יא להך לישנא דאמר אביי אי בתר חששא אזלת מסייע ליה לרב קטינא ופליגא דרבי חייא
11 Said Abaye: Why is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is the difference'. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> it [that if blood is found anywhere] from the duct outwards it is deemed to be doubtfully unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though, since on that spot it is most likely to have come from the upper chamber, one might well have expected it to be clean. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Obviously because it is possible that she bowed down and the blood flowed thither from the chamber. [But, then, why in the case where blood is found anywhere] from the duct inwards, is it not also assumed that she might have staggered backwards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus caused the blood to flow inwards. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> and the blood originated from the upper chamber?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is obviously a possibility the uncleanness should only be a matter of doubt and not, as R. Huna asserted, a certainty. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Rather, said Abaye, if you follow possibilities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bending forward or staggering backwards. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> the uncleanness is doubtful in either case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the blood is found on the one or on the other side of the duct, since in either case two possibilities (cf. prev. n.) may be equally assumed. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> and if you follow presumption [blood found anywhere] from the duct inwards is undoubtedly unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it may well be presumed to have originated in the chamber. Had it originated in the upper chamber it would have made its way to the outer side of the duct only. Our Mishnah's ruling, IT IS DEEMED UNCLEAN etc. may thus refer to such a case. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> [but if it was found anywhere] from the duct outwards it is undoubtedly clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in that place it is presumed to have come from the upper chamber, and the possibility of bending forward is disregarded. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> R. Hiyya taught: Blood found in the ante-chamber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is explained infra on which side of the duct. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> renders [the woman] liable [for a sin-offering] if she enters the Sanctuary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the blood is certainly unclean. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> and <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was touched by the woman. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> must be burnt on its account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the blood is certainly unclean. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> R. Kattina, however, ruled: No sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the entry is forbidden. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> is incurred if she enters the Sanctuary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the character of her blood cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> and <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was touched by the woman. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> is not burnt on its account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the character of her blood cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> According to the first alternative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that expression'. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> which Abaye mentioned, viz., 'If you follow possibilities',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the uncleanness is merely a matter of doubt. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> support is available for the ruling of R. Kattina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who also regards the uncleanness as doubtful. R. Kattina might thus refer to both cases, where the blood was found on the one, or on the other side of the duct. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no certain uncleanness is recognized. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> a divergence of view is presented against R. Hiyya. According to the second alternative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that expression'. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> you mentioned, viz., 'If you follow presumption'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with which a distinction is drawn between blood found from the duct inwards or outwards. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> support is provided for the ruling of R. Hiyya<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose ruling would thus refer to blood found from the duct inwards. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>