liquid

One who is grinding garlic, if he breaks the tips, because he is threshing; if he takes the outer leaves, because he is selecting; if he pounds in a mortar, because he is grinding; if it produces liquid, because of making dough; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

This sausage maker, if he selects shavings for casings, because of selecting; if he hacks with a coarse file, because of threshing, if he pounds in a mortar, because he is grinding; if it produces liquid, because of making dough; if he fills a hollow, because of building; if he cuts off bast, because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

There, they say: “She came before us, stripped his shoe from his right foot, spat before us spittle that was visible on the ground, and said: ‘So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.’ ” Rebbi Abbahu said, since the spittle was visible when it left her mouth it is valid, even if the wind dissipated it. If she spat blood? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turned to it, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Abba bar Abba, Rebbi Ze‘ira turned to it in the name of Samuel: If it contains some liquid spittle, it is valid. How does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? With her teeth.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

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

The hands are [only unclean in] the second degree, and [anything unclean in] the second degree cannot make a third [unclean grade] with things non-holy except through the medium of a liquid.

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

We are dealing here with a vessel whose exterior has been defiled by liquid, that is to say whose interior is ritually clean but the exterior unclean ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : If a vessel's exterior has been defiled by liquid, the exterior is unclean

We are dealing here with a vessel whose exterior has been defiled by liquid, that is to say whose interior is ritually clean but the exterior unclean ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : If a vessel's exterior has been defiled by liquid, the exterior is unclean

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

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

But the table can defile the food which is upon it ! We deal here with a table [unclean] in the second degree, and [anything unclean in] the second degree cannot make a third [unclean grade] with things non-holy except through the medium of a liquid.

If it was poured away or uncovered, [he would refill it from the laver, for wine or water which has become uncovered is invalid for the altar.] But why? Let him filter it through a strainer? Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Nehemiah, for it has been taught, [Liquid that has passed through] a strainer is forbidden under the law of uncovering. R. Nehemiah said: When does this apply? Only when the receptacle underneath was uncovered, but when the receptacle underneath is covered, even although the upper one was uncovered, the law of uncovering does not apply, since the venom of a serpent is like a fungus which floats on the surface and remains where it is

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

Take the case of a learned and observant man and a common person who are their father's joint heirs. The common person may say to him, Take thou the wheat that is in such a place, and I will take the wheat that is in such a place; take thou the wine that is in such a place, and I will take the wine that is in such a place. But he may not say to him, Take thou the liquid and I will take the dry; take thou the wheat, and I will take the barley. And there is a further teaching with regard to it. That same learned and observant man burns the liquid and leaves the dry. Why? Let him leave it for the next vintage. It may be one of the things which have no vintage. Let him leave it for one of the great Feasts. It may be one of the things which will not keep till the Feast. But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it the fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed.

Take the case of a learned and observant man and a common person who are their father's joint heirs. The common person may say to him, Take thou the wheat that is in such a place, and I will take the wheat that is in such a place; take thou the wine that is in such a place, and I will take the wine that is in such a place. But he may not say to him, Take thou the liquid and I will take the dry; take thou the wheat, and I will take the barley. And there is a further teaching with regard to it. That same learned and observant man burns the liquid and leaves the dry. Why? Let him leave it for the next vintage. It may be one of the things which have no vintage. Let him leave it for one of the great Feasts. It may be one of the things which will not keep till the Feast. But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it the fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed.