doubtful

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah: One who is in doubt whether he said Grace after his meal or not, must say Grace, since it is written (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise the Eternal, your God”. One who who is in doubt whether he prayed or not, may not pray, against the opinion of Rebbi Yoḥanan who said: If only one would pray the whole day long, why? Because prayer is never in vain! About one who is in doubt whether he recited (the Shema‘) or not we may hear from this: He who recites (the Shema‘) before that time did not fulfill his duty. And before that time is it not doubtful? This means that one who is in doubt whether he recited (the Shema) or not must recite again.

How many stars have to appear that it should be night? Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Pappus: one star (visible) is certainly daylight. Two are doubtful as night. Three is certainly night. Are two doubtful? Is it not written (Neh. 4:15): “To the visibility of stars?” The minimum of “stars” are two! The first one does not count.

How many stars have to appear that it should be night? Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Pappus: one star (visible) is certainly daylight. Two are doubtful as night. Three is certainly night. Are two doubtful? Is it not written (Neh. 4:15): “To the visibility of stars?” The minimum of “stars” are two! The first one does not count.

“If one ate demay.” This means that, if one ate produce which perhaps was tithed and perhaps was not tithed, one invites him. Rebbi Simeon, the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah: At the time when they were instituting demai, most of the unlearned brought the harvest into their houses. Which one says that? “One invites the Samaritan.” And is that Samaritan not doubtful? Rebbi Abba said, explain it following what is said: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: One makes a minor an appendix for ten. But did we not state: One does not investigate a minor? Rebbi Yose said, one confirms Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: it is needed for two minors; if he is a minor, one considers him doubtful, if he is doubtful, one considers him certain. Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose: nine that look like ten, does one “invite” only those that are certain? Also if a minor was among them?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: One makes a minor an appendix for ten. But did we not state: One does not investigate a minor? Rebbi Yose said, one confirms Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: it is needed for two minors; if he is a minor, one considers him doubtful, if he is doubtful, one considers him certain. Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose: nine that look like ten, does one “invite” only those that are certain? Also if a minor was among them?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings?

(Tosephta Peah 3:11): “What are gleanings? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping. If it has shoulder but no dropping, dropping but no shoulder, it belongs to the proprietor, if it is doubtful it belongs to the poor. What is a shoulder? Spread out one on top of the other. What is a dropping? They hand downward on the spine.”

Around twilight, that is what we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether it is night or not.”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They declared a pot to be of doubtful status. But did we not state: “A pot with a hole sanctifies in the vineyard, a pot without a hole does not sanctify in the vineyard.” Because of doubt.

Just as you say, “from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it,” should one say so also for “from one demay for other demay?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, this means that a case of doubtful dema‘ is like a case of doubt about heave of the tithe from demay; it is free from the rules of certain produce.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah forbids.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Can a person make a proviso about something not in his possession? “But Rebbi Jehudah agrees that he may go, buy from the place from which his host bought, and tithe.” Can a person give for something that is not his? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they considered him as one who sold ṭevel produce to another person, as was stated: “He who sells ṭevel produce to another person has to run after him and put the produce in order. If he does not find him, if it is known that the produce still exists, he has to tithe for him; if not, he does not have to tithe for him. If it is doubtful whether the produce exists or not, he tithes for it and gives a name to the tithes.”

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.

Rebbi Yose said, this means that if he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, his work remains valid until he is disqualified by a court. That [also] means that if it was doubtful whether he was impure or had a bodily defect, his work is valid if you can compare him to the son of a divorcee [or] the son of a woman who had given ḥaliẓah. But if you have to compare him to a person with a bodily defect, his work is invalid. But is the case of the miqweh not that of a doubt? Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that any blemish on the family needs a court [judgment].

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

MISHNAH: A doubtful case of ‘orlah in the Land of Israel is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land one goes and buys on condition he not see the harvesting being done. If a vineyard is planted with vegetables and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land he goes and harvests on condition he not harvest with his own hands. New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah, ‘orlah from practice, and kilaim by rabbinic decree.

HALAKHAH: What is a doubtful case of ‘orlah? An ‘orlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”

HALAKHAH: What is a doubtful case of ‘orlah? An ‘orlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”

HALAKHAH: What is a doubtful case of ‘orlah? An ‘orlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”

HALAKHAH: What is a doubtful case of ‘orlah? An ‘orlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”

From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: Or on a far trip for you. What is in the open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]: If a person dies suddenly on him. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

MISHNAH: If somebody marries his sister-in-law but she turned out to have been pregnant and gave birth. If the child is alive, [the levir] has to divorce her and they must bring a sacrifice. If the child is not alive, he may keep her. If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated to bring a reparation offering for an uncertain case.

Rav said, in any case where the true fact can never be established, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet and one of fat, he ate one of them, and then a raven ate the other. Since he cannot ascertain the true fact, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for this doubt. But if the raven ate first and then he ate, since he could have ascertained the true fact, one has to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. But did not Rav say, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet? Even though Rav said, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet, he agrees here that he could have ascertained the true fact. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “As Rebbi Eleazar says, one must bring a reparation offering for the doubt of suet.” What does Rav do with that? They disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “If there were both a piece of profane [meat] and a piece of sacrificial [meat], he ate one of them and it is not known which one, he brings a reparation offering for the doubt. If he [then] ate the second piece, he brings a reparation offering for a certain transgression. If he ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second, each one brings a reparation offering for the doubt.” One understands that the first brings a reparation offering for the doubt. Why the second? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the piece was large, he ate half of it and left the other half. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt.” Here it is impossible to ascertain the true fact and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt! Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before us. Since he could just have touched her and then separated, he could have known whether it is his or the other’s, it is as if he could have ascertained the true fact!

A certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but a doubtful one does not push away the Sabbath. “His prepuce”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the hermaphrodite does not push away the Sabbath even though Rebbi Jehudah said one pushes away the Sabbath for the hermaphrodite and is punished for him by divine extirpation. “His prepuce”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the one born at dusk does not push away the Sabbath. “His prepuce”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the one born circumcised does not push away the Sabbath even though the House of Shammai say one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.

There, we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month’s child of the first [brother] or a seven-month’s of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for a possible sin.” It was stated: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.” In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? “ A man may not take his father’s wife,” that refers to his father’s wife; “and he should not uncover his father’s wing,” that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which leans on his father. Would he not anyhow be guilty for her because of his father’s wife? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning, that if he was warned because of his father’s wife, he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing, he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other doubtful cases that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gave her qiddušin that these qiddušin are legally valid.

HALAKHAH: “If the children of five women were mixed up,” etc. Everywhere you say, there is no ḥalîṣah after ḥalîṣah, and here, you say so? There, it is was sure, here it is in doubt. Everywhere you say, if one does not say to him, take in levirate, one does not say, perform ḥalîṣah, and here, you say so? There, it is was sure, here it is doubtful.

MISHNAH: If a woman’s child was mixed up with her daughter-in-law’s child, the mixed-up children became adults, married wives, and died. The other sons of the daughter-in-law must perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate since for them it is doubtful whether [the widow was] a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife. But the sons of the old woman may either perform ḥalîṣah or levirate since for them she was either a brother’s wife or a nephew’s wife. If one of the identified ones died, the mixed-up ones must perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate for a son of the old woman since there is a doubt whether [the widow was] a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife. But for the sons of the daughter-in-law, one performs ḥalîṣah; the other may marry in levirate.

“If he injured both of them at the same time or cursed them at the same time, he is guilty. Rebbi Jehudah frees him.” Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Is not the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? As we have stated there: “If he ate the volume of an olive of one of them and the volume of an olive of the other, he absorbs eighty [lashes]; Rebbi Jehudah says, he absorbs only forty [lashes].” Rebbi Crispus said, it is not inverted. There, it was in doubt what is forbidden. Here, it was certain but it became doubtful for him. Rebbi Judan asked: If it is so, in case carcass meat was mixed up with slaughtered meat, since it was certain but became doubtful for him, should he be free if he ate it? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah agrees for all other prohibitions that he is (free). But here, Rebbi Jehudah is interpreting verses: “His father,” certain but not uncertain, “his mother”, certain but not uncertain.

“If he injured both of them at the same time or cursed them at the same time, he is guilty. Rebbi Jehudah frees him.” Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Is not the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? As we have stated there: “If he ate the volume of an olive of one of them and the volume of an olive of the other, he absorbs eighty [lashes]; Rebbi Jehudah says, he absorbs only forty [lashes].” Rebbi Crispus said, it is not inverted. There, it was in doubt what is forbidden. Here, it was certain but it became doubtful for him. Rebbi Judan asked: If it is so, in case carcass meat was mixed up with slaughtered meat, since it was certain but became doubtful for him, should he be free if he ate it? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah agrees for all other prohibitions that he is (free). But here, Rebbi Jehudah is interpreting verses: “His father,” certain but not uncertain, “his mother”, certain but not uncertain.

“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house.” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. But did we not state: “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure! “Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure. If known impurity was permitted in public, so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house.” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. But did we not state: “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure! “Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure. If known impurity was permitted in public, so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house.” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. But did we not state: “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure! “Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure. If known impurity was permitted in public, so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house.” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. But did we not state: “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure! “Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure. If known impurity was permitted in public, so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

MISHNAH: The Elders of that town wash their hands with water at the place where the calf's neck was broken and say: "Our hands did not spill this blood," etc. Did we ever think that the court was spilling blood? But, that he did not come to our attention and we sent him away, or that we did not see him and left him. The priests say: “Purge for Your people Israel which You did redeem, o Eternal.” They did not have to say that “the blood was purged for them,” but the Holy Spirit announces to them that when they follow this procedure the blood will be purged for them. If the killer was found before the calf should have its neck broken, it should leave and graze in the flock. If after the calf’s neck was broken it should be buried at its place because if came from the start in a doubtful case; it purged its doubt and left. If the killer was found after the calf’s neck was broken, he should be executed.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Ṭarphon: None of them is a nazir since nezirut exists only by warning.” That is what Rebbi Jehudah said, “doubtful nezirut is permitted.”

Rebbi Simeon said: On the next day, he brings his reparation sacrifice and a log of oil with it and says: If I was impure, this is my obligatory offering, otherwise it is my doubtful offering. He slaughters in the North, it needs giving on the thumbs, and it is eaten by male Cohanim at any place during the day and the following night until midnight. But the Sages did [not] agree with Rebbi Simeon because he causes sacrifices to become invalid.

From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: “Or on a far trip for you.” What is open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

MISHNAH: Any person with initially doubtful skin disease is pure as long as he was not declared impure. After he was declared impure, in doubt he is impure. In seven ways does one check the sufferer from a genital discharge before he becomes impure: About eating and drinking, carrying a load or jumping, sickness, looking, and thought. After he becomes impure one does not check him; his accident, doubtful case, and semen are impure since the matter is not unsubstantiated.

MISHNAH: Any person with initially doubtful skin disease is pure as long as he was not declared impure. After he was declared impure, in doubt he is impure. In seven ways does one check the sufferer from a genital discharge before he becomes impure: About eating and drinking, carrying a load or jumping, sickness, looking, and thought. After he becomes impure one does not check him; his accident, doubtful case, and semen are impure since the matter is not unsubstantiated.

HALAKHAH: “He shall declare him impure.” The certain case he declares impure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure. Forever he is in his impurity until he is known to be pure. “He shall purify him.” The certain case he declares pure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure. Forever he is in his purity until he is known to be impure.

HALAKHAH: “He shall declare him impure.” The certain case he declares impure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure. Forever he is in his impurity until he is known to be pure. “He shall purify him.” The certain case he declares pure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure. Forever he is in his purity until he is known to be impure.

“His accident,” Rebbi Eleazar said, his real accident. “His doubtful case,” a doubt whether it is flux or ejaculation. Are flux and semen not impure anyhow? But one does not consider it for the 24 hour period.

If it was doubtful whether he jumped or the wind pushed him? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he fell down immediately, it is a bill of divorce; if he fell after some time it is no bill of divorce. But is “immediately” not a case of doubt whether he jumped or the wind pushed him? This implies that in case of doubt whether he jumped or the wind pushed him, it is a bill of divorce.

MISHNAH: If it became public knowledge in town that she was preliminarily married, she is preliminarily married; divorced, she is divorced, except if there was an excuse. What would be an excuse? Mr. X divorced his wife conditionally, or he threw valuables for preliminary marriage to her and it was doubtful whether it was closer to her than to him; that is an excuse.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

HALAKHAH: “I am preliminarily married to your daughter,” etc. Rav Ḥuna said, one induces him to give a bill of divorce, and one forces him to pay a fine. Think of it, if he was a Fellow and knew that he would be obligated for a bill of divorce and a fine; if he went and married her sister, would one force the divorce of the certain because of the doubtful?

There, we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-months’ child of the first [brother] or a seven-months’ of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for a possible sin.” It was stated: “The first son could be [High] Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.” In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If she checked herself and found it a doubtful case. It is obvious that it is not counted as a check to diminish from 24 hours. Itself, would it be impure because of doubt? Let us hear from the following: “A sexless or a hermaphrodite who had a discharge follow their exact timing.” What do you infer from this? Rebbi Yose said, a sexless or a hermaphrodite represent a doubt, 24 hours represent a doubt, and a doubt is not superimposed on a doubt. So here, whether she had a discharge represents a doubt, 24 hours represent a doubt, and a doubt is not superimposed on a doubt.

The question [of R. Yirmiyah] is concerning that very statement of R. Papa: Is he certain that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments, irrespective of whether it creates a stringency or a leniency, or perhaps he is doubtful, and therefore we apply it to create a stringency, but not to create a leniency? The question stands.

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

R. Elazar stated: Greater is he who performs charity than [he who offers] all the sacrifices, for it is said, “To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (Proverbs 21:3). R. Elazar further stated: Acts of loving kindness (gemilut hasadim) are greater than charity (tzedakah), for it is said, “Sow to yourselves according to your charity (tzedakah), but reap according to your hesed” (Hosea 10: 12); when one sows, it is doubtful whether he will eat [the harvest] or not, but when one reaps, he will certainly eat.

The text [above state]: Hezekiah read in Tiberias on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being doubtful whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. But could he have been in doubt about Tiberias. Is it not written, “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer and Hamath and Rakat and Kinnereth” (Joshua 19:5), and it has been established that Rakat is Tiberias? The reason why he was doubtful was because one side is bounded by the lake.

The text [above state]: Hezekiah read in Tiberias on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being doubtful whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. But could he have been in doubt about Tiberias. Is it not written, “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer and Hamath and Rakat and Kinnereth” (Joshua 19:5), and it has been established that Rakat is Tiberias? The reason why he was doubtful was because one side is bounded by the lake.

I. (1) All are bound in the case of a holocaust except a deaf man, a fool, and a child, and one of doubtful sex, and one of double sex, and women, and slaves who are not manumitted, the lame man, and the blind man, and the sick man, and the old man, and him who is not able to go up on his feet. What is the definition of a child? Every one who is not able to ride upon his father's shoulders, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House. These are the words of the house of Shammai. But the house of Hillel say, Every one who is not able to take hold of his father's hand, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House, as it is said, "three footgoing times" (Ex. xxiii. 14).

And one of doubtful sex and one of double sex etc. Our Rabbis have taught, The use of the word, "male," is to exclude the women; "thy males" to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex; "all thy males" to include the children (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). The Mishnah teacher said, Male is to exclude the women. But why do I need a verse as above, to teach me this? Inasmuch as it is a case of a positive precept in which the time determines. And from all positive precepts in which the time determines, women are exempt. Nay, but it is needed. You might have thought, We learn of a twofold appearing before the Lord from the section, "Assemble." As in the one case women are bound, so in the other case women are bound. We learn it from this.

And one of doubtful sex and one of double sex etc. Our Rabbis have taught, The use of the word, "male," is to exclude the women; "thy males" to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex; "all thy males" to include the children (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). The Mishnah teacher said, Male is to exclude the women. But why do I need a verse as above, to teach me this? Inasmuch as it is a case of a positive precept in which the time determines. And from all positive precepts in which the time determines, women are exempt. Nay, but it is needed. You might have thought, We learn of a twofold appearing before the Lord from the section, "Assemble." As in the one case women are bound, so in the other case women are bound. We learn it from this.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "thy males" is to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex. It is all right as regards the latter. This was necessary. You might have imagined that, since he has a shred of virility, he is bound. We learn from this that his case is one sui generis. But as for the former, this was a dubious case. How was a verse necessary to remove the doubt? Abai said, Si eius ovaria externa sunt.

R' Papa was doubtful, Rava was certain.