Explanation #1: Above (17b), in the version that we follow concern, Rashi explained that R. Chiya argues [with Abaye], for we cannot answer [like we do here], for since Abaye attributes the reason to concern, there is concern for blood of the Aliyah even on the floor of the Prozdor.

Objection: When blood was found on her Ed or on his, why are they obligated a Korban? Is this better than blood found from the conduit and inside, which is only a Safek, even on the floor of the Prozdor?!

Explanation #2: According to Abaye, we cannot establish R. Chiya to discuss the floor of the Prozdor, since even [when blood is found] from the conduit and outside, which can come normally from the Aliyah, and it is closer, [Abaye] is concerned for blood of the Makor...

If so, from the conduit and inside, on the floor of the Prozdor, obviously it came from the Makor. R. Chiya would not need to teach this (if he held like Abaye! Rather, R. Chiya must discuss the roof of the Prozdor.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Most Shilyos (fetal sacs) have a child inside.

Question: In Chulin (77a), it says that if a Shilya partially left [an animal's womb], one may not eat it;

If there can be a Shilya without a child, we should permit, for we join the minority that do not have a child, to half the cases in which the majority of the fetus, so the half [of Shilyos that partially left] that have the majority of the fetus are the minority;

This is because a Stam Shilya that partially left, and it has a fetus, half of them have the majority of the fetus, and half of them do not have the majority of the fetus;

This is proven in Bava Kama (11a). We say like this there. We join the half [of firstborn animals] that are Nidmeh (do not resemble the mother) to the half that are females (so the majority do not have Kedushas Bechor).

Similarly, in Bechoros (20b) we join the minority of women who miscarry to the half [of babies] that are females (so a minority of women give birth to boys).

Answer: We can defend Rashi. There, we discuss a Shilya that left partially, and a child was found in the Shilya.

Explanation #2: There is no Shilya at all without a child, but a minority [of fetuses] are dissolved [in the Shilya], and the majority are not dissolved until they are taken to a second house, like it says below (27a).

Question: (We asked from the Mishnah (26a) of a Shilya in the house.) Why don't we bring here the Reisha (24b) - "if one miscarried a Sandal or Shilya, she observes [the stringencies of Yoledes] Zachar and [Yoledes] Nekevah"? This shows that most are not dissolved before they leave!

Answer #1: Even though they are dissolved, we can say that she is Temei'ah Leidah (due to birth), for it says "Ishah Ki Sazri'a" - even if she gave birth only to something like she was Mazri'ah (her seed), its mother is Temei'ah Leidah.

Implied question: That Drashah is like R. Shimon below (40a). Rabanan expound it to teach that [she is Temei'ah Leidah] only if she gave birth from where [the man] is Mazri'a, (to exclude a yzdc)!

Answer: We learn both Drashos from the verse.

Answer #2: We do not bring the Reisha, for one might have thought that Rabanan's reason is because there is no Shilya without a fetus, and no fetus is dissolved, even a minority;

Therefore, we bring the Seifa, that R. Shimon said that the fetus was dissolved, even though it did not leave;

Since R. Shimon holds that most are dissolved, Rabanan hold that only a minority are dissolved, for it is unreasonable to say that R. Shimon holds that most are dissolved, and Rabanan hold that even a minority are not dissolved.

Answer #3: It seems that just the contrary, the Makshan relies on the Reisha, and brings the Seifa only because from it he proves that Rabanan's reason is due to the majority, like I explained;

If he brings from that case of a Shilya in a house, why do we need a majority? Even if half [had a Shilya], we would burn [Terumah], for Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei!

Implied question: Why didn't he bring our Mishnah below (28a) "one who miscarries, and does not know what", and it discusses one who miscarries a piece, like is proven there in the Gemara of a Shilya in the house?

Answer: It is because here it explicitly explains that we are not concerned lest it came from a formless body. This connotes that the reason is because we follow the majority.

Question: There is the Mishnah below (59b) of a man and woman who urinated into a basin, and blood was found. R. Shimon is Metamei, for the Chazakah of blood is that it came from the woman!

Suggestion: [We did not bring it] because R. Shimon taught it.

Rejection: It says Shilya, even though R. Meir taught it, like it says below (27a)!

Suggestion: We do not burn Terumah based on that majority.

Rejection: If so, below, when we struggle to find what "three" excludes, we should say that it excludes the majority of R. Shimon!

Answer: There, the Chazakah of the person helps the majority.

Question: We should list also the Mishnah below (57b) "it turns out that there are three Sefekos about a woman, and regarding touching and moving, we follow the majority";

If we do not burn Terumah based on [that majority], we should say that [three] excludes it!

Answer: We burn, and the reason is because most blood comes from the Makor, which was counted among the three matters.

Source: In Kesuvos (15a), we learn kvu (it is considered an even Safek) from "v'Arav Lo."

Question: According to R. Shimon, who expounds "v'Arav Lo" to teach that he must intent for him [in order to be executed for murder], what is his source for kvu?

Answer: We conclude in Sanhedrin (79a) that R. Shimon holds like Rebbi, that "v'Nasatah Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" refers to money. If so, we learn from there that [he is not killed] until he intends for him, and "v'Arav Lo" is extra to teach kvu;

Question: However, according to Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah, who expounds "Makeh Adam u'Makeh Behemah" to teach that one who does not intend is exempt from death and money, and he does not expound "v'Nasatah Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" for money, you are forced to say that he learns "until he intends for him" from "v'Arav Lo", it is difficult. What is his source for kvu?

Inference: [We follow the majority] even if it is found near a store that sells Neveilah.

Question: If so, what is R. Chanina's Chidush (Bava Basra 23b) that if [one possible source is] the majority, and [another possible source is] closer, we attribute to the majority?

Answer: The Chidush is that this is even for a closeness that is Muchach.

Question: R. Zeira's question there ("ha'Ir ha'Kerovah" teaches that we attribute an unknown murderer to the closest city, even though other cities have more people) he should can ask against the Mishnah of nine stores!

Explanation: Here there is a Chazakah against the majority, for an animal is Chezkas Isur. Also regarding nine frogs, it says that we follow the majority, and if most are Sheratzim, it is Tamei, even if there is Chezkas Taharah;

Proof: If the Chazakah were not against the majority, he has no question at all, for we could say that R. Yochanan counts only when there is a Chazakah against the majority.

Explanation: It teaches there that if [one is unsure whether and what she miscarried, and when, and] she had three Tahor weeks and 10 weeks alternating, one week Tamei (she saw blood every day) and one Tahor... and it says that she does not have Bi'ah until the night before day 35;

If R. Yehoshua [ben Levi] is wrong (there is no majority that most woman give birth to something for which there is a Korban, and Tum'as Leidah), what is the reason? This is a sff. I can say that she miscarried Ru'ach. And if you will say that she miscarried a Nefel, perhaps the birth was a long time ago [and Yemei Tum'as Leidah finished]!

Implied question: Even without [saying that perhaps she miscarried Ru'ach], there are several s9f! Perhaps she miscarried a male [and there is only one week of Tum'as Leidah]. And if you will say that she miscarried a female, perhaps she was not Yoledes b'Zov [so she is permitted immediately after two weeks of Yemei Tum'as Leidah]. And if you will say that she miscarried a female b'Zov, perhaps the birth was a long time ago!

Answer: Even so, if not for R. Yehoshua, there is another Safek, that perhaps she did not give birth at all, and we should have permitted [Bi'ah before night 35].

Explanation (cont.): We answer that perhaps it is not a refutation, and not a support. Even without [a Safek that she miscarried Ru'ach], there are many s9f, and we forbid. The same applies if the Halachah does not follow R. Yehoshua ben Levi, also we forbid.

Explanation: There is a Chazakah against the majority.

Question: Also these three matters, there is Chezkas Taharah, yet we burn due to the majority!

Answer #1: This that most children play [with dough] is not an absolute majority, like I will explain. In these three matters there is an absolute majority.

Answer #2: Also regarding these three, there is not an absolute majority. R. Yochanan teaches that even so, we burn, since the Re'usa comes from her body, and also the Shilya is called Tum'ah of the woman, because through the woman, Tum'ah comes to the house.

Consequence: According to this, even if we find regarding a woman a Mishnah that we burn Terumah based on a majority, R. Yochanan did not count it because there, it is an important majority, and it is not a Chidush.

However, according to this Perush, above we bring only from the Seifa, from a Shilya in the house, for we can say that the majority that are not dissolved is not an absolute majority;

In the Reisha of "one who miscarried a Shilya, she observes [Yoledes] Zachar and Nekevah", you are forced to say that it is an important majority, since it does not teach also [she observes] Nidah, like we infer below (28a);

Note: "Most give birth to something for which there is a Korban", is an important majority. We cannot derive that most are not dissolved, for R. Shimon is Metamei even if she gave birth to something like she was Mazri'ah.

If "the majority are not dissolved" is not an absolute majority, this that was taught above "she brings a Korban and it is eaten" is not due to the majority. Rather, even if it was dissolved, she is Temei'ah Leidah.

Question: Even if he did not say so, how could we exclude this? He discussed only Tum'ah of a woman!

Answer: According to R. Tam, who explains that a child is Tamei because Nidos hug him, we can answer that also a child is [based on] Tum'ah of a woman.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Most children] touch in the wasteheap, which has in it Sheratzim. However, he Vadai touched the dough, for there is [a small piece of] dough in his hand.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Most children touch dough. "Tipu'ach" applies to food and drink, like it says in Avodah Zarah (60b) "or he was Metape'ach on top of a foaming barrel (of fermenting wine)."

Support #1: The Yerushalmi says "because it is normal for a child to touch dough."

Support #2: The Tosefta (Taharos 3:12) connotes that it is not known whether the child touched the dough, for it says about the case of a child "R. Yosi says, if he can stretch his hand and take, it is Tamei. If not, it is Tahor."

Explanation (R. Tam): The child is Vadai Tamei, like the Tosefta (Taharos 3:8) teaches "because Nidos hug and kiss him."

Implied question: A Mishnah (Taharos 3:7) teaches that if a child is next to a cem, and roses are in his hand, even though the roses are [growing] only in a place of Tum'ah, the child is Tahor, for I can say that a Tahor person [gave to him]!

Answer #1: It means that the child is Tahor from Tum'as Mes. One need not s37. However, he is Tamei Tum'as Erev (he can immerse, and at night he is totally Tahor), like the law of one who touched a Nidah.

Answer #2: It discusses when the child was Vadai Tahor [before coming near the cem].

Answer #3: [We assume that a child is Vadai Tamei] when the child is dirty, like the Tosefta (Taharos 3:8) teaches "if a mother left her child and found him the same way, he is Tahor. This is when she left him dirty, but if left him clean, he is Tamei, because Nidos hug him."

Question: In Yevamos (119b), it says "we join the minority to the Chazakah, and it is like an even Safek"!

Answer: Here, the majority is weakened, because the child is Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol [like in Kidushin (80b), and we learn from Sotah only when Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol]. Therefore, when it is an even Safek, it is Tahor, due to Rav Gidal's teaching.

Support: This explains why it says that a Safek touching in Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei;

Implied question: We should say "join the half [chance] that he (or it) did not touch to Chezkas Taharah, and the half [chance] that he (or it) touched is weakened, for even Rabanan, who do not say "join the minority to the Chazakah", agree that we join half to a Chazakah!

Answer: Rather, since Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol, the Torah decreed that we learn from Sotah to be Metamei in Reshus ha'Yachid, even if there is Chezkas Taharah;

However, if Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol, we follow the majority, and when it is half-half, it is Tahor due to Rav Gidal's teaching.

Implied question: it says in Kidushin (80b) that they made a child as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol! (Why must we say that it is as if the minority does not exist?)

Answer: Here we need to say that according to Rabanan, it is as if the minority does not exist, to be Metamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question #1: Since it is as if the minority does not exist, and when a majority opposes a Chazakah, the majority is stronger, why did they make him as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol? Even if Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol, it is Tamei [even] in Reshus ha'Rabim!

Question #2: Why don't we burn Terumah based on this?

Answer (R. Tam): The majority of children is not an absolute majority. Against the Chazakah, it is only like an even Safek. Mid'Oraisa it is Tahor even in Reshus ha'Yachid, since Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol.

Implied question: It says that they made him as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

Answer: This means that they made it as if it is an absolute majority, because it seems to everyone that it is a majority, even though it is not an absolute majority. Therefore, we do not burn Terumah due to it.

Suggestion: Perhaps they literally made him as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

Rejection: Why should they do so here more than in the case of a weasel walking among loaves, which is Tahor?

Suggestion: They decreed about a big child, who has Da'as Lish'ol!

Rejection: Still, why is it Tamei in Reshus ha'Rabim?

Conclusion: Rather, they made it as if it is an absolute majority, like I explained;

According to R. Meir, it is Tahor, even though they made it like an absolute majority, because we join the minority to the Chazakah, and the majority is weakened.

Question: According to R. Meir, why must we join the minority to the Chazakah? Even without a Chazakah, he should be Metaher. Since he is concerned for the Mi'ut, it is a Safek, and Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol is Tahor due to Rav Gidal's teaching!

Answer (Ri): He mentioned the Chazakah with the minority to teach that the Chazakah does not support the majority;

If the Chazakah supported the majority, [the minority] would be like a miniscule minority, which [even] R. Meir is not concerned for.

Remark: This that R. Meir is concerned for the minority, whether this is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan, it is not proper to elaborate here.

Implied question: We could have asked that this is fine according to the version that R. Yochanan explains that R. Yehudah's reason is because most pieces are of the four kinds (colors) of blood...

However, according to the version below (21b) that R. Yochanan said that R. Yehudah's reason is because the womb cannot open without blood, and not due to a majority, what does ["three"] exclude? We ask like this below (21b) in the Gemara of one who miscarries a kind of fish.

Suggestion: [R. Yochanan] means that most of the time, the womb does not open without blood, and we do not burn Terumah due to this.

Rejection: It says there according to R. Yehoshua, who says that the womb cannot open without blood, she brings a Korban and it is eaten. If so, it is Tamei Vadai, and we burn Terumah due to this! (Rashash, Aruch l'Ner -the other version there must say that R. Yochanan did not teach "in three places...")