ben

One who slaughtered a dying animal: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [the slaughtering is invalid] unless it jerked its foreleg and its hind leg. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is enough if it spurted [the blood]. Rabbi Shimon said: even if one slaughtered [a dying animal] by night and the following morning he got up early and found the sides [of the throat] full of blood, the slaughtering is valid, for this proves that it spurted [the blood], as is Rabbi Eliezer's measure. The sages say: [the slaughtering is invalid] unless it jerked either its foreleg or its hind leg, or it moved its tail to and fro. This is the test both with regard to large and small animals. If a small animal stretched out its foreleg [at the end of the slaughtering] but did not withdraw it, [the slaughtering] is invalid, for this was just an indication of the expiration of its life. When do these rules apply? To case of an animal which was believed to be dying. But if it was believed to be sound, even though it did not show any of these signs, the slaughtering is valid.

And the following [defects] do not render cattle terefah: If the windpipe was pierced, or cracked [lengthwise]. To what extent may it be deficient? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: up to an Italian issar. If the skull was cracked but the membrane of the brain was not pierced; If the heart was pierced but not as far as its cavity; If the spine was broken but the cord was not severed; If the liver was removed but an olive's size of it remained. If the omasum or the third stomach were pierced at their juncture; If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys, or the lower jaw-bone or the womb. If [the lung] was shrunken up by an act of Heaven. If an animal was stripped of its hide: Rabbi Meir declares it valid, but the rabbis declare it invalid.

The “one day” mentioned in connection with the law of “it and its young” means the day and the night preceding it. This was how Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma expounded (darash): it says “one day” (Genesis 1:5) in connection with the creation and it also says “one day” (Leviticus 22:28) in connection with “it and its young” Just as the “one day” mentioned in connection with the creation means the day and the night preceding it, so too the “one day” mentioned in connection with “it and its young” means the day and the night preceding it.

With what may one cover up [the blood] and with what may one not cover it up? One may cover it up with fine dung, with fine sand, with lime, with white clay, or a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have been ground into powder. But one may not cover it up with coarse dung or coarse sand, or with a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have not been ground into powder. Nor may one cover it with a vessel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel stated a general rule: one may cover it with anything in which plants would grow; but one may not cover it with anything in which plants would not grow.

A person may wrap up meat and cheese in one cloth, provided they do not touch one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: two people at an inn may eat at the same table, the one meat and the other cheese, without concern.

In the following cases the skin is considered flesh: The skin of a person, The skin of the domesticated pig. Rabbi Yose says: even the skin of the wild pig. The skin of the hump of a young camel. The skin of the head of a young calf. The skin around the hooves. The skin of the pudenda. The skin of a fetus. The skin beneath the fat tail. The skin of the gecko, the monitor, the lizard and the skink. Rabbi Judah says: the lizard is like the weasel. If any of these skins was tanned or trampled upon as much as [was usual] for tanning, it becomes clean, excepting the skin of a man. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the eight reptiles have [real] skins.

One who was flaying cattle or wild animals, clean or unclean, small or large: In order to use the hide for a covering, if he stripped as can be taken hold of [the hide is no longer considered as connected to the flesh.] In order to make a water-skin, until the breast has been flayed. If he was flaying from the feet upwards, until the whole hide [has been flayed]. [All of these measures apply] for both conveying uncleanness and becoming unclean. As for the skin that is on the neck: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: it is not connected. But the sages say it is connected until the whole hide has been flayed.

How much is “many”? Bet Shammai say: [at least] two sheep, as it is said, “A man shall rear a young cow and two sheep (tzon)” (Isaiah 7:21). Bet Hillel say: five, as it is said, “Five dressed sheep (tzon)” (I Samuel 28:18). Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: five sheep, which each produce [a fleece which weighs] a maneh and a half, are subject to the law of the first of the fleece. But the sages say: five sheep, whatever their fleeces weigh. And how much should one give him? The weight of five selas in Judah, which is equal to ten selas in Galilee. Bleached wool and not dirty wool, sufficient to make from it a small garment, for it is written, “Give him,” when there is enough to be considered a gift. If the owner did not manage to give [the fleece to the priest] until he dyed it, he is exempt. If he bleached it but did not dye it, he is still liable. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to a non-Jew, he is exempt from the law of the first of the fleece. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to his neighbor: If the seller kept some back, the seller is liable, But if he did not withhold anything, the buyer is liable. If he had two kinds of wool, grey and white, and he sold the grey but not the white, or [if he sold the wool] of the males but not of the females, each must give [the first of the fleece] for himself.

If one receives flock from a non-Jew on “iron terms” their offspring are exempt [from the law of] the first born. But the offspring of their offspring are liable [to the law of the first born]. If [the Israelite] put the offspring in the place of their mothers, then the offspring of the offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even for ten generations the offspring are exempt [from the law of the first born] since they are pledged to the non-Jew.

If one buys an animal from a non-Jew and it is not known whether it had given birth or had not given birth: Rabbi Ishmael says: that born of a goat in its first year certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first-born]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. That born of a cow or a donkey three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. Rabbi Akiva to him: if an animal were exempted [from the law of the first born] only with the birth of [actual] offspring, it would be as you say. But they said: the sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb]. In large cattle, the after-birth; in a woman, the signs are the fetus and the after-birth. This is the general rule: Whenever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing. Whenever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest. If there is a doubt, it shall be eaten blemished by the owners. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a large domestic animal has discharged a clot of blood, it [the clot] shall be buried, and it [the mother] is exempted from the law of the first born.

Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: one who slaughters the first born, [first] clears a space with the [butcher's] knife on both sides and tears the hair, as long as he does not remove the wool from its place. And similarly one may tear the hair to show the place of the blemish [to a sage].

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden.

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden.

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden.

If a first born was running after him and he kicked it and thereby blemished it, he may slaughter it on account of this. Any blemish which might have been made by a person, Israelite shepherds are trustworthy whereas shepherds who are priests are not trustworthy. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he is trustworthy with regard to somebody else's first born, but he is not trustworthy with regard to his own. Rabbi Meir says: one who is suspected of neglecting a religious matter must not issue judgment on it or give evidence concerning it.

In consequence of the following blemishes a first-born animal may be slaughtered: If its ear has become defective, from the cartilages [inward] but not if the defect is in the ear-flap; If it is slit although there was no loss [of substance]; If it is perforated with a hole as large as a karshinah Or if [the ear] has become dry. What is considered “becoming dry”? If when pierced no drop of blood comes out. Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: [it] is dry when it crumbles [when touched].

Havarvar [white spots] on the cornea and water constantly dripping from the eye, [are disqualifying blemishes]. What do we mean by a permanent hawarwar? If it remained for a period of eighty days. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: we must examine it three times in the eighty days. And the following are cases of constant dripping from the eye [and how to test its permanency]: if it ate [for a cure] fresh [fodder] and dry [fodder] from a field sufficiently watered by rain [it is a permanent blemish, if not cured]. [If it ate] fresh [fodder] and then dry [fodder] from a field requiring artificial irrigation, or if it ate dry [fodder] first and then fresh [fodder from field watered by rain] it is not a blemish unless it eats dry [fodder] after the fresh.

If its nose is perforated, defective, or slit, or its upper lip perforated, defective, or slit [these are disqualifying blemishes]. If the outer incisors are defective or leveled [to the gum] or the molars are torn out [completely], [these are disqualifying blemishes]. But Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: we do not examine behind the molars, nor the molars themselves.

If [a first born] has no testicles or if it only has one testicle, [it is a blemish]. Rabbi Ishmael says: if it has two pouches, then it has two testicles, but if it only has one pouch, then it only has one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: [the animal] is placed on its buttocks and he squeezes [the pouch]. If a testicle is [in there, inside the pouch] it will eventually come out. It happened that one squeezed it and [the testicle] did not come out, but when it was slaughtered [the testicle] was found attached to the loins, and Rabbi Akiva permitted [the animal] while Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it.

It happened that the lower jaw [of a first born] was larger than the upper jaw. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel asked the sages [for a ruling] and they said: this is a blemish. The ear of a kid which was doubled: the sages ruled: if it is all one bone, it is a blemish, but if it is not all one bone, it is not a blemish. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: if the tail of a kid is like that of a pig, or if the tail does not possess three vertebrae, this is a blemish.

It happened that the lower jaw [of a first born] was larger than the upper jaw. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel asked the sages [for a ruling] and they said: this is a blemish. The ear of a kid which was doubled: the sages ruled: if it is all one bone, it is a blemish, but if it is not all one bone, it is not a blemish. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: if the tail of a kid is like that of a pig, or if the tail does not possess three vertebrae, this is a blemish.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: if [a first born] has a wart in its eye or if a bone of its fore-leg or hind-leg is defective, or if the bone of the mouth split, or one eye is large and the other small, or one ear is large and the other small, being visibly so and not merely in measurement [all of these are blemishes]. Rabbi Judah says: if one testicle is as large as two of the other [this is a blemish]. But the sages didn’t agree with him.

If the tail of a calf does not reach the joint, [it is a blemish]. The sages said: the growth of all calves is in this manner, as long as [the animals] grow, the tails also extend [below]. To which joint does this refer? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: the joint in the middle of the hip. In consequence of these blemishes we may slaughter a firstborn animal, and consecrated animals rendered unfit [for the altar] in consequence of these blemishes may be redeemed.

A bald-headed person is unfit [for the priesthood]. What is considered bald-headed? One who does not have a line of hair from ear to ear. If he has one, then he is fit. One who has no eyebrows or has only one eyebrow [is unfit], this being the gibben mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Dosa says: one whose eyebrows lie flat [overshadowing the eyes]. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a double back or a double spine.

If the upper lip overlaps the lower or the lower lip overlaps the upper, behold this is a blemish. One whose teeth have fallen out is unfit [for the priesthood] for appearance sake. If his breasts hang down like those of a woman, or his belly is swollen, or his navel sticks out, or if he is epileptic, even once every few days, or he is subject to melancholy, a me'ushkan and a ba'al gever [all these are unfit for the priesthood]. If he has no testicles, or only one testicle, this is the “meroah ashekh” mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Ishmael says: anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says: anyone who has wind in his testicles. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a black complexion.

If one knocks his ankles [against each other, in walking] or rubs his legs [against each other]; a ba’al pikah and an ikkel. What is an ikkel? One whose knees do not touch each other when he puts his feet together. If he has a lump protruding from his thumb, or if his heel projects backward, or if his feet are wide like those of a goose. Or if his fingers lie one above the other. If they are webbed up to the joint, he is fit, if below the root, if he cuts it, he is also fit. If he has an additional finger and he cut it off, if there was a bone in it, he is unfit, but if not, he is fit. If he has additional fingers and additional toes, on each hand and foot six fingers and six toes, [making altogether] twenty-four [fingers and toes]: Rabbi Judah declares him fit, But the sages declare him unfit. One who has equal strength in both hands: Rabbi declares him unfit; But the sages declare him fit. A kushi, a gihur, a lavkan, a kippeah, a dwarf, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one intoxicated, or afflicted with plague marks which are clean – [these defects] disqualify in human beings but not in animals. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a mad animal is not a choice sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: also those afflicted with dangling warts they are unfit in human beings but are fit in animals.

The following do not return [to their owners] in Jubilee year: The share of the first-born, [The inheritance of] one who inherits his wife's [estate] [And of] one who performs yibbum with his sister-in-law And a present, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a present is like a sale. Rabbi Eliezer says: all of these return in the Jubilee. R. Johanan ben Berokah says: if one inherits his wife's estate, he returns it to the members of the family and he deducts from the purchase money.

There are three periods [lit. threshing floors] for the tithe of cattle: in the peras of Pesah, in the peras of Atzeret (Shavuot) and in the peras of the Feast [of Sukkot], the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did they say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei? Because it is a Yom Tov and you cannot tithe on a Yom Tov. Consequently they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. Rabbi Meir says: the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle. Ben Azzai says: those born in Elul are tithed by themselves.

There are three periods [lit. threshing floors] for the tithe of cattle: in the peras of Pesah, in the peras of Atzeret (Shavuot) and in the peras of the Feast [of Sukkot], the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did they say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei? Because it is a Yom Tov and you cannot tithe on a Yom Tov. Consequently they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. Rabbi Meir says: the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle. Ben Azzai says: those born in Elul are tithed by themselves.

One at the point of death or about to be put to death cannot have his worth vowed, nor be evaluated. Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia says: he can be evaluated because his value is fixed, but his worth cannot be vowed because his worth is not fixed. Rabbi Yose says: he may vow, evaluate, and consecrate [to the sanctuary], and if he caused damage, he is obliged to make restitution.

They were slaves of the priests, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose said: they were of families from Bet Hapegarim, Bet-Zipparya and from Emmaus, places from which priests would marry [women]. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos said: they were Levites.

There were never less than twelve levites standing on the platform and their number could be increased into infinity. No minor could enter the court of the sanctuary to take part in the service except when the Levites stood up to sing. Nor did they join in the singing with harp and lyre, but with the mouth alone, to add flavor to the music. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: they did not count in the required number, nor did they stand on the platform. Rather they would stand on the ground, so that their heads were between the feet of the levites. And they were called the youth of the Levites.

[The property] of orphans which has been evaluated [must be proclaimed for] thirty days. And [the property of] the Sanctuary which has been evaluated, [for] sixty days. They must make the proclamation in the morning and in the evening. If a man dedicates his property to the Sanctuary and he is still liable for his wife’s ketubah: Rabbi Eliezer says: when he divorces her he must vow that he will not derive any further benefit from her. Rabbi Joshua says: he need not do so. Similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: Also if one guarantees a woman's ketubah and her husband divorces her, the husband must vow to derive no benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of that man [the guarantor] and take his wife back again.

A man may proscribe [part] of his flock or of his herd, of his Canaanite slaves or female slaves or of his field of possession. But if he proscribed all of them, they are not considered [validly] proscribed, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: just as when it comes to the Highest One, one is not permitted to proscribe all of his possessions, how much more so should one be careful with his property.

Things proscribed for [the use of] the priests cannot be redeemed but are to be given to the priests. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: things proscribed without specification fall to [the fund for] Temple repairs, as it was said: “Every proscribed thing is most holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:25). But the sages say: things proscribed without specification go to the priests, as it is said: “As a field proscribed: its possession belongs to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). If so, why is it said: “Every proscribed thing is most holy to the Lord”? This teaches that it applies to most holy and less holy things.

A city whose roofs [look as if] they form its wall, Or that was not encompassed by a wall in the days of Joshua ben Nun, is not considered like houses in a walled city. [A house in any of] the following counts a house in a walled city: [those in a city] of no less than three courtyards, having two houses each, which have been encompassed by a wall in the days of Joshua ben Nun, such as the old acropolis of Tzippori, the fort of Gush-Halav, old Yodfat, Gamla, G'dod, Hadid, Ono, Jerusalem and other similar cities.

A city whose roofs [look as if] they form its wall, Or that was not encompassed by a wall in the days of Joshua ben Nun, is not considered like houses in a walled city. [A house in any of] the following counts a house in a walled city: [those in a city] of no less than three courtyards, having two houses each, which have been encompassed by a wall in the days of Joshua ben Nun, such as the old acropolis of Tzippori, the fort of Gush-Halav, old Yodfat, Gamla, G'dod, Hadid, Ono, Jerusalem and other similar cities.

Houses in courtyards - we accord to them the advantages of houses in a walled city and the advantages given to fields: They can be redeemed at once, and at any time within the twelve months like houses [in a walled city], and they return [to the owners] in the Jubilee or [at an earlier time] by [payment of a] reduced price like fields. The following are considered houses in courtyards: [a city which has] two courtyards, each having two houses, even though they have been encompassed by a wall since the days of Joshua ben Nun, they count as houses in courtyards.

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

If it gave birth to two males, one of them shall be offered as an olah and the second shall be sold to persons obligated to bring an olah and its money becomes hullin. If it gave birth to two females, one of them is offered as a shelamim and the second is sold to persons obligated to bring shelamim and the money becomes hullin. If [the animal] gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: no holiness attaches to them.

With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar. The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Eliezer says it may not be offered on the altar. But the sages say it may be offered. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar. Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat.

If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.

There are four persons who require a ceremony of atonement, and there are four who bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The following are those who require a ceremony of atonement: the zav, the zavah, the woman who gave birth and the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: also a convert is regarded as a person who still requires a ceremony of atonement until the blood has been sprinkled for him; the same applies to the nazirite with reference to wine, haircutting and uncleanness.

To which type of female slave [does this refer]? To one who is half a slave and half a free person, as it is written: “And she has been redeemed and not redeemed” (Leviticus 19:20), the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: to a full female slave. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: all other forbidden sexual relations are stated explicitly, and of the remainder there is only one who can be half a slave and half a free person.

If one had relations with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. And so too, if one had intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law or of his mother-in-law. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: if one had intercourse with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. They said to him: all these three are the same name.

Rabbi Eliezer says: one may freely offer an asham talui every day and at any time he pleases and such a sacrifice is called the asham of the pious. They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to freely offer an asham talui every day, except on the day after Yom Kippur. He declared: By this temple! Had they allowed me, I would have offered one even then, but they said to me, wait until you have come to a state of doubt.” But the sages say one may not bring an asham talui except for a sin that [is punished by] karet [when done intentionally and for which one brings a hatat [when done unwittingly.

The one who had merited to clear the ashes, would get ready to clear the ashes. They said to him: “Be careful not to touch any vessel until you have washed your hands and feet from the laver. See, the fire-pan is in the corner between the ascent and the altar on the west of the ascent.” No one entered with him, nor did he carry any light. Rather, he walked by the light of the altar fire. No-one saw him or heard a sound from him until they heard the noise of the wooden wheel which Ben Katin made for hauling up the laver, when they said, “The time has come.” He washed his hands and feet from the laver, then took the silver fire-pan and went up to the top of the altar and cleared away the cinders on either side and scooped up the ashes in the centre. He then descended and when he reached the floor he turned his face to the north and went along the east side of the ascent for about ten cubits, and he then made a heap of the cinders on the pavement three handbreadths away from the ascent, in the place where they used to put the crop of the birds and the ashes from the inner altar and the ash from the menorah.

He then said to them: Go out and see if it is yet time for the slaughter. If the time had come, the one who saw would say, “There are flashes.” Matya ben Samuel says: [He used to say] Has the whole of the east [of the sky] lit up. as far as Hebron? And he [the observer] would answer yes.

From Jericho they could hear the sound of the great gate being opened. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the magrephah. From Jericho they could hear the noise of the wooden pulley which Ben Katin made for the laver. From Jericho they could hear the voice of Gevini the herald. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the pipes. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the cymbals. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the singing [of the Levites]. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the shofar. Some say also of the high priest when he pronounced the divine name on Yom Kippur. From Jericho they could smell the odor of the compounding of incense. Rabbi Elazar ben Diglai said: my father had some goats in Har Michvar, and they would sneeze from the smell of the incense.

From Jericho they could hear the sound of the great gate being opened. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the magrephah. From Jericho they could hear the noise of the wooden pulley which Ben Katin made for the laver. From Jericho they could hear the voice of Gevini the herald. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the pipes. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the cymbals. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the singing [of the Levites]. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the shofar. Some say also of the high priest when he pronounced the divine name on Yom Kippur. From Jericho they could smell the odor of the compounding of incense. Rabbi Elazar ben Diglai said: my father had some goats in Har Michvar, and they would sneeze from the smell of the incense.

He said to them: those who are new to the incense come and draw lots, and who ever won, won. He then said: new and old, come and draw lots to see who shall take up the limbs from the ascent to the altar. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: the one who brought the limbs on to the ascent also takes them up to the altar.

If the high priest wished to burn the offerings [himself], he would go up the ascent with the deputy high priest at his right. When he reached the middle of the ascent the deputy took hold of his right hand and helped him up. The first [of the other priests] then handed to him the head and the foot and he laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then handed to the first the two fore legs. And he handed them to the high priest who laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then went away. In the same way all the other limbs were handed to him and he laid his hands on them and threw them [on to the altar fire]. If he wanted, he could lay his hands and let others throw [them] on the fire. He then went around the altar. From where did he begin? From the southeastern corner; from there he went to the northeastern, then to the northwestern and then to the southwestern. They there handed him the wine for libation. The deputy high priest stood on the corner/horn of the altar with the flags in his hand, and two priests on the table of the fats with two trumpets in their hands. They blew a teki’ah, a teru’ah and a teki’ah. They then went and stood by Ben Arza, one on his right hand and one on his left. When he bent down to make the libation the deputy high priest waved the flags and Ben Arza struck the cymbals and the Levites sang the psalm. When they came to a pause they blew a teki’ah, and the public bowed down. At every pause there was a teki’ah and at every teki’ah a bowing down. This was the order of the regular daily sacrifice for the service of our Lord. May it be His will that it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.

If the high priest wished to burn the offerings [himself], he would go up the ascent with the deputy high priest at his right. When he reached the middle of the ascent the deputy took hold of his right hand and helped him up. The first [of the other priests] then handed to him the head and the foot and he laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then handed to the first the two fore legs. And he handed them to the high priest who laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then went away. In the same way all the other limbs were handed to him and he laid his hands on them and threw them [on to the altar fire]. If he wanted, he could lay his hands and let others throw [them] on the fire. He then went around the altar. From where did he begin? From the southeastern corner; from there he went to the northeastern, then to the northwestern and then to the southwestern. They there handed him the wine for libation. The deputy high priest stood on the corner/horn of the altar with the flags in his hand, and two priests on the table of the fats with two trumpets in their hands. They blew a teki’ah, a teru’ah and a teki’ah. They then went and stood by Ben Arza, one on his right hand and one on his left. When he bent down to make the libation the deputy high priest waved the flags and Ben Arza struck the cymbals and the Levites sang the psalm. When they came to a pause they blew a teki’ah, and the public bowed down. At every pause there was a teki’ah and at every teki’ah a bowing down. This was the order of the regular daily sacrifice for the service of our Lord. May it be His will that it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.

The officer of the Temple Mount used to go round to every watch, with lighted torches before him, and if any watcher did not rise [at his approach] and say to him, “Shalom to you, officer of the Temple Mount, it was obvious that he was asleep. Then he used to beat him with his rod. And he had permission to burn his clothes. And the others would say: What is the noise in the courtyard? It is the cry of a Levite who is being beaten and whose clothes are being burned, because he was asleep at his watch. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: once they found my mother's brother asleep, and they burnt his clothes.

There was a place there [in the fire chamber] one cubit square on which was a slab of marble. In this was fixed a ring and a chain on which the keys were hung. When closing time came, the priest would raise the slab by the ring and take the keys from the chain. Then the priest would lock up within while the Levite was sleeping outside. When he had finished locking up, he would replace the keys on the chain and the slab in its place and put his garment on it and sleep there. If one of them had a seminal emission, he would go out by the winding stair which went under the Birah, and which was lighted with lamps on both sides, until he reached the bathing place. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: he descended by the winding stair which went under the Hel and he went out by the Taddi gate.

The courtyard of the women was a hundred and thirty-five cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five wide. It had four chambers in its four corners, each of which was forty cubits. They were not roofed, and so they will be in the time to come, as it says, “Then he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold in every corner of the court there was a court. In the four corners of the court there were keturot courts” (Ezekiel 46:21-22) and keturot means that they were not roofed. For what were they used? The southeastern one was the chamber of the Nazirites where the Nazirites used to boil their shelamim and shave their hair and throw it under the pot. The northeastern one was the wood chamber where priests with physical defects used to pick out the wood which had worms, every piece with a worm in it being unfit for use on the altar. The northwestern one was the chamber of those with skin disease. The southwestern one: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: they used to store there wine and oil, and it was called the chamber of oil. It [the courtyard of the women] had originally been smooth [without protrusions in the walls] but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, and they should not mix together. Fifteen steps led up from it to the courtyard of Israel, corresponding to the fifteen [songs of] ascents mentioned in the Book of Psalms, and upon which the Levites used to sing. They were not rectangular but circular like the half of a threshing floor.

There were chambers underneath the Court of Israel which opened into the Court of Women, where the Levites used to keep lyres and lutes and cymbals and all kinds of musical instruments. The Court of Israel was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. Similarly the Court of the Priests was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. And a row of mosaic stones separated the Court of Israel from the Court of the Priests. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: there was a step a cubit high on which a platform was placed, and it had three steps each of half a cubit in height. In this way the Court of the Priests was made two and a half cubits higher than that of Israel. The whole of the Court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth. And thirteen prostrations were made there. Abba Yose ben Hanan says: they were made facing the thirteen gates. On the south beginning from the west there were the upper gate, the gate of burning, the gate of the firstborn, and the water gate. And why was it called the water gate? Because they brought in through it the pitcher of water for libation on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: in it the water welled up, and in the time to come from there it will come out from under the threshold of the Temple. Corresponding to them in the north beginning in the west were the gate of Yehoniah, the gate of the offering, the women's gate, the gate of song. Why was it called the gate of Yehoniah? Because Yehoniah went forth into captivity through it. On the east was the gate of Nicanor; it had two doors, one on its right and one on its left. There were further two gates in the west which had no special name.

There were chambers underneath the Court of Israel which opened into the Court of Women, where the Levites used to keep lyres and lutes and cymbals and all kinds of musical instruments. The Court of Israel was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. Similarly the Court of the Priests was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. And a row of mosaic stones separated the Court of Israel from the Court of the Priests. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: there was a step a cubit high on which a platform was placed, and it had three steps each of half a cubit in height. In this way the Court of the Priests was made two and a half cubits higher than that of Israel. The whole of the Court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth. And thirteen prostrations were made there. Abba Yose ben Hanan says: they were made facing the thirteen gates. On the south beginning from the west there were the upper gate, the gate of burning, the gate of the firstborn, and the water gate. And why was it called the water gate? Because they brought in through it the pitcher of water for libation on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: in it the water welled up, and in the time to come from there it will come out from under the threshold of the Temple. Corresponding to them in the north beginning in the west were the gate of Yehoniah, the gate of the offering, the women's gate, the gate of song. Why was it called the gate of Yehoniah? Because Yehoniah went forth into captivity through it. On the east was the gate of Nicanor; it had two doors, one on its right and one on its left. There were further two gates in the west which had no special name.

There were chambers underneath the Court of Israel which opened into the Court of Women, where the Levites used to keep lyres and lutes and cymbals and all kinds of musical instruments. The Court of Israel was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. Similarly the Court of the Priests was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. And a row of mosaic stones separated the Court of Israel from the Court of the Priests. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: there was a step a cubit high on which a platform was placed, and it had three steps each of half a cubit in height. In this way the Court of the Priests was made two and a half cubits higher than that of Israel. The whole of the Court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth. And thirteen prostrations were made there. Abba Yose ben Hanan says: they were made facing the thirteen gates. On the south beginning from the west there were the upper gate, the gate of burning, the gate of the firstborn, and the water gate. And why was it called the water gate? Because they brought in through it the pitcher of water for libation on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: in it the water welled up, and in the time to come from there it will come out from under the threshold of the Temple. Corresponding to them in the north beginning in the west were the gate of Yehoniah, the gate of the offering, the women's gate, the gate of song. Why was it called the gate of Yehoniah? Because Yehoniah went forth into captivity through it. On the east was the gate of Nicanor; it had two doors, one on its right and one on its left. There were further two gates in the west which had no special name.

On the south were the wood chamber, the chamber of the exile and the chamber of hewn stones. The wood chamber: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: It was the chamber of the high priest, and it was behind the two of them, and one roof covered all three. In the chamber of the exile there was a fixed cistern, with a wheel over it, and from there water was provided for all of the courtyard. In the chamber of hewn stone the great Sanhedrin of Israel used to sit and judge the priesthood. A priest in whom was found a disqualification used to put on black garments and wrap himself in black and go away. One in whom no disqualification was found used to put on white garments and wrap himself in white and go in and serve along with his brother priests. They used to make a feast because no blemish had been found in the seed of Aaron the priest, and they used to say: Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, for no blemish has been found in the seed of Aaron. Blessed is He who chose Aaron and his sons to stand to minister before the Lord in the Holy of Holies.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."

As regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of the larger but broken vessels] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold oil sufficient for the anointing of a little finger of a child [if their former capacity] was that of a log. If [their former capacity] was from one log to a se'ah [their present capacity] must be a quarter of a log. If it was from a se'ah to two se'ah it must be half a log. If from two se'ah to three se'ah or as much as five se'ah it must be a log, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: I do not prescribe any size for the unbroken vessels, rather: as regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of larger but broken ones] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold enough oil to anoint the little finger of a child. [This size is prescribed for pots] that are not bigger than the small cooking-pots. For small cooking-pots and for those between these and the jars from Lydda the prescribed capacity is a quarter of a log. For those which have a size between that of Lydda jars and Bethlehem jars the capacity must be that of half a log. For those between Bethlehem jars and large stone jars the capacity must be that of a log. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai says: [the prescribed capacity for the fragments] of large stone jars is two logs, and that for the bottoms of broken Galilean flasks and small jars is any whatsoever, but the fragments of their sides are not susceptible to impurity

A lantern that has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to impurity, but one that has none is not susceptible. A potter's mould on which one begins to shape the clay is not susceptible to impurity, but that on which one finishes it is susceptible. A funnel for home use is not susceptible to impurity, but that of merchants is susceptible because it also serves as a measure, the words of Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Akiva says: because he puts it on its side to let the buyer smell it.

The following among earthen vessels are susceptible to impurity: A tray with a rim, An unbroken fire-pan, And a tray made up of dishes, If one of them was defiled by a [dead] creeping thing they do not all become unclean, But if it had a rim that projected above the rims of the dishes and one of them was defiled all are unclean. Similarly with an earthen spice-box and a double ink-pot, and a wooden spice-box, if one container was defiled from a liquid, the other is not unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: its thickness is divided and that side which serves the unclean one is unclean while that which serves the clean one remains clean. If its rim projects above the others and one of them contracted impurity the other is unclean.

A jar which which was pierced and the hole stopped up with more pitch than was necessary: That which touches the needed portion is unclean, But that which touches the unneeded portion is clean. Pitch which dripped upon a jar, that which touches it is clean. A wooden or earthen funnel which was stopped up with pitch: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean when it is of wood and clean when it is of earthenware. Rabbi Yose says that both are clean.

If he cut the oven up into rings, and then he put sand between each pair of rings, Rabbi Eliezer says: it is clean. But the sages say: it is unclean. This is the oven of Akhnai. As regards Arabian vats, which are holes dug in the ground and plastered with clay, if the plastering can stand of itself it is susceptible to impurity; Otherwise it is not susceptible. This is the oven of Ben Dinai.

A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air-space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.

How do we measure them? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he puts the measuring-rod between them, and any part that is outside the measuring-rod is clean while any part inside the measuring-rod, including the place of the measuring-rod itself, is unclean.

Metal vessels, whether they are flat or form a receptacle, are susceptible to impurity. On being broken they become clean. If they were re-made into vessels they revert to their former impurity. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: this does not apply to every form of impurity but only to that contracted from a corpse.

If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels. From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean. [If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean.

The pomegranates of which they have spoken--three attached to one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in a sifter or a sieve [the size of the hole must be such that a pomegranate will drop out] when one picks it up and walks about with it. In a basket it must be such [as would allow a pomegranate] to fall through while one hangs it behind him. And all other vessels which cannot hold pomegranates as, for instance, the quarter kav measure and the half quarter kav measure, and small baskets, the size [of their holes must be] such as would extend over the greater part of them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: [the size of their hole must be such that] olives [could fall through]. If their sides were broken [the size of their hole must be] such as olives would drop through. If they are worn away the size must be such as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them [to drop through].

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.

Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv, The quantity being the food one eats on weekdays and not on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: as on Shabbat and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the more lenient ruling. Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made of a kav. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pundium when the price of wheat is four se'ah for a sela’.

And sometimes they stated a large measure: A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke.

The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the first day. There can be no uncleanness in what was created on the second day. The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the third day. No there can be no uncleanness in what was created on the fourth day and on the fifth day, except for the wing of the vulture or an ostrich-egg that is plated. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: why should the wing of a vulture be different from all other wings? The laws of uncleanness can apply to all that was created on the sixth day.

The beam of a balance and a leveler that contain a receptacle for metal, carrying-stick that has a receptacle for money, a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water, and a stick that has a receptacle for a mezuzah and for pearls are susceptible to uncleanness. About all these Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Oy to me if I should mention them, Oy to me if I don't mention them.

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.

An Imki sandal and a laced-up bag, Rabbi Judah says: also an Egyptian basket; Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: also to a Lattakian sandal can be made susceptible to uncleanness and again be made insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman. Rabbi Yose said: But can't all vessels be made susceptible to uncleanness and again insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman? Rather, these, even when they are unlaced are susceptible to uncleanness since a layman is able to restore them. They spoke only of an Egyptian basket which even a craftsman cannot [easily] restore.

If a bandage is made of cloth or leather it is pure. (Rabbi Yose says: with leather it is pure.) A poultice is pure if it is on cloth, but if on leather it is susceptible. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if it was on cloth it remains susceptible to uncleanness because it can be shaken off.

A porter's pad is susceptible to midras uncleanness. A wine filter is not susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. An old woman's hair-net is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. A prostitute's shirt which is woven like a net is not susceptible to uncleanness. A garment made of fishing net is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one made of its bag is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a garment is made out of a fishing net but is made double it is susceptible to uncleanness.

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.

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.

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.

All objects that defile by overshadowing which were divided and then brought into a house: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares clean. But the sages declare [it] unclean. What is the case? One who touches two pieces of nevelah, each the size of half an olive, or carries them, Or, in the case of a corpse, if he touches a piece the size of half an olive and overshadows [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him, Or if he overshadows two [pieces, each] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean, And the sages declare him unclean. But if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, he is clean. Rabbi Meir says: Even here Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean and the sages declare him unclean. Every [case] is unclean except [a case of] contact [combined] with carriage or of carriage [combined] with overshadowing. This is the general principle: every object [whose defilement] proceeds from one cause is unclean, from two causes is clean.

All objects that defile by overshadowing which were divided and then brought into a house: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares clean. But the sages declare [it] unclean. What is the case? One who touches two pieces of nevelah, each the size of half an olive, or carries them, Or, in the case of a corpse, if he touches a piece the size of half an olive and overshadows [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him, Or if he overshadows two [pieces, each] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean, And the sages declare him unclean. But if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, he is clean. Rabbi Meir says: Even here Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean and the sages declare him unclean. Every [case] is unclean except [a case of] contact [combined] with carriage or of carriage [combined] with overshadowing. This is the general principle: every object [whose defilement] proceeds from one cause is unclean, from two causes is clean.

All objects that defile by overshadowing which were divided and then brought into a house: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares clean. But the sages declare [it] unclean. What is the case? One who touches two pieces of nevelah, each the size of half an olive, or carries them, Or, in the case of a corpse, if he touches a piece the size of half an olive and overshadows [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him, Or if he overshadows two [pieces, each] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean, And the sages declare him unclean. But if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, he is clean. Rabbi Meir says: Even here Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean and the sages declare him unclean. Every [case] is unclean except [a case of] contact [combined] with carriage or of carriage [combined] with overshadowing. This is the general principle: every object [whose defilement] proceeds from one cause is unclean, from two causes is clean.

Vessels beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar] remain clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them unclean. [In the case of] the uncleanness and the vessels being [together] beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar]: If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth there, [the vessels] become unclean; If not, they remain clean. [In the case of] two wall-cupboards, one beside the other, or one above the other, if one of them was opened, both it and the house become unclean, but its companion remains clean. The wall-cupboard is considered as if it is plugged up, and it is subject to the principle of halves for conveying uncleanness into the house.

Some things bring forth uncleanness and [also] a protect [against it]; [Some things] bring forth uncleanness but do not protect against it; [Some things] protect but do not bring forth; [Some things] do not bring forth nor do they protect. The following bring forth and protect against [impurity]: A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water-tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms and can contain [at least] forty seahs liquid measure or two kors dry measure. [Also] a curtain, a leather apron, a leather bedspread, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when made into tents. A herd of cattle, unclean or clean, packs of wild animals or birds, a resting bird, a [shady] place that [a woman] makes for her son among the ears of corn; The iris, the ivy, squirting cucumber, Greek gourds and clean foodstuffs. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri did not agree with regard to clean foodstuffs except in the case of a cake of dried figs.

A dog which had eaten the flesh of a corpse and then died and was lying over the threshold: Rabbi Meir says: if its neck has a thickness of one handbreadth it can bring the uncleanness, but if not, it does not bring the uncleanness. Rabbi Yose says: we [examine to] see where the uncleanness is. If it is beneath the lintel and inwards, the house becomes unclean; if from the lintel and outwards, the house remains clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: if its mouth [points] inwards, the house remains clean; if its mouth [points] outwards, the house becomes unclean, since the uncleanness goes out through its hind. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in either case the house becomes unclean. How long can [the uncleanness] remain in its entrails? Three whole days. [If in the entrails] of fishes or birds, as long as [it takes for the uncleanness] to fall in the fire and be consumed, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in the case of fishes or birds, twenty-four hours.

A dog which had eaten the flesh of a corpse and then died and was lying over the threshold: Rabbi Meir says: if its neck has a thickness of one handbreadth it can bring the uncleanness, but if not, it does not bring the uncleanness. Rabbi Yose says: we [examine to] see where the uncleanness is. If it is beneath the lintel and inwards, the house becomes unclean; if from the lintel and outwards, the house remains clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: if its mouth [points] inwards, the house remains clean; if its mouth [points] outwards, the house becomes unclean, since the uncleanness goes out through its hind. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in either case the house becomes unclean. How long can [the uncleanness] remain in its entrails? Three whole days. [If in the entrails] of fishes or birds, as long as [it takes for the uncleanness] to fall in the fire and be consumed, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in the case of fishes or birds, twenty-four hours.

A board placed over the mouth of a new oven, overlapping it on all sides to the extent of a handbreadth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the board], vessels above it remain clean; If there is uncleanness above it, vessels beneath it remain clean. In the case of an old oven, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean. [If the board] is placed over the mouth of two ovens, if there is uncleanness between them, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean.

A board placed over the mouth of a new oven, overlapping it on all sides to the extent of a handbreadth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the board], vessels above it remain clean; If there is uncleanness above it, vessels beneath it remain clean. In the case of an old oven, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean. [If the board] is placed over the mouth of two ovens, if there is uncleanness between them, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean.

A rod above a doorway, even if one hundred cubits higher, forms a passage for the uncleanness no matter its width, the words of Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: don't be more stringent than the case of a projection.

Colonnades are not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling places. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a non-Jewish city that has been destroyed is not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling-places. The east [side] of Caesaron and the west [side] of Caesaron are graveyards. The east [side] of Acre was doubtful, but the sages declared it clean. Rabbi and his law court voted [to decide] about Keni and declared it clean.

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.

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.

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.