Niddah 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

And it disagrees with Rav Ketina:

for he said: Both this and that are uncertain.

3]

According to Rav Huna,

who stated the second approach: From the aperture inward, he is certainly impure, and from the aperture outward, he is impure by uncertainty—

Rabbi Hiyya and Rav Ketina do not disagree

with one another, and Rav Huna also agrees with them.

Rather,

here, from the aperture inward,

he is certainly impure, and this is the case discussed by Rabbi Hiyya.

Here, from the aperture outward,

it is uncertain, and this is the case discussed by Rav Ketina; their statements therefore accord with the words of Rav Huna.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

4]

Rather, according to Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Yehuda, who say: From the opening outward, if there is uncertainty, the woman is pure; from the opening inward, if there is uncertainty, she is impure—

Rather, according to Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Yehuda, who say: From the aperture outward, the uncertain case is pure; from the aperture inward, the uncertain case is impure— these

traditions of Rabbi Hiyya and Rav Ketina

with what case can they be established?

It must be only

from the aperture inward

for from the aperture outward their uncertain cases are pure, whereas Rabbi Hiyya and Rav Ketina declare them impure—

shall we say that this disagrees with Rabbi Hiyya,

who said that from the aperture inward he is certainly impure, whereas they said that he is impure only by uncertainty?!

And the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

Here,

the words of Rabbi Hiyya apply

when

the blood is found

on the floor of the

corridor,

as the opening of the chamber from which the blood emerges into the corridor is near the floor of the corridor. When the blood emerges from the chamber in the ordinary manner, it flows onto the floor of the corridor; therefore, she is certainly impure, as we attribute the blood to the place from which it normally comes.

And here,

the words of Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzhak, who declare her impure by uncertainty, apply

when

the blood is found

on the roof of the corridor.

In that case, although it is found on the inner side, there is concern that it came from the upper chamber, since blood from the chamber does not normally rise upward and reach the roof of the corridor. Necessarily, an unusual change occurred, and it is uncertain what that change was: whether she lay down, allowing blood from the upper chamber to enter through the aperture, or whether she bent over and the chamber blood rose upward.

Rabbi Yohanan said: In three places the Sages followed the majority

and treated them as certain,

meaning that the rule “follow the majority” determines the ruling with certainty. These are:

1.

The source.

2.

The afterbirth.

3.

The piece.

The significance of these three cases will be explained below; after all, throughout the Torah one follows the majority.

And the Gemara explains:

1.

The source—

that which we said:

that blood found in the corridor inward of the aperture is certainly impure, because the majority of blood found there comes from the source.

2.

The afterbirth—

as we learned: If there is an afterbirth in a house,

the house is impure,

because of the tent impurity of a corpse.

And not

because

the afterbirth

itself is

a fetus

that imparts impurity through a tent.

Rather,

because we say

that there is no afterbirth without a fetus 157 ,

and we follow the majority of afterbirths that emerge with a fetus, saying that the afterbirth before us likewise contains a fetus that imparts impurity through a tent.

Rabbi Shimon says: The fetus dissolves before it emerges

from its mother’s womb and becomes blood. The blood of the afterbirth mixes with the blood of childbirth and is nullified in the majority; therefore, it does not impart impurity through a tent.

3.

The piece—

as we learned: If a woman miscarries a hand with formed

formed fingers

and a formed foot—

her mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth!

Since a hand or foot emerged with formed fingers, we rely on the fact that most fetuses are fully formed, and that the rest of the fetus did not emerge because it dissolved during childbirth.

And we are not concerned that perhaps

the hand or foot

came from a solid-bodied fetus

one whose limbs are not formed; such a woman does not contract the impurity of childbirth and does not have the days of impurity and purity of a woman who gives birth.

Thus, it is evident that we rely on the principle that “most women give birth to a viable fetus,” and grant her the days of purity of a woman who gives birth.

And the Gemara wonders:

Are there no others?

Have we found that one follows the majority only in these three places?

But there is the law of

nine shops!

the nine shops!

As it was taught:

If there were

nine shops

in a city, and

all of them sold kosher meat 159 , and one sold the meat of an unslaughtered animal, and a person took

took

meat

from one of them, and he does not know

he does not remember

from which one he took it—

his uncertain case is forbidden!

One does not follow the majority, since the uncertainty concerns the shop from which he purchased the meat, and the shops are fixed in their locations; the Torah’s decree is that “anything fixed is considered as though it were half and half.”

But when

meat is found in the city, outside the shops,

one follows the majority !

Since it was not taken from the place of fixation, the uncertainty concerns the shop from which the meat emerged, and we say: “Anything that separates, separates from the majority.”

And the Gemara answers: The three places mentioned by Rabbi Yohanan concern

matters of impurity,

but

we are not speaking of matters of prohibition,

because there are many prohibitions in which one follows the majority as a certainty.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But there is

another case concerning impurity in which one follows the majority, as it was taught:

If there were

nine frogs

that do not impart impurity,

and

there was also

one creeping creature

that imparts creeping-creature impurity

among them, and a person touched

one of them,

but does not know which one he touched,

then, if the uncertainty occurred

in a private domain,

his uncertain case is impure.

But if it occurred

in the public domain,

his uncertain case is pure,

since the creeping creature is fixed among the frogs and is therefore treated as half and half; and it is established law that an equal uncertainty concerning impurity in a private domain is ruled impure, whereas in the public domain it is ruled pure.

But when one of them is found,

meaning that one separated from the place of fixation, and it is not known which one separated, we say

one follows the majority,

for anything that separates separates from the majority. The person who touches it is pure, since most of them were frogs that do not impart impurity.

And the Gemara answers: The three places mentioned by Rabbi Yohanan, in which one follows the majority, concern

the impurity of a woman,

but in matters of

impurity in general

we are not speaking of this.

The Gemara adds another objection:

But there is

in the impurity of a woman

that

which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said?!