In my previous blog entry I showed how רב שך learns the סוגיא in נידה page ב' and ג' in order to answer for the רמב''ם. The question was the מקוה is certain, and the חבית הוא ספק ? ר' חנינא מסורא says the case of the חבית is ר’ שמעון, and so there is no problem. The חכמים would say about the חבית that it too is certain. רב שך learns that both the חכמים and ר’ שמעון hold that both the מקוה and חבית are in doubt, but the חכמים learn from סוטה or from two חזקות are joined to make the case of the מקוה to be certain תרתי לרעיותא. However, it is hard to see this in the גמרא itself. I mean that the גמרא is one long statement of ר' חנינא. At first, he says the case of the חבית is ר’ שמעון. Then he gives an explanation why each one decided the law as he did. At no place in the discussion is there the slightest indication that the חכמים decided that is it doubtful like ר' שמעון. Just for background. The גמרא asks from חבית on מקוה. ר' חנינא מסורא answered the חבית is ר’ שמעון, and he continues thus: Both learn from סוטה. Then he deals with the חכמים and explains that just like the תורה makes סוטה to be certain even though we do not know, so we learn to the case of the מקוה that it too is certain even though we actually do not know. But then comes the question that a סוטה is pure in a רשות הרבים, so why do we not learn from there to מקוה? Answer she is pure in a רשות הרבים because there is no privacy in a רשות הרבים. Thus, the case of מקוה will beטמא certain, even in a רשות הרבים since privacy has no relevance to the case of the מקוה. But then come the question (still all in the words of ר' חנינא] we should make the case of the מקוה pure in a רשות הרבים since it is a law to Moses from Sinai that all doubt of purity in a רשות הרבים is pure. Answer: the case of מקוה is two חזקות which are joined. {So the case of the מקוה is certain or in doubt but certainly not pure. } Then ר' חנינא explains ר’ שמעון. ר' שמעון also learns from סוטה. Just like a סוטה is pure in a public domain, so is the case of the מקוה. But in a רשות היחיד, she is certainly not pure, while the חבית is doubtful in the opinion of ר’ שמעון. Answer: she is certain because there is cause for suspicion. In all this back-and-forth discussion, there is not the slightest hint that the חכמים changed their minds about the case of the חבית.------------------------------------In my previous blog entry I showed how Rav Shach learns the sugia in nida page 2 and three in order to answer for the Rambam. The question was the mikve is certain and the ? R Hanina says the case of the barrel is R Shimon, and so there is no problem. The sages would say about the barrel that it too is certain. Rav Shach learns that both the sages and r Shimon hold that both the mikve and barrel are in doubt, but the sages learn from sota or from two hazakot are joined to make the case of the mikve to be certain. However, it is hard to see this in the Gemara itself. I mean that the Gemara is one long statement of R Hanina. At first, he says the case of the barrel is R Shimon. Then he gives an explanation why each one decided the law as he did. At no place in the discussion is there the slightest indication that the sages decided that is it doubtful like R Shimon. Just for background. The Gemara asks from barrel on mikve. R Hanina from Sura answered the barrel is R Shimon, and he continues thus: Both learn from sota. Then he deals with the sages and explains that just like the Torah makes sota to be in certain even though she is in doubt, so we learn to the case of the mikvah that it too is certain even though we actually do not know. But then comes the question that a sota is pure in a public domain, so why do we not learn from there to mikve? Answer she is pure in a public domain because there is no privacy in a public domain. Thus, the case of mikve will be certain even in a public domain since privacy has no relevance to the case of the mikve. But then come the question (still all in the words of R Hanina] we should makes the case of the mikev pure in a public domain since it is a law to Moses from Sinai that all doubt of purity in a public domain is pure. Answer: the case of mikve is two hazakot which are joined. {So the case of the mikve is certain or in doubt but certainly not pure.. }Then R Hanina explains R Shimon. He also learns from sota. Just like a sota is pure in a public domain, so is the case of the mikve. But in a private domain, she is certainly not pure, while the barrel is doubtful in the opinion of r shimon.. answer she is certain because there is cause for suspicion. In all this back-and-forth discussion there is not the slightest hint that the sages changed their minds about the case of the barrel.)