Niddah

Our Rabbis taught: A garment in which kil'ayim  was lost  may not be sold to an idolater,  nor may one make of it a packsaddle for an ass, but it may be made into  a shroud for a corpse. R. Joseph observed: This  implies that the commandments will be abolished in the Hereafter.  Said Abaye (or as some say R. Dimi) to him: But did not R. Manni  in the name of R. Jannai state, 'This  was learnt only in regard to the time of the lamentations  but for burial  this is forbidden'?  — The other replied: But was it not stated in connection with it, 'R. Johanan ruled: Even for burial'? And thereby R. Johanan followed his previously expressed view, for R. Johanan stated: 'What is the purport of the Scriptural text, Free  among the dead?  As soon as a man dies he is free from the commandments'. Rafram b. Papa citing R. Hisda ruled: A garment in which kil'ayim was lost may be dyed  and  it is then permitted to be worn.  Said Raba to Rafram b. Papa: Whence does the old man derive this?  The other replied: It is in our Mishnah, for we have learnt, ONE CONTINUES THE EXAMINATION OF THE HEAP UNTIL ONE REACHES BEDROCK; and if it  is not there, it is obviously assumed that a raven had carried it away. Here too, dye does not have the same effect on wool and flax and, since no [difference could be] discerned,  it may well be assumed [that the compromising threads] had dropped out. R. Aha son of R. Yeba citing Mar Zutra ruled: If a man inserted flaxen threads in his woollen garment and then pulled them out but is not sure whether he pulled them [all] out or not, it is quite proper [for him to wear the garment]. What is the reason? — Pentateuchally, since it is written sha'atnez  the prohibition does not apply unless the material was hackled, spun and woven,  but it is only the Rabbis who imposed a prohibition on it,  and since the man is not quite sure about the pulling out of the threads the garment is permitted. R. Ashi demurred: Might it not be suggested that it  must be either hackled or spun or woven? — The law, however, is in agreement with Mar Zutra, because the All Merciful expressed them in one word. Our Rabbis taught: A dyed garment is susceptible to the uncleanness of a bloodstain. R. Nathan b. Joseph ruled: It is not susceptible to the uncleanness of a stain, for dyed garments were ordained for women only in order to relax the law in regard to their bloodstains. 'Were ordained'! Who  ordained them? — Rather read: For dyed garments were permitted to women only in order to relax the law in regard to their bloodstains. 'Were permitted'! Does this then imply that they were once forbidden? — Yes, for we have learnt: At the time of the Vespasian invasion they  prohibited the wearing of garlands by bridegrooms and the beating of drums at weddings. They also desired to prohibit dyed garments, but felt that it was better not to do so,  in order to relax the law in regard to their bloodstains. MISHNAH. SEVEN SUBSTANCES MUST BE APPLIED TO A STAIN:  TASTELESS SPITTLE,  THE LIQUID OF CRUSHED BEANS, URINE, NATRON, LYE,