## Niddah Daf 18a

###### Niddah 18a:1
[Niddah 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:1)

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב קַטִּינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this option **contradicts** the opinion **of Rav Ketina,** who deems the blood impure due to uncertainty.


###### Niddah 18a:2
[Niddah 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:2)

לְרַב הוּנָא, לָא פְּלִיגִי — כָּאן מִן הַלּוּל וְלִפְנִים, כָּאן מִן הַלּוּל וְלַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to** the opinion of **Rav Huna,** who said that if the blood was found in the inner section it is definitely impure, as it is presumed to come from the uterus, and if the blood was found in the outer section it is impure due to uncertainty, one can say that Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rav Ketina **do not disagree,** as they were referring to different cases. **Here,** where Rabbi Ḥiyya deems the blood definitely impure, he is speaking of blood found **from the vestibule and inward,** whereas **there,** Rav Ketina deems it impure due to uncertainty when it is found **from the vestibule and outward.**


###### Niddah 18a:3
[Niddah 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:3)

אֶלָּא לְרָמֵי בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל וּלְרַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמְרִי: מִן הַלּוּל וְלַחוּץ — סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר, מִן הַלּוּל וְלִפְנִים — סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא, הָנֵי בְּמַאי מִתּוֹקְמָא? מִן הַלּוּל וְלִפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the opinion of **Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, who say** that if the blood is found **from the vestibule and outward, its** state of **uncertainty** renders it **pure,** whereas if it is found in the area **from the vestibule and inward, its** state of **uncertainty** renders it **impure, with regard to what** case can the dispute between **these** Sages, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rav Ketina, be **interpreted?** It must be referring to a situation where the blood was found **from the vestibule and inward,** as according to Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, if the blood is found from the vestibule and outward it is pure.


###### Niddah 18a:4
[Niddah 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:4)

לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **shall we say** that Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, **disagree** with the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** who deems the blood definitely impure, whereas they maintain that it is impure merely due to uncertainty?


###### Niddah 18a:5
[Niddah 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:5)

לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — כְּשֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּקַּרְקַע פְּרוֹזְדוֹר, וְכָאן — שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּגַג פְּרוֹזְדוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult.** It is possible that Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, agree with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as they maintain that there is no dispute between Rav Ketina and Rabbi Ḥiyya. Once again the reason is that Rav Ketina and Rabbi Ḥiyya might be referring to two different cases: **Here,** Rabbi Ḥiyya deems the blood definitely impure because he is speaking of a case **where it is found on the floor of** the **corridor,** in which case the blood is presumed to come from the uterus rather than the bladder. **And there,** Rav Ketina, who deems the blood impure due to uncertainty, is referring to blood **that is found on the roof of** the **corridor,** and therefore it is uncertain whether the blood came from the bladder or the uterus.


###### Niddah 18a:6
[Niddah 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הָלְכוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים אַחַר הָרוֹב, וַעֲשָׂאוּם כְּוַדַּאי: מָקוֹר, שִׁלְיָא, חֲתִיכָה. מָקוֹר — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In three places** where there is uncertainty **the Sages followed the majority, and** based on that majority **they established** the *halakha* in these cases **as** though they involved **a certainty.** The three cases are as follows: The **source,** the **afterbirth [*shilya*],** and **a shaped** limb. The Gemara elaborates: The **source** is **that which we** just **said,** i.e., that blood found in the corridor from the vestibule and inward it is ritually impure, because the majority of blood found there is from the uterus.


###### Niddah 18a:7
[Niddah 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:7)

שִׁלְיָא — דִּתְנַן: שִׁלְיָא בְּבַיִת, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, וְלֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נִמּוֹק הַוָּלָד עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The **afterbirth** is **as we learned** in a mishna (26a): If a woman miscarried and **the afterbirth** is **in the house, the house is ritually impure,** in the sense that everything under the roof becomes impure due to impurity imparted by a corpse. **And** the reason is **not that the afterbirth** itself has the status of **an offspring; rather,** it is **that there is no afterbirth without an offspring.** It is clear that the afterbirth contained an offspring, which disintegrated after the miscarriage. That offspring renders the contents of the house impure. **Rabbi Shimon says:** The **offspring was squashed before it emerged** with the afterbirth. Consequently, the house is not rendered impure, because the squashed fetus is nullified by the majority of blood that accompanied the miscarriage.


###### Niddah 18a:8
[Niddah 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:8)

חֲתִיכָה — דִּתְנַן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת יָד חֲתוּכָה וְרֶגֶל חֲתוּכָה, אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מִגּוּף אָטוּם בָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The third case of an uncertainty where the Sages followed the majority is that of **a shaped** limb, **as we learned** in a *baraita*: In the case of a woman **who miscarries a shaped hand,** i.e., its fingers are discernible, **or a shaped foot, its mother is impure** with the impurity of a woman after **childbirth,** as it certainly came from a full-fledged fetus, **and we are not concerned** that **perhaps it came from** a fetus with **a sealed,** i.e., deficient **body,** in which case the miscarriage does not have the status of childbirth with regard to ritual impurity. The reason is that most pregnant women give birth to a fully formed fetus, and therefore it is presumed that the hand or foot came from a whole fetus that was squashed during childbirth. Once again the Sages established the impurity as a certainty, based on a majority.


###### Niddah 18a:9
[Niddah 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:9)

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא תֵּשַׁע חֲנוּיוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And are there no more** cases of uncertainty in which the Sages determined the *halakha* according to the status of the majority, treating the case as though it involved a certainty? **But isn’t there** the case of **nine stores?**


###### Niddah 18a:10
[Niddah 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:10)

דְּתַנְיָא: תֵּשַׁע חֲנוּיוֹת, כּוּלָּן מוֹכְרוֹת בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה, וְאַחַת מוֹכֶרֶת בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה, וְלָקַח מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח — סְפֵקוֹ אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **nine stores** in a city, **all of which sell** kosher **meat** from **slaughtered** animals, **and one** other store that **sells meat** from unslaughtered **animal carcasses, and** a person **bought** meat **from one of** the stores **and he does not know from which** store **he bought** the meat, in this case of **uncertainty,** the meat **is prohibited.** With regard to an item of uncertain status, if it separated from its fixed location it is presumed to have separated from the majority of items like it in that location, and has their halakhic status. But in the case of an item that remained in its fixed location, i.e., didn’t separate, it is viewed as an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority. This ruling is based on the principle: The halakhic status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority.In this case, when it comes to determining whether or not this meat comes from a kosher store, since the uncertainty stems from the act of buying the meat in the store, and the stores are fixed in their places, the two types of stores are regarded as though they were equal in number.


###### Niddah 18a:11
[Niddah 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:11)

וּבַנִּמְצָא — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And in the** case of meat **found** in the street, outside the stores, **follow the majority** of stores. If most stores in the city sell kosher meat one can assume that the meat he found is kosher, based on the principle: Any item separated, i.e., not fixed in its place, is presumed to have been separated from the majority. Similar to the previous cases, this meat is treated as certainly kosher on the basis of a majority.


###### Niddah 18a:12
[Niddah 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:12)

טוּמְאָה קָאָמְרִינַן, אִיסּוּר לָא קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We say** that this list of cases mentioned by Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to matters of **ritual impurity,** whereas **we do not say** that the list includes cases that involve **prohibitions,** such as that of non-kosher meat.


###### Niddah 18a:13
[Niddah 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:13)

וְהָאִיכָּא תֵּשַׁע צְפַרְדְּעִין וְשֶׁרֶץ אֶחָד בֵּינֵיהֶם, וְנָגַע בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן נָגַע — בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But isn’t there** the case where there were **nine** dead **frogs,** which do not impart ritual impurity, **and one** carcass of a **creeping animal among them,** which does impart impurity, **and** someone **touched one of** these ten dead creatures, **and he does not know which of them he touched?** The *halakha* is as follows: If this occurred **in the private domain** the item’s **uncertain** impurity renders it **impure,** as it is derived from the Torah that in cases of uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity in the private domain, the item is deemed impure. If the contact occurred **in the public domain,** the item’s **uncertainty** leaves it **pure.**


###### Niddah 18a:14
[Niddah 18a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:14)

וּבַנִּמְצָא — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And in** a case where one of these creatures was separated from the rest and **was found** elsewhere, and the person touched it there, **follow the majority.** Since most of the animals do not impart ritual impurity, this individual remains pure. This is another case involving uncertain impurity where the Sages established the *halakha* as certain based on the majority.


###### Niddah 18a:15
[Niddah 18a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:15)

טוּמְאָה דְּאִשָּׁה קָאָמְרִינַן, טוּמְאָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **We say** that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s list is referring to matters of **ritual impurity of a woman,** whereas **we do not say** that the list includes cases that involve **ritual impurity in general.**


###### Niddah 18a:16
[Niddah 18a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/18a:16)

וְהָאִיכָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: עָבְרָה בַּנָּהָר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But isn’t there that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:** With regard to a pregnant woman who **passed across a river**