Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 23, 2018 | 讟状讜 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 26

If water with dregs soaking in it considered water or wine? from what age is a girl able to be sold by her father as聽a maidservant, reject her husband (if married off by her brother or mother), a rapist has to pay a fine to her father, and when can she do chalitza? When do they blow the shofar and make havdala聽between yom tov and shabbat or shabbat and yom聽tov?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘砖讛讞诪讬抓 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘砖讛讞诪讬抓 诪讞诇讜拽转

It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. It is only then that Rabbi Yehuda deems him obligated to tithe the temed if it tastes like wine, and the mishna that treats fermented temed like wine is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And likewise, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 转诪讚 砖诇拽讞讜 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讞诪讬抓 拽谞讛 诪注砖专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚驻讬专讗 讛讜讗

And Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In a case of unfermented temed that one purchased with second-tithe money and that ultimately fermented, the temed he purchased assumes the sanctity of second-tithe produce, and the money is desacralized. What is the reason that the temed assumes the sanctity of second-tithe produce? The reason is that the matter was revealed retroactively, such that when the temed was purchased it was produce fit to be purchased with second-tithe money and was not merely water.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛讞诪讬抓 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬 砖讘拽讬讛 讛讜讛 诪讞诪讬抓 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻砖砖讬讬专 诪诪谞讜 讘讻讜住 讜诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓

But in that case, the mishna that teaches that if the temed fermented, yes, one may purchase it with second-tithe money, but if it did not ferment, it may not, and the money remains sacred, why does the mishna state it unequivocally? Perhaps, if he would have left the temed long enough, it would have fermented. Rabba said in explanation: The mishna is referring to a case where one left some of the temed in a cup to monitor its status and it did not ferment. Therefore, one may be certain that it was not produce when he purchased it with second-tithe money, and the money remains sacred.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻谉 拽讜专讟讜讘 讬讬谉 讜诪专讗讬讛谉 讻诪专讗讛 讬讬谉 讜谞驻诇讜 诇诪拽讜讛 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛讜

Rava said: It is not necessary to understand the mishna specifically in that manner; rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:5): In a case where there are three log of drawn water less one sixty-fourth of a log [kortov], or any small measure of water, into which a kortov of wine fell, increasing the measure of liquid to a total of three log, and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of wine, and then those three log fell into a ritual bath, completing its requisite forty se鈥檃, it has not invalidated the ritual bath. The reason is that three log of drawn water invalidate the ritual bath, and less than that measure of water fell into the ritual bath.

砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻谉 拽讜专讟讜讘 讞诇讘 讜诪专讗讬讛谉 讻诪专讗讛 诪讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 诇诪拽讜讛 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛讜

Furthermore, in a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov, into which a kortov of milk fell, and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of water, and those three log fell into a ritual bath, it has not invalidated the ritual bath, because in this case too, less than three log of drawn water fell into the ritual bath.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪专讗讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Everything follows the appearance of those three log. Therefore, in the case of a kortov of milk completing the three log, the ritual bath is invalidated because the mixture still has the appearance of water.

诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘转专 讞讝讜转讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讝讬诇 讘转专 讞讝讜转讗 讜讟注诪讗 讜讞讝讜转讗 讚讛讗讬 诪讬讗 谞讬谞讛讜

Rava reasoned: Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri say that we follow the appearance in determining the halakhic status of the liquid? Here too, in the mishna, follow the appearance in determining the halakhic status of the liquid, and in the case of the temed, as long as it has not yet fermented, the taste and the appearance of that liquid is that of water. By contrast, Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna in tractate Mikvaot that the status of the liquid is not determined by its appearance. Rather, since it ultimately fermented, it became clear retroactively that when the temed was purchased it was produce fit to be purchased with second-tithe money, and was not merely water.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讞诪讬抓

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to which Rav Na岣an said: It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and it is only then that Rabbi Yehuda deems one obligated to tithe the temed if it tastes like wine. If it did not yet ferment, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that one is not obligated to tithe it. The Gemara notes: And Rav Na岣an disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that one may not separate tithes for this temed from temed in another place, unless it fermented.

拽住讘专 讘诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛 讗讘诇 诪注诇诪讗 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讜讘 注诇 讛驻讟讜专 讜诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

Apparently, Rabbi Elazar holds that it is in a case where the temed did not ferment that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and Rabbi Yehuda obligates one to tithe the temed that did not ferment only from that temed itself, because if it ferments it is tithe and if not, he has done nothing. But concerning temed that comes from elsewhere, one may not separate it for this temed, as perhaps he will come to separate tithe from the produce of obligation, i.e., fermented temed, for the produce of exemption, i.e., temed that will not ferment, and from the produce of exemption for the produce of obligation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转诪讚 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓

The Sages taught: With regard to temed that became ritually impure, until it ferments,

诪砖讬拽讜 讘诪讬诐 诪砖讛讞诪讬抓 讗讬谉 诪砖讬拽讜 讘诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖转诪讚讜 讘诪讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜谞讟诪讗讜 讗讘诇 讟诪讗讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗

one brings the temed into contact with water of a ritual bath by immersing the vessel holding the temed in a ritual bath, thereby purifying the temed. Once it ferments, he does not bring it into contact with water, as that is effective only in purifying water and not in purifying other liquids. Rava said: The Sages taught this only with regard to a case where one prepared temed with ritually pure water and it later became impure, but if the water was impure from the outset, the contact with the ritual bath would not purify it.

讗讝诇 专讘 讙讘讬讛讛 诪讘讬 讻转讬诇 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讟诪讗讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪讬讗 讬拽讬专讬 砖讻谞讬 转转讗讬 讜驻讬专讗 拽驻讬 诪诇注讬诇 讜诇讗 拽讗 住诇拽讗 诇讛讜 讛砖拽讛 诇诪讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞讟诪讗讜 谞诪讬

Rav Geviha from Bei Katil went and stated this halakha before Rav Ashi and asked: What is different in the case of water that is impure from the outset such that bringing the temed into contact with the ritual bath would not purify it, as we say: Since the water is heavy it settles at the bottom of the vessel, and the fruit, the grape residue, floats above, and therefore, contact with the water of the ritual bath would not be effective for the water of the temed? If so, the same would apply in the case of water that was ritually pure and ultimately became impure as temed also.

讗诇讗 诪讘诇讘诇讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讘诇讘诇讬

Rather, the reason contact is effective in the case of ritually pure water that later became impure as temed is that the water and the residue are intermingled. Here too, in the case of water that was impure from the outset, the water and the residue are intermingled, and contact with the water of a ritual bath would be effective.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专

MISHNA: Any situation where there is sale of one鈥檚 daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, i.e., when she is a minor, there is no fine of fifty sela paid to her father if she is raped or seduced, as that fine is paid to her father only when she is a young woman. And any situation where there is a fine paid to the father there is no sale.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 讬砖 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讬砖 诇讛 诪讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 诪砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis said: There is the possibility of payment of a fine in a situation where there is sale, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor girl from the age of one day old until she reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs is subject to sale, but is not entitled to receive payment of a fine. Once she reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs, from that point until she matures into a grown woman she is entitled to receive payment of a fine, but is not subject to sale. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state a principle: Any situation where there is a sale, there is no fine; and any situation where there is a fine, there is no sale.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住

And the Rabbis say: A minor girl from the age of three years and one day until she matures into a grown woman is entitled to receive payment of a fine.

拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that yes, she is entitled to payment of a fine, but she is not subject to sale? Isn鈥檛 her father permitted to sell her during most of that period? The Gemara answers: Say that the Rabbis said: She is also entitled to receive payment of a fine during that period in a situation where she is subject to sale.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讬讗讜谉 讗讬谉 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讗讜谉

MISHNA: Any situation where there is the right of refusal for a minor girl married by her mother or brothers, enabling her to opt out of the marriage, there is no 岣litza, as a minor girl whose husband died without children cannot perform 岣litza. And any situation where there is 岣litza, once she has reached majority, there is no right of refusal.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 诪讬讗讜谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讞诇讬爪讛 讚转谞讬讗 注讚 诪转讬 讛讘转 诪诪讗谞转 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 讛砖讞讜专 注诇 讛诇讘谉

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: There is the right of refusal in a situation where there is 岣litza, as it is taught in a baraita: Until when may a girl refuse? She may do so as long as she is a minor, until she grows two pubic hairs, which are signs of puberty rendering her a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: She may refuse until the black hairs in the pubic area appear to cover an area greater than the white skin of the area uncovered by hair. At that stage, she is already eligible to perform the rite of 岣litza. That is the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 转拽讬注讛 讗讬谉 讛讘讚诇讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讛讘讚诇讛 讗讬谉 转拽讬注讛

MISHNA: Any situation where there is a shofar blast sounded on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival to stop the people from performing labor and to demarcate between the sacred and the profane, there is no havdala recited at the conclusion of the Shabbat or Festival in prayer and over a cup of wine. And any situation where there is havdala recited, there is no shofar blast sounded.

讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 转讜拽注讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 转讜拽注讬谉

How so? On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one sounds the shofar to stop the people from performing labor that is permitted on the Festival and prohibited on Shabbat and to demarcate between one sacred day and another; and one does not recite havdala, as that is recited only when the transition is from a sacred day to a profane day or from a day of greater sanctity to a day of lesser sanctity. The sanctity of Shabbat is greater than the sanctity of the Festival, and therefore havdala is not recited in this case. On a Festival that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat, one recites havdala, but one does not sound the shofar.

讻讬爪讚 诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 拽讜讚砖 诇拽讜讚砖 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 拽讜讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇拽讜讚砖 讛拽诇

How does one recite havdala in that case; i.e., what is the formula of the blessing? It concludes: Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred, as opposed to the standard blessing at the conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane. Rabbi Dosa says that the formula is: Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 转讜拽注 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转讜拽注 讜诪专讬注 诪转讜讱 转拽讬注讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 转讜拽注 讜诪专讬注 讘谞砖讬诪讛 讗讞转 讗转拽讬谉 专讘 讗住讬 讘讛讜爪诇 讻砖诪注转讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How does one sound a tekia on a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, when the difference between the sanctity of the preceding day and the sanctity of the coming day is not as pronounced as it is on a standard Shabbat eve? Rav Yehuda said: One sounds a tekia, i.e., a long continuous shofar blast, and sounds a terua, i.e., a staccato series of shofar blasts, from the midst of the tekia. And Rav Asi said: One does not sound a continuous blast; rather, he sounds a tekia and then sounds a terua in one breath. Rav Asi instituted the practice in the city of Huzal in accordance with his halakha.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 转讜拽注讬谉 讜诇讗 诪专讬注讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 诪专讬注讬谉 讻诇诇 诇讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 诇讗 诪专讬注讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 转拽讬注讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 诇讗 诪专讬注讬谉 讘砖转讬 谞砖讬诪讜转 讗诇讗 讘谞砖讬诪讛 讗讞转

The Gemara raises an objection to the statements of Rav Yehuda and Rav Asi from a baraita: On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one sounds a tekia but does not sound a terua. What, is it not that one does not sound a terua at all? The Gemara answers: No, rather, Rav Yehuda explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning and Rav Asi explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Rav Yehuda explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning: One does not sound a distinct terua; rather, he sounds the terua that emerges from the midst of the tekia. And Rav Asi explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning: One does not sound the tekia and the terua in two breaths; rather, he sounds them in one breath.

讜讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞转讬诪转讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讞转讬诪转讛

搂 The mishna states that on a Festival that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat one recites havdala, and that the Sages disagreed as to the formula of that blessing. The Gemara asks: Where does one recite the formula in question? Rav Yehuda said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing. But in the body of the blessing one recites the same formula as in every conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, between light and darkness, etc. And likewise, Rav Na岣an said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing.

讜专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讗祝 讘驻转讬讞转讛 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: One recites that formula even at the beginning, in the body of the blessing, instead of the formula: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 壮讘讬谉 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇拽讚砖 讛拽诇壮 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Dosa says that the formula is: Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘讗诪爪注 砖讘转 讗讜诪专 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇 讜讘讬谉 讗讜专 诇讞砖讱 讜讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诇砖砖转 讬诪讬 讛诪注砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住讚专 讛讘讚诇讜转 讛讜讗 诪讜谞讛

Rabbi Zeira said: At the conclusion of a Festival that occurs in the middle of the week, one recites: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, and between light and darkness, and between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of labor, even though it is not Shabbat. What is the reason for that practice? He is enumerating the series of distinctions that the Sages instituted and not specifically the distinction unique to that particular day.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉

 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 26

讘砖讛讞诪讬抓 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘砖讛讞诪讬抓 诪讞诇讜拽转

It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. It is only then that Rabbi Yehuda deems him obligated to tithe the temed if it tastes like wine, and the mishna that treats fermented temed like wine is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And likewise, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 转诪讚 砖诇拽讞讜 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讞诪讬抓 拽谞讛 诪注砖专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚驻讬专讗 讛讜讗

And Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In a case of unfermented temed that one purchased with second-tithe money and that ultimately fermented, the temed he purchased assumes the sanctity of second-tithe produce, and the money is desacralized. What is the reason that the temed assumes the sanctity of second-tithe produce? The reason is that the matter was revealed retroactively, such that when the temed was purchased it was produce fit to be purchased with second-tithe money and was not merely water.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛讞诪讬抓 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬 砖讘拽讬讛 讛讜讛 诪讞诪讬抓 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻砖砖讬讬专 诪诪谞讜 讘讻讜住 讜诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓

But in that case, the mishna that teaches that if the temed fermented, yes, one may purchase it with second-tithe money, but if it did not ferment, it may not, and the money remains sacred, why does the mishna state it unequivocally? Perhaps, if he would have left the temed long enough, it would have fermented. Rabba said in explanation: The mishna is referring to a case where one left some of the temed in a cup to monitor its status and it did not ferment. Therefore, one may be certain that it was not produce when he purchased it with second-tithe money, and the money remains sacred.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻谉 拽讜专讟讜讘 讬讬谉 讜诪专讗讬讛谉 讻诪专讗讛 讬讬谉 讜谞驻诇讜 诇诪拽讜讛 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛讜

Rava said: It is not necessary to understand the mishna specifically in that manner; rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:5): In a case where there are three log of drawn water less one sixty-fourth of a log [kortov], or any small measure of water, into which a kortov of wine fell, increasing the measure of liquid to a total of three log, and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of wine, and then those three log fell into a ritual bath, completing its requisite forty se鈥檃, it has not invalidated the ritual bath. The reason is that three log of drawn water invalidate the ritual bath, and less than that measure of water fell into the ritual bath.

砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻谉 拽讜专讟讜讘 讞诇讘 讜诪专讗讬讛谉 讻诪专讗讛 诪讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 诇诪拽讜讛 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛讜

Furthermore, in a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov, into which a kortov of milk fell, and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of water, and those three log fell into a ritual bath, it has not invalidated the ritual bath, because in this case too, less than three log of drawn water fell into the ritual bath.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪专讗讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Everything follows the appearance of those three log. Therefore, in the case of a kortov of milk completing the three log, the ritual bath is invalidated because the mixture still has the appearance of water.

诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘转专 讞讝讜转讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讝讬诇 讘转专 讞讝讜转讗 讜讟注诪讗 讜讞讝讜转讗 讚讛讗讬 诪讬讗 谞讬谞讛讜

Rava reasoned: Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri say that we follow the appearance in determining the halakhic status of the liquid? Here too, in the mishna, follow the appearance in determining the halakhic status of the liquid, and in the case of the temed, as long as it has not yet fermented, the taste and the appearance of that liquid is that of water. By contrast, Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna in tractate Mikvaot that the status of the liquid is not determined by its appearance. Rather, since it ultimately fermented, it became clear retroactively that when the temed was purchased it was produce fit to be purchased with second-tithe money, and was not merely water.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讞诪讬抓

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to which Rav Na岣an said: It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and it is only then that Rabbi Yehuda deems one obligated to tithe the temed if it tastes like wine. If it did not yet ferment, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that one is not obligated to tithe it. The Gemara notes: And Rav Na岣an disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that one may not separate tithes for this temed from temed in another place, unless it fermented.

拽住讘专 讘诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛 讗讘诇 诪注诇诪讗 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讜讘 注诇 讛驻讟讜专 讜诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

Apparently, Rabbi Elazar holds that it is in a case where the temed did not ferment that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and Rabbi Yehuda obligates one to tithe the temed that did not ferment only from that temed itself, because if it ferments it is tithe and if not, he has done nothing. But concerning temed that comes from elsewhere, one may not separate it for this temed, as perhaps he will come to separate tithe from the produce of obligation, i.e., fermented temed, for the produce of exemption, i.e., temed that will not ferment, and from the produce of exemption for the produce of obligation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转诪讚 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓

The Sages taught: With regard to temed that became ritually impure, until it ferments,

诪砖讬拽讜 讘诪讬诐 诪砖讛讞诪讬抓 讗讬谉 诪砖讬拽讜 讘诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖转诪讚讜 讘诪讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜谞讟诪讗讜 讗讘诇 讟诪讗讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗

one brings the temed into contact with water of a ritual bath by immersing the vessel holding the temed in a ritual bath, thereby purifying the temed. Once it ferments, he does not bring it into contact with water, as that is effective only in purifying water and not in purifying other liquids. Rava said: The Sages taught this only with regard to a case where one prepared temed with ritually pure water and it later became impure, but if the water was impure from the outset, the contact with the ritual bath would not purify it.

讗讝诇 专讘 讙讘讬讛讛 诪讘讬 讻转讬诇 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讟诪讗讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪讬讗 讬拽讬专讬 砖讻谞讬 转转讗讬 讜驻讬专讗 拽驻讬 诪诇注讬诇 讜诇讗 拽讗 住诇拽讗 诇讛讜 讛砖拽讛 诇诪讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞讟诪讗讜 谞诪讬

Rav Geviha from Bei Katil went and stated this halakha before Rav Ashi and asked: What is different in the case of water that is impure from the outset such that bringing the temed into contact with the ritual bath would not purify it, as we say: Since the water is heavy it settles at the bottom of the vessel, and the fruit, the grape residue, floats above, and therefore, contact with the water of the ritual bath would not be effective for the water of the temed? If so, the same would apply in the case of water that was ritually pure and ultimately became impure as temed also.

讗诇讗 诪讘诇讘诇讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讘诇讘诇讬

Rather, the reason contact is effective in the case of ritually pure water that later became impure as temed is that the water and the residue are intermingled. Here too, in the case of water that was impure from the outset, the water and the residue are intermingled, and contact with the water of a ritual bath would be effective.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专

MISHNA: Any situation where there is sale of one鈥檚 daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, i.e., when she is a minor, there is no fine of fifty sela paid to her father if she is raped or seduced, as that fine is paid to her father only when she is a young woman. And any situation where there is a fine paid to the father there is no sale.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 讬砖 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讬砖 诇讛 诪讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 诪砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis said: There is the possibility of payment of a fine in a situation where there is sale, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor girl from the age of one day old until she reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs is subject to sale, but is not entitled to receive payment of a fine. Once she reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs, from that point until she matures into a grown woman she is entitled to receive payment of a fine, but is not subject to sale. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state a principle: Any situation where there is a sale, there is no fine; and any situation where there is a fine, there is no sale.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住

And the Rabbis say: A minor girl from the age of three years and one day until she matures into a grown woman is entitled to receive payment of a fine.

拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that yes, she is entitled to payment of a fine, but she is not subject to sale? Isn鈥檛 her father permitted to sell her during most of that period? The Gemara answers: Say that the Rabbis said: She is also entitled to receive payment of a fine during that period in a situation where she is subject to sale.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讬讗讜谉 讗讬谉 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讗讜谉

MISHNA: Any situation where there is the right of refusal for a minor girl married by her mother or brothers, enabling her to opt out of the marriage, there is no 岣litza, as a minor girl whose husband died without children cannot perform 岣litza. And any situation where there is 岣litza, once she has reached majority, there is no right of refusal.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 诪讬讗讜谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讞诇讬爪讛 讚转谞讬讗 注讚 诪转讬 讛讘转 诪诪讗谞转 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 讛砖讞讜专 注诇 讛诇讘谉

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: There is the right of refusal in a situation where there is 岣litza, as it is taught in a baraita: Until when may a girl refuse? She may do so as long as she is a minor, until she grows two pubic hairs, which are signs of puberty rendering her a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: She may refuse until the black hairs in the pubic area appear to cover an area greater than the white skin of the area uncovered by hair. At that stage, she is already eligible to perform the rite of 岣litza. That is the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 转拽讬注讛 讗讬谉 讛讘讚诇讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讛讘讚诇讛 讗讬谉 转拽讬注讛

MISHNA: Any situation where there is a shofar blast sounded on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival to stop the people from performing labor and to demarcate between the sacred and the profane, there is no havdala recited at the conclusion of the Shabbat or Festival in prayer and over a cup of wine. And any situation where there is havdala recited, there is no shofar blast sounded.

讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 转讜拽注讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 转讜拽注讬谉

How so? On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one sounds the shofar to stop the people from performing labor that is permitted on the Festival and prohibited on Shabbat and to demarcate between one sacred day and another; and one does not recite havdala, as that is recited only when the transition is from a sacred day to a profane day or from a day of greater sanctity to a day of lesser sanctity. The sanctity of Shabbat is greater than the sanctity of the Festival, and therefore havdala is not recited in this case. On a Festival that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat, one recites havdala, but one does not sound the shofar.

讻讬爪讚 诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 拽讜讚砖 诇拽讜讚砖 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 拽讜讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇拽讜讚砖 讛拽诇

How does one recite havdala in that case; i.e., what is the formula of the blessing? It concludes: Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred, as opposed to the standard blessing at the conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane. Rabbi Dosa says that the formula is: Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 转讜拽注 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转讜拽注 讜诪专讬注 诪转讜讱 转拽讬注讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 转讜拽注 讜诪专讬注 讘谞砖讬诪讛 讗讞转 讗转拽讬谉 专讘 讗住讬 讘讛讜爪诇 讻砖诪注转讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How does one sound a tekia on a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, when the difference between the sanctity of the preceding day and the sanctity of the coming day is not as pronounced as it is on a standard Shabbat eve? Rav Yehuda said: One sounds a tekia, i.e., a long continuous shofar blast, and sounds a terua, i.e., a staccato series of shofar blasts, from the midst of the tekia. And Rav Asi said: One does not sound a continuous blast; rather, he sounds a tekia and then sounds a terua in one breath. Rav Asi instituted the practice in the city of Huzal in accordance with his halakha.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 转讜拽注讬谉 讜诇讗 诪专讬注讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 诪专讬注讬谉 讻诇诇 诇讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 诇讗 诪专讬注讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 转拽讬注讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 诇讗 诪专讬注讬谉 讘砖转讬 谞砖讬诪讜转 讗诇讗 讘谞砖讬诪讛 讗讞转

The Gemara raises an objection to the statements of Rav Yehuda and Rav Asi from a baraita: On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one sounds a tekia but does not sound a terua. What, is it not that one does not sound a terua at all? The Gemara answers: No, rather, Rav Yehuda explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning and Rav Asi explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Rav Yehuda explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning: One does not sound a distinct terua; rather, he sounds the terua that emerges from the midst of the tekia. And Rav Asi explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning: One does not sound the tekia and the terua in two breaths; rather, he sounds them in one breath.

讜讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞转讬诪转讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讞转讬诪转讛

搂 The mishna states that on a Festival that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat one recites havdala, and that the Sages disagreed as to the formula of that blessing. The Gemara asks: Where does one recite the formula in question? Rav Yehuda said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing. But in the body of the blessing one recites the same formula as in every conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, between light and darkness, etc. And likewise, Rav Na岣an said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing.

讜专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讗祝 讘驻转讬讞转讛 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: One recites that formula even at the beginning, in the body of the blessing, instead of the formula: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 壮讘讬谉 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇拽讚砖 讛拽诇壮 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Dosa says that the formula is: Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘讗诪爪注 砖讘转 讗讜诪专 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇 讜讘讬谉 讗讜专 诇讞砖讱 讜讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诇砖砖转 讬诪讬 讛诪注砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住讚专 讛讘讚诇讜转 讛讜讗 诪讜谞讛

Rabbi Zeira said: At the conclusion of a Festival that occurs in the middle of the week, one recites: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, and between light and darkness, and between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of labor, even though it is not Shabbat. What is the reason for that practice? He is enumerating the series of distinctions that the Sages instituted and not specifically the distinction unique to that particular day.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉

 

Scroll To Top