Chullin 26

בשהחמיץ מחלוקת ומתניתין רבי יהודה וכן אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא בשהחמיץ מחלוקת

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 Ḥanina, said: It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute.

ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה תמד שלקחו בכסף מעשר ולבסוף החמיץ קנה מעשר מאי טעמא איגלאי מילתא למפרע דפירא הוא

§ And Rav Naḥman 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.

אלא מתניתין דקתני החמיץ אין לא החמיץ לא דלמא אי שבקיה הוה מחמיץ אמר רבה כששייר ממנו בכוס ולא החמיץ

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.

רבא אמר הא מני רבי יוחנן בן נורי היא דתנן שלשה לוגין מים חסר קורטוב שנפל לתוכן קורטוב יין ומראיהן כמראה יין ונפלו למקוה לא פסלוהו

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 Yoḥanan 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’a, 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.

שלשה לוגין מים חסר קורטוב שנפל לתוכן קורטוב חלב ומראיהן כמראה מים ונפלו למקוה לא פסלוהו

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.

רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר הכל הולך אחר המראה

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

לאו אמר רבי יוחנן בתר חזותא אזלינן הכא נמי זיל בתר חזותא וטעמא וחזותא דהאי מיא נינהו

Rava reasoned: Doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Naḥman 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.

ופליגא דרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר הכל מודים שאין מפרישין עליו ממקום אחר אלא אם כן החמיץ

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to which Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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.

קסבר בלא החמיץ מחלוקת ועד כאן לא מחייב רבי יהודה אלא מיניה וביה אבל מעלמא לא דלמא אתי לאפרושי מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב

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.

תנו רבנן התמד עד שלא החמיץ

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

משיקו במים משהחמיץ אין משיקו במים אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שתמדו במים טהורים ונטמאו אבל טמאים מעיקרא לא

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.

אזל רב גביהה מבי כתיל אמרה לשמעתא קמיה דרב אשי מאי שנא טמאין מעיקרא דלא דאמרינן איידי דמיא יקירי שכני תתאי ופירא קפי מלעיל ולא קא סלקא להו השקה למיא אי הכי טהורים ולבסוף נטמאו נמי

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.

אלא מבלבלי הכא נמי מבלבלי

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.

מתני׳ כל מקום שיש מכר אין קנס וכל מקום שיש קנס אין מכר

MISHNA: Any situation where there is sale of one’s 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.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי רבי מאיר אבל חכמים אמרו יש קנס במקום מכר דתניא קטנה מבת יום אחד עד שתביא שתי שערות יש לה מכר ואין לה קנס משתביא שתי שערות עד שתיבגר יש לה קנס ואין לה מכר דברי רבי מאיר שהיה רבי מאיר אומר כל מקום שיש מכר אין קנס וכל מקום שיש קנס אין מכר

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.

וחכמים אומרים קטנה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד עד שתיבגר יש לה קנס

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.

קנס אין מכר לא אימא אף קנס במקום מכר

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’t 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.

מתני׳ כל מקום שיש מיאון אין חליצה וכל מקום שיש חליצה אין מיאון

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 ḥalitza, as a minor girl whose husband died without children cannot perform ḥalitza. And any situation where there is ḥalitza, once she has reached majority, there is no right of refusal.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי רבי מאיר אבל חכמים אומרים יש מיאון במקום חליצה דתניא עד מתי הבת ממאנת עד שתביא שתי שערות דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר עד שירבה השחור על הלבן

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 ḥalitza, 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 ḥalitza. That is the opinion of the Rabbis.

מתני׳ כל מקום שיש תקיעה אין הבדלה וכל מקום שיש הבדלה אין תקיעה

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.

יום טוב שחל להיות בערב שבת תוקעין ולא מבדילין במוצאי שבת מבדילין ולא תוקעין

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.

כיצד מבדילין המבדיל בין קודש לקודש רבי דוסא אומר בין קודש חמור לקודש הקל

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.

גמ׳ היכי תוקע אמר רב יהודה תוקע ומריע מתוך תקיעה ורב אסי אמר תוקע ומריע בנשימה אחת אתקין רב אסי בהוצל כשמעתיה

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.

מיתיבי יום טוב שחל להיות בערב שבת תוקעין ולא מריעין מאי לאו לא מריעין כלל לא רב יהודה מתרץ לטעמיה ורב אסי מתרץ לטעמיה רב יהודה מתרץ לטעמיה לא מריעין בפני עצמה אלא מתוך תקיעה ורב אסי מתרץ לטעמיה לא מריעין בשתי נשימות אלא בנשימה אחת

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.

ובמוצאי שבת כו׳ היכא אמר לה אמר רב יהודה בחתימתה וכן אמר רב נחמן בחתימתה

§ 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 Naḥman said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing.

ורב ששת בריה דרב אידי אמר אף בפתיחתה ולית הלכתא כוותיה

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.

רבי דוסא אומר ׳בין קדש חמור לקדש הקל׳ ולית הלכתא כוותיה

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.

אמר רבי זירא יום טוב שחל להיות באמצע שבת אומר המבדיל בין קדש לחול ובין אור לחשך ובין ישראל לגוים ובין יום השביעי לששת ימי המעשה מאי טעמא סדר הבדלות הוא מונה

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.

הדרן עלך הכל שוחטין