The blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse transmit impurity by contact and by carrying when they are moist, and likewise transmit impurity when they are dry. But with regard to the gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav [ziva], and the mucus and the saliva of a zav, and the carcass of a creeping animal, and an animal carcass, and semen, all transmit impurity when they are moist but do not transmit impurity when they are dry. And if one could soak those dry substances in water and thereby restore them to their previous state, they transmit impurity when moist and transmit impurity when dry. The mishna asks: And how long is the process of soaking these substances that determines whether they can be restored to their previous state? This is referring to soaking them in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that is dry and cannot be soaked to restore it to its previous state, it is ritually pure, in the sense that an olive-bulk of the flesh does not transmit impurity imparted by a corpse. But a ladleful of the flesh transmits the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse.
The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively. All items that passed through that alleyway from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway, are impure. And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. Any pure items that she handled from the time about which one may state: I examined this robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe, are impure. 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, but the moist one does not render items impure from the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered.
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.
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 halakhaexcept 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.
דַּם הַנִּדָּה וּבְשַׂר הַמֵּת, מְטַמְּאִין לַחִין וּמְטַמְּאִין יְבֵשִׁין. אֲבָל הַזּוֹב וְהַנִּיעַ וְהָרֹק וְהַשֶּׁרֶץ וְהַנְּבֵלָה וְהַשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע, מְטַמְּאִין לַחִין וְאֵין מְטַמְּאִין יְבֵשִׁין. וְאִם יְכוֹלִין לְהִשָּׁרוֹת וְלַחֲזֹר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן, מְטַמְּאִין לַחִין וּמְטַמְּאִין יְבֵשִׁין. וְכַמָּה הִיא שְׁרִיָּתָן. בְּפוֹשְׁרִין, מֵעֵת לְעֵת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת יָבֵשׁ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁרוֹת וְלַחֲזֹר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה, טָהוֹר:
The blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse transmit impurity by contact and by carrying when they are moist, and likewise transmit impurity when they are dry. But with regard to the gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav [ziva], and the mucus and the saliva of a zav, and the carcass of a creeping animal, and an animal carcass, and semen, all transmit impurity when they are moist but do not transmit impurity when they are dry. And if one could soak those dry substances in water and thereby restore them to their previous state, they transmit impurity when moist and transmit impurity when dry. The mishna asks: And how long is the process of soaking these substances that determines whether they can be restored to their previous state? This is referring to soaking them in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that is dry and cannot be soaked to restore it to its previous state, it is ritually pure, in the sense that an olive-bulk of the flesh does not transmit impurity imparted by a corpse. But a ladleful of the flesh transmits the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse.
הַשֶּׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּמָּבוֹי, מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בָּדַקְתִּי אֶת הַמָּבוֹי הַזֶּה וְלֹא הָיָה בוֹ שֶׁרֶץ, אוֹ עַד שְׁעַת כִּבּוּד. וְכֵן כֶּתֶם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בֶחָלוּק, מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בָּדַקְתִּי אֶת הֶחָלוּק הַזֶּה וְלֹא הָיָה בוֹ כֶתֶם, אוֹ עַד שְׁעַת הַכִּבּוּס. וּמְטַמֵּא בֵּין לַח בֵּין יָבֵשׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַיָּבֵשׁ מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, וְהַלַּח אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר וְלִהְיוֹת לַח:
The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively. All items that passed through that alleyway from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway, are impure. And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. Any pure items that she handled from the time about which one may state: I examined this robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe, are impure. 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, but the moist one does not render items impure from the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered.
כָּל הַכְּתָמִין הַבָּאִים מֵרֶקֶם, טְהוֹרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַמֵּא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם גֵּרִים וְטוֹעִין. הַבָּאִין מִבֵּין הַגּוֹיִם, טְהוֹרִין. מִבֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן:
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.
כָּל הַכְּתָמִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם, טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִן הַנִּמְצְאִים בַּחֲדָרִים וּבִסְבִיבוֹת בֵּית הַטֻּמְאוֹת. בֵּית הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁל כּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם קוֹבְרִין שָׁם אֶת הַנְּפָלִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אֶלָּא מַשְׁלִיכִין, וְחַיָּה גוֹרַרְתָּן:
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.
נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר, קָבַרְנוּ שָׁם אֶת הַנְּפָלִים, אוֹ, לֹא קָבָרְנוּ. נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר עַל הַבְּהֵמָה אִם בִּכְּרָה, אִם לֹא בִכְּרָה. נֶאֱמָנִים עַל צִיּוּן קְבָרוֹת, וְאֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לֹא עַל הַסְּכָכוֹת וְלֹא עַל הַפְּרָעוֹת וְלֹא עַל בֵּית הַפְּרָס. זֶה הַכְּלָל, דָּבָר שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִים בּוֹ, אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים עָלָיו:
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.