liquid

Whence flows Europus' river's liquid course,

The order of our arrangement now requires us, after the discussion of the preceding subjects, to institute a general inquiry regarding the soul; and, beginning with points of inferior importance, to ascend to those that are of greater. Now, that there are souls in all living things, even in those which live in the waters, is, I suppose, doubted by no one. For the general opinion of all men maintains this; and confirmation from the authority of holy Scripture is added, when it is said that “God made great whales, and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth after their kind.” It is confirmed also from the common intelligence of reason, by those who lay down in certain words a definition of soul. For soul is defined as follows: a substance φανταστικὴ and ὁρμητικὴ, which may be rendered into Latin, although not so appropriately, sensibilis et mobilis. This certainly may be said appropriately of all living beings, even of those which abide in the waters; and of winged creatures too, this same definition of anima may be shown to hold good. Scripture also has added its authority to a second opinion, when it says, “Ye shall not eat the blood, because the life of all flesh is its blood; and ye shall not eat the life with the flesh;” in which it intimates most clearly that the blood of every animal is its life. And if any one now were to ask how it can be said with respect to bees, wasps, and ants, and those other things which are in the waters, oysters and cockles, and all others which are without blood, and are most clearly shown to be living things, that the “life of all flesh is the blood,” we must answer, that in living things of that sort the force which is exerted in other animals by the power of red blood is exerted in them by that liquid which is within them, although it be of a different colour; for colour is a thing of no importance, provided the substance be endowed with life. That beasts of burden or cattle of smaller size are endowed with souls, there is, by general assent, no doubt whatever. The opinion of holy Scripture, however, is manifest, when God says, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, four-footed beasts, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind.” And now with respect to man, although no one entertains any doubt, or needs to inquire, yet holy Scripture declares that “God breathed into his countenance the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” It remains that we inquire respecting the angelic order whether they also have souls, or are souls; and also respecting the other divine and celestial powers, as well as those of an opposite kind. We nowhere, indeed, find any authority in holy Scripture for asserting that either the angels, or any other divine spirits that are ministers of God, either possess souls or are called souls, and yet they are felt by very many persons to be endowed with life. But with regard to God, we find it written as follows: “And I will put my soul upon that soul which has eaten blood, and I will root him out from among his people;” and also in another passage, “Your new moons, and sabbaths, and great days, I will not accept; your fasts, and holidays, and festal days, my soul hateth.” And in the twenty-second Psalm, regarding Christ—for it is certain, as the Gospel bears witness, that this Psalm is spoken of Him—the following words occur: “O Lord, be not far from helping me; look to my defence: O God, deliver my soul from the sword, and my beloved one from the hand of the dog;” although there are also many other testimonies respecting the soul of Christ when He tabernacled in the flesh.

If he pickled, stewed, or salted [produce], he is liable [to give tithes]. If he stored [produce] in the ground [in order to warm it up] he is exempt. If he dipped it [while yet] in the field, he is exempt. If he split olives so that the bitter taste may come out of them, he is exempt. If he squeezed olives against his skin, he is exempt. If he squeezed them and put [the oil] into his hand, he is liable. One who makes a viscous liquid [from grapes or olives] in order to put it in a dish is exempt. But if to put it in an [empty] pot, he is liable for it is like a small vat.

They do not eat Greek hyssop on Shabbat, because it is not the food of healthy people. But he may eat yo’ezer and drink abuv ro’eh. A man may eat any kind of food as medicine, and drink any liquid, except water of palm trees and a potion of roots, because they are for jaundice. But he may drink water of palm trees for his thirst and rub himself with oil of roots for a non-medical purpose.

If he ate and drank in one state of unawareness, he is not obligated to bring more than one sin-offering. But if he ate and performed labor while in one state of unawareness he is obligated for two sin-offerings. If he ate foods unfit for eating, or drank liquids unfit for drinking, or drank fish-brine or fish pickling liquid, he is not liable.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “When is this so (that one needs to clean out measures)? With regards to liquid measures, but with regards to dry measures it is not necessary. [And a shopkeeper] must let the scales sink down a handbreadth [to the buyer’s advantage]. If he gave him an exact measure, he must give him his overweight, a tenth for liquid measures and a twentieth for dry measures. Where the custom is to measure with small measures they should not measure with large measures and where the custom is to measure with large measures they should not measure with small measures. Where the custom is to smooth down [what is in the measure] they should not heap it up, and [where the custom is] to heap it up, they should not smooth it down.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “When is this so (that one needs to clean out measures)? With regards to liquid measures, but with regards to dry measures it is not necessary. [And a shopkeeper] must let the scales sink down a handbreadth [to the buyer’s advantage]. If he gave him an exact measure, he must give him his overweight, a tenth for liquid measures and a twentieth for dry measures. Where the custom is to measure with small measures they should not measure with large measures and where the custom is to measure with large measures they should not measure with small measures. Where the custom is to smooth down [what is in the measure] they should not heap it up, and [where the custom is] to heap it up, they should not smooth it down.

A barrel of pickled olives: Beth Shammai says: one need not perforate it, And Beth Hillel say: one must perforate it. But they agree that if it was perforated and the dregs stopped it up, it is not liable to receive impurity. One who had anointed himself with clean oil and [then] became unclean, and he went down and immersed himself, Beth Shammai says: although he still drips [oil], it is clean. And Beth Hillel says: [only while there remains] enough for anointing a small limb. And if from the beginning it was unclean oil, Beth Shammai says: [it is unclean as long as there remains] enough for anointing a small limb, And Beth Hillel says: [even if there remains as much] as a moist liquid. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Beth Hillel: [provided it remains] moist [itself] and [can also] moisten [other things].

Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer, a man of Zereda, testified concerning the ayal-locust, that it is pure; And concerning liquid in the slaughter-house (of the Temple), that it is pure; And that one who touches a corpse is impure. And they called him “Yose the permitter”.

The following are permitted to be eaten [by an israelite]:milk which a non-Jew milked with a Jew watching him; honey, grape-clusters even though these secrete moisture the law which renders food susceptible to defilement by a liquid does not apply to them preserves into which they are not accustomed to put wine or vinegar, pickled herring which has not been minced, brine containing fish, a leaf of asafoetida, and rolled olive-cakes. Rabbi Yose says: those olives having pits ready to drop out are prohibited. Locusts which come out of [a shopkeeper’s] basket are prohibited, but if from storage they are permitted. The same rule applies to terumah.

Just as the altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it, so does the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for it; And just as the altar and the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for them, so do vessels sanctify. Vessels for liquids sanctify liquids, And the measures sanctify dry material. A liquid vessel does not sanctify dry matter, nor does a dry [measure] sanctify a liquid. If holy vessels were perforated and they can be used for the same purpose as when whole, they sanctify [what is placed in them]; if not, they do not sanctify. And all these sanctify only in the holy place.

Just as the altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it, so does the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for it; And just as the altar and the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for them, so do vessels sanctify. Vessels for liquids sanctify liquids, And the measures sanctify dry material. A liquid vessel does not sanctify dry matter, nor does a dry [measure] sanctify a liquid. If holy vessels were perforated and they can be used for the same purpose as when whole, they sanctify [what is placed in them]; if not, they do not sanctify. And all these sanctify only in the holy place.

There were seven liquid measuring vessels in the Temple: the hin, the half-hin, the third-hin, the quarter-hin, the log, the half-log, and the quarter-log. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: there were markings in the hin measure [indicating] thus far for a bull, thus far for a ram, and thus far for a lamb. Rabbi Shimon says: there was no hin measure at all, for what purpose could the hin serve? But there was an additional measure of one and a half logs by which one used to measure [the oil] for the minhah of the high priest, a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half towards evening.

All the measures in the Temple were heaped except [that used for] the high priest's [minhah] which included in itself the heaped amount. The overflow of the liquid-measures was holy, but the overflow of the dry-measures was not holy. Rabbi Akiva says: the liquid-measuring vessels were holy, therefore their overflow was holy too; the dry-measuring vessels were not holy, therefore their overflow was not holy. Rabbi Yose says: it is not for that reason, but because liquids are stirred up and dry-stuffs are not.

All the measures in the Temple were heaped except [that used for] the high priest's [minhah] which included in itself the heaped amount. The overflow of the liquid-measures was holy, but the overflow of the dry-measures was not holy. Rabbi Akiva says: the liquid-measuring vessels were holy, therefore their overflow was holy too; the dry-measuring vessels were not holy, therefore their overflow was not holy. Rabbi Yose says: it is not for that reason, but because liquids are stirred up and dry-stuffs are not.

A damaged jar found in a furnace: Before its manufacture was complete it is not susceptible to impurity, But if after its manufacture was complete it is susceptible. A sprinkler: Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok holds it is not susceptible to impurity; But Rabbi Yose holds it to be susceptible because it lets the liquid out in drops only.

The following among earthen vessels are susceptible to impurity: A tray with a rim, An unbroken fire-pan, And a tray made up of dishes, If one of them was defiled by a [dead] creeping thing they do not all become unclean, But if it had a rim that projected above the rims of the dishes and one of them was defiled all are unclean. Similarly with an earthen spice-box and a double ink-pot, and a wooden spice-box, if one container was defiled from a liquid, the other is not unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: its thickness is divided and that side which serves the unclean one is unclean while that which serves the clean one remains clean. If its rim projects above the others and one of them contracted impurity the other is unclean.

If a jar was cracked and cannot be moved with half a kav of dried figs in it, it is clean. If a damaged vessel (gistera) was cracked and it cannot hold any liquid, even though it can hold foodstuffs, it is clean, since remnants do not have remnants.

Netting placed over the mouth of an oven and slightly sinking into it, and having no frame: If a sheretz was in it, the oven becomes unclean; If the sheretz was in the oven, the food in the netting becomes unclean, since only vessels afford protection against an impurity in an earthen vessel. A jar full of pure liquids placed beneath the bottom of an oven, and a sheretz in the oven – the jar and the liquids remain clean. If it was inverted, with its mouth projecting into the air-space of the oven, and a sheretz was in the oven, the liquid that clings to the sides of the jar remains clean.

A pot which was placed in an oven if a sheretz was in the oven, the pot remains clean since an earthen vessel does not impart impurity to vessels. If it contained dripping liquid, the latter contracts impurity and the pot also becomes unclean. It is as if this one says, "That which made you unclean did not make me unclean, but you have made me unclean."

If milk [of an impure woman] dripped from a woman's breasts and fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since a liquid conveys impurity regardless of whether one wanted it there or not. If she was sweeping it out and a thorn pricked her and she bled, or if she burnt herself and put her finger into her mouth, the oven becomes unclean.

A sponge which had absorbed unclean liquids and its outer surface became dry and it fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven is unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. And the same with regard to a piece of turnip or reed grass. Rabbi Shimon says: the oven is clean in both these cases.

Potsherds that had been used for unclean liquids which fell into the air-space of an oven, if the oven was heated, it becomes unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. And the same with regard to fresh olive peat, but if it was old, the oven remains clean. If it was known that liquid emerges, even after the lapse of three years, the oven becomes unclean.

Potsherds that had been used for unclean liquids which fell into the air-space of an oven, if the oven was heated, it becomes unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. And the same with regard to fresh olive peat, but if it was old, the oven remains clean. If it was known that liquid emerges, even after the lapse of three years, the oven becomes unclean.

If there was a hole in the "eye" of an oven, the minimum size [for it to leave the category of being tightly closed] is the circumference of a burning spindle staff that can enter and come out [without being extinguished]. Rabbi Judah says: one that is not burning. If the hole appeared at its side, the minimum size must be that of the circumference of a spindle staff that can enter and come out while it is not burning. Rabbi Judah says: while burning. Rabbi Shimon says: if the hole is in the middle its size must be such that a spindle staff can enter it, but if it was at the side it need only be such as the spindle staff cannot actually enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning the stopper of a jar in which a hole appeared: the minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in an oat stalk. If the hole was in the middle the stalk should be able to enter, and if at the side it need not be able to enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning large stone jars in the stoppers of which appeared a hole. The minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in a reed. If the hole was in the middle the reed must be able to enter it, and if it was at the side the reed need not be able to enter it. When is this so? When the jars were made for wine, but if they were made for other liquids, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. When is this so? When the holes were not made by a person, but if they were made by a person, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. If a hole appeared [in other vessels its prescribed size ] is as follows: if the vessel was used for food, [the hole must be one] through which olives can fall out; if for liquids, one that lets out liquids; If for either, the greater restriction is imposed [even with regard to the issue of] a tightly fitting cover [the size of the hole need only be] one that admits a liquid.

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.

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.

Vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass: those that are flat are clean and those that form a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. If they are broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket, a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship, that have flat bottoms and can hold a minimum of forty se'ah in liquid measure which represent two kor in dry measure, are clean. All other vessels whether they can contain the minimum or cannot contain it, are susceptible to impurity, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the tub of a wagon, the food chests of kings, the tanners trough, the tank of a small ship, and an ark, even though they are able to contain the minimum, are susceptible to impurity, since they are intended to be moved about with their contents. As to all other vessels, those that can contain the minimum are clean and those that cannot contain it are susceptible to impurity. There is no difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah except a baking trough which belongs to a householder.

Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv, The quantity being the food one eats on weekdays and not on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: as on Shabbat and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the more lenient ruling. Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made of a kav. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pundium when the price of wheat is four se'ah for a sela’.

The bases, rims, hangers or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which an unclean liquid fell, one dries them and they remain clean. But [if unclean liquid fell] on any part of any other vessel which cannot hold pomegranates (or in which no distinction is made between its outer and inner sides), the whole becomes unclean. If the outer side of a vessel contracted uncleanness from a liquid, only its outer side is unclean but its inner side, rim, hanger and handles remain clean. If its inner side contracted uncleanness the whole is unclean.

The bases, rims, hangers or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which an unclean liquid fell, one dries them and they remain clean. But [if unclean liquid fell] on any part of any other vessel which cannot hold pomegranates (or in which no distinction is made between its outer and inner sides), the whole becomes unclean. If the outer side of a vessel contracted uncleanness from a liquid, only its outer side is unclean but its inner side, rim, hanger and handles remain clean. If its inner side contracted uncleanness the whole is unclean.

The bases, rims, hangers or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which an unclean liquid fell, one dries them and they remain clean. But [if unclean liquid fell] on any part of any other vessel which cannot hold pomegranates (or in which no distinction is made between its outer and inner sides), the whole becomes unclean. If the outer side of a vessel contracted uncleanness from a liquid, only its outer side is unclean but its inner side, rim, hanger and handles remain clean. If its inner side contracted uncleanness the whole is unclean.

How so? If one's hands were clean and the outer side of a cup was unclean, one may hold it by its holding-place and need not be concerned lest his hands have contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup. If one was drinking from a cup whose outer side was unclean he need not be concerned lest the liquid in his mouth contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup and that it then conveyed uncleanness to the cup. If a kettle was boiling one need not be concerned lest liquid should come out from it and touch its outer side and return again within it.

How so? If one's hands were clean and the outer side of a cup was unclean, one may hold it by its holding-place and need not be concerned lest his hands have contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup. If one was drinking from a cup whose outer side was unclean he need not be concerned lest the liquid in his mouth contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup and that it then conveyed uncleanness to the cup. If a kettle was boiling one need not be concerned lest liquid should come out from it and touch its outer side and return again within it.

A laced-up bag whose laces were removed is still susceptible to uncleanness; But if it was made flat it is pure. If a strip of cloth has been put on it below, it is susceptible. If a bag was within another bag and one of them became unclean from a liquid, the other does not become unclean. A pearl pouch is susceptible to uncleanness. A money pouch: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is pure.

[With regard to] a hatch between the house and the upper story, if there was a pot placed over it and it was perforated [by a hole of sufficient size] to admit liquid: Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the pot becomes unclean but the upper story remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says: all remains clean.

[With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

[With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

Some things bring forth uncleanness and [also] a protect [against it]; [Some things] bring forth uncleanness but do not protect against it; [Some things] protect but do not bring forth; [Some things] do not bring forth nor do they protect. The following bring forth and protect against [impurity]: A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water-tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms and can contain [at least] forty seahs liquid measure or two kors dry measure. [Also] a curtain, a leather apron, a leather bedspread, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when made into tents. A herd of cattle, unclean or clean, packs of wild animals or birds, a resting bird, a [shady] place that [a woman] makes for her son among the ears of corn; The iris, the ivy, squirting cucumber, Greek gourds and clean foodstuffs. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri did not agree with regard to clean foodstuffs except in the case of a cake of dried figs.

The following bring [impurity] but do not protect against it: A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms but cannot contain forty se'ahs of liquid measure or two kors dry measure. A curtain, a leather apron, a leather undercover, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when not made into tents. Cattle or wild animals when they are dead, and foodstuffs that are [liable to become] unclean. In addition to these, a human-powered mill.

A jar full of clean liquid and sealed with a tightly fitting lid, which had been made the covering stone of a tomb, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness but the jar and the liquid remain clean. An animal that had been used as a covering stone, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness. Rabbi Meir says: anything possessing the breath of life does convey uncleanness on account of [its being used as] a covering stone.

A jar full of clean liquid and sealed with a tightly fitting lid, which had been made the covering stone of a tomb, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness but the jar and the liquid remain clean. An animal that had been used as a covering stone, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness. Rabbi Meir says: anything possessing the breath of life does convey uncleanness on account of [its being used as] a covering stone.

One who prepares the mixture of the hatat should not wear his sandals, for were some of the liquid to fall on his sandal it would become unclean and [the sandal] would defile him. Behold he would say [to the sandal], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me." If some of the liquid fell on his skin he remains clean. If it fell on his garment it becomes unclean and defiles him. Behold he would say [to the garment], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

One who prepares the mixture of the hatat should not wear his sandals, for were some of the liquid to fall on his sandal it would become unclean and [the sandal] would defile him. Behold he would say [to the sandal], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me." If some of the liquid fell on his skin he remains clean. If it fell on his garment it becomes unclean and defiles him. Behold he would say [to the garment], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

Any derived uncleanness does not defile vessels, but [it does defile] a liquid. If a liquid became unclean it defiles them. Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.

Any derived uncleanness does not defile vessels, but [it does defile] a liquid. If a liquid became unclean it defiles them. Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.

Any derived uncleanness does not defile vessels, but [it does defile] a liquid. If a liquid became unclean it defiles them. Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.

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."

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."

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."

Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

If the smallest amount of water fell into a flask: Rabbi Eliezer says: the sprinkling must be done twice; But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. If dew dropped into it: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it be put out in the sun and the dew will rise. But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. If a liquid or fruit juice fell into it, all the contents must be poured away and it is also necessary to dry the flask. If ink, gum or sulphate of copper, or anything that leaves a mark, fell into it, the contents must be poured away but it is not necessary to dry the flask.

The hyssop that was used for sprinkling [the hatat waters] is also fit for cleansing the metzora. If it was gathered for firewood, and liquid fell upon it, it may be dried and it becomes fit. If it was gathered for food, and liquid fell upon it, even though it was dried, it is invalid. If it was gathered for [the sprinkling of the waters of] the hatat, it is subject to the same law as if it were gathered for food, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon ruled: as if it were gathered for firewood.

The hyssop that was used for sprinkling [the hatat waters] is also fit for cleansing the metzora. If it was gathered for firewood, and liquid fell upon it, it may be dried and it becomes fit. If it was gathered for food, and liquid fell upon it, even though it was dried, it is invalid. If it was gathered for [the sprinkling of the waters of] the hatat, it is subject to the same law as if it were gathered for food, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon ruled: as if it were gathered for firewood.

Pieces of dough which are stuck to each other or loaves stuck to each other, if one of them was defiled from a sheretz, they all become unclean in the first degree; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having first degree uncleanness. If one of them was defiled by a liquid they all have second degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as have second degree uncleanness. If one of them was defiled from the hands, they all become have third degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having third degree of uncleanness.

Holy loaves in whose hollows there was holy water, if one contracted uncleanness from a sheretz, they all become unclean. In the case of loaves of terumah, uncleanness is conveyed to two loaves and one is invalidated. If there was dripping liquid between them, even in the case of terumah all become unclean.

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

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

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

"In the case of a doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean:" How so? If an unclean person stretched his foot between clean liquids and there is doubt whether he touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. If a man had an unclean loaf in his hand and he stretched it out between clean liquids, and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. "But if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed, it is deemed clean." How so? If a man had in his hand a stick on the end of which there was an unclean liquid and he threw it among clean loaves and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean.

If a kneading trough was sloping downwards and there was dough in the higher part and dripping moisture in the lower part, then three pieces that jointly make up the bulk of an egg cannot be combined together, but two are combined. Rabbi Yose says: the two also cannot be combined unless they compress liquid between them. If the liquid was level, even though the piece was the size of a mustard seed they are combined together. Rabbi Dosa says: crumbled food cannot be combined together.

If a kneading trough was sloping downwards and there was dough in the higher part and dripping moisture in the lower part, then three pieces that jointly make up the bulk of an egg cannot be combined together, but two are combined. Rabbi Yose says: the two also cannot be combined unless they compress liquid between them. If the liquid was level, even though the piece was the size of a mustard seed they are combined together. Rabbi Dosa says: crumbled food cannot be combined together.

If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed. A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness.

If he finished the gathering but intended to buy some more, or if he had finished buying but intended to borrow some more, or if a time of mourning, a wedding feast or some other hindrance befell him then even if zavim and zavot trampled over them they remain clean. If any unclean liquids fell upon them, only the place where it touched them becomes unclean. Any liquid that comes out of them is clean.

When their preparation is finished behold they are susceptible to uncleanness. If an unclean liquid fell upon them they become unclean. The sap that issues from them: Rabbi Eliezer says it is clean, But the sages say that it is unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: they did not dispute the ruling that sap that issues from olives is clean. But about what did they dispute? About that which comes from the vat: That Rabbi Eliezer says is clean And the sages say is unclean.

If the olive-workers in an olive-press went in and out, and in the olive-press there was unclean liquid, if there is space enough [on the ground] between the liquid and the olives for their feet to be dried on the ground, the olive workers remain clean. If something unclean was found in front of olive-workers in the olive-press or grape harvesters, they are believed to say, "We have not touched it." And the same law applies also to the young children among them. They may go outside the door of the olive-press and relieve themselves behind the wall, and still be deemed clean. How far may they go and still be deemed clean? As far as they can be seen.

If the olive-workers in an olive-press went in and out, and in the olive-press there was unclean liquid, if there is space enough [on the ground] between the liquid and the olives for their feet to be dried on the ground, the olive workers remain clean. If something unclean was found in front of olive-workers in the olive-press or grape harvesters, they are believed to say, "We have not touched it." And the same law applies also to the young children among them. They may go outside the door of the olive-press and relieve themselves behind the wall, and still be deemed clean. How far may they go and still be deemed clean? As far as they can be seen.

These invalidate the mikveh and do not raise it up to [the required quantity]: Drawn water, whether clean or unclean, water that has been used for pickling or for boiling, and grape-skin wine before it becomes vinegar. How do they make the mikveh invalid and do not raise it up [the required quantity]? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less a kortov, and a kortov of these fell into it, it does not raise it up [the required quantity]; And if there were three logs of any of these, they would invalidate the mikveh. But other liquids, and the juice of fruits, brine, and liquid in which fish has been pickled, and grape-skin wine that has fermented sometimes raise it up to [the required quantity] and sometimes do not raise it up. How so? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a seah of any of these fell in it, it does not raise it up to [the required quantity]. But if the mikveh contained forty seahs and a se'ah of any of these was put in and one seah was removed, the mikveh is still valid.

Five kinds of blood in a woman are unclean: red, black, like bright crocus, like earthy water, or like diluted wine. Bet Shammai says: also like fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat. But Bet Hillel declares these clean. One that is yellow: Akavia ben Mahalalel declares unclean And the sages declare clean. Rabbi Meir said: even if it does not convey uncleanness as a bloodstain it conveys uncleanness as a liquid. Rabbi Yose says: it does neither the one nor the other.

Similarly, any [hole in] an earthen vessel that lets in a liquid will let it out, but there may be one that will let liquid out and will not let it in. Any limb that grows a nail also has a bone in it, but there may be one that has a bone in it but does not grow a nail.

Similarly, any [hole in] an earthen vessel that lets in a liquid will let it out, but there may be one that will let liquid out and will not let it in. Any limb that grows a nail also has a bone in it, but there may be one that has a bone in it but does not grow a nail.

Seven substances should be applied to a stain: tasteless spittle, the liquid of crushed beans, urine, lye, soapwort, cimolian earth, and potash. If one immersed it and then handled clean things on it, and then applied to it the seven substances and the stain did not fade away it must be a dye, and the clean things remain clean and there is no need to immerse it again. If the stain faded away or grew fainter, it must be a bloodstain and the clean things are unclean and it is necessary to perform immersion again.

What is meant by tasteless spittle? From one who had eaten nothing [that day]. The liquid of crushed beans? The chewing of split beans, ready to be swallowed. Urine? That has fermented. One must scour the stain three times with each of the substances. If he applied them out of the prescribed order, or if he applied the seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing.

Any liquid which was desired at the beginning though it was not desired at the end, or which was desired at the end though it was not desired at the beginning, comes under the law of "if water be put." Unclean liquids render unclean whether [their action] is desired or is not desired.

If one shook a tree and it fell on another tree, or a branch and it fell on another branch, and under them were seeds or vegetables [still] joined to the ground: 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’. R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yose Holikofri a man of Tivon: Be surprised if there is any liquid that according to the Torah causes susceptibility to uncleanness except one put it on with intention, for it is said: "If water be put upon the seed."

If one rubbed a leek or pressed his hair or his garment, Rabbi Yose says: the liquid which came out comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but the liquid that remained does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the liquid should come out of all of it.

If one rubbed a leek or pressed his hair or his garment, Rabbi Yose says: the liquid which came out comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but the liquid that remained does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the liquid should come out of all of it.

If one rubbed a leek or pressed his hair or his garment, Rabbi Yose says: the liquid which came out comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but the liquid that remained does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the liquid should come out of all of it.

If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness. If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way].

One who carries up to the roof bundles [of vegetables] or cakes of figs or garlic so as to keep them fresh, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. All bundles [of vegetables] in the market places are unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean if they are fresh. Rabbi Meir said: Why did they declare them unclean? Only because of liquid from the mouth. All coarse and fine flours of the market places are unclean. Crushed wheat, groats, and pearl-barley are unclean everywhere.

The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness: Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood. [The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean. Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing. Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean.

A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Thus far was the argument. Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage.

A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Thus far was the argument. Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage.

A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Thus far was the argument. Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage.

There are seven ways in which a zav is examined as long as he had not become subject to zivah: With regard to food, drink, as [to what] he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been ill, what he had seen, or what he had thought. [It doesn't matter] whether he had thoughts before seeing [a woman], or whether he had seen [a woman] before his thoughts. Rabbi Judah says: even if he had watched beasts, wild animals or birds having intercourse with each other, and even when he had seen a woman's dyed garments. Rabbi Akiva says: even if he had eaten any kind of food, be it good or bad, or had drunk any kind of liquid. They said to him: Then there will be no zavim in the world!’ He replied to them: you are not held responsible for the existence of zavim!’ Once he had become subject to zivah, no further examination takes place. [Zov] resulting from an accident, or that was at all doubtful, or an issue of semen, these are unclean, since there are grounds for the assumption [that it is zivah]. If he had at a first [issue] they examine him; On the second [issue] they examine him, but on the third [issue] they don't examine him. Rabbi Eliezer says: even on the third [issue] they examine him because of the sacrifice.

Liquids that come out of a tevul yom are like those which he has touched: neither of them causes defilement. With regard to all others that are unclean, be they of minor or major [degree], the liquids that come out of them are like those they touch; both have first degree impurity. Except for liquid that is a "father of impurity."

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean. If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin.

The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?

It was stated: “If there were two amphoras before him, one of pure tithe which was ṭevel and one of impure tithe which was ṭevel, he brings two vessels and takes from each of them heave of the tithe for both of them. He then turns and lifts one vessel and says: If this one is pure, I am making it heave of the tithe; else I did not do anything. Then he turns, does the same for the second vessel, immerses himself and drinks, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he takes it only at the end.” What is the reason of Rebbi? I say, maybe he started drinking the impure one first. And what is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Maybe he drank the impure one at the end. Everybody agrees that he who drinks impure liquids may not even eat heave that is in doubt. If the liquids were possibly impure, everybody agrees that he may eat what certainly is heave. But here we deal with another Mishnah. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Since according to both the impurity is certain, he needs immersion. What is the reason of Rebbi? That he should not be led into drinking a reviït. According to the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, he drinks less than a reviït. Is Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon not afraid that he would be led into drinking a reviït? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the only explanation you have is our first one. Rebbi is afraid that he drank the impure liquid first and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is afraid that he drank the impure liquid at the end.

It was stated: “If there were two amphoras before him, one of pure tithe which was ṭevel and one of impure tithe which was ṭevel, he brings two vessels and takes from each of them heave of the tithe for both of them. He then turns and lifts one vessel and says: If this one is pure, I am making it heave of the tithe; else I did not do anything. Then he turns, does the same for the second vessel, immerses himself and drinks, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he takes it only at the end.” What is the reason of Rebbi? I say, maybe he started drinking the impure one first. And what is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Maybe he drank the impure one at the end. Everybody agrees that he who drinks impure liquids may not even eat heave that is in doubt. If the liquids were possibly impure, everybody agrees that he may eat what certainly is heave. But here we deal with another Mishnah. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Since according to both the impurity is certain, he needs immersion. What is the reason of Rebbi? That he should not be led into drinking a reviït. According to the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, he drinks less than a reviït. Is Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon not afraid that he would be led into drinking a reviït? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the only explanation you have is our first one. Rebbi is afraid that he drank the impure liquid first and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is afraid that he drank the impure liquid at the end.

“If the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted since it is one vessel.” There is a difference because all is one, if he combined it by lime or gypsum. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection. It was stated: One wick in two cups, in two pots, in two trays is forbidden; Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection.

“If the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted since it is one vessel.” There is a difference because all is one, if he combined it by lime or gypsum. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection. It was stated: One wick in two cups, in two pots, in two trays is forbidden; Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection.