FOLLOWING THE MAJORITY
Support (for R. Chanina - Abaye - Mishnah): If blood was found in the Prozdor (outer chamber of the womb), we are in doubt where it came from. We assume that it came from the Makor (inner chamber), and she is Tamei;
Even though the Aliyah (upper chamber) is closer, we attribute it to the Prozdor because more blood comes from there.
Rejection (Rava): There, the majority source is also more frequent. Surely we follow the majority in such a case (no one would argue with R. Chanina about this)!
(R. Chiya): If blood was found in a woman's Prozdor, she is considered definitely Teme'ah. She is liable if she entered the Mikdash, and we burn Terumah that she touches.
(Rava): We learn three things from R. Chiya's law.
When in doubt about where something came from, we assume that it came from the majority, even if the minority is closer;
Mid'Oraisa, we follow the majority;
R. Zeira's law is correct.
(R. Zeira): We follow even a single majority. (E.g. if meat was found in a city, if most of the butchers sell Kosher meat, and the city doors are locked, it is permitted. We do not require a second majority, i.e. that it could have come from travelers, and most of their meat is Kosher.)
Also in a woman, there is only one majority. There is no other place the blood could be from!
Version #1A - Rashi - Question: Above, Rava said that when the majority source is more frequent, all agree that we follow the majority, but here he says that R. Chiya supports R. Chanina!
Version #1B - Maharam (in Tosfos) - Question: Above, Rava said that blood from the Aliyah (the majority source) is more frequent (for if not, R. Chanina would not have taught his law, it follows from R. Chiya's law), but here he says that R. Chiya is a support for R. Chanina!
Answer: Rava retracted. R. Chiya does not support R. Chanina.
Version #2 (R. Gershom) Question: Above, Rava said that we follow the majority source only if it is more frequent. Here, he says that we follow any majority!
Answer: Rava retracted from what he said above. (end of Version #2)
(Rav): If a barrel (of wine) floating in a river was found near a city that is mostly Yisraelim, it is permitted. If the nearest city is mostly Nochrim, it is forbidden;
(Shmuel): Even if it was found near a city that is mostly Yisraelim, it is forbidden. Perhaps it came from Ihi Dekira (a Nochri city upstream in Bavel).
Suggestion: They argue about R. Chanina's law. Shmuel follows the majority like R. Chanina, and Rav argues and assumes that it came from the closest.
Rejection No, all agree with R. Chanina;
Rav says that it could not have come from Ihi Dekira, for it would have broken on rocks in the river;
Shmuel says that perhaps it floated in the middle of the river, where there are no rocks.
A barrel of wine (was presumably stolen and) was found in an orchard of Orlah. Ravina permitted it (we assume that it came from elsewhere. Most fruit in the world is not Orlah.)
Suggestion: Ravina holds like R. Chanina.
Rejection: No. He permitted in this case only because a thief would not hide wine in the place he stole the grapes (lest they see him stomp them).
This refers only to wine, but he would hide the grapes there.
Jugs of wine were found hidden among vines in Reuven's vineyard. Rava permitted them.
Suggestion: Rava argues with R. Chanina. (Rava assumes that they were stolen from Reuven, the closest possible source, and not the majority.)
Rejection: No. Here is different, for most of the vendors (in the entire region) selling jugs of wine are Yisrael.
This applies only to large jugs, but small jugs are forbidden. Perhaps they fell from travelers (who may have come from far away. The majority of them are Nochrim.)
If large and small jugs are found together, all are permitted;
Travelers do not carry large jugs. Even though merchants do not need small jugs, they often use them to balance a load on the donkey.
A TREE NEAR A CITY
(Mishnah): We distance a tree 25 Amos from a city. A carob or sycamore tree must be distanced 50 Amos;
Aba Sha'ul says, any barren tree must be distanced 50 Amos;
If the city was there first, we (people of the city) may cut it, we need not pay the owner;
If the tree was there first, we may cut it, but we must pay.
If we are unsure which came first, we may cut it, we need not pay.
(Gemara) Question: Why must trees be distanced?
Answer (Ula): It is for the beauty of the city.
Question: Even more should be forbidden! We may not convert a Migrash (1000 Amos surrounding a city in each direction) into a field, or vice-versa!
Answer #1: The Mishnah is R. Eliezer, who permits converting a Migrash into a field, or vice-versa;
Twenty-five Amos are forbidden due to beauty of the city.
Answer #2: Even Chachamim, who say that we may not convert a Migrash into a field or vice-versa, forbid only a seeded field, but we may plant trees;
Twenty-five Amos are forbidden due to beauty of the city.
Question: What is the source to distinguish between a seeded field and trees?
Answer (Beraisa): If a Karfaf (an unroofed enclosed area) more than the area in which one seeds two Se'ah was enclosed for dwelling: if the majority was seeded, it is like a garden, and one may not carry in it on Shabbos;
If the majority was planted (with trees), it is like a Chatzer, and one may carry in it.
(Mishnah): If the city was there first, we (people of the city) may cut it, we need not pay the owner.
Question: If a tree is near a pit, the owner of the pit may cut it and pay the owner (25b); if a tree is near a city, we (the city residents) may cut it and do not pay the owner;
Why are the laws different?
Answer (Rav Kahana): An individual will pay (for the tree) for the sake of his pit;
There are many people in the city, no one wants to pay first. (If we cannot cut it without paying, it will not be cut.)
Objection: Why was the question asked? Damage to the public is worse than damage to an individual!
Correction: Rather, Rav Kahana replied to a question on the Seifa.
(Mishnah): If the tree was there first, we may cut it, we must pay.
Question: Why can't the owner demand to be paid before they cut the tree?
Answer (Rav Kahana): It will be a long time before the money is collected. (After we cut, the owner can go to Beis Din to demand compensation.)
(Mishnah): If we are unsure which came first, we may cut it, we need not pay.
Question: What is the difference between the case of a tree near a pit (he may not cut when in doubt) and our case (when in doubt, we cut)?
Answer: If the tree preceded the pit, it should not be cut. When in doubt, we do not cut;
Here, either way the tree should be cut, so we may cut it;
We are in doubt if we must pay for it. To collect money, the owner must bring proof.
DISTANCING A GRANARY
(Mishnah): We distance a fixed granary 50 Amos from a city;
One may not make a fixed granary on his property unless he owns 50 Amos around it in each direction.
He must distance it from his neighbor's saplings and Nir (plowed, unseeded field) so it will not damage them.
(Gemara) Question: Why is the law different in the last case (50 Amos are not required)?
Answer #1 (Abaye): It discusses a granary that is not fixed.
Question: What is the case of a granary that is not fixed?
Answer (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): There is so little grain that the wind winnows it itself. One need not throw it with a pitchfork.
Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Fifty Amos are required; the Seifa explains the Reisha:
We distance a fixed granary 50 Amos from a city in order that it will not damage.
Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): We distance a fixed granary 50 Amos from a city;
We keep the same distance from gourds, saplings and a Nir.
This is left difficult.
We understand how the granary hurts gourds. The dust enters the buds and dries them.
Question: How does it harm a Nir?
Answer (R. Aba bar Zavda): It overfertilizes it (this burns the seeds).