Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Aleph, Part 6

 

Introduction

Yesterday s section ended with R. Yohanan stating that if there is doubt about something s status it is not sufficient to remove it from its previous status of certainty. In today s section, the Talmud takes a short digression from the larger topic and asks whether doubt can remove from certainty.

 

ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי והתניא חבר שמת והניח מגורה מלאה פירות אפילו הן בני יומן הרי הן בחזקת מתוקנין והא הכא דודאי טבילי ספק עשרינהו ספק לא עשרינהו וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי

 

And a doubt does not set aside a certainty? Behold it has been taught: If a haver died and left a store-room full of produce even if they were only picked that day, they are presumed to have been properly tithed.

Now here it is certain [that the produce was once] untithed and there is a doubt whether he had tithed them or not; yet the doubt does set aside the certainty!

 

A haver is someone known to tithe his food. This haver dies leaving a store room full of produce, and we do not know whether it has been tithed or not. The produce was certainly untithed at one point (this would be true of all produce). But now the doubt about whether it was tithed seems to be significant enough to presume that the produce is tithed. Thus a doubt sets aside a certainty.

 

התם ודאי וודאי הוא דודאי עשרינהו כדרבי חנינא חוזאה דאמר רבי חנינא חוזאה חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא דבר שאינו מתוקן מתחת ידו

ואבע"א מעיקרא לא טבילי ספק וספק הוא אפשר דעבד כדר’ אושעיא דאמר מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר

 

[No] there it is a case of certainty and certainty, for he certainly tithed the produce, according to the teaching of R. Hanina of Hoza, for R. Hanina of Hoza said: It is presumed that a haver does not allow anything to pass out of his control unless it had been properly treated.

Or if you wish I can say that it is a case of doubt and doubt, as he might have acted according to [the advice of] R. Oshaia who said: A man may act cunningly with his produce and store it together with the chaff, so that his cattle may eat of it and it be exempt from the tithe.

 

The Talmud rejects the proof in two ways. First of all, there is an assumption that the haver always tithes right away. So this might not be a case of doubt at all.

Second, if one brings his produce into the store room with its chaff, animals may eat it without tithing. So the produce might not have been liable for tithing at all. This is not doubt setting aside a certainty but doubt setting aside another doubt.

 

ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי והתניא אמר ר’ יהודה מעשה בשפחתו של מציק אחד ברימון שהטילה נפל לבור ובא כהן והציץ לידע אם זכר אם נקבה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטיהרוהו מפני שחולדה וברדלס מצוין שם והא הכא דודאי הטילה נפל ספק גררוהו ספק לא גררוהו וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי

 

And a doubt cannot set aside a certainty? Behold it has been taught: R. Judah said: It once happened that a female slave of a certain tax-collector in Rimmon threw the body of a premature child into a pit, and a priest came and gazed [into the pit] to ascertain whether it was male or female. The matter came before the Sages and they pronounced him clean because weasels and martens are commonly found there.

Now here is a certainty that the woman had cast a premature child [into the pit], and a doubt whether [animals] dragged it elsewhere or not; yet the doubt sets aside the certainty!

 

Yes, I know that this source is a bit gross and quite strange as well. Why does the priest need to know if it is male or female? While it is true that there are different periods of purity and impurity for male or female births (see Leviticus 12), is this slave Jewish such that she would observe these laws? Why doesn t the priest know that he should not look into the pit to see because that would make him impure?

In any case, there seems to have definitely been a source of impurity placed into the pit. The doubt is over whether it is still there. And again, a doubt does seem to set aside a certainty.

 

לא תימא הטילה נפל לבור אלא אימא הטילה כמין נפל לבור והא לידע אם זכר אם נקבה הוא קתני ה"ק לידע אם רוח הפילה אם נפל הטילה ואת"ל נפל הטילה לידע אם זכר אם נקבה ואיבעית אימא כיון שחולדה וברדלס מצוין שם ודאי גררוהו

 

Do not say she cast a premature child into a pit but rather something similar to a premature child into a pit.

But it is stated [that the priest looked] to ascertain whether it was male or female!

This is how it should read: [He looked] to ascertain whether she had aborted a sack of wind or whether it was a premature child [into the pit]; and if you assume that she threw a premature child there, he wished to ascertain whether it was male or female.

Or if you wish I can say that since weasels and martens are commonly found there, they certainly dragged it elsewhere.

 

The Talmud solves the problem again in two ways.

First of all, we could say that there was a doubt whether or not she even threw away a fetus, or whether it was a very early miscarriage, which would not defile. This is a case of a doubt setting aside another doubt.

Second, we could say that the weasel or marten definitely dragged it away, since there are so many such animals in this area. This is a case of a certainty setting aside another certainty.

But as R. Yohanan said, a case of doubt does not set aside a certainty.