Talmud sobre Tahorot 3:6

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.”