Niddah 36

והפילה מביאה קרבן ונאכל הלך אחר רוב נשים ורוב נשים ולד מעליא ילדן

and miscarried<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which it is unknown whether or not the miscarriage was a developed child. ');">¹</span>

מתניתין קאמרינן שמעתתא לא קאמרינן

in it, she must bring a sacrifice which may be eaten, since we follow the majority of women, and the majority of women bear normal children?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 29a. Now since her sacrifice, a bird sin-offering (the method of whose killing by pinching would have caused an unconsecrated, or doubtfully consecrated bird to be nebelah), may be eaten, it follows that the bird is deemed to be duly consecrated because, by reason of the majority rule, the woman's doubtful birth is regarded as a certain birth of a normal child. Why then did not R. Johanan mention this case which concerns a woman's uncleanness? ');">²</span>

והא כי אתא רבין אמר

— We spoke of Tannaitic rulings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'our Mishnah', sc. rulings occurring in a Mishnah or a Baraitha. ');">³</span>

מתיב רבי יוסי בר רבי חנינא טועה ולא ידענא מאי תיובתיה מאי לאו

we did not discuss reported traditions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Amoras. R. Joshua b. Levi was an Amora. ');">⁴</span>

לא תיובתא אלא סייעתא

But, surely, when Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">⁵</span>

לא דלמא

he stated, 'R. Jose son of R. Hanina raised an objection [against R. Joshua b. Levi from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mistaken', one who cannot tell the date on which she bore her child. ');">⁶</span>

לא תיובתא ולא סייעתא

but I do not know what objection it was',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 29a. ');">⁷</span>

למעוטי מאי

Does not this mean that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha dealing with the forgetful woman. ');">⁸</span>

אילימא למעוטי רובא דאיכא חזקה בהדיה דלא שרפינן עליה את התרומה והא אמרה ר' יוחנן חדא זימנא

presented no objection but rather provided support?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Joshua b. Levi's ruling. Since the answer is presumably in the affirmative the ruling given here in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi has its origin in a Baraitha. Why then, since it is a case of the uncleanness of a woman and is also a Tannaitic ruling, was it not included among those cited supra by R. Johanan? ');">⁹</span>

דתנן

— No; it is possible [that he meant that it] neither presented an objection nor provided any support.

תינוק הנמצא בצד העיסה ובצק בידו רבי מאיר מטהר וחכמים מטמאין שדרכו של תינוק לטפח

What does it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's limitation of the instances supra to three. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואמרינן

exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what other doubtful instance is there that, despite the majority rule, is not treated as a certainty? ');">¹¹</span>

מאי טעמא דר"מ קסבר

If it be suggested that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's limitation of the instances supra to three. ');">¹⁰</span>

רוב תינוקות מטפחין ומיעוט אין מטפחין ועיסה זו בחזקת טהורה עומדת סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה ואיתרע ליה רובא

was intended to exclude the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a woman's uncleanness. ');">¹²</span>

ורבנן מיעוטא כמאן דליתיה דמי ורובא וחזקה רובא עדיף

where the majority rule is opposed by the rule of presumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there&nbsp;… with it'. ');">¹³</span>

ואמר ריש לקיש משום רבי אושעיא

so that in such a case <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being doubtfully unclean. ');">¹⁴</span>

זו היא חזקה ששורפין עליה את התרומה ורבי יוחנן אמר

may not be burnt on its account,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on account of the doubtful uncleanness. ');">¹⁵</span>

אין זו חזקה ששורפין עליה את התרומה

surely [it could be retorted] did not R. Johanan once say this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explicitly, in other cases of uncleanness. Why then should he repeat it here by implication? ');">¹⁶</span>

אלא למעוטי רובא דרבי יהודה

for we learnt, 'If a child is found at the side of dough, with a piece of dough in his hand, R. Meir declares the dough clean, but the Sages declare it unclean because it is the nature of a child to slap<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. III, 8. ');">¹⁷</span>

דתנן המפלת חתיכה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

[dough]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which he imparts to it the uncleanness which he is presumed to have contracted from menstrual women who coddle him or play with him (R. Tam.). Aliter (Rashi): 'To dabble in the rubbish heap', where he contracts uncleanness from dead creeping things. His contact with the dough is regarded as a certainty (cf. Tosaf.). ');">¹⁸</span>

רבי יהודה אומר

and when it was asked, 'What is R. Meir's reason' [the answer given was that] he holds the view that though most children slap dough a minority of them do not, and since this dough stands in the presumption of cleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is any dough, unless the contrary is proved. ');">¹⁹</span>

בין כך ובין כך טמאה

you combine the status of the minority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of children who do not slap dough and, therefore, cannot impart to it their uncleanness (so according to Tosaf.). Aliter: Who do not dabble in the rubbish heap and, therefore, contract no uncleanness (according to Rashi). ');">²⁰</span>

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

with the rule of presumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dough is presumed to be clean (cf. prev. n. but one). ');">²¹</span>

לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבע מיני דמים אבל שאר מיני דמים טהורה

and the majority rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'most children slap dough' or 'dabble in the rubbish heap'. ');">²²</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר

is impaired,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the major force of two to one. ');">²³</span>

של ארבע מיני דמים דברי הכל טמאה ושל שאר דמים דברי הכל טהורה

while the Rabbis [regard] the minority as non-existent, and, where the majority rule is opposed by that of presumption, the majority rule takes precedence; and in connection with this Resh Lakish citing R. Oshaia stated: This is a presumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that it is a child's nature to slap dough (Rashi). The term 'presumption' is here used loosely and really denotes 'majority'. ');">²⁴</span>

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