Chullin Daf 26 (חולין דף כ״ו)
Daf: 26 | Amudim: 26a – 26b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (26a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תשובת רב נחמן (Resolving Yesterday’s Cliffhanger)
Continuing 25b’s open question. Rav Naḥman b’ Rabba bar Avuh: the R’ Yehuda / Chachamim dispute is only about fermented temed. Pre-fermentation, all agree it’s water. Our mishna fits R’ Yehuda.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּשֶׁהֶחְמִיץ מַחְלוֹקֶת, וּמַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּשֶׁהֶחְמִיץ מַחְלוֹקֶת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by completing yesterday’s cliffhanger. Rav Naḥman b’ Rabba bar Avuh resolves the puzzle: the R’ Yehuda / Chachamim dispute is narrowly localized to fermented temed. Pre-fermentation, all agree it’s just water (no obligation). Post-fermentation, R’ Yehuda obligates by taste; the Chachamim require actual wine-substance. Our mishna that pivots on fermentation thus reflects R’ Yehuda. R’ Yose b’ R’ Ḥanina independently confirms this reading. Tomorrow’s segment 12 will show another Amora (R’ Elazar) read the dispute the opposite way — only about pre-fermentation.
Key Terms:
- רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ = Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov, citing his teacher Rabba bar Avuh — last surfaced at the close of 25b.
- רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא = Major third-generation Eretz-Yisrael Amora, often paralleling Babylonian rulings.
- בְּשֶׁהֶחְמִיץ מַחְלוֹקֶת = “The dispute is in [the case where it has] fermented” — Rav Naḥman’s localizing principle.
Segment 2
TYPE: דין נוסף (Retroactive Maaser-Status)
Rav Naḥman’s striking ruling: temed bought with maaser-sheni money pre-fermentation that later ferments — the maaser-status takes effect retroactively. Iggalei milta lemafrei’a — “the matter was revealed retroactively to be produce.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: תֶּמֶד שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וּלְבַסּוֹף הֶחְמִיץ – קָנָה מַעֲשֵׂר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ דְּפֵירָא הוּא.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second Rav Naḥman ruling: somebody buys unfermented temed with second-tithe money. At the time of purchase, the temed is “just water” — invalid for the purchase. But the temed later ferments. Now the maaser-status sticks retroactively — it turns out the substance was potential wine all along; the fermentation revealed its latent identity. The principle is אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ (“the matter was revealed retroactively”), a powerful Talmudic move that lets later facts redefine prior legal status. This will be challenged in segment 3.
Key Terms:
- כֶּסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר = Maaser sheni money — money set aside to be spent on food/drink in Jerusalem to fulfill the second-tithe obligation.
- קָנָה מַעֲשֵׂר = “It has acquired maaser-status” — the substance becomes consecrated and the money is desacralized.
- אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ = “The matter was revealed retroactively” — a later event clarifies an earlier identity.
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Rabba — the “Cup-Test” Reconciliation)
If retroactive-status applies, why does the mishna unequivocally distinguish fermented from unfermented? Maybe more time would ferment it! Rabba: the mishna’s case is where some was left in a cup as a control sample, and didn’t ferment.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי הֶחְמִיץ – אִין, לֹא הֶחְמִיץ – לָא, דִּלְמָא אִי שַׁבְקֵיהּ הֲוָה מַחְמִיץ! אָמַר רַבָּה: כְּשֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּכוֹס וְלֹא הֶחְמִיץ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge: if Rav Naḥman is right that fermentation reveals retroactive wine-status, the mishna’s binary “fermented = yes / not fermented = no” looks too crude. More time might ferment it! Rabba’s elegant solution introduces a control test: the mishna refers to a case where some of the temed was set aside in a separate cup as a monitoring sample. After enough time has passed, if the cup-sample didn’t ferment, we know the original was not potential wine — never had retroactive wine-status. Beautiful empirical procedure embedded in halacha.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיֵּיר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּכוֹס = “He set aside some in a cup” — the diagnostic control sample.
- רַבָּה (Rabba) = Babylonian Amora; teacher of Abaye; here resolves the tension between Rav Naḥman’s retroactive principle and the mishna’s binary phrasing.
Segment 4
TYPE: גירסה אחרת (Rava — Alternative Reading via R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri)
Rava: no need for the cup-test. Our mishna fits R’ Yochanan ben Nuri of Mikvaot 7:5, who holds הכל הולך אחר המראה (everything follows appearance). Pre-fermentation it looks like water → it IS water.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב, שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָן קוּרְטוֹב יַיִן, וּמַרְאֵיהֶן כְּמַרְאֵה יַיִן, וְנָפְלוּ לַמִּקְוֶה – לֹא פְּסָלוּהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava offers an alternative resolution. No cup-test needed; the mishna simply follows R’ Yochanan ben Nuri’s doctrine from Mikvaot 7:5: the halachic identity of a liquid is determined by its appearance. The Mikvaot mishna’s case-set: 3 log minus a kortov of water + 1 kortov of wine. By the chachamim, since less than 3 log of water fell, the mikveh is preserved. R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri: הכל הולך אחר המראה — the appearance of the mixture controls. So if it looks like wine, that’s its halachic status; if it looks like water, that’s its status. Rava applies this to temed: pre-fermentation it tastes and looks like water → really IS water → no maaser status (and no retroactive flip needed).
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי (R’ Yochanan ben Nuri) = Tanna; advocate of appearance-determines-identity in mikveh law.
- קוּרְטוֹב (kortov) = Tiny measure (1/64 of a log) — used in mikveh-law border-cases.
- מַרְאֶה (mareh) = Appearance — R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri’s controlling criterion.
Segment 5
TYPE: המשך (Mirror Case — Milk into Water)
The Mikvaot mishna’s reverse case: 3 log – 1 kortov of water + 1 kortov of milk. Looks like water. The Chachamim: the mikveh is fine. (R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri will dispute this in the next segment.)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב, שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָן קוּרְטוֹב חָלָב, וּמַרְאֵיהֶן כְּמַרְאֵה מַיִם, וְנָפְלוּ לַמִּקְוֶה – לֹא פְּסָלוּהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror image: 3 log – 1 kortov of water gets a 1-kortov milk infusion. Now the result looks like water (milk has rinsing-effect; the visual stays watery). The Chachamim’s substance-test: under 3 log of actual water → mikveh preserved. The setup is now ready for R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri’s competing principle in segment 6.
Key Terms:
- חָלָב (chalav) = Milk — used here as a non-water-substance contaminant.
- מַרְאֵיהֶן כְּמַרְאֵה מַיִם = “Their appearance is like that of water” — the visual fact about the diluted mixture.
Segment 6
TYPE: שיטת ר’ יוחנן בן נורי (Appearance-as-Identity Principle)
R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri’s contrarian principle: הכל הולך אחר המראה — everything follows the appearance. So if the milk-mixture LOOKS like water, it counts as water for the 3-log threshold.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמַּרְאֶה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Yochanan ben Nuri reverses the analytic priority. Forget the substance-count — what matters is המראה (the visual appearance). The milk-water mixture, looking like water, still triggers the 3-log threshold. By the same token: 3 log of water that has been wine-tinted gets the wine-status. Identity follows perception. This rare-and-bold principle is what Rava will now leverage to read our temed mishna.
Key Terms:
- הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמַּרְאֶה = “Everything follows the appearance” — R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri’s signature principle.
Segment 7
TYPE: יישום (Rava Applies the Principle to Temed)
Rava’s punch line: R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri says בתר חזותא אזלינן (we follow appearance). Apply that here: pre-fermentation temed looks and tastes like water → it IS water. Rav Naḥman, by contrast, sides with the Mikvaot first-tanna (substance over appearance) and uses retroactive-fermentation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בָּתַר חֲזוּתָא אָזְלִינַן? הָכָא נָמֵי זִיל בָּתַר חֲזוּתָא, וְטַעְמָא וַחֲזוּתָא דְּהַאי מַיָּא נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava completes his alternative reading: by R’ Yochanan b’ Nuri’s בתר חזותא אזלינן (we follow appearance), pre-fermentation temed — which both tastes and looks like water — IS water. So no maaser sheni, no retroactive flip needed; the mishna fits directly. Rav Naḥman’s position now becomes: he sides with the first tanna of Mikvaot 7:5 (substance-trumps-appearance), and to handle our mishna he must invoke iggalei milta lemafrei’a. The Amoraim are now mapped onto the underlying Tannaitic dispute.
Key Terms:
- בָּתַר חֲזוּתָא אָזְלִינַן = Aramaic version of halakh achar hamare — “we follow the appearance.”
- טַעְמָא וַחֲזוּתָא = “Taste and appearance” — Rava’s twin criteria for identity.
Segment 8
TYPE: שיטת ר’ אלעזר (R’ Elazar — Rival Reading)
R’ Elazar disagrees with Rav Naḥman: he reads the dispute as being about pre-fermentation, not post. R’ Yehuda obligates only the temed itself; mapping tithes from elsewhere requires fermentation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עָלָיו מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֶחְמִיץ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second Amora enters with a competing reading. R’ Elazar rules: even R’ Yehuda concedes that one cannot use external temed to separate tithes for this temed unless fermentation has occurred. Implication: R’ Elazar holds the dispute is in fact about pre-fermentation (where R’ Yehuda obligates by taste, but only for the temed itself, not for cross-mapping). Rav Naḥman and R’ Elazar thus stake out opposite scope-readings of the same Tannaic dispute. The Gemara now explains R’ Elazar’s logic.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר (R’ Elazar) = R’ Elazar ben Pedat, third-generation Eretz-Yisrael Amora.
- מַפְרִישִׁין עָלָיו מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר = “Separating tithes for it from elsewhere” — using produce from another batch to discharge the obligation on this batch.
- פְּלִיגָא (peliga) = “It disagrees” — formal indicator that two views are in genuine conflict.
Segment 9
TYPE: ביאור (R’ Elazar’s Reasoning)
R’ Elazar’s logic: R’ Yehuda obligates only mineih u’beih (from itself for itself). Cross-mapping risks separating from chayav-on-patur or vice versa, since some batches will ferment and some won’t.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָסָבַר בְּלֹא הֶחְמִיץ מַחְלוֹקֶת, וְעַד כָּאן לָא מְחַיֵּיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ, אֲבָל מֵעָלְמָא לָא, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי מִן הַחִיּוּב עַל הַפְּטוּר וּמִן הַפְּטוּר עַל הַחִיּוּב.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Elazar’s distinction: even per R’ Yehuda, the chayav-status of pre-fermented temed only applies מיניה וביה (within itself, from a sample to itself). Why limit it that narrowly? Because pre-fermentation, no one knows yet whether this batch will become wine and another batch will not. So if one separates one batch’s tithes for another, he risks: (a) using patur produce to discharge the obligation of chayav produce — invalid; or (b) the reverse, declaring valid produce as tithe-disposal for non-tithable. The risk of category-mixup is too real, so cross-batch tithing waits for actual fermentation to clarify status.
Key Terms:
- מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ (mineih u’beih) = “From it and within it” — using a sample of a batch to discharge the same batch’s obligation.
- חִיּוּב / פְּטוּר (chiyuv / petur) = Liable / Exempt categories — must not be cross-mixed in tithing.
Segment 10
TYPE: מעבר (Bridge to 26b — Impurity of Temed)
A new baraita opens about impurity of temed: pre-fermentation has different rules than post. The body of the baraita continues into 26b.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַתֶּמֶד עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִיץ –
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught: With regard to temed that became ritually impure, until it ferments,
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud closes mid-baraita. The new theme: impurity of temed (a tamei batch). The pre-fermentation / post-fermentation distinction will reappear, but now the practical question is can it be purified? — by hashaka, the technique of bringing impure liquid into contact with mikveh water. The answer continues onto 26b.
Key Terms:
- תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן (Tanu Rabbanan) = “The Sages taught” — the standard formula introducing a baraita.
- טוּמְאָה (tumah) = Ritual impurity — the topic shift from tithing to impurity-purification.
Amud Bet (26b)
Segment 1
TYPE: השלמת הברייתא (Completing the Hashaka Baraita)
Pre-fermentation: hashaka (contact with mikveh water) DOES purify the temed. Post-fermentation: doesn’t work. Rava: this only applies if the water was originally tahor and got tamei; tamei me’ikara (impure from the start) doesn’t work.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַשִּׁיקוֹ בַּמַּיִם, מִשֶּׁהֶחְמִיץ – אֵין מַשִּׁיקוֹ בְּמַיִם. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁתִּמְּדוֹ בְּמַיִם טְהוֹרִים וְנִטְמְאוּ, אֲבָל טְמֵאִים מֵעִיקָּרָא – לָא.
English Translation:
one brings the temed into contact with water of a ritual bath by immersing the vessel holding the temed in a ritual bath, thereby purifying the temed. Once it ferments, he does not bring it into contact with water, as that is effective only in purifying water and not in purifying other liquids. Rava said: The Sages taught this only with regard to a case where one prepared temed with ritually pure water and it later became impure, but if the water was impure from the outset, the contact with the ritual bath would not purify it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues: pre-fermentation, the temed is still legally water → it can be purified by hashaka (immersing the holding-vessel in a mikveh so that the inside-water touches the mikveh water). Post-fermentation, it’s wine → hashaka doesn’t work. Rava sharpens: even pre-fermentation, hashaka only works if the water was originally pure and got contaminated after the temed-mixing. If the water was already tamei before mixing, hashaka fails. The reasoning will be explained in segment 3.
Key Terms:
- מַשִּׁיקוֹ בַּמַּיִם (mashiko ba-mayim) = “Bringing it into contact with [mikveh] water” — the hashaka purification technique.
- טְמֵאִים מֵעִיקָּרָא = “Tamei from the start/outset” — water already impure before being used to make temed.
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא (Rav Geviha to Rav Ashi)
Rav Geviha pushes back: the rationale for excluding tamei me’ikara — water settles below, residue floats above, hashaka can’t reach the water — should equally apply to tahor and later got tamei. Why distinguish?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲזַל רַב גְּבִיהָה מִבֵּי כְתִיל, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, מַאי שְׁנָא טְמֵאִין מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּלָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אַיְּידֵי דְּמַיָּא יַקִּירִי שׇׁכְנִי תַּתַּאי, וּפֵירָא קָפֵי מִלְּעֵיל, וְלָא קָא סָלְקָא לְהוּ הַשָּׁקָה לְמַיָּא. אִי הָכִי, טְהוֹרִים וּלְבַסּוֹף נִטְמְאוּ נָמֵי.
English Translation:
Rav Geviha from Bei Katil went and stated this halakha before Rav Ashi and asked: What is different in the case of water that is impure from the outset such that bringing the temed into contact with the ritual bath would not purify it, as we say: Since the water is heavy it settles at the bottom of the vessel, and the fruit, the grape residue, floats above, and therefore, contact with the water of the ritual bath would not be effective for the water of the temed? If so, the same would apply in the case of water that was ritually pure and ultimately became impure as temed also.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Geviha of Bei Katil brings Rava’s halacha to Rav Ashi with a sharp question. He proposes a physical-mechanical explanation for tamei me’ikara: in the temed-vessel, water settles to the bottom (heavier) and the grape-residue floats on top. So when the vessel is dipped into a mikveh, the mikveh water can only reach the residue-layer at the surface; it cannot connect to the impure water buried below the residue. Hashaka fails. But — Rav Geviha presses — this same physical fact applies to tahor-then-tamei too! The water settles in both cases. So why does Rava distinguish?
Key Terms:
- רַב גְּבִיהָה מִבֵּי כְתִיל = Rav Geviha of Bei Katil — Babylonian Amora-disciple who brings questions to Rav Ashi.
- שׇׁכְנִי תַּתַּאי / קָפֵי מִלְּעֵיל = “Settle below / float above” — the proposed physical model.
- הַשָּׁקָה = Hashaka — direct contact between two pools of water; the purification mechanism.
Segment 3
TYPE: דחיה (Rejection — Mevulbuli)
The settling-and-floating model is wrong. מבלבלי — the water and residue are intermingled, not stratified. So hashaka should work in both cases. (The implicit consequence: Rava’s distinction may need a different rationale, or be reconsidered.)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, מְבַלְבְּלִי; הָכָא נָמֵי – מְבַלְבְּלִי.
English Translation:
Rather, the reason contact is effective in the case of ritually pure water that later became impure as temed is that the water and the residue are intermingled. Here too, in the case of water that was impure from the outset, the water and the residue are intermingled, and contact with the water of a ritual bath would be effective.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the stratification model. מְבַלְבְּלִי — the water and the grape-residue are intermingled, not in distinct layers. So hashaka can reach the water-component throughout the vessel. The same is true in tamei me’ikara — the ingredients are mixed together. The Gemara’s implicit move undermines Rava’s strict distinction: if both cases involve intermingled water, both should be amenable to hashaka. The temed-impurity sugya closes here, leaving Rava’s distinction questionable as a matter of explicit rationale even while preserving the operative ruling.
Key Terms:
- מְבַלְבְּלִי (mevulbuli) = “Intermingled / mixed-up” — the water and residue are blended throughout, not stratified.
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה (New Mishna — Mecher vs. Kenas)
A chiastic mishna: where there is mecher (sale of a minor daughter), there is no kenas (the 50-sela fine for rape/seduction). And vice versa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶכֶר, אֵין קְנָס, וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְנָס, אֵין מֶכֶר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Any situation where there is sale of one’s daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, i.e., when she is a minor, there is no fine of fifty sela paid to her father if she is raped or seduced, as that fine is paid to her father only when she is a young woman. And any situation where there is a fine paid to the father there is no sale.
קלאוד על הדף:
The chiastic mishna pivots on the daughter’s age: mecher (sale of a daughter as an amah ivriyah — Hebrew maidservant — Shemot 21:7) is permitted only while she is a ketana (minor). Kenas (the 50-sela fine paid to the father for seduction or rape — Devarim 22:29) applies only when she is a na’arah (young woman, post-puberty). The two life-stages are exclusive: ketana = mecher (no kenas); na’arah = kenas (no mecher). The mishna posits this complete exclusion — but the Gemara will show this is R’ Meir’s view; the Chachamim disagree.
Key Terms:
- מֶכֶר (mecher) = Sale of a daughter as Hebrew maidservant (Shemot 21:7); permitted only for a ketana (minor under 12).
- קְנָס (kenas) = The 50-sela fine paid to the father for seduction/rape of a na’arah betulah (Devarim 22:29).
- קְטַנָּה / נַעֲרָה / בּוֹגֶרֶת = Minor / Young Woman / Mature Woman — the three Talmudic stages of female legal age.
Segment 5
TYPE: זיהוי השיטה (Identifying the Mishna’s Tana)
Rav Yehuda in Rav’s name: this mishna is R’ Meir. The Chachamim hold that kenas DOES exist alongside mecher. Baraita lays out R’ Meir’s age-stages: 1 day → puberty (mecher only); puberty → bagrut (kenas only).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אָמְרוּ: יֵשׁ קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת יוֹם אֶחָד עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת – יֵשׁ לָהּ מֶכֶר וְאֵין לָהּ קְנָס, מִשֶּׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁתִּיבְגַּר – יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶכֶר – אֵין קְנָס, וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְנָס – אֵין מֶכֶר.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis said: There is the possibility of payment of a fine in a situation where there is sale, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor girl from the age of one day old until she reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs is subject to sale, but is not entitled to receive payment of a fine. Once she reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs, from that point until she matures into a grown woman she is entitled to receive payment of a fine, but is not subject to sale. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state a principle: Any situation where there is a sale, there is no fine; and any situation where there is a fine, there is no sale.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav identifies the mishna as R’ Meir’s view. The Chachamim disagree: there is kenas-eligibility even during the mecher-period. The baraita encodes R’ Meir’s strict separation: from age 1 day until two pubic hairs (puberty) — only mecher; from two hairs until bagrut (full maturity) — only kenas. Strict mutual exclusion. The Chachamim will collapse the latter sliver into a kenas-and-mecher overlap.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת = “Two [pubic] hairs” — the Tannaitic marker of puberty (post-12 + 1 day).
- בּוֹגֶרֶת (bogeret) = Mature woman — six months after puberty, full halachic adulthood.
- רַבִּי מֵאִיר (R’ Meir) = Tanna; known for asserting categorical exclusionary principles like the one quoted here.
Segment 6
TYPE: שיטת חכמים (Chachamim — Earlier Kenas-Eligibility)
The Chachamim: kenas-eligibility starts at 3 years + 1 day, lasting until bagrut. So kenas overlaps with mecher in the long ketana-period.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד עַד שֶׁתִּיבְגַּר – יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis say: A minor girl from the age of three years and one day until she matures into a grown woman is entitled to receive payment of a fine.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Chachamim’s contrasting age-line. Kenas-eligibility begins not at puberty but at 3 years + 1 day — the age at which a girl is halachically capable of valid betrothal. Eligibility runs all the way to bagrut. This implies a long overlap with mecher (which runs until puberty). So the Chachamim explicitly reject R’ Meir’s exclusion-rule: a minor girl is both mecher-eligible AND kenas-eligible during the broad span 3-years-and-a-day to puberty.
Key Terms:
- שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד = “Three years and one day” — the Talmudic age at which betrothal-capacity begins for a girl, hence kenas-relevance.
Segment 7
TYPE: דיוק ותיקון (Reading the Chachamim Properly)
Doesn’t the phrase “kenas — yes” imply mecher — no? Resolution: the Chachamim mean even kenas alongside mecher — the two overlap during the ketana period.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קְנָס – אִין, מֶכֶר – לָא? אֵימָא: אַף קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that yes, she is entitled to payment of a fine, but she is not subject to sale? Isn’t her father permitted to sell her during most of that period? The Gemara answers: Say that the Rabbis said: She is also entitled to receive payment of a fine during that period in a situation where she is subject to sale.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the Chachamim’s wording. Saying “kenas-eligible” might be misread as “kenas-eligible, but not mecher-eligible.” That can’t be right — clearly a 3-year-old can still be sold. So restate: the Chachamim mean אַף קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר — “also kenas in the place of mecher.” Both apply simultaneously. R’ Meir’s exclusion-principle is rejected.
Key Terms:
- אַף קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר = “Also kenas in the place of mecher” — the Chachamim’s overlap-rule.
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה (New Mishna — Mei’un vs. Chalitza)
Another chiastic mishna: where there is mei’un (right-of-refusal of a minor’s marriage), there is no chalitza; and vice versa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵיאוּן – אֵין חֲלִיצָה, וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ חֲלִיצָה – אֵין מֵיאוּן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Any situation where there is the right of refusal for a minor girl married by her mother or brothers, enabling her to opt out of the marriage, there is no ḥalitza, as a minor girl whose husband died without children cannot perform ḥalitza. And any situation where there is ḥalitza, once she has reached majority, there is no right of refusal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another chiasm. מיאון (mei’un — refusal): a minor girl married off by her mother/brothers (after her father’s death) can opt out of the marriage by simply declaring “I don’t want him” — no get needed. חליצה (chalitza): if her adult husband dies without children, she must do the shoe-removal ceremony with his brother to be released from yibum. The mishna: ketana = mei’un (no chalitza, since chalitza requires legal adulthood); na’arah/bogeret = chalitza (no mei’un). Mutually exclusive. The Gemara will again identify this as R’ Meir’s view.
Key Terms:
- מֵיאוּן (mei’un) = “Refusal” — a minor’s escape mechanism from a rabbinic-level marriage; doesn’t require a get.
- חֲלִיצָה (chalitza) = “Removal” — the ceremony of removing the brother-in-law’s shoe (Devarim 25:9), releasing a childless widow from yibum.
- יִבּוּם (yibum) = Levirate marriage — the brother of a man who died without children may marry the widow (Devarim 25:5).
Segment 9
TYPE: זיהוי השיטה (Same Move — R’ Meir’s Chiastic Rule)
Rav Yehuda in Rav’s name: this mishna is also R’ Meir. The Chachamim (R’ Yehuda’s view in the baraita) extend mei’un beyond two-hair puberty to shachor merubeh al ha-lavan, overlapping with chalitza-eligibility.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ מֵיאוּן בִּמְקוֹם חֲלִיצָה, דְּתַנְיָא: עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת? עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר עַל הַלָּבָן.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: There is the right of refusal in a situation where there is ḥalitza, as it is taught in a baraita: Until when may a girl refuse? She may do so as long as she is a minor, until she grows two pubic hairs, which are signs of puberty rendering her a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: She may refuse until the black hairs in the pubic area appear to cover an area greater than the white skin of the area uncovered by hair. At that stage, she is already eligible to perform the rite of ḥalitza. That is the opinion of the Rabbis.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same Rav-Yehuda-quoting-Rav identification. R’ Meir — mei’un ends precisely at puberty (two hairs); no overlap. R’ Yehuda in the baraita (representing Chachamim): mei’un extends until שיירבה השחור על הלבן — the black pubic hairs predominate over the bald skin (a more advanced developmental stage). During the gap between two-hairs and shachor-rabba, she is eligible for both mei’un and chalitza — overlap. Once again R’ Meir’s “either/or” rule fails the Chachamim’s test.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר עַל הַלָּבָן = “When the black [hair] becomes greater than the white [bare skin]” — a later developmental marker than two-hair puberty.
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה (New Mishna — Tekia vs. Havdala)
A third chiasm: where there is tekia (shofar blast on erev-Shabbat/yom-tov), there is no havdala; and vice versa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ תְּקִיעָה – אֵין הַבְדָּלָה, וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ הַבְדָּלָה – אֵין תְּקִיעָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Any situation where there is a shofar blast sounded on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival to stop the people from performing labor and to demarcate between the sacred and the profane, there is no havdala recited at the conclusion of the Shabbat or Festival in prayer and over a cup of wine. And any situation where there is havdala recited, there is no shofar blast sounded.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third structural chiasm to close the perek. תקיעה (tekia) — the pre-Shabbat-or-yom-tov shofar blasts that stopped weekday labor and marked the day’s onset (six different blasts in the Mishnaic period — see Sukkah 53b). הבדלה (havdala) — the formal blessing distinguishing kodesh from chol at the end of the holy day. The mishna: where there’s a tekia (signaling onset of holiness), no havdala (since havdala marks exit); where there’s havdala, no tekia. The two are temporally and structurally complementary — the bookends of a sacred period.
Key Terms:
- תְּקִיעָה (tekia) = Shofar blast sounded before Shabbat/yom-tov to stop labor and mark the transition into kedusha.
- הַבְדָּלָה (havdala) = The closing blessing at the conclusion of Shabbat/yom-tov, distinguishing sacred from profane.
Segment 11
TYPE: דוגמאות (Two Test-Cases — Yom Tov + Shabbat Configurations)
Yom-tov on erev-Shabbat: tekia, no havdala (entering greater holiness). Yom-tov on motzaei-Shabbat: havdala, no tekia (descending from greater to lesser holiness).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת – תּוֹקְעִין, וְלֹא מַבְדִּילִין; בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת – מַבְדִּילִין, וְלֹא תּוֹקְעִין.
English Translation:
How so? On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one sounds the shofar to stop the people from performing labor that is permitted on the Festival and prohibited on Shabbat and to demarcate between one sacred day and another; and one does not recite havdala, as that is recited only when the transition is from a sacred day to a profane day or from a day of greater sanctity to a day of lesser sanctity. The sanctity of Shabbat is greater than the sanctity of the Festival, and therefore havdala is not recited in this case. On a Festival that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat, one recites havdala, but one does not sound the shofar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna gives two paradigmatic cases. Yom-tov falling on erev-Shabbat (Friday): we blow the tekia (to stop yom-tov-permitted labor before Shabbat begins) but don’t say havdala (going up in kedusha doesn’t trigger havdala). Yom-tov immediately after Shabbat (Sunday): we do say havdala (descending from Shabbat’s greater kedusha to yom-tov’s lesser kedusha) but no tekia (yom-tov is already in progress). The principle: tekia for the entry to a sacred period; havdala for the transition from greater to lesser sanctity (or to chol).
Key Terms:
- יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת = A festival falling on a Friday — the upward-in-kedusha case.
- בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת = “At the conclusion of Shabbat” — the downward-in-kedusha case (Shabbat → yom-tov).
Segment 12
TYPE: נוסח (Havdala Formula at Shabbat → Yom Tov)
The havdala formula in the Shabbat-to-yom-tov case: “המבדיל בין קודש לקודש” (sacred-to-sacred). R’ Dosa: rather, “בין קודש חמור לקודש הקל” (greater-sacred to lesser-sacred).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד מַבְדִּילִין? “הַמַּבְדִּיל בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לְקוֹדֶשׁ”. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: “בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ חָמוּר לְקוֹדֶשׁ הַקַּל”.
English Translation:
How does one recite havdala in that case; i.e., what is the formula of the blessing? It concludes: Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred, as opposed to the standard blessing at the conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane. Rabbi Dosa says that the formula is: Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna provides the formula for the unusual havdala that runs from Shabbat into yom-tov (not into chol). The standard formula is bein kodesh le-chol (sacred-to-profane); for Shabbat → yom-tov, one says בין קודש לקודש (sacred-to-sacred). R’ Dosa wants more precision: not just sacred-to-sacred, but between greater sacred and lesser sacred — pointing to the directional drop in kedusha. This becomes a contested formula. Halacha will not follow R’ Dosa.
Key Terms:
- בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לְקוֹדֶשׁ = “Between sacred and sacred” — the standard mishnaic formula.
- רַבִּי דּוֹסָא (R’ Dosa) = R’ Dosa b’ Hyrkanos, Tanna, son-in-law of R’ Yochanan b’ Zakkai’s circle.
Segment 13
TYPE: דין שופר (How to Blow the Yom-Tov-Erev-Shabbat Tekia)
How does the Friday-yom-tov tekia differ from the standard pre-Shabbat blast? Rav Yehuda: tekia + terua מתוך תקיעה (terua emerges from within the tekia). Rav Asi: both in one breath. Rav Asi instituted his practice in Huzal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי תּוֹקֵעַ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: תּוֹקֵעַ וּמֵרִיעַ מִתּוֹךְ תְּקִיעָה, וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: תּוֹקֵעַ וּמֵרִיעַ בִּנְשִׁימָה אַחַת. אַתְקֵין רַב אַסִּי בְּהוּצָל כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How does one sound a tekia on a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, when the difference between the sanctity of the preceding day and the sanctity of the coming day is not as pronounced as it is on a standard Shabbat eve? Rav Yehuda said: One sounds a tekia, i.e., a long continuous shofar blast, and sounds a terua, i.e., a staccato series of shofar blasts, from the midst of the tekia. And Rav Asi said: One does not sound a continuous blast; rather, he sounds a tekia and then sounds a terua in one breath. Rav Asi instituted the practice in the city of Huzal in accordance with his halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical question: when yom-tov is on Friday, the transition into Shabbat is less abrupt than usual (yom-tov was already a sacred day). The standard pre-Shabbat blast had multiple distinct shofar sounds; a softer transition needs a softer pattern. Rav Yehuda: blow a tekia (long sustained note) and sound a terua (broken staccato series) m’toch tekia — the terua emerges from within the tekia, not as a separate blast. Rav Asi: tekia and terua, but with no breath in between. Rav Asi institutionalized his version in Huzal (a Babylonian town).
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּעָה (terua) = Broken/staccato shofar pattern — contrasted with the sustained tekia.
- מִתּוֹךְ תְּקִיעָה = “From within a tekia” — the terua proceeds without a break in the tekia.
- בִּנְשִׁימָה אַחַת = “In one breath” — Rav Asi’s variant, two distinct sounds without a breath-pause.
- הוּצָל (Huzal) = Babylonian town where Rav Asi’s pesak was made local custom.
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Both Read the Baraita Their Way)
A baraita: “tekia, no terua.” Each Amora reads the baraita to fit his view: Rav Yehuda — no separate terua (only m’toch tekia). Rav Asi — no two-breath terua (only one-breath).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, תּוֹקְעִין וְלֹא מְרִיעִין. מַאי לָאו לֹא מְרִיעִין כְּלָל? לָא, רַב יְהוּדָה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרַב אַסִּי מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. רַב יְהוּדָה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: לָא מְרִיעִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ תְּקִיעָה. וְרַב אַסִּי מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: לָא מְרִיעִין בִּשְׁתֵּי נְשִׁימוֹת, אֶלָּא בִּנְשִׁימָה אַחַת.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the statements of Rav Yehuda and Rav Asi from a baraita: On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one sounds a tekia but does not sound a terua. What, is it not that one does not sound a terua at all? The Gemara answers: No, rather, Rav Yehuda explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning and Rav Asi explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Rav Yehuda explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning: One does not sound a distinct terua; rather, he sounds the terua that emerges from the midst of the tekia. And Rav Asi explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning: One does not sound the tekia and the terua in two breaths; rather, he sounds them in one breath.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita seems to threaten both: “yom-tov on erev-Shabbat, tekia but no terua at all.” If literal, both Amoraim are wrong. The Gemara harmonizes: each Amora reads the baraita’s “no terua” through his own lens. Rav Yehuda: “no terua as a stand-alone blast” — but a terua-from-within-a-tekia is sounded. Rav Asi: “no terua in two breaths” — but a one-breath terua is sounded. The “מתרץ לטעמיה” formula preserves both halachic positions while accommodating the baraita.
Key Terms:
- מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ = “Resolves [the difficulty] consistently with his own reasoning” — each Amora reads the baraita to fit his pre-existing position.
Segment 15
TYPE: דין הברכה (Where Goes the “Bein Kodesh L’Kodesh”?)
Where in the havdala blessing does one say “bein kodesh l’kodesh”? Rav Yehuda + Rav Naḥman: only at the chatima (concluding seal of the blessing). The body of the blessing keeps the standard “bein kodesh l’chol” formulation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת כּוּ׳. הֵיכָא אָמַר לַהּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בַּחֲתִימָתָהּ, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בַּחֲתִימָתָהּ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states that on a Festival that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat one recites havdala, and that the Sages disagreed as to the formula of that blessing. The Gemara asks: Where does one recite the formula in question? Rav Yehuda said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing. But in the body of the blessing one recites the same formula as in every conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, between light and darkness, etc. And likewise, Rav Naḥman said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing.
קלאוד על הדף:
Where in the havdala blessing does the special “bein kodesh l’kodesh” appear? Rav Yehuda and Rav Naḥman agree: only at the חתימה (the closing seal of the blessing — “ברוך אתה ה’ המבדיל בין קודש לקודש”). The body of the blessing keeps the standard formulations (bein kodesh l’chol, bein or l’choshech, etc.). This preserves the standard liturgical structure with only the seal modified.
Key Terms:
- חֲתִימָה (chatima) = The seal/closing line of a blessing — “ברוך אתה ה’…” — distinguished from the body.
- פְּתִיחָה (peticha) = The opening of a blessing — disputed in next segment.
Segment 16
TYPE: דעה אחרת (Rav Sheshet b’ Rav Idi — Halacha Rejected)
Rav Sheshet b’ Rav Idi: also at the opening (peticha) — not just the seal. Halacha is NOT like him: only at the chatima.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: אַף בִּפְתִיחָתָהּ, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.
English Translation:
And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: One recites that formula even at the beginning, in the body of the blessing, instead of the formula: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet b’ Rav Idi wants the special formula even in the body of the blessing — replacing “bein kodesh l’chol” with “bein kodesh l’kodesh” throughout. The Gemara firmly notes: לית הלכתא כוותיה — the halacha is not like him. So only at the chatima. This is a clean Gemaric pesak.
Key Terms:
- רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי = Rav Sheshet b’ Rav Idi — Babylonian Amora; same Idi we encountered in BM 8b on moseira-etymology.
- לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = “The halacha is not like him” — explicit pesak.
Segment 17
TYPE: פסק (R’ Dosa’s Formula Also Rejected)
R’ Dosa (from segment 12): “bein kodesh chamur l’kodesh hakal.” Halacha is NOT like him. The standard formula “bein kodesh l’kodesh” stands.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: “בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ חָמוּר לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקַּל”, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: Rabbi Dosa says that the formula is: Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second pesak. R’ Dosa’s more-precise formula (“bein kodesh chamur l’kodesh hakal”) is rejected. The accepted formula remains the simpler בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ לְקֹדֶשׁ without the explicit ranking. (The next segment will quote R’ Zeira on what to do at the close of yom-tov during the week.)
Key Terms:
- לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = “The halacha is not like him” — twice in two segments.
Segment 18
TYPE: דין מסכם (R’ Zeira — Yom Tov Mid-Week Havdala)
R’ Zeira: at motzaei yom-tov falling mid-week, one says the FULL standard havdala — including “bein yom hashvi’i l’sheishet yemei hama’aseh” — even though this isn’t Shabbat. Reason: he’s enumerating the standard seder havdalot.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּאֶמְצַע שַׁבָּת, אוֹמֵר “הַמַּבְדִּיל בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ לְחוֹל וּבֵין אוֹר לְחֹשֶׁךְ וּבֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל לַגּוֹיִם וּבֵין יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי לְשֵׁשֶׁת יְמֵי הַמַּעֲשֶׂה”, מַאי טַעְמָא? סֵדֶר הַבְדָּלוֹת הוּא מוֹנֶה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said: At the conclusion of a Festival that occurs in the middle of the week, one recites: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, and between light and darkness, and between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of labor, even though it is not Shabbat. What is the reason for that practice? He is enumerating the series of distinctions that the Sages instituted and not specifically the distinction unique to that particular day.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Zeira addresses motzaei-yom-tov that falls mid-week (no Shabbat involved). One might think: only mention “bein kodesh l’chol” — the seventh-day phrase doesn’t apply. R’ Zeira: no, recite the full standard havdala formula including “between the seventh day and the six days of work.” Why? סדר הבדלות הוא מונה — he is enumerating the [standard] order of havdalot (the four-fold litany the Sages instituted), not making case-specific assertions about the particular day. The formula has its own integrity as a liturgical sequence.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי זֵירָא (R’ Zeira) = R’ Zeira, third-generation Babylonian-then-Eretz-Yisrael Amora; frequent contributor to liturgical-halacha.
- סֵדֶר הַבְדָּלוֹת = “Order of havdalot” — the formal liturgical sequence enumerating four distinctions.
- בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לַגּוֹיִם = “Between Israel and the nations” — one of the standard havdala-distinctions.
Segment 19
TYPE: הדרן (Closing of Perek 1 — HaKol Shochatin)
The traditional closing formula: “Hadran alach HaKol Shochatin” — “We will return to you, ‘Everyone Slaughters.’” Marks the end of the masechet’s first chapter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין.
English Translation:
We will return to you, “HaKol Shochatin” (Everyone slaughters) — the closing hadran formula marking the end of Perek 1.
קלאוד על הדף:
The classical הדרן formula closes Chullin’s first perek (HaKol Shochatin). The phrase means “we will return to you” — a learner’s promise to come back to study these laws again. The perek opened with the radical democratic statement that all are fit to slaughter (excluding only the cheresh, shoteh, and katan), and traveled an unexpectedly wide arc: shechita’s eligible actors, the four-fold structure of the chiastic mishnayot (kli cheres airspace, golmei wood/metal, bitter/sweet almonds, temed, mecher/kenas, mei’un/chalitza, tekia/havdala). The chiastic structure of the closing mishnayot — each phrased as “wherever there is X, no Y” — is a meditation on halachic categories that mutually exclude each other. The next perek opens the laws of how slaughter is performed. Hadran alach HaKol Shochatin v’hadrach alan, da’atan alach v’da’atach alan: lo nitnashei minach v’lo titnashei minan, lo b’olam hazeh v’lo b’olam haba.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alach) = “We will return to you” — Aramaic; the traditional sign-off of every Talmudic perek.
- הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין (HaKol Shochatin) = “Everyone slaughters” — the perek’s opening words, used as its name.
- פֶּרֶק (perek) = Chapter — the standard division of a Talmudic masechet into thematic units.