Chullin 9b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

we are concerned that perhaps there was a hole in the place

that had already been there,

a hole

in the bird. And every fruit that has been perforated is forbidden on account of danger, lest a snake injected venom into it. And this is difficult according to you, for you said: if the wolf perforated the intestines, we are not concerned “perhaps in the place where there was a hole while it was alive there was a hole”; rather, we attribute it to the fact that now, after slaughter, the hole was made.

He said to him

Rav Huna:

Are you comparing a prohibition to danger?

And surely

danger is different,

for we are more concerned about it, because “danger is more stringent than prohibition,” and therefore in its case we do not follow the majority or a presumption. But regarding the intestines, which is merely a matter of prohibition, we follow the presumption of permissibility.

Rava said to him: What is different about uncertainty of danger

that in its case you follow

stringency?

After all,

uncertainty of prohibition

of an animal rendered unfit, which is uncertainty concerning a prohibition of the Torah,

also

you should follow

stringency,

for just as in the case of danger we do not follow the majority and a presumption, so too, in the case of prohibition we do not follow them.

Abaye said to

Rava: And what is difficult?

A

if

there is no difference between prohibition and danger?

For if there is uncertainty concerning impurity in the public domain, its uncertainty is pure. But if there is uncertainty concerning uncovered water,

where it is uncertain whether a snake drank from it and injected venom into it,

it is forbidden.

And infer from this that danger is more stringent than prohibition. And if so, with regard to the concern “perhaps in the place where there was a hole, there was a hole,” since it is uncertainty concerning a prohibition, we establish it on the presumption of permissibility.

He said to him

Rava: It is not a proof from uncertainty concerning impurity. For uncertainty concerning impurity in the private domain renders impure. And likewise, in all prohibitions we follow stringency in a case of uncertainty. And it is a scriptural decree that specifically uncertainty concerning impurity in the public domain is pure, for

there, the halakha was learned from a sotah. Just as with a sotah,

when her husband warned her and she secluded herself with another man, and it is uncertain whether she did so, the Torah forbade her to her husband as though it were certain, this is specifically

in the private domain,

that is, a place where there are no more than two people. [For there is no “seclusion” except in the private domain, since if a third person were there, it would not be seclusion].

So too, impurity

is not deemed impure in a case of uncertainty except

in the private domain.

But in the public domain its uncertainty is pure. Therefore, one cannot infer from this that danger is more stringent than prohibition.

Rav Shimi raised an objection

to Rava:

But did we not learn: A creeping creature

that is dead and found

in the mouth of a weasel, and the weasel is walking on loaves of teruma: If it is uncertain whether the creeping creature

in its mouth touched the loaves and they became impure,

and it is uncertain that it did not touch—

its uncertainty is pure.

And there, it is not because of a halakha, for even in the private domain we deem it pure in a case of uncertainty.

But if there is uncertainty

concerning uncovered water, whose drinking is forbidden because of possible danger,

it is forbidden.

And again, you hear it according to Rav Huna, that danger is more stringent than prohibition.

He said to him:

There too,

in the case of the creeping creature in the mouth of a weasel,

the halakha was learned from a sotah. Just as a sotah

is

a matter that has awareness to be asked

whether she became impure or not—for a sotah is a person possessed of understanding—and specifically in such a case the Torah rendered her impure—

so too here,

in the case of uncertainty concerning impurity,

also,

we render impure only in the case of uncertainty that occurred with regard to a person, who is

a matter that has awareness to be asked

whether he became impure or not [for example, a person who passed near a creeping creature, and it is uncertain whether he touched it or not; in the private domain, his uncertainty renders him impure]. But a loaf of teruma and the like, which does not have awareness to be asked, we deem pure in every uncertainty concerning impurity that arises with regard to it. And it is a scriptural decree. Therefore, one cannot derive from it.

Rav Ashi said: Ta shma

from what we learned in tractate Parah [chapter 11]:

A flask

that they filled with water for the purpose of the water of purification [and had not yet sanctified it with the ashes of the red heifer],

which she left uncovered, and someone came

afterward

and found it covered—it is impure,

and it renders food and liquids impure.

For I say:

perhaps

an impure person entered there and covered it

and, in the course of doing so, rendered it impure.

And if

she left it covered, and someone came and found it uncovered,

then

if a weasel can drink from it,

as, for example, when the flask is not suspended in the air,

or

a

snake

can drink from it,

according to the words of Rabban Gamaliel,

who says that a snake is like a weasel, and likewise disqualifies the water of purification from which a snake drank,

or dew fell into it at night,

it is

disqualified.

And the reason for the matter is that with regard to the water of purification we require that “living water be placed in a vessel,” that its vitality be in the vessel. That is, the spring water must enter directly into the vessel in which it is sanctified, and one may not fill this vessel and pour it into another vessel. And a weasel, and even a snake according to Rabban Gamaliel, fill their mouths with the water and then vomit it back into the vessel. And likewise, dew is not living water.

And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: What is the reason

that if she left it covered and found it uncovered, it is pure in a place where a weasel and a snake cannot drink from it? And why are we not concerned that perhaps an impure person uncovered it and rendered it impure, just as we are concerned when she left it uncovered and found it covered?