Chullin 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

we are concerned that perhaps the hole is in the place

where it had already been,

a hole

in the bird. And every fruit that has been pierced is forbidden because of danger, lest a snake injected venom into it. This presents a difficulty according to your view, for you said that if a wolf made a hole in the intestines, we are not concerned that “perhaps the hole is in the place where there had been a hole while the animal was alive”; rather, we attribute the hole to the present time, saying that it was made after slaughter.

Rav Huna said to him:

:

Can you compare a prohibition to danger?

Surely

danger is different,

for we are more stringent with regard to it, because “danger is more severe than prohibition,” and therefore we do not follow the majority or a presumption in that matter. But with regard to the intestines, which is merely a question of prohibition, we follow the presumption of permissibility.

Rava said to him: What is different about a possible danger

that you follow with regard to it

the stringent approach?

After all,

a possible prohibition

with regard to a tereifa, which is a possible Torah prohibition,

also

you should follow

the stringent approach,

because just as with regard to danger we do not follow the majority or a presumption, so too, with regard to a prohibition we should not follow them.

Abaye said

to Rava: What difficulty is there?

And

when

there is no difference between a prohibition and danger?

For if there is uncertainty concerning ritual impurity in the public domain, its status 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 learn from this that danger is more severe than prohibition. If so, with regard to the concern “perhaps the hole is in the place of a hole,” since it is a case of possible prohibition, we establish the animal according to its presumption of permissibility.

Rava said to him:

That is no proof from a case of possible ritual impurity. For possible ritual impurity in a private domain is impure. Likewise, with regard to all prohibitions, we follow the stringent approach in a case of uncertainty. And it is a scriptural decree that specifically possible ritual impurity in the public domain is pure, because

there, it is a halakha received from Sinai concerning the sota. Just as with regard to a sota,

whom her husband warned and who secluded herself with another man, the Torah renders her forbidden to her husband as though this were certain, this applies specifically

in a private domain,

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

So too, ritual impurity

is considered impure in a case of uncertainty only

in a private domain.

But in the public domain, its status in a case of uncertainty is pure. Therefore, no proof can be inferred from this that danger is more severe than prohibition.

Rav Shimi raised an objection

to Rava:

And we learned in the Mishna: A creeping animal

that was found dead

in the mouth of a weasel, and the weasel was walking over loaves of teruma. If it is uncertain whether the creeping animal touched

the loaves with what was in its mouth and rendered them impure,

and it is uncertain that it did not touch them—

its status in a case of uncertainty is pure.

And there, this is not because of a halakha received from Sinai, since we deem it pure in a case of uncertainty even in a private domain.

But if there is uncertainty

concerning uncovered water, whose prohibition against drinking it is due to possible danger,

it is forbidden.

And again you can derive from this the view of Rav Huna, that danger is more severe than prohibition.

He said to him:

There too,

with regard to the creeping animal in the mouth of the weasel,

it is a halakha received from Sinai concerning the sota. Just as with regard to a sota

who is

a matter that has awareness to be asked

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

so too here,

with regard to possible ritual impurity,

also,

we render impure only in a 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 passed by a creeping animal, and it is uncertain whether he touched it; in a private domain, his status in a case of uncertainty is impure]. But with regard to a loaf of teruma and the like, which have no awareness to be asked, we deem pure every case of ritual impurity that arose concerning them. And this is a scriptural decree. Therefore, no inference may be drawn from it.

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear

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

A flask

that they filled with water for the purpose of the waters of the red heifer [but had not yet sanctified them with the ashes of the red heifer],

which one left uncovered, and someone came

later

and found it covered—it is impure,

and it renders food and liquids impure.

I say:

Perhaps

an impure person entered there and covered it

and rendered it impure in the process.

And if

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

then

if a weasel can drink from it,

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

or

when a

snake

can drink from it,

according to Rabban Gamliel,

who says that a snake is like a weasel, and likewise disqualifies the waters of the red heifer if a snake drank from them,

or dew fell into it during the night,

then it is

disqualified.

The reason for this is that, with regard to the waters of the red heifer, we require that “living water be placed in a vessel,” so that their vitality is in the vessel. That is, the spring water must enter directly into the vessel in which it is sanctified, and one may not fill one vessel and pour it into another vessel. A weasel—and even a snake, according to Rabban Gamliel—fills its mouth with the water and then vomits it back into the vessel. Likewise, dew is not living water.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the reason

that if one 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 one left it uncovered and found it covered?