Kiddushin 159

לא שנו אלא בקדשי הגבול אבל ביוחסין לא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו ביוחסין

This was taught only in respect of Sanctities of the border,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Border' (gebul) is the technical term for Palestine outside Jerusalem. 'Sanctities of the border' are terumah, i.e., sacred food which may be consumed outside the Temple and Jerusalem. - If the man is a priest, we rely upon the fact that the children cling to this woman, who is known to be of good birth, and they may eat terumah.');">¹</span> but not in respect of genealogy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His daughters may not marry into the priesthood unless he proves that they are of this woman.');">²</span> But R'Johanan maintained: Even in respect of genealogy.

ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מלקין על החזקות סוקלין ושורפין על החזקות ואין שורפין תרומה על החזקות

Now, R'Johanan is in accord with his view [elsewhere]. For R'Hiyya B'Abba said in R'Johanan's name: We flagellate on the strength of presumption, we stone and burn on the strength of presumption, but we do not burn terumah on the strength of presumption. We flagellate on the strength of presumption, as Rab Judah.

מלקין על החזקות כרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה הוחזקה נדה בשכינותיה בעלה לוקה עליה משום נדה

For Rab Judah said: If a woman was presumed a niddah by her neighbours, her husband is flagellated on her account as a niddah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. If he cohabits with her, though there are no actual witnesses of her menstruation.');">³</span> We stone and burn on the strength of presumption, as Rabbah son of R'Huna. For Rabbah son of R'Huna said: If a man, woman, boy and girl lived<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'were brought up'.');">⁴</span>

סוקלין ושורפין על החזקות כדרבה בר רב הונא דאמר רבה בר רב הונא איש ואשה תינוק ותינוקת שהגדילו בתוך הבית נסקלין זה על זה ונשרפין זה על זה

in a house [together],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As husband and wife, son and daughter.');">⁵</span> they are stoned and burnt on each other's account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the son cohabits with his mother, they are stoned; if the daughter with her father, they are burnt. Now, there is no actual proof of their relationship, save the general presumption.');">⁶</span> R'Simeon B'Pazzi said in R'Joshua B'Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: It once happened that a woman came to Jerusalem carrying an infant on her back; she brought him up and he had intercourse with her, whereupon they were brought before Beth din and stoned.

א"ר שמעון בן פזי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא מעשה באשה שבאת לירושלים ותינוק מורכב לה על כתיפה והגדילתו ובא עליה והביאום לבית דין וסקלום לא מפני שבנה ודאי אלא מפני שכרוך אחריה

Not because he was definitely her son, but because he clung to her. But we do not burn terumah on the strength of presumption. For R'Simeon B'Lakish said: We burn [terumah] on the strength of presumption; whereas R'Johanan maintained, we do not.

ואין שורפין תרומה על החזקות דאמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש שורפין על החזקות ור' יוחנן אומר אין שורפין ואזדו לטעמייהו דתנן תינוק שנמצא בצד העיסה ובצק בידו ר"מ מטהר וחכמים מטמאין מפני שדרכו של תינוק לטפח

Now, they are in accord with their opinions. For we learnt: If a child is found at the side of a dough, and there is dough in his hand, R'Meir declares it clean; the Sages declare it unclean, because it is a child's nature to dabble.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: the child certainly took the piece from the dough, and since it is his nature to dabble among refuse and unclean things. he is probably unclean (which is regarded as a certainty) and so defiles the dough. Tosaf.: the child is certainly unclean (because women, even when menstruants, fondle children; Tosaf. Toh. III) and the only question is whether he took the dough himself or it was given him. The Rabbis declare the large dough unclean, because it is a child's nature to dabble with food, and so he probably took it himself.');">⁷</span> Now, we pondered thereon: What is R'Meir's reason?

והוינן בה מאי טעמיה דר"מ קסבר רוב תינוקות מטפחין ומיעוט אין מטפחין ועיסה בחזקת טהרה עומדת וסמוך מיעוטא לחזקה איתרע ליה רובא ורבנן מיעוטא כמאן דליתא דמי רובא וחזקה רובא עדיף

[And the answer was:] He holds, most children dabble, yet there is a minority who do not, while the dough stands in the presumption of cleanness:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as we do not know that it was defiled.');">⁸</span> hence combine the minority with the presumption, and the majority is weakened. But the Rabbis [argue]: the minority is as non-existent:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is completely disregarded.');">⁹</span>

אר"ל משום רבי אושעיא זו היא ששורפין עליה את התרומה ר' יוחנן אמר אין זו חזקה ששורפין עליה תרומה

[now, where there are] a majority and a presumption [opposed to each other], the majority is stronger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The majority argument favours the uncleanness of the dough. whereas its presumptive status is that it is clean.');">¹⁰</span> Said Resh Lakish on R'Oshaia's authority: That is the presumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that it is a child's nature to dabble.');">¹¹</span> on the strength of which terumah is burnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the dough is terumah it is burnt.');">¹²</span>

אלא איזו חזקה לרבי יוחנן ששורפין עליה את התרומה כדתנן עיסה בתוך הבית ושרצים וצפרדעים מטפלין שם ונמצאו חתיכות בעיסה אם רוב שרצים טמאה אם רוב צפרדעים טהורה

R'Johanan maintained: This is not the presumption on the strength of which terumah is burnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And when the Sages declare it unclean they mean it must be kept in suspense without burning it. Thus we have here stated the opinions of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish mentioned supra.');">¹³</span> Then on account of which presumption is terumah burnt, in R'Johanan's opinion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words 'This is not the presumption etc.' implies that there is a presumption on account of which terumah is burnt.');">¹⁴</span> - As it was taught: If there is a dough in a house wherein reptiles and frogs breed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dead reptiles are unclean and defile food; frogs are clean, cf. Lev. XI, 29ff.');">¹⁵</span>

תניא כותיה דרבי יוחנן שני דברים אין בהם דעת לישאל ועשאום חכמים כמה שיש בהם דעת לישאל תינוק ועוד אחרת

and pieces are found in the dough:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Evidently caused by these.');">¹⁶</span> if they are mostly reptiles, it is unclean; if mostly frogs, it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And because of the presumption which is based on a majority of a definite number before us, i.e., the greater number of reptiles, this dough, if terumah is burnt, whereas in the case of the child we have no majority immediately available to go by. v. Hul. 11a.');">¹⁷</span> It was taught in accordance with R'Johanan: Two things lack the intelligence to be questioned, yet the Sages accounted them as though they possess it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated, on p. 407. n. I, when a doubt of uncleanness arises in private ground, the object in doubt is unclean. That is only if that which causes the defilement has the intelligence to be questioned about it; if not, the object is clean, v. Sot. 28b.');">¹⁸</span>

תינוק הא דאמרן ועוד אחרת מאי היא עיסה בתוך הבית ותרנגולים ומשקים טמאים שם ונמצאו

a child, and another. A child, as stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Legally a child lacks understanding; yet since the dough is declared unclean, the child is evidently considered to possess intelligence.');">¹⁹</span> And another: what is it? - If there is dough in a house which contains fowls and unclean fluid, and holes are found