![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Masechet Chullin Daf 25
Dec. 22nd, 2018 05:17 pmI'm going into the city in a couple hours for a Yiddish punk concert. Trying to decide if the most Yiddish punk t-shirt I own is this one or this one. I think it's the first one.
Daf 25
Oh, hey! Speaking of golems...
We continue the discussion of the series of Mishnayos based on the parallel structure of the halacha of A is not like B, and the halacha of B is not like A. Today most of the Mishnayos are about the concepts of tumah and tahara.
First we compare a kli cheres, an earthenware vessel, to a non earthenware vessel. According to drash from a verse in Leviticus that discusses a sheretz inside a kli cheres, we learn that if an object that transmits tumah is inside a kli cheres, even if it's not physically touching the kli, it transmits tumah to the kli and also to anything that is inside the airspace/volume that the kli encloses. But if the object that transmits tumah is outside the kli, even if it physically touches, it does not transmit tumah. And the opposite is true for a non-earthenware kli.
Then we go on to discuss a wooden kli versus a metal kli. The wooden kli still becomes tamei if it is unfinished in a number of ways, as long as it can perform its basic function. But if it does not have a hollow in it to actually hold something, it cannot become tamei. This is because of a drash on the verse that discusses tumah of wooden vessels, which also mentions sacks, and from this the Rabbis learn that an essential feature of a wooden kli is its ability to hold something in it.
In contrast, a metal kli does not become tamei if it is unfinished, meaning it is missing some form of decoration that is considered part of its essential function. I guess in that era, if you went to the effort of making a metal utensil or vessel, you weren't doing it just because you wanted a bowl, because it would've been so much easier to make a wooden or clay vessel. You were doing it because you wanted a fancy decorative vessel for a specific purpose, so until it's been decorated it's not a vessel.
But as I said, speaking of soulless golems, the word the Baraisa uses to describe an unfinished kli is golmei kli etz and so on. Golem means unfinished, as in this body of clay is unfinished until the ba'al kabbalah breathes the ruach kodesh of life into it.
Later on the Mishna discusses a few things that don't quite meet the previous pattern of halacha A is unlike halacha B and halacha B is unlike halacha A. The new, similar pattern is Object has a state X in which halacha A is unlike halacha B, and a state Y in which opposite halacha B is unlike halacha A.
The first example is temed, which is a mixture of water and grape residue. Is it wine or is it water? (or does the water get him instead?) When does this matter?
Oh! Oh! I know this one!!!! Back when I was learning Masechet Makkos last year we looked at the case of wine that falls into a mikvah. Wine does not invalidate a mikvah, but drawn water does, provided there are less than 40 seah of water in the mikvah. And mixtures of water and wine invalidate (provided the color of the mixture is closer to that of the water than the wine). But here the difference is that the temed is not a mixture of water and wine, it's a mixture of water and grape residue that still has the potential to ferment. So the Mishna says that if the temed has not yet fermented, it counts as water and invalidates a mikva, but if it has fermented, it counts as wine and does not invalidate a mikva. And contrariwise, if it has not yet fermented and counts as water, it cannot be purchased with ma'aser sheni monies that must be spent on food, but if it has been fermented and counts as wine, it can be purchased with ma'aser sheni money.
Daf 25
Oh, hey! Speaking of golems...
We continue the discussion of the series of Mishnayos based on the parallel structure of the halacha of A is not like B, and the halacha of B is not like A. Today most of the Mishnayos are about the concepts of tumah and tahara.
First we compare a kli cheres, an earthenware vessel, to a non earthenware vessel. According to drash from a verse in Leviticus that discusses a sheretz inside a kli cheres, we learn that if an object that transmits tumah is inside a kli cheres, even if it's not physically touching the kli, it transmits tumah to the kli and also to anything that is inside the airspace/volume that the kli encloses. But if the object that transmits tumah is outside the kli, even if it physically touches, it does not transmit tumah. And the opposite is true for a non-earthenware kli.
Then we go on to discuss a wooden kli versus a metal kli. The wooden kli still becomes tamei if it is unfinished in a number of ways, as long as it can perform its basic function. But if it does not have a hollow in it to actually hold something, it cannot become tamei. This is because of a drash on the verse that discusses tumah of wooden vessels, which also mentions sacks, and from this the Rabbis learn that an essential feature of a wooden kli is its ability to hold something in it.
In contrast, a metal kli does not become tamei if it is unfinished, meaning it is missing some form of decoration that is considered part of its essential function. I guess in that era, if you went to the effort of making a metal utensil or vessel, you weren't doing it just because you wanted a bowl, because it would've been so much easier to make a wooden or clay vessel. You were doing it because you wanted a fancy decorative vessel for a specific purpose, so until it's been decorated it's not a vessel.
But as I said, speaking of soulless golems, the word the Baraisa uses to describe an unfinished kli is golmei kli etz and so on. Golem means unfinished, as in this body of clay is unfinished until the ba'al kabbalah breathes the ruach kodesh of life into it.
Later on the Mishna discusses a few things that don't quite meet the previous pattern of halacha A is unlike halacha B and halacha B is unlike halacha A. The new, similar pattern is Object has a state X in which halacha A is unlike halacha B, and a state Y in which opposite halacha B is unlike halacha A.
The first example is temed, which is a mixture of water and grape residue. Is it wine or is it water? (or does the water get him instead?) When does this matter?
Oh! Oh! I know this one!!!! Back when I was learning Masechet Makkos last year we looked at the case of wine that falls into a mikvah. Wine does not invalidate a mikvah, but drawn water does, provided there are less than 40 seah of water in the mikvah. And mixtures of water and wine invalidate (provided the color of the mixture is closer to that of the water than the wine). But here the difference is that the temed is not a mixture of water and wine, it's a mixture of water and grape residue that still has the potential to ferment. So the Mishna says that if the temed has not yet fermented, it counts as water and invalidates a mikva, but if it has fermented, it counts as wine and does not invalidate a mikva. And contrariwise, if it has not yet fermented and counts as water, it cannot be purchased with ma'aser sheni monies that must be spent on food, but if it has been fermented and counts as wine, it can be purchased with ma'aser sheni money.