## Niddah Daf 56b

###### Niddah 56b:1
[Niddah 56b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:1)

אִי נָמֵי דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בְּגוּמָּא, אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֶזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק — מַאן דְּבָדֵק בְּגוּמָּא נָמֵי בָּדֵיק, אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֶזְקָתוֹ מִתְכַּבֵּד — גּוּמָּא לָא מִתְכַּבְּדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:2
[Niddah 56b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:2)

וְכֵן הַכֶּתֶם וְכוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עַד שְׁעַת כִּבּוּס — חֶזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק, אוֹ דִלְמָא חֶזְקָתוֹ מִתְכַּבֵּס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 56b:3
[Niddah 56b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:3)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאָמַר: כַּיבֻּס וְלָא בְּדֻק. אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֶזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק — הָא לָא בְּדִק, אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֶזְקָתוֹ מִתְכַּבֵּס — הָא מִתְכַּבֵּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Niddah 56b:4
[Niddah 56b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:4)

אִי נָמֵי, דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בְּסִטְרָא. אִי אָמְרַתְּ: ״חֶזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק״ — מַאן דְּבָדֵק, בְּסִטְרָא נָמֵי בָּדֵיק. אִי אָמְרַתְּ: ״חֶזְקָתוֹ מִתְכַּבֵּס״ — בְּסִטְרָא לָא מִתְכַּבֵּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:5
[Niddah 56b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:5)

מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ הַשֶּׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּמָבוֹי מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״בָּדַקְתִּי אֶת הַמָּבוֹי הַזֶּה וְלֹא הָיָה בּוֹ שֶׁרֶץ״, אוֹ עַד שְׁעַת כִּיבּוּד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בּוֹדְקִין מְבוֹאוֹתֵיהֶן בִּשְׁעַת כִּבּוּדֵיהֶם, וְאִם לֹא בָּדְקוּ הִפְסִידוּהוּ לְמַפְרֵעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:6
[Niddah 56b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:6)

וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ, כֶּתֶם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בֶּחָלוּק מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״בָּדַקְתִּי אֶת הֶחָלוּק וְלֹא הָיָה בּוֹ כֶּתֶם״, אוֹ עַד שְׁעַת הַכִּבּוּס — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקַת בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל בּוֹדְקוֹת חֲלוּקֵיהֶן בִּשְׁעַת כִּבּוּסֵיהֶן, וְאִם לֹא בָּדְקוּ הִפְסִידוּ לְמַפְרֵעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:7
[Niddah 56b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:7)

רַבִּי אַחָא אָמַר: תַּחְזוֹר וּתְכַבְּסֶנּוּ, אִם (נִדְחָה מַרְאִיתוֹ) [נִדְחוּ מַרְאָיו] — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלְּאַחַר כִּבּוּס, וְאִם לָאו — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַכִּבּוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:8
[Niddah 56b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:8)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה כֶּתֶם שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַכִּבּוּס לְכֶתֶם שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַכִּבּוּס, שֶׁזֶּה מַקְדִּיר וְזֶה מַגְלִיד. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חֶזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:9
[Niddah 56b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:9)

וּמְטַמֵּא בֵּין לַח וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁרֶץ, אֲבָל כֶּתֶם לַח נָמֵי מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, אֵימַר יָבֵשׁ הָיָה וּמַיָּא נְפֻיל עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Niddah 56b:10
[Niddah 56b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:10)

שֶׁרֶץ נָמֵי, אֵימַר יָבֵשׁ הָיָה וּמַיָּא נְפֻיל עֲלֵיהּ! אִם אִיתָא דְּהָכִי הוּא — אִמַּרְטוּטֵי אִימַּרְטַט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 56b:11
[Niddah 56b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:11)

**מַתְנִי'** כׇּל הַכְּתָמִין הַבָּאִין מֵרְקָם — טְהוֹרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַמֵּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם גֵּרִים וְטוֹעִין. הַבָּאִין מִבֵּין הַגּוֹיִם — טְהוֹרִין, מִבֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Niddah 56b:12
[Niddah 56b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:12)

**גְּמָ'** קָפָסֵיק וְתָנֵי: אֲפִילּוּ מִתַּרְמוֹד! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, מְקַבְּלִין גֵּרִים מִתַּרְמוֹד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:13
[Niddah 56b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:13)

אִינִי? וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְסָבַיָּא, דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין מְקַבְּלִין גֵּרִים מִתַּרְמוֹד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 56b:14
[Niddah 56b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:14)

וְכִי תֵימָא, ״זֹאת״ וְלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Niddah 56b:15
[Niddah 56b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:15)

אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 56b:16
[Niddah 56b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:16)

מִבֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכוּ׳. וְרַבָּנַן, אִי דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְטַהֲרִי, דְּמַאן מְטַמּוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?**


###### Niddah 56b:17
[Niddah 56b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:17)

חַסּוֹרֵי מִחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: מִבֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל — טָמֵא, מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא, דְּכוּתִים גֵּרֵי אֱמֶת הֵן, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין, דְּכוּתִים גֵּרֵי אֲרָיוֹת הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 56b:18
[Niddah 56b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:18)

אִי הָכִי, שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן? גֵּרֵי אֲרָיוֹת מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Niddah 56b:19
[Niddah 56b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:19)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִבֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים — טְמֵאִין, דְּכוּתִים גֵּרֵי אֱמֶת הֵן. הַנִּמְצָאִין בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — טְהוֹרִין, שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶם, וְאַצְנוֹעֵי מַצְנְעִי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:20
[Niddah 56b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:20)

הַנִּמְצָאִין בְּעָרֵי כּוּתִים — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא, דְּנֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶם, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין, שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 56b:21
[Niddah 56b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:21)

**מַתְנִי'** כׇּל הַכְּתָמִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בְּכׇל מָקוֹם — טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִן הַנִּמְצָאִים בַּחֲדָרִים, וּבִסְבִיבוֹת בֵּית הַטְּמָאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:22
[Niddah 56b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:22)

בֵּית הַטְּמָאוֹת שֶׁל כּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם קוֹבְרִין שָׁם אֶת הַנְּפָלִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין, אֶלָּא מַשְׁלִיכִין, וְחַיָּה גּוֹרַרְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:23
[Niddah 56b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:23)

נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר ״קָבַרְנוּ שָׁם אֶת הַנְּפָלִים״, אוֹ ״לֹא קָבַרְנוּ״, נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר עַל הַבְּהֵמָה אִם בִּכְּרָה אִם לֹא בִּכְּרָה, נֶאֱמָנִים עַל צִיּוּן קְבָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 56b:24
[Niddah 56b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:24)

וְאֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לֹא עַל הַסְּכָכוֹת, וְלֹא עַל הַפְּרָעוֹת, וְלֹא עַל בֵּית הַפְּרָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 56b:25
[Niddah 56b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/56b:25)

זֶה הַכְּלָל: דָּבָר שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִים בּוֹ — אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**