lentil

And Jacob sod lentil pottage, and Esau came from the field hungry. And he said to Jacob his brother: 'Give me of this red pottage.' And Jacob said to him: 'Sell to me thy [primogeniture, this] birthright and I will give thee bread, and also some of this lentil pottage.'

And Jacob sod lentil pottage, and Esau came from the field hungry. And he said to Jacob his brother: 'Give me of this red pottage.' And Jacob said to him: 'Sell to me thy [primogeniture, this] birthright and I will give thee bread, and also some of this lentil pottage.'

Thomas said: "We have heard that there are some on the earth who take the male seed and the female monthly blood, and make it into a lentil porridge and eat it, saying: 'We have faith in Esau and Jacob.' Is this then seemly or not?"

Mules of uncertain parentage are forbidden [one with another,] And a ramakh is permitted. Wild man-like creatures are [in the category of] hayyah. Rabbi Yose says: they cause impurity in a tent like a human being. The hedgehog and the bush-mole are [in the category of] hayyah. The bush-mole: Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Shammai: an olive's size [of its carcass] renders a person carrying it unclean, and a lentil’s size [of its carcass] renders a person touching it unclean.

If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

[He who vows abstinence] from cabbage is forbidden asparagus; from asparagus, is permitted cabbage; From grits, is forbidden grits pottage; Rabbi Yose permits it; from grits pottage is permitted grits. From grits pottage, is forbidden garlic; Rabbi Yose permits it; from garlic, he is permitted grits pottage. From lentils, is forbidden lentil cakes; Rabbi Yose permits them; from lentil cakes, is permitted. [If one says] “Konam, if I eat wheat [or] wheats,” he is forbidden both flour and bread. “If I eat grit [or], grits,” he is forbidden both raw and cooked. Rabbi Judah says: [If one says], “Konam, if I eat grits or wheat,” he may chew them raw.

[He who vows abstinence] from cabbage is forbidden asparagus; from asparagus, is permitted cabbage; From grits, is forbidden grits pottage; Rabbi Yose permits it; from grits pottage is permitted grits. From grits pottage, is forbidden garlic; Rabbi Yose permits it; from garlic, he is permitted grits pottage. From lentils, is forbidden lentil cakes; Rabbi Yose permits them; from lentil cakes, is permitted. [If one says] “Konam, if I eat wheat [or] wheats,” he is forbidden both flour and bread. “If I eat grit [or], grits,” he is forbidden both raw and cooked. Rabbi Judah says: [If one says], “Konam, if I eat grits or wheat,” he may chew them raw.

If an earring was shaped like a pot at its bottom and like a lentil at the top and the sections fell apart, the pot-shaped section is susceptible to impurity because it is a receptacle, while the lentil shaped section is susceptible to impurity in itself. The hooklet is clean. If the sections of an ear-ring that was in the shape of a cluster of grapes fell apart, they are clean.

If an earring was shaped like a pot at its bottom and like a lentil at the top and the sections fell apart, the pot-shaped section is susceptible to impurity because it is a receptacle, while the lentil shaped section is susceptible to impurity in itself. The hooklet is clean. If the sections of an ear-ring that was in the shape of a cluster of grapes fell apart, they are clean.

The olive of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the egori. The barleycorn of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the midbarit The lentil of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size--the egyptian kind. "Any movable object conveys uncleanness if it is of the thickness of an ox goad" it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. What is meant by "one of moderate size?" One whose circumference is just a handbreadth.

Whole limbs [of the body] have no [restriction as to] size: even less than an olive-sized portion of a corpse or less than an olive-sized portion of nevelah (carrion), or less than a lentil-sized portion of a sheretz can defile, [each in the manner of] their respective defilements.

The following [objects serve to] reduce [the area of a square] handbreadth: [A portion] of less than an olive-size of flesh [of a corpse] reduces [the opening for uncleanness that is] caused by a quarter of a kav of bones [from a corpse]; [A portion] of less than a barley-corn size of bone reduces [the opening for uncleanness that is] caused by an olive-sized portion of flesh; Less than an olive-sized portion of a corpse, Less than an olive-sized portion of carrion, Less than a lentil-sized portion of sheretz; Less than an egg-sized portion of food; Produce growing next to the window, A cobweb having substance; The carcass of a clean bird that he did not intend to eat, And the carcass of an unclean bird that had been intended [for food] that had not been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness], or which had been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but had not been intended [for food].

The following do not reduce [the area of the window]: Bone does not reduce [the area] for [other] bones; Nor [corpse] flesh for [other] flesh; Nor an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse; Nor an olive-sized portion of carrion; Nor a lentil-sized portion of reptile; Nor an egg-sized portion of food; Nor produce growing in the windows; Nor a cobweb having no substance; Nor the carcass of a clean bird which had been intended [for food]; Nor the carcass of an unclean bird which had been intended [for food] and had been rendered susceptible to uncleanness; Nor warp and woof threads that have negaim; Nor a brick from a bet haperas, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the brick can reduce, because the dust [of the bet haperas] is clean. This is the general rule: what is clean reduces [the area], and what is unclean does not reduce it.

If a bright spot the size of a split bean had within it quick flesh the size of a lentil and there was white hair within the quick flesh: if the quick flesh disappeared the spot is unclean on account of the white hair; if the white hair disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon makes it clean, since it was not the bright spot that caused it [the hair] to turn [white]. If a bright spot together with the quick flesh in it was of the size of a split bean and there was white hair within the spot: if the quick flesh disappeared the bright spot is unclean on account of the white hair; if the white hair disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean, since it was not a bright spot the size of a split bean that caused the hair to turn [white]. He agrees that if where the white hair was, was the size of a split bean, that it is impure.

The minimum size of a bright spot must be that of a Cilician split bean squared. The space covered by a split bean equals that of nine lentils. The space covered by a lentil equals that of four hairs; It turns out that the size of a bright spot must be no less than that of thirty-six hairs.

If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and in it there was quick flesh of the size of a lentil: If the bright spot grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller it is clean. If the quick flesh grew larger it is unclean, and if it grew smaller it is clean.

A bright spot the size of a split bean and in it there was quick flesh less than the size of a lentil: If the bright spot grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller it is clean. If the quick flesh grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller, Rabbi Meir rules that it is unclean; But the sages rule that it is clean, since a nega cannot spread within itself.

If a bright spot was larger in size than a split bean and in it there was quick flesh larger than a lentil, irrespective of whether they increased or decreased, they are unclean, provided that they do not decrease to less than the prescribed minimum.

If a bright spot was the size of a split bean and quick flesh the size of a lentil encompassed it, and outside the quick flesh there was another bright spot, the inner one must be isolated and the outer one must be certified unclean. Rabbi Yose says: the quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the inner bright spot is within it. If it decreased or disappeared: Rabban Gamaliel says: if its destruction was on its inner side it is a sign of spreading of the inner bright spot while the outer one is clean, but if its destruction was on its outer side, the outer one is clean while the inner one must be isolated. Rabbi Akiva says: in either case it is clean.

Rabbi Shimon said: when is this the case? When the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. But if it was larger than a lentil, the excess is a sign of spreading of the inner one, and the outer one is unclean. If there was white scurf less that the size of a lentil, it is a sign of the spreading of the inner bright spot but it is not a sign of spreading of the outer one.

Rabbi Shimon said: when is this the case? When the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. But if it was larger than a lentil, the excess is a sign of spreading of the inner one, and the outer one is unclean. If there was white scurf less that the size of a lentil, it is a sign of the spreading of the inner bright spot but it is not a sign of spreading of the outer one.

Rabbi Shimon said: when is this the case? When the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. But if it was larger than a lentil, the excess is a sign of spreading of the inner one, and the outer one is unclean. If there was white scurf less that the size of a lentil, it is a sign of the spreading of the inner bright spot but it is not a sign of spreading of the outer one.

A bright spot the size of a split bean in which there was quick flesh the size of a lentil and then it broke out covering a person's entire skin and then the quick flesh disappeared, or if the quick flesh disappeared and then the bright spot broke out covering all his skin, he is clean. If quick flesh arose [subsequently], he is unclean. If white hair grew [subsequently]: Rabbi Joshua rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.

Any part [of the body] that can be subject to the uncleanness of a bright spot nega can prevent the effectiveness of the breaking out [over the entire body], and any part that cannot be subject to the uncleanness of a bright spot nega does not prevent the effectiveness of the breaking out abroad. How so? If it broke out covering all of his skin, but not on the head or the beard, or on a festering boil, burn or blister, and then the head or the beard became bald, or the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, he is clean. If it broke out covering all of his skin, except a spot of the size of half a lentil near the head or beard, or near a boil, burn or blister, and then the head or the beard became bald, or the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, even though the place of the quick flesh became a bright spot, he is unclean unless it breaks out covering all his body.

If there were two bright spots, one unclean and the other clean, and they broke out from one to the other, and then [a nega] broke out covering all of his skin, he is clean. [If the bright spots] were on his upper lip and lower lip, or on two of his fingers, or on his two eyelids, even though they cleave together and appear as one, he is clean. If it broke out covering all his skin except white scurf, he is unclean. If the ends of his limbs reappeared in the color of white scurf, he is clean. If the ends of his limbs reappeared to the extent of less than a lentil: Rabbi Meir rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that a piece of white scurf less in size than a lentil, is a sign of uncleanness in the beginning, but it is not a sign of uncleanness at the end.

If there were two bright spots, one unclean and the other clean, and they broke out from one to the other, and then [a nega] broke out covering all of his skin, he is clean. [If the bright spots] were on his upper lip and lower lip, or on two of his fingers, or on his two eyelids, even though they cleave together and appear as one, he is clean. If it broke out covering all his skin except white scurf, he is unclean. If the ends of his limbs reappeared in the color of white scurf, he is clean. If the ends of his limbs reappeared to the extent of less than a lentil: Rabbi Meir rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that a piece of white scurf less in size than a lentil, is a sign of uncleanness in the beginning, but it is not a sign of uncleanness at the end.

If one came with his whole body white, and on it there was quick flesh to the extent of a lentil, and then the nega spread out covering all his skin, and then the ends of his limbs reappeared: Rabbi Ishmael says: this is the same as when the ends of the limbs reappear in that of a large bright spot. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah ruled: as when the ends of the limbs reappeared in a small bright spot.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile.” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai;

MISHNAH: Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted. A great ape is a wild animal; Rebbi Yose says they cause impurity in a tent like a human. The hedgehog and a squirrel mole are wild animals. About the squirrel mole, Rebbi Yose says that the House of Shammai say it defiles in the amount of the volume of an olive in carrying, but in the volume of a lentil by touch. The bison is a domesticated animal; Rebbi Yose says a wild animal. The dog is a wild animal; Rebbi Meïr says a domesticated animal. The pig is a domesticated animal, the wild donkey a wild animal. Elephant and monkey are wild animals. A human is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Why is “Land, Land” written twice? To tell you that a house stands only on these two things. Why are [the others] included? Rebbi Jehuda ben Rebbi and Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman, one says for benedictions, the other says for measures. He who says for benedictions is understandable. He who says for measures, did we not state: “A shiny mark the size of half a bean”? That is not reliable. “The size of a lentil from a crawling thing”? That is not reliable.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares them not liable.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

It was stated: “One lifts in a siphon and sprinkles with an ˋedeq for a sick person on the Sabbath.” One lifts in a siphon, משתמיהה. And sprinkles with an ˋedeq, some want to say עיררה; some want to say, a small water pitcher. In a courtyard where it started to rain and there was a house of mourning or a wedding feast, one takes straw and beats it down on condition that he should not do it on the Sabbath in the way he does it on a weekday. It was stated: One does not fill with a lentil of the Sabbath. If he is afraid for the rope or the cord it is permitted.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food. Rebbi Eleazar objected: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat?

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai says, why did they say that a crawling animal the size of a lentil makes impure? Because the start of the creation of a crawling animal is the size of a lentil. Rebbi Yudan asked: Should not a corpse bring impurity even if it is less than the volume of an olive, for did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, “to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive”? And a carcass the size of a pea should cause impurity, for Rebbi Ḥanina said, I saw a calf the size of a pea in a placenta! How is that? I say, [these are] sermons. Preach and receive reward.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai says, why did they say that a crawling animal the size of a lentil makes impure? Because the start of the creation of a crawling animal is the size of a lentil. Rebbi Yudan asked: Should not a corpse bring impurity even if it is less than the volume of an olive, for did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, “to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive”? And a carcass the size of a pea should cause impurity, for Rebbi Ḥanina said, I saw a calf the size of a pea in a placenta! How is that? I say, [these are] sermons. Preach and receive reward.

Do stillbirths generate “decay”? For him who says that their blood induces impurity by a quartarius they generate “decay”; for him who says that their blood does not induce impurity by a quartarius, do they generate “decay”? Let us hear from the following: “Why is the dust from small heaps impure? Because women bury there their stillbirths.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Would it not be reasonable otherwise, that lepers bury their limbs there? You must say that it is because of “decay”, not because a bone the size of a lentil, since it was stated: “If he took some dust from it and replaced it, [the small heap] is pure.” Explain it following Tannaïm, as it was stated: If one removed it, it remains impure; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel declares it pure.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six Days of Creation. Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit. The place for a grit is nine lentils. The space for a lentil is four hairwidths; in all 36 hairwidths.” Rebbi (Yosna) said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why was it stated “squared”? That he should square it. And כגעה? It is full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila! It is round below. Some wanted to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said this only about creatures, There is square in foods, there is no square in creatures.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say). Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi. It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal.

Things unclean. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to determine that a creeping thing should be the size of a lentil; for this is not determined in Holy Writ. For there is a Baraitha, "In them" (Lev. xi. 26, 43). One might have thought it meant among them all, but that the teaching says, "of them" (Lev. xi. 32, 33). One might have thought it meant from a portion of them, but that the teaching says, "among them." But how is this? It is to include the case of a man's touching the extremity of it, for this is equivalent to the whole of it. Wise men calculated that a lentil should be the minimum for comparison. For a snail at first is about the size of a lentil. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, As the tail of a lizard.

Things unclean. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to determine that a creeping thing should be the size of a lentil; for this is not determined in Holy Writ. For there is a Baraitha, "In them" (Lev. xi. 26, 43). One might have thought it meant among them all, but that the teaching says, "of them" (Lev. xi. 32, 33). One might have thought it meant from a portion of them, but that the teaching says, "among them." But how is this? It is to include the case of a man's touching the extremity of it, for this is equivalent to the whole of it. Wise men calculated that a lentil should be the minimum for comparison. For a snail at first is about the size of a lentil. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, As the tail of a lizard.

Things unclean. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to determine that a creeping thing should be the size of a lentil; for this is not determined in Holy Writ. For there is a Baraitha, "In them" (Lev. xi. 26, 43). One might have thought it meant among them all, but that the teaching says, "of them" (Lev. xi. 32, 33). One might have thought it meant from a portion of them, but that the teaching says, "among them." But how is this? It is to include the case of a man's touching the extremity of it, for this is equivalent to the whole of it. Wise men calculated that a lentil should be the minimum for comparison. For a snail at first is about the size of a lentil. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, As the tail of a lizard.

Rav Yehuda bar Chaviva says Three tannaim dispute in this matter. One says like a bean, one says enough to see the head, and one says two hairs, and there are those who take out "two hairs" and insert "like a lentil". And your mnemonic would be: "The white spot is like a bean, and the live skin like a lentil."

Rav Yehuda bar Chaviva says Three tannaim dispute in this matter. One says like a bean, one says enough to see the head, and one says two hairs, and there are those who take out "two hairs" and insert "like a lentil". And your mnemonic would be: "The white spot is like a bean, and the live skin like a lentil."