contact

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

If valid ashes were put on water that was unfit for the preparation, [the latter] defiles one that is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body, But to one who is clean for the hatat it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body.

If valid ashes were put on water that was unfit for the preparation, [the latter] defiles one that is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body, But to one who is clean for the hatat it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body.

All that require immersion in water, whether according to the words of the Torah or according to the words of the scribes, defile hatat waters, hatat ashes, and the one who sprinkled the hatat waters, either through contact or through carrying. And [they defile] hyssop that has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness, and water that had not yet been prepared, and an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat through contact and carrying, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: only by contact but not by carrying.

All that require immersion in water, whether according to the words of the Torah or according to the words of the scribes, defile hatat waters, hatat ashes, and the one who sprinkled the hatat waters, either through contact or through carrying. And [they defile] hyssop that has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness, and water that had not yet been prepared, and an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat through contact and carrying, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: only by contact but not by carrying.

All that require immersion in water, whether according to the words of the Torah or according to the words of the scribes, defile hatat waters, hatat ashes, and the one who sprinkled the hatat waters, either through contact or through carrying. And [they defile] hyssop that has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness, and water that had not yet been prepared, and an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat through contact and carrying, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: only by contact but not by carrying.

A woman who was preserving vegetables in a pot and touched a leaf outside the pot on a dry spot, even though the leaf had an egg's bulk of volume, it alone becomes unclean while all the rest remains clean. If she touched it at a wet spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean. If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If it is returned into the pot, everything becomes unclean. If the woman was unclean due to contact with one who had corpse uncleanness, and she touched the leaf either at a wet spot or at a dry spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean; If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If a woman who was a tevulat yom emptied out the pot with unwashed hands, and she observed some liquid on her hands, and it is uncertain whether it was splashed from the pot or whether a stalk had touched her hands, the vegetables are invalid but the pot remains clean.

Sauce, bean-mash and milk, when in a condition of fluidity, are unclean in the first degree. If they turned solid they become unclean in the second degree. If they again melted: If their bulk was exactly that of an egg, they are clean. But if it was more than the bulk of an egg they remain unclean, for as soon as the first drop issued forth it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk.

Rabbi Meir says: oil always remains unclean in the first degree. And the sages say: honey also. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: also wine. A mass of olives that fell into an oven that was heated: If [the olives] were exactly the size of an egg it [the oven] remains pure; But if it was more than that of an egg the oven becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If the olives were separated even if there was a se'ah of them, it remains clean.

A man who had corpse uncleanness who pressed olives or grapes: If its bulk was exactly that of an egg, the juice remains clean provided he does not touch the place on which the liquid is; But [if the bulk was] more than that of an egg, the juice becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out, it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If the person was a zav or a zavah [the juice] becomes unclean even if only one berry [was pressed out], for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by carrying. If a zav milked a goat, the milk becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop comes out it becomes unclean by carrying.

On account of six doubtful cases of uncleanness terumah is burned: On account of the doubt of a bet ha-peras [grave area], On account of earth about which there is doubt whether it came from the land of the gentiles, On account of a doubt about the garments of an ‘am ha-arez; On account of a doubt about found vessels found by chance; On account of found spit, On account of a doubt about human urine that was near the urine of a beast. On account of a certainty of having touched these which causes the doubtful uncleanness, terumah is burned. Rabbi Yose says: also on account of their doubtful contact in a private domain; But the sages say: in a private domain the terumah is only held in suspense and in a public domain it is deemed clean.

There are four cases of doubt which Rabbi Joshua ruled are unclean and the sages rule are clean. How so? If an unclean man stood and a clean man passed by or the clean man stood and the unclean one passed by; or if an unclean object was in a private domain and a clean one in the public domain or the clean object was in the private domain and the unclean one in the public domain, and there is doubt whether there was contact or not, or whether there was overshadowing or not, or whether there was shifting or not: Rabbi Joshua rules that the clean becomes unclean, But the sages rule that the clean remains clean.

If a mikveh contained forty seahs exactly and two persons went down and immersed themselves one after the other, the first becomes clean but the second remains unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the feet of the first were still touching the water, the second also becomes clean. If one immersed a thick cloak and when he drew it out a part was still in contact with the water [and then another person immersed himself in the mikveh], he becomes clean. A pillow case or a cushion of leather, as soon as it is taken out of the water by its open ends the water which still remains in it is drawn water. How should one do it? One should immerse them and draw them up by their lower edges.

In earlier times they used to say: a woman who is dwelling in clean blood may pour out water for [washing] the pesah sacrifice. They changed their minds and said: in respect of consecrated food she is like one who came in contact with a person that was subject to corpse uncleanness, this is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: even as one who is subject to corpse uncleanness.

If a woman observed a discharge on the eleventh day and immersed in the evening and then had marital intercourse: Bet Shammai say: they defile a couch and a seat and they are liable to a sacrifice But Bet Hillel says: they are exempt from the sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had marital intercourse and after that observed a discharge: Bet Shammai say: they convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are exempt from the sacrifice, But Bet Hillel says: such a person is a glutton. They agree that if a woman observed a discharge during the eleven days and immersed in the evening and then had intercourse that both (she and defile couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had intercourse, such an act is improper conduct, but the uncleanness of their contact and their liability to a sacrifice on account of their intercourse are in suspense.

One who touches a zav, or whom a zav touches, who moves a zav or whom a zav moves, defiles by contact food and liquids and vessels that are rinsed, but not by carrying. A general principle was stated by Rabbi Joshua: anyone that defile garments while still in contact [with their source of uncleanness] also defiles foods and liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade; but they do not defile people or earthenware vessels. After they separated from their source of uncleanness they defile liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and food and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade, but they do not defile garments.

One who touches a zav, or whom a zav touches, who moves a zav or whom a zav moves, defiles by contact food and liquids and vessels that are rinsed, but not by carrying. A general principle was stated by Rabbi Joshua: anyone that defile garments while still in contact [with their source of uncleanness] also defiles foods and liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade; but they do not defile people or earthenware vessels. After they separated from their source of uncleanness they defile liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and food and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade, but they do not defile garments.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaïm. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals. He told him, after it was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Everybody agrees that “on it” means “in contact”. Where do they disagree? About “on”. Abba Shaul says, on the array, near the array. But the rabbis say, on the array, on top of the array. It turns out that Abba Shaul parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and the rabbis Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi says, even if he made them two arrangements of fourteen, one considers the upper one as nonexistent and the lower ones are qualified. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Abba Shaul use in the method of Rebbi Meïr for the table.

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

an analogy is here to be drawn between "lying down" and "rising up" in this sense: as with "rising up" the order is the reading of the Shema' and then the Tefillah, so also with "lying down" the order is the reading of the Shema' and then the Tefillah. R. Joshua b. Levi, however, thinks that the analogy is to be drawn between "lying down" and "rising up" in this sense : as with "rising up" the reading of the Shema' is nearer to his contact with the bed, so with "lying down" the reading of the Shema' must be nearer to his contact with the bed.

an analogy is here to be drawn between "lying down" and "rising up" in this sense: as with "rising up" the order is the reading of the Shema' and then the Tefillah, so also with "lying down" the order is the reading of the Shema' and then the Tefillah. R. Joshua b. Levi, however, thinks that the analogy is to be drawn between "lying down" and "rising up" in this sense : as with "rising up" the reading of the Shema' is nearer to his contact with the bed, so with "lying down" the reading of the Shema' must be nearer to his contact with the bed.

The master said, "He turns his face away and reads the Shema'" — but their buttocks will be in contact ! This supports the opinion of Rab Huna who said that with buttocks there is no concern on the score of nakedness. It is possible to say that the following teaching is a support of Rab Huna's opinion, viz. : A woman may sit and cut off the Hallah while she is naked, because she is able to cover her nakedness with the ground; but it is not so with a man.

‘Barley’— As we have learned: A barleycorn's bulk of a [human] bone defiles by contact and by carrying, but not by ‘overshadowing’.

How does Samuel account for the fact that he (the Nazirite) is called holy? This term is applied to him only in view of his having purified himself (after the defilement). How does R. Eleazar account for the fact that he is also called sinner? This term is applied to him only in view of his having defiled himself (by contact with a dead body). But did R. Eleazar say so? Did he not say one should always consider oneself

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,

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand