טו כי פליגי דיכול לצאת ולא הקפיד עליו מר סבר כיון דיכול לצאת אף על גב דלא הקפיד עליו ומר סבר אע"ג דיכול לצאת
15 was absorbed in the floor of a house [all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is susceptible to uncleanness. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> that is in] the house becomes unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the blood of a corpse of the quantity prescribed conveys uncleanness by overshadowing as the corpse itself. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> but others say: [All that is in] the house remains clean. These two versions, however, do not essentially differ, since the former refers to vessels that were there originally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the blood was absorbed, and thus contracted uncleanness by overshadowing. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> while the latter refers to vessels that were brought in subsequently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the blood had been absorbed, when it conveys uncleanness no longer. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> Where 'blood was absorbed in a garment, and on being washed, a quarter of a <i>log</i> of blood would emerge from it, it is unclean, but otherwise it is clean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oh. III, 2; though a full quarter of a log of blood is absorbed in it. Those two rulings prove that an absorbed uncleanness, though it would emerge under special conditions, is regarded as clean. An objection against Resh Lakish. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> — R. Kahana replied: Here they have learnt some of the more lenient rulings concerning quarters of a <i>log</i> [both referring to a mixture of clean and unclean blood]; [and the law of] mixed blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dam tebusah (defined infra 71a) whose uncleanness is doubtful. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From blood that is definitely unclean. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> since it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in an unabsorbed condition. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> is only Rabbinical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence 'the relaxation of the law when it is absorbed. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: Any absorbed uncleanness that cannot emerge is regarded as clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oh. III, 2. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> Thus it follows, does it not, that if it can emerge it is unclean even though it had not yet emerged?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could R. Johanan maintain in the case of the potsherd that the oven is unclean only when the liquids emerged? ');"><sup>40</sup></span> — R. Papa replied: Wherever it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unclean substance. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> cannot emerge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the object that absorbed it. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> and the owner did not mind absorption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., Maharsha, and some old edd. omit the last eight words. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> all agree that it is regarded as clean. If it can emerge and the owner does mind the absorption, all agree that it is unclean. They only differ where it can emerge but the owner does not mind its absorption. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> holds the view that since it can emerge [it is unclean], though the owner did not mind its absorption;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his ruling in the case of the potsherd where the liquid would emerge if the oven were heated. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> and the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> holds that although it can emerge