QUESTION: The Gemara cites two instances in which it is not clear when a
change happened. (1) If a Mikvah, which originally had 40 Se'ah, was found
to be lacking after a person was Tovel in the Mikvah. (2) If a barrel which
originally contained wine was found to be vinegar after a person proclaimed
the barrel to be Terumah for wine of Tevel. In the former case, the person
who was Tovel remains Tamei. In the latter, the wine of Tevel is *Safek*
Tevel, since *perhaps* the wine in the barrel had turned to vinegar before
the Terumah was proclaimed.
The Gemara explains why the person is *certainly* Tamei in the case of the
Mikvah, whereas in the case of the barrel of wine we are in *doubt* as to
whether Terumah has taken effect. The two statements, explains the Gemara,
were made by different Tana'im: the Rabbanan make the person who was Tovel
in the Mikvah unquestionably Tamei, since in their opinion the Chezkas
Tum'ah of the person, combined with the fact that the Mikvah is now
lacking, creates *certain* retroactive Tum'ah. The statement about the
barrel of wine, on the other hand, was made by Rebbi Shimon, who asserts
that only *Safek* Tum'ah is created in such a manner, and therefore the
wine from which the person separated Terumah with the barrel (which is now
vinegar, combined with the Chezkas Tevel of the other wine) is Safek Tevel.
The RAMBAM (Hil. Terumos 5:24) rules like Rebbi Shimon; the wine in the
barrel is Safek Tevel. Yet in the case of the Mikvah the RAMBAM rules (Hil.
Mikva'os 10:6) that the person who was Tovel is *certainly* Tamei, like the
Rabbanan! How can the Rambam reconcile his citations of these two rulings,
which the Gemara appears to consider to be contradictory? (KESEF MISHNEH)
ANSWER: The PRI CHADASH (Mayim Chayim, Gitin 31b, as cited by Chochmas
Betzalel) explains that the Mishnah discussing the barrel of wine that
turned vinegar adds the following qualification regarding the retroactive
status of the wine: "For three days, there is no doubt as to the status of
the wine." As Rashi (DH Kol) explains, the Amora'im argue as to the meaning
of this cryptic statement. Rebbi Yochanan understands it to mean that for
the *first* three days after the barrel was *originally* found to contain
wine, we assume that the wine certainly did not yet spoil. Our question as
to its status begins only after those three days. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi
takes on the opposite approach. For the *last* three days before the barrel
was *eventually* found to contain vinegar, we assume that the wine was
certainly vinegar. Our question as to its status regards the previous days
only.
The Pri Chadash explains that our Gemara perhaps compares the lacking
Mikvah to the barrel of wine since it holds like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi,
that the wine is Safek Tamei from the moment it was last inspected. The
Rambam, however, rules like Rebbi Yochanan (Hil. Terumos ibid.), who
asserts that for the first three days after the barrel was originally
inspected and found to contain wine, there is no doubt as to the nature of
its contents: it still contains wine. Since, although the barrel now
contains vinegar, we know for certain that the barrel must have contained
wine even *after* it was first examined, we may be more lenient in the case
of the barrel than in the case of the Mikvah. Although the person who was
Tovel in the lacking Mikvah is certainly Tamei, the wine in the barrel is
Safek Terumah.