Chullin 26aחולין כ״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 26a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
26aכ״ו א

בשהחמיץ מחלוקת ומתניתין ר' יהודה וכן א"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא בשהחמיץ מחלוקת

It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. It is only then that Rabbi Yehuda deems him obligated to tithe the temed if it tastes like wine, and the mishna that treats fermented temed like wine is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And likewise, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute.

וא"ר נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה תמד שלקחו בכסף מעשר ולבסוף החמיץ קנה מעשר מ"ט איגלאי מילתא למפרע דפירא הוא

§ And Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In a case of unfermented temed that one purchased with second-tithe money and that ultimately fermented, the temed he purchased assumes the sanctity of second-tithe produce, and the money is desacralized. What is the reason that the temed assumes the sanctity of second-tithe produce? The reason is that the matter was revealed retroactively, such that when the temed was purchased it was produce fit to be purchased with second-tithe money and was not merely water.

אלא מתניתין דקתני החמיץ אין לא החמיץ לא דלמא אי שבקיה הוה מחמיץ אמר רבה כששייר ממנו בכוס ולא החמיץ

But in that case, the mishna that teaches that if the temed fermented, yes, one may purchase it with second-tithe money, but if it did not ferment, it may not, and the money remains sacred, why does the mishna state it unequivocally? Perhaps, if he would have left the temed long enough, it would have fermented. Rabba said in explanation: The mishna is referring to a case where one left some of the temed in a cup to monitor its status and it did not ferment. Therefore, one may be certain that it was not produce when he purchased it with second-tithe money, and the money remains sacred.

רבא אמר הא מני ר' יוחנן בן נורי היא דתנן ג' לוגין מים חסר קורטוב שנפל לתוכן קורטוב יין ומראיהן כמראה יין ונפלו למקוה לא פסלוהו

Rava said: It is not necessary to understand the mishna specifically in that manner; rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:5): In a case where there are three log of drawn water less one sixty-fourth of a log [kortov], or any small measure of water, into which a kortov of wine fell, increasing the measure of liquid to a total of three log, and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of wine, and then those three log fell into a ritual bath, completing its requisite forty se’a, it has not invalidated the ritual bath. The reason is that three log of drawn water invalidate the ritual bath, and less than that measure of water fell into the ritual bath.

ג' לוגין מים חסר קורטוב שנפל לתוכן קורטוב חלב ומראיהן כמראה מים ונפלו למקוה לא פסלוהו

Furthermore, in a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov, into which a kortov of milk fell, and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of water, and those three log fell into a ritual bath, it has not invalidated the ritual bath, because in this case too, less than three log of drawn water fell into the ritual bath.

רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר הכל הולך אחר המראה

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Everything follows the appearance of those three log. Therefore, in the case of a kortov of milk completing the three log, the ritual bath is invalidated because the mixture still has the appearance of water.

לאו א"ר יוחנן בתר חזותא אזלינן הכא נמי זיל בתר חזותא וטעמא וחזותא דהאי מיא נינהו

Rava reasoned: Doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri say that we follow the appearance in determining the halakhic status of the liquid? Here too, in the mishna, follow the appearance in determining the halakhic status of the liquid, and in the case of the temed, as long as it has not yet fermented, the taste and the appearance of that liquid is that of water. By contrast, Rav Naḥman holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna in tractate Mikvaot that the status of the liquid is not determined by its appearance. Rather, since it ultimately fermented, it became clear retroactively that when the temed was purchased it was produce fit to be purchased with second-tithe money, and was not merely water.

ופליגא דרבי אלעזר דא"ר אלעזר הכל מודים שאין מפרישין עליו ממקום אחר אא"כ החמיץ

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to which Rav Naḥman said: It is in a case where the temed fermented that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and it is only then that Rabbi Yehuda deems one obligated to tithe the temed if it tastes like wine. If it did not yet ferment, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that one is not obligated to tithe it. The Gemara notes: And Rav Naḥman disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that one may not separate tithes for this temed from temed in another place, unless it fermented.

קסבר בלא החמיץ מחלוקת ועד כאן לא מחייב רבי יהודה אלא מיניה וביה אבל מעלמא לא דלמא אתי לאפרושי מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב:

Apparently, Rabbi Elazar holds that it is in a case where the temed did not ferment that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and Rabbi Yehuda obligates one to tithe the temed that did not ferment only from that temed itself, because if it ferments it is tithe and if not, he has done nothing. But concerning temed that comes from elsewhere, one may not separate it for this temed, as perhaps he will come to separate tithe from the produce of obligation, i.e., fermented temed, for the produce of exemption, i.e., temed that will not ferment, and from the produce of exemption for the produce of obligation.

ת"ר התמד עד שלא החמיץ

§ The Sages taught: With regard to temed that became ritually impure, until it ferments,