Parallel
חולין 26
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Their dispute referred only to the case where it had fermented; and our Mishnah, therefore, is in accordance with R. Judah's view. R. Jose b. Huna also reported that their dispute referred only to the case where it had fermented. R. Nahman further said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If a man bought Tamad with Second Tithe money and it subsequently fermented, that which he has purchased is Second Tithe. Why is this? — Because it now appears that from the outset it was fruit [juice]. But [cannot the same argument be applied to] our Mishnah, which teaches that only if it had fermented [is it purchasable with Second Tithe money] but that if it had not fermented it is not [purchasable with Second Tithe money]? For it might be argued that had he let it stand it would have fermented? — Rabbah answered [that our Mishnah deals with the case] where he let some of it stand in a glass and it did not ferment. Raba, however, said that the author of our Mishnah was R. Johanan b. Nuri. For we have learnt: If a Kortob of wine fell into three logs less a Kortob of water, the mixture having the colour of wine, and the whole of this mixture fell into a [deficient] mikweh, it does not render the mikweh invalid. If a Kortob of milk fell into three logs less a Kortob of water, the mixture having the colour of water, and the whole of this mixture fell into a [deficient] mikweh, it does not render it invalid. But R. Johanan b. Nuri says: It all depends upon the colour. Now did not R. Johanan b. Nuri lay down the rule that we must determine every mixture by its colour? Then in the case of our Mishnah, too, one ought to determine the mixture by its colour, and the taste and colour of the mixture is that of water. The above view differs from that of R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: All agree that one may not set aside other [Tamad] as tithe for this [Tamad], unless this had already fermented. It is clear, then, that he [R. Eleazar] is of the opinion that the dispute [between R. Judah and the Rabbis] refers only to the case where it has not fermented; and when R. Judah said that he was liable to tithe it, he only meant [that he must set aside] some of it [as tithe] for the whole, but not that he may set aside other [Tamad as tithe for this], for then he might be setting aside that which is subject to tithing [as tithe] for that which is exempt, or that which is exempt [as tithe] for that which is subject to tithing. Our Rabbis taught: Tamad before it has fermented
—
can be rendered clean by bringing it into contact with the water [of a mikweh]; after it has fermented it cannot be rendered clean by bringing it into contact with the water [of a mikweh]. Raba remarked: This rule applies only if the Tamad was made with water that was clean and it subsequently became unclean, but not if the water was unclean from the outset. R. Gabiha of Be-Kathil went and reported this statement to R. Ashi and raised this question: Why does not the rule apply if the water was unclean from the outset? Is not the reason because we say that the water, being heavy, will sink to the bottom of the vessel, whilst the fruit [skins] being light will float on the surface of the water, and consequently the contact made with the waters [of the mikweh] will be of no effect? If so, is not the same reasoning to be applied to the case where the water was first clean and subsequently became unclean? You must, therefore, say that in this case they mix well together; then in the former case, too, we should say that they mix well together. MISHNAH. WHEN THERE IS A POWER TO SELL THE FINE IS NOT PAYABLE, AND WHEN THE FINE IS PAYABLE THERE IS NO POWER TO SELL. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab. This is R. Meir's opinion, but the Rabbis say that the fine is payable even when there is a power to sell. For it has been taught: The power to sell applies to a minor from the age of one day until the time she has grown two hairs, but the fine is not payable; from the time that she has grown two hairs until maturity the fine is payable but there is no power to sell. Thus R. Meir; for R. Meir used to say. ‘When there is a power to sell the fine is not payable, and when the fine is payable there is no power to sell’. But the Rabbis say: In the case of a minor, from the age of three years and one day until maturity, the fine is payable. ‘The fine is payable!’ [you say]; but is there not also a power to sell? — Render: The fine is payable and there is also a power to sell. MISHNAH. WHEN THERE IS THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL THERE CAN BE NO HALIZAH, AND WHEN THERE CAN BE HALIZAH THERE IS NO LONGER THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: This is R. Meir's opinion, but the Rabbis say that there is a right of refusal even when there can be halizah. For it has been taught: Until what age can a daughter refuse? Until she has grown two hairs. Thus R. Meir, but R. Judah says. Until the dark hairs appear in abundance over the white [skin]. MISHNAH. WHEN THE SHOFAR IS BLOWN THERE IS NO HABDALAH SERVICE, AND WHEN THERE IS THE HABDALAH SERVICE THE SHOFAR IS NOT BLOWN. THUS, IF A FESTIVAL FALLS ON THE DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH THE SHOFAR IS BLOWN BUT THERE IS NO HABDALAH SERVICE; IF IT FALLS ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THE SABBATH THERE IS HABDALAH SERVICE BUT THE SHOFAR IS NOT BLOWN. WHAT IS THE FORM OF THE HABDALAH BENEDICTION? ‘WHO MAKEST A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HOLY AND HOLY’. R. DOSA SAYS, ‘WHO MAKEST A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MORE HOLY AND LESS HOLY DAY’. GEMARA. How was the shofar blown then? — Rab Judah said: A teki'ah was blown, which in the end was converted into a teru'ah. R. Assi said: A teki'ah was blown, and then a teru'ah all in one breath. R. Assi instituted the custom in Huzal in accordance with his view. An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: If a festival fell on the day before the Sabbath, a teki'ah was blown but no teru'ah. Now does not this mean that no teru'ah was blown at all? — It is not so; but Rab Judah interprets [this Baraitha] in accordance with his view, and R. Assi interprets it in accordance with his view. Rab Judah interprets it in accordance with his view thus, ‘But no teru'ah’, that is to say, not separately, but the teki'ah was converted into a teru'ah. R. Assi interprets it in accordance with his view thus, ‘But no teru'ah’, that is to say, not with a second breath, but all in one breath. IF IT FALLS ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THE SABBATH . . . [‘WHO MAKEST A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HOLY AND HOLY’]. At what part [of the Habdalah service] is this [formula] said? — Rab Judah said: At the conclusion. R. Nahman also said: At the conclusion. R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi said: Even at the beginning. The law, however, is not in accordance with his view. R. DOSA SAYS, ‘WHO MAKEST A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MORE HOLY AND THE LESS HOLY DAY’. The law, however, is not in accordance with his view. R. Zera said: If a festival falls in the middle of the week one must say [in the Habdalah service]: ‘Who makest a distinction between holy and profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and other nations, between the seventh day and the six working days’. Why is this? — He is merely enumerating the ‘distinctions’.29
—