Study Niddah folio 56B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 an
The Mishnah 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 rabbis: The Mishnah states that any pure items the woman handled from the time of laundering are impure.
The Talmud asks: What is the practical difference that arises from this dilemma? The Talmud 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
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
What is the halakha with regard to these two dilemmas? Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita that R' Meir says: For what reason did the rabbis 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