Talmud zu Tahorot 3:10

There¹⁰⁰Mishnah Ṭahorot 3:4. The discussion is about the second part of the Mishnah, not quoted in the text: “If they were put into the rain and swelled they are impure …” The volumes indicated are the minima that may carry impurity or make their consumption a criminal offense., we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass¹⁰¹Lev. 11:24–25., or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing¹⁰²Lev. 11:31–32., the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice]¹⁰³Rejected sacrifice is sacrifice made with the wrong intentions, Lev. 19:7; overdue is sacrifice left after the allotted time has expired (one night, day and night, or two days and the night in between, as the case may be; Lev. 7:17.), or of fat¹⁰⁴The fat in lumps in the body, Lev. 7:22–26., are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive¹⁰⁵In matters of impurity and dietary laws, it is not the actual volume that counts but the volume at the time the impurity or prohibition first arose. If impurity or prohibition are impossible in the original state, they cannot be acquired by subsequent swelling. Rebbi Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish hold that only the actual volume at the moment matters. Everybody agrees that his guidelines carry over to the determination of heave of the tithe.; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There¹⁰⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 5:1: “All flour sacrifices are brought unleavened except the breads for a thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. 7:13) and the Two Breads [for Pentecost (Lev. 23:17)] which are leavened. Rebbi Meïr says, the sour dough is made from the dedicated flour. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is not of the best but he brings sour dough, puts it into the measuring vessel and fills the latter [with flour.] They said to him,that will make it deficient or redundant.”
The problem is that in each case, the amount of flour necessary is prescribed by biblical law. According to R. Meïr, one takes the exact amount, and then takes from this a small amount which is moistened to make it sour; then the sour dough is returned to the original flour which is moistened and kneaded. R. Jehudah notes that this will make poor bread; he prefers real sour dough to be used in addition to the flour of the offering. He is told that in this case, when the finished product must have specified size, his procedure probably will never be exactly right., we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks¹⁰⁷It does not actually shrink but will not rise. Since the measure was not full to start out with, in order to accomodate the rising dough, one now will have invalidated the offering because it is too small.; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant¹⁰⁸This text, confirmed by the mss., is impossible since the Southerners disagree with Rebbis Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish precisely in the case of swelling food. In must read: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbis Joḥanan, and Simeon ben Laqish all three say the same. The next sentence must then read: The Southerners, Rebbi Jonah and Yose all three say the same. The first group takes all food as is, the others agree only on shrinking, not on expanding food. The statements of Rebbis Jeremiah, Jonah, and Yose are in the preceding paragraph and deal with heave of the tithe.. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order¹⁰⁹To tithe or at least give heave of the tithe by the rules of demay.. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

⁸⁷An extended text in Tosephta Taharot 6:17.“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure⁸⁸This is a question about ritual impurity, not the moral impurity of the straying wife. But since adultery is called “impurity” in the paragraph of the straying wife (Num. 5:13,14,19,20, 27,28,29), the rules of ritual impurity and of moral impurity must be identical. The undisputed rule is that if a question arises in matters of ritual impurity it must be resolved by a presumption of impurity in a private domain but of purity in the public domain (cf. Babli, Soṭa 28a/b, Avodah Zarah 37b, Ḥulin 9b). The argument presented by the Tosephta is rejected by the Babli in Soṭa in the name of R. Aqiba; in Avodah Zarah and Ḥulin the rule is accepted as an old tradition devoid of scriptural basis. Cf. Tosafot Soṭa 28b, s. v. מכאן.? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain⁸⁹A place adequate for intercourse must by definition be private. As the preceding examples show, the definition of “private place” for all kinds of impurity are different from the rules of “private place” in civil matters and regarding the Sabbath (Shabbat Chapter 1).. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house⁹⁰In her intimate relations with her husband, she is considered an adulteress even though there remains a doubt whether she actually committed adultery in the hidden room..” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband⁹¹In the Babli, Yebamot 33b, the formulation is: The seduction of a minor girl is rape. The rape victim is explicitly cleared from the guilt of adultery in Num. 5:13.
The Medieval authorities make it difficult to understand the position of the Babli in this matter. According to R. Abraham ben David in his glosses to the Code of Maimonides (Issure Bi’a 3:2, Soṭa 2:4), the Babli accepts the opinion of the Yerushalmi. Maimonides holds that the underage girl is forbidden to her husband. As usual, he gives no reason for his decision. In the opinion of Don Vidal de Tolosa, approved by Joseph Caro, this is not because of the girl but because the husband forbade her on himself as stated in Ketubot 9a for any case in which the husband accuses his wife of infidelity. In the case of an underage girl, this refers only to a girl married off by her father, whose marriage in valid by biblical standards, cf. Yebamot 1, Note 118.. But did we not state:⁹²Mishnah Taharot 3:6. “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure⁹³Even in a private domain.”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure!⁹⁴The argument of the Tosephta is rejected since the minor can tell what happened even if she legally has no will (or at least the seducer could in theory be asked.) ⁸⁷An extended text in Tosephta Taharot 6:17.“Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure⁹⁵If most of Israel are impure, the public service in the Temple is performed in impurity. The only private sacrifice which has the status of a public offering is the Passah lamb (Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:6).. If known impurity was permitted in public⁹⁶This is a matter of dispute in the Babli (e. g. Yoma 6b), whether for public sacrifices the rules of impurity are pushed aside or eliminated. Following the first opinion, the invasion of impurity has to be held to a minimum. This opinion is not found in the Yerushalmi. In the second opinion, the one expressed here, the rules of impurity are disregarded; it is as if impurity were purity. Under the influence of the Babli, the commentators unanimously emend “in purity” to “in impurity” and even J. Sussman here indicates a corruption. The emendation is totally unnecessary., so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

For freshly pressed wine one can allow for up to forty days presuming that it is wine¹⁶⁶It is difficult to judge whether fermenting freshly pressed cider will turn out to be wine or vinegar. Since in most cases one obtains wine, the fermenting juice can be considered to be wine and if a vessel full of fermenting cider was set apart to serve as heave for the entire harvest, one may declare parts of it to be heave for successive batches up to 40 days.; Rebbi Jehudah says, up to a break point¹⁶⁷One of the three meteorologically dangerous dates listed by him in the Mishnah when wine is apt to turn into vinegar.. You find that there is a leniency and a restriction following Rebbi Jehudah, and a leniency and a restriction following the rabbis. ¹⁶⁸The following two sentences are garbled. One should read: A restriction following Rebbi Jehudah, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed, he cannot give heave, and a leniency if forty days passed without break point that he can give heave. A restriction following the rabbis, if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave, and a leniency, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed that he can give heave.
Since wine and vinegar are considered two different products for the purpose of heave, it is forbidden to give heave for wine from vinegar and vice-versa (MishnahTerumot 3:1). A leniency following Rebbi Jehudah, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed, and a restriction if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave. A leniency following the rabbis, if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave, and a restriction, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed that he cannot give heave. Rebbi Simon asked: If the fortieth day arrived and he did not check. He was lazy for two or three days, then he came and found it to be vinegar. Is it retroactively considered to be vinegar or only from there on to the future? What is the difference? If he had transgressed and given heave. If you say that retroactively it is considered to be vinegar, his heave is heave¹⁶⁹The previous paragraph shows that in this sentence one has to read: His heave is no heave. In the next sentence, one has to read: His heave is heave. The text already was corrected in editio princeps.. From there on to the future it is not heave. ¹⁷⁰From here to the end of the Halakhah there exists a parallel text in Baba Batra 6:1 (15b/c) edited differently. The first part also has a parallel in the Babli, Baba Batra 96a. If he had checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it¹⁷¹Since heave has to be given from the finished agricultural product, it is in order to set aside a small amphora of the first wine of the season to be used to provide heave for the entire harvest. From the moment the first small volume of wine is declared as heave, the entire contents of the amphora can be consumed only by a ritually pure Cohen. This does not alter the fact that most of the contents are still profane and can be used for future declarations of heave; cf. Note 151.. When he returned, he found it to be vinegar. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard that from Rebbi Joshua ben Levi; Rebbi Joḥanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is wine, after that it is in doubt¹⁷²In the Babli, R. Joḥanan’s opinion is supported by a baraita. There it is explained that they differ in the analysis of the process which turns wine into vinegar. This cannot be the background of the Yerushalmi since then the comparison to the status of the needle would be impossible.. Do they differ in the treatment of doubt? What Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to the case that he came and found it to be stale vinegar¹⁷³It was exposed to oxydation for a prolonged period after turning into vinegar.. What Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said refers to the case that he came and found it to be strong vinegar¹⁷⁴Turned into vinegar only recently.. Or their difference equals another difference, for what we have stated there¹⁷⁵Mishnah Tahorot 3:5. There, “pure” means “cannot be impure” and “impure” “can become impure”. The only items which can become impure are humans, food, vessels, and tools. An impure tool or vessel is purified when it becomes unusable.: “A rusty or broken needle is pure¹⁷⁶In this state it is not usable. It is stated in Tosephta Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a 3:10 that if it was impure, rusted and became pure, then was rubbed clean, it returned to its original impurity..” It was stated: He put it down smooth, then he came and found it rusty. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, that is what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said; Rebbi Joḥanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is impure, after that it is in doubt. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of all rabbis who are frequenting the House of Study: Concerning wine and needle practice follows Rebbi Joshua ben Levi¹⁷⁷In Baba Batra 6:1, practice is decided following R. Joshua ben Levi only in the case of the needle. The Babli Baba Batra 96a implies that practice follows R. Joḥanan in the case of the amphora (understood in this sense by Maimonides and R. Moses of Coucy.).

HALAKHAH: ²⁰⁶In the ms. but not in editio princeps, Halakhah 8 follows Halakhah 10. The theme of Halakhah 8 agrees better with Mishnah 10 than with Mishnah 8. “If somebody empowered his agent,” etc. It was stated: “If a man and a woman come from overseas; he says, she is my wife, and she says, he is my husband. One will not execute anybody because of her being a married woman²⁰⁷If somebody commits adultery with the woman, he cannot be prosecuted in the absence of proof (by witnesses or documents) that the woman actually is a wife, not a concubine.. If they become generally known²⁰⁸Public knowledge creates prima facie evidence which is valid as long as it is not rebutted by legal proof to the contrary; cf. Ketubot 5:5, Note 100., one will execute because of her being a married woman.” How long does it take to be generally known? Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to thirty days²⁰⁹Once a couple has lived in town as husband and wife for thirty days, adultery by another man with the wife is a capital crime since it seems unlikely that she would be able to prove that she is not married. Once prima facie evidence is established, husband and wife are barred from testifying in the matter since they are presumed related to each other.. There²¹⁰Mishnah Ṭahorot 3:8., we have stated: “A toddler who is found near cake-dough with a piece of dough in his hand²¹¹The dough is supposed to be made in the purity of heave. The toddler is assumed to be impure unless he was immersed in a miqweh and then watched every moment lest he touch anything which would make him impure. If the toddler took the cake dough by himself, the cake dough is impure. If it is known that he was handed the piece of dough by a pure adult, the rest of the cake dough remains pure., Rebbi Meïr declares pure²¹²R. Meïr is reluctant to accept that anything which happens most of the time happens all the time unless the contrary be known. Since some toddlers do not touch anything impure and some toddlers do not play with dough if they see it, it is not said that the cake dough has to be impure. but the Sages declare it impure, for toddlers will slap their hands on cake-dough²¹³The cake dough is impure by prima facie evidence unless proven to be otherwise..” Does one burn because of general knowledge²¹⁴If the cake dough was made of heave material.? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not execute because of general knowledge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Everybody agrees that one executes because of general knowledge. Where do they disagree? About burning. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge but one does not burn because of general knowledge²¹⁵Babli 80a; cf. also Demay 6:6, Note 138.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one executes because of general knowledge, one also burns because of general knowledge. And from where that one executes because of general knowledge? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is written²¹⁶Ex.. 21:15.: “He who hits his father or his mother shall be put to death.” But is it certain that this one is his father? Is it not only general knowledge that he is his father²¹⁷This is not really a proof since fatherhood is not only a matter of public knowledge but also of probability since “most intercourse of an adulteress is still with her husband” (Soṭah, Yerushalmi 1:7 Note 265, Babli 27a; Tosephta Yebamot 12:8.)? But it says, one executes. So here also²¹⁸In the matter of the couple who married at another place and declare themselves husband and wife; Babli 80a. one executes.