## Niddah Daf 57a

###### Niddah 57a:1
[Niddah 57a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:1)

**גְּמָ'** מַאי דְּרוּשׁ? ״לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר גָּבְלוּ רִאשֹׁנִים בְּנַחֲלָתְךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the Samaritans do not observe burial customs for stillborn children. The Gemara asks: **What** verse **did they interpret** as a source for this practice? The Gemara replies that they interpreted the verse: **“You shall not remove your fellow’s boundary marker, which was bounded by the first ones, in your inheritance** that you shall inherit, in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it” (Deuteronomy 19:14).


###### Niddah 57a:2
[Niddah 57a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:2)

כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נַחֲלָה — יֵשׁ לוֹ גְּבוּל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ נַחֲלָה — אֵין לוֹ גְּבוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The Sages derived from this verse that it is prohibited to sell one’s ancestral burial ground. In accordance with this interpretation of the verse, the Samaritans derived that **any** individual **who has an inheritance,** i.e., who stands to inherit land, **has a boundary,** i.e., a burial place, whereas **any** individual **who does not have an inheritance** in the land, e.g., a stillborn child, **does not have a boundary,** i.e., a burial place. The Samaritans therefore concluded that the mitzva of burial does not apply to stillborn children.


###### Niddah 57a:3
[Niddah 57a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:3)

נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר קָבַרְנוּ. וְהָא לֵית לְהוּ ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּכֹהֵן עוֹמֵד שָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that Samaritans **are deemed credible to state: We buried** the stillborn children in a certain place, or to state that they did not bury the stillborn children there, and that place does not transmit ritual impurity. The Gemara objects: **But** the Samaritans **do not accept** the Sages’ interpretation of the verse: **“And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind”** (Leviticus 19:14), that one may not cause another to sin. Since they are not concerned about misleading others, why is their testimony accepted? **Rabbi Abbahu says:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** a Samaritan **priest is standing there,** on that spot, which indicates that he genuinely maintains it is not impure with the impurity of a corpse.


###### Niddah 57a:4
[Niddah 57a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:4)

וְדִילְמָא כֹּהֵן טָמֵא הוּא? דְּנָקֵיט תְּרוּמָה בִּידֵיהּ, וְדִילְמָא תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה הִיא? דְּקָאָכֵיל מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But perhaps he is an impure priest** and therefore he does not refrain from standing in an impure place. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a situation **where** the priest **is holding *teruma* in his hand,** which indicates he is ritually pure. The Gemara further objects: **But perhaps it is impure *teruma*.** The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case **where** the priest **is partaking of** the *teruma*, which indicates that it is not impure, as it is prohibited to consume impure *teruma*.


###### Niddah 57a:5
[Niddah 57a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:5)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָא בְּקִיאִי בִּיצִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** i.e., if this is the circumstance, it is obvious that the Samaritan priest’s testimony can be accepted. Then **what** is the purpose **of stating** this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, **lest you say** that the Samaritans **are not knowledgeable with regard to** the stages of the **formation** of an embryo, and they might bury a fetus believing that it is an unformed fetus that does not transmit impurity, when it is actually a forty-day-old fetus, which is impure. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.


###### Niddah 57a:6
[Niddah 57a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:6)

נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְכוּ׳. וְהָא לֵית לְהוּ ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּגוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are **deemed credible** to state **with regard to an animal** that it previously gave birth, and its subsequent offspring does not have the sacred status of a firstborn animal. The Gemara objects: **But** the Samaritans **do not accept** the Sages’ interpretation of the verse: **“And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,”** that one may not cause another to sin. Why, then, is their testimony accepted? **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** the Samaritan **is shearing and working** the offspring of the animal. Since the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to Torah law, it is evident that it is not a firstborn.


###### Niddah 57a:7
[Niddah 57a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:7)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָא בְּקִיאִי בְּטִינּוּף, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** i.e., if this is the circumstance, **what** is the purpose **of stating** this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, **lest you say** that the Samaritans **are not knowledgeable with regard to a murky** discharge emitted from the uterus, which is indicative of a fetus and exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn (see *Bekhorot* 21a). It is possible that the Samaritan mistakenly believes the animal previously emitted a murky discharge and therefore its offspring is not a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.


###### Niddah 57a:8
[Niddah 57a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:8)

נֶאֱמָנִין עַל צִיּוּן וְכוּ׳. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיבָא — מִזְהָר זְהִירִי בֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָאָה עֶצֶם אָדָם וּבָנָה אֶצְלוֹ צִיּוּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches that the Samaritans **are deemed credible** to testify **with regard to** the **marking** of graves, as the Samaritans mark their graves, and we rely on their marking as an indication that a corpse is buried there. Therefore, any place where there is no marking is considered ritually pure. The Gemara explains: **Even though** the marking of graves **is** required only **by rabbinic law,** and Samaritans generally do not observe rabbinic law, **since it is written** in the Bible, the Samaritans **are meticulous with regard to it, as it is written:** “And those that pass through shall pass through the land, **and when one sees a human bone he shall set up a marking by it,** until the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog” (Ezekiel 39:15).


###### Niddah 57a:9
[Niddah 57a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:9)

אֲבָל אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לֹא עַל הַסְּכָכוֹת וְכוּ׳. סְכָכוֹת — דִּתְנַן: ״אֵלּוּ הֵן סְכָכוֹת — אִילָן הַמֵּיסֵךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ״. פְּרָעוֹת — דִּתְנַן: ״אֲבָנִים פְּרוּעוֹת הַיּוֹצְאוֹת מִן הַגָּדֵר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **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 overhanging boughs,** nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences. The Gemara explains these terms: The term **overhanging boughs** should be understood **as we learned** in a mishna (*Oholot* 8:2): **These are overhanging boughs: A tree that hangs over the ground.** The term **protrusions** should be understood **as we learned** in the *Tosefta* (*Oholot* 9:4): **Protruding stones that jut out of a fence.**


###### Niddah 57a:10
[Niddah 57a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:10)

בֵּית הַפְּרָס. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל: מְנַפֵּחַ אָדָם בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְהוֹלֵךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about **a *beit haperas*.** With regard to a *beit haperas*, **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav Shmuel says:** The reason the Sages deemed a *beit haperas* impure is due to the concern that the bones, but not the flesh of the corpse, were dispersed by the plow throughout the field. The *halakha* is that a bone transmits impurity by carrying or by contact, if it is at least the size of a barley grain, but it does not transmit impurity by means of a tent. Therefore, if **a person** is carrying ritually pure items, or if he wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, and yet he must pass through a *beit haperas*, he **may blow** on the earth of the ***beit haperas*** before each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it. **And** in this manner he may **walk** across the area while remaining ritually pure, even though he might step over a bone.


###### Niddah 57a:11
[Niddah 57a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:11)

רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ טָהוֹר. וְתָנָא: הַחוֹרֵשׁ בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְעַד כַּמָּה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? מְלֹא מַעֲנָה, מֵאָה אַמָּה, בֵּית אַרְבַּעַת סְאִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: חָמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda bar Ami says in the name of Rav Yehuda: A *beit haperas* that has been trodden** underfoot by many people **is pure,** as it may be assumed that any bone fragments at least as large as a barley grain that were on the surface were either broken or removed. **And it was taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who plows a graveyard, this** individual thereby **renders** it **a *beit haperas*. And to what** extent **does he render** it a *beit haperas*, i.e., how far does the concern apply that bones might have been dispersed? The field is rendered a *beit haperas* to the extent of **a full furrow [*ma’ana*], one hundred cubits** by one hundred cubits, which is the **area** required for sowing **four *se’a*** of seed. **Rabbi Yosei says:** The area rendered a *beit haperas* is the area required for sowing **five** *se’a* of seed.


###### Niddah 57a:12
[Niddah 57a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:12)

וְלָא מְהֵימְנִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: שָׂדֶה שֶׁאָבַד בָּהּ קֶבֶר, נֶאֱמָן כּוּתִי לוֹמַר ״אֵין שָׁם קֶבֶר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a *beit haperas*, the Gemara asks: **And aren’t they deemed credible? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a field in which a grave was lost,** which has the status of a *beit haperas*, **a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave there?**


###### Niddah 57a:13
[Niddah 57a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:13)

לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל קֶבֶר. אִילָן שֶׁהוּא מֵיסֵךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ — נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר ״אֵין תַּחְתָּיו קֶבֶר״, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל קֶבֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: This is **due to** the fact **that he is not** considered to be **testifying** about a case of uncertain impurity; **rather,** he is testifying **about** the location of the **grave itself,** which is a matter of Torah law, and the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to a matter of Torah law. Likewise, in the case of **a tree that is hanging over the ground,** a Samaritan **is deemed credible to say: There is no grave beneath it, as he is testifying only about** the location of the **grave itself.** This indicates that the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to overhanging boughs and protrusions.


###### Niddah 57a:14
[Niddah 57a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּמְהַלֵּךְ וּבָא עַל פְּנֵי כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says** in explanation: The *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the Samaritan **is walking** to **and fro over the entire** area, and therefore if there was a grave there he would certainly have become impure. Consequently, one may rely on his statement with regard to the purity of the place. By contrast, the mishna is speaking of a case where the Samaritan did not traverse the entire area, and therefore his testimony is not accepted, as they are not meticulous with regard to cases of uncertainty.


###### Niddah 57a:15
[Niddah 57a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:15)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רְצוּעָה נָפְקָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** it is obvious that his testimony is credible, and **what** is the purpose **of stating** this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the *baraita* is necessary, **lest you say** that perhaps a narrow **strip** of land, which is called by the same name as this field, **extends** into a nearby field, and the Samaritan presumes the grave is located in that strip of land. If so, even if the Samaritan traversed the entire field his testimony cannot be accepted, as he traversed the field because he considered it merely a case of uncertain impurity. The *baraita* therefore **teaches us** that if the Samaritan traverses the entire field his testimony is accepted, as this concern is not an issue.


###### Niddah 57a:16
[Niddah 57a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:16)

זֶה הַכְּלָל כּוּ׳. זֶה הַכְּלָל לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי תְּחוּמִין וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **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. The Gemara asks: **What is added** by the term: **This is the principle?** The Gemara answers: It serves **to add** that Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to Shabbat **boundaries,** i.e., to say that a Shabbat boundary extends until a certain point, as the *halakha* of Shabbat boundaries applies by rabbinic law. **And** likewise, the Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to the status of **wine** used for **a libation** in idol worship, as the Samaritans do not refrain from drinking wine touched by a gentile.


###### Niddah 57a:17
[Niddah 57a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57a:17)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ דַּם הַנִּדָּה.**