shimon

If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.

Rabbi Akiba asked again: If a man slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple] in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to a separate offering for each act or only to one for them all? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiba did not ask this, but rather concerning one who ate of notar (remnant) from five sacrifices in one spell of unawareness what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or is he liable to one for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Akiba replied: if this is a received tradition we accept it; but if it is only a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He [Rabbi Joshua] said: rebut it. He replied: It is not so. For if you hold the view with regard to sacrilege, for in this case one who gives food to another is as guilty as the one who eats it himself, and the person who causes others to derive a benefit from them is as guilty as the person who himself made use of them; furthermore, [small quantities are] reckoned together in the case of sacrilege even after the lapse of a long period, can you say it in connection with notar (remnant) where not one of these laws applies.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

[If there was] a piece of hullin meat and a piece of sacred meat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba declares him liable for an asham talui. If he then ate the second [piece], he is liable to a certain asham. If he ate one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one asham. Rabbi Yose said: Two people cannot bring one asham.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of hullin [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is brings a hatat. If he ate the one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one hatat. Rabbi Yose says: two people cannot bring one hatat.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui; If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to a hatat and a certain asham. If he ate the one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: they together bring a hatat and an asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot together bring one hatat and one asham.

If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.

The ashes of the inner altar and [of the wicks of] the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege. Turtle-doves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Shimon said: turtle-doves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege.

Whatever is fit for the altar and not for Temple repair, for Temple repair and not for the altar, neither for the altar nor for Temple repair is subject to the law of sacrilege. How so? If one consecrated a cistern full of water, a dump full of manure, a dove-cote full of pigeons, a tree laden with fruit, a field covered with herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to them and to their contents. But if one consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dump and it was later filled with manure, a dove-cote and it was later filled with pigeons, a tree and it afterwards bore fruit or a field and it afterwards produced herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to the consecrated objects themselves but not to their contents, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: if one consecrated a field or a tree, the law of sacrilege applies to it and to its produce for it is the growth of consecrated property. The young of [cattle set aside as] tithe may not nurse from cattle set aside for tithe, but others consecrate for such use. The young of consecrated cattle may not nurse from consecrated cattle, but others consecrate for such use. Workers may not eat dry figs dedicated to the Temple, nor may a cow eat of the vetch belonging to the Temple.

Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard can combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon says: they do not combine. Cloth, sack-cloth, sack-cloth and leather, leather and matting combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon: What is the reason? Because these are all susceptible to the uncleanness caused by sitting.

Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard can combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon says: they do not combine. Cloth, sack-cloth, sack-cloth and leather, leather and matting combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon: What is the reason? Because these are all susceptible to the uncleanness caused by sitting.

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."

A jar: the size of the hole must be such that a dried fig [will fall through], the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah said: walnuts. Rabbi Meir said: olives. A stew-pot or a cooking pot: such that olives [will fall through]. A bucket and a pitcher: such that oil [will fall through]. A tzartzur: such that water [will fall through]. Rabbi Shimon says: in the case of all three, [the hole] must be such that seedlings [will fall through]. A lamp: the size of the hole must be such that oil [will fall through]. Rabbi Eliezer says: such that a small perutah [will fall through]. A lamp whose nozzle has been removed is clean. And one made of earth whose nozzle has been burned by the wick is also clean.

A jar: the size of the hole must be such that a dried fig [will fall through], the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah said: walnuts. Rabbi Meir said: olives. A stew-pot or a cooking pot: such that olives [will fall through]. A bucket and a pitcher: such that oil [will fall through]. A tzartzur: such that water [will fall through]. Rabbi Shimon says: in the case of all three, [the hole] must be such that seedlings [will fall through]. A lamp: the size of the hole must be such that oil [will fall through]. Rabbi Eliezer says: such that a small perutah [will fall through]. A lamp whose nozzle has been removed is clean. And one made of earth whose nozzle has been burned by the wick is also clean.

One who lines a sound vessel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: [the lining] contracts impurity. But the sages say: a lining over a sound vessel is not susceptible to impurity, and only one over a cracked vessel is susceptible. And the same dispute applies to the hoop of a pumpkin shell.

If an oven contracted impurity how is it to be cleansed? He must divide into three parts and scrape off the plastering so that [the oven] touches the ground. Rabbi Meir says: he does not need to scrape off the plastering nor is it necessary for [the oven] to touch the ground. Rather he reduces it within to a height of less than four handbreadths. Rabbi Shimon says: he must move it [from its position]. If it was divided into two parts, one large and the other small, the larger remains unclean and the smaller becomes clean. If it was divided into three parts one of which was as big as the other two together, the big one remains unclean and the two small ones become clean.

If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.

If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.

If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.

If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.

How do we measure them? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he puts the measuring-rod between them, and any part that is outside the measuring-rod is clean while any part inside the measuring-rod, including the place of the measuring-rod itself, is 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.

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.

Metal vessels, whether they are flat or form a receptacle, are susceptible to impurity. On being broken they become clean. If they were re-made into vessels they revert to their former impurity. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: this does not apply to every form of impurity but only to that contracted from a corpse.

A staff to the end of which he attached a nail like an axe is susceptible to impurity. If the staff was studded with nails it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon ruled: only if he put in three rows. In all cases where he put them in as ornamentation the staff is clean. If he attached a tube to its end, and so also in the case of a door, it is clean. If it was once an independent vessel and then it was fixed to the staff, it remains susceptible to impurity. When does it become pure? Bet Shammai says: when it is damaged; And Bet Hillel says: when it is joined on.

Bakers’ baking-boards are susceptible to impurity, but those used by householders are clean. But if he dyed them red or saffron they are susceptible to impurity. If a bakers’ shelf was fixed to a wall: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is clean And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. The bakers' frame is susceptible to impurity but one used by householders is clean. If he made a rim on its four sides it is susceptible to impurity, but if one side was open it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if he fixed it so that one can cut the dough upon it, it is susceptible to impurity. Similarly, a rolling-pin is susceptible to impurity.

Bread-baskets [become clean if] the size [of their hole is such] that loaves of bread [would fall through]. Papyrus frames through into which reeds were inserted from the bottom upwards to strengthen them, are clean. If he fixed walls to it, they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: if it cannot be lifted up by these walls it is clean.

The pomegranates of which they have spoken--three attached to one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in a sifter or a sieve [the size of the hole must be such that a pomegranate will drop out] when one picks it up and walks about with it. In a basket it must be such [as would allow a pomegranate] to fall through while one hangs it behind him. And all other vessels which cannot hold pomegranates as, for instance, the quarter kav measure and the half quarter kav measure, and small baskets, the size [of their holes must be] such as would extend over the greater part of them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: [the size of their hole must be such that] olives [could fall through]. If their sides were broken [the size of their hole must be] such as olives would drop through. If they are worn away the size must be such as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them [to drop through].

The pomegranates of which they have spoken--three attached to one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in a sifter or a sieve [the size of the hole must be such that a pomegranate will drop out] when one picks it up and walks about with it. In a basket it must be such [as would allow a pomegranate] to fall through while one hangs it behind him. And all other vessels which cannot hold pomegranates as, for instance, the quarter kav measure and the half quarter kav measure, and small baskets, the size [of their holes must be] such as would extend over the greater part of them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: [the size of their hole must be such that] olives [could fall through]. If their sides were broken [the size of their hole must be] such as olives would drop through. If they are worn away the size must be such as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them [to drop through].

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 base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean. A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A straw mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth is subject to the same law. A mat of reeds or rushes is clean. A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed.

A wooden chest: Beth Shammai says: it is measured on the inside; And Bet Hillel says: on the outside. Both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are not included in the measurement. Rabbi Yose says: both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are included in the measurement, but the space between them is not included. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri ruled: if the legs are one handbreadth high the space between them is not included in the measurement, otherwise it is included.

A bed frame that was put on props: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say it is susceptible to uncleanness. But Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that it is clean. Rabbi Yose said: Why is this different from the rectangle frames of the Levites which are clean?

A chair whose middle seat board was removed but the outer ones remained, it is still susceptible to uncleanness. If the outer ones were removed and the middle seat board remained it is also susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was a handbreadth wide.

There are three different types of baskets: If a worn-out basket is patched on to a sound one, all is determined by the sound one; If a small basket is patched on to a large one all is determined by the large one; If they are equal all is determined by the inner one. Rabbi Shimon says: if the cup of a balance was patched on to the bottom of a boiler on the inside, the latter becomes unclean; but if on the outside it remains clean. If it was patched on to the side, whether on the inside or the outside, it remains clean.

Measures of wine or oil, a fork-ladle, a mustard-strainer and a wine-filter have an outer and inner side, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: they do not have. Rabbi Shimon says: they do have, for if their outer parts contracted uncleanness that which is inside remains clean, and immersion is required.

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

The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery.

If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. [If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness.

If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house.

[A piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was torn: if he put it on a chair, and his skin touches the chair, it is pure; And if not, it remains impure. [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square one thread of which was worn away, or in which a knot was found, or in which two threads ran alongside each other, is pure. [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was thrown on the rubbish heap becomes pure. If he brought it back, it it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Throwing it away always renders it pure and taking it back renders it susceptible to uncleanness, except when it is of purple or fine crimson. Rabbi Eliezer says: a patch of new cloth is also subject to the same law. Rabbi Shimon says: all these materials become pure; they were mentioned only in connection with the return of lost property.

If a bandage is made of cloth or leather it is pure. (Rabbi Yose says: with leather it is pure.) A poultice is pure if it is on cloth, but if on leather it is susceptible. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if it was on cloth it remains susceptible to uncleanness because it can be shaken off.

If a patch was sewn on to a basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If it was separated from the basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, but the patch becomes clean. If it was sewn on to cloth it conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If it was separated from the cloth, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, while the patch conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. The same law applies to a patch was sewn on to sacking or leather, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean. Rabbi Yose says: if [it was sewn] on leather it becomes clean; but if on sacking it remains unclean, since the latter is a woven material.

The three (fingerbreadths) square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square. If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected. If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected. If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected.

A cup the greater part of which is broken off is pure. If it was broken in three places extending over its greater part it is pure. Rabbi Shimon says: if it lets the greater part of the water leak out it is pure. If a hole appeared in it and it was mended with tin or pitch it is pure. Rabbi Yose says: if with tin it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if with pitch it is pure.

[The following likewise defile:]A quarter [of a log] of blood, A quarter [of a log] of mixed blood from one corpse. Rabbi Akiva says: [even] from two corpses. [With regard to] the blood of a child that has completely flowed forth: Rabbi Akiva says: [it defiles] in even the smallest quantity, But the sages say: [there must be] a quarter [of a log]. [With regard to] an olive-sized [portion] of [corpse] worms whether alive or dead: Rabbi Eliezer declares [it] unclean, like the flesh, But the sages declare [it] clean. [With regard to] the ashes of burnt persons: Rabbi Eliezer says: the [minimum] quantity [for defilement is] a quarter [of a kav]. But the sages declare [them to be] clean. A ladleful and [a little] more of grave-dust is unclean. Rabbi Shimon declares [it to be] clean. A ladleful of corpse-mold mixed with water is not [regarded as] joined [into one mass] for [the purposes of] defilement.

A bone the size of a barley-corn that is divided into two: Rabbi Akiva declares it unclean But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares it clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: they did not say 'bones’ the size of a barley-corn, but ‘bone’ the size of a barley-corn. A quarter [of a kav] of bones crushed fine, and there is not a single [bone] the size of a barley-corn: Rabbi Shimon declares it clean But the sages unclean. A limb [severed] from a living person which has been divided into two is clean. Rabbi Yose declares [it] unclean; But he agrees that if it is taken from a living person by halves it is clean.

If a ladleful of corpse-mold was scattered about in a house, the house is unclean But Rabbi Shimon declares it clean. If a quarter [of a log] of blood was absorbed in [the ground] of a house, the house is clean. If it was absorbed by a garment: if the garment is washed and a quarter [of a log] of blood emerges from it, it is unclean, if not, it is clean, since anything absorbed that cannot emerge is clean.

All sloping [parts] of ‘tents’ are reckoned like ‘tents.' A ‘tent’ [whose sides] sloped downwards and finished off one fingerbreadth [from the ground]: If there is uncleanness in the ‘tent’, vessels beneath the slope become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath the slope, vessels in the ‘tent’ become unclean. If there is uncleanness within, a person who touches [the tent] from the inside acquires a seven [days’] defilement, but from the outside, a defilement [lasting till] evening. If there had been uncleanness outside, a person who touches the ‘tent’ from the outside acquires a seven [days’] defilement, but from the inside, a defilement [lasting till] evening. If there was [a portion of uncleanness] the size of half an olive [touching it] from inside and half an olive from the outside, a person who touches [the ‘tent’] either from within or without acquires a defilement [lasting till] evening. If a part [of the ‘tent’ side] trailed along the ground, when there is uncleanness beneath or above [this part], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. [In the case of] a ‘tent’ erected in an upper story, with a portion [of its side] trailing over the hatch between the house and the upper story: Rabbi Yose says it does protect. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not protect unless it put up in the usual manner of erecting tents.

When do these rules apply? When [the hive retains the status of] a vessel. [In the case of its] being defective, although [the deficiency may be] stopped up with straw, or according to the sages, [in the case of it] containing forty se'ahs, If the uncleanness is below it, within it or above it, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: uncleanness can neither ascend into [the defective hive] nor descend from it. [In the case where] it was one handbreadth high off the ground, If there is uncleanness below it, what is below becomes unclean; Within it or above it, [everything] directly [above] it to the sky becomes unclean.

If the hatchway does not have an opening of a square handbreadth: If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchway remains clean. If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, the house remains clean. When the uncleanness is in the house, if he placed his leg above [the hatchway], he remains clean. [When] the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, if he placed his leg above it, Rabbi Meir declares [him] unclean, But the sages say: if the uncleanness was [in position] before his leg, he becomes unclean, but if his leg was [in position] before the uncleanness, he remains clean. Rabbi Shimon says: [in the case where] two [men's] legs, one above the other, were [in position] before the uncleanness, if the first person withdrew his leg and the other person's leg was still there, [the second] remains clean, because the first person's leg was [in position] before the uncleanness.

A dog which had eaten the flesh of a corpse and then died and was lying over the threshold: Rabbi Meir says: if its neck has a thickness of one handbreadth it can bring the uncleanness, but if not, it does not bring the uncleanness. Rabbi Yose says: we [examine to] see where the uncleanness is. If it is beneath the lintel and inwards, the house becomes unclean; if from the lintel and outwards, the house remains clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: if its mouth [points] inwards, the house remains clean; if its mouth [points] outwards, the house becomes unclean, since the uncleanness goes out through its hind. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in either case the house becomes unclean. How long can [the uncleanness] remain in its entrails? Three whole days. [If in the entrails] of fishes or birds, as long as [it takes for the uncleanness] to fall in the fire and be consumed, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in the case of fishes or birds, twenty-four hours.

One who makes a new light hole, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the large drill of the Temple chamber. The remains of a light-hole [the size is] two fingerbreadths high by a thumb-breadth broad. The following is considered the remains of a light-hole: a window that a person had blocked up but had not been able to finish [being blocked up]. [A hole] that was bored by water, or by reptiles or eaten away by salt: the minimum size is that of a fist. If he intended to use it, its minimum size is one handbreadth square; For lighting its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill. The holes in grating or lattice-work may be joined together to form [an opening] the size of a hole made by the drill, according to the opinion of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: unless there is a hole of the size made by the drill in one place. [The above applies] for purposes of allowing the uncleanness to come in or to go out. Rabbi Shimon says: only for allowing the uncleanness to come in; but for allowing the uncleanness to go out [the minimum size] is one handbreadth square.

If he was searching and came to a river bed, or a pool or a public road, he may end [his search]. A field in which men have been slain, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. One who removes a grave from his field, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. A pit into which they throw fetuses or people that had been slain, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if it had been prepared as a grave in the first place, there is [blood-] saturated earth.

How is a bet haperas purified? They remove [soil to a depth of] three handbreadths, or [soil to a height of] three handbreadths is placed upon it. If they removed [soil from a depth of] three handbreadths from one half [and upon the other half they placed three hand breadths [of soil], it becomes clean. Rabbi Shimon says: even they removed one handbreadth and a half and placed upon it one handbreadth and a half from another place, it becomes clean. One who paves a bet peras with stones that cannot [easily] be moved, it becomes clean. Rabbi Shimon says: even if one digs up [the soil of] a bet peras [and doesn’t find any bones] it becomes clean.

How is a bet haperas purified? They remove [soil to a depth of] three handbreadths, or [soil to a height of] three handbreadths is placed upon it. If they removed [soil from a depth of] three handbreadths from one half [and upon the other half they placed three hand breadths [of soil], it becomes clean. Rabbi Shimon says: even they removed one handbreadth and a half and placed upon it one handbreadth and a half from another place, it becomes clean. One who paves a bet peras with stones that cannot [easily] be moved, it becomes clean. Rabbi Shimon says: even if one digs up [the soil of] a bet peras [and doesn’t find any bones] it becomes clean.

Colonnades are not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling places. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a non-Jewish city that has been destroyed is not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling-places. The east [side] of Caesaron and the west [side] of Caesaron are graveyards. The east [side] of Acre was doubtful, but the sages declared it clean. Rabbi and his law court voted [to decide] about Keni and declared it clean.

If the two hairs were black at the root and white at the tip he is clean. If they were white at the root and black at the tip he is unclean. How much whiteness must there be? Rabbi Meir says: any amount. Rabbi Shimon says: enough to be cut with a pair of scissors. If it was single at the root but split at the tip, and it looks like two hairs, he is clean. If a bright spot had [two] white hairs or black hair he is unclean, for we are not concerned that the place of the black hair lessened the space of the bright spot, since the former is of no consequence.

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.

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.

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.

Yellow thin hair causes uncleanness whether it is clustered together or dispersed, whether it is encompassed or unencompassed, or whether it came after the scall or before it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: it causes uncleanness only when it came after the scall. Rabbi Shimon said: Is it not logical: if white hair, against which other hair affords no protection, causes uncleanness only when it comes after the nega, how much more should yellow thin hair, against which other hair does afford protection, cause uncleanness only when it comes after the scall? Rabbi Judah says: Whenever it was necessary to say, "it turns" Scripture says, "it turns." But the scall, since about it Scripture says, "there is no yellow hair in it," it causes uncleanness whether it came before or after it.

Yellow thin hair causes uncleanness whether it is clustered together or dispersed, whether it is encompassed or unencompassed, or whether it came after the scall or before it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: it causes uncleanness only when it came after the scall. Rabbi Shimon said: Is it not logical: if white hair, against which other hair affords no protection, causes uncleanness only when it comes after the nega, how much more should yellow thin hair, against which other hair does afford protection, cause uncleanness only when it comes after the scall? Rabbi Judah says: Whenever it was necessary to say, "it turns" Scripture says, "it turns." But the scall, since about it Scripture says, "there is no yellow hair in it," it causes uncleanness whether it came before or after it.

Yellow hair that preceded a scall is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: it neither causes uncleanness nor does it afford protection. Rabbi Shimon says: anything in a scall that is not a sign of uncleanness is a sign of cleanness.

One who has a scall with yellow hair within it is unclean. If subsequently black hair grew in it, he is clean; even if the black hair disappeared again he remains clean. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: any scall that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: any yellow hair that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean.

One who has a scall with yellow hair within it is unclean. If subsequently black hair grew in it, he is clean; even if the black hair disappeared again he remains clean. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: any scall that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: any yellow hair that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean.

One who has a scall with yellow hair within it is unclean. If subsequently black hair grew in it, he is clean; even if the black hair disappeared again he remains clean. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: any scall that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: any yellow hair that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean.

If one had a scall the size of a split bean and it spread over all his head he becomes clean. The head and the beard do not prevent [one another], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: they do prevent. Rabbi Shimon said: Is there not a logical inference: if the skin of the face and the skin of the body, between which something intervenes, do prevent [one another], the head and the beard, between which nothing intervenes, should they not also prevent [one another]? The head and the beard do not combine, nor is a spreading from one to the other effective. What exactly counts as the beard? From the joint of the jaw to the thyroid cartilage.

If one had a scall the size of a split bean and it spread over all his head he becomes clean. The head and the beard do not prevent [one another], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: they do prevent. Rabbi Shimon said: Is there not a logical inference: if the skin of the face and the skin of the body, between which something intervenes, do prevent [one another], the head and the beard, between which nothing intervenes, should they not also prevent [one another]? The head and the beard do not combine, nor is a spreading from one to the other effective. What exactly counts as the beard? From the joint of the jaw to the thyroid cartilage.

Colored hides and garments are not susceptible to negaim. Houses whether they are colored or not colored, are susceptible to negaim, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: hides are like houses. Rabbi Shimon says: those that are naturally [colored] are susceptible to uncleanness but those that are artificially [dyed] are not susceptible to uncleanness.

One who winds [a thread] from one coil to another, or from one spool to another, or from the upper beam to the lower beam, and so also in the case of the two sides of a shirt, if a nega appears on the one, the other remains clean. If it appears on the shedded woof or on the standing warp, they become susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim immediately. Rabbi Shimon says: the warp may contract uncleanness only if it is closely ordered.

And how many stones must there be in it [for it to be susceptible to negaim]? Rabbi Ishmael says: four. Rabbi Akiva says: eight. For Rabbi Ishmael used to say: a nega is not a cause of uncleanness unless it appeared in the size of two split beans on two stones or on one stone. Rabbi Akiva say: unless it appears in the size of two split beans on two stones, and not on one stone. Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says: unless it appears in the size of two split beans, on two stones, on two walls in a corner, Its length being that of two split beans and its breadth that of one split bean.

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

If a metzora entered a house all the vessels in it, even up to the roof beams, become unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: only up to a height of four cubits. Vessels become unclean immediately. Rabbi Judah says: only if the metzora stayed there as much time as is required for the lighting of a lamp.

[The metzora] put in his head inside and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the tip of his ear; [He put in] his hand and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the thumb of his hand. [He put in] his foot and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the big toe of his foot. Rabbi Judah says: he put in all three at the same time. If he had no thumb on his hand or no big toe on his foot or no right ear he could never become clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the blood] is applied to the place where they were. Rabbi Shimon says: if he applied it to the left side, the obligation has been fulfilled.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

If a metzora brought his sacrifice as a poor man and he became rich, or as a rich man and he became poor, all depends on the sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah says: all depends on the guilt-offering.

If the horns or the hoofs of the [red] cow are black they are chopped off. The eye ball, the teeth and the tongue cause do not invalidate the [red] cow. One that is dwarf-like is valid. If there was on it an extra digit and it was cut off: Rabbi Judah says that it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever, if removed, no red hair grows in its place is it invalid.

If they did not find the residue of the ashes of the seven [red cows] they performed the sprinkling with those of six, of five, of four, of three, of two or of one. And who prepared these? Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five were prepared from the time of Ezra, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: seven from the time of Ezra. And who prepared them? Shimon the Just and Yohanan the high priest prepared two each; Elihoenai the son of Ha-Kof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each.

He who brings the earthen vessel for the hatat must immerse, and spend the night by the furnace. Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring it from the house and it is valid, for all are deemed trustworthy in regard to the hatat. In the case of terumah one may open the furnace and take out [the vessel]. Rabbi Shimon says: from the second row. Rabbi Yose says: from the third row.

If the ashes floated on the water: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may take some of them and use them in another preparation; But the sages say: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared from them. If he emptied out the water and some ashes were found at the bottom: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may dry them and then use them for another preparation; But the sages rule: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared.

If the ashes floated on the water: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may take some of them and use them in another preparation; But the sages say: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared from them. If he emptied out the water and some ashes were found at the bottom: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may dry them and then use them for another preparation; But the sages rule: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared.

If insects or creeping things fell into it, and they burst apart or the color [of the water] changed, the contents become invalid. A beetle causes invalidity in any case, because it is like a tube. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob ruled: a maggot or a weevil of the grain causes no invalidity, because they contain no moisture.

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.

Hyssop that is too short may be lengthened with a thread and a spindle-reed. He then dips it and brings it up again. He grasps the hyssop itself and sprinkles with it. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: just as the sprinkling must be done with the hyssop itself so to must the dipping be done with the hyssop itself.

Rabbi Meir says: oil always remains unclean in the first degree. And the sages say: honey also. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: also wine. A mass of olives that fell into an oven that was heated: If [the olives] were exactly the size of an egg it [the oven] remains pure; But if it was more than that of an egg the oven becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If the olives were separated even if there was a se'ah of them, it remains clean.

"A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon water:" [It is clean] whether the water was in vessels or in the ground. Rabbi Shimon says: if in vessels he is deemed unclean but if in the ground he is deemed clean. Rabbi Judah says: if the doubt arose when the man went down into the water he is deemed unclean, but if when he came up he is deemed clean. Rabbi Yose says: even if there is only enough room for a man and the uncleanness the former remains clean.

A place that was a private domain and then became a public domain and then was turned again into a private domain: while it is a private domain any condition of doubt arising in it is unclean but while it is a public domain any condition of doubt arising in it is deemed clean. If a man who was dangerously ill in a private domain was taken out into a public domain and then brought back into a private domain, while he is in the private domain any condition of doubt arising through him is deemed unclean but while he is in the public domain any condition of doubt arising through him is deemed clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the public domain causes a break.

The outer parts of vessels that have contracted uncleanness from liquids: Rabbi Eliezer says: they defile liquids but they do not disqualify foods. Rabbi Joshua says: they defile liquids and also disqualify foods. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: neither this nor that. Rather, liquids that were defiled from the outer parts of vessels defile at one remove and disqualify at a second remove. It is as if it say, "that which defiled you did not defile me but you have defiled me."

At what stage do olives become susceptible to uncleanness? When they exude the moisture [produced] by [their lying in] the vat but not the one [produced while they are still] in the basket, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Rabbi Shimon says: the minimum time prescribed for proper exudation is three days. Bet Hillel says: as soon as three olives stick together. Rabban Gamaliel says: as soon as their preparation is finished, and the sages agree with his view.

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.

One who had finished [the gathering of his olives] and put aside one basketful, let him put it [in the container] in front of a priest, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he must hand him over the key immediately. Rabbi Shimon says: within twenty-four hours.

If one locked in olive-workers in the olive-press and there were objects in there that had midras uncleanness: Rabbi Meir says: the olive-press is deemed to be unclean. Rabbi Judah says: the olive-press remains clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if they regard them as clean, the olive-press is deemed unclean; but if they regard them as unclean,the olive-press remains clean. Rabbi Yose: why are they unclean? Only because the am haaretz is not an expert in the laws of hesset.

If the olive-workers or the grape harvesters were only brought within the domain of the cavern, it is sufficient, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: he should stand over them until they immerse. Rabbi Shimon say: if they regard the vessels as clean, one must stand over them until they immerse; but if they regard them as unclean, it is not necessary to stand over them until they immerse.

If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he becomes unclean. If unclean water fell into it and then water was drawn from it in a clean vessel, it becomes unclean. If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: it becomes unclean whether he washed in it or whether he did not wash in it.

When do they become clean? Bet Shammai say: when their contents have been increased [by more than the original quantity] and they overflow. Bet Hillel say: when their contents have been increased [by more than their original quantity] even if they do not overflow. Rabbi Shimon says: when they overflow although their contents have not been so increased. [These] are valid [for preparing dough] for hallah and for the washing of the hands.

If there were three cavities in a mikveh each holding a log of drawn water, if it is known that forty seahs of valid water fell in before reaching the third cavity, [such a mikveh is] valid; otherwise it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid, since it resembles a mikveh adjoining another mikveh.