Niddah

SO ALSO A BLOODSTAIN etc. The question was raised: Is the shirt TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST WASHED in the presumptive state of having been duly examined,  or is it possible that it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed?  And in what case could this  matter? — In that where a person declared that he had washed the shirt but did not examine it — If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', surely, he had not examined it,  but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed', surely, it had been properly washed.  Or also in the case where the stain was discovered in a fold.  If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', anyone engaged in an examination examines also the folds,  but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed', a stain in a fold may not have been washed out.  Now what is the decision? — Come and hear: For it was taught: R. Meir stated, Why did they  rule that if a dead creeping thing was found in an alley it causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can testify, 'I examined this alley and there was no creeping thing in it', or to such time as it was last swept?  Because there is presumption that the children of Israel examine their alleys at the time they are swept; but if they did not examine them, they impaired its presumptive cleanness retrospectively.  And why did they  rule that a bloodstain, if found on a shirt, causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can testify, 'I examined this shirt and there was no stain on it', or to such time as it was last washed?  Because there is presumption that the daughters of Israel examine their shirts at the time they are washing them; but if they did not examine them, they impair its presumptive cleanness retrospectively.  R. Aha ruled: Let her  wash it again. If its colour fades  it may be taken for granted  that it was made after the previous washing,  but if it does not fade it may be taken for granted  that it was made before the previous washing. Rabbi said, A stain after its washing is not like a stain before it had been washed, for the former penetrates into the material while the latter remains clotted on its surface. Thus it may be inferred  that  there is presumption that it was duly examined. This is conclusive. AND IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS WET etc. R. Eleazar explained: This  was learnt only concerning the dead creeping thing, but a wet bloodstain also causes uncleanness retrospectively,  for it might be assumed that it was already dry but water had fallen upon it. But can it not be assumed in the case of a dead creeping thing also that it was already dry but water had fallen upon it? — If that were the case it would have been completely dismembered. MISHNAH. ALL BLOODSTAINS  THAT COME FROM REKEM  ARE CLEAN.  R. JUDAH DECLARES THEM UNCLEAN, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE ARE PROSELYTES  THOUGH MISGUIDED.  THOSE  THAT COME FROM THE HEATHENS  ARE CLEAN.  THOSE THAT COME FROM ISRAELITES OR FROM SAMARITANS, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN, BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN  BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION  IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS. GEMARA. Since the statement  was made categorically  it follows, does it not, that it applies even to those from Tarmod?  — R. Johanan replied: This proves that proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod.  But can this be right  seeing that both R. Johanan and Sabya ruled, No proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod? And should you reply that R. Johanan only said, 'This',  but he himself  does not hold this view [it could be retorted]: Did not R. Johanan lay down, 'The halachah is in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah'?  — It is a question in dispute between Amoras as to what was actually R. Johanan's view. FROM ISRAELITES etc. As to the Rabbis,  if they declare the menstrual blood of Israelites clean, whose do they hold to be unclean? — Some words are missing from our Mishnah, this being the correct reading: FROM ISRAELITES are unclean, FROM SAMARITANS, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN, since Samaritans are true proselytes,  BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN because, in their opinion, Samaritans are merely lion-proselytes.  If so, instead of saying, BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS, It should have been said, Because they are lion-proselytes? — The fact rather is that it is this that was meant: FROM ISRAELITES OR FROM SAMARITANS they are unclean, since Samaritans are true proselytes; those that are found in Israelite cities  are clean since they are not suspected of leaving their stains exposed, for they rather keep them in privacy; and those that are found  in Samaritan cities, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN because they are suspected of leaving their stains exposed, BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN BECAUSE THEY  ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS. MISHNAH. ALL BLOODSTAINS, WHERESOEVER THEY ARE FOUND,  ARE CLEAN, EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE FOUND INDOORS  OR ROUND ABOUT A CHAMBER FOR  UNCLEAN WOMEN.  A CHAMBER FOR  UNCLEAN SAMARITAN WOMEN CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING  BECAUSE THEY BURY MISCARRIAGES THERE. R. JUDAH STATED, THEY DID NOT BURY THEM BUT THREW THEM AWAY AND THE WILD BEASTS DRAGGED THEM OFF. THEY  ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE, 'WE BURIED MISCARRIAGES THERE', OR 'WE DID NOT BURY THEM'. THEY  ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE CONCERNING — A BEAST WHETHER IT HAD GIVEN BIRTH TO A FIRSTLING  OR HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH TO ONE. THEY  ARE BELIEVED WHEN GIVING INFORMATION ON THE MARKING OF GRAVES,  BUT THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED EITHER IN REGARD TO OVERHANGING BRANCHES,  OR PROTRUDING STONES  OR A BETH HA-PERAS.  THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IN ANY MATTER WHERE THEY ARE UNDER SUSPICION THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED.