Niddah

GEMARA. What exposition did they rely upon?  — Thou shalt not remove they neighbour's landmark,  which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance,  whosoever has an 'inheritance'  has also a 'landmark',  but whosoever has no inheritance  has no landmark. THEY ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY SAY, 'WE BURIED …' But,  surely, they do not uphold, do they, the exposition of the injunction, Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind?  — R. Abbahu replied: This  is a case where a [Samaritan] priest stood there.  But is it not possible that the priest was unclean?  — It is a case where he holds terumah in his hand.  But is it not possible that the terumah was unclean?  — It is a case where he was eating of it.  If so,  what was the need of stating it?  — It might have been presumed that they are not acquainted with the stages of formation,  hence we were informed [that we do rely upon them]. THEY ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE CONCERNING A BEAST etc. But, surely, they do not uphold, the exposition of the injunction, Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, do they?  — R. Hiyya b. Abba citing R. Johanan replied: It is the case of a beast that is shorn and engaged in work.  If so, what was the need of stating such a law?  — It might have been presumed that they are not acquainted with the nature of a discharge [from the womb],  hence we were informed [that they are to be believed]. THEY ARE BELIEVED WHEN GIVING INFORMATION ON THE MARKING OF etc. Although this  is only a Rabbinical institution  they are careful to observe it, since it is mentioned in Scripture. For it is written, And any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it. BUT THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED EITHER IN REGARD TO OVERHANGING BRANCHES etc. 'OVERHANGING BRANCHES', as we have learnt: The following are regarded as overhanging branches. The foliage of a tree that affords a covering over the ground. PROTRUDING STONES, as we have learnt: protruding stones that project from a wall. BETH HA-PERAS. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: A man  may  blow away the earth in a beth ha-peras  and  continue on his way. R. Judah b. Ammi citing Rab Judah ruled: A beth peras that had been trodden out is clean.  One further taught: If one ploughs a graveyard he forms thereby a beth ha-peras.  And to what extent does he form it? To that of a full length of a furrow of a hundred cubit [squared, which covers an area of] four beth se'ah.  R. Jose ruled: Five beth se'ah. But are they  not believed?  Was it not in fact taught, 'Concerning a field in which a grave was lost  a Samaritan is believed when he stated, "There is no grave there",  since he gives his evidence only about the grave itself;  concerning a tree whose foliage affords a covering over the ground  he is believed when he stated, "There is no grave under it",  since he renders evidence only about the grave itself'?  — R. Johanan replied: This  is a case where he walks backward and forward throughout all its area.  If so,  what was the need of stating it?  — It might have been presumed that a narrow strip jutted out,  hence we were informed that  he is believed. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE etc. What is the expression THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE intended to include? — To include Sabbath boundaries  and wine of libation.