Niddah 36

Chapter 36

א והפילה מביאה קרבן ונאכל

1 and miscarried1

ב הלך אחר רוב נשים ורוב נשים ולד מעליא ילדן

ג מתניתין קאמרינן שמעתתא לא קאמרינן

3 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

ד והא כי אתא רבין אמר מתיב רבי יוסי בר רבי חנינא טועה ולא ידענא מאי תיובתיה

4 — We spoke of Tannaitic rulings;3 we did not discuss reported traditions.4

ה מאי לאו לא תיובתא אלא סייעתא

5 But, surely, when Rabin came5

ו לא דלמא לא תיובתא ולא סייעתא

6 he stated, 'R. Jose son of R. Hanina raised an objection [against R. Joshua b. Levi from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful woman,6 but I do not know what objection it was',7

ז למעוטי מאי

7 Does not this mean that it8

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

8 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

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

9 — No; it is possible [that he meant that it] neither presented an objection nor provided any support. What does it10

י ואמרינן מאי טעמא דר"מ קסבר רוב תינוקות מטפחין ומיעוט אין מטפחין ועיסה זו בחזקת טהורה עומדת סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה ואיתרע ליה רובא

10 exclude?11 If it be suggested that it10 was intended to exclude the case12

יא ורבנן מיעוטא כמאן דליתיה דמי ורובא וחזקה רובא עדיף

11 where the majority rule is opposed by the rule of presumption13

יב ואמר ריש לקיש משום רבי אושעיא זו היא חזקה ששורפין עליה את התרומה ורבי יוחנן אמר אין זו חזקה ששורפין עליה את התרומה

12 so that in such a case terumah14 may not be burnt on its account,15 surely [it could be retorted] did not R. Johanan once say this,16

יג אלא למעוטי רובא דרבי יהודה דתנן המפלת חתיכה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאה

13 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 slap17 [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 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;19 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

יד ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבע מיני דמים אבל שאר מיני דמים טהורה ורבי יוחנן אמר של ארבע מיני דמים דברי הכל טמאה ושל שאר דמים דברי הכל טהורה לא נחלקו אלא כשהפילה

14 with the rule of presumption21 and the majority rule22 is impaired,23 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 presumption24 on the strength of which terumah is burnt,25 while R. Johanan stated, This26 is not a presumption on the strength of which terumah 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 — It28 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 For we learnt: If a woman aborted a shapeless object,30 if there was blood with it she is unclean31 otherwise she is clean; R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean.32 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 but if it had that of any other kinds of blood34 the woman is clean, while R. Johanan stated: [If it had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood35 all36 agree that she is unclean, and if it had that of any other kinds of blood all agree that she is clean; they37 differ only in the case where she aborted something

Previous Chapter Next Chapter