earthenware

Come, then, after you have freed yourself from all prejudices possessing your mind, and laid aside what you have been accustomed to, as something apt to deceive you, and being made, as if from the beginning, a new man, inasmuch as, according to your own confession, you are to be the hearer of a new [system of] doctrine; come and contemplate, not with your eyes only, but with your understanding, the substance and the form of those whom ye declare and deem to be gods. Is not one of them a stone similar to that on which we tread? Is not a second brass, in no way superior to those vessels which are constructed for our ordinary use? Is not a third wood, and that already rotten? Is not a fourth silver, which needs a man to watch it, lest it be stolen? Is not a fifth iron, consumed by rust? Is not a sixth earthenware, in no degree more valuable than that which is formed for the humblest purposes? Are not all these of corruptible matter? Are they not fabricated by means of iron and fire? Did not the sculptor fashion one of them, the brazier a second, the silversmith a third, and the potter a fourth? Was not every one of them, before they were formed by the arts of these [workmen] into the shape of these [gods], each in its own way subject to change? Would not those things which are now vessels, formed of the same materials, become like to such, if they met with the same artificers? Might not these, which are now worshipped by you, again be made by men vessels similar to others? Are they not all deaf? Are they not blind? Are they not without life? Are they not destitute of feeling? Are they not incapable of motion? Are they not all liable to rot? Are they not all corruptible? These things ye call gods; these ye serve; these ye worship; and ye become altogether like to them. For this reason ye hate the Christians, because they do not deem _these_ to be gods. But do not ye yourselves, who now think and suppose [such to be gods], much more cast contempt upon them than they [the Christians do]? Do ye not much more mock and insult them, when ye worship those that are made of stone and earthenware, without appointing any persons to guard them; but those made of silver and gold ye shut up by night, and appoint watchers to look after them by day, lest they be stolen? And by those gifts which ye mean to present to them, do ye not, if they are possessed of sense, rather punish [than honour] them? But if, on the other hand, they are destitute of sense, ye convict them of this fact, while ye worship them with blood and the smoke of sacrifices. Let any one of you suffer such indignities! Let any one of you endure to have such things done to himself! But not a single human being will, unless compelled to it, endure such treatment, since he is endowed with sense and reason. A stone, however, readily bears it, seeing it is insensible. Certainly you do not show [by your conduct] that he [your God] is possessed of sense. And as to the fact that Christians are not accustomed to serve such gods, I might easily find many other things to say; but if even what has been said does not seem to any one sufficient, I deem it idle to say anything further.

Come, then, after you have freed yourself from all prejudices possessing your mind, and laid aside what you have been accustomed to, as something apt to deceive you, and being made, as if from the beginning, a new man, inasmuch as, according to your own confession, you are to be the hearer of a new [system of] doctrine; come and contemplate, not with your eyes only, but with your understanding, the substance and the form of those whom ye declare and deem to be gods. Is not one of them a stone similar to that on which we tread? Is not a second brass, in no way superior to those vessels which are constructed for our ordinary use? Is not a third wood, and that already rotten? Is not a fourth silver, which needs a man to watch it, lest it be stolen? Is not a fifth iron, consumed by rust? Is not a sixth earthenware, in no degree more valuable than that which is formed for the humblest purposes? Are not all these of corruptible matter? Are they not fabricated by means of iron and fire? Did not the sculptor fashion one of them, the brazier a second, the silversmith a third, and the potter a fourth? Was not every one of them, before they were formed by the arts of these [workmen] into the shape of these [gods], each in its own way subject to change? Would not those things which are now vessels, formed of the same materials, become like to such, if they met with the same artificers? Might not these, which are now worshipped by you, again be made by men vessels similar to others? Are they not all deaf? Are they not blind? Are they not without life? Are they not destitute of feeling? Are they not incapable of motion? Are they not all liable to rot? Are they not all corruptible? These things ye call gods; these ye serve; these ye worship; and ye become altogether like to them. For this reason ye hate the Christians, because they do not deem _these_ to be gods. But do not ye yourselves, who now think and suppose [such to be gods], much more cast contempt upon them than they [the Christians do]? Do ye not much more mock and insult them, when ye worship those that are made of stone and earthenware, without appointing any persons to guard them; but those made of silver and gold ye shut up by night, and appoint watchers to look after them by day, lest they be stolen? And by those gifts which ye mean to present to them, do ye not, if they are possessed of sense, rather punish [than honour] them? But if, on the other hand, they are destitute of sense, ye convict them of this fact, while ye worship them with blood and the smoke of sacrifices. Let any one of you suffer such indignities! Let any one of you endure to have such things done to himself! But not a single human being will, unless compelled to it, endure such treatment, since he is endowed with sense and reason. A stone, however, readily bears it, seeing it is insensible. Certainly you do not show [by your conduct] that he [your God] is possessed of sense. And as to the fact that Christians are not accustomed to serve such gods, I might easily find many other things to say; but if even what has been said does not seem to any one sufficient, I deem it idle to say anything further.

And as he said this a dreadful wonder appeared; for all the fire along with the wood went away from Matthew, and was poured round about their gods, so that nothing of the gold or the silver was any more seen; and the king fled, and said: Woe's me, that my gods are destroyed by the rebuke of Matthew, of which the weight was a thousand talents of gold and a thousand talents of silver. Better are the gods of stone and of earthenware, in that they are neither melted nor stolen.

Which I shall deliver thee, which thou shalt arrange and smear with oil of cedar, and lay up in vessels of earthenware in the place which God made from the beginning of the creation of the world,

And the bishop who is persuaded by error or by evil thought is not a bishop, but one with a false name. And he was not ordained by God, but by man. Like Ananyas and Samyas in Israel; and Sedekyas and Akiya, who were false prophets in Babilon. And Bala'am indeed the diviner was punished with punishment for corrupting the people of Israel with Be'el Fegor; and Kayafa at last was a self-murderer; and the sons of Askeva also, devising to expel demons, having been wounded by them, fled away suffering pains. And the kings of Esrael and of Juda when they all sinned were punished with punishment. It is clear then that bishops and presbyters with false names shall not escape from the punishment of God, and therefore it is said to them: Now, O ye priests who disgrace my Name, I will deliver you to the slaughter, as Sadeka and Akiya whom the king of Babilon roasted, as said Eremyas the prophet. This then we say, and we do not despise true prophecy, because we know that for prophecies the mind of God was upon righteous men, working (with them). But we are removing the audacity of the boastful; and we are bringing this near, (that) in the case of those who are such God removes their grace. For God resisteth the boastful, and giveth grace to the humble. Silas and Agabos amongst ourselves, when they prophesied, therefore did not make themselves equal to the Apostles nor overstepped their own measure, though they were lovers of God. And women have prophesied: first, the sister of Muse and sister of Aron, Maryam, and after this, Dobira, and after her, Ela, Aster, and Yudit: the one was with Yusyes and the other with Daryus. And the Mother of our Lord prophesied, and Elesabet also who was of her family, and Hana, and amongst ourselves also the daughters of Filepos; but these did not magnify themselves above men, but they kept their own measure. Therefore amongst you also, whether they are men or women, and they obtained any such grace, let them humble themselves, that God may delight in them, for he indeed said: To whom shall I look except to the humble and gentle and quiet one, and who trembleth at my word. But keep yourselves from the religion of demons and from gods, and from dead things keep, and from blood and things strangled, and further, a bone shall not be broken. But concerning Apostles and Prophets according to the ordinance of the Gospel thus do ye. Every apostle who comes to you shall not remain except one day or the next; and if he has need, the third also; and if he stayed longer he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the spirit shall be proved, and he shall be examined that there may be no sin (in him). And everyone who speaks in the spirit is a prophet: if he lives the life of God, he is a true prophet: by his life hitherto shall be known every false prophet, or a (true) prophet And every prophet who orders a table in the spirit shall not eat of it: otherwise he is a false prophet And every prophet then who teaches, but does not the truth, is a false prophet. And every prophet proved in truth, who acts in the assembly of men and acts unlawfully, shall not be judged by you, for his judgment is from God; because thus did the ancient prophets. And he who says in the spirit. Give to me gold or anything else, ye shall not listen to him. And if he speaks for another, give to him; there is no one who shall examine him. And ye shall receive everyone who comes to you in the name of our Lord, and then having proved him ye shall know, for ye have wisdom, and so (to speak) on the right hand and on the left. If he is a passer-by, help him as much as ye can, and let him not remain with you beyond the next day and the third day. And if he had need and wished, he may remain with you, if he has a trade to work at; but if he works not he shall not be supported, and if he has no trade and works not, according to your wisdom devise for him that he shall not remain with you idle. And if he is unwilling to do thus, he is a seller of 'o the name of Christ, and ye shall beware of such. Every true prophet then who wishes to remain with you is worthy of sustenance, then support him; and therefore all first-fruits of the wine-press and the threshing-floor, of oxen, of sheep, give the first-fruits of it to the prophets, '5 because they are your Chief Priests. And if ye have not a prophet, give to the poor. And if thou makest bread, give the first-fruit of it according to the commandment. And likewise an earthenware vessel of wine or of oil, and of honey, having opened it, having taken the first-fruit of it, give it to the poor. And gold and raiment and everything, having taken the first-fruit of it, which thou wishedst, give it according to the commandment of the Lord. Your fast also shall not be as the hypocrites, because they fast on the second day of the week, and on the fifth. But ye, fast on the fourth and the sixth (lit. the evening). And ye shall not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in the Gospel. And in your churches, ye presbyters and deacons, and all the congregation (on) the sabbaths, make a place for the brethren, having ordered it with all diligence and care. If one is found sitting out of his order he shall be rebuked, because he has spoiled the holy Church, the dwelling of God. And it is like as we see the animals which speak not, oxen and horses and goats and sheep according to the existing kinds, if they are awake, they ruminate, and then do not separate themselves one from another (of their own kinds), thus also in the church the youths shall sit by themselves, if there is room, and if there is not room they shall stand. The elders shall sit by themselves, and if they have children let them hold them in their arms. Further, the virgins also shall sit by themselves; if there is not sufficient room, they shall stand in front of the other women. Those who have children with them and are married shall sit by themselves. Also the widows (of the church) and the (other) widows shall sit by themselves. If brothers or sisters of (other) districts should come in, the deacon having come shall make inquiry. If one has a husband or is a widow, he shall cause them to enter and make them sit in separate places. The presbyters also shall sit in their own several places. And if another presbyter should come of the (other) districts, they shall receive him into the place which is seemly for him. And if any other man or woman comes in lay dress, either a man of the district or from other districts, being brethren, thou, presbyter, while thou speakest the word which is concerning God, or while thou hearest or readest, thou shalt not respect persons, nor leave thy ministering to command places for them, but remain quiet, for the brethren shall receive them, and if they have no place (for them) the lover of brothers or of sisters, having risen, will leave place for them. If (there are) youths, while the elder men remain sitting, having risen up, they shall leave their places. Thou, deacon, hast thou observed among those who sit a young man or a virgin, having risen up, cause to sit down that man or that woman who left (a place), then having made her rise up outside the church, cause her to stand at the door, that others may learn a lesson and leave place for their elders. Desire to make large churches (lit. houses). And if a poor man or woman either of the district or of the (other) districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be respecting the person of man but of God. And if then we have omitted anything, our brethren, God will reveal (it) to those who are worthy, while he steers the holy Church into quiet and a harbour. And this word shall not be hidden concerning the gifts which God gave to the youths as they wished, and as they acquire the similitude of those who dwell in falsehood, and are moved because of alien spirits. And God appointed impious men to be such as either prophesied or did signs. And now the word will guide us to that which is better for the ordinance of the Church: that ye indeed, the bishops whom we ordained and sent from ourselves by the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ — if ye know this ordinance from us — that ye might do all and not neglect anything, as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded, as the ordinance which we gave to you. And ye know that he who heard from us is he who heard from Christ, and he who heard from Christ heard from God the Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

And Solomon answered and said unto her, "They call gods the things which have been made by the hands of the worker in metal, and the carpenter, and the potter, and the painter, and the hewer in stone, and the sculptor; these are not gods, but the work of the hand of man, in gold, and silver, in brass and lead, in iron and earthenware, and in stone, and ye call `our gods' the things that are not your gods.

From Modi’im inwards [the potters] are trusted in regard to [the purity of] earthenware vessels; from Modi'im outwards they are not trusted. How so? A potter who sells the pots entered inwards of Modi'im, then the same potter, the same pots and the same buyers are trusted [to be pure]. But if he went out [from Modi’im outwards] he is not trusted.

[The priest] takes an earthenware bowl and pours half a log of water into it from the laver. Rabbi Judah says: a quarter [of a log]. Just as [Rabbi Judah] reduces the amount of writing, so he reduces the quantity of water. [Then the priest] enters the temple and turns to his right and there was a place there [on the floor] that was a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet, to which a ring was attached. When he would lift this up, he would take some dust from beneath it which he puts [into the bowl] so that it would be seen on top of the water; as it is said, “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17).

A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.

A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.

The following things belonging to non-Jews are forbidden [for Jews to use] and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or a non-Jew’s vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware, skins pierced at the animal’s heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when its tear is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted. Meat which is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted, but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is like a sacrifice to the dead, this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. With non-Jews going on a pilgrimage [to worship idols] it is forbidden to have any business transactions, but with those returning it is permitted.

If a non-Jew covered a stone wine press with pitch it may be scoured and is then clean; But if it was of wood, Rabbi says that it may be scoured and the Sages say that he must peel off the pitch. If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited.

[The method of killing] which renders the red cow valid renders the heifer invalid, and the method which renders the heifer valid renders the red cow invalid. [The disability] which does not disqualify priests disqualifies Levites, and [the disability] which does not disqualify Levites disqualifies priests. That which cannot be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels can be rendered unclean in all other vessels, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in all other vessels can be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels. That which cannot be rendered unclean in wooden things can be rendered unclean in metal things, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in metal things can be rendered unclean in wooden things. When bitter almonds are subject to tithing sweet almonds are exempt, and when sweet almonds are subject to tithing bitter almonds are exempt.

[The method of killing] which renders the red cow valid renders the heifer invalid, and the method which renders the heifer valid renders the red cow invalid. [The disability] which does not disqualify priests disqualifies Levites, and [the disability] which does not disqualify Levites disqualifies priests. That which cannot be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels can be rendered unclean in all other vessels, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in all other vessels can be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels. That which cannot be rendered unclean in wooden things can be rendered unclean in metal things, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in metal things can be rendered unclean in wooden things. When bitter almonds are subject to tithing sweet almonds are exempt, and when sweet almonds are subject to tithing bitter almonds are exempt.

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.

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.

The fathers of impurity are a: sheretz, semen, [an Israelite] who has contracted corpse impurity, a metzora during the days of his counting, and the waters of purification whose quantity is less than the minimum needed for sprinkling. Behold, these convey impurity to people and vessels by contact and to earthenware by presence within their airspace, But they do not convey impurity by being carried.

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.

An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity. If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity. When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture.

An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity. If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity. When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture.

An oven which they partitioned with boards or hangings, and in it was found a sheretz in one compartment, the entire oven is unclean. A hive which was broken and its gap was stopped up with straw and was suspended within the air-space of an oven while a sheretz was within it, the oven becomes unclean. If a sheretz was within the oven, any food within the hive becomes unclean. But Rabbi Eliezer says that it is clean. Rabbi Eliezer said: if it affords protection in the case of a corpse which is more consequential, should it not afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is less consequential? They said to him: if it affords protection in the case of corpse impurity, this is because tents are divided, should it also afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is not divided?

An oven which they partitioned with boards or hangings, and in it was found a sheretz in one compartment, the entire oven is unclean. A hive which was broken and its gap was stopped up with straw and was suspended within the air-space of an oven while a sheretz was within it, the oven becomes unclean. If a sheretz was within the oven, any food within the hive becomes unclean. But Rabbi Eliezer says that it is clean. Rabbi Eliezer said: if it affords protection in the case of a corpse which is more consequential, should it not afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is less consequential? They said to him: if it affords protection in the case of corpse impurity, this is because tents are divided, should it also afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is not divided?

The following vessels protect their contents when they have a tightly fitting cover: those made of cattle dung, of stone, of clay, of earthenware, of sodium carbonate, of the bones of a fish or of its skin, or of the bones of any animal of the sea or of its skin, and wooden vessels that are always clean. They protect whether the covers close their mouths or their sides, whether they stand on their bottoms or lean on their sides. If they were turned over with their mouths downwards they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. Rabbi Eliezer declares this unclean. These protect everything, except that an earthen vessel protects only foods, liquids and earthen vessels.

If [earthenware] pans were placed one within the other and their rims were on the same level, and there was a sheretz in the upper one or in the lower one, that pan alone becomes unclean but all the others remain clean. If [they were perforated] to the extent of admitting a liquid, and the sheretz was in the uppermost one, all become unclean. If in the lowest one, that one is unclean while the others remain clean. If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, both are unclean. If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, any one that contained dripping liquid becomes unclean.

Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness; Sack-cloth is susceptible to four; Leather to three; Wood to two; And an earthenware vessel to one. An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part. Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one. Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent. Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work. Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.

Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness; Sack-cloth is susceptible to four; Leather to three; Wood to two; And an earthenware vessel to one. An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part. Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one. Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent. Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work. Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.

Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness; Sack-cloth is susceptible to four; Leather to three; Wood to two; And an earthenware vessel to one. An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part. Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one. Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent. Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work. Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.

If [the pot] was whole: Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness]. Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

If [lying over the hatch] there were vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, everything [in the upper story] remains clean. If it was a vessel known to be clean for holy things or for [the water of] purification, everything remains clean, since everyone is trusted with [regard to matters of] purification. For clean vessels and earthenware vessels that are [known to be] clean protect with the walls of ‘tents'.

Two [earthenware] jars in which there are two pieces of corpse the size of half an olive, sealed with tightly fitting lids, lying in a house, they remain clean, but the house becomes unclean. If one of them was opened, that [jar] and the house become unclean, but the other remains clean. And similarly with two rooms that open into a house.

What is the procedure for the inspection of a house? "The owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, "Something like a plague has appeared upon my house" (Leviticus 14:35). Even if he is a learned sage and knows that it is definitely a nega, he may not speak with certainty saying, "A plague has appeared upon my house," but rather, "Something like a plague has appeared upon my house." "The priest shall order the house cleared before the priest enters to examine the plague, so that nothing in the house may become unclean; after that the priest shall enter to examine the house." Even bundles of wood and even bundles of reeds [must be removed], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon said: clearing keeps him occupied. Rabbi Meir said: But which [of his goods] could become unclean? If you were to say, his articles of wood, of cloth or of metal, he could immerse them and they will become clean. What is it that the Torah has spared? His earthenware, even his cruse and his bucket. If the Torah thus spared a man's humble possessions, how much more so would it spare his cherished possessions! If for his material possessions, how much more so for the life of his sons and daughters! If for the possessions of a wicked man, how much more so for the possessions of a righteous one!

How would they purify a metzora? A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. Two undomesticated birds are also brought. One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside.

How would they purify a metzora? A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. Two undomesticated birds are also brought. One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside.

An earthenware vessel does not defile another such vessel, but [it does defile] a liquid. And when the liquid becomes unclean it defile the vessel. Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

One who left am haaretz in his house to guard him, if he can see those that enter and leave, only food and liquids and uncovered earthenware are unclean, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. And if he cannot see either those who enter or those who leave, even though the am haaretz has to be led and even though he was bound, all is unclean.

One who left am haaretz in his house to guard him, if he can see those that enter and leave, only food and liquids and uncovered earthenware are unclean, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. And if he cannot see either those who enter or those who leave, even though the am haaretz has to be led and even though he was bound, all is unclean.

If tax collectors entered a house, the house is unclean. If a Gentile was with them they are believed if they say, "we did not enter" but they are not believed if they say "we didn't touch anything." If thieves entered a house, only that part in which the feet of the thieves have stepped is unclean. And what do they cause to be unclean? Food and liquids and open earthenware, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. If a Gentile or a woman was with them, all is unclean.

If tax collectors entered a house, the house is unclean. If a Gentile was with them they are believed if they say, "we did not enter" but they are not believed if they say "we didn't touch anything." If thieves entered a house, only that part in which the feet of the thieves have stepped is unclean. And what do they cause to be unclean? Food and liquids and open earthenware, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. If a Gentile or a woman was with them, all is unclean.

If one makes a hollow in a water-spout to collect pebbles, its water disqualifies the mikveh; In the case of a wooden [spout] if it holds even a little, But in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it will hold a quarter-log. Rabbi Yose says: also in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it holds even a little: they have spoken of "a quarter-log" only in the case of broken sherds of an earthenware utensil. If the pieces of gravel moved about inside [the hollow], it disqualifies the mikveh. If dirt went down into it and was pressed down, [the mikveh continues to be] valid. If the spout was narrow at each end and wide in the middle, it does not disqualify [the mikveh] invalid, because it had not been made to gather anything in it.

If one makes a hollow in a water-spout to collect pebbles, its water disqualifies the mikveh; In the case of a wooden [spout] if it holds even a little, But in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it will hold a quarter-log. Rabbi Yose says: also in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it holds even a little: they have spoken of "a quarter-log" only in the case of broken sherds of an earthenware utensil. If the pieces of gravel moved about inside [the hollow], it disqualifies the mikveh. If dirt went down into it and was pressed down, [the mikveh continues to be] valid. If the spout was narrow at each end and wide in the middle, it does not disqualify [the mikveh] invalid, because it had not been made to gather anything in it.

If one makes a hollow in a water-spout to collect pebbles, its water disqualifies the mikveh; In the case of a wooden [spout] if it holds even a little, But in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it will hold a quarter-log. Rabbi Yose says: also in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it holds even a little: they have spoken of "a quarter-log" only in the case of broken sherds of an earthenware utensil. If the pieces of gravel moved about inside [the hollow], it disqualifies the mikveh. If dirt went down into it and was pressed down, [the mikveh continues to be] valid. If the spout was narrow at each end and wide in the middle, it does not disqualify [the mikveh] invalid, because it had not been made to gather anything in it.

If there was a broken [earthenware] vessel in the mikveh and utensils were immersed in it, they become clean from their [former] uncleanness but are again rendered unclean because of the earthenware vessel. But if water flowed above it in any quantity, they are clean. If [water of] a spring flowed forth from an oven and a man went down and immersed himself in it, he is clean but his hands become unclean. But if [the water was as] high above the oven as the height of his hands, his hands also are clean.

If there was a broken [earthenware] vessel in the mikveh and utensils were immersed in it, they become clean from their [former] uncleanness but are again rendered unclean because of the earthenware vessel. But if water flowed above it in any quantity, they are clean. If [water of] a spring flowed forth from an oven and a man went down and immersed himself in it, he is clean but his hands become unclean. But if [the water was as] high above the oven as the height of his hands, his hands also are clean.

Mikvaot may be made clean [by joining drawn water from] a higher [mikveh to valid water] from a lower [mikveh or drawn water from] a distant [mikveh to valid water] in a [mikveh] near at hand. How so? One brings a pipe of earthenware or of lead and puts his hand beneath it till it is filled with water; then he draws it along till [the two waters] touch even if it be by a hair's breadth it is sufficient. If in the higher [mikveh] there were forty seahs and nothing in the lower, one may draw water and carry it on the shoulder and place it in the higher [mikveh] till forty seahs have flowed down into the lower [mikveh].

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.

Water may be poured over the hands out of any kind of vessel, even out of vessels made of animal dung, out of vessels made of stone or out of vessels made of clay. Water may not be poured from the sides of [broken] vessels or from the bottom of a ladle or from the stopper of a jar. Nor may one pour [water] over the hands of his fellow out of his cupped hands. Because one may not draw, nor sanctify, nor sprinkle the water of purification, nor pour water over the hands except in a vessel. And only vessels closely covered with a lid protect [their contents from uncleanness]. And only vessels protect [their contents from uncleanness] inside earthenware vessels.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

MISHNAH: One does not break earthenware nor cut paper to grill on them salted fish. One does not clean out stove or cooking range but one smooths. One does not arrange two amphoras to cook a pot on them. One does not support a pot by a splinter, nor the door. One does not drive an animal with a stick on the holiday.

MISHNAH: He brought a new earthenware bowl and filled it with half a log of water from the laver; Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]. (Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.) He entered the Temple building and turned right. There was a place there, one cubit square, where a handle was fastened to a marble plate. He lifted it, took dust from under it, and put it so that it was seen on the water, as it was said: “From the dust which will be on the ground of the Temple the Cohen shall take and put on the water.”

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, if the Torah had been given decided, no foot could stand. What is the reason? The Eternal spoke to Moses. He said before Him: Master of the Universe, inform me what is the practice. He told him, to bend after the majority. If there was a majority for acquitting, they acquitted; if there was a majority for convicting, they convicted; so that the Torah could be explained in 49 ways impure and 49 ways pure, the numerical value of ודגלו. And so it says: the commands of the Eternal are pure sayings; molten silver in an earthenware crucible, refined sevenfold. And it says, the straightforward love You.

Is there none in the Mishnah ? Yes, there is ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : If one has cut [a portable earthenware oven] into layers and placed sand between each layer, R. Eliezer declares it clean, but the Sages declare it unclean ; and this is what is known as "the oven of the serpent."

Abbai said to him : What seest thou that thou reliest upon this; rely upon that which Rabbah b. Rab Huna said in the name of Rab : It is forbidden [to read the Shema' near] excrement even when it is like earthenware.

What means excrement like earthenware? Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan; When one can throw it to the ground without its crumbling to pieces. Others say : When one can roll it without its crumbling to pieces.

How, then, is it with reference to this matter ? It has been reported: When the excrement is like earthenware, Amemar said : It is forbidden ; Mar Zotra said : It is permitted. Raba said : The Halakah is — when the excrement is like earthenware it is forbidden ; and similarly with urine, so long as the ground is sufficiently wet to moisten.

How, then, is it with reference to this matter ? It has been reported: When the excrement is like earthenware, Amemar said : It is forbidden ; Mar Zotra said : It is permitted. Raba said : The Halakah is — when the excrement is like earthenware it is forbidden ; and similarly with urine, so long as the ground is sufficiently wet to moisten.

Raba said: drinking vessels may be kept in the Sukkah, eating vessels outside the Sukkah Earthenware pitchers and wooden pails [must be kept] outside the Sukkah. A lamp [may be kept] within the Sukkah, while some say [that it must be kept] outside the Sukkah; but they do not disagree, here refers to a large Sukkah and here refers to a small one.

R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘inclusion and exclusion [thus:] “And you shall make a candlestick” is an inclusion, “of pure gold” is an exclusion, “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again an inclusion. It includes, then excludes, then includes, in which case it includes everything. What does it include? All materials, and what does it exclude? [Only] earthenware.

Rather, it means that he is clean now so far as not to defile earthenware vessels by moving them; and even if he observes [an issue] again, he does not defile them retrospectively.

Rava also said: A Torah scroll which is worn out should be buried by the side of a disciple of the sages, even if he is only one who repeats halakhot. Aha b. Jacob said: It should be put in an earthenware vessel, as it says, “And put them in an earthen vessel that they may stand for many days” (Jeremiah 32:14). Papi said in the name of Rava:

In Judea, yes; but in Galilee, no. What is the reason? Resh Lakish said, Because there is a strip of Cuthites making a separation between them. But, says some one, let us bring it in a box, a chest, or a balloon. Nay, what Mishnic authority is there for so doing? It is the teaching of Rabbi. For he said, A tent projected is not a real tent. And there is a Baraitha, That which enters the land of the Gentiles in a box, a chest, or a balloon, Rabbi declares unclean, but R. Jose bar Jehudah clean. But let one bring it in an earthenware vessel tied round with a line of thread. For R. Eliezer said, They teach in a Baraitha, Hallowed things are not preserved from uncleanness by a line of thread. But against this view of R. Eliezer is another Baraitha, viz., the ashes of the heifer are not preserved by a line of thread. What? are they not? Then hallowed things are preserved. No, says another, but the water destined to receive the ashes, but not yet consecrated, is preserved by a line of thread. And yet Ola said, Learned and observant men purify in Galilee. Yes, but they leave the hallowed things alone, and when Elijah returns, then he will cleanse them.

III. (5) From Modiim and inwards men are believed with regard to earthenware vessels; from Modiim and outwards they are not believed. How is that made out? The potter who is selling the pots goes inwards from Modiim. That is the potter, and those are the pots, and those are the buyers. He is believed. If he goes out, he is not believed.