Chullin

Their dispute1 referred only to the case where it had fermented; and our Mishnah, therefore, is in accordance with R. Judah's view.2 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.3 Why is this? — Because it now appears that from the outset it was fruit [juice].4 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?5 — 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 Kortob6 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.7 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.7 But R. Johanan b. Nuri says: It all depends upon the colour.8 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 taste9 and colour of the mixture is that of water.10 The above view11 differs from that of R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: All12 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 then13 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. 14 Our Rabbis taught: Tamad before it has fermented with Second Tithe money. Unfermented Tamad, however, even R. Judah admits is but water. It should be noted that there is an alternative answer possible, namely, that the dispute between the Rabbis and R. Judah concerned unfermented Tamad, and accordingly our Mishnah would follow the view of the Rabbis. R. Nahman, however, did not suggest this, for then R. Judah's view would be unintelligible as it is inconceivable that he would bold that unfermented Tamad should be regarded as wine juice (Rashi). Tithe, and the original Second Tithe money, now in the hands of the vendor, has no sanctity whatsoever. should not render a mikweh invalid. VII, 5; Mak. 3b. invalid. R. Nahman, however, who does not decide the mixture by its colour but by its potency to ferment in the future, follows the view of the first Tanna. the Rabbis. the owner, will be eating tebel i.e., untithed produce.