## Chullin Daf 26a

###### Chullin 26a:1
[Chullin 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:1)

בְּשֶׁהֶחְמִיץ מַחְלוֹקֶת, וּמַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּשֶׁהֶחְמִיץ מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 26a:2
[Chullin 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:2)

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: תֶּמֶד שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וּלְבַסּוֹף הֶחְמִיץ – קָנָה מַעֲשֵׂר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ דְּפֵירָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Chullin 26a:3
[Chullin 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:3)

אֶלָּא, מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי הֶחְמִיץ – אִין, לֹא הֶחְמִיץ – לָא, דִּלְמָא אִי שַׁבְקֵיהּ הֲוָה מַחְמִיץ! אָמַר רַבָּה: כְּשֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּכוֹס וְלֹא הֶחְמִיץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,** one 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.


###### Chullin 26a:4
[Chullin 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 26a:5
[Chullin 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:5)

שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב, שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָן קוּרְטוֹב חָלָב, וּמַרְאֵיהֶן כְּמַרְאֵה מַיִם, וְנָפְלוּ לַמִּקְוֶה – לֹא פְּסָלוּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 26a:6
[Chullin 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:6)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמַּרְאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 26a:7
[Chullin 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:7)

לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בָּתַר חֲזוּתָא אָזְלִינַן? הָכָא נָמֵי זִיל בָּתַר חֲזוּתָא, וְטַעְמָא וַחֲזוּתָא דְּהַאי מַיָּא נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 26a:8
[Chullin 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:8)

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין עָלָיו מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֶחְמִיץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 26a:9
[Chullin 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:9)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 26a:10
[Chullin 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/26a:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַתֶּמֶד עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִיץ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** With regard to ***temed*** that became ritually impure, **until it ferments,**