Responsa for Niddah 115:3
שמואל הוא דאמר כר' נחמיה
replied: Samuel gave his ruling in accordance with the view of R. Nehemiah. For we learnt: R. Nehemiah ruled, Any thing that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 59b, sc. a stain found on such an object is no cause of uncleanness to the person in whom it may possibly have originated. As the ground on which the woman sat is not susceptible to uncleanness the woman also, despite the stain found, remains clean. All the rulings cited in objection to Samuel based on the principle of 'feeling', are, therefore, irrelevant. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A Gentile woman poured wine without touching it into a bottle or glass, thinking it was whiskey.
A. Since she did not touch the wine and did not know that it was wine, we assume that she did not discover its true nature by its odor. For our wines are clear and weak in comparison with the wines of the talmudic period. Therefore, the use of the wine, even the wine she poured into the bottle, is permitted.
SOURCES: B. p. 296 no. 390; Mordecai Hagadol p. 118b.
A. Since she did not touch the wine and did not know that it was wine, we assume that she did not discover its true nature by its odor. For our wines are clear and weak in comparison with the wines of the talmudic period. Therefore, the use of the wine, even the wine she poured into the bottle, is permitted.
SOURCES: B. p. 296 no. 390; Mordecai Hagadol p. 118b.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy