal tithe, they are exempt from adding the premium. Partners who pay the half-shekel are required to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe. If they are not true partners, but their inheritance remains the property of the father, the sons are exempt from paying the premium, and they are obligated to separate animal tithe.
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְתַמֵּד וְנָתַן מַיִם בַּמִּדָּה וּמָצָא כְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב.
GEMARA: With regard to temed, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? Ostensibly, it is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a mishna (Ma’asrot 5:6): With regard to one who prepares temed by placing water over grape byproducts, and he placed a certain measure of water, and when measuring the finished product he found its measure equivalent to the measure of water that he placed, he is exempt from the obligation of tithing it, as although it tastes like wine, there is nothing in it but water. And Rabbi Yehuda obligates him to tithe it because the taste determines that it is wine.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – אַף עַל גַּב דְּהֶחְמִיץ, אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הֶחְמִיץ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ:
Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of the Rabbis, then if there is no more than the initial measure of water that he placed, he should be exempt even if it fermented. If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he holds that one is obligated even if it did not ferment, as taste is his sole criterion. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said:
