Kiddushin, Daf Peh, Part 4
Introduction
The baraita brought here supports R. Yohanan who said that in cases where something might have been defiled, we assume it is pure even in the private domain.
תניא כותיה דרבי יוחנן שני דברים אין בהם דעת לישאל ועשאום חכמים כמה שיש בהם דעת לישאל תינוק ועוד אחרת
תינוק הא דאמרן
It was taught in accordance with R. Yohanan: There are two things that lack the intelligence to be questioned, yet the sages treat them as if they have the capacity to ask: a child, and another. A child, as stated.
In matters of impurity, if an issue can be verified, if the event occurred in the private domain we assume that the item is impure. If the issue cannot be verified, then if there was a doubt it is always pure. When it comes to the child, although the child cannot be asked if he touched anything impure, we treat the case as if he could ask and the dough is not treated as impure, according to R. Yohanan.
ועוד אחרת מאי היא עיסה בתוך הבית ותרנגולים ומשקים טמאים שם ונמצאו נקורים נקורים בעיסה תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין
And another: what is it? If there is dough in a house and there are also chickens and unclean fluids there, and holes are found all over the dough, the matter is in suspense: it may neither be eaten [as clean] nor burned [as unclean].
In this case, we cannot ask the chickens if they drank from the unclean water and then pecked at the dough (unless it was that chicken from the Muppets, Gonzo, I believe). So this is a case where the doubt should be impure. Nevertheless, we treat the case as if we could ask the chickens and the dough is not definitely impure. Both of these cases accord with R. Yohanan.
א"ר יהושע בן לוי לא שנו אלא במשקים לבנים אבל במשקים אדומים אם איתא דנקיר מידע ידיע
R. Yehoshua b. Levi said: We learned this only of white liquid; but as for red liquids, had it [the chicken] picked at the dough, it would certainly be known.
R. Yehoshua b. Levi says that if the liquid is red and the dough shows no signs of redness, we can be sure that the chicken did not bring the impure liquid over to the dough.
א"ר יוחנן דבר זה שמע בריבי ופירושו לא שמע לא שנו אלא במשקים צלולים שבבואה של תינוק ניכר בה אבל משקים עכורים לא
Yet perhaps the dough absorbed it? R. Yohanan said: Berebbe heard this thing, but not its explanation: We learned this only of clear fluid in which a child’s reflection may be seen but not of turbid fluid.
R. Yohanan slightly emends R. Yehoshua b. Levi s statement. If the liquid is clear such that a child could see his reflection in it, then we must rule strictly. Rashi claims that clear liquids are absorbed easier. But if the liquid is turbid (cool word!) then we can assume that the chicken did not peck at it because it would have been seen on the dough.