ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 26
CHULIN 26 - This Daf has been sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom Kelman of
Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with long years filled with
Torah, Chidushei Torah, and Nachas!
(a) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah ruled that if Temed that one purchased
with Ma'aser Sheini money, which had not yet fermented, but which fermented
afterwards - the Ma'aser money acquires it, because it must have already
been wine at the time of the sale (even though it was not yet discernible)
Rava establishes our Mishnah (even in a case where the seller did not retain
some of the juice) like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah in Mikva'os,
who holds - that wine that looks like water - is considered water (provided
it tastes like water too [see Tosfos DH ] ve'Ta'ama']).
(b) ... and the seller is permitted to use the money outside Yerushalayim.
(c) We ask on this from our Mishnah 'ha'Temed ad she'Lo Hichmitz, Eino
Nikach be'Kesef Ma'aser - implying that the sale is not valid and the money
remains Kadosh in the hands of the seller.
(d) Rabah therefore establishes the Mishnah - when the seller retained some
of the juice, and was later able to ascertain that it did not subsequently
(a) The Mishnah in Mikva'os validates a Mikvah into which exactly three
Lugin of water including a Kortov (a tiny measure) of wine, causing the
water to look like wine - because the three Lugin lacked a Kortov to begin
with, and what's more, the three Lugin looked like wine.
(b) Had the three Lugin of water not lacked a Kortov to begin with - the
Mikvah would have been Pasul, because in spite of the appearance of wine,
three Lugin of water fell into the Mikvah.
(c) The Tana then goes on to validate the Mikvah, even if it was a Kortov of
milk that fell into the water, and the water retained its appearance -
because it was not a full three Lugin of water that fell into the Mikvah,
but three Lugin minus a Kortov, and the same would apply if it was a Kortov
of wine and not milk, that fell into the three Lugin of water.
(d) And the reason that the Tana switches from wine in the Reisha to milk in
the Seifa is - because had wine fallen into the water, the water would
probably not have retained its appearance (as we saw in the Reisha).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah in Mikva'os states 'ha'Kol Holech
Achar ha'Mareh' ('it all depends on the appearance of the water').
(b) He disagrees with the Tana Kama ...
1. ... in the Reisha - inasmuch as *he* would have validated the Mikvah even
if the three Lugin into which the wine fell had not lacked a Kortov.
(c) Rav Nachman (who goes after what it is going to be and not what it is
now) holds - like the Chachamim of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri.
2. ... in the Seifa (in the case of milk) - inasmuch as he would have
invalidated the Mikvah, because in his opinion, the appearance always
determines its status (unless it has a different taste, as we explained
(a) Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah (who
establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan by where
the Temed fermented). He rules - that one is not permitted to separate from
one batch of Temed on to another, unless they have both fermented.
(b) He is speaking according to both Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim.
(c) The reason that he forbids it is because - if one of them subsequently
ferments and the other does not, he will have separated from Chiyuv on to
P'tur, or vice-versa, and he will subsequently be eating Tevel.
(a) And Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rav Nachman, inasmuch as in his
opinion - the Rabbanan agree that once the Temed has fermented, it is
(b) And they argue with Rebbi Yehudah, according to him, in a case - where
the Temed has not yet fermented.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah - obligates separating Ma'asros, but only from the actual
batch itself, not from another batch (as we explained earlier).
(a) We learned in a Beraisa that before Temed ferments, it can become Tahor
in a Mikvah - which entails lowering the vessel containing the water into
the Mikvah until the two waters 'kiss', and it works to be Mevatel the drawn
water to the Mikvah, like Tamei Terumah that one planted in the ground.
(b) Wine is not subject to Hashakah - because a. food is not subject to
Tevilah, and b. it cannot become Bateil to the Mikvah, since it is still
(c) The Beraisa therefore rules that Tamei Temed can become Tahor through
Hashakah, as long as it has not yet fermented (and therefore has a Din of
water). Once it has, it turns into wine, and is no longer subject to
Hashakah, as we explained earlier.
(a) Rava qualified the Mishnah's first ruling - by confining it to where the
juice became Tamei after it became Temed, but if it was initially Tamei,
Hashakah will not work, even before the Temed has fermented?
(b) Rav Gevihah from Bei Kasil queried Rava's distinction - because he could
not see why there should be a difference.
(c) He suggested that Temei'im Me'ikara might remain Tamei even after
Hashakah - because water being heavier than grape-pits, the former would
float to the top, thereby preventing the water of the Temed from touching
the water in the Mikveh ...
(d) ... but then the same S'vara would apply even if it became Tamei
afterwards ('Tehorim Ve'nitme'u'). Consequently, he concludes - that in
spite of the pits, the two waters mix, irrespective of whether the water was
Tamei initially or whether it became Tamei only afterwards.
(a) When the Tana says 'Kol Makom she'Yesh ...
1. ... Mecher Ein K'nas', he means - that whereas a Ketanah can be sold, her
father does not receive K'nas.
(b) The K'nas is - levied on the man who either seduced or raped her.
2. ... K'nas Ein Mecher', he means that - whereas a the father of a Na'arah
receives K'nas, she cannot be sold.
(c) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, the Reisha of the Mishnah goes like
Rebbi Meir. According to the Chachamim - the father of a Ketanah receives
(d) When the Chachamim say in the Beraisa quoted by Rav Yehudah 'Ketanah
mi'bas Shalosh Shanim ve'Yom Echad ad she'Tibager Yesh Lah K'nas', they
mean - 'Af K'nas' (also K'nas, but certainly Mecher, because nobody argues
with the fact that a Ketanah can be sold).
(a) The reason for Rebbi Meir's first statement ('Kol Makom she'Yesh Mecher
Ein K'nas') is based on the fact that the Torah writes "Na'arah" in
connection with K'nas. The Rabbanan counter this however - with the fact
that "Na'arah" is written minus a 'Hey', and wherever the Torah writes
"Na'arah" in this way, it incorporates a Ketanah.
(b) The reason for his second statement ('Kol Makom she'Yesh K'nas Ein
Mecher') is - because if a girl leaves her master's service when she turns
twelve, it is obvious that she cannot be sold then.
(c) And the reason that there is there no K'nas below the age of three is -
because at that stage, her Bi'ah is not considered Bi'ah.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that wherever there is Miy'un, there is no
Chalitzah, and vice-versa. Miy'un, applies (exclusively) to a girl under
twelve, whose father had died, and who was married off by her mother or
brother, is her right to walk out of the marriage at any time.
(b) The Tana therefore means - that whereas Miy'un can be performed only by
a Ketanah, Chalitzah can be performed only by a Gedolah.
(c) We know that a Ketanah is not eligible to perform Chalitzah - from the
equivalent Din by the Yavam, where the Torah writes "Ish", and to whom the
Yevamah is compared.
(d) Once again, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi
Meir, who, in a Beraisa, confines Miy'un to a Ketanah up to the time that
she grows two pubic hairs). Rebbi Yehudah however, disagrees. In his
opinion - she can still perform Miy'un until the Makom Ervah is covered with
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Kol Makom she'Yesh Teki'ah Ein Havdalah'.
1. The Shofar is blown - on Erev Shabbos close to Bein-ha'Shemashos, in
order to remind the people to stop working.
(b) We are faced with the dilemma whether to recite Havdalah or to blow the
Shofar - when Yom-Tov falls on Erev Shabbos or on Motza'ei Shabbos.
2. We recite Havdalah on Motza'ei Shabbos and on Motza'ei Yom-Tov, both
during the Amidah and over a cup of wine after Davenning.
(c) We rule that in a case where Yom-Tov falls ...
1. ... on Friday, we blow the Shofar - to remind people to stop cooking and
performing the other Melachos that are permitted on Yom-Tov. But we do not
recite Havdalah - because the Kedushah of Shabbos is greater than that of
(d) According to the Tana Kama, in the latter case, we recite 'ha'Mavdil
bein Kodesh le'Kodesh'. Rebbi Dosa maintains - 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh
Chamur le'Kodesh ha'Kal'.
2. ... on Sunday, we recite Havdalah - because the Kedushah of Yom-Tov is
less than that of Shabbos. But do not blow Shofar - because there is no
Melachah that becomes forbidden on Yom-Tov that was permitted on Shabbos.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, when Yom-Tov falls on Friday, one blows the
Teru'ah directly from the Teki'ah (without making a break between them);
whereas according to Rav Asi - one blows them in one breath (instead of the
(b) Either way, this is necessary - because the Shinuy (change from the
norm) reminds us that the difference between the two days is not as great as
it is on other Arvei Shabbasos.
(c) We query Rav Yehudah and Rav Asi from a Beraisa however 'Yom-Tov
she'Chal be'Erev Shabbos, Ein Meri'in' - which we initially take literally,
indicating that the required difference consists of omitting the Teru'ah
altogether (a Kashya on Rav Yehudah and Rav Asi).
(d) Rav Yehudah and Rav Asi interpret it - just as they explained earlier;
namely, either that one does not blow the Teru'ah independently, as one
normally does, but directly from the Teki'ah, or that one blows them not in
two breaths, as one generally does, but in one.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah and Rav Nachman, when our Mishnah cites
'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Kodesh', it is referring to the conclusion of the
B'rachah. At the beginning of the B'rachah however - we say 'ha'Mavdil bein
Kodesh le'Chol ... '.
(b) Rav Sheishes b'rei de'Rav Idi holds - that we say 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh
le'Kodesh' at the beginning of the B'rachah, too.
(c) We rule like ...
1. ... Rav Yehudah and Rav Nachman (besides the fact that they are a
majority opinion) - because the object of the first half of the B'rachah is
to recite the Havdalos mentioned in the Torah, and the Torah only refers to
the divisions between Kodesh and Chol, and not between Kodesh and Kodesh.
2. ... the Tana Kama in our Mishnah ('ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Kodesh') and
not like Rebbi Dosa ('ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh Chamur le'Kodesh Chol'), even
though his ruling may seem more accurate - in order not to denigrate
Yom-Tov, by referring to it as a minor Kedushah.
(a) Rebbi Zeira says that on Motza'ei Yom-Tov which falls in the middle of
the week - we recite exactly the same text as we recite on Motza'ei Shabbos,
including 'u'Vein Yom ha'Shevi'i le'Sheishes Yemei ha'Ma'aseh' ...
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Kol Shochtin *****
(b) ... because we are only reciting the list of Havdalos mentioned in the
Torah (as we explained earlier).
(c) The middle of the B'rachah contains four statements. The source of the
first and the second are "u'Lehavdil bein ha'Kodesh u'Vein ha'Chol"
(Shemini) and "Va'yavdel bein ha'Or u'vein ha'Choshech" (Bereishis). The
Pasuk in Kedoshim which serves as the source for the third statement 'bein
Yisrael la'Amim' is - "Va'avdil Eschem min ha'Amim Lih'yos Li".
(d) Even though 'bein Yom ha'Shevi'i le'Sheishes Yemei ha'Ma'aseh' is
synonymous with 'Bein Kodesh le'Chodesh', we need to repeat it - in order to
state something that is similar to the conclusion of the Be'rachah,
immediately prior to the conclusion.