Commento su Hullin 1:8

הכל שוחטין – There is a refutation in the Gemara [that the words] הכל שוחטין –”everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” [refer to the case] ab initio [and the words] ושחיטתן –”their slaughtering” [refers to a case] de facto, since from the beginning [of the Mishnah] [these words] imply that what we include from [the words]הכל שוחטין –”everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” ab initio and from the conclusion [of the Mishnaic phrase] implies that when we include from [the word] הכל–”everyone” post facto, we [in fact] extend it, but ab initio, we do not extend [what is included in] it; and that we cannot say that our Mishnah withholds something ab initio and that one thing [only] is taught. And since [the Mishnah] teaches הכל שוחטין–everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals], it is obvious that is fit [i.e. kosher] and that the upshot is [that] our Mishnah is explained as such in the Gemara. [The words] שוחטין–” [imply that] everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” [means] that everyone who are specialists who know the laws of ritual slaughter [of animals] [may perform the act of] slaughter[ing] animals [ritually] even though they are not [necessarily] presumed for it, for they have not slaughtered [ritually] in the presence of us [i.e. the judges] three times to see if they have the [inner] fortitude not to be overcome (i.e., his hand not trembling – see Hullin 3b] while slaughtering and cause a pausing in the act of slaughtering [which would nullify their act ritually]. What case are we referring to? That they are considered specialists at the time that those who deliver to him [an animal] to ritually slaughter know and recognize in him that he knows the laws of ritual slaughter, but if they do not know concerning him if he [indeed] knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not [perform] a ritual slaughter, and if he did slaughter [an animal ritually], we examine him, and if he knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his [act of] slaughter[ing] is [considered] kosher–fit.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches some general rules with regard to who may slaughter and when.

חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן – For even post facto, and [even if] they (i.e., the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor] know the laws of ritual slaughter, it is forbidden to eat from their slaughtering, since they are always presumed to ruin it since they lack [mature] awareness.

All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, lest they mess up [the animal] through their slaughtering. And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid. Anyone may slaughter an animal. The only exceptions are the three categories of people who are not considered to have “da’at,” intelligence. They are not allowed to slaughter and if they do slaughter, the animal is not kosher. The problem is that one cannot tell if an animal was validly slaughtered just by looking at it afterwards. Thus there is no way to check the results if one wasn’t there watching when the animal was slaughtered. Furthermore, these three people cannot be trusted to report on what they have done, because they are not considered to have intelligence. Therefore, their slaughtering is invalid. However, if an adult is watching them while they slaughter and sees that they do it correctly, the slaughtering is valid.

וכולן ששחטו – Since it [our Mishnah] does not teach [the words] “ואם שחטו–and if they slaughtered” but rather [taught the words] “וכולן ששחטו–and everyone who slaughtered” implies that it [the words] do not [refer to] the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor alone, but even regarding those who they [i.e. the judges] do not know if [the individual] knows the laws of ritual slaughter since the first part of the Mishnah refers to [the fact] that they examine him or bring him before them to examine him and he slaughters and others seem him and bring him before them to examine him, his slaughtering is [considered] kosher–fit but the law does not follow this Mishnah but rather, even though others do not see him and bring him [i.e. the slaughterer] before them to examine him, his slaughtering is [considered] kosher–fit, since most [people who are engaged] in ritual slaughter are specialists and even ab initio, may slaughter, even if though others do not see him [perform this act].

That which is slaughtered by a non-Jew is a nevelah and defiles by carrying. A non-Jew cannot ritually slaughter for a Jew. If he does, the animal is considered a nevelah (carrion) and it imparts defilement by being carried (as do all nevelot, see Leviticus 11:40). The mishnah probably notes that this meat defiles in order to teach that this animal is “deoraita” (by the Torah) considered a nevelah, and that this rule is not just a stringency initiated by the rabbis.

שחיטת עובד כוכבים – even [if the act of a ritual slaughter performed by an idolater] if it is done according to Jewish law with a Jew standing over him, it [his act of slaughtering] is considered to be like that of a carrion (an animal who died naturally) but it is not prohibited to derive benefit from [his act of slaughtering] since specifically the act of slaughtering of a person who holds fast to his idolatrous beliefs, [a Jew] is prohibited to derive benefit [from his acts], but not regarding the thinking of a heretic regarding idolatrous practices, but the idolater spoken of here is from those actions follow the behavior of his ancestors.

If one slaughtered at night, and also a blind man that slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid. Obviously, it would be better not to slaughter at night, and it is problematic for a blind person to slaughter. However, an animal slaughtered at night or by a blind person is still valid, as long as it was slaughtered properly.

ומטמאה במשא – As it is written (Leviticus 11:40): “[anyone who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and remain clean until evening;] and anyone who carries his carcass shall wash his clothes and remain clean until evening.” And even though he had not touched it. For the Mishnah did not have to teach this, for since it is something that died of itself (i.e., “neveilah”), it is known that an animal that died of itself defiles [an individual] by carrying it (i.e., a dead carcass), but it (the Mishnah) comes to inform you, that this defiles only via carrying alone, and there are others which defile even through content in the tent (where it is found). And which is this? An offering to an idol (Avodah Zarah 32b).

One who slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even though he is liable for his own life, the slaughtering is valid. Slaughtering is a prohibited labor on Shabbat and Yom Kippur and one who does so is liable for the death penalty (Shabbat) or karet (Yom Kippur). Nevertheless, the animal is still kosher. Just because the person sinned, doesn’t mean he didn’t slaughter in the correct way.

השוחט בלילה וכן הסומא – The Mishnah teaches that an individual who slaughters [an animal] at night is compared to a blind individual. Just as a blind person in a dark place [should not engage in ritual slaughter], so too an individual who engages in ritual slaughtering at night in a dark place, and in this matter it [our Mishnah] teaches [through the use of the word] "השוחט"–he who performs ritual slaughter – post facto, yes, but not ab initio., but when there is a torch before him, even ab initio, he may perform acts of ritual slaughter at night.

השוחט בשבת – Even though that if he acted (by performing an act of ritual slaughter on Shabbat) willfully, he would make himself liable [to the death penalty], his [act of] ritual slaughter is [considered] fit; but however, it would be forbidden to consume it on that day, and for this reason, it [the Mishnah] teaches “[he who ritually slaughters] on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement” in order to make an analogy between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Just as it forbidden to eat [it] on Yom Kippur the entire day because [of the requirement] of “afflicting [of one’s soul],” so too on the Sabbath it is forbidden in eating it the entire day. But on Saturday night (i.e., the aftermath of the Sabbath), it is permitted [to be consumed] whether by him or by others. And a person who performs an act of ritual slaughtering on Shabbat for an infirm individual has acted in a permissible manner, and it is permitted for a healthy individual to eat from that [what had been slaughtered] raw meat, but not cooked, lest he increase it for him.

מגל יד – It has two edges (the מגל יד is an implement combining knife and saw) – one smooth like a knife and the other which has notches; and on the side which is smooth, one should not ab initio engage in ritual slaughter [with it] as a preventative measure lest one perform a ritual slaughter with the side that is defective. And therefore, the Tanna taught [the word] "השוחט"–”he who performs a ritual slaughtering” and it implies, that de facto, one may slaughter [with this utensil] but not ab initio. And we learn from this that a defective knife, which contains enough to ritually slaughter with from the defect and beyond, it is prohibited to perform ritual slaughtering with it ab initio, other than if one wraps the defective part in a garment or in bulrushes–reed-grass so that now it would not be possible to decree that perhaps he might come to slaughter in the place of defect.

Introduction This mishnah continues to provide general rules with regard to slaughtering including the instrument with which one slaughters. We should note that modern halakhah dictates that Jewish slaughter must be done only with an extremely sharp knife, one designed specially for such a purpose. The Mishnah still reflects a time when Jews used other instruments as well.

בצור ובקנה – Our Mishnah is speaking about a flint and–or a reed which are detached and later they were attached and one performed a ritual slaughter with them when they were attached, and de facto, one may use [it–them] but ab initio, one may not [use it–them], but if it was initially attached, even de facto it is prohibited. And that which is completely detached, even ab initio, is permitted [for use].

If one slaughtered with [the smooth edge of] a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All of these instruments have smooth cutting surfaces and therefore can be used to slaughter.

צור – A sharp rock. And it is a Biblical expression [being used here] (Exodus 4:25): “[So Zipporah] took a flint and cut off [her son’s foreskin…].”

All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; and with any implement one may slaughter, except a scythe, a saw, teeth or a finger nail, since these strangle. This section summarizes that which we have learned up until now. It then adds a caveat concerning instruments that can’t be used. These instruments do not sever the trachea and esophagus, as is required, but rather tear them out, thereby causing strangulation. An animal slaughtered with one of these instruments is considered a nevelah.

הכל שוחטין – To include a non-observant–non-conformist Jew in one area of transgression, or even for many transgressions – in that it is permitted to eat of his ritual slaughtering. And [as long as] that individual is not an apostate for idolatry or someone who violates the Sabbath in public. And a worthy (observant) Jew checks the knife and gives it to him, since he (the potential ritual-slaughterer) is considered as one who has not bothered to check [the knife] and afterwards performs the act of ritual slaughtering just for himself, and the [observant] Jew returns and checks his knife after the ritual slaughter, and if it [the knife] is fine, his ritual slaughter is considered valid. But those Sadducees whom we call Karaites who do not believe in the Oral Torah, their ritual slaughter is [considered] invalid, unless there was a Jew who would stand and watch the slaughtering from the beginning until the end.

One who slaughtered with a scythe, moving it forward only: Bet Shammai declare it invalid, But Bet Hillel declare it valid. The scythe’s teeth are bent back, pointing only in a backwards direction. Therefore, if one slaughters by moving the scythe forward, the teeth won’t tear the neck and the neck will effectively be sliced. Neverthless, Bet Shammai declare it invalid lest he bring the scythe back and tear the neck. Bet Hillel declare the animal valid.

ולעולם שוחטין – Whether during the daytime or whether at night by the light of a torch, whether on the top of a roof, and we don’t worry lest people say that he [the ritual slaughterer] went up to the hosts of heaven to [perform] ritual slaughtering. And similarly, one can perform ritual slaughtering at the top of a ship, the matter is proven that he needs to chisel his ship and that he is not slaughtering for the Chief of the Sea.

If the teeth of the scythe were filed away it is regarded as an ordinary knife. If the teeth are filed away, then the scythe can be treated as a normal knife and one can use it for slaughtering.

ובכל שוחטין – Whether [one uses] glass or uses the skin-like, scaly envelope of reed, which is tall grass in the lake which cuts like a knife. But the reed itself, one should not perform ritual slaughtering with it ab initio, on account of fibers that separate from it and perforate the organs and one might have [accidentally] passed the knife under cover (which invalidates a ritual slaughtering).

מגל קציר – which is used to cut grain, as its notches bend slanting in one direction.

מגירה – a knife filled with notches and each notch has projecting points in each direction which are knives having notches–indentations (see Hullin 17b – which catch the passing nail of the examiner).

שינים – (teeth) which are inserted into the jawbone of the animal. And especially when there are two or more (teeth).

והצפורן – Which is attached [to the finger].

שהן חונקין – As they do not cut, but rather tear on account of the indentations [therein]. And these (a saw) produce anguish as if by choking (instead of cutting); this refers to the others, but not to the nail, and the reason concerning the nail is that it is attached.

מגל קציר – It heads are very bent and its [cutting] process does not tear.

בית שמאי אומרים נבילה – And it defiles by carrying, by which [the School of Shammai] decreed that walking it leads to bring it. And the School of Hillel does not make this decree, as the defilement does not increase as a result of this decree. But, they admit that it is eating it is prohibited, lest by walking with it, one will bring it (and it leads to someone consuming it).

השוחט מתוך הטבעת – In the large ring [of the trachea] which is above all of them, is [what the Mishnah] is speaking of.

Introduction Slaughtering must be performed on the animal’s neck below the larynx, preferably below the first hard ring of the trachea and up to the place where the bronchial tubes begin to branch. Cutting outside of this area is called “hagramah” and renders the animal invalid. Our mishnah deals with a case where a person cuts right below the first hard ring of the trachea.

ושייר בה מלא החוט של פני כולה – on the side of the head, for he did not incline the knife to exit from the ring to the side of the head until he completed [cutting] the entire ring, it is considered valid.

If one slaughtered [by cutting] at the [top] ring [of the trachea] and left a hair's breadth of its entire circumference [towards the head], the slaughtering is valid. As stated in the introduction, the cut should be made below the first hard ring of the animal’s trachea. If he makes the cut at this top ring, the slaughtering is valid as long as a hair’s breadth of the trachea on the side of the head remains. According to the first opinion, the hair’s breadth of the trachea must remain on the entire circumference of the highest ring.

מלוא החוט – that is to say, a bit, but if it was before he completed the entire [ring], he slanted the knife to the side of the head and completed the ritual slaughter above from the ring which was not the place of the ritual slaughter, which is הגרמה (cutting the animal’s throat in a slanting direction – letting the knife slide beyond the space ritually designed for cutting), even though most of the windpipe was cut at the place of the ritual slaughter, the Rabbis invalidated it, since it concluded with a disqualification.

Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: if there was only left [towards the head] a hair's breadth of the greater part of its circumference, [the slaughtering is valid]. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says that it is sufficient for the hair’s breadth to remain on the greater part of the circumference, and not necessarily the entire circumference.

רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר מלוא החוט על פני רובה – If he left in it as much as the breadth of a thread of the hair from the ring [of the trachea] at the side of the head over the majority of the ring, that is to say, he cut most of the windpipe within the ring, but the minority of it was cut in a slanted direction and it left its [body] at the side of its head, and he completed the slaughter above it, it is considered valid, as he slaughtered most it in a valid manner, but the other part, he slaughters by cutting mere skin. And the legal decision is that a person who slaughters above the large ring, where the thyroid cartilage (Adam’s apple) begins to protrude and above it is considered invalid, whereas from the thyroid cartilage and below is considered valid. And that means that he left glands, that he slaughtered these two glands of the flesh that are above the large ring but below the thyroid cartilage, and he left a bit of them at the side of the head.

השוחט מן הצדדים – at the side of the [front-of-the] neck–throat

Introduction Animals are slaughtered and sacrificed by having their throats slit. Non-sacrificial birds are also slaughtered in this manner. However, sacrificial birds are slaughtered by a process called “nipping” which is done from the back of the neck. For more information on “nipping” see Zevahim 6:4. Our mishnah compares the laws of nipping with the laws of slaughtering.

שחיטתו כשרה – and even also ab initio, and since it is required to teach [in the Mishnah] "המולק מן הצדדים"–”He who pinches the bird’s neck with the fingernail from the side”, it also teaches, "השוחט" –”he who ritually slaughters” – post facto.

If one cut at the side [of the neck], the slaughtering is valid. If one nipped off [the head of a bird sacrifice] from the side of the neck, the nipping is invalid. The side of neck is valid for slaughtering but not for nipping bird sacrifices. Some commentators hold that this is only ex post facto meaning one should not slaughter from the side but if one does, the slaughtering is valid. Others hold that even “lechatchila” (a priori) one can slaughter from the side. The side is considered to be part of the front.

המולק מן הצדדים מליקתו פסולה – that concerning the pinching of the bird’s head, it is written (Leviticus 5:8): “[He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first the one for the sin-offering,] pinching its head at the nape [without severing it],” that is from its back.

If one cut at the back of the neck, the slaughtering is invalid. If one nipped off [the head] from the back of the neck, the nipping is valid. Slaughtering cannot be done from the back of the neck, whereas this is the place where nipping must occur.

השוחט מן העורף שחיטתו פסולה – And these words [indicate] that he (the ritual slaughter) did not restore the organs (i.e. the windpipe and the gullet) at the back of the neck but rather cut the nape [up to a point] where he reached to the organs (the windpipe and esophagus), for prior to his arriving at the organs, it [an animal] has been made organically defective [ritually for use] with the breaking of the neck, and even though that with the pinching of a bird’s neck, it is fit for use, there, it is such that all of it, from the beginning to the end is from the pinching of the bird’s neck [only – and not from any other ritual act of slaughtering] and it is like a ritual slaughterer who perforates the gullet little by little until he completes his act of ritual slaughter. But if one slaughtered from the back of the neck, since that [act of] slaughtering is not perfect, one cannot have the breaking of the neck from the slaughter, and it is ritually unfit–defective [literally, considered “torn”]. But, one who performs ritual slaughter from the sides, as is taught at the beginning of the Mishnah, even without restoring the organs, has performed the ritual slaughtering well prior to severing the neck.

If one cut at the front of the neck, the slaughtering is valid. If one nipped off [the head] from the front of the neck, the nipping is invalid. Slaughtering should be done at the front of the neck, whereas nipping done at the front is invalid.

המולק מן העורף – not really the neck, that is what there is from the slanting of the head from the back [of the neck] with the face, for it is written (Leviticus 5:8): “at the nape” (see above), but rather, opposite one who sees the neck, that is, behind the neck, he pinched the bird with a finger-nail and cut the flesh and the neck until he reached the organs (i.e. windpipe and esophagus).

For the whole of the back of the neck is the appropriate place for nipping, and the whole of the front of the neck is the appropriate place for slaughtering. It follows, therefore, that the place which is appropriate for slaughtering is inappropriate for nipping, and the place which is appropriate for nipping is inappropriate for slaughtering. This section explains the general rule any place that is valid for nipping is not valid for slaughtering and vice versa.

מליקתו כשרה – As this is, ab initio, the commandment of pinching of the bird’s neck. And since the Mishnah teaches "השוחט מן העורף פסולה" –whomever performs the act of ritual slaughter from the back of the neck is invalid, and even post facto, it [the Mishnah] also teaches [concerning] one who pinches [the bird’s neck] post facto.

השוחט מן הצואר – under the throat is called the neck, and that is the method of most ritual slaughtering.

שכל העורף – all of the edge which sees the back of the neck (but not the back of the neck itself).

כשר בתורין פסול בבני יונה – that turtle-doves imply large but not small. Pigeons [refers to] small ones f brightening plumage (but not large ones. That we don’t dislocate the Biblical verse [from its natural flow] and write: “from the small turtle doves and from the doves, and since it is written [In the Bible] in all cases, “turtle doves and pigeons” we learn from this, it is to be an indispensable condition–absolute necessity.

Introduction Yesterday’s mishnah concluded by noting that the place on the neck where slaughtering is performed is exactly where nipping cannot be performed and vice versa. The remainder of our chapter deals with other opposite types of situations. At first these deal with sacrificial issues, but then they move on to other issues as well.

תחילת הציהוב – when it (speaking of either and–or both the turtle dove and the pigeon) is in the incipient stage of brightening plumage around its neck, both of them are invalid. The pigeons are invalid because of their large size and the turtle-dove because of its small size, since they have left the general category of being small, but to the category of “large,” they have not come. However, regarding, the smallest pigeons, when a wing is detached from them and bleeding does not occur, are invalid due to their tiny size.

[The age] which qualifies turtle doves [for sacrifice] disqualifies pigeons, and [the age] which qualifies pigeons [for sacrifice] disqualifies turtle doves. Turtle doves are valid as sacrifices when they are older and pigeons when they are younger. There is no overlapping period when both are valid.

At the period when the neck feathers begin to turn yellow in either kind they are disqualified. However, both are invalid when the neck feathers begin to turn yellow. When the young birds hit three months their feathers begin to fall off, first from the body and then from the neck and head. Once all of their baby feathers have fallen off, they get new adult feathers. The new feathers on the head are at first yellow in appearance. Once this yellowish color has appeared, the birds are no longer considered to be young, but they are not yet considered old. Therefore, neither turtle doves nor pigeons can be used at this in-between age.

כשר בפרה פסול בעגלה – The Red Heifer (literally “Red Cow” – see Numbers chapter 19) and the heifer whose neck was broken are both performed outside, but what is appropriate–valid in terms of the ritual slaughter of a red heifer is invalid for the one [heifer] whose neck is to be broken. Regarding the heifer whose neck is to be broken, at its neck [when the ceremony takes place] is valid, but if ritually slaughtered is invalid. It is found that what is valid for the cow (i.e., Red Heifer) is invalid for the heifer [whose neck is to be broken] and what is valid for the heifer [whose neck is to be broken] is invalid for the cow [i.e. Red Heifer].

[The method of killing] which renders the red cow valid renders the heifer invalid, and the method which renders the heifer valid renders the red cow invalid. The red cow used in the purificatory process is slaughtered by shechitah, having its neck sliced, the same way all sacrificial animals are slaughtered (see Numbers 19:3). The heifer is the calf killed when a corpse is found and it is unknown who murdered the person. This heifer is killed by having its neck chopped from behind (see Deuteronomy 21:4). One cannot slaughter the red cow by chopping its neck from behind or the heifer by slicing it from the front.

כשר בכהנים פסול בלוים – Priests who have blemishes are unfit [for the altar, for priestly service], but in [matters of] age, they are fit (compared to Levites; Kohanim–Priests can begin to serve as soon as they reach the age of majority- Bar Mitzvah – and their service continues for the rest of their lives; Levites, on the other hand only serve from ages thirty through fifty and must be able to sing). Levites, [on the other hand] are considered fit to serve if they have blemishes, but in [matters of] years are unfit [for service], as it is written (Numbers chapter 8, verse 25): “But at the age of fifty they shall retire from the work force [and shall serve no more].” But in Shiloh and in a cemetery where there was no carrying [of the ark] by [one’s] shoulder, the years do not disqualify the Levites, but only the [matter of the] voice alone. It was found, whether one is speaking about the wilderness or Shiloh, what is valid for Priests is invalid for Levites and what is valid for Levites is invalid for Priests.

[The disability] which does not disqualify priests disqualifies Levites, and [the disability] which does not disqualify Levites disqualifies priests. Levites can serve in the Temple from the age of 20 to 50 (see Numbers 4:3). In contrast, priests can serve in the Temple from the time they reach majority age and they can continue as long as they want. In that sense, the age which disqualifies Levites does not disqualify priests. Priests who have certain physical blemishes cannot serve in the Temple (we will learn about this more in the seventh chapter of Bechorot). These blemishes do not disqualify Levites.

טהור בכלי טמא בכל הכלים – The hollow–air [i.e. empty space] of an earthenware vessel is impure, if the defilement approached its hollow but did not touch it (the earthenware vessel), the earthenware vessel is defiled (see Mishnah Kelim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1 for further details), as is written concerning it (Leviticus chapter 11 verse 33): “And if any of these falls into [an earthen vessel, everything inside it shall be pure and -the vessel- itself you shall break].” But if [it fell] on its back, it is ritually pure, and even if the defilement touched its back, it was not defiled through this. The hollow–air of all utensils is pure, as long as the defilement did not touch them, even if it was suspended in its air-space. But if its backs are impure, if the filament touched its backs, they have become impure. It is found [therefore], that [whatever is] pure in an earthenware vessel, becomes impure in all of the utensils [when it is touched by something impure], but that which is pure in all [other] vessels, is impure in an earthenware vessel.

That which cannot be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels can be rendered unclean in all other vessels, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in all other vessels can be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels. When something impure enters the airspace of an earthenware vessel, it is rendered impure. However, if it touches the outside of the vessel, the vessel is pure. In contrast, other vessels are rendered impure when something impure touches them, either from inside or outside, and they are not impure when something enters their airspace without touching them.

טהור בכלי עץ טמא בכלי מתכות – Unfinished wooden implements, which are [defined as] utensils which are not completely formed, but their engraving has been completed and are worthy for use are impure. But flat wooden implements are pure even if they are completely formed, as [Rabbis] made an analogy between a wooden implement and a sack, as it is written (Leviticus chapter 11, verse 32): “[And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be impure: [be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack –[any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain impure until evening; then it shall be pure].” Just as a sack is carried full or empty, so too anything is carried full or empty. Unfinished metal utensils are pure, since in recognition of their being made, they are not considered utensils to be filled until they are completely formed. But flat [metal] vessels are impure, for they [the Rabbis] do not make the analogy of a sack being like a wooden utensil. It is found therefore, that what is [considered] pure for a wooden utensil is impure regarding metal utensils; what is pure for metal utensils is impure for wooden utensils.

That which cannot be rendered unclean in wooden things can be rendered unclean in metal things, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in metal things can be rendered unclean in wooden things. A vessel that does not have a receptacle is considered “simple” in mishnaic terms. A simple wooden vessel cannot become impure, whereas a simple metal vessel can. Unfinished metal vessels that can be used cannot become impure until they are completed. In contrast, an unfinished wood vessel can become impure as soon as it is usable.

When bitter almonds are subject to tithing sweet almonds are exempt, and when sweet almonds are subject to tithing bitter almonds are exempt. Bitter almonds are edible when they are small and inedible when they become larger. Therefore they are liable for tithes when they are small and not when they are big. Sweet almonds are opposite. When they are small they are inedible and therefore exempt from tithes. When they become larger and edible, they are liable for tithes.

החייב בשקדיים המרים – (see Mishnah Ma’aserot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4)[Regarding] bitter almonds, the small ones require tithing, since it is customary to eat them when they are small prior to their becoming bitter, and large ones are exempt [from tithing], since they are not worthy for eating. Sweet [almonds, on the other hand], the large ones are liable [for tithing] since their fruits have been completed, but the small ones are exempt, since it is not appropriate to eat them as such. It is found [therefore], that which liable [for tithing] regarding bitter almonds is exempt regarding sweet ones, and that which is liable [for tithing] with sweet [almonds] is exempt with bitter ones.

התמד עד שלא החמיץ – (See Mishnah Maaser Sheni, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3, for identical parallel text of the first part of the Mishnah). Up until now [in this chapter of Mishnah Hullin] we have been dealing with two things and the matter that is practiced with one is not practiced with the other, and now we are dealing with one thing, and when a certain thing is in vogue with it, another thing is not in vogue with it.

Introduction The final mishnah of our chapter continues to describe cases where a halakhah is opposite in different situations.

תמד – water that is placed on the exterior or on the interior [of grapes] and when they are warmed and ferment, produce wine, or [when water is placed is placed] on the sediment and the water absorbs the flavor of the wine. And [this occurs] at the time when one places [on the wine] three parts of water and it produces four. Everyone holds that it is superior wine. But here we are dealing [with a case] where it did not produce other than what he put on it, or less or just a bit more.

Temed: Before it has fermented it may not be bought with second tithe money and it renders a mikveh invalid; After it has fermented it may be bought with second tithe money and it does not render a mikveh invalid. Temed is a drink made from grapes that have already been squeezed in order to make wine. Until temed has fermented the rabbis consider it to be like water. One can buy food and drink with second tithe money but not water (see Maaser Sheni 1:3, 5) and therefore not temed. Since unfermented temed is water it also has the power to render a mikveh invalid. Only drawn water can invalidate a mikveh other liquids do not. Once it has fermented it is no longer water and therefore it can be bought with second tithe money and it does not invalidate a mikveh.

עד שלא החמיץ – It is mere water and is not purchased with the money of the [second] tithe, for the wine that is mentioned which is purchased with [second] tithe monies (as is written – Deuteronomy chapter 14, verse 26): “And spend the money on anything you want…” Just as the specification is spelled out, the usufruct of the fruit from the fruit and that which grows in the ground, so too every (usufruct of the fruit from fruit and that which grows in the ground.

Brothers who are partners [in their inheritance]: When they are liable to pay the kalbon, they are exempt from the cattle tithe, And when they are liable to the cattle tithe, they are exempt from the kalbon. The kalbon refers to an extra amount that people had to pay over the half shekel that every Israelite was obligated to pay to the Temple each year (see Shekalim 1:7). When sons split their fathers inheritance and then shared it in a partnership, they are treated as are all partners and they are obligated to pay the kalbon. In other words, even though at one point all of the money was jointly owned by their father, they are now regarded as regular partners. If they jointly own animals they are exempt from paying the cattle tithe, as is always the rule for partners. However, if they have not yet divided their inheritance, then we treat the inheritance as if it still belongs to their father. In such a case, they are obligated for the cattle tithe but not for the kalbon, because whenever a father pays the ½ shekel for his children, he is not liable to pay the kalbon.

ופוסל את המקוה – since three “logs” (a “log” is a measurement which equals six eggs in volume) [amount of] drawn water make a Mikveh unfit [for immersion], but if it (the water that had been placed on the exterior or on the interior of grapes) fell into it (the Mikveh) prior to conducting the forty Seah of water (which is necessary for a Kosher Mikveh – see Mishnah Mikvaot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 7 and Mishnah Menahot Chapter 12, Mishnah 4) into a channel, the wine does not disqualify the Mikveh other than through a change in its appearance.

Whenever there is [the power] to sell, there is no fine, and whenever there is a fine there is no power to sell. This section is found in Ketubbot 3:8. There are two rights discussed here: 1) the right of a father to sell his daughter as a slave and 2) his right to receive the fine paid out by one who rapes her or seduces her. The father has the right to sell her while she is still a minor (ketanah), but not when she reaches the age of a na’arah (about 12). At this age there is no fine levied on the rapist or seducer. Once she becomes a na’arah there is a fine which goes to the father. However, he no longer has the right to sell her.

משהחמיץ – (once it has fermented), it is considered wine, and we use it to be purchased with [the money of] the [second] tithe, and does not [by its being poured into the Mikveh] disqualify the Mikveh.

Whenever there is the right of refusal there can be no halizah, and whenever there can be halizah there is no longer the right of refusal. The right of refusal refers to a girl’s right to annul marriage when that marriage was arranged by her mother or brother because her father had already died (see Yevamot 13:1-2). The right of refusal exists only when she is a minor. However, a minor girl cannot perform halitzah (release from levirate marriage, see Yevamot 12:4). Thus if she was married off by her father and then her husband died before she reached majority age, she cannot perform halitzah until she is of majority age.

האחין השותפין – brothers who were partners in their inheritance.

When the shofar is blown there is no havdalah, and when there is habdalah the shofar is not blown. [Thus], if a festival falls on the day before Shabbat the shofar is blown but there is no havdalah; If it falls on the day following Shabbat there is havdalah but the shofar is not blown. How do they recite havdalah [on a festival that follows Shabbat]? “Who distinguishes between holy and holy.” Rabbi Dosa says: “Who distinguishes between the more holy and less holy day.” On Friday evening right before it became dark they would blow the shofar six times to let people know that Shabbat was beginning (see Sukkah 5:5). If this was a day in which they were blowing the shofar to let people know about Shabbat, then it definitely could not be time to recite the havdalah to separate a holy day from a non-holy day. However, if it was a time to recite havdalah, then there would be no shofar blasts. On a normal Saturday evening this is clear. However, it is not always so clear, as we shall see now. If the festival fell on Friday before Shabbat, then they would blow the shofar on Friday evening, as was normal. Blowing the shofar on a festival is not prohibited. However, they would not recite any havdalah at the end of the festival, since the sanctity of Shabbat is greater than that of the festival. If the festival fell immediately after Shabbat, the opposite is true. They would recite havdalah, but not blow the shofar. The final piece of the mishnah describes how the blessing was recited on Saturday night when a festival begins right after Shabbat. One could not simply recite “who distinguishes between a holy day and a profane day” because both Shabbat and the festival are holy. Therefore, according to the first opinion, one recites “who distinguishes between the holy and the holy.” Rabbi Dosa differs slightly and says that one should note that Shabbat is holier than the festival.

שחייבין בקלבון פטורין במעשר בהמה – See Mishnah Bekhorot, Chapter 9, Mishnah 3 where this Mishnah fragment is also found. (See Mishnah Shekalim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 - in the Bartenura commentary for a definition of the word קלבון\קולבון – something light and small that is added to the one-half shekel requirement each person must pay as a poll tax – see Exodus, chapter 30, verses 11-16 - that is divided among the partners – if they are Levites, Israelites, converts or freed slaves, but not Priests, women, slaves or minors.) Brothers who divided [the inheritance at first] and at the end became partners, are obligated to pay the agio (a premium paid for changing one kind of money to another–an allowance or premium for the difference in value between two currencies being exchanged) and when they bring their two one-half Shekels, they give two Kalbonim–agios, and the Kalbon is the way of expressing a customary additional weight in retailing–boot – that they (the partners) are obliged to overbalance their Shekalim. And if they gave between the both of them a complete Shekel (i.e. adding to the obligatory one-half Shekel that each adult male is required to give - see the Biblical source from Exodus quoted above), they give two Kolbonot, which they have to pay the head-tax in halves. But they are exempt from the tithe for cattle (offered on the first day of Elul – see Mishnah Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1), as is brought in (the Talmud) Tractate Bekhorot in the last chapter (56b). The words (Numbers chapter 18, verse 9) teach: “This shall be yours [from the most holy sacrifices, the gifts: every such offering that they render to Me as most holy sacrifices….shall belong to you and your sons],”and not [that which belongs] to partners. And there (in Berakhot 56b), they (the Rabbis) prove that this verse [as referring to] the tithe [of cattle] even though it is written in connection with the first-born [animals].

וכחייבין במעשר בהמה – for example, if they never divided [their estate], they are obliged to give the tithe for cattle, to tithe all those [cattle] born to them all the days of their partnership, as it says there (Talmud Bekhorot 56b), they are able, even if they purchased it that which belongs to the estate (before division among heirs), as it teaches (Numbers, chapter 18, verse 9), “shall be [yours]” regardless.

ופטורין מן הקלבון – (they are exempt from paying the Kolbon) completely, in that they offer the head-tax of a full shekel (half a shekel apiece) between them; since their father’s monies are presumed to be standing in his possession. And the father who pays the head-tax for his sons or for someone from his city, he exempts him (i.e., that individual) from paying the head-tax by his own [payment], and his [concerning] his sons also, the Mitzvah of paying the head-tax [of one-half Shekel per individual] is not upon him (i.e., the father), but they are likened to be like his neighbor or fellow city-dweller.

כל מקום שיש מכר – that a man can sell his daughter, that is when she is a minor.

אין קנס – (when her daughter was a נערה –between the ages of twelve and twelve years and six months) if she had been violated–outraged (raped) or seduced, her father does not receive the fifty shekels of silver (as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:29): “the may who lay with her shall give shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife…”

וכל מקום שיש קנס – that is when she is a נערה–a maiden between the ages of twelve and twelve years and six months.

אין מכר – a man (i.e., the father) may not sell his daughter to another (man) after she has brought forth the signs of her maidenhood (i.e., puberty). And our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Meir (see the parallel Mishnah Ketubot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 8 – and the general rule that anonymous Mishnah texts accord with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in Sanhedrin 86a and Hullin 26b), who said that that a minor girl from the age of one day until she brings forth two pubic hairs (symptoms of maturity), she is able to be sold but there is no financial penalty. But the Halakha is like the Sages (that a minor daughter from the age of three years and one day until she brings form the signs of her maturity can be sold and there is a fine associated with this sale). And it is found that a daughter from the day she is born until she becomes fit for sex[ual relations], she can be sold but there is no fine regarding her. And when she is deemed fit for sexual relations until she brings forth signs of her maturity, she can be sold and there is a fine regarding to her. And there is no distinction between נערות–maidenhood and adulthood – other than a [period of] six months.

כל מקום שיש מיאון – An orphaned girl who was married off by her mother and–or her brothers, even with her knowledge (i.e. acceptance), can refuse and leaves [this marriage] without a Jewish bill of divorce until she brings forth her signs of maturity. Throughout the days of her being a minor, she is not appropriate for her to have [her perform the ceremony of] חליצה–taking off the shoe of her dead husband’s brother and spitting in his face (see Deuteronomy chapters 25, verses 5-11) if she is a יבמה–widow of a brother who died without having any children, for the word "איש"–”a man” is written in the portion (Deuteronomy chapter 25, verse 7): “But if the man does not want [to marry his brother’s widow]…” And they [the Rabbis] raise an objection comparing a woman to a man. And when she appears able to conduct [the ceremony] of חליצה–taking off the shoe of her dead husband’s brother and spitting in his face, she is not able [any longer] to refuse [the marriage recommendations of her mother and–or brothers].

כל מקום שיש תקיעות – On the eves of the Sabbath and Jewish Holy Days (Yom Tov), the Shofar is sounded with three Tekiot (succession of connected notes) to cause the people to cease from their [weekday] labor and at twilight, they sound the Tekiah (succession of connected notes), the Teruah (rapid succession of nine notes–tremolo) and [another] Tekiah and then they stop [working].

אין הבדלה – There is no [recitation of the prayers of the Havdalah ceremony, concluding the Sabbath and–or Festivals] neither on the wine or in the Amidah (the fourth blessing of the Amidah on Saturday night contains the Havdalah prayer), for there is no Havdalah other than on aftermath of Sabbaths and Festivals.

יום טוב שחל להיות בערב שבת תוקעים – Even though it was also the day of a Jewish holy day (Yom Tov), and there is no work [performed], we sound the Shofar (i.e. the succession of connected notes) to cause people to stop their food preparation (which is permissible on Jewish holy days during the weekdays).

ולא מבדילין – Because he enters into the more stringent [day of the Sabbath] from what he is leaving [the less stringent day of the Holy Day].

חל להיות במוצאי שבת מבדילין – Since one leaves the more stringent (i.e. the Sabbath), from what one is entering into (i.e. Jewish Holy Day], and there is no sounding of the Shofar here.

כיצד מבדילין – [When going] from [the] Sabbath to Yom Tov (Jewish holy day), when a Jewish holy day occurs (and begins) on a Saturday evening (at the conclusion of the Sabbath).

רבי דוסא אומר: בין קודש חמור – But the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Dosa since we do not treat lightly the Jewish holy day by calling it the unimportant [or of minor value] holy day.