Niddah

MISHNAH. IF THREE WOMEN SLEPT IN ONE BED, AND BLOOD WAS FOUND UNDER THE MIDDLE ONE, THEY ARE ALL UNCLEAN. IF IT WAS FOUND UNDER THE INNER ONE,  THE TWO INNER ONES  ARE UNCLEAN WHILE THE OUTER ONE IS CLEAN. IF IT WAS FOUND UNDER THE OUTER ONE,  THE TWO OUTER ONES  ARE UNCLEAN WHILE THE INNER ONE  IS CLEAN. WHEN  IS THIS THE CASE?  WHEN THEY PASSED  BY WAY OF THE FOOT OF THE BED,  BUT IF THEY PASSED ACROSS IT,  THEY ARE ALL UNCLEAN.  IF ONE OF THEM EXAMINED HERSELF AND WAS FOUND CLEAN, SHE REMAINS CLEAN WHILE THE TWO OTHERS ARE UNCLEAN. IF TWO, EXAMINED THEMSELVES AND WERE FOUND TO BE CLEAN THEY REMAIN CLEAN WHILE THE THIRD IS UNCLEAN. IF THE THREE EXAMINED THEMSELVES AND WERE FOUND TO BE CLEAN, THEY ARE ALL UNCLEAN. TO WHAT MAY THIS BE COMPARED? TO AN UNCLEAN HEAP  THAT WAS MIXED UP WITH TWO CLEAN HEAPS, WHERE, IF THEY EXAMINED ONE OF THEM AND FOUND IT TO BE CLEAN, IT IS CLEAN WHILE THE TWO OTHERS ARE UNCLEAN; IF THEY EXAMINED TWO OF THE HEAPS AND FOUND THEM TO BE CLEAN, THEY ARE CLEAN WHILE THE THIRD ONE IS UNCLEAN; AND IF THEY EXAMINED THE THREE AND THEY WERE FOUND TO BE CLEAN, THEY ARE ALL UNCLEAN; SO R. MEIR, FOR R. MEIR RULED: ANY OBJECT THAT IS IN A PRESUMPTIVE STATE OF UNCLEANNESS ALWAYS REMAINS UNCLEAN UNTIL IT IS KNOWN TO YOU WHERE THE UNCLEANNESS IS. BUT THE SAGES RULED: ONE CONTINUES THE EXAMINATION OF THE HEAP UNTIL ONE REACHES BEDROCK OR VIRGIN SOIL. GEMARA. Why is it that in the first clause  no distinction is made  while in the final clause  a distinction is made? — R. Ammi replied: The former is a case where the women were interlocked. IF ONE OF THEM EXAMINED HERSELF etc. What need was there for stating, 'TO WHAT MAY THIS BE COMPARED'? — It is this that R. Meir in effect said to the Rabbis: Why is it that in the case of blood you do not differ from me  while in that of a heap you differ?  — And the Rabbis?  — There [the heap may be regarded as clean] since it might well be assumed that a raven had carried away the piece of corpse, but here, whence  could the blood have come? It was taught: R. Meir stated, It once happened that a sycamore tree at Kefar Saba, held to be in a presumptive state of uncleanness, was examined and no object of uncleanness was found. After a time the wind blew upon it and uprooted it when the skull of a corpse was found stuck in its root.  They  answered him: 'Do you adduce proof from there? It might be suggested that the examination was not thorough enough'. It was taught: R. Jose stated, It once happened that a cave at Shihin, held to be in a presumptive state of uncleanness, was examined until ground, that was as smooth as a finger nail  was reached, but no unclean object was found. After a time labourers entered it to shelter from  rain, and chopping with their axes found a mortar full of bones.  They  answered him: 'Do you adduce proof from there? It might be suggested that the examination was not thorough enough'. It was taught: Abba Saul stated, It once happened that a clod at Beth Horon was held in a presumptive state of uncleanness, and the Sages could not properly examine it because its area was extensive.  But there was an old man in the place  whose name was R. Joshua b. Hananiah and he said to them, 'Bring me some sheets'. They brought to him sheets and he soaked them in water and then spread them over the clod.  The clean area  remained dry while the unclean area  became moist. And, having examined the latter, they found a large pit full of bones. One taught: That was the pit which Ishmael the son of Nethaniah had filled with slain bodies, as it is written, Now the pit wherein Ishmael cast all the dead bodies of the men whom he had slain by the hand  of Gedaliah.  But was it Gedaliah that killed them? Was it not in fact Ishmael that killed them?  — But owing to the fact that he  should have taken note of the advice of Johanan the son of Kareah  and did not do so Scripture regards him as though he had killed them. Raba observed: As to slander, though one should not believe  it one should nevertheless take note of it. There were certain Galileans about whom a rumour was spread that they killed a person. They came to R. Tarfon and said to him, 'Will the Master hide us?' 'How', he replied, 'should I act? Should I not hide you, they  would see you.  Should I hide you, I would be acting contrary to the statement of the Rabbis,  "As to slander, though one should not believe  it, one should take note of it".  Go you and hide yourselves'. And the Lord said unto Moses: Fear him not'.  Consider: Sihon and Og were brothers, for a Master stated, 'Sihon and Og were the sons of Ahijah the son of Shamhazai',  then why was it that he feared Og while he did not fear Sihon? R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai replied: From the answer that was given  to  that righteous man  you may understand what was in his mind.  He thought: Peradventure the merit of our father Abraham will stand him  by, for it is said, And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew,  in connection with which R. Johanan explained: This refers to Og who escaped the fate of the generation of the flood. Our Rabbis taught:  If a [woman's] bloodstain was lost in a garment  one must apply to it  seven substances  and thus neutralize it. R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: