Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi, with regard to his statement: Does the matter of purity or impurity depend on whether or not one is particular about the blood stain? If the items he handled on the garment between the first and second washings are ritually pure, then any items he handled after the second washing should likewise be pure.

Rav Ashi said to him: Yes, the status of purity depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the stain. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and thereby nullify it from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not completely removed. And he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure.

Rav Ashi analyzes this ruling: But why is the garment pure? After all, it has blood from a menstruating woman on it. Evidently, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain. So too here, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain.

§ We learned in a mishna there (see Kelim 9:5): In a case of pottery, i.e., a chamber pot, that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] has used and that has absorbed impure liquids from the zav, and it then fell into the air of an oven, and the oven was subsequently heated, the oven is impure, as the impure liquid will eventually emerge from the chamber pot due to the heat of the oven.

The amora’im disagree with regard to the correct interpretation of this mishna. Reish Lakish says: They taught that the oven is impure once it is heated only with regard to liquids of lesser ritual impurity, i.e., that are not primary sources of impurity, such as the tears or urine of one who was rendered impure by contact with a corpse. But with regard to liquids of greater ritual impurity, e.g., urine of a zav or zava, the oven is impure even though the oven was not heated. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to both liquids of lesser ritual impurity and liquids of greater ritual impurity that fell into an oven, if the oven was heated, then yes, the oven is impure, but if the oven was not heated, it is not impure.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from the mishna: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown, and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are ritually pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. Rabbi Yoḥanan understands that the stain is not definitely from a dye; even if it is from blood, such blood that is absorbed into the garment to the degree that it does not come out after this process is performed, does not impart ritual impurity. The same should apply in the case of the oven, i.e., the liquids should impart impurity only when the oven is heated and they actually emerge.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: Leave aside blood stains, i.e., one cannot cite a proof from them, as they impart impurity by rabbinic law, and for this reason the Sages were lenient and ruled that they do not impart impurity until they actually emerge. But with regard to liquids that are impure by Torah law, the halakha is different.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raises another objection to Reish Lakish: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and nullify the stain from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not entirely removed; and he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure?

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: You cannot raise an objection to me from the baraita of Rabbi Ḥiyya, since if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not teach this halakha in the Mishna, from where did Rabbi Ḥiyya learn it? Rabbi Ḥiyya was a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore he could not have included a halakha that contradicts the Mishna. Consequently, this statement in his name must be erroneous.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): With regard to a quarter-log of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. The Gemara parenthetically notes: And some say that the mishna states that every vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was issued in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood became absorbed; and this second statement was issued in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.

The mishna continues: In a case where the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined. If the garment is washed and a quarter-log of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure and it imparts impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only blood that can be removed from a garment is considered blood, whereas blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. This is in accordance with the opinion that an absorbed substance does not impart ritual impurity, even if it can be removed in some manner.

Rav Kahana said in response: They taught here a halakha from among the leniencies that apply to the measurement of a quarter-log. That is, this case is different, as the mishna is referring to the blood of submission discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure by rabbinic law. But in general, a ritually impure liquid that is absorbed into an item does impart impurity.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): Any liquid that is absorbed but that is unable to emerge is pure. Reish Lakish infers from this mishna that if it is able to emerge it is impure, and that this is the halakha even though it has not yet emerged.

Rav Pappa said in defense of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: Anywhere that the liquid is unable to emerge and the owner of the garment is not particular about it, i.e., he is not bothered that this liquid is absorbed within the garment, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, agrees that the garment is pure. If the liquid is able to emerge and the owner of the garment is particular about it and does not want it in his garment, everyone agrees that the garment is impure.

They disagree when the liquid is able to emerge and the owner is not particular about it. One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that since the liquid is able to emerge, even though the owner is not particular about it, the garment is impure. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that even though the liquid is able to emerge,