Niddah 18a — the Talmud in English

And it disagrees with Rav Ketina,

who said: Both this and that are a doubt.

c.

According to Rav Huna,

who said [the second approach]: From the lul inward, he is certainly impure, and from the lul outward, he is doubtfully impure—

Rabbi Hiyya and Rav Ketina do not disagree

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

Rather—

here, from the lul inward,

he is certainly impure, and Rabbi Hiyya is dealing with this.

Here, from the lul outward,

it is a doubt, and Rav Ketina is dealing with this; and their statements accord with the words of Rav Huna.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

d.

Rather, according to Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Yehuda, who say: From the lul outward, its doubt is pure; from the lul inward, its doubt is impure—

these

statements of Rabbi Hiyya and Rav Ketina,

with what can they be established?

It must be only

from the lul inward

[for from the lul outward their doubt is pure, whereas Rabbi Hiyya and Rav Ketina declare them impure]—

shall we say that it disagrees with Rabbi Hiyya,

who said that from the lul inward he is certainly impure, whereas they said that he is doubtfully impure!?

And the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

Here,

the words of Rabbi Hiyya are

when

the blood is found

on the floor of the

corridor,

for the opening of the chamber from which the blood emerges into the corridor is adjacent to the floor of the corridor; and when the blood emerges from the chamber in its usual manner, it flows onto the floor of the corridor. Therefore she is certainly impure, for we attribute the blood to the place from which it is ordinarily expected to come.

And here,

the words of Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzhak, who declare her impure as a doubt, are

when

the blood is found

on the roof of the corridor,

for then, although it is found on its inner side, there is concern that it came from the upper chamber, since it is not the usual way for the blood of the chamber to rise upward and reach the roof of the corridor. Necessarily, a change occurred, and one must be uncertain what the change was: whether she reclined, and thus the blood of the upper chamber reached the inside through the lul, or she bent over, and the blood of the chamber rose upward.

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

and treated them as certain,

for the rule “follow the majority” determines the law with certainty. And these are:

a.

The source.

b.

The placenta.

c.

A piece.

[The advantage of these three places will be explained below; after all, throughout the Torah one follows the majority.]

And the Gemara explains:

a.

The source—

that which we said,

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

b.

The placenta—

as we learned: A placenta in a house—

the house is impure

because of the tent of the dead.

And not

because

the placenta

itself is

a fetus

that imparts impurity through a tent.

Rather,

because we say

that there is no placenta without a fetus 157 ,

and we follow the majority of placentas that emerge with a fetus, and say that in the placenta before us as well there is 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 placenta became mixed with the blood of the birth and was nullified in the majority; therefore it does not impart impurity through a tent.

c.

A piece—

as we learned: If a woman miscarries a severed hand

[whose fingers have joints]

and a severed foot—

her mother has the impurity of childbirth!

For since a hand or foot with joints in the fingers emerged, we rely on the fact that most fetuses are whole, and that the entire fetus did not emerge is because it dissolved during the birth.

And we are not concerned lest

the hand or foot

came from a solid body

[whose mother has a solid body, without articulated limbs, does not have the impurity of childbirth, and does not have the days of impurity and purity of a woman who has given birth].

It follows that we rely on the fact that “most women give birth to a viable fetus,” and we give her days of purity as a woman who has given birth.

And the Gemara wonders:

Are there no others?

Is it only in these three places that we find that one follows the majority?

But there is

the law of

nine shops!

Nine shops!

As it was taught:

If there were

nine shops

in the city, and

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

meat

from one of them, and he does not know

[he does not remember]

from which one he took—

its doubt is forbidden!

For one does not follow the majority, since the doubt concerns the shop from which he bought the meat, and the shops are fixed in their places; and the scriptural decree is that “anything fixed is considered as half and half.”

And when meat is found in the city, not in the shops— follow the majority ! Since he did not take it from the place of fixation, the doubt is from which shop the meat emerged, and we say: “Anything that separates separates from the majority.” And the Gemara answers: The three places that Rabbi Yohanan mentioned— in matters of impurity we are speaking, but in matters of prohibition we are not speaking, because there are many prohibitions in which one follows the majority as a certainty. And the Gemara raises an objection: But there is in the matter of impurity another place in which one follows the majority, as it was taught: If there were nine frogs that do not impart impurity,

But if

meat is found in the city, outside the shops—

one follows the majority !

Since the meat was not taken from a fixed location, the uncertainty concerns from which shop the meat emerged, and we say: “Anything that separates is presumed to have separated from the majority.”

and

there was also

one creeping creature

that imparts the impurity of creeping creatures

among them, and

a person touched

one of them,

and he does not know which one he touched,

if the doubt occurred

in private domain—

its doubt is impure.

And if it occurred

in public domain—

its doubt is pure,

for since the creeping creature is fixed among the frogs, it is considered as half and half; and we hold that an equal doubt regarding impurity in private domain is ruled impure, whereas in public domain it is ruled pure.

And when it is found,

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

follow the majority,

for anything that separates separates from the majority. And the person who touched it is pure, since the majority were frogs that do not impart impurity.

in a private domain—

his uncertainty renders him impure.

But if it occurred

in the public domain—

his uncertainty renders him pure,

And the Gemara answers: The three places that Rabbi Yohanan mentioned, in which one follows the majority in matters of

impurity of a woman we are speaking,

but in matters of

impurity in general

we are not speaking.

And the Gemara adds another objection: But there is in the impurity of a woman that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said!?

a woman’s impurity,

are what we are discussing; but in matters of

impurity in general

we are not speaking.

The Gemara continues to raise a difficulty:

But there is

another case involving a woman’s impurity, namely

that

stated by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?!