Chullin 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught:

Temed that became impure,

before it fermented,

precise page location]]

is rendered pure by contact with water,

like all impure water. For although immersion in a mikveh does not render food or beverages pure, since immersion in a mikveh is stated in the Torah only with regard to people and vessels, nevertheless, water alone can be rendered pure in this manner: One places it in an open vessel, and immerses the open vessel in the mikveh until the mikveh water touches the impure water from above. This is not considered “immersion”; rather, through the joining of the impure water with the mikveh water, the former is nullified to the latter and thereby becomes pure.

However,

once it has fermented,

the temed is wine, and if it becomes impure,

it may not be rendered pure by contact with water.

This is because all liquids other than water cannot be rendered pure through contact with the mikveh water and nullification to it, since they have a taste different from that of water, which prevents their nullification to the mikveh water.

Rava said: They taught

that temed which has not fermented may be rendered pure by contact with water

only when one prepared it

by placing

pure water, which subsequently became impure,

on the grape seeds.

But if the water was

impure from the outset,

before it was placed on the grape seeds,

it does not

become pure through contact with the mikveh water.

Rav Gavihah of Bei Katil went and reported this teaching

of Rava

before Rav Ashi.

That is, he asked Rav Ashi about Rava’s reasoning, as follows:

What is different about “impure from the outset,” so that it does not become pure,

because

we say: Since the water is heavy

because of the weight of the water in the temed,

it settles below,

descending to the bottom of the vessel in which it is immersed,

while the fruit floats above,

and the grape seeds float on top,

and the water does not come into contact with the mikveh water,

as the water of the temed does not touch and join with the mikveh water?

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

not become pure for this reason?

Rather,

the reason contact with the mikveh water is effective when the water was pure and subsequently became impure is that

they become mixed;

the water and grape seeds are mixed together, and the water also floats on top. If so,

here too,

in the case of water that was impure from the outset, contact with the mikveh water should be effective, since in that case too

they become mixed,

the water and grape seeds together. 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 up and becomes a na’ara—that is, until she reaches the age of twelve and manifests the signs of na’arut [two pubic 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 the time she reaches twelve years of age [and manifests the signs of na’arut] until six months thereafter, at which point she ceases to be a na’ara and becomes a bogeret.

It follows that

wherever there is 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:

The statement in the Mishna that there is no fine where there is sale

is the statement of Rabbi Meir,

who says that a minor is not subject to a fine.

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

They maintain that even a minor [from the age of three years and one day, as stated below] is subject to a fine, and consequently the fine and the sale can both apply in the same case, namely, that of a minor.

As it was taught in a baraita: From the age of one day until she manifests two hairs,

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

she is subject to sale but not to a fine.

From the time she manifests two hairs until she becomes a bogeret,

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

she is subject to a fine but not to sale; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

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

And the Sages say: From the age of three years and one day,

from which point she is fit for intercourse,

until she becomes a bogeret, she is subject to a fine.

And we raise a difficulty:

There is a fine, yes—but no sale!?

Yet a minor is subject to sale.

And we answer:

Say: also a fine

applies to a minor, and although it is

where there is sale [during part of that period, namely, until she becomes a na’ara, from which point she is no longer subject to sale, while she remains subject to a fine until she becomes a bogeret].

Mishna:

A father may marry off his minor daughter, by Torah law [even against her will]. An orphaned minor who has no father cannot marry by Torah law; however, the Sages instituted that her mother or brothers may marry her off [with her consent]. Since these marriages are only by rabbinic enactment, the Sages also instituted that even after her marriage the minor may leave her husband through mi’un alone, without receiving a bill of divorce from her husband—that is, she declares that she no longer wishes to remain with her husband, and thereby she is divorced. A daughter may perform mi’un only as long as she is a minor; once she grows up and becomes a na’ara, she may no longer perform mi’un. If a minor’s husband dies and she falls before a yavam for levirate marriage, she may not perform halitza until she grows up and becomes a na’ara.

It follows that

wherever there is mi’un,

that is, when she is a minor,

there is no halitza.

And wherever there is halitza,

that is, when she is a na’ara,

there is no mi’un.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

The statement in the Mishna that there is no mi’un where there is halitza

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 halitza,

as, according to them, even a na’ara can perform mi’un, and consequently mi’un and halitza can both apply in the same case, namely, that of a na’ara.

And who are the Sages

who disagree with Rabbi Meir?

It is Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: Until when may a daughter perform mi’un? Until she manifests two hairs,

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

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Even after she has manifested two hairs she can still perform mi’un

until the

hair

black

in that place

becomes more abundant than the white,

that is, than the flesh, so that it appears as though there is a large amount of hair there.

Mishna:

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

The Mishna explains:

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

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

And they do not recite havdala;

they do not recite havdala at night, either in the prayer or over a cup, as on every conclusion of a Festival. Havdala was instituted only when one sacred day ends and an ordinary day begins, whereas here the sanctity of the incoming Shabbat is greater than that of the outgoing Festival.

And if the Festival occurs

at the conclusion of Shabbat, they recite havdala

at the conclusion of Shabbat, since the sanctity that is ending is greater than the sanctity that is beginning,

and they do not sound

before the onset of the Festival, since there is no need to signal the cessation of work.

How do they recite havdala

when the conclusion of Shabbat is a Festival? He says:

“Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred.”

Rabbi Dosa says:

This is what he says:

“Between the more sacred and the less sacred.”

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

How does he sound the blasts?

What is the form of the sounding on Friday eve when it is also a Festival? Presumably it must differ from the sounding on every ordinary Friday eve, since this day possesses sanctity.

And we answer:

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

That is, when he sounds a tekia, terua, tekia as on every Friday eve, he does not pause between the tekia and the terua that follows it as usual; rather, he performs them as one continuous sound.

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

That is, he does pause between them, but the pause is shorter than usual, in that the tekia and terua are performed in a single breath.

Rav Asi instituted in Huzal

for the blasts on a Festival that occurs on the eve of Shabbat

in accordance with his teaching,

so that he would sound a tekia and terua in a single breath.

A challenge was raised

from that which was taught in the Tosefta:

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

And the Gemara infers:

What, is it not

that they do not sound a terua at all?

This would be difficult for Rav Yehuda and Rav Asi, who maintain that they do sound a terua, but do so in an altered manner.

And we answer:

No,

that is not the intention of the beraita, and each sage explains it according to his own position:

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

Rav Yehuda explains it according to his reasoning,

that this is the intention of the beraita:

They do not sound the terua independently,

that is, with a pause after the preceding tekia,

but

they do sound the terua

from within a tekia.

And Rav Asi explains it according to his reasoning: They do not sound the terua

with a long pause, such that the tekia and terua are performed

in two breaths, but in a single breath.

We learned in the Mishna:

And at the conclusion of Shabbat

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

The Gemara asks:

Where does he say it,

where does one say “Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred”? Does one also say “between sacred and sacred” at the beginning of the havdala blessing [in place of “Who distinguishes between sacred and ordinary, between light and darkness”], or perhaps only at its conclusion does he say, “Blessed are You, Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred”?

Rav Yehuda said: In its conclusion

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

and likewise Rav Naḥman said: In its conclusion

only.

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: Even at its opening.

But the halakha does not follow him,

Rav Sheshet, because at the beginning of the blessing he enumerates the distinctions stated in the Torah [as explained below], and the Torah speaks of a distinction between sacred and ordinary, as it is stated: “To distinguish between the sacred and the ordinary”; the Torah does not mention a distinction between sacred and sacred.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Dosa says: “Between the more sacred and the less sacred.”

But the halakha does not follow him,

Rabbi Dosa, since one should not disparage the Festival by calling it “the less sacred.”

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

that is, on one of the weekdays,

he says

at the conclusion of the Festival, in the havdala blessing as at the conclusion of Shabbat: “Who distinguishes between sacred and ordinary, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of labor.”

What is the reason

for saying “between the seventh day and the six days of labor,” when the day is not the seventh day? Because “between the seventh day and the six days of labor” 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 havdala blessing, all of which are stated in the Torah.

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