Talmud su Levitico 11:29

MISHNAH: The eight kinds of vermin mentioned in the Torah¹Lev. 11:29–30.: one who catches or injures them is liable. Other abominations²Worms, insects, and seafood. and vermin: one who injures them is not liable³An injury to any epidermis which cannot be tanned into leather is not considered a Sabbath violation.; if he catches them for some need he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable⁴Mammals and birds all have skin that can be tanned..

“And everything found is judged by a majority.”²⁸⁰This sentence does not really belong here but is an intrusion from the Tosephta quoted in the sequel. It is also quoted in the Babli, 15a, in the same context. What is meant here is that a find is pure if most things in town are pure, otherwise it is impure. In principle, this can also be applied to permitted or prohibited things: If 9 stores in town sell kosher meat and 1 non-kosher, then any meat found on the street can be considered as kosher (Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel disagrees, Tosephta Tahorot 6:1). In difficult cases the rabbis compare this²⁸¹The status of the rape victim. to crawling things²⁸²Lev. 11:29–30 contains a list of “crawling things”, mostly reptiles, whose cadaver is a source of impurity. The only cadavers that produce impurity are those of crawling things and mammals., as it was stated²⁸³A shorter version of this baraita is in the Babli 15a, Niddah 18a and Tosephta Tahorot 6:2.: “Nine frogs and one crawling thing²⁸⁴They are all dead; the dead frogs do not carry impurity. in a private domain²⁸⁵Questions of doubt in matters of ritual impurity must be resolved by a presumption of impurity in private domains and a presumption of purity in public domains; cf. Soṭah 1:2, Note 88., if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is impure. If he transferred to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. If he returned to the private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands²⁸⁶This is not rational, since the place where the object was found should be of importance.. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them²⁸⁷The Sages. A similar expression in the heading of the baraita of Abot. and their words; do not compare this²⁸⁸The case of the raped girl whose disqualification would be a case of impurity. to a private domain but to the public domain! As it was stated: “Nine crawling things and one frog between them in the public domain, if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is pure²⁸⁹Even against all probabilities.. If he transferred to a private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. If he returned to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them and their words; is the spring of Sepphoris not public domain? Rebbi Yose said, since the two could be alone together it is treated as private domain²⁹⁰The difference between public and private domains is not in the ownership but in accessibility. A cave in the public domain has the status of private domain. Rav Ḥisda is justified; this kind of argument is not relevant to explain the relation of Mishnah 10 to Mishnaiot 8,9..