Bava Batra

with a path between vineyards; for though [there is ground for saying that] it came from a distance. [because it is more than fifty cubits from a cote],  yet here, since it can only hop, it cannot have come from a distant cote, because a bird will only hop away from the cote so long as it can still see the cote on turning round, but no further. Abaye said: We too know R. Hanina's rule  from the Mishnah. which says: 'If blood  is found in the 'anteroom'  and there is any doubt about its character, it is reckoned unclean, because it is presumed to be from the 'source'  — notwithstanding the fact that there is an 'upper chamber'  which is nearer. Said Raba to him: You are speaking of a case where there is 'frequency' as well as 'majority';  where there are both 'frequency' and 'majority' no one questions that they carry more weight than 'nearness'. R. Hiyya taught:  Blood found in the 'anteroom' renders [the woman] liable [for a sin-offering] if she enters the Sanctuary,  and terumah must be burnt on its account.  Raba remarked: From this statement of R. Hiyya three lessons may be derived. One is [that where we have to choose between] 'majority' and 'nearness', we decide on the ground of 'majority'.  The second is that the rule of 'majority' derives its warrant from the Scripture. The third is that R. Zera was right when he laid down that [in the case of a piece of meat] we decide on the ground of 'majority' even though the town gates are closed,  because the case of the woman here is analogous to the case where the town gates are closed,  and even so we decide on the ground of 'majority'. But was it not Raba himself who said that where 'majority' and 'frequency' were combined no one questioned that they carried more weight than 'nearness' [whereas here he says that 'majority' itself carries more weight]? — Raba retracted the objection he then made to Abaye. It has been stated: If a barrel of wine is found floating on the river [Euphrates]. Rab says, if it is opposite a town where the majority of the inhabitants are Jews, the wine is permitted, and if opposite a town where the majority of the inhabitants are nonjews. the wine is prohibited. Samuel, however, says that even if it is found opposite a town where the majority of the inhabitants are Jews, it is prohibited, because it may be supposed to have come from Hai di-Kira.  May we say that the ground on which they join issue is the dictum of R. Hanina [that we follow the 'majority' in preference to 'nearness']. Samuel accepting it  and Rab not accepting it?  — No: both accept the dictum of R. Hanina. and the ground on which they join issue is this, that in the opinion of Rab. if the barrel had come from Hai di-Kira it would have been sunk or stuck in the bays  or shallows  of the river, whereas Samuel thinks that it can have been carried along by the force of the stream. A barrel of wine [which had been stolen] was found in a vineyard which was 'uncircumcised',  and Rabina permitted the wine to be drunk. Shall we say it was because he held with R. Hanina? — There was a different reason in that case, viz., that if the wine had been stolen from that vineyard it would not have been hidden there. This, however, applies only to wine, but [stolen] grapes might be hidden [in the same vineyard]. A number of flasks of wine were found between trunks of vines  [of a Jew] and Raba permitted the wine to be drunk.  Shall we say that he did not hold with R. Hanina?  — There was a different reason in that case, viz, that most