Talmud Bavli Hullin 26a-b - translation by Tzvee

C.            Said R. Nahman, said Rabbah bar Abbuha, [26a] “It is in the case where it had fermented that there is a dispute [cited in I.1 A]. And the Mishnah rests on the view of R. Judah.” And so said R. Yosé b. R. Hanina, “It is in the case where it had fermented that there is a dispute.”

I.2

A.            Said R. Nahman, said Rabbah bar Abbuha, “Grape skin wine that was purchased with funds deriving from [second] tithe, and then fermented, it is acquired as [second] tithe.” What is the basis for this view? It turns out retroactively that it was fruit [beverage].

B.            But what of our Mishnah that taught, if it fermented, yes [it can be purchased as second tithe] and if it did not ferment, no [it cannot be purchased]? [Could you not argue that] perhaps if he left it, it would ferment?

C.            Said Rabbah, “[The circumstance was] that he left some of it in a cup and it did not ferment.”

D.            Raba said, “On whose authority [does our Mishnah rest]? On that of R. Yohanan b. Nuri.” As it was taught on Tannaite authority, Three logs of [drawn] water less a qartob — and into them fell a qartob of wine — and lo, their color is the color of wine — and they fell into the immersion pool — they have not rendered it unfit. Three logs of [drawn] water less a qartob — and into them fell a qartob of milk — and lo, their color is the color of water — and they fell into the immersion pool — they have not rendered it unfit. R. Yohanan b. Nuri says, “All follows the color” [M. Miq. 7:5].

E.            Does not R. Yohanan says, “We go according to the appearance [of the liquid].” Here too [in our M.] we should go according to the appearance [of the liquid]. And the taste and appearance of this [liquid] is [like] that of water.

F.             And this contradicts the view of R. Eleazar. For said R. Eleazar, “All agree that they do not separate [tithes] for this [grape skin wine] from [wine] in another place unless it had already fermented.” He reasons that they dispute regarding a case where it had not fermented. And on this point R. Judah only considered it liable [to tithing] from these goods for themselves. But from goods in general, he may not [separate tithes for these] lest he separate that which is liable to tithes, for that which is exempt, or that which is exempt, for that which is liable [and either the priest or the householder will end up eating untithed produce].

II.1

A.            Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: Grape skin wine, before it ferments [26b] he can bring [a quantity that had become unclean in its own vessel] in contact with water [of a ritual bath so as to render it clean]. Once it had fermented, [if it became unclean] he cannot bring it in contact with water [to render it clean].

B.            Said Raba, “They taught this only in the case of grape skin wine that was made with clean water and that became unclean [afterward]. But if he made the grape skin wine with water that was unclean to begin with, no [he cannot render it clean in the manner described].”

C.            R. Gabihah of Be Katil went and told this teaching to R. Ashi [and asked about it], “What difference does it make if the water was unclean to begin with?” Is it not the case that we say [the liquid cannot be made clean in the manner described] because the water is heavy and sinks down and the fruit floats on the top? Hence you cannot conclude that there was any contact with the water [of the grape skin mixture and the ritual bath]. If this is so, then even [if he made the mixture] with clean water and it subsequently became unclean [the same problem arises]. Rather [you must say that the case for a mixture made from clean water that subsequently became unclean was that] he stirred the mixture [so that there was contact between the water of the mixture and the ritual bath]. Here too [in the case where he started with unclean water we could say] he stirred [the mixture so there was contact].

                                                                  1:7 E-F

E.            In any situation in which there is a right of sale, there is no fine.

F.             And in any situation in which there is a fine, there is no right of sale.

I.1

A.            Said R. Judah, said Rab, “These are the words of R. Meir. But sages said, `There is a fine in a situation in which there is a right of sale.” [M. gives several monetary rules for a young girl. Up to age twelve and one day, a father may sell his daughter as a maid servant (Ex. 21:7). From ages twelve and one day to twelve and six months, one who  seduces the girl must pay a fine of fifty shekels (Ex. 21:15-16). According to M., these stages, and their monetary implications, are mutually exclusive.]

B.            As was taught on Tannaite authority: “A minor girl, from one day old until she produces two pubic hairs, there is a right of sale, and there is for her no fine. After she produces two pubic hairs, but before she reaches the age of maturity, there is for her a fine, but there is no right of sale,” the words of R. Meir.

C.            For R. Meir used to say, “In any situation in which there is a right of sale, there is no fine. And in any situation in which there is a fine, there is no right of sale.” And sages say, “A minor girl from three years and one day old until she reaches the age of maturity, there is for her a fine.”

D.            A fine, yes, but right of sale, no? It makes sense to say, “There is for her even a fine in a situation in which there is a right of sale.”

                                                                1:7 G-H

G.           In any situation in which there is a right of refusal, there is no halisah.

H.           And in any situation in which there is halisah, there is no right of refusal.

I.1

A.            Said R. Judah, said Rab, “These are the words of R. Meir. But sages say, `There is a right of refusal in a situation in which there is halisah.'” [M. specifies that at whatever age a minor girl given in marriage by her mother or brother may exercise her right of refusal and dissolve the marriage without a writ, if she is childless and her husband died, she cannot be subjected to the halisah ritual to avoid a levirate marriage to her brother-in-law.]

B.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority: “Until what age may a girl exercise the right of refusal? Until she produces two pubic hairs,” the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says, “Until her dark pubic hairs grow over her white skin (cf. Rashi).”

                                                                 1:7 I-O

I.             In any situation in which there is a sounding [of the shofar], there is no habdalah (i.e., prayer of separation).

J.             And in any situation in which there is habdalah, there is no sounding [of the shofar].

K.            A festival which coincided with Friday [the eve of the Sabbath] — they sound the shofar, and they do not say habdalah.

L.            And [a festival which coincided with] Sunday [the day after Sabbath] they say habdalah and they do not sound [the shofar].

M.           How do they say habdalah?

N.           “Who distinguishes between one holy [season] and [another] holy [season].”

O.           R. Dosa says, “[Who distinguishes] between a more holy [season] and a less holy [season].”

I.1

A.            In what manner do they sound the shofar [between the festival day and the Sabbath]? Said R. Judah, “He sounds a long blast and continues by sounding short blasts.”

B.            R. Assi says, “He sounds a long blast and short blasts with one breath.” R. Assi established the practice in Huzal in accord with his teaching.

I.2

A.            They posed the question [based on the following], “If a festival day fell on the eve of the Sabbath, they sound a long blast but they do not sound short blasts.” Does this mean that they do not sound any short blasts at all? No. R. Judah would explain in accord with his opinion and R. Assi would explain in accord with his opinion.

B.            R. Judah would explain in accord with his opinion that [the teaching means] they do not sound short blasts by themselves but continue by sounding short blasts.

C.            And R. Assi would explain in accord with his opinion that they do not sound short blasts [and the long blast] with two breaths, but [they do both] with one breath.

II.1

A.            And [a festival which coincided with] Sunday [the day after Sabbath] they say habdalah and they do not sound [the shofar]. How do they say habdalah? “Who distinguishes between one holy [season] and [another] holy [season]” [M. 1:7 L-N]. Where does he say it? Said R. Judah, “In the concluding phrase [of the prayer of separation].”

B.            And so said R. Nahman, “In the concluding phrase.” And R. Sheshet the son of R. Idi said, “Even in the opening phrase [of the prayer of separation he refers to the distinction between the holy and the holy rather than the customary distinction between the holy and the profane].” And the law does not follow in accord with his view.

III.1

A.            R. Dosa says, “[Who distinguishes] between a more holy [season] and a less holy [season]”  [M. 1:7 O]. And the law does not follow in accord with his view.

B.            Said R. Zira, “If a festival day fell in the middle of the week [in the prayer of separation at the conclusion of the day] he says, `Who separates between the holy and the profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six day of creation.'” What is the basis [for making reference to the seventh day since it is the conclusion of a festival day in the middle of the week]? He enumerates the order of separations [in the universe as they are presented in the Torah (Rashi)].