Niddah 56b — the Talmud in English

Alternatively,

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

in a case where

the creeping creature was found

in the garment

in a hollow.

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

would also examine the hollow.

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

a hollow is not cleansed.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, with regard to a bloodstain.

They raised a question before them:

whether

until the time of laundering, its presumptive status is that it was examined, or perhaps its presumptive status is that it will be removed by laundering.

What practical difference does this make?—

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—

she did not examine it.

If you say that its presumptive status is that it will be removed by laundering—

it was removed by laundering.

Alternatively—

in a case where it was found in a side seam,

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

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

would also examine the side seam.

If you say that its presumptive status is that it will be removed by laundering—

a side seam is not cleansed by laundering.

What is the ruling?

Come and hear a proof, as it was taught in a beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna. Rabbi Meir said: For what reason did they say that a creeping creature found in a public alley—

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

and before it is swept, they deem the items pure?

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

they retroactively render the items impure,

even pure items that had been there before the alley was swept.

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 when they launder them

21 , and if they did not examine them—

they retroactively render the items impure.

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 from before the laundering—

she should launder it again.

If its appearance has been diminished

by the laundering that has now taken place—

it is evident that the bloodstain fell on it after the previous laundering.

This is because we see that 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,

if its appearance was not diminished by the laundering now—

it is evident that it was on the garment before

the first laundering .

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says:

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

a bloodstain that appeared after laundering is not similar to one that was present before laundering 23 .

That

which appeared after laundering

penetrates,

entering the garment.

And that

which was present before laundering

forms a crust 24 .

Learn from this

from this beraita:

its presumptive status is that it was examined!

Learn from this.

We learned in the Mishna:

And it renders items impure whether it is moist

or dry. Rabbi Shimon says: A dry stain renders items impure retroactively, but a moist stain renders them impure only until the time when it could still have been moist.

Rabbi Elazar said:

According to the statement of Rabbi Shimon,

they taught

that a moist stain does not render items impure retroactively, but only until the time when it could still have been moist—

only with regard to a creeping creature.

But a moist bloodstain—

also renders items impure retroactively

until the time of laundering, because

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

and therefore it became moist again.

And we challenge this: If so,

with regard to a creeping creature also, say: It had been dry, and water fell on it!?

And we answer:

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

it would have been plucked apart and dismembered [Rav Hai Gaon], which demonstrates that this is not the case.

Mishna:

All bloodstains that come from Rekem,

which is a place inhabited by gentiles, whose blood is not impure—

are pure.

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

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 gentiles—

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

their bloodstains,

as they do not leave them concealed, but launder them. The Gemara will explain what this statement means.

Gemara:

It states the rule without qualification

that bloodstains coming from gentiles are pure,

even

those coming

from Tarmod.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This means that converts may be accepted from Tarmod.

We are certain that they are complete gentiles,

and they may be converted without concern that perhaps they are descendants of gentiles who became intermingled among the Jews and had relations with Jewish women, making them mamzerim, since a child born to a gentile or a slave who has relations with a Jewish woman is a mamzer.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Rabbi Yoḥanan and the Elders both said: Converts may not be accepted from Tarmod! And if you would say

that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

This

means that our Mishna

is not his opinion,

and he does not accept this Mishna.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakhic ruling follows an unattributed Mishna!

And our Mishna is an unattributed Mishna!?

And we answer:

There are different amoraic explanations, and they follow the view of Rabbi Yoḥanan 26 .

We learned in the Mishna: Bloodstains that come

from among Jews

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

And we considered this:

And as for the Sages, if

bloodstains

of Jews they deem pure,

bloodstains

of whom do they deem impure?

And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches: Bloodstains from among Jews—

are impure.

From among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure,

as he holds

that the Samaritans are genuine 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 out of 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

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

The reason is that they are

“converts out of fear of lions,”

—

that reason should have been stated!

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

are impure, because the Samaritans are genuine converts.

Bloodstains

found in Jewish cities—

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, since there is no concern that they came from a Jew, because Jews conceal their bloodstains.

Bloodstains

found in Samaritan cities—

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 for those found in private chambers,

which presumably were concealed because of menstrual blood,

and in the vicinity of the room of impure women,

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

The room of impure women belonging to 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 away,

and an animal would drag them away. The Samaritans are deemed credible

when they

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

And likewise,

they are deemed credible

when they

say about an animal whether it has given birth for the first time or has not given birth for the first time.

And

they are deemed credible regarding grave markers.

But they are not deemed credible regarding covered paths, projecting stones, or a field of ritual impurity.

These are cases of uncertain impurity established by rabbinic law, and the Samaritans did not take care concerning them; the Gemara will explain them.

This is the general principle: Any matter regarding which the Samaritans are suspected

—

they are not deemed credible concerning it.