חולין כה

חולין כה

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: