insusceptible

A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness , And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness. If he left it out in the rain and it swelled it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone. [If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition. It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean.

If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it. . Bet Hillel says: when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed.

A mat whose reeds stretched lengthwise is insusceptible to uncleanness; But the sages rule: only if they lay in the shape of [the Greek letter] chi. If they were laid along its width and there was a distance of less than four handbreadths between the two reeds, it is insusceptible to uncleanness. If it was divided along its width, Rabbi Judah rules that is clean. So also, where the end-knots are untied, it is clean. If it was divided along its length but three end-knots remained intact across a stretch of six handbreadths, it is susceptible to uncleanness. When does a mat become susceptible to uncleanness? When its rough ends are trimmed, this being the completion of its manufacture.

A mat whose reeds stretched lengthwise is insusceptible to uncleanness; But the sages rule: only if they lay in the shape of [the Greek letter] chi. If they were laid along its width and there was a distance of less than four handbreadths between the two reeds, it is insusceptible to uncleanness. If it was divided along its width, Rabbi Judah rules that is clean. So also, where the end-knots are untied, it is clean. If it was divided along its length but three end-knots remained intact across a stretch of six handbreadths, it is susceptible to uncleanness. When does a mat become susceptible to uncleanness? When its rough ends are trimmed, this being the completion of its manufacture.

Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.

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

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

A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean. If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it becomes clean. A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean. A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot. A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible. All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness, except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean.

A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean. If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it becomes clean. A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean. A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot. A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible. All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness, except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean.

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 there are multiple hatchways, one above the other, and they each have an opening of one handbreadth [square], if there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean. If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean. [In the case] where the uncleanness is either in the house or directly [below] the hatchways, if something susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean. If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, what is below becomes unclean, but what is above remains clean.

In a case where the hatchways do not have an opening of a square handbreadth: If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean. If there is uncleanness directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean. [In the case] where the uncleanness is in the house, if an article whether susceptible to uncleanness or insusceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story. [In the case] where the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, if an article susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean. If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, whether [it is placed] in the upper or lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story.

In a case where the hatchways do not have an opening of a square handbreadth: If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean. If there is uncleanness directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean. [In the case] where the uncleanness is in the house, if an article whether susceptible to uncleanness or insusceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story. [In the case] where the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, if an article susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean. If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, whether [it is placed] in the upper or lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story.

They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

A jar full of produce which was put into liquids, or a jar full of liquids was put into produce and [the produce] absorbed, all [the produce] which absorbed comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Concerning what liquids were they speaking? Water, wine and vinegar; but all the other liquids do not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. Rabbi Nehemiah says pulse is insusceptible, because pulse does not absorb [liquids].

One who drew hot bread off the side of an oven and put it upon the mouth of a jar of wine: Rabbi Meir declares it susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Judah declares it insusceptible. Rabbi Yose declares it insusceptible in the case of wheat bread and susceptible in the case of barley bread, because barley absorbs [liquids].

One who drew hot bread off the side of an oven and put it upon the mouth of a jar of wine: Rabbi Meir declares it susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Judah declares it insusceptible. Rabbi Yose declares it insusceptible in the case of wheat bread and susceptible in the case of barley bread, because barley absorbs [liquids].

A jar into which a leak [from a roof] fell: Bet Shammai say: it should be broken. But Bet Hillel say: it may be emptied out. But they agree that one may put out his hand and take produce from it and they are insusceptible to uncleanness.

The following neither defile nor can they be defiled and they do not join together: The roots of cabbage-stalks, Young shoots of beet growing out of the root, and [similar] such turnip-heads, [And produce whose roots] that are ordinarily cut off but in this case were pulled up [with their roots]. Rabbi Yose declares them all susceptible to contract uncleanness, but he declares insusceptible cabbage-stalks and turnip-heads.

All kinds of peels defile and are defiled, and join together. Rabbi Judah says: an onion has three skins: the innermost one whether it is in its entire state or whether it be pierced with holes joins together; the middle one when it is in a whole state joins together, but when it is pierced with holes does not join together; the outermost skin is in either case insusceptible to uncleanness.

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

can be rendered susceptible to uncleanliness by intention, but cannot be rendered insusceptible except by an act of change, since an act can annul a [prior] act or intention, while an intention cannot annul either a [previous] act or a [previous] intention.

And if you will say that this refers only to vessels which are of importance but that ‘handles’ which are needed only as aids for the eating of the food, are made [susceptible to uncleanness] by intention and are also unmade by intention [it may be objected], But have we not learned: The handles of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to ritual uncleanliness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible?

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘The handles of all foodstuffs that have been threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible’. What does it mean ‘threshed’? R. Yohanan says: Actual threshing. R. Elazar says: Untying the bundle.