Chullin 25bחולין כ״ה ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 25b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
25bכ״ה ב

לשוף לשבץ לגרר לכרכר להקיש בקורנס מחוסר כן או אוגן או אוזן טהור מחוסר כסוי טמא

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.

מאי שנא הני ומאי שנא הני רבי יוחנן אמר הואיל ולכבוד עשויין רב נחמן אמר הואיל ודמיהן יקרים

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.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו כלי עצם ואזדא רב נחמן לטעמיה דאמר רב נחמן כלי עצם ככלי מתכות דמו

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.

מכלל דכלי עצם מקבלי טומאה אין דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר מה תלמוד לומר (במדבר לא, כ) וכל מעשה עזים תתחטאו להביא דבר הבא מן העזים מן הקרנים ומן הטלפים שאר בהמה וחיה מנין תלמוד לומר וכל מעשה א"כ מה ת"ל עזים פרט לעופות:

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.

מתני׳ החייב בשקדים המרים פטור במתוקים החייב במתוקים פטור במרים:

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.

גמ׳ ת"ר שקדים המרים קטנים חייבין גדולים פטורין מתוקים גדולים חייבין קטנים פטורין

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.

רבי ישמעאל בר' יוסי אומר משום אביו זה וזה לפטור ואמרי לה זה וזה לחיוב אמר רבי אלעא הורה רבי חנינא בצפורי כדברי האומר זה וזה לפטור

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.

ולמאן דאמר זה וזה לחיוב גדולים למאי חזו א"ר יוחנן הואיל ויכול למתקן ע"י האור:

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.

מתני׳ התמד עד שלא החמיץ אינו ניקח בכסף מעשר ופוסל את המקוה משהחמיץ ניקח בכסף מעשר ואינו פוסל את המקוה

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.

האחין השותפין כשחייבין בקלבון פטורין ממעשר בהמה כשחייבין במעשר בהמה פטורין מן הקלבון:

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.

גמ׳ מני מתניתין לא רבי יהודה ולא רבנן דתניא המתמד ונתן מים במדה ומצא כדי מדתו פטור ור' יהודה מחייב

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.

מני אי רבנן אע"ג דהחמיץ אי ר' יהודה אע"ג דלא החמיץ אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה

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: