Niddah 35

Chapter 35

א ופליגא דרב קטינא

1 but1 a divergence of view is presented against R. Kattina.2

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

2 According to the ruling of R. Huna3 neither of them differs from the other,4

ג 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

3 since one5 might deal with blood found anywhere from the duct inwards while the other6

ד לימא פליגא דרבי חייא

ה לא קשיא כאן כשנמצא בקרקע פרוזדור וכאן שנמצא בגג פרוזדור

5 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 rulings7 to be explained? Obviously [as referring8

ו אמר רבי יוחנן בשלשה מקומות הלכו בו חכמים אחר הרוב ועשאום כודאי מקור שליא חתיכה מקור הא דאמרן

6 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 Must it then be assumed10 that their ruling differs from that of R. Hiyya?11 — This is no difficulty, since one12 refers to blood found on the floor of the ante-chamber13 while the others14 refer to blood found on the roof of the ante-chamber.15 R. Johanan stated: In three instances16

ז שליא דתנן שליא בבית הבית טמא ולא שהשליא ולד אלא שאין שליא בלא ולד ר"ש אומר נמוק הולד עד שלא יצא

7 did the Sages follow the majority rule17 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 The 'placenta'? Concerning which we have learnt: If a placenta19 is within a house, the house is unclean;20 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.21 R. Simeon said, The child might have been mashed22

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

8 before it came forth.23 A 'piece'? For it was taught:24 If a woman aborted a shaped25 hand or a shaped foot she26

ט ותו ליכא והאיכא תשע חנויות

9 is subject to the uncleanness of birth,27 and there is no need to consider the possibility28 that it might have come from a shapeless body.29 But are there30

י דתניא תשע חנויות כולן מוכרות בשר שחוטה ואחת מוכרת בשר נבלה ולקח מאחת מהן ואינו יודע מאיזה מהן לקח ספקו אסור

10 no others?31 Is there not in fact the case of nine shops32 concerning which it was taught: If there were nine shops32 all of which were selling ritually killed meat and one shop that was selling nebelah33

יא ובנמצא הלך אחר הרוב

יב טומאה קאמרינן איסור לא קאמרינן

12 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 but if35

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

13 meat is found,36 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

יד ובנמצא הלך אחר הרוב

טו טומאה דאשה קאמרינן טומאה בעלמא לא קאמרינן

15 — We38 speak of uncleanness;39

טז והאיכא הא דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי עברה בנהר

16 we do not discuss the question of a prohibition.40 But is there not the case of the nine [dead] frogs among which there was one [dead] creeping thing41 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,42 but if it occurred in a public domain such a doubtful case is regarded as clean; and if one43 was found44 the majority rule is to be followed?45 — We46 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

Previous Chapter Next Chapter