Niddah 35

ופליגא דרב קטינא

but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As no doubtful uncleanness is recognized. ');">¹</span> a divergence of view is presented against R. Kattina.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does recognize it (cf. prev. n.). ');">²</span>

לרב הונא לא פליגי כאן מן הלול ולפנים כאן מן הלול ולחוץ

According to the ruling of R. Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who told his son that blood on the inward side of the duct is unclean and on its outward side is clean. ');">³</span> neither of them differs from the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neither R. Hiyya and R. Kattina differ from each other nor either of them from him. ');">⁴</span>

אלא לרמי בר שמואל ולרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה דאמרי מן הלול ולחוץ ספקו טהור מן הלול ולפנים ספקו טמא הני במאי מתוקמא מן הלול ולפנים לימא פליגא דרבי חייא

since one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya. ');">⁵</span> might deal with blood found anywhere from the duct inwards while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Kattina. ');">⁶</span>

לא קשיא כאן כשנמצא בקרקע פרוזדור וכאן שנמצא בגג פרוזדור

might deal with such as was found anywhere from the duct outwards. According to Rami b. Samuel and R. Isaac the son of Rab Judah, however, who ruled, 'From the duct outwards, and there is a doubt about its character, it is deemed clean' and 'from the duct inwards, and there is a doubt about its character, it is deemed unclean', how are these rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Hiyya and R. Kattina. ');">⁷</span> to be explained? Obviously [as referring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with R. Kattina. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן

to blood found] anywhere from the duct inwards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since blood found on its outward side is deemed to be clean and the woman is not only exempt from a sin-offering if she enters the Sanctuary, but is not even forbidden to enter it. ');">⁹</span> Must it then be assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in no case do they recognize certain uncleanness. ');">¹⁰</span>

בשלשה מקומות הלכו בו חכמים אחר הרוב ועשאום כודאי

that their ruling differs from that of R. Hiyya?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does recognize certain uncleanness. Is it likely, however, that they would both differ from him? ');">¹¹</span> — This is no difficulty, since one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya, in ruling that the blood is definitely unclean. ');">¹²</span>

מקור שליא חתיכה

refers to blood found on the floor of the ante-chamber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the natural passage for blood issuing from the chamber. ');">¹³</span> while the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rami and R. Isaac, who regard the blood as only doubtfully unclean. ');">¹⁴</span>

מקור הא דאמרן שליא דתנן

refer to blood found on the roof of the ante-chamber.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is nearer to the upper chamber. ');">¹⁵</span> R. Johanan stated: In three instances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'places', where doubts existed. ');">¹⁶</span>

שליא בבית הבית טמא ולא שהשליא ולד אלא שאין שליא בלא ולד

did the Sages follow the majority rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the majority of the respective cases concerning which no doubt exists. ');">¹⁷</span> and treated them as certainties, viz., the 'source', the 'placenta' and the 'piece'. The 'source'? The case already spoken of.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the last clause of our Mishnah, and in the ruling of R. Hiyya (supra 17b), from which it is obvious that, since mostly the blood in question issues from the source, any blood in the ante-chamber is assumed to originate from that source. ');">¹⁸</span>

ר"ש אומר

The 'placenta'? Concerning which we have learnt: If a placenta<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About which it is unknown whether it did or did not contain a dead embryo. ');">¹⁹</span> is within a house, the house is unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As overshadowing a corpse, though it is unknown (cf. prev. n.) whether the placenta contained one. ');">²⁰</span>

נמוק הולד עד שלא יצא

and this is so not because a placenta is regarded as a child but because generally there is no placenta without a child in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is obvious that the uncleanness of the placenta is regarded as a certainty by the majority rule, since most placentas contain embryos. ');">²¹</span> R. Simeon said, The child might have been mashed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And mixed up with the blood of birth which, representing the greater part of the mixture, neutralizes it. ');">²²</span>

חתיכה דתנן

before it came forth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 26a. ');">²³</span> A 'piece'? For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. marg. gl. Cur. edd., 'we learnt'. ');">²⁴</span>

המפלת יד חתוכה ורגל חתוכה אמו טמאה לידה ואין חוששין שמא מגוף אטום באת

If a woman aborted a shaped<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cut'. ');">²⁵</span> hand or a shaped foot she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its mother'. ');">²⁶</span>

ותו ליכא

is subject to the uncleanness of birth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, since it is unknown whether it was that of a male or a female, the restrictions of both are imposed upon her. ');">²⁷</span> and there is no need to consider the possibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which (cf. infra 24a) would exempt her from the certainty of uncleanness. ');">²⁸</span>

והאיכא תשע חנויות

that it might have come from a shapeless body.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 24a, which proves that by the majority rule, the doubtful case is regarded as a certainty because the majority of births (which are normal) is followed. ');">²⁹</span> But are there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beside the three instances mentioned by R. Johanan. ');">³⁰</span>

דתניא

no others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the majority rule is followed. ');">³¹</span> Is there not in fact the case of nine shops<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a market in which there were ten such shops. ');">³²</span>

תשע חנויות כולן מוכרות בשר שחוטה ואחת מוכרת בשר נבלה ולקח מאחת מהן ואינו יודע מאיזה מהן לקח ספקו אסור ובנמצא הלך אחר הרוב

concerning which it was taught: If there were nine shops<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a market in which there were ten such shops. ');">³²</span> all of which were selling ritually killed meat and one shop that was selling <i>nebelah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³³</span>

טומאה קאמרינן איסור לא קאמרינן

meat and a man bought some meat in one of them and he does not know in which of them he bought it, the meat is forbidden on account of the doubt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the shop with the prohibited meat, being a fixed place, has the same status as half the number of all the shops in the market; and, consequently, the majority rule does not apply. ');">³⁴</span> but if<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the floor of the market in which the ten shops were situated. ');">³⁵</span>

והאיכא תשע צפרדעין ושרץ אחד ביניהם ונגע באחד מהן ואינו יודע באיזה מהן נגע ברה"י ספקו טמא ברה"ר ספקו טהור ובנמצא הלך אחר הרוב

meat is found,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the meat did not come from a fixed place. ');">³⁶</span> the majority rule is to be followed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. 95a; and, since the majority of the shops sold meat that was ritually killed, the meat found is also regarded as ritually fit. Now since this provides another instance of a doubtful case that, by reason of the majority rule, is regarded as a certainty, why did R. Johanan mention three instances only? ');">³⁷</span>

טומאה דאשה קאמרינן טומאה בעלמא לא קאמרינן

— We<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Johanan in mentioning the three instances. ');">³⁸</span> speak of uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which all the three instances deal. ');">³⁹</span>

והאיכא הא דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי

we do not discuss the question of a prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which the last case cited refers. ');">⁴⁰</span> But is there not the case of the nine [dead] frogs among which there was one [dead] creeping thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter conveys uncleanness but not the former (cf. Lev. XI, 29). ');">⁴¹</span>

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