akiva

What is the minimum size of [broken] metal vessels [for them to be susceptible to impurity]? A bucket must be of such a size as to draw water with it. A kettle must be such as water can be heated in it. A boiler, such as can hold selas. A cauldron, such as can hold jugs. Jugs, such as can hold perutahs. Wine-measures, such as can measure wine; and oil-measures, such as can measure oil. Rabbi Eliezer says: the size for all these is such as can hold perutahs. Rabbi Akiva says: a vessel that lacks trimming is susceptible to impurity, but one that lacks polishing is clean.

The pomegranate of which they spoke refers to one that is neither small nor big but of moderate size. And why did they mention the pomegranates of Baddan? That whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: to use them as a measure for holes in vessels. Rabbi Akiva said: they were mentioned for both reasons: that they are to be used as a measure for holes in vessels and that whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden. Rabbi Yose said: the pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba were mentioned only to indicate that they must be tithed everywhere with certain tithe.

The base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean. A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A straw mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth is subject to the same law. A mat of reeds or rushes is clean. A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed.

If a large trough was so damaged that it could no longer hold pomegranates and he fixed it to be used as a seat: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless its rough parts have been smoothed. If it was turned into a feeding bowl for cattle, even if it was fixed to a wall, it is susceptible to uncleanness.

If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it. . Bet Hillel says: when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed.

A chair, of which two seat boards were removed, this one next to this one: Rabbi Akiva says: it is susceptible to impurity; And the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Judah said: so too if the seat boards of a bride's chair were lost, though the receptacle under remained, it is clean, since where the primary function has ceased, the secondary one also ceases.

A [wooden] block which was painted red or saffron, or was polished: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless [a seat] was carved out. A small basket or a big one that was filled with straw or other soft material remains clean [even] if it was prepared as a seat. But if it was plaited over with reed-grass or with a cord it becomes susceptible to uncleanness.

A toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the leather seat was separated, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness and the iron is subject only to corpse uncleanness. A folding stool whose cover is of leather is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If it was taken apart, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness while the stool is altogether clean. A bath-house bench that has two wooden legs is susceptible to uncleanness. If one leg was of wood and the other of stone it is clean. Boards in a bath-house which were joined together: Rabbi Akiva says that they are susceptible to [midras] uncleanness; But the sages say that they are clean, since they are made only for the water to flow under them. A fumigation-cage that contains a receptacle for garments is susceptible to uncleanness, But one that is made like a bee-hive is clean.

If [in a measure consisting of] a quarter [of a log] and half a quarter [of a log] the quarter measure contracted uncleanness, the half-quarter measure does not become unclean, and if the half-quarter contracted uncleanness the quarter does not become unclean. They argued before Rabbi Akiva: since the half quarter measure is the outer part of the quarter measure, should not the outer side of the vessel whose inner side contracted uncleanness become unclean? He answered them: Are you sure that it belongs to the category [of vessels] that have inner [and outer] parts? Perhaps the quarter is to be regarded as the outer side of the half quarter and, surely, the inner side of a vessel does not become unclean if the outer side contracted uncleanness.

All vessels have outer and inner sides and have a part by which they are held. Rabbi Tarfon says: this applies only to a large wooden [kneading] trough. Rabbi Akiva says: it applies to cups. Rabbi Meir says: it applies to unclean and clean hands. Rabbi Yose says: they said this only concerning clean hands.

Worn-out pieces of a sifter or a sieve that were adapted for use as a seat: Rabbi Akiva rules that they are susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages rule that they are not susceptible unless their rough ends were cut off. A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness. A child's shirt: Rabbi Eliezer rules it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size. But the sages rule: it is susceptible only if it is of the prescribed size, and it is measured when doubled over.

The three (fingerbreadths) square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square. If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected. If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected. If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected.

A mirror is pure. A tray that was made into a mirror remains susceptible, but if it was originally made to serve as a mirror it is pure. A large [glass] spoon that has been placed on a table is susceptible to uncleanness if it can hold anything whatsoever. But if it cannot do so: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible, And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure.

What is the case of four? Vessels touching a corpse, a person [touching these] vessels, and [other] vessels [touching this] person, are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fourth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. Rabbi Akiva said: I have a fifth, [if] a peg was fixed in a tent, the tent, the peg, a person touching the peg and vessels [touching] the person are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fifth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. They said to him: the tent does not count.

[The following likewise defile:]A quarter [of a log] of blood, A quarter [of a log] of mixed blood from one corpse. Rabbi Akiva says: [even] from two corpses. [With regard to] the blood of a child that has completely flowed forth: Rabbi Akiva says: [it defiles] in even the smallest quantity, But the sages say: [there must be] a quarter [of a log]. [With regard to] an olive-sized [portion] of [corpse] worms whether alive or dead: Rabbi Eliezer declares [it] unclean, like the flesh, But the sages declare [it] clean. [With regard to] the ashes of burnt persons: Rabbi Eliezer says: the [minimum] quantity [for defilement is] a quarter [of a kav]. But the sages declare [them to be] clean. A ladleful and [a little] more of grave-dust is unclean. Rabbi Shimon declares [it to be] clean. A ladleful of corpse-mold mixed with water is not [regarded as] joined [into one mass] for [the purposes of] defilement.

[The following likewise defile:]A quarter [of a log] of blood, A quarter [of a log] of mixed blood from one corpse. Rabbi Akiva says: [even] from two corpses. [With regard to] the blood of a child that has completely flowed forth: Rabbi Akiva says: [it defiles] in even the smallest quantity, But the sages say: [there must be] a quarter [of a log]. [With regard to] an olive-sized [portion] of [corpse] worms whether alive or dead: Rabbi Eliezer declares [it] unclean, like the flesh, But the sages declare [it] clean. [With regard to] the ashes of burnt persons: Rabbi Eliezer says: the [minimum] quantity [for defilement is] a quarter [of a kav]. But the sages declare [them to be] clean. A ladleful and [a little] more of grave-dust is unclean. Rabbi Shimon declares [it to be] clean. A ladleful of corpse-mold mixed with water is not [regarded as] joined [into one mass] for [the purposes of] defilement.

A backbone or a skull [made up from the bones] of two corpses, A quarter [of a log] of blood from two corpses, A quarter [of a kav] of bones from two corpses, A limb of a corpse from two corpses, And a limb [severed] from a living person, [such a limb being made up] from two persons, Rabbi Akiva declares [the all] unclean But the sages declare them clean.

A bone the size of a barley-corn that is divided into two: Rabbi Akiva declares it unclean But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares it clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: they did not say 'bones’ the size of a barley-corn, but ‘bone’ the size of a barley-corn. A quarter [of a kav] of bones crushed fine, and there is not a single [bone] the size of a barley-corn: Rabbi Shimon declares it clean But the sages unclean. A limb [severed] from a living person which has been divided into two is clean. Rabbi Yose declares [it] unclean; But he agrees that if it is taken from a living person by halves it is clean.

What is ‘mixed blood? The blood of a corpse of which an eighth [of a log] came out during his lifetime and an eighth after death, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: a quarter [of a log] during his lifetime and a quarter after death. [If] a quarter [of a log] is taken from both of these: Rabbi Elazar bar Judah says: both of these are as water. What then is ‘mixed blood’? It is that of a crucified person whose blood is streaming forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood it is unclean. However a corpse whose blood drips forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood, [the blood] is clean. Rabbi Judah says: not so, but that which streams forth is clean and that which drips forth is unclean.

[With regard to] an oven which stood in a house, with its outlet curved to the outside [of the house], and those burying a corpse overshadowed it: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the oven becomes unclean, but the house remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: even the oven remains clean.

[With regard to] a hatch between the house and the upper story, if there was a pot placed over it and it was perforated [by a hole of sufficient size] to admit liquid: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the pot becomes unclean but the upper story remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: all remains clean.

Just as they protect inside so they protect outside. How so? In the case of a large basket supported on pegs on the outside [of an ohel], If there was uncleanness beneath it, vessels in the basket remain clean. But if it was [next to] the wall of a courtyard or of a garden, it does not protect. [In the case of] a beam placed across from one wall to an other, with a pot hanging from it, if there was uncleanness beneath it, Rabbi Akiva declares the vessels inside it to be clean, But the sages declare them unclean.

[With regard to] a hole in the door: Its minimum size is that of a fist, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: one handbreadth square. If the carpenter had left a space at the bottom or the top [of the door] or if one had shut [the door] but not closed it tightly, or if the wind blew it open, the minimum size is that of a fist.

All movable things convey uncleanness when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad. Rabbi Tarfon said: May I [see the] demise of my sons if this is [not] a demised halakhah which someone heard and misunderstood. For a farmer was passing by and over his shoulder was an ox-goad, and one end overshadowed a grave. He was declared unclean on account of vessels that were overshadowing a corpse. Rabbi Akiva said: I can fix [the halakhah] so that the words of the sages can exist [as they are]: All movable things convey uncleanness to come upon a person carrying them, when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad; Upon themselves when they are of whatever thickness; And upon other men or vessels [which they overshadow] when they are one handbreadth wide.

The variegation of the snow-like whiteness is like wine mixed with snow. The variegation of the lime-like whiteness is like blood mixed with milk, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: the reddishness in either of them is like wine mixed with water, only that in the snow-like whiteness the color is bright while in that of lime-like whiteness it is duller.

Rabbi Hanina, the vice-chief of priests, says: the colors of negaim are sixteen. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: the colors of negaim are thirty-six. Akaviah ben Mahalalel says: seventy-two. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of priests says: negaim may not be inspected for the first time at the end of Shabbat, since the end of that week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Monday, since the end of the second week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Tuesday, in the case of houses, since the end of the third week will fall on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva says: they may be inspected at all times, and if the time for the second inspection falls on Shabbat it is postponed to after Shabbat; and this procedure leads sometimes to a leniency and sometimes to a stringency.

The bright spot in a German appears as dull white, and the dull white spot in an Ethiopian appears as bright white. Rabbi Ishmael says: the children of Israel (may I be atonement for them!) are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade. Rabbi Akiva says: painters have materials with which they portray figures in black, in white, and in an intermediate shade; let, therefore a paint of an intermediate shade be brought and applied around the outside of the nega, and it will then appear as on skin of intermediate shade. Rabbi Judah says: in determining the colors of negaim the law is to be lenient and not stringent; let,therefore, the negaim of the German be inspected on the color of his own body so that the law is lenient, and let that of the Ethiopian be inspected as if it were on the intermediate shade so that the law is also lenient. The sages say: both are to be treated as if the nega was on the intermediate shade.

A bright spot which had quick flesh and a spreading: if the quick flesh disappeared it is unclean on account of the spreading; if the spreading disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. So also in the case of white hair and a spreading. If it [the bright spot] disappeared and appeared again at the end of the week, it is regarded as though it had remained as it was. If it reappeared after it had been pronounced clean, it must be inspected as a new one. If it had been bright white but was now dull white, or if it had been dull white but was now bright white, it is regarded as though it had remained as it was, provided that it does not become less white than the four principal colors. If it contracted and then spread, or if it spread and then contracted: Rabbi Akiva rules that it is unclean; But the sages rule that it is clean.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

Deposited hair: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it is unclean. But the sages hold it to be clean. What is "deposited hair"? If one had a bright spot with white hair in it, and the bright spot disappeared leaving the white hair in position and then it reappeared: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it to be unclean, But the sages hold it to be clean. Rabbi Akiva said: in this case I agree that he is clean; But what is "deposited hair"? If one had a bright spot of the size of a split bean with two hairs in it, and a part the size of a half a split bean disappeared leaving the white hair in the place of the white spot and then it reappeared. They said to him: just as they rejected the ruling of Akaviah so is there no validity in your ruling.

Any doubt in negaim in the beginning is regarded as clean before uncleanness has been established, but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean. How is this so? If two men came to a priest one having a bright spot the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela, and at the end of the week each had one the size of a sela, and it is not known on which of them the spreading had occurred, Whether this occurred with one man or with two men, each is clean. Rabbi Akiva said: if one man is involved he is unclean, but if two men are involved each is clean.

If a bright spot was the size of a split bean and quick flesh the size of a lentil encompassed it, and outside the quick flesh there was another bright spot, the inner one must be isolated and the outer one must be certified unclean. Rabbi Yose says: the quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the inner bright spot is within it. If it decreased or disappeared: Rabban Gamaliel says: if its destruction was on its inner side it is a sign of spreading of the inner bright spot while the outer one is clean, but if its destruction was on its outer side, the outer one is clean while the inner one must be isolated. Rabbi Akiva says: in either case it is clean.

If their color changed, whether to be lenient or stringent: How is it "to be lenient"? If it was white like snow and it became white like the lime of the Temple, or like wool or like the skin of an egg, or [as white] as the second shade of a rising or the second shade of bright white. How is it "to be stringent"? If it was the color of the skin of an egg and it became like white wool, the lime of the Temple or like snow. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah rules that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: if the change was to be lenient it is clean, but if it was one to be stringent it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Akiva says: whether the change was to be lenient or to be strict it must be inspected as if it were a new one.

One who plucks out signs of uncleanness or burns quick flesh transgresses a negative commandment. And as regards cleanness: If they were plucked out before he came to the priest, he is clean; But if after he had been certified as unclean, he remains unclean. Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they were on the way to Narbata, "What is the ruling if the plucking occurred while he was isolated?" They said to me, "We did not hear anything [about this case], but we have heard that if they were plucked before he came to the priest he is clean, and if after he had been certified as unclean he remains unclean." I began to bring them proofs: whether the man stands before the priest or whether he is isolated, he is clean unless the priest had pronounced him unclean. When does he attain cleanness [after he has been certified unclean]? Rabbi Eliezer says: after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages says: only after another nega has spread over his whole body or after his bright spot has been reduced to less than the size of a split bean.

Scalls may become unclean for two weeks and by two signs: by thin yellow hair and by spreading. By thin yellow hair: means stunted and short, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: even though it is long. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the meaning of the expression when people say, "This stick is thin," or "This reed is thin"? Does "thin" imply that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long? Rabbi Akiva replied: before we learn from the reed let us learn from hair, [for they say] "So and so's hair is thin": "thin" means that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long.

Scalls may become unclean for two weeks and by two signs: by thin yellow hair and by spreading. By thin yellow hair: means stunted and short, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: even though it is long. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the meaning of the expression when people say, "This stick is thin," or "This reed is thin"? Does "thin" imply that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long? Rabbi Akiva replied: before we learn from the reed let us learn from hair, [for they say] "So and so's hair is thin": "thin" means that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long.

And how many stones must there be in it [for it to be susceptible to negaim]? Rabbi Ishmael says: four. Rabbi Akiva says: eight. For Rabbi Ishmael used to say: a nega is not a cause of uncleanness unless it appeared in the size of two split beans on two stones or on one stone. Rabbi Akiva say: unless it appears in the size of two split beans on two stones, and not on one stone. Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says: unless it appears in the size of two split beans, on two stones, on two walls in a corner, Its length being that of two split beans and its breadth that of one split bean.

And how many stones must there be in it [for it to be susceptible to negaim]? Rabbi Ishmael says: four. Rabbi Akiva says: eight. For Rabbi Ishmael used to say: a nega is not a cause of uncleanness unless it appeared in the size of two split beans on two stones or on one stone. Rabbi Akiva say: unless it appears in the size of two split beans on two stones, and not on one stone. Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says: unless it appears in the size of two split beans, on two stones, on two walls in a corner, Its length being that of two split beans and its breadth that of one split bean.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosot that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty. Rabbi Joshua ben Batera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid. If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: by the root.

One may not bring a sin-offering by virtue of [the purifications made for] another sin-offering, nor one child by virtue of [the preparations made for] another. The children had to sprinkle on each other, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: they did not need to sprinkle.

They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees.

One who was clean for the hatat waters and then touched an oven: With his hand becomes unclean, With his foot he remains clean. If he stood on an oven and put out his hand beyond the oven with the flask in his hand, And so also in the case of a carrying-yoke which was placed over the oven and from which two jars were suspended one at either end: Rabbi Akiva says that they remain clean; But the sages say that they are unclean.

If he was standing outside an oven and he stretched out his hand to a window and he took a flask and passed it over the oven: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, And the sages say that it is clean. But he who was clean for the hatat waters may stand over an oven while holding in his hand an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat waters or one filled with water that has not yet been mixed [with the ashes of the red cow].

A [dead] sheretz and a [dead] frog in a public domain, And so also [if there was there] an olive's bulk of a corpse and an olive's bulk of carrion, A bone of a corpse and a bone of carrion; A clod of clean earth and a clod from a doubtful grave area A clod of clean earth and a clod from the land of the Gentiles, Or if there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked through one of them but it is not known which, Or if overshadowed one of them but it is not known which, or he shifted one of them but it is not known which: Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.

One who said, "I touched an object but I do not know whether it was unclean or clean," or "I touched one but I do not know which of the two I touched": Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean. Rabbi Yose says that he is unclean in every case and clean only in that of the path, since it is the usual custom for people to walk but it is not their usual practice to touch.

A woman entered her house to bring out some bread for a poor man and when she came out she found him standing at the side of loaves of terumah; Similarly a woman went out and found her friend raking out coals under a cooking pot of terumah: Rabbi Akiva says that they are unclean, But the sages say that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila: but why does Rabbi Akiva rule that they are unclean and the sages rule that they are clean? Because women are gluttonous and each may be suspected of uncovering her neighbor's cooking pot to get to know what she is cooking.

A woman entered her house to bring out some bread for a poor man and when she came out she found him standing at the side of loaves of terumah; Similarly a woman went out and found her friend raking out coals under a cooking pot of terumah: Rabbi Akiva says that they are unclean, But the sages say that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila: but why does Rabbi Akiva rule that they are unclean and the sages rule that they are clean? Because women are gluttonous and each may be suspected of uncovering her neighbor's cooking pot to get to know what she is cooking.

If a cistern is full of drawn water and a channel leads into it and out of it, it continues to be invalid until it can be reckoned that there does not remain in it three logs of the former [water]. If two men each poured a log and a half [of drawn water] into a mikveh, or if one wrung out his clothes and so poured in [water] from several places, or if one emptied out a water-jug and so poured in [water]from several places, Rabbi Akiva declares it valid, But the sages declare it invalid. Rabbi Akiva said: they did not say "if they poured in," rather "if one poured in." But they said: they said neither thus nor thus, but rather "if there fell in three logs [of drawn water]."

If a cistern is full of drawn water and a channel leads into it and out of it, it continues to be invalid until it can be reckoned that there does not remain in it three logs of the former [water]. If two men each poured a log and a half [of drawn water] into a mikveh, or if one wrung out his clothes and so poured in [water] from several places, or if one emptied out a water-jug and so poured in [water]from several places, Rabbi Akiva declares it valid, But the sages declare it invalid. Rabbi Akiva said: they did not say "if they poured in," rather "if one poured in." But they said: they said neither thus nor thus, but rather "if there fell in three logs [of drawn water]."

Some materials raise the mikveh up [to the required quantity] and do not make it invalid. Some make it invalid and do not raise it up [to the required quantity]; And some neither raise it up [to the required quantity] nor make it invalid. These raise it up to the required quantity and do not make the mikveh invalid. Snow, hail, frosted dew, ice, salt, and thin mud. Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Ishmael once argued against me saying; snow does not raise up the mikveh [to its required quantity]. But the men of Madeba testified in his name that he had once told them: go and bring snow and with it prepare a mikveh from the outset. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: hailstones are like drawn water. How do they raise it up [to the required quantity] and not render it invalid? If the mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a se'ah of them fell in and made up [the required quantity], they thus make up [the required quantity] but do not render it invalid.

If he emitted thick drops from his member, he is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar Hisma. If one had sexual dreams in the night and arose and found his flesh heated, he is unclean. If a woman discharged semen on the third day, she is clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Ishmael says: sometimes there are four time periods, and sometimes five, and sometimes six. Rabbi Akiva says: there are always five.

What is meant by "after a time"? As long as it takes to get down from the bed and wash her "face." [If blood was found some time] after she causes uncleanness retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours but she does not cause the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. Rabbi Akiva says: she also causes the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. And the sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that one who saw a bloodstain defiles the man who had intercourse with her.

What is meant by "after a time"? As long as it takes to get down from the bed and wash her "face." [If blood was found some time] after she causes uncleanness retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours but she does not cause the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. Rabbi Akiva says: she also causes the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. And the sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that one who saw a bloodstain defiles the man who had intercourse with her.

What are the signs [of a bogeret]? Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: the appearance of the wrinkle beneath the breast. Rabbi Akiva says: from when the breasts hang down. Ben Azzai says: the darkening of the ring around the nipple. Rabbi Yose says: [the development of the breast to a stage] when one's hand is put on the nipple it sinks and only slowly rises again.

The two hairs spoken of in regard to the red heifer and in regard to leprosy as well as those spoken of anywhere else must be long enough for their tips to be bent to their roots, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Elazar says: long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail. Rabbi Akiva says: long enough to be taken off with scissors.

It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood." She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, "And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood" blood but not a bloodstain.

It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood." She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, "And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood" blood but not a bloodstain.

If a zav or a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves clean and on the seventh day and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other intervening, days: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are in a presumptive condition of cleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: they are entitled [to count as clean] only the first day and the seventh day. Rabbi Akiva says: they are entitled to reckon as clean the seventh day alone.

If one drew water through a kilon (a pump-beam), it causes susceptibility to uncleanness for three days. Rabbi Akiva says: if it was dried, it at once does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness; but if it was not dried, it causes susceptibility even for thirty days.

One who measures a cistern whether for its depth of for its breadth, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put' the words of Rabbi Tarfon. But Rabbi Akiva says: if [it was measured] for its depth, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but if for its breadth, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Thus far was the argument. Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.

There are seven ways in which a zav is examined as long as he had not become subject to zivah: With regard to food, drink, as [to what] he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been ill, what he had seen, or what he had thought. [It doesn't matter] whether he had thoughts before seeing [a woman], or whether he had seen [a woman] before his thoughts. Rabbi Judah says: even if he had watched beasts, wild animals or birds having intercourse with each other, and even when he had seen a woman's dyed garments. Rabbi Akiva says: even if he had eaten any kind of food, be it good or bad, or had drunk any kind of liquid. They said to him: Then there will be no zavim in the world!’ He replied to them: you are not held responsible for the existence of zavim!’ Once he had become subject to zivah, no further examination takes place. [Zov] resulting from an accident, or that was at all doubtful, or an issue of semen, these are unclean, since there are grounds for the assumption [that it is zivah]. If he had at a first [issue] they examine him; On the second [issue] they examine him, but on the third [issue] they don't examine him. Rabbi Eliezer says: even on the third [issue] they examine him because of the sacrifice.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

On that day the votes were counted and they decided that a footbath holding from two logs to nine kavs which was cracked could contract midras uncleanness. Because Rabbi Akiva said a footbath [must be considered] according to its designation.

Costus, amomum, principal spices, [roots of] crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges made of saffron may be bought with tithe money, but they do not convey food uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to him: if they may be bought with [second] tithe money, then why should they not impart food uncleanness? And if they do not impart food uncleanness, then they should also not be bought with [second] tithe money?

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live. If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live. Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness.

That is satisfactory according to the one who says that [the sukkot of the wilderness were] clouds of glory, but according to the one who says [the Israelites] made for themselves real sukkot, what can one say? For it has been taught: "For I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths" (Leviticus 23:43): These were clouds of glory, the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: They made for themselves real sukkot. Now this is satisfactory according to R. Eliezer, but according to R. Akiva, what can one say?

That is satisfactory according to the one who says that [the sukkot of the wilderness were] clouds of glory, but according to the one who says [the Israelites] made for themselves real sukkot, what can one say? For it has been taught: "For I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths" (Leviticus 23:43): These were clouds of glory, the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: They made for themselves real sukkot. Now this is satisfactory according to R. Eliezer, but according to R. Akiva, what can one say?

GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? According to R. Akiva, as it has been taught, He who builds his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva

GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? According to R. Akiva, as it has been taught, He who builds his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva

valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, Akiva, where is your Sukkah?

valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, Akiva, where is your Sukkah?

Abaye said: All agree that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze it is nothing; If it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all agree that it is valid. Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not a normal sea breeze; R. Gamaliel holds that the Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing, While R. Akiva is of the opinion that the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a normal land breeze, it is valid.

R. Akiva said: They were Mishael and Elzaphan who were occupied with [the remains of] Nadav and Avihu. R. Yitzchak said, If they were those who bore the coffin of Joseph, they had time to cleanse themselves [before Pesah] and if they were Mishael and Elzaphan they could [also] have cleansed themselves [before Pesah].

Mishnah: Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

What is his reason? If you say that it is because he is lenient, why did he not expound to them as R. Akiva who is even more lenient? Three with broken tips are common, one with an unbroken tip is uncommon.

Come and hear: An etrog which is swollen, decayed, pickled, boiled, Ethiopian (black), white or speckled, is invalid. An etrog which is round as a ball is invalid. And some say: also if two are grown together. An etrog which is half-ripe, R. Akiva declares it invalid, and the sages valid. If it was grown in a cast, so that it has the appearance of another species, it is invalid.

A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.

A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.

A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.

Abaye said to him: But perhaps it is not so. R. Akiva may have stated his view only here, since the etrog must be "goodly," while [an unripe etrog] is not, but there he may agree with the sages

The maximum size etc. It was taught: R. Yose said: It happened with R. Akiva that he came to synagogue with his etrog on his shoulder. R. Judah said to him: Is this a proof? They in fact said to him, That etrog is not goodly

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.”

And it once happened that R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Elazar b. Azariah and R. Akiva were travelling on a ship and only R. Gamaliel had a lulav which he had bought for one thousand zuz. R. Gamaliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it; then he gave it as a gift to R. Joshua who and gave it as a gift to R. Elazar b. Azariah who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it, and gave it as a gift to R. Akiva who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and then returned it to R. Gamaliel.

And it once happened that R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Elazar b. Azariah and R. Akiva were travelling on a ship and only R. Gamaliel had a lulav which he had bought for one thousand zuz. R. Gamaliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it; then he gave it as a gift to R. Joshua who and gave it as a gift to R. Elazar b. Azariah who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it, and gave it as a gift to R. Akiva who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and then returned it to R. Gamaliel.

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This [rule stated in the Mishnah] is the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous sage who draws the distinction between “time”, “their time” and “their times”, but according to the Sages the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day.

Now which authority is R. Judah here following? If I say, R. Akiva–even in these days this enactment is valid.

There are those who say: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This rule follows the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous authority, but the Sages held that in these days since people reckon from it, we read it only on the proper day.

It has been taught: R. Elazar said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Haman said in his heart” (Esther 6:6). R. Akiva says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all that looked upon her” (2:15).

Against the proof of R. Akiva it may be objected that [verse should be interpreted like] R. Elazar, who said that these words show that to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation.

On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six etc. Whose view is that of the Mishnah? It is neither R. Ishmael nor R. Akiba, as it has been taught: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six, and on Shabbat seven. They may not decrease or increase this number, the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiva says: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur seven and on Shabbat six. They may not decrease this number, but they may increase it.

Whom [does the Mishnah follow]? If R. Ishmael, it conflicts with him over the additional number, if R. Akiva, it conflicts with him over the question of six and seven!