Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Tet, Part 3
Introduction
In yesterday s section, concerning a girl who is now a bogeret but her father married her off slightly before we were sure she is a bogeret, Shmuel said that we must be concerned that her father s kiddushin are valid. Thus Shmuel does not think that we can assume that a current status (her being a bogeret) occurred earlier. This will be contrasted with the case of a mikveh found to have less than the requisite amount of water.
ושמואל מאי שנא ממקוה דתנן מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל טהרות שנעשו על גביו למפרע בין ברשות היחיד בין ברשות הרבים טמאות
Now, according to Shmuel, how is this different from the case of a mikveh? For we learned: If a mikveh is measured and found to be lacking: all acts of purification which where effected through it, whether in private or in public domain, are impure!
If a mikveh is found lacking, we assume that it has been lacking since last time it was measured. In other words, the current state (lacking) is assumed to have existed earlier. But this is different from Shmuel who says that the current state of the girl (bogeret) is not assumed to have existed earlier.
שאני התם דאיכא למימר העמד טמא על חזקתו ואימר לא טבל
אדרבה העמד מקוה על חזקתו ואימר לא חסר
הרי חסר לפניך הכא נמי הרי בוגרת לפניך
השתא הוא דבגרה התם נמי השתא הוא דחסר התם תרתי לריעותא הכא חדא לריעותא
There it is different, because we can say, Stand the impure person on his presumptive status, and say that he did not immerse.
On the contrary: Stand the mikveh in its presumptive status, and say that it was not lacking?
But it is lacking before you! Then here too, there is a bogeret before you!
She has [only] just now matured. Then there too, [let us say, it only] just now became lacking?
There, there are two unfavorable conditions; here, there is [only] one.
The Talmud struggles to differentiate between the case of the mikveh and the case of the bogeret. The principle of presumptive status does not help.
The answer is that there are two issues with the mikveh 1) the person was certainly impure; 2) the mikveh is currently lacking. Taken together, this leads to a stringency. With regard to the girl, there is only one issue to contend with the fact that she was found to be a bogeret. Therefore, in this case, the earlier status (not a bogeret) is not disturbed.
ושמואל מאי שנא מחבית דתניא היה בודק את החבית להפריש עליה תרומה והולך ואחר כך נמצאת חומץ כל ג’ ימים ודאי מיכן ואילך ספק
Again, according to Shmuel, how does this differ from [the case of a] barrel? For it was taught: If one was checking a barrel [of wine] in order to continually separate [terumah for other barrels] on its basis, and then it was found to be vinegar: for full three days it is certain; from that point on it is doubtful.
The case of the barrel is another instance in which we find something and need to assume when its current status developed. A person set aside a barrel to be terumah. Then he would drink wine from other barrels, assuming that the barrel would count as the terumah separated on their behalf. He checks the terumah barrel and finds it to be vinegar, which cannot be used to separate terumah. The mishnah assumes that for the three days following the last time he checked it, the barrel was definitely wine. Longer than that, and we cannot be sure. It could have been wine or it could have already been vinegar.
ורמינן חבית אמקוה מ"ש דהכא ודאי ומ"ש דהכא ספק
ואמר רב חנינא מסוריא מאן תנא חבית רבי שמעון היא דגבי מקוה נמי ספיקא משוי דתניא כל טהרות שנעשו על גביו למפרע בין ברשות היחיד בין ברשות הרבים טמאות ורבי שמעון אומר ברשות הרבים טהורות ברשות היחיד תולין אבל לרבנן טבל למפרע
Now, we contrasted the case of the barrel with the case of the mikveh : why is the latter certain and the former doubtful?
And R. Hanina of Sura said: Who taught [the baraita about the] barrel? R. Shimon, who also in the case of the mikveh determines it doubtful. For it was taught: All acts of purification which have been effected through it, whether in private or in public domain, are impure. R. Shimon ruled: In public domain, they are pure; in private ground, they are in suspense.
But in the view of the Rabbis it is retrospectively untithed produce!
The Talmud first contrasts the case of the barrel with the case of the mikveh. Why in that case are we certain that the mikveh was lacking whereas with the barrel we are uncertain? The answer is that the author of the barrel mishnah is R. Shimon and he also holds that with the mikveh we are uncertain. The rabbis, in contrast, are consistent, and hold that in both cases, we are certain that the current status (lacking water in mikveh or vinegar in the barrel) existed earlier. We are now left to contrast their position with Shmuel who was uncertain about when the girl became a bogeret.
שאני התם דאיכא למימר העמד טבל על חזקתו ואימר לא ניתקן
אדרבה העמד יין על חזקתו ואימר לא החמיץ
הרי החמיץ לפניך הכא נמי הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו
השתא הוא דבגרה (הכא) נמי השתא הוא דאחמיץ
התם תרתי לריעותא הכא חדא לריעותא הוא דאיכא
There it is different, because one can say: Let the untithed produce stand in its presumptive status and say that tithes were not taken out.
On the contrary, let the wine stand in its presumptive status and say that it had not turned into vinegar?
Behold, it is vinegar before you.
Then here too, she stands a bogeret before you?
She has [only] just now become a bogeret.
Then here too [let us say,] It has [only] just now turned into vinegar ?
There, there are two unfavorable conditions; but here there is only one.
This is similar to the resolution from above. In the case of the untithed produce there are two unfavorable conditions: 1) At some point the produce was not tithed; 2) the wine is currently vinegar. Therefore, we are strict. But in the case of the girl, there is only one issue she is now a bogeret. Therefore, Shmuel is concerned lest she became a bogeret just now and therefore we must take into consideration her father s kiddushin.