Mesorat%20hashas for Niddah 35:22

עברה בנהר

and a man touched one of them and he does not know which one it was that he touched, where he is unclean on account of the doubt if this occurred in a private domain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the creeping thing was in a fixed place which is equal in status to half of all the animals in the place. ');">⁴²</span> but if it occurred in a public domain such a doubtful case is regarded as clean; and if one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the ten creatures mentioned. ');">⁴³</span> was found<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the man touched an isolated animal which had no fixed place. ');">⁴⁴</span> the majority rule is to be followed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Toh. VI. As the majority are frogs the man is clean. Now why was not this case of doubtful uncleanness mentioned by R. Johanan? ');">⁴⁵</span> — We<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Johanan in mentioning the three instances. ');">⁴⁶</span> deal with the uncleanness of a woman; we do not discuss general questions of uncleanness. But is there not the following case of which R. Joshua b. Levi spoke: If a woman crossed a river

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Niddah 35:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.