Niddah 56

ממקום טמא אינו דין שיהו טמאין דם היוצא מפי האמה יוכיח שבא ממקום טמא וטהור אף אתה אל תתמה על זה שאף על פי שבא ממקום טומאה יהיה טהור תלמוד לומר זובו טמא וזאת לרבות מימי רגליו לטומאה

from a place of impurity, the same place that emits ziva, is it not logical that it should be impure? The baraita answers: The case of blood that issues from the opening of the penis may prove that this inference is invalid, as the blood comes from a place of impurity and yet it is pure. Likewise, you should not be surprised about this, the urine of a zav, that even though it comes from a place of impurity it should be pure. Therefore, the verse states: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure. And this shall be his impurity” (Leviticus 15:2–3). The term “and this” comes to include his urine with regard to the severe form of ritual impurity.

דם היוצא מפי האמה מנלן דטהור דתניא יכול יהא דם היוצא מפיו ומפי האמה טמאין תלמוד לומר זובו טמא הוא הוא טמא ואין דם היוצא מפיו ומפי האמה טמא אלא טהור

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that blood that issues from the opening of the penis is pure? As it is taught in a baraita concerning a zav: One might have thought that blood that issues from his mouth or from the opening of the penis is impure, like his saliva and urine. Therefore, the verse states: “His issue, it is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). The term “it” is an exclusion, indicating that it, ziva, is impure, but blood that issues from his mouth or from the opening of the penis is not impure; rather, it is pure.

ואיפוך אנא אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי דומיא דרוק מה רוק שמתעגל ויוצא אף כל שמתעגל ויוצא יצא דם שאין מתעגל ויוצא

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps I should reverse the halakhot. One could derive from the amplification “and this” that blood issuing from the penis of the zav is impure, and from the exclusion “it” that his urine is pure. Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Urine, rather than blood, should be included among the impure fluids of the zav, as it is similar to saliva: Just as saliva is a fluid that first gathers together and then comes out of the mouth, so too, all impure fluids are those that gather together and then come out of the body. Blood is therefore excluded, as it does not first gather together and then come out of the body.

והרי חלב שבאשה שמתעגל ויוצא ואמר מר חלב שבאשה מטמא טומאת משקין טומאת משקין אין אבל לא טומאה חמורה

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of the milk that is emitted from a woman, which first gathers together and then comes out of the body, and it should therefore transmit a severe form of ritual impurity, like saliva and ziva. And yet the Master said in the aforementioned baraita: The milk of a woman transmits the ritual impurity of liquids. One may infer that with regard to the ritual impurity of liquids, yes, it transmits impurity, but it does not transmit a severe form of ritual impurity.

אלא אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי דומיא דרוק מה רוק מתעגל ויוצא וחוזר ונבלע אף כל מתעגל ויוצא וחוזר ונבלע יצא דם שאינו מתעגל ויוצא יצא חלב שבאשה שאף על פי שמתעגל ויוצא אינו חוזר ונבלע

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: In order to transmit a severe form of impurity the fluid must be similar to saliva: Just as saliva first gathers together and then comes out of the mouth, and if it is not expectorated it is reabsorbed, so too, all impure fluids first gather together and then come out of the body, and are reabsorbed by the body if they are not emitted. Blood is therefore excluded, as it does not first gather together and then come out of the body. The milk that is emitted from a woman is also excluded, as even though it gathers together and then comes out of the body it cannot be reabsorbed.

ונילף מזובו מה זובו שאין מתעגל ויוצא מטמא אף כל אמר רבא מזובו ליכא למילף שכן גורם טומאה לאחרים

The Gemara further objects: But let us derive from the case of ziva that both blood and breast milk transmit impurity: Just as his ziva does not first gather together and then come out of the body, and yet it transmits impurity, so too, all the fluids of a zav should transmit impurity, even if they do not gather together before they are emitted from the body. Rava said in explanation: One cannot derive the halakha with regard to the blood and breast milk of a zav or zava from the halakha with regard to his ziva, as the case of ziva is unique in that it causes impurity to others, i.e., to the one who emitted ziva.

והשרץ אמר ריש לקיש שרץ שיבש ושלדו קיימת טמא והאנן תנן מטמאין לחין ואין מטמאין יבשין אמר רבי זירא לא קשיא הא בכולן הא במקצתן

§ The mishna teaches: And the carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity when moist but not when dry. Reish Lakish says: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that dried up but its skeleton is intact, i.e., its bone structure remains in place, it is ritually impure. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the items it lists, including the creeping animal, all transmit impurity when they are moist, but they do not transmit impurity when they are dry? Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult. This statement of Reish Lakish, that creeping animals transmit impurity even when dry, is referring to a case where all of the bones are intact. By contrast, that ruling of the mishna, that they do not transmit impurity when dry, is referring to a situation where only part of the bones are intact.

דתניא אמר רבי יצחק ברבי ביסנא אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחי בהם יכול בכולן תלמוד לומר מהם

This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Bisna, says that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The verse states with regard to creeping animals: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:31). One might have thought that the carcasses of creeping animals transmit impurity only if one comes into contact with all of them, i.e., with creeping animals that are completely intact. Therefore, the verse states: “And upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32). The term “any of them” indicates that this halakha applies even if one comes into contact with only part of a creeping animal.

אי מהם יכול במקצתן תלמוד לומר בהם הא כיצד כאן בלח כאן ביבש

If the halakha is derived from the term “of them,” one might have thought that even if one comes into contact with a part of them he is rendered impure. Therefore, the verse states: “Whoever touches them,” which indicates completely intact creeping animals. The baraita concludes: How can these texts be reconciled? Here, where the verse indicates that even part of them transmits impurity, it is referring to a moist creeping animal. There, where the verse teaches that only a complete creeping animal transmits impurity, it is speaking of a dry creature.

אמר רבא הני זבוגי דמחוזא כי שלדן קיימת טמאין ואמר ריש לקיש שרץ שנשרף ושלדו קיימת טמא

Rava said: With regard to these lizards of the city of Meḥoza, when their skeleton is intact they are impure. The dab lizard is one of the creeping animals listed in the Torah. And Reish Lakish says: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that was burned but its skeleton is intact, it is ritually impure.

מיתיבי נמצא שרץ שרוף על גבי הזיתים וכן מטלית המהוהא טהורין שכל הטמאות כשעת מציאתן אמר רבי זירא לא קשיא הא בכולן הא במקצתן

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna that indicates a burnt carcass of a creeping animal is pure (Teharot 9:9): In a case where a burnt creeping animal was found on top of a pile of olives, and likewise, if the tattered rag of a zav was found on a pile of olives, the olives and the rag are pure. One is not concerned that the carcass of the creeping animal touched the olives or rag before it was burned, because with regard to all matters of impurity, it is assumed that when the item in question came into contact with the potential sources of impurity, the potential sources of impurity were in the same state as they were at the time they were found, and a burnt carcass does not transmit impurity. Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult; this statement of Reish Lakish refers to a case where all of the bones are intact, whereas that ruling of the mishna is referring to a situation where only part of the bones are intact.

דתניא אמר רבי יצחק ברבי ביסנא משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי בהם יכול בכולן תלמוד לומר מהם

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Bisna, says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: When the verse states: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:31), one might have thought that creeping animals transmit impurity only if one comes into contact with all of them, i.e., with creeping animals that are completely intact. Therefore, the verse states: “And upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32), indicating that even a part of them transmits impurity.

אי מהם יכול במקצתן תלמוד לומר בהם הא כיצד כאן בשרוף כאן בשאינו שרוף

If the halakha is derived from the term “of them,” one might have thought that even contact with a part of them transmits impurity. Therefore, the verse states: “Whoever touches them.” How can these texts be reconciled? Here, where the verse teaches that only the complete carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity, it is referring to a burnt creeping animal. There, where the verse indicates that even a part of them transmits impurity, it is referring to the carcass of a creeping animal that is not burnt.

מטמאין לחין זב דכתיב רר בשרו כיחו וניעו ורוקו דכתיב כי ירק הזב כעין רוק

§ The mishna teaches that the ziva of a zav, the mucus and saliva of a zav, the carcass of a creeping animal, an animal carcass, and semen all transmit impurity when they are moist, but they do not transmit impurity when they are dry. The Gemara cites the sources for these halakhot: The ziva of a zav transmits impurity only when moist, as it is written: “His flesh runs with his issue” (Leviticus 15:3), which is referring to a moist discharge. His phlegm and his mucus and his saliva likewise transmit impurity only when moist, as it is written: “And if one who has an issue spits” (Leviticus 15:8), which is referring to a substance that is like saliva, which is moist.

שרץ במותם אמר רחמנא כעין מיתה שכבת זרע הראויה להזריע נבלה דכתיב כי ימות כעין מיתה

The carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity only when moist, as the Merciful One states: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:31). This indicates that they transmit impurity when they are in a state similar to their state at the time of death, when creatures are still moist. Semen transmits impurity only when moist, as it must be fit to inseminate. An animal carcass transmits impurity only when moist, as it is written: “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39), which teaches that the carcass transmits impurity when it is in a state similar to its state at the time of death.

אם יכולין להשרות בעי רבי ירמיה תחילתו וסופו בפושרין או דלמא תחילתו אף על פי שאין סופו

§ The mishna teaches that if one could soak those dry substances in water and restore them to their previous state they would transmit impurity both when moist and when dry. The mishna further teaches that this is referring to soaking them in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does the mishna mean that the soaking must be performed in lukewarm water from the beginning of the soaking until its end, or perhaps it is sufficient if the water is lukewarm at the beginning of the soaking, even if at the end of the soaking the water is not lukewarm?

תא שמע דתניא כמה היא שרייתן בפושרין יהודה בן נקוסא אומר מעת לעת תחילתו אף על פי שאין סופו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר צריכין שיהו פושרין מעת לעת

The Gemara explains: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: How much time is their soaking in lukewarm water? Yehuda ben Nekosa says: This is referring to a twenty-four-hour period, and it is sufficient if the water is lukewarm at its beginning, even if it is not lukewarm at its end. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The water must be lukewarm for the entire twenty-four-hour period.

רבי יוסי אומר בשר המת כו׳ אמר שמואל טהור מלטמא בכזית אבל מטמא טומאת רקב תניא נמי הכי רבי יוסי אומר בשר המת שיבש ואין יכול לשרות ולחזור כמות שהיה טהור מלטמא בכזית אבל טמא טומאת רקב

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that is dry and cannot be soaked to restore it to its previous state, it is ritually pure. Shmuel says: It is pure from transmitting impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk, but if there is a ladleful of the flesh it transmits the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that dried up and cannot be soaked and restored to its previous state, it is ritually pure from transmitting impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk, but it is impure with the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse.

מתני׳ השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת כבוד

MISHNA: The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively. All items that passed through that alleyway from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway, are impure.

וכן כתם שנמצא בחלוק מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את החלוק הזה ולא היה בו כתם או עד שעת הכבוס

And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. Any pure items that she handled from the time about which one may state: I examined this robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe, are impure.

ומטמא בין לח בין יבש רבי שמעון אומר היבש מטמא למפרע והלח אינו מטמא אלא עד שעת שיהא יכול לחזור ולהיות לח

And the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain renders items impure retroactively whether they are still moist or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, but the moist one does not render items impure from the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו עד שעת כבוד חזקתו בדוק או דלמא חזקתו מתכבד

GEMARA: With regard to the case of the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishna teaches that any pure items that passed through that alleyway from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway are impure. Does this mean that once the alleyway is swept its presumptive status is that it has been examined, as it is examined during the sweeping and any impure item would have been discovered, and therefore any pure items that passed through the alleyway beforehand remain pure? Or perhaps the mishna means that once the alleyway is swept its presumptive status is that it has been entirely swept, and therefore any creeping animal would have been removed by the sweeping.

ומאי נפקא מינה דאמר כביד ולא בדיק אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק הא לא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבד הא מתכבד

The Gemara asks: And what is the practical difference that arises from this dilemma? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where the one who swept the alleyway said he swept it but did not examine it. If you say that items that were present in the alleyway before it was swept remain pure because the presumptive status of a swept alleyway is that it has been examined, in this case the man explicitly said that he did not examine it, so it does not have this presumptive status. By contrast, if you say that the items remain pure because the presumptive status of the alleyway is that it has been completely swept, in this case too it has been swept, and therefore the items that were present earlier remain pure.

אי נמי דאשתכח בגומא אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק מאן דבדק בגומא נמי בדיק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבד גומא לא מתכבדא

Alternatively, there is a difference between these explanations in a case where the creeping animal was found in a hole in the ground. If you say the presumptive status of a swept alleyway is that it has been examined, it is clear that one who examines the alleyway also examines any holes, and any items that were in the alleyway beforehand should remain pure. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it has been completely swept, this applies only to items that are on the ground, whereas a hole is not considered to have been swept. Consequently, even items that passed through the alleyway before it was swept should be deemed impure.

וכן הכתם וכו׳ איבעיא להו עד שעת כבוס חזקתו בדוק או דלמא חזקתו מתכבס

The mishna teaches: And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. With regard to this halakha as well a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishna states that any pure items the woman handled from the time of laundering are impure. Does this mean that once the robe has been laundered its presumptive status is that it has been examined, as when it is laundered it is examined thoroughly, and any blood stain would have been discovered? Or perhaps the mishna means that its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, and any blood stain would have been removed by the laundering.

למאי נפקא מינה דאמר כיבס ולא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק הא לא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבס הא מתכבס

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from this dilemma? The Gemara replies: There is a difference in a case where the person who laundered the robe said he laundered it but did not examine it. If you say its presumptive status is that it has been examined, in this case the man explicitly said that he did not examine the robe, so it does not have this presumptive status. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, in this case too it has been laundered.

אי נמי דאשתכחה בסטרא אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק מאן דבדק בסטרא נמי בדיק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבס בסטרא לא מתכבס

Alternatively, there is a difference between these explanations in a case where the blood stain was found on the side of the robe, in an area where there are folds and stitches. If you say its presumptive status is that it has been examined, it is clear that one who examines the robe also examines the side of the robe, and therefore any items that the woman handled before the robe was laundered should remain pure. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, this applies only to the main part of the robe, but on its side it is not laundered thoroughly enough to remove a blood stain.

מאי תא שמע דתניא אמר רבי מאיר מפני מה אמרו השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת כיבוד מפני שחזקת בני ישראל בודקין מבואותיהן בשעת כבודיהם ואם לא בדקו הפסידוהו למפרע

What is the halakha with regard to these two dilemmas? Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: For what reason did the Sages say that the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway? It is due to the fact that there is a presumption with regard to Jewish people that they examine their alleyways at the time of their sweeping. And therefore, if they did not examine the alleyway they retroactively lose the purity of any items that were there from the last time it was examined.

ומפני מה אמרו כתם שנמצא בחלוק מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את החלוק ולא היה בו כתם או עד שעת הכבוס מפני שחזקת בנות ישראל בודקות חלוקיהן בשעת כבוסיהן ואם לא בדקו הפסידו למפרע

And similarly, for what reason did the Sages say that a blood stain that was found on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively from the time about which one may state: I examined the robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe? It is due to the fact that there is a presumption with regard to the Jewish women that they examine their robes at the time of their laundering. And therefore, if they did not examine the robe they retroactively lose the purity of any items they handled since it was last examined.

רבי אחא אמר תחזור ותכבסנו אם נדחה מראיתו בידוע שלאחר כבוס ואם לאו בידוע שלפני הכבוס

Rabbi Aḥa says: Even in a case where the robe was not examined when it was laundered and a blood stain was subsequently found on it, and it is unknown whether the stain was present before the laundering, there is a remedy to the dilemma: Let her launder it again. If the appearance of the blood stain changes as a result of this laundering it is known that the robe became stained after the previous laundering, which is why the present laundering affected its appearance. Consequently, those pure items that the woman handled before the earlier laundering remain pure. And if the blood stain’s appearance does not change due to the second laundering it is known that the robe became stained before the previous laundering, and therefore the items that she handled before the laundering are impure.

רבי אומר אינו דומה כתם שלאחר הכבוס לכתם שלפני הכבוס שזה מקדיר וזה מגליד שמע מינה חזקתו בדוק שמע מינה

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can differentiate between a blood stain that was on the robe before it was laundered and one that stained the robe afterward by inspecting the stain itself. This is because the appearance of a blood stain after the laundering is not similar to the appearance of a blood stain before the laundering, as this stain, from after the laundering, penetrates [makdir] the garment, and that stain, from before the laundering, forms a crust [maglid] that can be scraped off the robe. With regard to the Gemara’s dilemma, one may conclude from Rabbi Meir’s statement that the presumptive status of a swept alleyway or a laundered robe is that it has been examined. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

ומטמא בין לח וכו׳ אמר רבי אלעזר לא שנו אלא שרץ אבל כתם לח נמי מטמא למפרע אימר יבש היה ומיא נפיל עליה

§ The mishna teaches: And the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain renders items impure retroactively whether they are still moist or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, whereas the moist one does not render items impure since the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, but Rabbi Shimon concedes that a moist blood stain also renders the woman impure retroactively from the time that the robe was examined. This is because one can say the blood stain was dry beforehand and water fell upon it, causing it to become moist.

שרץ נמי אימר יבש היה ומיא נפיל עליה אם איתא דהכי הוא אמרטוטי אימרטט

The Gemara asks: With regard to the moist carcass of a creeping animal as well, one can say it was dried out beforehand and water fell on it. It should therefore render items impure retroactively from the time that the alleyway was swept. The Gemara answers: If it is so, that this is what occurred, the dead creeping animal would be sundered apart and would not have its current appearance.

מתני׳ כל הכתמין הבאין מרקם טהורין רבי יהודה מטמא מפני שהם גרים וטועין הבאין מבין הגוים טהורין מבין ישראל ומבין הכותים רבי מאיר מטמא וחכמים מטהרים מפני שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן

MISHNA: Any blood stains on garments that come from the town of Rekem are ritually pure, as most of the residents there are gentiles, and the blood stains of gentile women are not ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems those stains impure because in his opinion the residents of Rekem are not gentiles; rather, they are converts whose halakhic status is that of Jews, but they are misguided and do not put away their bloodstained garments. The blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure. With regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as they may have come from the Jews. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure due to the fact that Jews are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains.

גמ׳ קפסיק ותני אפילו מתרמוד אמר רבי יוחנן זאת אומרת מקבלין גרים מתרמוד

GEMARA: The mishna categorically teaches that any blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure, thereby indicating that this applies even to garments that come from among the gentile population of Tarmod. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That is to say, one may accept converts from Tarmod, i.e., there is no concern with regard to whether they are actually Jews of flawed lineage, who may not marry Jews of fit lineage.

איני והא רבי יוחנן וסביא דאמרי תרוייהו אין מקבלין גרים מתרמוד

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But aren’t there Rabbi Yoḥanan and the Elders who both say that one may not accept converts from Tarmod? This is due to a concern that the daughters of the ten tribes exiled during the First Temple period might have intermingled with them, and according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the offspring of a Jewish woman and a gentile is a mamzer, who may not marry a Jew of fit lineage.

וכי תימא זאת ולא סבירא ליה והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה

And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan merely infers that this is the opinion of the mishna, as indicated by the term: That is to say, but he himself does not hold accordingly, that is not so. Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, as is the case here?

אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

The Gemara answers: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. According to one amora, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that converts from Tarmod are not accepted, and he did not state that it is a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna. According to another amora, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed mishna, and therefore one may accept converts from Tarmod.

מבין ישראל וכו׳ ורבנן אי דישראל מטהרי דמאן מטמו

§ The mishna teaches with regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans that Rabbi Meir deems them impure, and the Rabbis deem them ritually pure. The Gemara asks: But with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis, if they deem stains that come from a Jewish woman pure, whose stains do they deem impure?

חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני מבין ישראל טמא מבין הכותים רבי מאיר מטמא דכותים גרי אמת הן וחכמים מטהרין דכותים גרי אריות הן

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Everyone agrees that blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews are impure. With regard to blood stains that come from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as he maintains the Samaritans are true converts and have the halakhic status of Jews, whose blood stains are impure. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure, as they maintain the Samaritans are converts who converted under duress due to the threat posed by lions, and therefore their conversion is void, and their halakhic status is that of gentiles.

אי הכי שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן גרי אריות מבעי ליה

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna state that according to the Rabbis the blood stains of the Samaritans are ritually pure due to the fact that they are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains? The mishna should state that their blood stains are pure, as they are converts who converted due to the threat of lions.

אלא הכי קאמר מבין ישראל ומבין הכותים טמאין דכותים גרי אמת הן הנמצאין בערי ישראל טהורין שלא נחשדו על כתמיהם ואצנועי מצנעי להו

Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: Blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans are ritually impure, as everyone agrees the Samaritans are true converts. With regard to blood stains that are found in the towns of Jews, they are pure, as they are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains, and they certainly put them away. Therefore, the stains necessarily come from gentiles.

הנמצאין בערי כותים רבי מאיר מטמא דנחשדו על כתמיהם וחכמים מטהרין שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן

The Gemara continues paraphrasing the mishna: With regard to blood stains that are found in the towns of Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as the inhabitants are suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains. And the Rabbis deem them pure, as they maintain that even Samaritans are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains, and the stains are necessarily from gentiles.

מתני׳ כל הכתמים הנמצאים בכל מקום טהורין חוץ מן הנמצאים בחדרים ובסביבות בית הטמאות

MISHNA: All blood stains on garments that are found anywhere where Jews and gentiles reside are ritually pure, since they must not belong to Jews, who put away their stained garments. This is the halakha except for the stained garments that are found in the inner rooms of the house, as these might be garments that the Jews put away there; and except for the stained garments found in proximity to the house of impurity, i.e., the room that women used when they were impure due to menstruation.

בית הטמאות של כותים מטמאין באהל מפני שהם קוברין שם את הנפלים רבי יהודה אומר לא היו קוברין אלא משליכין וחיה גוררתו

The house of impurity of Samaritans imparts the impurity that is imparted by a corpse by means of a tent, due to the fact that they bury the stillborn children there. Rabbi Yehuda says: The house of impurity of Samaritans does not impart that impurity, as they would not bury a stillborn child there. Rather, they would cast it outside and an animal would drag it away.

נאמנים לומר קברנו שם את הנפלים או לא קברנו נאמנים לומר על הבהמה אם בכרה אם לא בכרה נאמנים על ציון קברות

Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children there, in a certain place, and it transmits ritual impurity; or to state: We did not bury the stillborn children there, and it does not transmit ritual impurity. They are likewise deemed credible to state about an animal whether it previously gave birth or whether it did not previously give birth; and their testimony is accepted with regard to determining whether the animal’s offspring has the status of a firstborn animal, which is sacred. They are also deemed credible to testify about the marking of graves, i.e., that where they marked is deemed a grave and where they did not mark is deemed a place where there is no grave.

ואין נאמנין לא על הסככות ולא על הפרעות ולא על בית הפרס

But with regard to the following cases, in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify: They are not deemed credible to testify about the overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences and cover the ground. If it is unknown which bough or protrusion hangs over a grave, forming a tent that transmits the impurity of a corpse, and if a Samaritan testifies that the grave is not beneath a particular bough or protrusion his testimony is not accepted. And likewise they are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. The Sages issued a decree that in such a case, the area that was plowed is impure as far as one hundred cubits from the original grave, due to the concern that the bones were dispersed by the plow.

זה הכלל דבר שחשודים בו אין נאמנין עליו

This is the principle governing the credibility of Samaritans: In the case of any matter of halakha that they are suspected of not fulfilling, they are not deemed credible to testify about it.