Kiddushin, Daf Peh, Part 3

 

Introduction

In yesterday s section R. Yohanan stated that we do not burn terumah on the basis of a presumption. Impure terumah is burned to discard of it. However, the problem with burning terumah is that if the terumah was not impure, then it is forbidden to burn it. The issue is therefore fraught with tension. The Talmud now picks up this discussion.

 

ואין שורפין תרומה על החזקות דאמר ר’ שמעון בן לקיש שורפין על החזקות ור’ יוחנן אומר אין שורפין

 

But we do not burn terumah on the basis of presumptions. For R. Shimon b. Lakish said: We burn [terumah] on the basis of presumptions; whereas R. Yohanan says, we do not.

 

The amoraim dispute whether we burn terumah on the basis of a presumption that it became impure.

 

ואזדו לטעמייהו דתנן תינוק שנמצא בצד העיסה ובצק בידו ר"מ מטהר וחכמים מטמאין מפני שדרכו של תינוק לטפח

 

Now, they both follow their own opinions. For we learned: If a child is found at the side of a dough, and there is dough in his hand, R. Meir declares it pure; the Sages declare it impure, because it is a child’s nature to handle.

 

The Talmud now connects Resh Lakish and R. Yohanan s opinions about burning terumah with other statements of theirs.

The issue in this mishnah is whether we assume that the child handles impure things and therefore transmits this impurity to the terumah dough.

 

והוינן בה מאי טעמיה דר"מ קסבר רוב תינוקות מטפחין ומיעוט אין מטפחין ועיסה בחזקת טהרה עומדת וסמוך מיעוטא לחזקה איתרע ליה רובא

 

And we discussed this: What is R. Meir’s reason? He holds that most children handle [impure things], yet there is a minority who do not, while the dough stands in the presumption of purity: hence combine the minority with the presumption, and the majority is weakened.

 

R. Meir presumes that the dough is pure although most children do touch impure things there is a minority that does not. Therefore, this is not enough to overturn the presumption of the purity of the dough.

 

ורבנן מיעוטא כמאן דליתא דמי רובא וחזקה רובא עדיף

 

But the Rabbis [argue]: a minority is treated as if it does not exist. When there is a majority and a presumption [opposed to each other], the majority is stronger.

 

The rabbis say that the fact that a majority of children do play with impure things is sufficient to displace the presumption that the dough is pure.

 

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

 

Resh Lakish said in the name of R. Yohanan: This is the presumption on the basis of which terumah is burned: R. Yohanan said: This is not the presumption on the bases of which terumah is burned.

 

Resh Lakish says that the terumah that is assumed to have been touched by the child is the case where terumah is burned based on a presumption. R. Yohanan says that this terumah is not burned. It must be set aside and can neither be eaten or burned.

 

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

Then which presumption according to R. Yohanan is the basis for burning terumah? As it was taught: If there is a dough in a house and sheratzim and frogs are also there, and pieces are found in the dough: if they are mostly sheratzim, it is impure; if mostly frogs, it is pure.

 

Sheratzim (types of lizards) defile but frogs do not. There are pieces of dead animal in this dough but we do not know whether they are from the frogs and the dough is pure or from the sheratzim and the dough is impure. The mishnah rules that we follow the majority. In this case, R. Yohanan would agree that if the majority are sheratzim, we burn the terumah. What is the difference between this and the case of the child? Rashi answers that here we can see the majority the majority of animals in the house are sheratzim. With the child it was an assumed majority we assume that most children tough impure things. This is a weaker type of majority and therefore it is not sufficient to burn the terumah.