Kiddushin

This was taught only in respect of Sanctities of the border,1 but not in respect of genealogy.2 But R. Johanan maintained: Even in respect of genealogy. 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. For Rab Judah said: If a woman was presumed a niddah by her neighbours, her husband is flagellated on her account as a niddah.3 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 lived4 in a house [together],5 they are stoned and burnt on each other's account.6 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. 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. 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.7 Now, we pondered thereon: What is R. Meir's reason? [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:8 hence combine the minority with the presumption, and the majority is weakened. But the Rabbis [argue]: the minority is as non-existent:9 [now, where there are] a majority and a presumption [opposed to each other], the majority is stronger.10 Said Resh Lakish on R. Oshaia's authority: That is the presumption11 on the strength of which terumah is burnt:12 R. Johanan maintained: This is not the presumption on the strength of which terumah is burnt.13 Then on account of which presumption is terumah burnt, in R. Johanan's opinion?14 — As it was taught: If there is a dough in a house wherein reptiles and frogs breed,15 and pieces are found in the dough:16 if they are mostly reptiles, it is unclean; if mostly frogs, it is clean. 17 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:18 a child, and another. A child, as stated.19 And another: what is it? — If there is dough in a house which contains fowls and unclean fluid, and holes are found 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. actual proof of their relationship, save the general presumption. 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. stated the opinions of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish mentioned supra. burnt. 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. 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. possess intelligence.