contract

Rebbi Simeon, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: a Jewish braider should not braid a Gentile because of “do not give on them charm.” Also a Jew should not be a Gentile’s best man because of do not contract marriage with them. Rebbi Isaac from Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to go to their wedding feasts, not a fortiori to become his best man? He told him, to put a biblical prohibition on it.

There is a teaching : R. Judah b. Batyra used to say : The words of Torah do not contract defilement. It happened that a disciple was speaking indistinctly over against R. Judah b. Batyra. He said to him : My son, open thy mouth and let thy words issue forth clearly, because words of Torah cannot contract defilement; as it is said, "Is not My word like a fire? saith the Lord" (Jer. xxiii 29) — as fire does not contract defilement, so also words of Torah do not contract defilement.

There is a teaching : R. Judah b. Batyra used to say : The words of Torah do not contract defilement. It happened that a disciple was speaking indistinctly over against R. Judah b. Batyra. He said to him : My son, open thy mouth and let thy words issue forth clearly, because words of Torah cannot contract defilement; as it is said, "Is not My word like a fire? saith the Lord" (Jer. xxiii 29) — as fire does not contract defilement, so also words of Torah do not contract defilement.

There is a teaching : R. Judah b. Batyra used to say : The words of Torah do not contract defilement. It happened that a disciple was speaking indistinctly over against R. Judah b. Batyra. He said to him : My son, open thy mouth and let thy words issue forth clearly, because words of Torah cannot contract defilement; as it is said, "Is not My word like a fire? saith the Lord" (Jer. xxiii 29) — as fire does not contract defilement, so also words of Torah do not contract defilement.

There is a teaching : R. Judah b. Batyra used to say : The words of Torah do not contract defilement. It happened that a disciple was speaking indistinctly over against R. Judah b. Batyra. He said to him : My son, open thy mouth and let thy words issue forth clearly, because words of Torah cannot contract defilement; as it is said, "Is not My word like a fire? saith the Lord" (Jer. xxiii 29) — as fire does not contract defilement, so also words of Torah do not contract defilement.

According to R. Judah b. Batyra in the matter of words of Torah — for there is a teaching : R. Judah b. Batyra says : Words of Torah cannot contract defilement.

Come and hear: Dill, when it gives a taste to the dish, does not come under the law of Terumah and does not contract the impurity of foods. Conclude from this that it is used to sweeten the taste! Draw that conclusion.

Raba said : Whence do I state this? For we have the Mishnaic teaching : A [defiled] couch, half of which has been stolen or lost or has been divided between brothers or partners, becomes clean; but if it is restored, it can from that time onwards contract defilement.

From that time onwards it may contract defilement, but not retrospectively. Infer from this that since it has been divided, the defilement has passed from it. So here also, since the parties had included these men for Zimmun, it passes from them.

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : We wash the hands and then fill the cup ; for if thou sayest that we till the cup first, there is a fear lest the liquid which is on the outside of the cup may contract defilement on account of his hands and in its turn defile the cup.

But Bet Hillel declare : We fill the cup and then wash the hands ; for if thou sayest that we wash the hands first, there is a fear lest the moisture on the hands may contract defilement on account of the cup [which might be ritually unclean] and in its turn defile the hands. But the cup can defile the hands!

A vessel cannot make a man contract defilement. But it can defile the liquid which it contains !

Bet Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a vessel whose exterior has become defiled by liquid for fear of the spillings, but there is no need to fear lest the moisture of the hand will contract defilement through the cup.

Bet Hillel, on the other hand, hold that it is permitted to use a cup whose exterior has become defiled by a liquid, saying that spillings are not frequent ; but there is reason to fear lest the moisture on the hand contract defilement on account of the cup.

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : One wipes his hands with a napkin which he lays upon the table ; for if thou sayest that [he lays it] upon the bolster, there is a fear lest the moisture on the napkin may contract defilement on account of the bolster and this in turn may render the hands ritually unclean.

But the bolster can defile the napkin ! One vessel cannot cause another vessel to contract defilement.

But the bolster can make the man unclean! A vessel cannot cause a man to contract defilement.

But Bet Hillel say : [He lays it] upon the bolster ; for if thou sayest that [he lays it] upon the table, there is a fear lest the moisture on the napkin may contract defilement on account of the table and in its turn defile the food.

Who is the authority for that which our Rabbis taught: ‘A house which is not four cubits square is free from the mitzvos of Mezuzah and parapet, does not contract uncleanliness from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the dwelling houses of a walled city,

Rava said, [It means that] they did not bring doors at all because the child, feeling confident might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanliness

It has been taught in agreement with Rava: R. Judah said, They did not bring doors at all, because the child, feeling confident, might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanness on account of a grave in the depths... but they brought Egyptian oxen with wide bellies, and the children sat on their backs with stone cups in their hands. When they came to Shiloah they descended, filled them, and ascended and sat again on their backs.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.