Commentary for Yevamot 230:7

אלא דכולי עלמא חיישינן שמא פינן והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר אם איתא דפינהו מיכפר הוה כפר ואידך אימר אישתלויי אישתלי אי נמי לפנחיא שבקיה:

that though it was in the previous year full of <i>terumah</i> it has subsequently been emptied!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And replaced by unconsecrated produce Much more so when a single letter only appears on the jar! V. M.Sh., loc. cit. ');">¹⁸</span> But the fact is, all agree that the possibility of [the contents] having been removed must be taken into consideration. Here, however, they differ only on the following principle: One Master is of the opinion that had the owner removed [the contents from the jar] he would undoubtedly have wiped [the mark] off, while the other [maintains that] it might be assumed that he may have forgotten [to remove the mark] or he may also intentionally have left it as a safeguard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H[ (cf. Pers. panah) 'protection'. People who might perhaps have no scruples about clandestinely consuming other peoples produce would nevertheless be afraid of meddling with sacred commodities. ');">¹⁹</span> Resh Galutha Isaac,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Term denotes elsewhere 'Exilarch'; here it is a proper name. V. Obermeyer, p. 183, n.l.]. ');">²⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 230:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.