Chullin 26b — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: Water placed on grape-pomace,

which became impure, behold,

before it fermented, ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

one may join it to water

in accordance with the law of all impure water. For although with regard to foods and liquids immersion in a ritual bath is not effective to purify them—for purification in a ritual bath was stated in the Torah only with regard to a person and vessels—nevertheless, with water alone there is a possibility of purifying it, by placing it inside an open vessel, and immersing the open vessel in the ritual bath until the waters of the ritual bath touch the impure water from above. This is not by way of “immersion”; rather, through the joining of the impure water with the water of the ritual bath, it is nullified with regard to the water of the ritual bath and is thereby purified.

But,

once it has fermented,

the water placed on the grape-pomace is wine, and if it became impure,

one may not join it to water.

For other liquids besides water cannot be purified by joining them and nullifying them with regard to the ritual bath, since they have a taste different from that of water, which prevents their nullification with regard to the water of the ritual bath.

Rava said: They taught

that water placed on grape-pomace which has not fermented may be joined to water

only when one placed water on it,

when he placed on the grape-pomace

pure water, and it became impure

afterward, when it was already mixed with the grape-pomace.

But

if the water was

impure from the outset,

before it was placed into the grape-pomace,

it is not

purified by joining it to the ritual bath.

Rav Gaviah of Bei Katil went and stated this teaching

of Rava

before Rav Ashi.

That is, he asked Rav Ashi what the reason for Rava’s ruling was, as follows.

What is different about “impure from the outset,” that it may not be joined,

because

we say: since the water is heavy

because of the heaviness of the water in the mixture,

it settles below,

it descends downward inside the vessel in which one immerses it,

and the grape-pomace floats above,

and the grape-pomace floats on top,

and the joining does not rise to the water,

and the water of the mixture does not touch and join the water of the ritual bath.

If so, “pure and afterward became impure” should also

not be purified because of this reason?

Rather,

the joining is effective in the case of pure and afterward impure, because

they become mixed,

the water and grape-pomace are mixed together, and the water likewise floats above. If so,

here too,

in the case of impure from the outset, the joining should be effective for them, since they too

become mixed,

the water and grape-pomace together; and what reason is there to distinguish between them?

Mishna:

A father is entitled to sell his daughter as a Hebrew maidservant as long as she is a minor, until she grows and becomes a na’ara—that is, until she reaches twelve years and has the signs of na’arut, two hairs.

One who rapes or seduces a na’ara of Israel is obligated to give her father a fine of fifty silver shekels. This obligation applies only to a na’ara, that is, from when she reaches twelve years, with the appearance of the signs of na’arut, until six months thereafter, when she leaves the category of “na’ara” and enters the category of “bogeret”.

It follows that

wherever there is a sale,

that is, when the daughter is a minor,

there is no fine.

And wherever there is a fine,

that is, when she is a na’ara,

there is no sale.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

what we learned, that there is no fine where there is a sale,

is the statement of Rabbi Meir,

who says that a minor has no fine.

But the Sages said: There is a fine where there is a sale.

For they hold that even a minor—from three years of age and upward, as follows—has a fine, and consequently it is possible that the fine and the sale will both apply in one place, namely, in the case of a minor.

For it was taught in a beraita: A minor from one day old until she produces two hairs

which are the signs of na’arut, at which point she is a na’ara, provided that she has reached twelve years,

has a sale and has no fine!

From when she produces two hairs until she becomes a bogeret,

that is, until six months have elapsed after she became a na’ara,

she has a fine and has no sale, the statement of Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir would say: Wherever there is a sale, there is no fine, and wherever there is a fine, there is no sale.

And the Sages say: A minor from the age of three years and one day,

from which time she is fit for intercourse,

until she becomes a bogeret, has a fine.

And we raise a difficulty:

A fine, yes; a sale, not!?

But surely a minor has a sale.

And we answer:

Say: Also a fine

belongs to a minor, and although it is

where there is a sale

during part of the time, namely, until she becomes a na’ara, from which time she has no sale, while she still has a fine until she becomes a bogeret.

Mishna:

A father can marry off his minor daughter, by Torah law, even against her will. A minor orphan who has no father cannot marry by Torah law; rather, the Sages instituted that her mother or brothers can marry her off, with her consent. Since these marriages are only rabbinic, the Sages instituted that even after her marriage the minor can leave her husband by means of mi’un alone, without receiving a bill of divorce from her husband—that is, she says that she no longer wishes to be with her husband, and through this she is divorced. The daughter can perform mi’un only as long as she is a minor, but after she grows and becomes a na’ara, she can no longer perform mi’un. A minor whose husband died and who fell to levirate marriage cannot perform chalitza with her yavam until she grows and becomes a na’ara.

It follows that

wherever there is mi’un,

that is, when she is a minor,

there is no chalitza.

And wherever there is chalitza,

that is, when she is a na’ara,

there is no mi’un.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

what we learned, that there is no mi’un where there is chalitza,

is the statement of Rabbi Meir,

who says that a na’ara cannot perform mi’un.

But the Sages say: There is mi’un where there is chalitza

for according to them even a na’ara can perform mi’un, and consequently it is possible that mi’un and chalitza will both apply in one place, namely, in the case of a na’ara..

And who are the Sages

who dispute Rabbi Meir?

It is Rabbi Yehuda. For it was taught in a beraita: Until when can the daughter perform mi’un? Until she produces two hairs,

which are the signs of na’arut, and from then onward she cannot perform mi’un,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

even after she has produced two hairs, she can still perform mi’un

until the

hair

black

in that place

exceeds the white,

that is, the flesh, so that it appears as though there is much hair there.

Mishna:

Wherever there is a sounding, there is no havdala. And wherever there is havdala, there is no sounding.

And the Mishna explains:

When a Festival occurs on the eve of Shabbat, they sound

as on every eve of Shabbat, when they would sound six blasts before the onset of Shabbat so that the people would know to cease from work. And although that day is a Festival, on which work is prohibited, nevertheless they would sound the blasts in order to cease from work involving food preparation, which is permitted on a Festival.

and they do not recite havdala,

they do not recite havdala at night, neither in the prayer nor over a cup, as on every conclusion of a Festival, for they instituted havdala only at the departure of a holy day and the entry of an ordinary day; here, however, the sanctity of the incoming Shabbat is more stringent than the sanctity of the departing Festival.

And if the Festival occurs

at the conclusion of Shabbat, they recite havdala

at the conclusion of Shabbat, since the departing sanctity is more stringent than the incoming sanctity,

and they do not sound

before the onset of the Festival, since they do not need to cease on account of work.

How does one recite havdala

at the conclusion of Shabbat when it is a Festival? He says,

“Who distinguishes between the sacred and the sacred.”

Rabbi Dosa says:

this is what he says,

“between the more stringent sacred and the less stringent sacred.”

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks:

How does one sound?

What is the form of the sounding on the eve of Shabbat when it is a Festival? For evidently one must change from the sounding of every eve of Shabbat, which is an ordinary day, whereas today has sanctity.

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said: He sounds and produces a terua from within a sounding.

That is, when he sounds a teki’a, terua, teki’a, as on every eve of Shabbat, he should not interrupt between the teki’a and the terua that follows it as usual, but should perform them in one continuous sequence.

And Rav Asi said: He sounds and produces a terua in one breath.

That is, he interrupts between them, but the interruption is shorter than usual, in that the teki’a and the terua are performed in one breath.

Rav Asi instituted in Hutzal

with regard to the soundings of a Festival that occurs on the eve of Shabbat

in accordance with his teaching,

that he should sound and produce a terua in one breath.

An objection is raised

from that which was taught in the Tosefta:

When a Festival occurs on the eve of Shabbat, they sound but do not produce a terua.

And the Gemara infers:

What, is it not—

they do not produce a terua at all?

And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda and Rav Asi, who hold that they do produce a terua, but perform it in an altered manner?

And we answer:

No,

this is the meaning of the beraita, and each one explains it according to his own view:

Rav Yehuda explains it according to his view, and Rav Asi explains it according to his view.

Rav Yehuda explains it according to his view,

for this is the meaning of the beraita:

they do not produce a terua by itself,

that is, with an interruption from the teki’a preceding it,

but

they produce a terua

from within a sounding.

And Rav Asi explains it according to his view: They do not produce a terua

with a long interruption, in which the teki’a and terua are performed

in two breaths, but in one breath.

We learned in the Mishna:

And at the conclusion of Shabbat

they recite havdala. How do they recite havdala? “Who distinguishes between the sacred and the sacred.”

And the Gemara asks:

Where does he say it,

”Where does one say “Who distinguishes between the sacred and the sacred”? Does one also say at the beginning of the blessing of havdala, instead of “Who distinguishes between the sacred and the ordinary, between light and darkness,” “between the sacred and the sacred”? Or perhaps only at its conclusion does he say, “Blessed is He who distinguishes between the sacred and the sacred”?

Rav Yehuda said: At its conclusion

only. But at its beginning he says as usual, “Who distinguishes between the sacred and the ordinary,”

and likewise Rav Naḥman said: At its conclusion

only.

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: Also at its beginning.

But the halakha does not follow him,

that is, Rav Sheshet. For at the beginning of the blessing he specifies the distinctions stated in the Torah, as explained below, and in the Torah distinction between the sacred and the ordinary is stated, as it is said: “to distinguish between the sacred and the ordinary”; distinction between the sacred and the sacred is not mentioned in the Torah.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Dosa says: Between the more stringent sacred and the less stringent sacred.

And the halakha is not in accordance with him,

that is, Rabbi Dosa, for one should not disparage a Festival by calling it “the less stringent sacred.”

Rabbi Zeira said: When a Festival occurs in the middle of the week,

that is, on one of the days of the week,

he says

at the conclusion of the Festival, in the blessing of havdala, as at the conclusion of Shabbat,

“Who distinguishes between the sacred and the ordinary, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of work.”

What is the reason

that he says, “between the seventh day and the six days of work,” when today is not the seventh day? Because “between the seventh day and the six days of work” does not refer to the Shabbat from which the one reciting havdala is now departing and entering an ordinary day; rather,

the order of distinctions

stated in the Torah

he enumerates

in the blessing of havdala, all of which were stated in the Torah.

We shall return to you, chapter “All slaughter.”