Mesorat%20hashas for Yoma 168:16

ומי אמר שמואל הכי והתנן מצא בה תינוק מושלך אם רוב כותיים כותי ואם רוב ישראל ישראל מחצה על מחצה ישראל ואמר רב לא שנו אלא להחיותו אבל לייחסו לא

- This is no contradiction: In the one case all had gone off, in the other only a few had gone off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In the former case, since they all had left the former court, the principle of kabua' no longer operates, and consequently the majority decides, but in the latter case, since there still remains a number of them in the former court, we apply the principle of kabua' and the debris have to be removed. So Asheri; Rashi explains differently].');">¹⁶</span> But could Samuel have said that? Have we not learnt: If one finds therein<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a town wherein Israelites and Gentiles live.');">¹⁷</span> a child abandoned, if the majority of the inhabitants are heathens, it is t be considered a heathen; if the majority are Israelites, it is to be considered an Israelite; in the case of hal and half it is to be also considered an Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth. 15a.');">¹⁸</span> And in connection therewith Rab said: This was taught only in relation to sustaining it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jews are in duty bound to support their own poor.');">¹⁹</span> but not for the purpose of legitimizing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the child found exposed were a girl, she could not marry a priest, who is obliged to marry a native-born Israelite, not a proselyte.');">²⁰</span> it;

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yoma 168:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.