Commentary for Niddah 36:27

לא נחלקו אלא כשהפילה

on the strength of which <i>terumah</i> is burnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the majority rule by which it is offered has been given the force of a certainty. ');">²⁵</span> while R. Johanan stated, This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'the presumption of uncleanness' is here opposed by 'majority'. ');">²⁶</span> is not a presumption on the strength of which <i>terumah</i> is burnt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it has not the force of a certainty. Now, since R. Johanan made here this explicit statement on the relative importance of the majority rule and that of presumption, what need was there to repeat it implicitly supra? ');">²⁷</span> — It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's limitation supra to three instances. ');">²⁸</span> was rather intended to exclude the rule of majority of which R. Judah spoke.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that in that case the uncleanness which is dependent on the majority rule is not regarded as a certainty. It is only one of a doubtful character and, in consequence, terumah that is subject to such uncleanness may not be burnt. ');">²⁹</span> For we learnt: If a woman aborted a shapeless object,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'piece'. ');">³⁰</span> if there was blood with it she is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a menstruant. Since the abortion cannot be regarded as a child she is exempt from the uncleanness of childbirth. ');">³¹</span> otherwise she is clean; R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 21a. It is impossible in his opinion for an abortion to be free from all blood, though the latter might sometimes escape attention. ');">³²</span> And in connection with this Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: R. Judah declared the woman unclean only where the shapeless object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Described in the Mishnah infra 19a, as unclean. Black and red blood are here regarded as of the same colour, the latter being a deteriorated form of the former. The Mishnah treating them as two gives the total number of kinds of unclean blood as five. In R. Judah's opinion the colour of unclean blood is proof that the entire mass is a piece of clotted blood. Hence the woman's menstrual uncleanness. The Rabbis, however, do not regard it as blood but as a shapeless piece of flesh. ');">³³</span> but if it had that of any other kinds of blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Green or white, for instance. ');">³⁴</span> the woman is clean, while R. Johanan stated: [If it had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one. ');">³⁵</span> all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Rabbis. ');">³⁶</span> agree that she is unclean, and if it had that of any other kinds of blood all agree that she is clean; they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis and R. Judah. ');">³⁷</span> differ only in the case where she aborted something

Explore commentary for Niddah 36:27. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.