split

And of these kinds of wood lay upon the altar under the sacrifice, such as have been tested as to their appearance, and do not lay (thereon) any split or dark wood, (but) hard and clean, without fault, a sound and new growth; and do not lay (thereon) old wood, [for its fragrance is gone] for there is no longer fragrance in it as before.

Jesus said, "I'm the light that's over all. I am the All. The All has come from me and unfolds toward me. "Split a log; I'm there. Lift the stone, and you'll find me there."

Likewise also the fourth said: "I cause men to forget their sobriety and moderation. I part them and split them into parties; for Strife follows me hand in hand. I rend the husband from the sharer of his bed, and children from parents, and brothers from sisters. But why tell so much to my despite? I have an angel that frustrates me, the great Balthial."

And Jashub took his spear in his hand to strike Judah upon his head, but Judah had quickly placed his shield to his head against Jashub's spear, so that the shield of Judah received the blow from Jashub's spear, and the shield was split in too.

And when Judah saw that his shield was split, he hastily drew his sword and smote Jashub at his ankles, and cut off his feet that Jashub fell upon the ground, and the spear fell from his hand.

And one of their mighty men whose name was Arud approached to strike Judah upon the head with his sword, when Judah hastily put his shield to his head, and the sword hit the shield, and it was split in two.

And the powerful man rose up from the ground with wrath-excited might, and Judah came to him before he had gained his footing, and struck him upon the head with the sword, and his head was split and he died.

And Zepho went and he saw and behold there was a large cave at the bottom of the mountain, and there was a great stone there at the entrance of the cave, and Zepho split the stone and he came into the cave and he looked and behold, a large animal was devouring the ox; from the middle upward it resembled a man, and from the middle downward it resembled an animal, and Zepho rose up against the animal and slew it with his swords.

And when the holy Zion crossed over with those who were in attendance on her, and who sang songs to the accompaniment of harps and flutes, the sea received them and its waves leaped up as do the high mountains when they are split asunder, and it roared even as a lion roareth when he is enraged, and it thundered as doth the winter thunder of Damascus and Ethiopia when the lightning smiteth the clouds, and the sound thereof mingled with the sounds of the musical instruments.

And of the children who were in their wombs some died, and some came forth; having split open the bellies of their mothers they came forth by their navels.

But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a virgin that there was to be born, according to the promised sign, one who was to give His name to the fact, showing that at His birth God was to be with man. Now it seems to me appropriate to the character of a Jew to have quoted the prophecy of Isaiah, which says that Emmanuel was to be born of a virgin. This, however, Celsus, who professes to know everything, has not done, either from ignorance or from an unwillingness (if he had read it and voluntarily passed it by in silence) to furnish an argument which might defeat his purpose. And the prediction runs thus: “And the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us.” And that it was from intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this prophecy, is clear to me from this, that although he makes numerous quotations from the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the star that appeared at the birth of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no mention at all of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are not, “Lo, a virgin,” but, “Lo, a young woman,” we reply that the word “Olmah”—which the Septuagint have rendered by “a virgin,” and others by “a young woman”—occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a “virgin,” in the following connection: “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour’s wife.” And again: “But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of death.”

Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for himself in the instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the heavens to Jesus, and the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar cases which we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the prophets, we nevertheless, so far as we can, shall support our position, maintaining that, as it is a matter of belief that in a dream impressions have been brought before the minds of many, some relating to divine things, and others to future events of this life, and this either with clearness or in an enigmatic manner,—a fact which is manifest to all who accept the doctrine of providence; so how is it absurd to say that the mind which could receive impressions in a dream should be impressed also in a waking vision, for the benefit either of him on whom the impressions are made, or of those who are to hear the account of them from him? And as in a dream we fancy that we hear, and that the organs of hearing are actually impressed, and that we see with our eyes—although neither the bodily organs of sight nor hearing are affected, but it is the mind alone which has these sensations—so there is no absurdity in believing that similar things occurred to the prophets, when it is recorded that they witnessed occurrences of a rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard the words of the Lord or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose that the visible heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure divided, in order that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence. Should not, therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every intelligent hearer of the Gospels?—although such an occurrence may be a stumbling-block to the simple, who in their simplicity would set the whole world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and mighty body of the whole heavens. But he who examines such matters more profoundly will say, that there being, as the Scripture calls it, a kind of general divine perception which the blessed man alone knows how to discover, according to the saying of Solomon, “Thou shalt find the knowledge of God;” and as there are various forms of this perceptive power, such as a faculty of vision which can naturally see things that are better than bodies, among which are ranked the cherubim and seraphim; and a faculty of hearing which can perceive voices which have not their being in the air; and a sense of taste which can make use of living bread that has come down from heaven, and that giveth life unto the world; and so also a sense of smelling, which scents such things as leads Paul to say that he is a sweet savour of Christ unto God; and a sense of touch, by which John says that he “handled with his hands of the Word of life;”—the blessed prophets having discovered this divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine manner, and tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible organs of perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a healing effluence from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they record as having seen, and heard what they say they heard, and were affected in a similar manner to what they describe when eating the roll of a book that was given them. And so also Isaac smelled the savour of his son’s divine garments, and added to the spiritual blessing these words: “See, the savour of my son is as the savour of a full field which the Lord blessed.” And similarly to this, and more as a matter to be understood by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus touched the leper, to cleanse him, as I think, in a two-fold sense,—freeing him not only, as the multitude heard, from the visible leprosy by visible contact, but also from that other leprosy, by His truly divine touch. It is in this way, accordingly, that John testifies when he says, “I beheld the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you will see the Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bear witness, that this is the Son of God.” Now it was to Jesus that the heavens were opened; and on that occasion no one except John is recorded to have seen them opened. But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour, foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would see it, says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” And so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having previously seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does not, however, belong to our present object to explain why Paul says, “Whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth.” But I shall add to my argument even those very points which Celsus imagines, viz. that Jesus Himself related the account of the opening of the heavens, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove, although the Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it. For this great man did not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who commanded His disciples on the occasion of the vision on the mount, “Tell what ye have seen to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead,” to have related to His disciples what was seen and heard by John at the Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus, that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on that account said, “If I speak of myself, my witness is not true.” And since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred to show by acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for that reason said to Him, “If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.” And as it is a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, “This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment, whom you adduce,” it is necessary for us to show him that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ. And by this instance, this man who boasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.

“But,” continues Celsus, “what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him?” Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that “there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?” But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our answer to him is: “Sir, either disbelieve all the Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the nobility of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills are healed by His name. And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.”

In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that “when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party;” and further, that “being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects.” In reply to which, we say that heresies of different kinds have never originated from any matter in which the principle involved was not important and beneficial to human life. For since the science of medicine is useful and necessary to the human race, and many are the points of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are found, for this reason, numerous heresies confessedly prevailing in the science of medicine among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous nations who profess to employ medicine. And, again, since philosophy makes a profession of the truth, and promises a knowledge of existing things with a view to the regulation of life, and endeavours to teach what is advantageous to our race, and since the investigation of these matters is attended with great differences of opinion, innumerable heresies have consequently sprung up in philosophy, some of which are more celebrated than others. Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for the origination of heresies, in the different acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses and those of the prophets. So, then, seeing Christianity appeared an object of veneration to men, not to the more servile class alone, as Celsus supposes, but to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary pursuits, there necessarily originated heresies,—not at all, however, as the result of faction and strife, but through the earnest desire of many literary men to become acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity. The consequence of which was, that, taking in different acceptations those discourses which were believed by all to be divine, there arose heresies, which received their names from those individuals who admired, indeed, the origin of Christianity, but who were led, in some way or other, by certain plausible reasons, to discordant views. And yet no one would act rationally in avoiding medicine because of its heresies; nor would he who aimed at that which is seemly entertain a hatred of philosophy, and adduce its many heresies as a pretext for his antipathy. And so neither are the sacred books of Moses and the prophets to be condemned on account of the heresies in Judaism.

One who trims grape vines, or cuts reeds: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: he must leave [uncut at least] one handbreadth. But Rabbi Akiba says: he may cut them in the usual manner, with the axe, sickle or saw, or with whatever he pleases. A tree that had split may be tied up in the seventh year, not that it may heal, but only that it should not widen.

Olives, as soon as they can produce a quarter log [of oil] for each se'ah, they may be split and eaten in a field. When they produce a half-log, then he may crush them in a field and use their oil. When they have reached a third [of their overall potential], they may be crushed in the field and brought home. And similarly in the other years of the sabbatical cycle [when they have reached this latter stage] they are subject to tithes. With all other fruit of trees [the season when they become due to be tithed] is the season when they are permitted in the seventh year.

A vine which was planted in a courtyard: one may take a whole cluster [and eat it without tithing]. Similarly with a pomegranate, or a melon, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: he can pick single berries from the cluster, or split the pomegranate into slices, or cut slices of melon [and eat without tithing]. Coriander which was sown in a courtyard: one may pluck leaf by leaf and eat [without tithing], but if he ate them together he is liable [for tithes]. Savory and hyssop, and thyme which are in the courtyard, if they are kept watch over, they are liable for tithe.

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.

A man may take a hammer to split nuts, an axe to cut a cake of pressed figs, a saw for sawing cheese, a rake to scoop up dried figs, a winnowing shovel and a pitchfork to place [food] upon it for a child, a reed or a shuttle to stick [food], a small needle to remove a thorn, and a sack [needle] to open a door.

If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. An etrog which is green as a leek: Rabbi Meir declares it valid And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid.

A shofar which has split and then he stuck it together is not valid. If he stuck together fragments of shofars, it is not valid. If there was a hole in a shofar and he closed it up, if it interferes with the blowing it is not valid, but if it does not it is valid.

If two people are grasping a cloak: One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the cloak and they split the cloak. one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.

If two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it. If after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.

If two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it. If after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.

If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife’s ketubah or to a creditor: the father’s heirs say, “The son died first and the father died afterward”, and the creditors say, “The father died first and the son died afterward.” The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status [in the hands of those who inherit the father].”

If the house fell down on a man and his wife, the husband’s heirs say, “The wife died first and the husband died afterward” and the wife’s heirs say, “The husband died first and the wife died afterward”. The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status the Ketubah to the husband’s heirs and the property that comes in and goes out with her to her father’s heirs.”

If the house fell down on a man and his mother, they (the Schools of Shammai and Hillel) agree that the they split the property. Rabbi Akiva said: “I agree here, that the property remains in its former status.” Ben Azzai said to him: “We already are distressed over those things upon which there is disagreement, and you are coming to bring disagreement on the points in which they agree.”

If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do? They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.”

If one steals the sacred vessel called a “kasvah” (Numbers 4:7), or cursed by the name of an idol, or has sexual relations with an Aramean (non-Jewish) woman, he is punished by zealots. If a priest performed the temple service while impure, his fellow priests do not bring him to the court, but rather the young priests take him out into the courtyard and split his skull with clubs. A layman who performed the service in the Temple: Rabbi Akiva says: “He is strangled.” But the Sages say: “[His death is] at the hands of heaven.”

The following go into banishment: one who kills in error. If [for instance] while he was pushing a roller [on the roof] and it fell down and killed somebody; If while he was lowering a cask it fell down and killed somebody; If while coming down a ladder he fell on somebody and killed him, he goes into banishment. But, if while he was pulling up the roller it fell back and killed somebody; If while he was raising a cask and the rope snapped and the cask fell and killed somebody; If while going up a ladder he fell down and killed somebody, he does not go into banishment. This is the general principle: [whenever the death was caused] in the course of a downward movement, he goes into banishment, but [if it was caused] not in the course of a downward movement, he does not go into banishment. If the iron slipped from its heft and killed [somebody]: Rabbi says, “He does not go into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He goes into banishment.” If it flew from the log being split: Rabbi says, “He goes into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He does not go into banishment.”

If yen nesekh fell upon grapes, one may rinse them and they are permitted, but if they were split they are prohibited. If it fell upon figs or upon dates, should there be in them [sufficient wine] to impart a flavor, they are prohibited. It happened with Boethus ben Zpnin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a cask of yen nesekh was broken and it fell upon them; and he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted. This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, as, for example vinegar which fell upon split beans.

If yen nesekh fell upon grapes, one may rinse them and they are permitted, but if they were split they are prohibited. If it fell upon figs or upon dates, should there be in them [sufficient wine] to impart a flavor, they are prohibited. It happened with Boethus ben Zpnin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a cask of yen nesekh was broken and it fell upon them; and he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted. This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, as, for example vinegar which fell upon split beans.

There were there four golden props [at the corners of] the table, each split at the top, which supported the cakes, two for the one row and two for the other row. And there were twenty-eight rods, each [shaped] like the half of a hollow reed, fourteen for the one row and fourteen for the other row. Neither the placing of the rods nor their removal overrode the Shabbat, but [a priest] used to enter on the day before Shabbat, pull out the rods, and place them parallel with the length of the table. Every article that stood in the Temple was placed with its length parallel with the length of the House.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: if [a first born] has a wart in its eye or if a bone of its fore-leg or hind-leg is defective, or if the bone of the mouth split, or one eye is large and the other small, or one ear is large and the other small, being visibly so and not merely in measurement [all of these are blemishes]. Rabbi Judah says: if one testicle is as large as two of the other [this is a blemish]. But the sages didn’t agree with him.

A potsherd that cannot stand unsupported on account of its handle, or a potsherd whose bottom is pointed and that point causes it to overbalance, is clean. If the handle was removed or the point was broken off it is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. If a jar was broken but is still capable of holding something in its sides, or if it was split into a kind of two troughs: Rabbi Judah says it is clean But the sages say it is unclean.

A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air-space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.

A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air-space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.

If there was netting placed over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly fitting lid, and a split appeared between the oven and the colander, the minimum size [to allow impurity to enter] is that of the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that cannot actually enter it. Rabbi Judah says: it must be one into which the tip can actually enter. If a split appeared in the netting, the minimum size is the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can enter it. Rabbi Judah says: even if it cannot enter. If the split was curved it must not be regarded as straight, and still the minimum size must be the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can actually enter.

If there was netting placed over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly fitting lid, and a split appeared between the oven and the colander, the minimum size [to allow impurity to enter] is that of the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that cannot actually enter it. Rabbi Judah says: it must be one into which the tip can actually enter. If a split appeared in the netting, the minimum size is the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can enter it. Rabbi Judah says: even if it cannot enter. If the split was curved it must not be regarded as straight, and still the minimum size must be the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can actually enter.

If there was netting placed over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly fitting lid, and a split appeared between the oven and the colander, the minimum size [to allow impurity to enter] is that of the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that cannot actually enter it. Rabbi Judah says: it must be one into which the tip can actually enter. If a split appeared in the netting, the minimum size is the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can enter it. Rabbi Judah says: even if it cannot enter. If the split was curved it must not be regarded as straight, and still the minimum size must be the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can actually enter.

An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. The block of a plane by itself is clean.

And sometimes they stated a large measure: A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke.

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

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

There are three different types of baking-troughs: If a baking-trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav was split it is susceptible to midras uncleanness; If it was whole it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness.

A house, which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide.

A house, which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide.

A house, which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide.

A portico which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness on the one side, vessels on the other side remain clean. If a person placed his leg or a reed above [the split], he has combined [with the roof to bring the] uncleanness. If he placed the reed on the ground, it does not form a passage for the uncleanness until it is one handbreadth off the ground.

A portico which has been split [into two]: If there is uncleanness on the one side, vessels on the other side remain clean. If a person placed his leg or a reed above [the split], he has combined [with the roof to bring the] uncleanness. If he placed the reed on the ground, it does not form a passage for the uncleanness until it is one handbreadth off the ground.

A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If a person were placed there [under the split in the portico]: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: a person is hollow and his uppermost side brings the uncleanness.

How does it lead to a leniency? If the nega had two white hairs and one white hair disappeared. If there were two white hairs and they turned black. If one hair was white and the other black and both turned black. If they were long and then they became short. If one was long and the other short and both became short. If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them. If the boil surrounded both hairs or one of them. Or if they were separated from each other by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, or the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf. If it had undiscolored flesh and this undiscolored flesh disappeared. If it was square and then became round or elongated. If it was encompassed and then moved to the side. If it was united and then it was dispersed. Or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf; If it had a spreading and then the spreading disappeared; Or the first sign itself disappeared or was so lessened that both are less than the size of a split bean; Or if a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf, formed a division between the first sign and the spreading Behold these lead to a leniency in the law.

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 was of the size of a split bean and a string extended from it, if it was two hairs in breadth, it is subject to the restrictions in respect of white hair and spreading, but not to that in respect of its quick flesh. If there were two bright spots and a streak extended from one to the other, if it was two hairs in breadth, it combines them; but if not, it does not combine them.

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.

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.

A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spreads to the extent of half a split bean, while of the original spot there disappeared as much as half a split bean: Rabbi Akiba says: it must be inspected as a new one, But the sages say: it is clean.

A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spreads to the extent of half a split bean, while of the original spot there disappeared as much as half a split bean: Rabbi Akiba says: it must be inspected as a new one, But the sages say: it is clean.

A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spreads to the extent of half a split bean, while of the original spot there disappeared as much as half a split bean: Rabbi Akiba says: it must be inspected as a new one, But the sages say: it is clean.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean and there was nothing else, and then there appeared a bright spot of the size of half a split bean having two hairs, this one is declared unclean. Because they said: if the bright spot preceded the white hair he is unclean; if the white hair preceded the bright spot he is clean; and if it is doubtful he is unclean. Rabbi Joshua regards this as unsolvable.

A bright spot the size of a split bean and there was nothing else, and then there appeared a bright spot of the size of half a split bean having two hairs, this one is declared unclean. Because they said: if the bright spot preceded the white hair he is unclean; if the white hair preceded the bright spot he is clean; and if it is doubtful he is unclean. Rabbi Joshua regards this as unsolvable.

Any doubtful nega is regarded as clean, except this case and one other. Which is that? If he had a bright spot of the size of a split bean and he was isolated, and by the end of the week it was as big as a sela, and it is doubtful whether it is the original one or whether another came in its place, he must be regarded as unclean.

Deposited hair: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it is unclean. But the sages hold it to be clean. What is "deposited hair"? If one had a bright spot with white hair in it, and the bright spot disappeared leaving the white hair in position and then it reappeared: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it to be unclean, But the sages hold it to be clean. Rabbi Akiva said: in this case I agree that he is clean; But what is "deposited hair"? If one had a bright spot of the size of a split bean with two hairs in it, and a part the size of a half a split bean disappeared leaving the white hair in the place of the white spot and then it reappeared. They said to him: just as they rejected the ruling of Akaviah so is there no validity in your ruling.

Deposited hair: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it is unclean. But the sages hold it to be clean. What is "deposited hair"? If one had a bright spot with white hair in it, and the bright spot disappeared leaving the white hair in position and then it reappeared: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it to be unclean, But the sages hold it to be clean. Rabbi Akiva said: in this case I agree that he is clean; But what is "deposited hair"? If one had a bright spot of the size of a split bean with two hairs in it, and a part the size of a half a split bean disappeared leaving the white hair in the place of the white spot and then it reappeared. They said to him: just as they rejected the ruling of Akaviah so is there no validity in your ruling.

Any doubt in negaim in the beginning is regarded as clean before uncleanness has been established, but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean. How is this so? If two men came to a priest one having a bright spot the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela, and at the end of the week each had one the size of a sela, and it is not known on which of them the spreading had occurred, Whether this occurred with one man or with two men, each is clean. Rabbi Akiva said: if one man is involved he is unclean, but if two men are involved each is clean.

"But after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean." How so? If two men came to a priest, one having a bright spot of the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela and at the end of the week each was of the size of a sela and a little more, both are unclean; And even though both returned to be the size of a sela both are unclean, and remain unclean until they return to the size of a split split bean. They is what they meant when they said, "but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean."

"But after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean." How so? If two men came to a priest, one having a bright spot of the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela and at the end of the week each was of the size of a sela and a little more, both are unclean; And even though both returned to be the size of a sela both are unclean, and remain unclean until they return to the size of a split split bean. They is what they meant when they said, "but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean."

"But after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean." How so? If two men came to a priest, one having a bright spot of the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela and at the end of the week each was of the size of a sela and a little more, both are unclean; And even though both returned to be the size of a sela both are unclean, and remain unclean until they return to the size of a split split bean. They is what they meant when they said, "but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean."

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

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

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

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

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

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

One who plucks out signs of uncleanness or burns quick flesh transgresses a negative commandment. And as regards cleanness: If they were plucked out before he came to the priest, he is clean; But if after he had been certified as unclean, he remains unclean. Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they were on the way to Narbata, "What is the ruling if the plucking occurred while he was isolated?" They said to me, "We did not hear anything [about this case], but we have heard that if they were plucked before he came to the priest he is clean, and if after he had been certified as unclean he remains unclean." I began to bring them proofs: whether the man stands before the priest or whether he is isolated, he is clean unless the priest had pronounced him unclean. When does he attain cleanness [after he has been certified unclean]? Rabbi Eliezer says: after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages says: only after another nega has spread over his whole body or after his bright spot has been reduced to less than the size of a split bean.

If a nega broke out completely upon one who was unclean, he becomes clean; If the ends of his limbs reappeared, he becomes unclean until the bright spot is reduced to less than the size of a split bean. [If it broke out completely upon him] when he was clean, he becomes unclean; If the ends of his limbs reappeared, he remains unclean until his bright spot resumes its former size.

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

They asked R. Eliezer: "[What is the ruling concerning] one who had a bright spot the size of a sela form on the inside of his hand and it covered up the scar of a boil?" He replied: "He should be isolated." They said to him: "Why? Since it is neither capable of growing white hair nor can it effectively spread nor does quick flesh cause it to be unclean?" He replied, "It is possible that it will contract and then spread again." They said to him, "But what about when its only the size of a split bean?' He said to them: I have not heard anything. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him, "Can I teach something about this?" He replied, "If you would thereby confirm the ruling of the sages, go ahead." He said, "Lest another boil would arise outside it and spread into it. He replied: "You are a great scholar for you have confirmed the words of the sages."

Two scalls side by side and a line of hair separating between them: If a gap opened up in one place he is unclean, But if it opened up in two places he is clean. How big should the gap be? The space of two hairs. If there was a gap in one place, even though it is as big as a split bean, he is unclean.

Two scalls one within the other and a line of hair separating between them: If there appeared a gap in one place the inner one is unclean, But if in two places it is clean. How big must the gap be? The space of two hairs. If there was a gap in one place of the size of a split bean he is clean.

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.

A screen that had colored and white stripes, a nega may effectively spread from one to the other. They asked Rabbi Eliezer: But the white stripe is separate? He replied: I have heard no ruling on this question. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him: Shall I derive the answer? He replied: If this would confirm the words of the sages, then yes! He said back: It is possible that it would remain on it in an unchanged condition for two weeks, and that which remains unchanged on garments for two weeks is unclean. He said to him: You are a great sage, for you have confirmed the words of the sages. A spreading that is close [to the original nega is effective] however small it may be. One that is distant [is effective only] if it is of the size of a split bean. And one that reappears [is effective only if it is] of the size of a split bean.

A screen that had colored and white stripes, a nega may effectively spread from one to the other. They asked Rabbi Eliezer: But the white stripe is separate? He replied: I have heard no ruling on this question. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him: Shall I derive the answer? He replied: If this would confirm the words of the sages, then yes! He said back: It is possible that it would remain on it in an unchanged condition for two weeks, and that which remains unchanged on garments for two weeks is unclean. He said to him: You are a great sage, for you have confirmed the words of the sages. A spreading that is close [to the original nega is effective] however small it may be. One that is distant [is effective only] if it is of the size of a split bean. And one that reappears [is effective only if it is] of the size of a split bean.

Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, though not susceptible to midras uncleanness, is still susceptible to negaim uncleanness. For instance: the sail of a ship, a curtain, the forehead band of a hair-net, the wrappings of scrolls, a coiled belt, the straps of a shoe or sandal that are at least as wide as a split bean, Behold these are susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. A thick cloak on which a nega appeared: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: unless it appears on the texture and on the stuffing. A skin bottle or a shepherd's leather wallet are inspected in the position in which they are used, and a nega may effectively spread from its inner side to its outer side and from its outer side to its inner side.

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.