(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Chulin 26

CHULIN 26 - This Daf has been sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom Kelman of Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with long years filled with Torah, Chidushei Torah, and Nachas!



(a) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah ruled that if Temed that one purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money, which had not yet fermented, but which fermented afterwards - the Ma'aser money acquires it, because it must have already been wine at the time of the sale (even though it was not yet discernible) ...

(b) ... and the seller is permitted to use the money outside Yerushalayim.

(c) We ask on this from our Mishnah 'ha'Temed ad she'Lo Hichmitz, Eino Nikach be'Kesef Ma'aser - implying that the sale is not valid and the money remains Kadosh in the hands of the seller.

(d) Rabah therefore establishes the Mishnah - when the seller retained some of the juice, and was later able to ascertain that it did not subsequently ferment.

2) Rava establishes our Mishnah (even in a case where the seller did not retain some of the juice) like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah in Mikva'os, who holds - that wine that looks like water - is considered water (provided it tastes like water too [see Tosfos DH ] ve'Ta'ama']).


(a) The Mishnah in Mikva'os validates a Mikvah into which exactly three Lugin of water including a Kortov (a tiny measure) of wine, causing the water to look like wine - because the three Lugin lacked a Kortov to begin with, and what's more, the three Lugin looked like wine.

(b) Had the three Lugin of water not lacked a Kortov to begin with - the Mikvah would have been Pasul, because in spite of the appearance of wine, three Lugin of water fell into the Mikvah.

(c) The Tana then goes on to validate the Mikvah, even if it was a Kortov of milk that fell into the water, and the water retained its appearance - because it was not a full three Lugin of water that fell into the Mikvah, but three Lugin minus a Kortov, and the same would apply if it was a Kortov of wine and not milk, that fell into the three Lugin of water.

(d) And the reason that the Tana switches from wine in the Reisha to milk in the Seifa is - because had wine fallen into the water, the water would probably not have retained its appearance (as we saw in the Reisha).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah in Mikva'os states 'ha'Kol Holech Achar ha'Mareh' ('it all depends on the appearance of the water').

(b) He disagrees with the Tana Kama ...

1. ... in the Reisha - inasmuch as *he* would have validated the Mikvah even if the three Lugin into which the wine fell had not lacked a Kortov.
2. ... in the Seifa (in the case of milk) - inasmuch as he would have invalidated the Mikvah, because in his opinion, the appearance always determines its status (unless it has a different taste, as we explained earlier).
(c) Rav Nachman (who goes after what it is going to be and not what it is now) holds - like the Chachamim of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri.
(a) Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah (who establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan by where the Temed fermented). He rules - that one is not permitted to separate from one batch of Temed on to another, unless they have both fermented.

(b) He is speaking according to both Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim.

(c) The reason that he forbids it is because - if one of them subsequently ferments and the other does not, he will have separated from Chiyuv on to P'tur, or vice-versa, and he will subsequently be eating Tevel.

(a) And Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rav Nachman, inasmuch as in his opinion - the Rabbanan agree that once the Temed has fermented, it is considered wine.

(b) And they argue with Rebbi Yehudah, according to him, in a case - where the Temed has not yet fermented.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah - obligates separating Ma'asros, but only from the actual batch itself, not from another batch (as we explained earlier).




(a) We learned in a Beraisa that before Temed ferments, it can become Tahor in a Mikvah - which entails lowering the vessel containing the water into the Mikvah until the two waters 'kiss', and it works to be Mevatel the drawn water to the Mikvah, like Tamei Terumah that one planted in the ground.

(b) Wine is not subject to Hashakah - because a. food is not subject to Tevilah, and b. it cannot become Bateil to the Mikvah, since it is still visible,

(c) The Beraisa therefore rules that Tamei Temed can become Tahor through Hashakah, as long as it has not yet fermented (and therefore has a Din of water). Once it has, it turns into wine, and is no longer subject to Hashakah, as we explained earlier.

(a) Rava qualified the Mishnah's first ruling - by confining it to where the juice became Tamei after it became Temed, but if it was initially Tamei, Hashakah will not work, even before the Temed has fermented?

(b) Rav Gevihah from Bei Kasil queried Rava's distinction - because he could not see why there should be a difference.

(c) He suggested that Temei'im Me'ikara might remain Tamei even after Hashakah - because water being heavier than grape-pits, the former would float to the top, thereby preventing the water of the Temed from touching the water in the Mikveh ...

(d) ... but then the same S'vara would apply even if it became Tamei afterwards ('Tehorim Ve'nitme'u'). Consequently, he concludes - that in spite of the pits, the two waters mix, irrespective of whether the water was Tamei initially or whether it became Tamei only afterwards.

(a) When the Tana says 'Kol Makom she'Yesh ...
1. ... Mecher Ein K'nas', he means - that whereas a Ketanah can be sold, her father does not receive K'nas.
2. ... K'nas Ein Mecher', he means that - whereas a the father of a Na'arah receives K'nas, she cannot be sold.
(b) The K'nas is - levied on the man who either seduced or raped her.

(c) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, the Reisha of the Mishnah goes like Rebbi Meir. According to the Chachamim - the father of a Ketanah receives K'nas, too.

(d) When the Chachamim say in the Beraisa quoted by Rav Yehudah 'Ketanah mi'bas Shalosh Shanim ve'Yom Echad ad she'Tibager Yesh Lah K'nas', they mean - 'Af K'nas' (also K'nas, but certainly Mecher, because nobody argues with the fact that a Ketanah can be sold).

(a) The reason for Rebbi Meir's first statement ('Kol Makom she'Yesh Mecher Ein K'nas') is based on the fact that the Torah writes "Na'arah" in connection with K'nas. The Rabbanan counter this however - with the fact that "Na'arah" is written minus a 'Hey', and wherever the Torah writes "Na'arah" in this way, it incorporates a Ketanah.

(b) The reason for his second statement ('Kol Makom she'Yesh K'nas Ein Mecher') is - because if a girl leaves her master's service when she turns twelve, it is obvious that she cannot be sold then.

(c) And the reason that there is there no K'nas below the age of three is - because at that stage, her Bi'ah is not considered Bi'ah.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that wherever there is Miy'un, there is no Chalitzah, and vice-versa. Miy'un, applies (exclusively) to a girl under twelve, whose father had died, and who was married off by her mother or brother, is her right to walk out of the marriage at any time.

(b) The Tana therefore means - that whereas Miy'un can be performed only by a Ketanah, Chalitzah can be performed only by a Gedolah.

(c) We know that a Ketanah is not eligible to perform Chalitzah - from the equivalent Din by the Yavam, where the Torah writes "Ish", and to whom the Yevamah is compared.

(d) Once again, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, who, in a Beraisa, confines Miy'un to a Ketanah up to the time that she grows two pubic hairs). Rebbi Yehudah however, disagrees. In his opinion - she can still perform Miy'un until the Makom Ervah is covered with hair.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Kol Makom she'Yesh Teki'ah Ein Havdalah'.
1. The Shofar is blown - on Erev Shabbos close to Bein-ha'Shemashos, in order to remind the people to stop working.
2. We recite Havdalah on Motza'ei Shabbos and on Motza'ei Yom-Tov, both during the Amidah and over a cup of wine after Davenning.
(b) We are faced with the dilemma whether to recite Havdalah or to blow the Shofar - when Yom-Tov falls on Erev Shabbos or on Motza'ei Shabbos.

(c) We rule that in a case where Yom-Tov falls ...

1. ... on Friday, we blow the Shofar - to remind people to stop cooking and performing the other Melachos that are permitted on Yom-Tov. But we do not recite Havdalah - because the Kedushah of Shabbos is greater than that of Yom-Tov.
2. ... on Sunday, we recite Havdalah - because the Kedushah of Yom-Tov is less than that of Shabbos. But do not blow Shofar - because there is no Melachah that becomes forbidden on Yom-Tov that was permitted on Shabbos.
(d) According to the Tana Kama, in the latter case, we recite 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Kodesh'. Rebbi Dosa maintains - 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh Chamur le'Kodesh ha'Kal'.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, when Yom-Tov falls on Friday, one blows the Teru'ah directly from the Teki'ah (without making a break between them); whereas according to Rav Asi - one blows them in one breath (instead of the customary two).

(b) Either way, this is necessary - because the Shinuy (change from the norm) reminds us that the difference between the two days is not as great as it is on other Arvei Shabbasos.

(c) We query Rav Yehudah and Rav Asi from a Beraisa however 'Yom-Tov she'Chal be'Erev Shabbos, Ein Meri'in' - which we initially take literally, indicating that the required difference consists of omitting the Teru'ah altogether (a Kashya on Rav Yehudah and Rav Asi).

(d) Rav Yehudah and Rav Asi interpret it - just as they explained earlier; namely, either that one does not blow the Teru'ah independently, as one normally does, but directly from the Teki'ah, or that one blows them not in two breaths, as one generally does, but in one.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah and Rav Nachman, when our Mishnah cites 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Kodesh', it is referring to the conclusion of the B'rachah. At the beginning of the B'rachah however - we say 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Chol ... '.

(b) Rav Sheishes b'rei de'Rav Idi holds - that we say 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Kodesh' at the beginning of the B'rachah, too.

(c) We rule like ...

1. ... Rav Yehudah and Rav Nachman (besides the fact that they are a majority opinion) - because the object of the first half of the B'rachah is to recite the Havdalos mentioned in the Torah, and the Torah only refers to the divisions between Kodesh and Chol, and not between Kodesh and Kodesh.
2. ... the Tana Kama in our Mishnah ('ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Kodesh') and not like Rebbi Dosa ('ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh Chamur le'Kodesh Chol'), even though his ruling may seem more accurate - in order not to denigrate Yom-Tov, by referring to it as a minor Kedushah.
(a) Rebbi Zeira says that on Motza'ei Yom-Tov which falls in the middle of the week - we recite exactly the same text as we recite on Motza'ei Shabbos, including 'u'Vein Yom ha'Shevi'i le'Sheishes Yemei ha'Ma'aseh' ...

(b) ... because we are only reciting the list of Havdalos mentioned in the Torah (as we explained earlier).

(c) The middle of the B'rachah contains four statements. The source of the first and the second are "u'Lehavdil bein ha'Kodesh u'Vein ha'Chol" (Shemini) and "Va'yavdel bein ha'Or u'vein ha'Choshech" (Bereishis). The Pasuk in Kedoshim which serves as the source for the third statement 'bein Yisrael la'Amim' is - "Va'avdil Eschem min ha'Amim Lih'yos Li".

(d) Even though 'bein Yom ha'Shevi'i le'Sheishes Yemei ha'Ma'aseh' is synonymous with 'Bein Kodesh le'Chodesh', we need to repeat it - in order to state something that is similar to the conclusion of the Be'rachah, immediately prior to the conclusion.

***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Kol Shochtin *****

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,