Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 26

1) "TEMED" WHICH EVENTUALLY FERMENTS

QUESTION: Rav Nachman in the name of Rabah bar Avuha says that if a person uses money of Ma'aser to buy unfermented Temed (water in which fermented grape pits were soaked), and the Temed later ferments and becomes wine, the purchase retroactively is valid, and the money loses its Kedushah and the Temed becomes Kadosh with the Kedushah of Ma'aser. Since the Temed eventually fermented, the Temed is considered to have been wine at the time of the purchase.

The Gemara asks that according to Rav Nachman, why does the Mishnah (25b) state that one may not use money of Ma'aser to buy Temed that has not yet fermented? Perhaps the Temed will ferment later, and the purchase will be valid!

The Gemara's question is not clear. While it is true that when Temed ferments, it attains the status of wine retroactively. However, since one cannot be sure that the Temed will eventually turn into wine, it should not be permitted l'Chatchilah to buy Temed with money of Ma'aser! Perhaps the Mishnah is saying that l'Chatchilah it is prohibited to buy Temed with money of Ma'aser, because of the possibility that it will never ferment and turn into wine! How are we to understand the Gemara's question?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH Dilma) explains that the Gemara is asking that since *most* Temed eventually ferments, one should be able to rely on the "Rov" and use money of Ma'aser to purchase Temed even before it ferments. The Mishnah, therefore, should not say that it is prohibited to buy Temed with money of Ma'aser.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Dilma) explains that the Gemara's question does not involve the part of the Mishnah that discusses purchasing Temed with money of Ma'aser. Rather, the Gemara's question involves the part of the Mishnah that discusses using unfermented Temed to complete the minimum Shi'ur of a Mikvah. The Mishnah states that unfermented Temed is considered water, and thus if it is drawn to a Mikvah with a vessel, it is considered "Mayim She'uvim" and it invalidates the Mikvah. Why does the Mishnah say that Temed invalidates a Mikvah? The Pesul of "Mayim She'uvim" is a Pesul mid'Rabanan, and since there is a doubt whether or not the Temed would have fermented eventually and retroactively become wine (which does not invalidate a Mikvah with the Pesul of "Mayim She'uvim"), it is a "Safek Mayim She'uvim" and we should be lenient! Why, then, does the Mishnah say that unfermented Temed invalidates a Mikvah?

(c) The RASHBA gives a different explanation. The Mishnah implies that if money of Ma'aser is used to purchase Temed, the sale is completely invalid, and the money still belongs to the buyer. This can result in a significant Halachic ramification in a case in which the seller uses the money to be Mekadesh a woman. In such a case, the Kidushin is invalid, since the money was not his to use for Kidushin. The Gemara is asking how the Mishnah can rule with absolute certainty that the Kidushin in such a case is invalid, when perhaps the Temed eventually will ferment and the money will retroactively belong to the seller. (Z. Wainstein)

26b

QUESTION: The Beraisa states that unfermented Temed (water in which fermented grape pits were soaked) that became Tamei can be made Tahor through "Hashakah," touching it to the pure water of a Mikvah, because unfermented Temed still has the status of water. In contrast, Temed that has fermented is considered wine, and thus it cannot be made Tahor through Hashakah.

RASHI (DH mi'she'Hichmitz) explains that when a pail of Tamei water is dipped in a Mikvah such that the Mikvah's water seeps over the rim and touches the water in the pail, the water in the pail becomes Tahor. Hashakah works based on the logic that the water in the Mikvah is considered "Mechubar," or connected to the ground. Something connected to the ground cannot be Tamei, since it is considered "Batel" and insignificant to the rest of the earth. By touching the Mikvah water to the water in the pail, the water in the pail becomes Batel to the Mikvah and it, too, becomes Mechubar. Once it is Mechubar, it can no longer be Tamei.

Rashi adds that wine cannot be made Tahor using this method, "because the taste [of wine] cannot be Batel [in the water]." Rashi seems to be explaining why Hashakah does not work with fermented Temed; since its taste is different than the taste of the water, it remains distinct and cannot become Batel. However, Rashi should have said a simpler explanation to explain why fermented Temed does not become Tahor through Hashakah. Temed not only *tastes* different from water, it is a different food entirely! Why does Rashi mention only that its taste is different? (See KOVETZ SHI'URIM, Pesachim #157.)

ANSWERS: Perhaps Rashi is bothered by the question of TOSFOS. Tosfos (27b, DH ha'Temed) asks why Hashakah works for unfermented Temed. Since Temed is considered to be like wine retroactively if it eventually ferments, there should always be a doubt whether it is water or wine. Since we are uncertain whether it is water or wine, Hashakah should not work to make it Tahor.

Rashi might be answering this question by saying that Hashakah works for any liquid that has the physical properties of water. Even if the Temed turns out to be wine, since it *tastes* like water at this point, it can be Batel to the water in the Mikvah, and it can become Tahor. (See TIFERES YAKOV, end of 26a, who offers a similar explanation without mentioning Rashi.) (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when Yom Tov occurs on Erev Shabbos, we blow the customary Teki'os on Erev Shabbos (even though it is also Yom Tov) to remind everyone to complete their Melachos of Ochel Nefesh (food preparation, the Melachos of which are permitted on Yom Tov but not on Shabbos), but we do not recite Havdalah, because the Kedushah of the day that is entering (Shabbos) is greater than the Kedushah of the day that is departing (Yom Tov).

It seems that the only difference between the Teki'os that are blown on Yom Tov that occurs on Erev Shabbos and the Teki'os that are blown on an ordinary Erev Shabbos is the manner in which they are blown, while the number of Teki'os remains the same. The Gemara says that only the manner in which the Teki'os are blown is different (according to the respective opinions of Rav Yehudah and Rav Asi), implying that the number of Teki'os that is blown is the same number that is blown on an ordinary Erev Shabbos (six Teki'os, as the Gemara in Shabbos (35b) teaches). (The RAMBAM in Hilchos Shabbos (5:21) does not mention either opinion regarding the manner of the Teki'os, and he writes only that Teki'os are blown on a Yom Tov that occurs on Erev Shabbos.)

However, not all of the Teki'os seem to be unnecessary. The Gemara in Shabbos (35b) says that each of the Teki'os that were blown before Shabbos had a distinct purpose. The first Teki'ah was blown in order to signal to the workers in the fields that they should stop doing Melachah. The second Teki'ah was blown in order to signal to the local storeowners that they should close their stores. The third Teki'ah was blown in order to remind everyone to remove their Tefilin (according to Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi) before Shabbos. Why would these Teki'os be required on Yom Tov that occurs on Erev Shabbos? On Yom Tov, there is no one working in the fields, none of the stores are open, and no one wears Tefilin! (LEV ARYEH)

ANSWER: (a) The LEV ARYEH answers that it must be that since the people have become accustomed to hearing six Teki'os every Erev Shabbos to remind them to stop doing Melachah, we are worried that they will expect more Teki'os and get confused and forget that it is Yom Tov, and they will think that they have more time to do Melachah. (Y. Montrose)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that when Yom Tov occurs on Erev Shabbos, we blow the customary Teki'os on Erev Shabbos (even though it is also Yom Tov) to remind everyone to complete their Melachos of Ochel Nefesh (food preparation, the Melachos of which are permitted on Yom Tov but not on Shabbos), but we do not recite Havdalah, because the Kedushah of the day that is entering (Shabbos) is greater than the Kedushah of the day that is departing (Yom Tov). The opposite is done when Yom Tov occurs on Motza'ei Shabbos. We do not blow the Teki'os, but we do make Havdalah.

Although it is no longer our practice to sound the Teki'os, we do recite a special set of blessings at the onset of Yom Tov that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbos. This set of blessings is referred to as "Yaknehaz," which stands for "Yayin" (the blessing on the wine), "Kidush" (the blessing of Kidush of Yom Tov), "Ner" (the blessing recited over the candle as part of Havdalah), "Havdalah" (the blessing of Havdalah itself), and "Zeman" (the blessing of "Shehecheyanu" for Yom Tov).

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 299:6) records different opinions regarding how long a person may delay saying Havdalah after Shabbos and not lose the opportunity to say Havdalah. The most accepted opinion is that one who did not make Havdalah immediately after Shabbos may still make Havdalah until the end of Tuesday (that is, once Tuesday night arrives, one may no longer make Havdalah).

What is the Halachah in a case in which a person forgot, or was unable, to make Havdalah after Shabbos, and Monday night was the beginning of Yom Tov? Should he recite Havdalah as part of his Kidush of Yom Tov? Exactly what blessings should he say?

(a) The MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 299:8) quotes the SHELAH HA'KODESH who says that when Rosh Hashanah occurs on a Monday night, and one has the custom to fast for two days and nights before Rosh Hashanah, he must make sure to make Havdalah before Rosh Hashanah. The Shelah writes that if he neglects to make Havdalah before Rosh Hashanah, then he will end up doing a "perplexing thing" -- he will have to recite, on Monday night, the special set of blessings of Kidush and Havdalah that is reserved for Yom Tov that occurs on Motza'ei Shabbos. The Shelah implies that one who forgets to recite Havdalah until Rosh Hashanah (that occurs on Monday night) must recite the blessings of "Yaknehaz" on one cup of wine.

(b) The Magen Avraham himself argues that in such a case one should not make the blessings of "Yaknehaz," but instead one should first recite Kidush and then recite Havdalah, using two separate cups of wine. He proves from RASHI in Pesachim (102b, DH Kidush v'Havdalah Chada Milsa Hi) that one may not make the blessings of "Yaknehaz" in such a situation. Rashi there states that when one recites the blessings of "Yaknehaz" on Motza'ei Shabbos, both the blessing of Kidush and the blessing of Havdalah are related to the Yom Tov. Kidush obviously is recited for the Yom Tov, and in Havdalah we say, "ha'Mavdil Bein Kodesh la'Kodesh" -- "the One who separates between the holy (Shabbos) and the holy (Yom Tov)." Since the Berachos are all related to Yom Tov, they are all said on one cup of wine. In our case, however, the Havdalah the person needs to make is "ha'Mavdil Bein Kodesh l'Chol" -- "the One who separates between the holy (Shabbos) and the unholy" (since Shabbos was immediately followed not by Yom Tov, but by an ordinary day). This cannot be said on one cup of wine. The ARUCH HASHULCHAN (OC 299:18) rules like the Magen Avraham.

The BI'UR HALACHAH (OC 299, DH ul'Kabel) writes that the Magen Avraham's ruling is difficult to understand. How can the Magen Avraham say that a person may recite the Berachah of "ha'Mavdil Bein Kodesh l'Chol" on Yom Tov, when, at that moment, it is Yom Tov and not "Chol"? In addition, it is unclear how one can recite, "ha'Mavdil Bein Kodesh la'Kodesh," when his obligation to say Havdalah is to differentiate between Kodesh and *Chol*! The Bi'ur Halachah leaves his questions unanswered ("Tzarich Iyun Gadol"). (Y. Montrose)