When Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, it is with regard to a basket that was examined. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that since it was examined before the produce was placed inside and was found to be clean of creeping animals, it is reasonable to assume that the creeping animal entered only after the ritually pure produce was removed. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that one can say that it is possible that when he removed his hand after feeling around to examine the basket, the creeping animal fell in.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the case of a basket taught as being similar to the case of a menstruating woman? Hillel had cited the case of the basket as a difficulty with regard to Shammai’s opinion in the case of a menstruating woman. And since a woman is considered fully examined, since she examines herself with examination cloths twice a day, the other case must also be referring to a basket that had been examined. The Gemara answers: Since blood is commonly found flowing from her, as women regularly experience menstrual flows, it is considered as though she were not examined.

The Gemara suggests another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the ruling of Ḥizkiyya and the opinions of Hillel and Shammai. And if you wish, say: When Shammai and Hillel agree, it is with regard to a basket that is not covered. When do Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? With regard to a basket that is covered. The Gemara asks: If the basket is covered, how did the creeping animal fall inside? The Gemara answers: For example, if the basket is used by removing its lid. Ḥizkiyya holds that the creeping animal must have fallen in after the produce was removed, because as long as the produce was inside one would be careful not to allow anything else inside. Rabbi Yoḥanan is concerned that perhaps while the basket was uncovered a creeping animal could have fallen inside without one noticing.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t the case of a basket taught as being similar to the case of a menstruating woman? And just as a woman is considered covered, since no outside blood can enter her, so too in the case of a basket, it must be one where it is constantly covered. The Gemara explains: Since blood is commonly found flowing from her, as women regularly experience menstrual flows, it is considered as though she is not always covered.

The Gemara suggests another resolution. And if you wish, say: When do Shammai and Hillel agree? In a case where the produce was stored in the corner of a basket. By contrast, when Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, it is in a case where the produce was stored in the corner of a house. The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this suggestion: But the Gemara on 3b explicitly states that they are referring to a case of a basket.

The Gemara explains that this is what the Gemara on 3b is saying: If one has a basket that was used as a container for ritually pure produce in this corner of the house, and after the produce was removed it was subsequently carried to another corner, and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the basket while it was in that other corner, Ḥizkiyya holds: The produce remains ritually pure, as we do not presume that ritual impurity moved from place to place. In other words, the impure creeping animal is not assumed to have moved from the first corner where the produce was kept. Instead, it fell inside while the basket was in the second corner, and therefore the produce that it previously contained remains pure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: The produce is retroactively considered impure, as we do presume that ritual impurity, i.e., the carcass of the creeping animal in the basket, moved from place to place.

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: And do we presume that ritual impurity moved from place to place? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Teharot 5:7): If someone touched one other person at night, and he does not know whether the person he touched was alive or dead, and on the following day he arose and found him dead, and he is uncertain whether or not he contracted ritual impurity from contact with a corpse, Rabbi Meir deems him ritually pure. It is assumed that the deceased was still alive until the point that it is known with certainty that he was dead.

And the Rabbis deem him ritually impure, as it is presumed that all ritually impure items had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered. Just as the deceased was found dead in the morning, so too, it is presumed that he was dead when he was touched in the middle of the night.

The Gemara concludes its question: And it is taught with regard to this mishna: It is presumed that ritually impure items had been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered, but only in the place in which they were discovered. In other words, if the corpse had been found in a different spot than he was at night, it is not presumed that he was already dead in the first spot, and the man who touched him remains ritually pure. If so, how can Rabbi Yoḥanan maintain that we presume impurity moved from place to place?

And if you would say in response: This statement, that impurity is presumed only in the place in which it was discovered, applies specifically with regard to definite impure status, i.e., to burn teruma, but with regard to uncertain impurity, i.e., to suspend the status of teruma, we do in fact suspend its status and it may be neither burned nor eaten; is this distinction correct? Do we in fact suspend the status of ritually pure items in such a case, due to the concern that the dead man whom this individual touched might have already been dead in the first location?

But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Teharot 3:5): With regard to a previously impure needle that is found on top of teruma and it is full of rust or broken, and therefore no longer contracts or transmit ritual impurity, the teruma remains pure, as it is presumed that in all cases of impurity, the items in question had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered? But why should that be the case? Let us say that initially, when it had fallen onto the teruma, this needle was a proper, non-rusty and unbroken, needle, capable of contracting and transmitting ritual impurity, and it is only now that rust had formed on it. The status of the teruma should at least be held in suspension. Rather, it is evident that the teruma is considered definitely pure and is not held in suspension due to the possibility that it might have become impure from the nail at a previous time or, presumably, in a previous place.

And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:9): If one found the carcass of a burned creeping animal on top of a pile of olives, and that animal no longer transmits impurity as it is burned, and similarly if one finds a tattered rag of a zav, which likewise no longer transmits impurity, on top of a pile of olives, the olives are pure. The reason is that it is presumed in all cases of impurity, the items in question had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered. Once again, this demonstrates that when this presumption is applied, the item is considered definitely pure, and is not held in suspension due to uncertainty.

And if you would say that there is a difference between these last cases, where the items did not move, and the case of the basket that moved, this distinction is not correct. The suggestion is that in the last cases the items are treated entirely as if they had always been as they were at the time they were discovered, whether this leads to a leniency, as in the cases of the needle and the rag, and whether it leads to a stringency, in the case of one who touched someone at night, when he is considered to be definitely impure, but this is the halakha only with regard to the place where they were discovered, i.e., if they did not move. But with regard to a location that is not the place where they were discovered, we do suspect that ritual impurity moved from place to place, and therefore although we do not burn the teruma in question, we hold it in suspension.

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: But didn’t we learn in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:3): There was a loaf resting on top of a shelf, and there was an item of light impurity, e.g., a garment of a zav, which transmits impurity to food but not to people or vessels, lying underneath it, and the loaf was later found on the ground. Even though the situation was such that if the loaf fell to the ground it would be impossible for it to have done anything other than touch the impure garment on its way down, nevertheless the loaf is pure. The reason is that I say that a ritually pure man entered there and took it off the shelf and placed it onto the ground without it touching the impure garment.

The baraita concludes: This ruling applies unless someone says: It is clear to me that no person entered there. And Rabbi Elazar says: This principle is necessary only when the top shelf is an inclined surface. In other words, even if it is very likely that the loaf rolled off the shelf and touched the garment on its way down to the ground, nevertheless it is assumed to be pure. This indicates that one does not presume that the loaf contracted impurity and then fell to the ground where it was found. Since such a possibility is not even entertained to the extent that the teruma is held in suspension, this demonstrates that in a case involving a movement from one place to another there is no presumption of ritual impurity at all.

The Gemara explains that no proof can be cited from there, as that baraita explicitly teaches the reason for its ruling: