## Bava Batra Daf 24a

###### Bava Batra 24a:1
[Bava Batra 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:1)

בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁל כְּרָמִים; דְּאִם אִיתָא דְּמֵעָלְמָא אָתֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּמִידַּדֵּי – לָא מָצֵי אָתֵי; דְּכׇל דְּמִידַּדֵּי וַהֲדַר חָזֵי לֵיהּ לְקִינֵּיהּ – מִידַּדֵּי, וְאִי לָא – לָא מִידַּדֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We are dealing **with a path that** passes between **vineyards,** and these two dovecotes are situated there. **As, if it is so that** you claim the chick **came from** anywhere else in **the world, since it** only **hops, it could not have come** there. The reason is **that any** bird **that hops and turns** and **sees its nest** will continue **to hop; but if it does not** see its nest because it has gone too far, **it will not hop** farther. Consequently, this found chick that hops must have come from one of these two dovecotes.


###### Bava Batra 24a:2
[Bava Batra 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:2)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: דָּם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר – סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא, שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ מִן הַמָּקוֹר. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא עֲלִיָּיה, דִּמְקָרְבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: We learn** in a mishna (*Nidda* 17b) **as well** that one follows the majority rather than proximity: With regard to **blood that is found in the corridor [*baperozdor*],** i.e., the cervical canal, and **it is uncertain** whether or not it is menstrual blood, it is **ritually impure** as menstrual blood, **as** there is **a presumption** that **it** came **from** the uterus, which is **the source** of menstrual blood. **And** this is the *halakha* **even though there is an upper chamber,** which empties into the canal, **which is closer.**


###### Bava Batra 24a:3
[Bava Batra 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: רוֹב וּמָצוּי קָא אָמְרַתְּ? רוֹב וּמָצוּי לֵיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Abaye, in response to this claim: **You state** a proof from a case where the factors of **majority and frequency** are both present. When there is **majority and frequency, there is no one who says** that one ignores the majority and follows proximity. Here, not only is the blood from the uterus greater in quantity, it also passes through the canal more frequently, as blood generally does not come from the upper chamber.


###### Bava Batra 24a:4
[Bava Batra 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:4)

דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דָּם הַנִּמְצָא בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר, חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין עָלָיו אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava cites a proof for his statement. **As Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: Blood that is found in the corridor** is considered definite menstrual blood, and therefore if she engages in sexual intercourse, both she and her partner would be **liable as a result of it** to receive *karet* **for entering the Temple** intentionally when ritually impure or to bring an offering for entering unwittingly. **And one burns *teruma* due to it,** if the woman touches such produce. Evidently, the status of this blood is not considered uncertain.


###### Bava Batra 24a:5
[Bava Batra 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:5)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא – תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רוֹב וְקָרוֹב הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רוּבָּא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אִיתָא לִדְרַבִּי זֵירָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says: Learn from** that which **Rabbi Ḥiyya** said **three** conclusions: **Learn from** his statement that when the relevant factors are **majority and proximity, follow the majority; and learn from** his statement that the *halakha* that one follows **the majority** applies **by Torah law,** as *teruma* is burned in this case on account of the blood and she is liable to receive *karet* if she enters the Temple in this state; **and learn from** his statement that **there is** a source **for** that **which Rabbi Zeira** said.


###### Bava Batra 24a:6
[Bava Batra 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:6)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּלְתוֹת מְדִינָה נְעוּלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This statement of Rabbi Zeira was issued in reference to a case discussed in tractate *Ketubot* (15a). If there are ten stores in a city, nine of which sell kosher meat and one of which sells non-kosher meat, and one found meat outside the stores and he does not know from which store it came, one follows the majority. The Gemara there suggests that perhaps one follows the majority only in a case where the gates of the city are unlocked, when the meat could have come to the city from the majority of kosher meat outside in a circumstance where the majority of the meat sold in the surrounding area was kosher. In this case there are two majorities, the majority of kosher meat stores inside the city, and the majority from outside. The Gemara there explains **that Rabbi Zeira says** that **even if the city gates are locked** one follows the majority, and the meat is kosher, as there is a no need for a double majority.


###### Bava Batra 24a:7
[Bava Batra 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:7)

דְּהָא אִשָּׁה – דְּכִי דַּלְתוֹת מְדִינָה נְעוּלוֹת דָּמְיָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי קָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: The two cases are analogous, **as the woman** here **is considered like the locked gates of the city,** i.e., there is only a single majority, **and even so we follow the majority.**


###### Bava Batra 24a:8
[Bava Batra 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:8)

וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּקָאָמַר: רוֹב וּמָצוּי לֵיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵהַהִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But Rava is the one who says** with regard to the case of the blood that when there is **majority and frequency, there is no** one **who says** that one ignores the majority and follows the proximity. In other words, Rava rejected this case as proof of the principle that one follows the majority even when it is not frequent. Here, by contrast, Rava claims that one can learn from the ruling of Rabbi Ḥiyya that one follows the majority by Torah law. The Gemara answers: **Rava retracted that** claim in favor of the opinion that one follows the majority in all cases.


###### Bava Batra 24a:9
[Bava Batra 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:9)

אִיתְּמַר: חָבִית שֶׁצָּפָה בַּנָּהָר, אָמַר רַב: נִמְצֵאת כְּנֶגֶד עִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מוּתָּר, כְּנֶגֶד עִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ נׇכְרִים – אֲסִירָא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִמְצֵאת כְּנֶגֶד עִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל – אֲסִירָא; אֵימוֹר מֵהַאי דְּקִרָא אֲתַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** In the case of **a barrel** of wine **that** was found **floating in a river,** and the status of the wine was unknown, **Rav says:** If it was **found opposite a town of which the majority** of residents **are Jews,** the wine is **permitted,** as it can be assumed that the wine belongs to a Jew. If it was **found opposite a town of which the majority are gentiles, it is forbidden,** as it presumably belongs to a gentile. **And Shmuel says: It is forbidden even** if it was **found opposite a town of which the majority are Jews.** Why? Regardless of where it was found, one can **say** that **it came from that** place called **Dekira,** where the majority of people are gentiles. In other words, there is a distinct possibility that a floating barrel came from far away.


###### Bava Batra 24a:10
[Bava Batra 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:10)

לֵימָא בִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say that** Rav and Shmuel **disagree with regard to** the statement **of Rabbi Ḥanina,** in **that** one **Sage,** Shmuel, **is of** the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥanina,** and he rules based on the majority, which in this case includes even distant locales, **and** one **Sage,** Rav, **is of** the opinion that the ruling is **not** in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥanina,** which is why he rules based on proximity.


###### Bava Batra 24a:11
[Bava Batra 24a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:11)

לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: אִם אִיתָא דְּמֵהַאי דְּקִרָא אֲתַאי, עִקּוּלֵי וּפָשׁוֹרֵי הֲוָה מַטְבְּעִי לַהּ. וּמָר סָבַר: חֲרִיפָא דְּנַהֲרָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No; everyone agrees with** the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥanina, and here they disagree about this: As** one **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that **if it is so, that** the barrel **came from that** place called **Dekira,** this cannot be, as **the currents and bays** of the river, where the river flow is weak, **would have sunk it.** Therefore, it is logical that the barrel came from a nearby town. **And** one **Sage,** Shmuel, **holds** that perhaps **the force of the river caught** the barrel **and brought it,** as it is evident that the flow of a river can bring items from far away.


###### Bava Batra 24a:12
[Bava Batra 24a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:12)

הָהוּא חַצְבָּא דְחַמְרָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בְּפַרְדֵּיסָא דְעׇרְלָה, שַׁרְיֵא רָבִינָא. לֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר לַהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Ravina** deemed **permitted a certain barrel of wine that was found** hidden **in a vineyard** where there were ***orla*** grapes, and he was not concerned that the wine might be from the grapes of that vineyard. The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that this is **because he holds** in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥanina** that one follows the majority of vineyards, which are not *orla*, rather than proximity?


###### Bava Batra 24a:13
[Bava Batra 24a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:13)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִי מִיגְּנִיב מִינֵּהּ – אַצְנוֹעֵי בְּגַוֵּיהּ לָא מַצְנְעִי. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי חַמְרָא, אֲבָל עִינְבֵי – מַצְנְעִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **is different there, as, if** thieves **had stolen** the barrel **from** that very vineyard **they would not have hidden it there.** Since the barrel was hidden there, it is reasonable to assume that it was stolen from somewhere else. The Gemara comments: **And this matter,** that thieves would not hide a stolen barrel in the same vineyard from which they stole it, **applies** only **to wine; but they** would **hide grapes** there, as grapes are not readily identifiable by the owner. Consequently, there is a concern that grapes found hidden there might be from that same vineyard.


###### Bava Batra 24a:14
[Bava Batra 24a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/24a:14)

הָנְהוּ זִיקֵי דְחַמְרָא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַחוּ בֵּי קוּפָאֵי, שְׁרַנְהוּ רָבָא. לֵימָא לָא סָבַר לַהּ לִדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּרוּבָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further relates that **there were these jugs of wine that were found between vines [*bei kofa’ei*]** of a Jew. **Rava** deemed the contents **permitted** and was unconcerned that they might be wine owned by a gentile. The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that Rava **does not hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina,** who says that one follows the majority, in this case gentiles? The Gemara answers: **There it is different, as the majority**