Commentary for Yevamot 164:5

מאי לאו דנשתייר רובו לא דלא נשקול רובו

But is R. Johanan of the opinion that in respect of a Rabbinically forbidden object no excess is required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To effect neutralization. It is now assumed that the reason why R. Johanan maintains that 'even if the unconsecrated fruit were no more than the terumah' it is permitted is because, in the case of a Rabbinical prohibition, neutralization is effected by the mere accident of the mixing of consecrated with unconsecrated fruit even though the latter did not form the larger part and not because he relies on the above mentioned assumption. ');">⁹</span> Surely we learned: A ritual bath containing exactly forty <i>se'ah</i> [of water]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minimum quantity of water that constitutes a ritual bath. ');">¹⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 164:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.