cleanness

The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.

Therefore the LORD hath recompensed me according to my righteousness; according to my cleanness in his eye sight.

The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.

Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.

And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

Again he led me where was the river of milk, and I saw in that place all the children whom the king Herod slew for the name of Christ, and they greeted me, and the angel said unto me: All they that keep chastity in cleanness, when they are gone out of the body, after they worship the Lord God, are delivered unto Michael and brought unto the children: and they greet them, saying: They are our brothers and friends and members: among them shall they inherit the promises of God.

And Misdaeus said unto Judas: Wherefore teachest thou this new doctrine, which both gods and men hate, and which hath nought of profit? And Judas said: What evil do I teach? And Misdaeus said: Thou teachest, saying that men (cannot live well except they chastely) with the God whom thou preachest. Judas saith: Thou sayest true, O king: thus do I teach. For tell me, art thou not wroth with thy soldiers if they wait on thee in filthy garments? if then thou, being a king of earth and returning unto earth, request thy subjects to be reverend in their doings, are ye wroth and said ye that I teach ill when I say that they who serve my king must be reverend and pure and free from all grief and care of children and unprofitable riches and vain trouble? For indeed thou wouldest have thy subjects follow thy conversation and thy manners, and thou punishest them if they despise thy commandments: how much more must they that believe on him serve my God with much reverence and cleanness and security, and be quit of all pleasures of the body, adultery and prodigality and theft and drunkenness and belly-service and foul deeds?

And a certain woman which was exceeding beautiful, the wife of Albinus, Caesar's friend, by name Xanthippe, came, she also, unto Peter, with the rest of the matrons, and withdrew herself, she also, from Albinus. He therefore being mad, and loving Xanthippe, and marvelling that she would not sleep even upon the same bed with him, raged like a wild beast and would have dispatched Peter; for he knew that he was the cause of her separating from his bed. Many other women also, loving the word of chastity, separated themselves from their husbands, because they desired them to worship God in sobriety and cleanness. And whereas there was great trouble in Rome, Albinus made known his state unto Agrippa, saying to him: Either do thou avenge me of Peter that hath withdrawn my wife, or I will avenge myself. And Agrippa said: I have suffered the same at his hand, for he hath withdrawn my concubines. And Albinus said unto him: Why then tarriest thou, Agrippa? let us find him and put him to death for a dealer in curious arts, that we may have our wives again, and avenge them also which are not able to put him to death, whose wives also he hath parted from them.

And when a man washes himself in it, becomes clean of the cleanness thereof, and white of its whiteness--even if he were dark.

And sacrifice unto Me a clean sacrifice with cleanness, and I will accept thee after thou hast sanctified thyself and thy house; command all the people to sanctify themselves, for My holy things [must be offered] by holy ones.

On the tenth day of the same lunar month, they fast till the evening; and this day they sacrifice a bull, and two rams, and seven lambs, and a kid of the goats, for sins. And, besides these, they bring two kids of the goats; the one of which is sent alive out of the limits of the camp into the wilderness for the scapegoat, and to be an expiation for the sins of the whole multitude; but the other is brought into a place of great cleanness, within the limits of the camp, and is there burnt, with its skin, without any sort of cleansing. With this goat was burnt a bull, not brought by the people, but by the high priest, at his own charges; which, when it was slain, he brought of the blood into the holy place, together with the blood of the kid of the goats, and sprinkled the ceiling with his finger seven times, as also its pavement, and again as often toward the most holy place, and about the golden altar: he also at last brings it into the open court, and sprinkles it about the great altar. Besides this, they set the extremities, and the kidneys, and the fat, with the lobe of the liver, upon the altar. The high priest likewise presents a ram to God as a burnt-offering.

Now, when it is said that all things were made by Him, and that in Him were all things created, both things in heaven and things on earth, there can be no doubt that also those things which are in the firmament, which is called heaven, and in which those luminaries are said to be placed, are included amongst the number of heavenly things. And secondly, seeing that the course of the discussion has manifestly discovered that all things were made or created, and that amongst created things there is nothing which may not admit of good and evil, and be capable of either, what are we to think of the following opinion which certain of our friends entertain regarding sun, moon, and stars, viz. that they are unchangeable, and incapable of becoming the opposite of what they are? Not a few have held that view even regarding the holy angels, and certain heretics also regarding souls, which they call spiritual natures. In the first place, then, let us see what reason itself can discover respecting sun, moon, and stars,—whether the opinion, entertained by some, of their unchangeableness be correct,—and let the declarations of holy Scripture, as far as possible, be first adduced. For Job appears to assert that not only may the stars be subject to sin, but even that they are actually not clean from the contagion of it. The following are his words: “The stars also are not clean in Thy sight.” Nor is this to be understood of the splendour of their physical substance, as if one were to say, for example, of a garment, that it is not clean; for if such were the meaning, then the accusation of a want of cleanness in the splendour of their bodily substance would imply an injurious reflection upon their Creator. For if they are unable, through their own diligent efforts, either to acquire for themselves a body of greater brightness, or through their sloth to make the one they have less pure, how should they incur censure for being stars that are not clean, if they receive no praise because they are so?

A jar [of terumah] was broken in the upper part of the wine-press, and the lower part was unclean: Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if one can save at least a reviit of it in cleanness he should save it. But if not: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it flow down and become unclean of its own accord, and let him not make it unclean with his own hands.

A woman may sit and separate hallah while she is naked, since she can cover herself but a man may not. If one is not able to make one's dough in cleanness he should make it [in separate] kavs, rather than make it in uncleanness. But Rabbi Akiva says: let him make it in uncleanness rather than make it [in separate] kavs, just as he calls the clean, so too he calls the unclean; this one he calls hallah with the Name, and the other he also calls hallah with the Name, but [separate] kavs have no portion [devoted] to the Name.

Dough which became medumma before she had rolled it, it is exempt [from hallah]. If after she had rolled it, it is subject [to hallah]. If there occurred to her some doubtful uncleanness before she had rolled it, it may be completed in uncleanness. If after she had rolled it, it should be completed in cleanness.

A man may take the requisite amount for hallah out of [clean] dough from which hallah has not [previously] been removed in order to remove it in a state of cleanness in order to go on separating [hallah] from it for [unclean] demai, until it becomes putrid, since hallah for demai may be taken from clean [dough] for unclean [dough], and from [one dough for another dough] which is not in close proximity.

In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness [the judges declare their opinion] beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from [them that sit at] the side. All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give [their daughters] in marriage to priests.

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.

If a sheretz was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that it fell there while it was still alive and that it died only now. If a needle or a ring was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that they were there before the oven arrived. If it was found in the wood ashes, the oven is unclean since one has no ground on which to base an assumption of cleanness.

If olive peat or grape skins had been prepared in conditions of cleanness, and unclean persons trod upon them and afterwards liquids emerged from them, they remain clean, since they had originally been prepared in conditions of cleanness. If a spindle hook was sunk into the spindle, or the iron point into the ox goad, or a ring into a brick, and all these were clean, and then they were brought into a tent in which was a corpse, they become unclean. If a zav caused them to move they become unclean. If they then fell into the air-space of a clean oven, they cause it to be unclean. If a loaf of terumah came in contact with them, it remains clean.

If olive peat or grape skins had been prepared in conditions of cleanness, and unclean persons trod upon them and afterwards liquids emerged from them, they remain clean, since they had originally been prepared in conditions of cleanness. If a spindle hook was sunk into the spindle, or the iron point into the ox goad, or a ring into a brick, and all these were clean, and then they were brought into a tent in which was a corpse, they become unclean. If a zav caused them to move they become unclean. If they then fell into the air-space of a clean oven, they cause it to be unclean. If a loaf of terumah came in contact with them, it remains clean.

A small flask whose neck was removed remains susceptible to uncleanness, But a large one whose neck was removed becomes pure. [A small flask] of spikenard oil whose neck was removed becomes pure, since it scratches the hand. Large flagons whose necks were removed remain susceptible to uncleanness, since they are adapted for the use of holding pickled foods. A glass funnel is clean. Rabbi Yose said: Happy are you Kelim; for you began with uncleanness, but you ended with cleanness.

If one buys a field in Syria near to the land of Israel: If he can enter it in cleanness, it is deemed clean and is subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce]; But he cannot enter it in cleanness, it [is deemed] unclean, but it is still subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce]. The dwelling-places of non-Jews are unclean. How long must [the non-Jew] have dwelt in [the dwelling-places] for them to require examination? Forty days, even if there was no woman with him. If, however, a slave or [an Israelite] woman watched over [the dwelling-place], it does not require examination.

If one buys a field in Syria near to the land of Israel: If he can enter it in cleanness, it is deemed clean and is subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce]; But he cannot enter it in cleanness, it [is deemed] unclean, but it is still subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce]. The dwelling-places of non-Jews are unclean. How long must [the non-Jew] have dwelt in [the dwelling-places] for them to require examination? Forty days, even if there was no woman with him. If, however, a slave or [an Israelite] woman watched over [the dwelling-place], it does not require examination.

There are [laws] that apply to the white hair that do not apply to the spreading, while others apply to the spreading and do not apply to the white hair. That white hair causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever the state of its whiteness, and it is never a sign of cleanness. There are laws that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness for all negaim and even when it is outside the nega, and these laws do not apply to the white hair.

There are [laws] that apply to the quick flesh that do not apply to the spreading, while other restrictions apply to the spreading and do not apply to the quick flesh. That quick flesh causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever its color, and it is never a sign of cleanness. There are [laws] that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness in all forms of negaim and also where it is outside the leprosy sign, and these laws do not apply to the quick flesh.

There are [laws] that apply to white hair that do not apply to quick flesh, while others apply to quick flesh and not to white hair. White hair causes uncleanness in a boil and in a burn, whether growing together or dispersed, and whether encompassed or unencompassed. There are [laws] that apply to quick flesh, for quick flesh causes uncleanness in scalp baldness and in forehead baldness, whether it was turned or was not turned, it prevents the cleanness of one who is turned all white, and causes uncleanness whatever its color, and these do not apply to white hair.

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.

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.

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.

If one had a bright spot and it was cut off, he becomes clean; If he cut it off intentionally: Rabbi Eliezer says: [he is clean] only after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages say: only after it has spread over all his body. If it was on the tip of one's foreskin, he should be circumcised.

If it broke out covering all of his skin all at once: If this originated in a condition of cleanness, he is unclean; But if it originated in a condition of uncleanness, he is clean. One who becomes clean after having been isolated is exempt from the uncovering his head and rending his clothes, from shaving his hair and from bringing the birds. If he becomes clean after he had been certified unclean, he is liable to all these. Both convey uncleanness by entering.

Yellow hair that preceded a scall is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: it neither causes uncleanness nor does it afford protection. Rabbi Shimon says: anything in a scall that is not a sign of uncleanness is a sign of cleanness.

There are ten [laws concerning the negaim in] houses:(1 + If during the first week a nega became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and is then clean. (3 + If during the second week it became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and the owner must bring the birds. If it spread during the first week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. If it then returned the entire house must be pulled down; If it did not return, the birds must be brought. If it remained unchanged during the first week but spread during the second week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. If it then returned, the house must be pulled down; If it did not return the birds must be brought. If it remained unchanged in both weeks, the stones must be taken out, and the wall scraped and plastered, and a week must be allowed. If it then returned the house must be pulled down; If it did not return, the birds must be brought. If before cleanness was attained through the birds a new nega appeared, the house must be pulled down; But if it appeared after cleanness through the birds had been attained, it must be inspected as if it had appeared for the first time.

There are ten [laws concerning the negaim in] houses:(1 + If during the first week a nega became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and is then clean. (3 + If during the second week it became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and the owner must bring the birds. If it spread during the first week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. If it then returned the entire house must be pulled down; If it did not return, the birds must be brought. If it remained unchanged during the first week but spread during the second week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. If it then returned, the house must be pulled down; If it did not return the birds must be brought. If it remained unchanged in both weeks, the stones must be taken out, and the wall scraped and plastered, and a week must be allowed. If it then returned the house must be pulled down; If it did not return, the birds must be brought. If before cleanness was attained through the birds a new nega appeared, the house must be pulled down; But if it appeared after cleanness through the birds had been attained, it must be inspected as if it had appeared for the first time.

All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (mikveh), for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

A flask for hatat waters whose outer part has become unclean, its inner part also becomes unclean, and it conveys uncleanness to another flask, and the other to another, even if they are a hundred. A bell and a clapper are regarded as connected. In the case of a spindle stick used for coarse material, one should not sprinkle on its stick or ring, but if he sprinkled on one, both are regarded as having been sprinkled upon. A spindle stick used for flax they are regarded as connected. If a leather cover of a crib is fastened to its knobs, both are regarded as connected. The base is not regarded as connected either in respect of uncleanness or cleanness. All drilled handles of utensils are regarded as connected. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: also those that are wedged into holes in the utensils.

Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah.

Second [degree uncleanness] in common food conveys uncleanness to unconsecrated liquids and causes invalidity to terumah food. Third [degree of uncleanness] in terumah conveys uncleanness to consecrated liquids and causes invalidity to holy food that was prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to holy food; But if it was only prepared under conditions of cleanness appropriate to terumah, it conveys uncleanness at a first and at a second remove, and causes invalidity to holy food at one additional remove.

Second [degree uncleanness] in common food conveys uncleanness to unconsecrated liquids and causes invalidity to terumah food. Third [degree of uncleanness] in terumah conveys uncleanness to consecrated liquids and causes invalidity to holy food that was prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to holy food; But if it was only prepared under conditions of cleanness appropriate to terumah, it conveys uncleanness at a first and at a second remove, and causes invalidity to holy food at one additional remove.

If one eats food with second [degree uncleanness he must not work in an olive-press. Common food that was prepared under conditions proper to the cleanness of consecrated food is still regarded as common food. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: it is regarded as terumah to convey uncleanness at two removes and to render terumah invalid at one additional remove.

These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean: A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh, A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water. A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean. A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean. A doubt that arose in a public domain; A doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes; A doubt concerning non-sacred food; A doubt concerning a sheretz; A doubt concerning negaim; A doubt concerning a nazirite vow; A doubt concerning a first-born; A doubt concerning sacrifices.

"If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean." "Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean. "A condition of doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes": [For instance, he is uncertain whether] he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean.

"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. "A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. "A condition of doubt concerning negaim" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. "A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. "A condition of doubt concerning first-borns" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

Colonnades: are a private domain in respect of Shabbat and a public domain in respect of the laws of uncleanness. A courtyard into which many people enter by one door and leave by another, is a private domain in respect of Shabbat and a public domain in respect of the laws of cleanness

If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed. A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness.

If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed. A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness.

If one wants to take from them [a quantity sufficient for] one pressing or for two pressings: Bet Shammai says: he may scrape off [what he requires] in a condition of uncleanness, but he must cover up [what he takes] in a condition of cleanness. Bet Hillel says: he may also cover it up in a condition of uncleanness. Rabbi Yose says: he may dig out [what he requires] with metal axes and carry it to the press in a condition of uncleanness.

One who puts his grapes [into the wine-press] from the baskets or from what was spread out on the ground: Bet Shammai says: he must put them in with clean hands, and if he puts them in with unclean hands he defiles them. Bet Hillel says: he may put them in with unclean hands and then he may set aside his terumah in a condition of cleanness. [If they are taken] from the grape-pot or from what was spread out on leaves, all agree that they must be put in with clean hands, and if they are put in with unclean hands they become unclean.

All seas are equivalent to a mikveh, for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a mikveh, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

Throughout all the eleven days a woman is in a presumption of cleanness. If she did not examine herself if this was unwittingly, under duress or intentionally, she is clean. If the time of her regular period arrived and she did not examine herself she is unclean. Rabbi Meir says: if a woman was in a hiding place when the time of her regular period arrived and she didn't examine herself she is clean, because fear suspends the flow of blood. But during the days prescribed for a zav or a zavah or for one who waits day against day, these are presumed to be unclean.

For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, "her discharge being blood in her body" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body.

If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [from impurity], and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is in a presumptive state of cleanness. If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [impurity], and after a time she examined herself and found that she was clean, she is in a presumptive state of uncleanness. [But] she conveys uncleanness for twenty-four hours retrospectively or during the time between the last and the previous examination. But if she had a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. Rabbi Judah says: Any woman who did not ascertain her separation [from impurity] is regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness. But the sages say: even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after a time she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is regarded as being in a presumptive state of cleanness.

If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [from impurity], and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is in a presumptive state of cleanness. If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [impurity], and after a time she examined herself and found that she was clean, she is in a presumptive state of uncleanness. [But] she conveys uncleanness for twenty-four hours retrospectively or during the time between the last and the previous examination. But if she had a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. Rabbi Judah says: Any woman who did not ascertain her separation [from impurity] is regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness. But the sages say: even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after a time she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is regarded as being in a presumptive state of cleanness.

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.

R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda discoursed: What message did the Synhedrin of the Hewn-Stone-Hall send to Ḥoni the Circle-drawer? (They expounded to him the verses) (Job, 22. 28-30): "Thou shalt also decree a thing and it shall be established unto thee, and light shall shine upon thy ways. When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: 'There is lifting up'; for the humble person He saveth. He shall deliver even him that is not innocent, yea, thou shalt be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands."—"Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee," that is, thou hast decreed here below and the Holy One, blessed be He, established thy decree there above.—"And light shall shine upon thy ways," that is, a generation that was in gloom, thou hast brightened by thy prayer—"When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: 'There is lifting up'", that is, a generation that was cast down, thou hast lifted up by thy prayer. "For the humble person He saveth," that is, a generation whose eyes drooped down, thou hast saved by thy prayer. "He shall deliver even him that is not innocent," that is, a generation that is not innocent, thou hast saved by thy prayer. "Yea, thou shalt be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands," that is, through the work of thy clean hands.

R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda discoursed: What message did the Synhedrin of the Hewn-Stone-Hall send to Ḥoni the Circle-drawer? (They expounded to him the verses) (Job, 22. 28-30): "Thou shalt also decree a thing and it shall be established unto thee, and light shall shine upon thy ways. When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: 'There is lifting up'; for the humble person He saveth. He shall deliver even him that is not innocent, yea, thou shalt be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands."—"Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee," that is, thou hast decreed here below and the Holy One, blessed be He, established thy decree there above.—"And light shall shine upon thy ways," that is, a generation that was in gloom, thou hast brightened by thy prayer—"When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: 'There is lifting up'", that is, a generation that was cast down, thou hast lifted up by thy prayer. "For the humble person He saveth," that is, a generation whose eyes drooped down, thou hast saved by thy prayer. "He shall deliver even him that is not innocent," that is, a generation that is not innocent, thou hast saved by thy prayer. "Yea, thou shalt be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands," that is, through the work of thy clean hands.

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,