Chullin 18

Chapter 18

א חוששין שמא במקום נקב נקב

1 one must apprehend that it was nibbling in a pre-existing hole!1

ב אמר ליה

2 - He replied: How can you compare what is forbidden ritually with what is forbidden on account of possible danger to life! In the latter case we are certainly more apprehensive.

ג מי קא מדמית איסורא לסכנתא

3 Said Raba:2

ד סכנה שאני

4 What difference is there?

ה א"ל רבא

5 Whenever there arises a doubt concerning a prohibition based on danger to life the stricter view is preferred, and the same is the case with regard to a doubt in connection with a ritual prohibition! - Said Abaye to him, Is there then no difference between laws concerning danger to life and laws concerning ritual prohibitions?

ו מאי שנא ספק סכנתא לחומרא

6 But let us see! Whenever there is a doubt regarding any object whether it is clean or unclean, if such doubt arose in a public place, it is deemed clean; but whenever there is a doubt regarding water that was left uncovered it is deemed to be forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Laws relating to uncleanness come under the category of ritual prohibitions, while the rule concerning waters left uncovered belongs to the class of laws concerning danger to life. The danger in this case is that a snake may have drunk from the water.');">3

ז ספק איסורא נמי לחומרא

7 He answered: In the case of uncleanness the rule is derived by analogy from the case of a woman suspected of adultery, viz. , as [the doubt in connection with] the suspected woman can only occur in a private place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where this woman has been in seclusion with her paramour. It is only in such cases that the suspicion is well founded and the woman must undergo the ordeal of the bitter waters, v. Num. V. 11ff. Seclusion with a paramour in a public place is not considered an act of infidelity.');">4

ח א"ל אביי

8 so [every doubt in connection with] uncleanness must have occurred in a private place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is only in such cases that the law regards the object as unclean, v. A.Z. 36b. It is thus only because of the analogy drawn from the case of the suspected woman that a doubt of uncleanness in a public place constitutes an exception to the general rule that wherever doubt arises in cases of ritual prohibitions, as well as danger to life, the law adopts the stricter view.');">5

ט ולא שאני בין איסורא לסכנתא

9 R'Shimi raised an objection: [We have learnt:] If a weasel has a [dead] reptile in its mouth, and walks ove loaves of terumah,6

י והא אילו ספק טומאה ברה"ר ספיקו טהור ואילו ספק מים מגולין אסורין

10 and it is doubtful whether the reptile came into contact with the loaves or not, they are deemed clean.7

יא א"ל

11 Yet in the case of water left uncovered, if there is any doubt about it, it is forbidden? - Her again, the rule [in the case of uncleanness] is derived by analogy from the case of a woman suspected of adultery, viz. , as [the doubt in connection with] the suspected woman [relates to a person that] has understanding to be questioned about it,8

יב התם הלכתא גמירי לה מסוטה

12 so every doubt in connection with uncleanness must relate to such as have understanding to be questioned about it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is only in such cases that the law regards the person as unclean. Thus a further exception to the general rule is admitted in the case of a doubt regarding uncleanness arising in connection, with anything other than a human being. In the case of the weasel the loaves cannot be asked whether or not they have been defiled.');">9

יג מה סוטה ברה"י אף טומאה ברה"י

13 Come and hear: If a man left uncovered a bowl [containing purification water]10

יד מתיב רב שימי

14 and came and found it covered, it is regarded as unclean, for I can say that an unclean person entered and covered it.

טו שרץ בפי חולדה וחולדה מהלכת על גבי ככרות של תרומה ספק נגע ספק לא נגע ספיקו טהור ואילו ספק מים מגולין אסורין

15 If he left it covered and came and found it uncovered, and a weasel or, even a snake, according to R'Gamaliel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Gamaliel holds the view that a snake also invalidates the purification water by drinking therefrom, because it spits back the water it drinks into the bowl, and this action invalidates the water because of the reasons given in n. 9, infra.');">11

טז התם נמי הלכתא גמירי לה מסוטה

16 - could have drunk from it, or if dew fell on it during the night.12

יז מה סוטה דבר שיש בה דעת לישאל אף הכא נמי דבר שיש בו דעת לישאל

17 the water is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not unclean. V. Parah IX, 3, where it is taught that if a weasel drinks from purification water it becomes invalid, because the weasel, when drinking, laps up the water. Lapping or spitting invalidates the purification water either because it disturbs the water and it is considered as though the water were put to some work, or because by lapping or spitting the water drips back out of the mouth into the bowl, and it is regarded as though the water were poured out of another vessel into the original bowl, and this is not permitted, for according to the biblical injunction there must be living water in the bowl; v. Num. XIX, 17.');">13

יח אמר רב אשי ת"ש

18 And R'Joshua B'Levi said: What is the reason for this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in the second case (where the bowl was found uncovered) the water is merely invalid, whereas in the first case (where the bowl was found covered) it is also regarded as unclean.');">14

יט צלוחית שהניחה מגולה ובא ומצאה מכוסה טמאה שאני אומר

כ אדם טמא נכנס לשם וכיסה

כא הניחה מכוסה ובא ומצאה מגולה אם יכולה חולדה לשתות ממנה או נחש לדברי רבן גמליאל או שירד בה טל בלילה פסולה

כב ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי

כג מה טעם

Previous Chapter Next Chapter