Alternatively, there is a difference between these explanations in a case where the creeping animal was found in a hole in the ground. If you say the presumptive status of a swept alleyway is that it has been examined, it is clear that one who examines the alleyway also examines any holes, and any items that were in the alleyway beforehand should remain pure. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it has been completely swept, this applies only to items that are on the ground, whereas a hole is not considered to have been swept. Consequently, even items that passed through the alleyway before it was swept should be deemed impure.

The mishna teaches: And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. With regard to this halakha as well a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishna states that any pure items the woman handled from the time of laundering are impure. Does this mean that once the robe has been laundered its presumptive status is that it has been examined, as when it is laundered it is examined thoroughly, and any blood stain would have been discovered? Or perhaps the mishna means that its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, and any blood stain would have been removed by the laundering.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from this dilemma? The Gemara replies: There is a difference in a case where the person who laundered the robe said he laundered it but did not examine it. If you say its presumptive status is that it has been examined, in this case the man explicitly said that he did not examine the robe, so it does not have this presumptive status. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, in this case too it has been laundered.

Alternatively, there is a difference between these explanations in a case where the blood stain was found on the side of the robe, in an area where there are folds and stitches. If you say its presumptive status is that it has been examined, it is clear that one who examines the robe also examines the side of the robe, and therefore any items that the woman handled before the robe was laundered should remain pure. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, this applies only to the main part of the robe, but on its side it is not laundered thoroughly enough to remove a blood stain.

What is the halakha with regard to these two dilemmas? Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: For what reason did the Sages say that the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway? It is due to the fact that there is a presumption with regard to Jewish people that they examine their alleyways at the time of their sweeping. And therefore, if they did not examine the alleyway they retroactively lose the purity of any items that were there from the last time it was examined.

And similarly, for what reason did the Sages say that a blood stain that was found on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively from the time about which one may state: I examined the robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe? It is due to the fact that there is a presumption with regard to the Jewish women that they examine their robes at the time of their laundering. And therefore, if they did not examine the robe they retroactively lose the purity of any items they handled since it was last examined.

Rabbi Aḥa says: Even in a case where the robe was not examined when it was laundered and a blood stain was subsequently found on it, and it is unknown whether the stain was present before the laundering, there is a remedy to the dilemma: Let her launder it again. If the appearance of the blood stain changes as a result of this laundering it is known that the robe became stained after the previous laundering, which is why the present laundering affected its appearance. Consequently, those pure items that the woman handled before the earlier laundering remain pure. And if the blood stain’s appearance does not change due to the second laundering it is known that the robe became stained before the previous laundering, and therefore the items that she handled before the laundering are impure.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can differentiate between a blood stain that was on the robe before it was laundered and one that stained the robe afterward by inspecting the stain itself. This is because the appearance of a blood stain after the laundering is not similar to the appearance of a blood stain before the laundering, as this stain, from after the laundering, penetrates [makdir] the garment, and that stain, from before the laundering, forms a crust [maglid] that can be scraped off the robe. With regard to the Gemara’s dilemma, one may conclude from Rabbi Meir’s statement that the presumptive status of a swept alleyway or a laundered robe is that it has been examined. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

§ The mishna teaches: And the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain renders items impure retroactively whether they are still moist or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, whereas the moist one does not render items impure since the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, but Rabbi Shimon concedes that a moist blood stain also renders the woman impure retroactively from the time that the robe was examined. This is because one can say the blood stain was dry beforehand and water fell upon it, causing it to become moist.

The Gemara asks: With regard to the moist carcass of a creeping animal as well, one can say it was dried out beforehand and water fell on it. It should therefore render items impure retroactively from the time that the alleyway was swept. The Gemara answers: If it is so, that this is what occurred, the dead creeping animal would be sundered apart and would not have its current appearance.

MISHNA: Any blood stains on garments that come from the town of Rekem are ritually pure, as most of the residents there are gentiles, and the blood stains of gentile women are not ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems those stains impure because in his opinion the residents of Rekem are not gentiles; rather, they are converts whose halakhic status is that of Jews, but they are misguided and do not put away their bloodstained garments. The blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure. With regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as they may have come from the Jews. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure due to the fact that Jews are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains.

GEMARA: The mishna categorically teaches that any blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure, thereby indicating that this applies even to garments that come from among the gentile population of Tarmod. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That is to say, one may accept converts from Tarmod, i.e., there is no concern with regard to whether they are actually Jews of flawed lineage, who may not marry Jews of fit lineage.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But aren’t there Rabbi Yoḥanan and the Elders who both say that one may not accept converts from Tarmod? This is due to a concern that the daughters of the ten tribes exiled during the First Temple period might have intermingled with them, and according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the offspring of a Jewish woman and a gentile is a mamzer, who may not marry a Jew of fit lineage.

And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan merely infers that this is the opinion of the mishna, as indicated by the term: That is to say, but he himself does not hold accordingly, that is not so. Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, as is the case here?

The Gemara answers: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. According to one amora, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that converts from Tarmod are not accepted, and he did not state that it is a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna. According to another amora, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed mishna, and therefore one may accept converts from Tarmod.

§ The mishna teaches with regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans that Rabbi Meir deems them impure, and the Rabbis deem them ritually pure. The Gemara asks: But with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis, if they deem stains that come from a Jewish woman pure, whose stains do they deem impure?

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Everyone agrees that blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews are impure. With regard to blood stains that come from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as he maintains the Samaritans are true converts and have the halakhic status of Jews, whose blood stains are impure. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure, as they maintain the Samaritans are converts who converted under duress due to the threat posed by lions, and therefore their conversion is void, and their halakhic status is that of gentiles.

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna state that according to the Rabbis the blood stains of the Samaritans are ritually pure due to the fact that they are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains? The mishna should state that their blood stains are pure, as they are converts who converted due to the threat of lions.

Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: Blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans are ritually impure, as everyone agrees the Samaritans are true converts. With regard to blood stains that are found in the towns of Jews, they are pure, as they are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains, and they certainly put them away. Therefore, the stains necessarily come from gentiles.

The Gemara continues paraphrasing the mishna: With regard to blood stains that are found in the towns of Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as the inhabitants are suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains. And the Rabbis deem them pure, as they maintain that even Samaritans are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains, and the stains are necessarily from gentiles.

MISHNA: All blood stains on garments that are found anywhere where Jews and gentiles reside are ritually pure, since they must not belong to Jews, who put away their stained garments. This is the halakha except for the stained garments that are found in the inner rooms of the house, as these might be garments that the Jews put away there; and except for the stained garments found in proximity to the house of impurity, i.e., the room that women used when they were impure due to menstruation.

The house of impurity of Samaritans imparts the impurity that is imparted by a corpse by means of a tent, due to the fact that they bury the stillborn children there. Rabbi Yehuda says: The house of impurity of Samaritans does not impart that impurity, as they would not bury a stillborn child there. Rather, they would cast it outside and an animal would drag it away.

Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children there, in a certain place, and it transmits ritual impurity; or to state: We did not bury the stillborn children there, and it does not transmit ritual impurity. They are likewise deemed credible to state about an animal whether it previously gave birth or whether it did not previously give birth; and their testimony is accepted with regard to determining whether the animal’s offspring has the status of a firstborn animal, which is sacred. They are also deemed credible to testify about the marking of graves, i.e., that where they marked is deemed a grave and where they did not mark is deemed a place where there is no grave.

But with regard to the following cases, in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify: They are not deemed credible to testify about the overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences and cover the ground. If it is unknown which bough or protrusion hangs over a grave, forming a tent that transmits the impurity of a corpse, and if a Samaritan testifies that the grave is not beneath a particular bough or protrusion his testimony is not accepted. And likewise they are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. The Sages issued a decree that in such a case, the area that was plowed is impure as far as one hundred cubits from the original grave, due to the concern that the bones were dispersed by the plow.

This is the principle governing the credibility of Samaritans: In the case of any matter of halakha that they are suspected of not fulfilling, they are not deemed credible to testify about it.