Niddah 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

Alternatively,

even if he did not say, “I did not examine it,” but rather—

where

the creeping creature

was found

in a crevice.

If you say that its presumptive status is that it was examined, whoever examined it—

would examine even the crevice.

If you say that its presumptive status is that it is cleaned—

a crevice is not cleaned.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise with regard to a bloodstain.

They raised a dilemma before them:

whether

until the time of laundering, its presumptive status is that it was examined, or perhaps its presumptive status is that it is laundered?

What is the practical difference?—

In a case where she says: “I laundered it but did not examine it.”

If you say that its presumptive status is that it was examined—

in this case she did not examine it.

If you say that its presumptive status is that it is laundered—

in this case it was laundered.

Alternatively—

if it was found on the side

at the sides of the garment, where the seams are.

If you say that its presumptive status is that it was examined, whoever examined it—

would examine even the side.

If you say that its presumptive status is that it is laundered—

the side is not laundered.

What is the halakha?

Come and hear: As it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Meir said: For what reason did they say that a creeping creature found in a passageway—

renders items impure retroactively, until one says: “I examined this passageway and there was no creeping creature in it,” or until the time when it was swept—

and before it was swept, they deemed the items pure?

Because the presumptive status of the Jewish people is that they examine their passageways at the time they sweep them, and if they did not examine them—

they have forfeited its retroactive status,

even with regard to pure items that were there before the sweeping.

And for what reason did they say that a bloodstain found on a garment renders items impure retroactively, until she says: “I examined the garment and there was no bloodstain on it,” or until the time of laundering?

Because the presumptive status of Jewish women is that they examine their garments at the time of laundering them

21, and if they did not examine them—

they have forfeited their retroactive status.

Rav Aḥa said:

If she did not examine it at the time of laundering, and a bloodstain was found on it, and it is not known how to treat the pure items that were present before the laundering—

she should launder it again.

If its appearance was diminished

by the laundering now—

it is known that it fell on it after the previous laundering.

We see that the laundering diminishes its appearance. Had it been on the garment before the first laundering, its appearance would already have been diminished then.

But if not,

its appearance was not diminished by the laundering now—

it is known that it was on it before the first laundering

and was already there.

Rabbi says:

It is possible to determine whether the bloodstain was present before the laundering or appeared afterward, because

a bloodstain that appeared after laundering is not the same as a bloodstain that was present before laundering 23.

This one,

the one that appeared after laundering,

penetrates,

entering the garment.

And this one,

the one that was present before laundering,

forms a crust 24.

Learn from it

from this beraita:

Its presumptive status is that it was examined!

Learn from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And it renders items impure whether wet

or dry. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry item renders items impure retroactively, but the wet item does not become impure until it could have been wet.

Rabbi Elazar said,

in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon:

They taught

that it does not render items impure retroactively until it could have been wet—

only with regard to a creeping creature.

But a wet bloodstain—

also renders items impure retroactively

until the time of laundering, because

say that it had been dry, and water fell upon it,

and therefore it returned to being wet.

And we challenge this: If so,

with regard to a creeping creature as well, say: It had been dry, and water fell upon it!?

And we answer:

If that were so, it would have been torn apart,

it would have been stripped apart and disintegrated [Rav Ḥisda], demonstrating that this is not the case.

Mishna:

All bloodstains that come from Rekem,

which is the place of idolaters, whose blood is not impure—

are pure.

Rabbi Yehuda deems them impure, because they are converts who err

in this matter, as they do not conceal their bloodstains; therefore, their blood is impure like the blood of any Jew.

And bloodstains

that come from among the idolaters—

are pure 25.

Bloodstains that come

from among Jews and from among Samaritans—

Rabbi Meir deems them impure, and the Sages deem them pure, because Jews have not been suspected

of treating

their bloodstains

as items that they would fail to conceal; rather, they launder them. The Gemara will explain what this statement means.

Gemara:

It states categorically

that bloodstains that come from idolaters are pure,

even

those that come

from Tarmod.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is to say: We accept converts from Tarmod.

For we are certain that they are complete gentiles.

And we may convert them without concern that perhaps they are descendants of idolaters who became intermingled among the Jews and had relations with Jewish women, and are therefore mamzerim, since a gentile or a slave who has relations with a Jewish woman produces a mamzer.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Rabbi Yoḥanan and the Elders both said: We do not accept converts from Tarmod! And if you would say

that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

This

statement of our Mishna

but he does not hold accordingly,

and does not accept this Mishna—

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha follows an unattributed Mishna!

And our Mishna is an unattributed Mishna!?

And we answer:

They are different amoraim, and they express their views according to Rabbi Yoḥanan 26.

We learned in the Mishna: Bloodstains that come

from among Jews

and from among Samaritans—Rabbi Meir deems them impure, and the Sages deem them pure.

And we considered this:

And as for the Sages, if

the bloodstains

of Jews they deem pure—

the bloodstains

of whom do they deem impure?

And we answer:

The Mishna is lacking a phrase, and this is what it teaches: From among Jews—

impure.

From among Samaritans: Rabbi Meir deems them impure,

as he holds

that the Samaritans are true converts,

and therefore their status is like that of Jews, whose blood is impure.

And the Sages deem them pure,

because they hold

that the Samaritans are converts motivated by fear of lions.

Therefore, their status is like that of gentiles, whose blood is pure.

And we challenge this:

If so,

why did they explain the reason for deeming them pure as being

“because they have not been suspected with regard to their bloodstains”?

But the reason is that they are

“converts motivated by fear of lions,”

so

that should have been stated!

Rather, this is what the Mishna is saying: From among Jews and from among Samaritans—

they are impure, because the Samaritans are true converts.

Bloodstains

found in Jewish towns—

are pure, because they have not been suspected with regard to their bloodstains, and they conceal them carefully.

That is, if the bloodstains were found in an exposed place, they are pure, as there is no concern that they came from a Jew, since Jews conceal their bloodstains.

Bloodstains

found in Samaritan towns—

Rabbi Meir deems them impure, because they have been suspected with regard to their bloodstains.

And the Sages deem them pure—

because they have not been suspected with regard to their bloodstains 27.

Mishna:

All bloodstains found anywhere—

are pure, except those found in chambers,

where, presumably, they concealed them because of menstrual blood,

and in the vicinity of the house of impurity,

the room where women customarily stayed during their days of impurity.

The house of impurity of the Samaritans—

renders items impure through being under the same roof, because they bury miscarried fetuses there 28.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They did not bury them

there.

Rather,

they would

throw

the miscarried fetuses there, and

an animal would drag them away. The Samaritans are trusted

to

say: “We buried miscarried fetuses there,” or, “We did not bury them.”

And likewise,

they are trusted

to

say with regard to an animal whether it has given birth for the first time or has not given birth for the first time.

And

they are trusted with regard to marking graves.

But they are not trusted with regard to overhanging branches, nor with regard to projecting stones, nor with regard to a bet ha-peras.

These are cases of uncertain impurity by rabbinic ordinance, to which the Samaritans paid no heed, as will be explained in the Gemara.

This is the general rule: With regard to a matter in which they are suspected,

the Samaritans—

they are not trusted concerning it.