absorbed

But Isaiah was (absorbed) in a vision of the Lord, and though his eyes were open, he saw them (not).

And in that pure subtle air was the spark absorbed and comprehended and included therein.

If one boiled sacrifices and hullin in it [the copper pot], or most holy sacrifices and lesser sacrifices, if they were sufficient to impart their flavor, the less stringent must be eaten as the more stringent of them; But they do not necessitate scouring and rinsing; And they do not disqualify by touch. If [an unfit] wafer touched a [fit] wafer, or an [unfit] piece of meat touched a [fit] piece of meat, not the whole wafer or the whole piece of meat is forbidden; only the part that absorbed [of the unfit] is forbidden.

A sponge which had absorbed unclean liquids and its outer surface became dry and it fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven is unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. And the same with regard to a piece of turnip or reed grass. Rabbi Shimon says: the oven is clean in both these cases.

If a ladleful of corpse-mold was scattered about in a house, the house is unclean But Rabbi Shimon declares it clean. If a quarter [of a log] of blood was absorbed in [the ground] of a house, the house is clean. If it was absorbed by a garment: if the garment is washed and a quarter [of a log] of blood emerges from it, it is unclean, if not, it is clean, since anything absorbed that cannot emerge is clean.

If a ladleful of corpse-mold was scattered about in a house, the house is unclean But Rabbi Shimon declares it clean. If a quarter [of a log] of blood was absorbed in [the ground] of a house, the house is clean. If it was absorbed by a garment: if the garment is washed and a quarter [of a log] of blood emerges from it, it is unclean, if not, it is clean, since anything absorbed that cannot emerge is clean.

If a ladleful of corpse-mold was scattered about in a house, the house is unclean But Rabbi Shimon declares it clean. If a quarter [of a log] of blood was absorbed in [the ground] of a house, the house is clean. If it was absorbed by a garment: if the garment is washed and a quarter [of a log] of blood emerges from it, it is unclean, if not, it is clean, since anything absorbed that cannot emerge is clean.

If a sack full of produce was put by the side of a river or by the side of the mouth of a cistern or on the steps of a cavern, and [the produce] absorbed water, all [the produce] which absorbed the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: all [the produce] which faced the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but all [the produce] which did not face the water does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

If a sack full of produce was put by the side of a river or by the side of the mouth of a cistern or on the steps of a cavern, and [the produce] absorbed water, all [the produce] which absorbed the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: all [the produce] which faced the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but all [the produce] which did not face the water does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

A jar full of produce which was put into liquids, or a jar full of liquids was put into produce and [the produce] absorbed, all [the produce] which absorbed comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Concerning what liquids were they speaking? Water, wine and vinegar; but all the other liquids do not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. Rabbi Nehemiah says pulse is insusceptible, because pulse does not absorb [liquids].

A jar full of produce which was put into liquids, or a jar full of liquids was put into produce and [the produce] absorbed, all [the produce] which absorbed comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Concerning what liquids were they speaking? Water, wine and vinegar; but all the other liquids do not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. Rabbi Nehemiah says pulse is insusceptible, because pulse does not absorb [liquids].

If [unclean] liquids fell upon wood and rain came down upon it and [the rain water] exceeded [the liquids] in quantity, they are clean. If he took [the wood out] so that rain would come down upon it, they are unclean even though [the rain water] exceeded in quantity. If [the wood] had absorbed unclean liquids, even if he took the wood outside in order that rain should come down upon it, it is clean. But one may not light the wood in an oven except with clean hands. Rabbi Shimon says: if the wood was moist and then he lit it, and the liquids that came out of it exceeded in quantity the liquids which it had absorbed, they become clean.

If [unclean] liquids fell upon wood and rain came down upon it and [the rain water] exceeded [the liquids] in quantity, they are clean. If he took [the wood out] so that rain would come down upon it, they are unclean even though [the rain water] exceeded in quantity. If [the wood] had absorbed unclean liquids, even if he took the wood outside in order that rain should come down upon it, it is clean. But one may not light the wood in an oven except with clean hands. Rabbi Shimon says: if the wood was moist and then he lit it, and the liquids that came out of it exceeded in quantity the liquids which it had absorbed, they become clean.

There (Mishnah Idiut 4:6) we have stated: “Someone who rubbed himself with pure oil, then he became impure, he descended and immersed himself. The House of Shammai say, he is pure even if it drips, but the House of Hillel say impure. But if the oil was impure to start out with, the House of Shammai say, up to the anointing of a small limb; but the House of Hillel say, moist fluid. Rebbi Yehudah says in the name of the House of Hillel, moist and making moist.” The opinions of the House of Hillel are reversed! There they say “impure” and here they say “pure.” There it is visible, here it is absorbed in the towel.

Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were shown to Moses on Sinai and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abin said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known?

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

But for tending a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 8 cubits, according to the House of Hillel 6 cubits. But did we not state: “Therefore, he who sows four cubits in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say that he sanctified two rows.” Let us say that it was stated because of the House of Hillel. But did we not state: “What is a trellis? He who plants a row of five vines.” There is a difference, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. By its curving, two are absorbed.

MISHNAH: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose. Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua said, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel said, he should not change anything. If an amphora broke in the upper part of the wine press whose lower part was impure, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands. And so if an amphora of oil broke, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and be absorbed [in the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action]. About both of these cases, Rebbi Joshua said, this is not heave for which I have been warned not to make it impure; only not to eat it and not to [intentionally] make it impure. If somebody was on the road with loaves of heave and a Gentile said to him, give me one of them that I may defile it, otherwise I shall defile all of them, Rebbi Eliezer says, he shall defile all of them but one should not hand over any to him. Rebbi Joshua said, he should put it on a rock before him. Similarly, women to whom Gentiles said, give us one of you that we may defile her, otherwise we shall defile all of you, they should defile all of them but no Jewish person should be handed over.

MISHNAH: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose. Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua said, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel said, he should not change anything. If an amphora broke in the upper part of the wine press whose lower part was impure, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands. And so if an amphora of oil broke, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and be absorbed [in the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action]. About both of these cases, Rebbi Joshua said, this is not heave for which I have been warned not to make it impure; only not to eat it and not to [intentionally] make it impure. If somebody was on the road with loaves of heave and a Gentile said to him, give me one of them that I may defile it, otherwise I shall defile all of them, Rebbi Eliezer says, he shall defile all of them but one should not hand over any to him. Rebbi Joshua said, he should put it on a rock before him. Similarly, women to whom Gentiles said, give us one of you that we may defile her, otherwise we shall defile all of you, they should defile all of them but no Jewish person should be handed over.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: With a vessel which inside is pure but impure outside one does not defile a small amount even to save a large amount. But did we not state: “Let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands?” Rebbi Samuel bar Berekhiah said, explain for two vessels, one pure inside and impure outside, the other impure inside and pure outside. But that Mishnah speaks of one impure vessel! Rebbi Mana said, explain it if the vat is pure; the Mishnah deals with an impure vat. Did we not state: “Let it descend and be absorbed [into the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action].” Explain it if it rolled onto to a bet happĕrās.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: With a vessel which inside is pure but impure outside one does not defile a small amount even to save a large amount. But did we not state: “Let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands?” Rebbi Samuel bar Berekhiah said, explain for two vessels, one pure inside and impure outside, the other impure inside and pure outside. But that Mishnah speaks of one impure vessel! Rebbi Mana said, explain it if the vat is pure; the Mishnah deals with an impure vat. Did we not state: “Let it descend and be absorbed [into the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action].” Explain it if it rolled onto to a bet happĕrās.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven,” etc. What profit does he have? Rebbi Abbahu said, for example these villagers who do not care.Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the vat was taken off. But if the vat was fixed, it is forbidden, since he will be afraid that his dye will have been absorbed and he will add water. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: The House of Hillel learn permitted work from forbidden work. Would it not be forbidden if he did it on the Sabbath? When he did similarly as long as it is still daytime it is permitted.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

MISHNAH: If they were two and some of the cubits of one were inside the cubits of the other they bring and eat in the middle on condition that one not transfer into the other’s [domain]. If they were three and the middle one absorbed between them, he is permitted with them and they with him but the two outside ones are forbidden one with the other. Rebbi Simeon says, to what is this similar? To three courtyards open to one another and open to the public domain. If both [outer ones] made an eruv with the middle one, that one is permitted with them and they with it but the two outside ones are forbidden one with the other.

“Dyers’ gravy,” for he puts in qussam so the dye should be absorbed.

Everywhere you are saying, one goes to the Torah. But here you are saying, one brings the Torah to them. Only since they are important personalities, the Torah is honored by them. Does one not bring there the Torah to the Head of the Diaspora? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there since the seed of David is absorbed in them, they follow the usage of their forefathers.

The preparation of the anointing oil. Take for yourself select spices, etc. and cassia 500, etc., altogether 1500 parts. And olive oil one hin, that is twelve log, in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meןr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he cooked them in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: holy anointing oil, etc.

“Rebbi Jehudah excludes water since it lacks stability.” What is the difference between them? Hot water. He who said, because it lacks stability, it has stability. He who says because they are absorbed in the dough, it is not absorbed in the dish.

“Rebbi Jehudah excludes water since it lacks stability.” What is the difference between them? Hot water. He who said, because it lacks stability, it has stability. He who says because they are absorbed in the dough, it is not absorbed in the dish.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The Holy One, praise to Him, associated His great Name with Israel. {A parable} of a king who had the small key of a jewelry box. The king said, if I leave it as it is, it is apt to be lost. Therefore I shall put in on a chain. Then if it were lost the key would prove where it is. So the Holy One, praise to Him, said, if I leave Israel as they are, they would be absorbed by the nations. Therefore I shall associate My great Name with them and they will survive. What is the reason? The Canaanites and all inhabitants of the Land will hear, and encircle us, and eradicate our Name from the Land; then what would You do for Your great Name?[Immediately], the Eternal said to Joshua, get up. Rise for what You mentioned.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, 80’000 young priests were slaughtered for the blood of Zachariah. Rebbi Yudan asked Rebbi Aḥa, where did they kill Zachariah? In the women’s courtyard or in Israel’s courtyard? He said to him, neither in Israel’s courtyard nor in the women’s courtyard but in the priests’ courtyard. They treated his blood neither as ram’s blood nor as gazelle’s blood. There is written, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust. But here, for its blood was in its midst, on a bare rock he put it. Why all this? To arise rage, to avenge vengeance, I put its blood on a bare rock, without being covered. Seven sins did Israel commit on that day. They killed a priest, prophet, and judge, spilled innocent blood, defiled the Temple courtyard, and it was a Sabbath and Day of Atonement. When Nebuzaraddan came here and saw the blood bubbling, he asked them, what is the matter with this? They told him, it is the blood of bulls, sheep, and rams, which we were sacrificing on the altar. Immediately he brought bulls, rams, and sheep and slaughtered them on it, but the blood still was bubbling. Since they did not confess, he hung them on gallows. They said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, wants to ask for his blood from us, they told him, it is the blood of a priest, prophet, and judge who was prophesying for us [all that you are doing to us.] We conspired against him and killed him. Immediately he brought 80’000 young priests and slaughtered them on it, but the blood was still bubbling. At this moment he got angry with him, and said to him, do you want to destroy your entire people because of you? Immediately the Holy One, praise to Him, was filled with mercy and said, if this one who is flesh and blood, and cruel, is filled with mercy for My children, I, where it is written about Me, for a compassionate power is the Eternal, your God, He will not destroy you nor forget the covenant of your forefathers, not so much more? Immediately he indicated to the blood and it was absorbed on its place.

Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were said as from Moses on Sinai and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abun said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known?

The preparation of the anointing oil. “Take for yourself select spices: Flowing myrrh 500, etc., and casia 500 in Temple sheqel, altogether 1500 parts. “And olive oil one hin,” that is twelve log, in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, they cooked in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: “Make it into holy anointing oil.” “That will be for Me for your generations.” It was stated, Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilaï says: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, “and olive oil one hin”. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,” this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future, as it was said, “a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations.”

HALAKHAH: “One writes with anything,” etc. “He shall write”, not engrave. “He shall write”, not dropping points. “He shall write”, not pouring. “He shall write”, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. “He shall write”, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. “He shall write”, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of the writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? There, we have stated: “Writing on top of writing is not prosecutable.” Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink or vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is guilty. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis from there: He is doubly guilty, once for erasing and once for writing.

It is quoted in objection : With urine, so long as the ground is wet enough to moisten it is forbidden ; but if it has been absorbed [in the soil] or dried up, it is permitted. But is not soaking into the soil like drying up by the sun? [No ;] for as when it dries up, no trace can be recognised, so when it has penetrated into the soil, there must be no trace visible; but if there be such a trace, it is forbidden [to read the Shema' thereby] even though the ground be not sufficiently wet to moisten !

is like [the following discussion of] the Tannaim : It is forbidden to read the Shema' by a vessel from which urine has been poured; but with urine which has been poured out, if it has been absorbed it is permitted, if it has not been absorbed it is forbidden. R. Jose says : So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten [it is forbidden].

is like [the following discussion of] the Tannaim : It is forbidden to read the Shema' by a vessel from which urine has been poured; but with urine which has been poured out, if it has been absorbed it is permitted, if it has not been absorbed it is forbidden. R. Jose says : So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten [it is forbidden].

What does the first Tanna understand by "absorbed" and "not absorbed" ? If it is supposed that "absorbed" means that the earth is not sufficiently wet to moisten, and "not absorbed" means that it can moisten, and R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace thereof can be recognised it is permitted — then he is in agreement with the first Tanna! Nay, by "absorbed" he must mean that no trace can be recognised and by "not absorbed" that the trace is recognisable, and then R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace can be recognised it is permitted.

What does the first Tanna understand by "absorbed" and "not absorbed" ? If it is supposed that "absorbed" means that the earth is not sufficiently wet to moisten, and "not absorbed" means that it can moisten, and R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace thereof can be recognised it is permitted — then he is in agreement with the first Tanna! Nay, by "absorbed" he must mean that no trace can be recognised and by "not absorbed" that the trace is recognisable, and then R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace can be recognised it is permitted.

What does the first Tanna understand by "absorbed" and "not absorbed" ? If it is supposed that "absorbed" means that the earth is not sufficiently wet to moisten, and "not absorbed" means that it can moisten, and R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace thereof can be recognised it is permitted — then he is in agreement with the first Tanna! Nay, by "absorbed" he must mean that no trace can be recognised and by "not absorbed" that the trace is recognisable, and then R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace can be recognised it is permitted.

What does the first Tanna understand by "absorbed" and "not absorbed" ? If it is supposed that "absorbed" means that the earth is not sufficiently wet to moisten, and "not absorbed" means that it can moisten, and R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace thereof can be recognised it is permitted — then he is in agreement with the first Tanna! Nay, by "absorbed" he must mean that no trace can be recognised and by "not absorbed" that the trace is recognisable, and then R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace can be recognised it is permitted.

What does the first Tanna understand by "absorbed" and "not absorbed" ? If it is supposed that "absorbed" means that the earth is not sufficiently wet to moisten, and "not absorbed" means that it can moisten, and R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace thereof can be recognised it is permitted — then he is in agreement with the first Tanna! Nay, by "absorbed" he must mean that no trace can be recognised and by "not absorbed" that the trace is recognisable, and then R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace can be recognised it is permitted.

What does the first Tanna understand by "absorbed" and "not absorbed" ? If it is supposed that "absorbed" means that the earth is not sufficiently wet to moisten, and "not absorbed" means that it can moisten, and R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace thereof can be recognised it is permitted — then he is in agreement with the first Tanna! Nay, by "absorbed" he must mean that no trace can be recognised and by "not absorbed" that the trace is recognisable, and then R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace can be recognised it is permitted.