Chullin Daf 25 (חולין דף כ״ה)
Daf: 25 | Amudim: 25a – 25b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (25a)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך הסוגיא (Continuation from 24b)
The daf opens mid-sentence: a kli cheres (earthenware vessel) defiles its entire contents — even when packed full of mustard seeds — though most of the seeds never touch its inner walls.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲפִילּוּ מְלֹא חַרְדָּל.
English Translation:
that it renders impure everything within it, and this is the halakha even if it is full of mustard seeds, in which case most of the seeds do not come in contact with the sides of the vessel, and nevertheless all the mustard seeds become impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens mid-thought, completing yesterday’s principle: a defiled כְּלִי חֶרֶס (earthenware vessel) renders impure everything inside its airspace — even items that never physically touch the inner walls. The vivid example: a vessel packed with tiny mustard seeds. The seeds in the middle don’t touch the inner surface at all (they’re surrounded by other seeds), yet they all become tamei. The mechanism is aviro (its airspace), not contact. This will be the centerpiece of the long kal-vachomer sequence that follows.
Key Terms:
- כְּלִי חֶרֶס (kli cheres) = Earthenware vessel — uniquely defiled through its airspace, and uniquely not defiled through outer-side contact.
- חַרְדָּל (chardal) = Mustard seeds — tiny, packed grains that demonstrate airspace-impurity beyond contact.
- אֲוִיר (avir) = Airspace — the inner volume of a kli cheres, halachically equivalent to its inside surface for impurity purposes.
Segment 2
TYPE: קל וחומר א’ (First Kal Vachomer)
Rav Adda b’ Ahava to Rava: surely a kli cheres should ALSO be defiled from its outer side, by kal vachomer from other vessels (which lack airspace-impurity but still defile from the outside).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: וִיהֵא כְּלִי חֶרֶס מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן – מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן, כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁמִּיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ?
English Translation:
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And let it be derived that an earthenware vessel becomes impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side by means of an a fortiori inference: If all the other types of vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, then with regard to an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, isn’t it logical that it will become ritually impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Adda b’ Ahava launches a series of four kal-vachomer (logical a-fortiori) attacks on the standard kli-cheres rules. First kal vachomer: other vessels are not defiled by airspace, yet they are defiled by outer-side contact. So a kli cheres (which IS defiled by airspace, the stricter avenue) should certainly be defiled by outer-side contact too. By logical proportionality, kli cheres should be more vulnerable, not less. This will force the Gemara to produce a verse explaining why kli cheres has its peculiar exemption.
Key Terms:
- רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה = Babylonian Amora, frequent dialectical interlocutor of Rava.
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר (kal vachomer) = “Light-and-heavy” — Talmudic a-fortiori reasoning that extends a stringency from a weaker case to a stronger one.
- מִגַּבּוֹ (migabo) = “From its outer side / back” — contact with the outside surface of a vessel.
Segment 3
TYPE: תשובה (Response — צמיד פתיל)
The kal vachomer is blocked by Bamidbar 19:15: “every open vessel without a sealed lid is impure.” Implies: a kli cheres with a tight lid is pure — proving outer-side contact does not defile it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא: “וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו”, אֵיזֶהוּ כְּלִי שֶׁטּוּמְאָתוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְפִתְחוֹ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה כְּלִי חֶרֶס, וְכִי אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו הוּא דְּטָמֵא, הָא יֵשׁ צְמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו – טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), indicating that its impurity is dependent upon the mouth of the vessel. Which is the vessel whose impurity hastily takes effect just after the impure item enters into its mouth? You must say that is an earthenware vessel. And it is when there is no sealed cover on it that the vessel becomes impure. But when there is a sealed cover on it, the vessel is pure, as the earthenware vessel does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara blocks the kal vachomer with a derashah from Bamidbar 19:15 (in the parsha of the red heifer / corpse impurity). The verse focuses on whether the vessel is “open” or has a צמיד פתיל (sealed cover). Which vessel’s impurity hinges on its mouth? Only the kli cheres, which is defiled through airspace. The verse implies: when the lid is sealed, the open vessel is not impure even when surrounded by impurity — proving that outer-side contact is irrelevant for kli cheres. The kal vachomer falls.
Key Terms:
- צָמִיד פָּתִיל (tzamid patil) = A tightly-sealed cover that blocks impurity from entering through the airspace; the verse’s pivotal phrase.
- כְּלִי פָתוּחַ = “Open vessel” — without a sealed cover; only this is defiled.
- טוּמְאָתוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְפִתְחוֹ = “Its impurity precedes its mouth” — the kli cheres’s defilement runs through its mouth/airspace.
Segment 4
TYPE: קל וחומר ב’ (Second Kal Vachomer — Reverse Direction)
Now run the kal vachomer the OTHER way: if kli cheres (which lacks outer-defilement) IS defiled by airspace, then OTHER vessels (which DO have outer-defilement) should also be defiled by airspace.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיִהְיוּ כׇּל הַכֵּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ – מִיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ, כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁמִּיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמִּיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: And let it be derived that all the other vessels become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, then with regard to all the other vessels, which become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, isn’t it logical that they will become ritually impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now reverses the kal vachomer’s direction. If the kli cheres (the weaker vessel by outer-defilement standards) is strong via airspace-defilement, then other vessels (which are strong via outer-defilement) should be even stronger — including via airspace. So airspace-defilement should generalize to all vessels. This too will be blocked by a derashah, restricting airspace-defilement to kli cheres alone.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל הַכֵּלִים = “All [the other] vessels” — wood, metal, stone, etc., as opposed to earthenware.
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה (Vayikra 11:33’s תוכו)
The Torah specifies “תוכו” (its inside) for the kli cheres — implying THIS vessel’s inside, not any other vessel’s. Airspace-impurity is unique to earthenware.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא “תּוֹכוֹ”, תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְלֹא תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states with regard to the carcasses of creeping animals: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls” (Leviticus 11:33), from which it is inferred: Tokho, i.e., the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho, the airspace, of any other kind of vessel.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara blocks the second kal vachomer with a precision derashah from Vayikra 11:33 (the parsha of שרצים, creeping animals). The verse uses the possessive form תּוֹכוֹ (“ITS inside”) — its inside is impurity-conducive, but no other vessel’s inside is. The exclusionary language of this and not of others limits the airspace-rule precisely to kli cheres. The other vessels remain immune.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹכוֹ (tokho) = “Its inside” — the possessive form is the exegetical hook for restriction.
- שְׁרָצִים (shratzim) = Creeping animals, the eight species whose carcasses transmit ritual impurity (Vayikra 11).
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא (But תוכו Was Already Used!)
Hold on — those instances of “תוכו” were already exegetically used to derive that food in the airspace becomes impure WITHOUT contact. Can the same word do double duty?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָנֵי “תּוֹכוֹ”, הָא דַּרְשִׁינְהוּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: How can the halakha be derived from the term tokho in that verse? But didn’t the Sages interpret these instances of tokho that appear in that verse and derive: Just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity, the food is impure even though it did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even though the impure item did not come into contact with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects: those instances of “תוכו” have already been spent on a different derashah — the famous gezeira shava that tells us food and vessel both become impure without contact. So you can’t reuse them now to limit airspace-impurity to kli cheres. The Gemara needs to count the instances of תוכו in the verse to make the accounting work.
Key Terms:
- דַּרְשִׁינְהוּ (darshinhu) = “We have [already] expounded them” — a Talmudic objection that the same exegetical word has been used elsewhere.
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה (gezeira shava) = A verbal-analogy derashah linking two verses by a shared word; here, between transmitting impurity and receiving it.
Segment 7
TYPE: ביאור (Counting the תוכו’s)
The Gemara counts: the verse uses “תוכו” twice, but each time it could have used the shorter “תוך” — yielding four exegetical units to spend.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַרְבְּעָה “תּוֹכוֹ” כְּתִיבִי: “תּוֹכוֹ”, “תּוֹךְ”; “תּוֹכוֹ”, “תּוֹך”.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Four instances of the term tokho from which halakhot can be derived are written: “Tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written; those are two instances. Then, later in that verse, once again “tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reveals an elegant exegetical accounting. The verse uses “תוכו” (a longer form with the possessive suffix) twice. Each occurrence carries a double exegetical signal: (1) the bare word itself, and (2) the added vav-vav suffix contrasted with the shorter possible “תוך.” So 2 occurrences × 2 levels = 4 derashah-units available. The Sages will allocate these four to four distinct halachic teachings.
Key Terms:
- אַרְבְּעָה תּוֹכוֹ כְּתִיבִי = “Four [exegetical units of] תוכו are written” — the principle that a word’s chosen long-form generates more derashah-room.
Segment 8
TYPE: חלוקה (The Four Allocations)
The four תוכו-units distribute as: (1) the basic halacha, (2) the gezeira shava, (3) limiting airspace-defilement to kli cheres, (4) excluding “tokh tokho” — food in a vessel-within-a-vessel.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, וְחַד “תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְלֹא תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר”, וְחַד “תּוֹכוֹ וְלֹא תּוֹךְ תּוֹכוֹ”, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף.
English Translation:
One instance is to teach the halakha itself, that the vessel renders the food in its airspace ritually impure, and one instance is to teach the verbal analogy from which it is derived that the vessel becomes impure without contact with the impure item; and one source is to teach that tokho, the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho of any other kind of vessel; and one source is to teach tokho, food in the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel becomes impure, but not tokh tokho, not food that is in the airspace of a vessel that is within an earthenware vessel, and even if that inner vessel is one of the other types of vessel purified through rinsing in the water of a ritual bath.
קלאוד על הדף:
The four allocations: (1) גופיה — the basic statement that airspace-impurity exists. (2) גזירה שווה — that food-in-the-airspace becomes tamei without contact. (3) תוכו של זה ולא תוכו של אחר — restricting airspace-impurity to kli cheres alone (the move that blocks Rav Adda’s second kal vachomer). (4) תוכו ולא תוך תוכו — its airspace defiles food, but the airspace within an inner vessel does not. So if you place a metal vessel inside the impure kli cheres, food inside the metal vessel is shielded — the airspace of the inner vessel is not the kli cheres’s airspace. Beautiful structural derivation.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹךְ תּוֹכוֹ = “Within its inside” — a vessel-within-a-vessel; the inner vessel’s contents are insulated from airspace-impurity.
- כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף (kli sheteph) = “A vessel of rinsing” — non-earthenware vessels (wood, metal, etc.) that purify in mikveh, as opposed to earthenware which is broken when impure.
Segment 9
TYPE: קל וחומר ג’ (Third Kal Vachomer)
Rav Adda runs another reverse: if kli cheres (with airspace-defilement) ISN’T defiled by outer-side contact, then other vessels (without airspace-defilement) certainly shouldn’t be — they should require contact with their inside.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא יְהוּ כׇּל הַכֵּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹכָן וּבִנְגִיעָה, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁמִּיטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ – אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ, כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירָן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבָּן?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that all the other vessels do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer sides, but rather from the presence of an impure item inside them and with contact with their inner sides by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, then with regard to all the other vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, isn’t it logical that they do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side?
קלאוד על הדף:
A third kal vachomer mirrors the second from the opposite angle. If kli cheres (the vessel with the broader defilement profile via airspace) somehow lacks outer-defilement, then surely other vessels (with the narrower profile, no airspace) should also lack outer-defilement. Other vessels should require contact with their inner surface only. This too will be blocked by a verse.
Key Terms:
- בִּנְגִיעָה = “Through contact” — the standard mode of impurity-transmission for most vessels.
- מִתּוֹכָן = “From their inside” — contact with the inner surface, contrasted with מגבן (outer side).
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה (The “הוא” Restriction)
The same verse (Bamidbar 19:15) uses “הוא” (only THIS one). Only kli cheres has the seal-or-no-seal toggle. All other vessels — sealed or not — are defiled. So outer-defilement DOES apply to others.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא: “וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא”, הַאי הוּא דְּכִי אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא, הָא יֵשׁ צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָהוֹר. הָא כׇּל הַכֵּלִים, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ צָמִיד פָּתִיל עֲלֵיהֶם בֵּין שֶׁאֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עֲלֵיהֶם – מִיטַּמְּאִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), from which it is derived: This earthenware vessel (see Leviticus 11:33) is the one that when there is not a sealed cover upon it, it is impure, but when there is a sealed cover upon it, it is pure. But with regard to all the other vessels, whether there is a sealed cover upon them or whether there is not a sealed cover upon them, they become impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara blocks the third kal vachomer through the same verse, focusing on the exclusionary “הוא” (it [alone]). The verse reads: “[such-and-such] is impure [unless sealed] — it.” The “it” restricts the seal-protection privilege exclusively to kli cheres. By implication, every other vessel — whether sealed or not — becomes impure when surrounded by impurity. So other vessels are defiled even from their outer sides. The kal vachomer falls.
Key Terms:
- הוּא (hu) = “It [alone / specifically]” — the exegetical exclusionary marker, restricting a privilege to one referent only.
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה (New Mishna — Wood vs. Metal Vessels)
Cryptic mishna: what is pure in wood is impure in metal; what is pure in metal is impure in wood. The Gemara will resolve.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי עֵץ, טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת; טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי עֵץ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels; that which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.
קלאוד על הדף:
A characteristically cryptic mishna in this masechet’s style — pure-here / impure-there. The Gemara will explain that this is about גולמי (unfinished) vs. פשוטים (finished/flat) vessels in the two materials. Wood and metal have opposite halachic profiles: a partial wooden vessel is impure-susceptible while a flat one isn’t; a partial metal vessel is not impure-susceptible while a flat one is. Each material’s “pure” case is the other’s “impure” case.
Key Terms:
- כְּלֵי עֵץ = Wooden vessels.
- כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת = Metal vessels.
- טָהוֹר / טָמֵא = Pure (not susceptible to impurity) / Impure (susceptible to impurity).
Segment 12
TYPE: ביאור הברייתא (The Baraita Explains the Mishna)
Wooden vessels: golmei (unfinished receptacle) = impure-susceptible; pshutim (flat) = pure. Metal vessels: golmei = pure; pshutim = impure. Cross-reading explains the mishna’s paradox.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלִי עֵץ טְמֵאִין, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְהוֹרִין; גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת טְהוֹרִין, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין. נִמְצָא טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי עֵץ – טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, טָהוֹר בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת – טָמֵא בִּכְלֵי עֵץ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: Unfinished [golmei] wooden vessels that are receptacles and are fit for use but work remains to complete their crafting are susceptible to becoming impure. Flat wooden utensils are not susceptible to impurity. Unfinished metal vessels are not susceptible to impurity. Flat metal utensils are susceptible to becoming impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels; that which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The cross-classification: wooden golmei (incomplete-but-functional receptacles) ARE impure-susceptible — partial completion is enough. Wooden pshutim (flat utensils, no receptacle) are NOT susceptible — Torah-impurity for wood requires a receptacle (Vayikra 11:32 mentions only “clothing or skin or sack…or vessel”). Metal golmei are NOT susceptible — metal needs full completion. Metal pshutim ARE susceptible — flat metal utensils (knives, swords) are explicit in the Torah (Bamidbar 31:22). So flat swaps: pure-in-wood / impure-in-metal. Golmei swaps: impure-in-wood / pure-in-metal. The mishna’s cryptic chiasm is now transparent.
Key Terms:
- גּוֹלְמֵי (golmei) = “Unfinished” vessels — functional but lacking final crafting touches.
- פְּשׁוּטִים (pshutim) = “Flat” — non-receptacle utensils (e.g., a flat plate, a knife blade).
Segment 13
TYPE: פירוט (Catalogue of Wooden Golmei)
The list: wooden vessels still needing smoothing, ornament-setting, planing, grooving, polishing-with-tuna-skin, or missing base/rim/handle — all are impure-susceptible. But missing hollowing — pure (no receptacle yet).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי עֵץ: כֹּל שֶׁעָתִיד לָשׁוּף, לְשַׁבֵּץ, לְגָרֵר, לְכַרְכֵּב, לְהָטִיחַ בְּטוּנָס, מְחוּסָּר כַּן אוֹ אוֹגֶן אוֹ אוֹזֶן – טָמֵא, מְחוּסָּר חֲטִיטָה – טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
And these are the unfinished wooden vessels: Any vessel that one plans in the future to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it with grooves and protuberances, to rub it and smooth it with the skin of a tuna [tunas], or if it is lacking a base or a rim or a handle, the vessel is susceptible to becoming impure. If the vessel is lacking the hollowing necessary to render it a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
A detailed catalogue of decorative-and-finishing operations that are not required for impurity-susceptibility in wooden vessels: smoothing, gem-setting, planing, grooving, tuna-skin polishing (a striking detail of ancient woodworking — the rough skin of tuna fish was used as fine sandpaper), and missing accessories like base/rim/handle. The vessel is already a vessel halachically. The one requirement: חטיטה (hollowing) — the receptacle-cavity must be present. Without it, there is no receptacle — and Torah law about wooden vessels presupposes a receptacle.
Key Terms:
- לָשׁוּף, לְשַׁבֵּץ, לְגָרֵר, לְכַרְכֵּב = To smooth, to inlay, to plane, to groove — finishing operations.
- לְהָטִיחַ בְּטוּנָס = “To rub with tuna” — using rough tuna skin as ancient sandpaper.
- חֲטִיטָה (chatita) = Hollowing — creating the receptacle cavity; the threshold requirement for wooden-vessel impurity-susceptibility.
- כַּן, אוֹגֶן, אוֹזֶן = Base, rim, handle — accessory parts that can be missing without disqualifying the vessel.
Segment 14
TYPE: דקדוק (Refining the “Missing Hollowing” Case)
“Missing hollowing — pure” — but isn’t that obvious? The chiddush is partial hollowing: hollowed only 3 log of an intended 6-log (kav) capacity. Still incomplete, still pure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְחוּסָּר חֲטִיטָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּחַק קְפִיזָא בְּקַבָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that if the vessel is lacking hollowing, it is not susceptible to becoming impure, as it is clearly not a vessel? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary only in a case where one hollowed three log [kefiza] in a receptacle that he intends to hold one kav, which contains six log. Even though it is a receptacle, since the receptacle is incomplete it is not susceptible to impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Why state the obvious “missing hollowing → pure”? The Gemara reveals the chiddush: partial hollowing. The case: a craftsman intended a vessel to hold one kav (a Talmudic measure = 6 log), but he has so far only hollowed out a kefiza (3 log = half). The cavity is a real receptacle — it can hold liquid. Yet halachically, since his intention was for a larger capacity, the vessel is still missing hollowing. Subjective intention controls objective halachic status. This is a beautiful illustration of intent-driven categorization in tumah law.
Key Terms:
- קְפִיזָא (kefiza) = 3 log — a Talmudic volume measure.
- קַבָּא (kava) = Kav — 6 log; twice the kefiza.
- דְּחַק קְפִיזָא בְּקַבָּא = “He hollowed a kefiza in [an intended] kav” — the precise sub-case.
Segment 15
TYPE: מעבר (Bridge to 25b — Metal Golmei)
The catalogue continues for metal vessels — the daf ends mid-sentence, completing on 25b.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת: כֹּל שֶׁעָתִיד
English Translation:
And these are the unfinished metal vessels: Any vessel that one plans in the future
קלאוד על הדף:
Cliffhanger: the parallel catalogue for metal-vessel golmei is introduced — but the actual list is held back to 25b. The structural mirror is deliberate: identical operations will appear, but the halachic outcome will reverse. Where wood is impure-susceptible despite incomplete decoration, metal will be pure (not susceptible) under the same condition.
Key Terms:
- גּוֹלְמֵי כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת = Unfinished metal vessels — about to be enumerated on 25b.
Amud Bet (25b)
Segment 1
TYPE: השלמת הרשימה (Catalogue of Metal Golmei)
Mirror operations — same words, opposite halacha: needing smoothing/setting/grooving/planing/hammering, missing base/rim/handle = pure (not susceptible). Missing only a cover = impure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָשׁוּף, לְשַׁבֵּץ, לְגָרֵר, לְכַרְכֵּר, לְהַקִּישׁ בְּקוּרְנָס. מְחוּסָּר כַּן אוֹ אוֹגֶן אוֹ אוֹזֶן – טָהוֹר, מְחוּסָּר כְּסוּי – טָמֵא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same list of operations as in wooden golmei — but inverted: a metal vessel needing any of these is pure (not yet susceptible to impurity). Even a missing handle disqualifies. Only the cover (כסוי) is the exception: if the vessel itself is complete and just needs a lid, it is susceptible. The cover is treated as a separate accessory; the vessel without it is essentially functional. The halachic asymmetry between wood and metal will now be probed: why such different standards?
Key Terms:
- לְהַקִּישׁ בְּקוּרְנָס = “To strike with a hammer” — the metal-specific finishing operation, replacing wood’s tuna-skin polishing.
- כְּסוּי (kisuy) = Cover/lid — the only “accessory” whose absence does not delay impurity-susceptibility.
Segment 2
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (R’ Yochanan vs. Rav Naḥman — Why the Difference?)
Why the asymmetry? R’ Yochanan: metal vessels are made for honor — until complete, not yet honorable. Rav Naḥman: metal vessels are expensive — until complete, not yet sellable.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּלְכָבוֹד עֲשׂוּיִין. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּדְמֵיהֶן יְקָרִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the deep asymmetry. Why does wood become a כלי earlier than metal? Two competing rationales:
- R’ Yochanan: metal vessels are לכבוד עשויין — crafted for honor. They serve dignified purposes (Temple service, ceremony, decoration), and an incomplete metal vessel doesn’t yet count as the honor-vessel it is destined to be.
- Rav Naḥman: metal vessels are דמיהן יקרים — valuable in price. People wouldn’t sell a half-finished metal vessel — they’ll wait for completion to charge full price. So unfinished metal is socially-functionally not a vessel.
Both rationales identify a human-perception threshold: metal vessels are perceived as “real” only when complete. The next segment will tease apart the practical difference.
Key Terms:
- לְכָבוֹד עֲשׂוּיִין = “Made for honor” — R’ Yochanan’s category-rationale.
- דְּמֵיהֶן יְקָרִים = “Their value is expensive” — Rav Naḥman’s economic rationale.
Segment 3
TYPE: נפקא מינה (Practical Difference — Bone Vessels)
Bone vessels are expensive but not honor-vessels. So R’ Yochanan: bone goes with wood (no honor → impure earlier). Rav Naḥman: bone goes with metal (expensive → impure only when complete).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כְּלֵי עֶצֶם, וְאַזְדָּא רַב נַחְמָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּלֵי עֶצֶם כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת דָּמוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The נפקא מינה: כלי עצם (vessels made of bone — usually carved from horns or hooves). Bone vessels are valuable and durable, but socially not “honor” objects. So:
- R’ Yochanan (honor-criterion): bone is not an honor-vessel → bone vessels become susceptible like wood.
- Rav Naḥman (value-criterion): bone vessels are expensive → become susceptible like metal. And indeed Rav Naḥman explicitly rules: “כלי עצם ככלי מתכות דמו” — bone vessels are halachically equivalent to metal vessels for impurity.
Each Amora’s rationale produces a different result, making bone the test case.
Key Terms:
- כְּלֵי עֶצֶם (klei etzem) = Bone vessels — typically crafted from animal horns and hooves.
- קְרָנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם = Horns and hooves — the standard sources of bone-vessels.
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה (Bone Vessels are Susceptible — Bamidbar 31:20)
A baraita confirms: bone vessels DO receive impurity. Derived from “וכל מעשה עזים תתחטאו” — all “work of goats.” The “כל” extends to other animals; “עזים” excludes birds.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דִּכְלֵי עֶצֶם מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה? אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר “וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים תִּתְחַטָּאוּ”? לְהָבִיא דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הָעִזִּים, מִן הַקַּרְנַיִם וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם. שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר “וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה”. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר “עִזִּים”? פְּרָט לְעוֹפוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara verifies the implicit premise: bone vessels are indeed susceptible to impurity. The proof from R’ Yishmael b’ R’ Yochanan ben Beroka rests on Bamidbar 31:20 (post-Midian war purification): “וכל מעשה עזים תתחטאו” — “and every work of goats you shall purify.” The phrase “work of goats” extends to anything coming from a goat — including its horns and hooves. The amplifier word “כל” (all) generalizes further to other animals — domestic and wild. But “עזים” (goats) restrictively excludes birds: bone vessels from birds are not subject to impurity. Beautiful triple derashah.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה = Tanna; transmits the bone-vessel derashah.
- וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים תִּתְחַטָּאוּ = “And every work of goats you shall purify” — Bamidbar 31:20.
- קַרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם = Horns and hooves — the bone-vessel sources.
- עוֹפוֹת (ofot) = Birds — bone vessels from them are not susceptible.
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה (New Mishna — Bitter vs. Sweet Almonds)
Cryptic mishna again: stages obligated in bitter almonds (for terumah/maaser) are exempt in sweet almonds, and vice versa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַחַיָּיב בִּשְׁקֵדִים הַמָּרִים – פָּטוּר בַּמְּתוּקִים, הַחַיָּיב בַּמְּתוּקִים – פָּטוּר בַּמָּרִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna in the same chiastic style as the wood/metal mishna. חיוב here means liability for תרומות ומעשרות (the agricultural separations). The principle: bitter and sweet almonds reach edibility at opposite growth stages. Bitter almonds are edible young/small (before bitterness fully develops); sweet almonds are edible mature/large. Each stage where one variety is liable, the other is exempt. The Gemara will spell this out.
Key Terms:
- שְׁקֵדִים מָרִים / מְתוּקִים = Bitter / Sweet almonds — botanically distinct varieties.
- חַיָּב / פָּטוּר = Liable [for terumah/maaser] / Exempt — depending on whether the produce is at edible-food stage.
Segment 6
TYPE: ביאור הברייתא (Baraita Explains the Mishna)
Bitter almonds: when small — chayav (still edible, not yet bitter); when large — patur (now bitter, inedible). Sweet almonds: opposite — large = chayav, small = patur.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁקֵדִים הַמָּרִים, קְטַנִּים – חַיָּיבִין, גְּדוֹלִים – פְּטוּרִין. מְתוּקִים, גְּדוֹלִים – חַיָּיבִין, קְטַנִּים – פְּטוּרִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita explains the agricultural fact: tithe-liability tracks edibility. Bitter almonds start out not yet bitter — when small, the bitterness hasn’t developed, so they’re food → chayav. As they ripen they become inedibly bitter → patur. Sweet almonds are opposite: when small they’re not yet ripe (not really edible) → patur; when full-grown they’re ripe and edible → chayav. The chiasm of the mishna reflects opposite biology, but the underlying principle (food = chayav, non-food = patur) is unitary.
Key Terms:
- קְטַנִּים / גְּדוֹלִים = Small / Large — the developmental stage that determines edibility.
- תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת = Terumah and tithes — the separations only required from food.
Segment 7
TYPE: דעות חולקות (R’ Yishmael b’ R’ Yose’s Pair of Views)
R’ Yishmael b’ R’ Yose in his father’s name (about bitter almonds): one version says BOTH stages are patur; another version says BOTH are chayav. R’ Chanina ruled in Tzippori per the “both patur” version.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: זֶה וָזֶה לִפְטוּר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: זֶה וָזֶה לְחִיּוּב. אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: הוֹרָה רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּצִפּוֹרִי כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר זֶה וָזֶה לִפְטוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Yishmael b’ R’ Yose, citing his father, takes a uniform-position approach to bitter almonds: either both stages exempt or both stages liable. There are two transmissions of his view. The “both patur” reading: bitter almonds aren’t really food at any stage. The “both chayav” reading: even the bitter form is potentially food (will be addressed in segment 8 — by roasting). R’ Ela reports that R’ Ḥanina in Tzippori issued a practical ruling per the “both patur” version.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי = Tanna; preserves his father’s (R’ Yose b’ Chalafta’s) views.
- צִפּוֹרִי (Tzippori/Sepphoris) = Major Galilean center; site of R’ Yehuda HaNasi’s later academy and many practical halachic rulings.
- הוֹרָה (hora) = “Issued a ruling” — formal practical guidance on a contested matter.
Segment 8
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה (R’ Yochanan — Roasting Sweetens)
If “both chayav,” what use are LARGE bitter almonds (which are inedibly bitter)? R’ Yochanan: they can be sweetened by roasting on fire. So they’re potentially food.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר זֶה וָזֶה לְחִיּוּב, גְּדוֹלִים לְמַאי חֲזוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְמַתְּקָן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the “both chayav” view: how can large bitter almonds be food? R’ Yochanan’s elegant answer: roasting them on fire neutralizes the bitterness. They’re potentially food — and potential edibility suffices to trigger the tithe-obligation. This is a beautiful insight into ancient food-preparation: roasted bitter almonds were a known delicacy in Talmudic times. The principle generalizes: any food-preparation technology that makes a substance edible can extend the tithe-obligation back to the raw form.
Key Terms:
- לְמַתְּקָן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר = “To sweeten them via fire” — i.e., roasting; an ancient technique that neutralizes amygdalin (the bitter compound).
- רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = Major Eretz-Yisrael Amora, head of the Tiberias academy; his rulings dominate Talmudic discussions.
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה (New Mishna — Temed: Grape-byproduct Beverage)
Temed (grape-mash + water): pre-fermentation = NOT purchasable with maaser-sheni money + DOES disqualify a mikveh. Post-fermentation = IS purchasable + does NOT disqualify the mikveh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַתֶּמֶד, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִיץ – אֵינוֹ נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מִשֶּׁהֶחְמִיץ – נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna introduces תֶּמֶד — a beverage made by soaking grape residue (the leftover skins, seeds, and pulp from winepressing) in water. The status changes at the fermentation point. Pre-fermentation: it’s just water-mixed-with-residue → not eligible for maaser sheni (which can only buy wine), AND if 3 log fall into a mikveh, it counts as שאובים (drawn water) and disqualifies. Post-fermentation: it’s wine → can be purchased with maaser sheni money, and does NOT disqualify a mikveh (wine has its own status, unlike drawn water).
Key Terms:
- תֶּמֶד (temed) = Grape-residue beverage — water poured over winepressing leftovers; common cheap drink.
- כֶּסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר = Maaser sheni money — money used to redeem the second tithe; can be spent only on food/drink in Jerusalem.
- מִקְוֶה (mikveh) = Ritual bath; pure rainwater; disqualified if 3 log of drawn water (or equivalents) enter.
- הֶחְמִיץ (hechmitz) = Fermented — the chemical transformation that makes it wine.
Segment 10
TYPE: המשך המשנה (Brothers / Partners — Kalbon vs. Maaser Behema)
Brother-partners: when chayav in kalbon (half-shekel premium) → patur from maaser behema (animal tithe). And vice versa. The two obligations are mutually exclusive based on their partnership status.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָּפִין, כְּשֶׁחַיָּיבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן – פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה; כְּשֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה – פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another chiastic mishna. קלבון (kalbon) is a small premium added to the half-shekel donation when partners pay together (rather than two individuals separately). מעשר בהמה (animal tithe) is the tenth animal of one’s herd, set apart annually. The mishna’s logic: when brothers have fully divided the inheritance and are now individual owners who jointly pay (i.e., partners) → they pay kalbon, but they’re exempt from maaser behema (which requires personal ownership of the herd). When the inheritance is still undivided (estate-property, not partnership) → exempt from kalbon (no joint payment), but obligated in maaser behema (the estate’s animals are tithed). Mutually exclusive based on whether the partnership has been formed.
Key Terms:
- קָלְבּוֹן (kalbon) = Premium/surcharge — a small money-changer’s fee added to the half-shekel when partners pay jointly.
- מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה (maaser behema) = The tenth animal tithe; required of one’s personal herd of small/large livestock.
- אַחִין הַשּׁוּתָּפִין = “Brothers [who are] partners” — heirs who have divided and now jointly hold property.
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא (Whose Opinion Is the Temed Mishna?)
Our temed mishna fits neither R’ Yehuda nor the Chachamim of Maasrot 5:6 — they argue about a measure-for-measure case, where R’ Yehuda obligates by taste even unfermented, and Chachamim exempt even fermented (if no excess).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְתַמֵּד וְנָתַן מַיִם בַּמִּדָּה וּמָצָא כְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cross-references Maasrot 5:6: the case there is a temed-maker who measures the water before adding it to the grape residue, and when measuring the product gets exactly the same volume back (no extra liquid leached from the residue). The Chachamim there exempt — there’s no real wine substance, only flavored water. R’ Yehuda obligates — taste alone makes it wine. Now compare with our mishna: ours uses fermentation as the criterion, not excess volume. Neither tana of the parallel mishna seems to use fermentation as the dividing line. So whose view is our mishna?
Key Terms:
- הַמְתַמֵּד (ham’tamed) = One who prepares temed — pours water over grape residue.
- כְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ = “Same as his original measure” — the finished product’s volume matches the water he started with.
- מַעַשְׂרוֹת ה:ו = Maasrot 5:6 — the parallel mishna.
Segment 12
TYPE: מעבר (Sharpening the Question — Cliffhanger to 26a)
Sharpened: Chachamim would say the temed is exempt EVEN IF fermented (if measure-for-measure); R’ Yehuda would say obligated EVEN IF unfermented. Neither matches our mishna. Rav Naḥman b’ Rabba bar Avuh begins to answer — daf ends.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – אַף עַל גַּב דְּהֶחְמִיץ, אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הֶחְמִיץ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ:
English Translation:
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:
קלאוד על הדף:
The contradiction is sharpened: Chachamim measure obligation by substance (extra liquid from the grapes) — fermentation isn’t the issue. R’ Yehuda measures by taste — fermentation isn’t the issue either. Our mishna pivots entirely on fermentation. Whose view? Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabba bar Avuh is about to resolve — the daf ends mid-statement, with the answer reserved for 26a. Like several earlier dafim in this masechet (and in Bava Metzia), the redactor crafts a cliffhanger at the moment of resolution.
Key Terms:
- רַב נַחְמָן (Rav Naḥman) = Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov, leading Babylonian Amora.
- רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ = Rav Naḥman’s teacher; transmitter of many key rulings.