terumah

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.

Superior to such [water] is the water of rain flows which have not stopped. If an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and water was then drawn from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hand in it, it is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pool], he is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell [into the pool], even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If unclean water fell into it and one drew water from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean. [All such water] is valid for terumah and for the washing of the hands.

Superior to such [water] is the water of rain flows which have not stopped. If an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and water was then drawn from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hand in it, it is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pool], he is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell [into the pool], even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If unclean water fell into it and one drew water from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean. [All such water] is valid for terumah and for the washing of the hands.

Superior to such [water] is the water of rain flows which have not stopped. If an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and water was then drawn from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hand in it, it is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pool], he is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell [into the pool], even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If unclean water fell into it and one drew water from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean. [All such water] is valid for terumah and for the washing of the hands.

Superior to such [water] is the water of rain flows which have not stopped. If an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and water was then drawn from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hand in it, it is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pool], he is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell [into the pool], even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If unclean water fell into it and one drew water from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean. [All such water] is valid for terumah and for the washing of the hands.

If one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids and then he immersed and then vomited them up, they are still unclean because they did not become clean in the body. If one drank unclean water and immersed and then vomited it up, it is clean because it became clean in the body. If one swallowed a clean ring and then went into the tent of a corpse, if he sprinkled himself once and twice and immersed himself and then vomited it up, behold, it remains as it was before. If one swallowed an unclean ring, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. If he vomited it up, it is unclean and it renders him unclean. If an arrow was stuck into a man, it blocks so long as it is visible. But if it is not visible, he may immerse himself and eat terumah.

If one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids and then he immersed and then vomited them up, they are still unclean because they did not become clean in the body. If one drank unclean water and immersed and then vomited it up, it is clean because it became clean in the body. If one swallowed a clean ring and then went into the tent of a corpse, if he sprinkled himself once and twice and immersed himself and then vomited it up, behold, it remains as it was before. If one swallowed an unclean ring, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. If he vomited it up, it is unclean and it renders him unclean. If an arrow was stuck into a man, it blocks so long as it is visible. But if it is not visible, he may immerse himself and eat terumah.

Although though they said [that for a woman who has a regular period] it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observes a flow, she should nevertheless examine herself [regularly], except for a menstruant or one who is sitting over pure blood. She should also use testing-rags when she has marital intercourse except when she is sitting over pure blood or when she is a virgin whose blood is clean. And twice [daily] she should examine herself: in the morning and at the [evening] twilight, and also when she is about to have sexual relations. Priestly women are subject to an additional restriction [for they should examine themselves] when they are going to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah said: [these must examine themselves] also after they have concluded eating terumah.

Although though they said [that for a woman who has a regular period] it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observes a flow, she should nevertheless examine herself [regularly], except for a menstruant or one who is sitting over pure blood. She should also use testing-rags when she has marital intercourse except when she is sitting over pure blood or when she is a virgin whose blood is clean. And twice [daily] she should examine herself: in the morning and at the [evening] twilight, and also when she is about to have sexual relations. Priestly women are subject to an additional restriction [for they should examine themselves] when they are going to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah said: [these must examine themselves] also after they have concluded eating terumah.

Every hand that makes frequent examination: In the case of women is praiseworthy, But in the case of men it ought to be cut off. In the case of a deaf, an person not of sound senses, a blind or an insane woman, if other women of sound senses are available they attend to her, and they may eat terumah. It is the custom of the daughters of Israel to have intercourse using two testing-rags, one for the man and the other for herself. Virtuous women prepare also a third rag to prepare the "house" [before intercourse].

The daughters of the Samaritans are regarded as menstruants from their cradle. And Samaritans impart uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above, since they have intercourse with menstruants, because [their wives] sit [unclean for seven days] on account of any blood. However, on account of their [uncleanness] no obligation is incurred for entrance into the Temple nor is terumah burned on their account, since their uncleanness is only of a doubtful nature.

If he was eating terumah when he felt that his limbs shook, he should take hold of his member and swallow the terumah. And it conveys uncleanness however small the quantity, even if it is only of the size of a mustard seed or less.

If he was eating terumah when he felt that his limbs shook, he should take hold of his member and swallow the terumah. And it conveys uncleanness however small the quantity, even if it is only of the size of a mustard seed or less.

A girl one day old defiles due to menstruation. A girl ten days old defiles due to zivah. A boy one day old defiles due to zivah, and defiles due to scale disease and due to corpse uncleanness; He subjects [his deceased brother's widow] to yibbum [levirate marriage]; He exempts [his mother] from yibbum, He enables her to eat terumah And he disqualifies her from eating terumah; He inherits and transmits inheritance; He who kills him is guilty of murder, And he counts to his father, to his mother and to all his relatives as a fully grown man.

A girl one day old defiles due to menstruation. A girl ten days old defiles due to zivah. A boy one day old defiles due to zivah, and defiles due to scale disease and due to corpse uncleanness; He subjects [his deceased brother's widow] to yibbum [levirate marriage]; He exempts [his mother] from yibbum, He enables her to eat terumah And he disqualifies her from eating terumah; He inherits and transmits inheritance; He who kills him is guilty of murder, And he counts to his father, to his mother and to all his relatives as a fully grown man.

A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse and if a yavam had intercourse with her, he acquires her thereby. One can be liable for adultery with her; And she defiles the one who had intercourse with her so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. If she was married to a priest, she may eat terumah. If any of the disqualified men have relations with her he disqualifies her from the priesthood. If any of the forbidden relatives found in the Torah had relations with her he is to be executed on her account, but she is exempt [from the penalty]. If she was younger than this age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.

If a boy the age of nine years and one day had relations with his yevamah, he acquires her thereby; But he cannot divorce her until he is of majority age. He contracts uncleanness through intercourse with a menstruant so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood. But he doesn't give her the right to eat terumah. He renders a beast invalid for the altar, and it is stoned on his account. If he had intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah, she is to be executed on his account, but he is exempt from punishment.

But they agree that she may eat second tithe. And she may set aside her hallah, bring it near to the dough and call it by its name. And if any of her spit or her pure blood fell on a loaf of terumah it remains clean. Bet Shammai says: she requires immersion at the end [of her days of purification], Bet Hillel says: she does not require immersion at the end.

If they were both closing or opening [a door], [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: [he is not unclean] unless one was shutting and the other opening [it]. If one was lifting the other out of a pit [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Judah says: only if the clean person was pulling out the unclean one. If they were twisting ropes together [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: unless the one pulled one way and the other pulled the other way. If they were both weaving together, whether they were standing or sitting, or grinding wheat, [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Shimon says [the clean person] in every case is pure, except where they [both] were grinding with a hand-mill. If they [both] were unloading or loading a donkey, they are unclean if the load was heavy, but clean if the load was light. In all cases, however, they are clean for members of the synagogue, but are unclean for terumah.

Rabbi Joshua said: if a menstruant sat in a bed with a clean woman, [even] the cap on her head contracts midras uncleanness. And if she sat in a boat, the vessels on the top of the mast [also] contract midras uncleanness. If there was [on the boat] a tub full of clothes: If their weight was heavy, they become unclean, But if their weight was light, they remain clean. If a zav knocked against a balcony and thereby caused a loaf of terumah to fall down, it remains clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

If an unclean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, or a clean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, it becomes unclean. If part of an unclean person rests on an object fit to lie upon, or part of a clean person rests upon an object fit to lie upon, it remains clean. Thus we find that impurity enters it and goes out of it by its lesser part. Similarly, if a loaf of terumah was placed upon an object fit to lie upon [that was unclean] and there paper in between, whether it was above or below, it remains clean. Similarly, in the case of a stone with scale disease it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon pronounced such a case unclean.

He who touches a zav, or a zavah, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, or any object on which these had been sitting or lying, conveys uncleanness at two [removes] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated, he still conveys uncleanness at one [remove], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. This is true whether he had touched, or had shifted, or had carried, or was carried.

He who touches a zav, or a zavah, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, or any object on which these had been sitting or lying, conveys uncleanness at two [removes] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated, he still conveys uncleanness at one [remove], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. This is true whether he had touched, or had shifted, or had carried, or was carried.

If one touches the discharge of a zav, his spittle, semen or urine, or the blood of a menstruant, he conveys uncleanness at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; If he separated, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the case whether he had touched or moved it. Rabbi Eliezer said: also if he had carried it.

If one touches the discharge of a zav, his spittle, semen or urine, or the blood of a menstruant, he conveys uncleanness at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; If he separated, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the case whether he had touched or moved it. Rabbi Eliezer said: also if he had carried it.

If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he carried nevelah (carrion), or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].

If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he carried nevelah (carrion), or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].

If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he carried nevelah (carrion), or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].

If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he carried nevelah (carrion), or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].

He who ate nevelah of a clean bird, and it still is in his gullet, defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he put his head within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean. But if he vomited or swallowed it, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] unfit at one [more remove]. But as long as it is still in his mouth, until he swallows it, he remains clean.

He who ate nevelah of a clean bird, and it still is in his gullet, defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he put his head within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean. But if he vomited or swallowed it, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] unfit at one [more remove]. But as long as it is still in his mouth, until he swallows it, he remains clean.

He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a "father of uncleanness" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].

He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a "father of uncleanness" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].

He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a "father of uncleanness" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].

The following disqualify terumah: One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids. And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water; And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands; And one that has had immersion that same day; And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

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

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

If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.

If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.

If the porridge and batter-cake were of hullin and oil of terumah was floating above them, and a tevul yom touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil. If he stirred it altogether, all the places where the oil goes are disqualified.

If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer. But if it was arranged like a cap it does not serve as a connective.

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

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

Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

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

A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.

A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.

A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.

A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.

A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

If he poured water over one of his hands with a single rinsing his hand becomes clean. If over both his hands with a single rinsing: Rabbi Meir declares them to be unclean until he pours a minimum of a quarter of a log of water over them. If a loaf of terumah fell on the water the loaf is clean. Rabbi Yose declares it to be unclean.

If he poured the first water over his hands [while standing] in one place, and the second water over his hands [while standing] in another place, and a loaf of terumah fell on the first water, the loaf becomes unclean. But if it fell on the second water it remains clean. If he poured the first and the second water [while standing] in one place, and a loaf of terumah fell onto the water, the loaf becomes unclean. If he poured the first water over his hands and a splinter or a piece of gravel is found on his hands, [his hands] remain unclean, because the latter water only makes the first water on the hands clean. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if any creature from the water [was on the hands while they are being cleaned] they are clean.

If he poured the first water over his hands [while standing] in one place, and the second water over his hands [while standing] in another place, and a loaf of terumah fell on the first water, the loaf becomes unclean. But if it fell on the second water it remains clean. If he poured the first and the second water [while standing] in one place, and a loaf of terumah fell onto the water, the loaf becomes unclean. If he poured the first water over his hands and a splinter or a piece of gravel is found on his hands, [his hands] remain unclean, because the latter water only makes the first water on the hands clean. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if any creature from the water [was on the hands while they are being cleaned] they are clean.

Anything which disqualifies terumah defiles hands with a second degree of uncleanness. One [unwashed] hand defiles the other hand, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has second degree of uncleanness cannot convey second degree of uncleanness. He said to them: But do not the Holy Scriptures which have second degree of uncleanness defile the hands? They said to him: the laws of the Torah may not be argued from the laws of the scribes, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from the laws of the Torah, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from [other] laws of the scribes.

The aneth stalk after having given its taste to a dish is no longer subject to the laws of terumah, and also no longer imparts food uncleanness. The young sprouts of hawthorn, of lapidum, or leaves of the wild arum, do not impart food uncleanness until they are sweetened. Rabbi Shimon says: also [the leaves of] the colocynth are like them.

MISHNAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah, until the end of the first night watch are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn. It happened that his (Rabban Gamliel’s) sons returned from a wedding feast and told him: We did not recite the Shema‘. He said to them: If dawn has not yet come then you are obligated to recite. Not only that, but everywhere the Sages said “until midnight”, the obligation is to the start of dawn. The obligation of burning fats and limbs on the altar [and eating of the Passover sacrifice] is until the start of dawn. All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only could be eaten until the first dawn. In that case, why did the Sages say, only until midnight? In order to remove people from sin.

HALAKHAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening?. We have stated: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah”. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “From the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal.” We have stated: “Their opinions are almost identical.” Come and see: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah” is still daylight and the stars start to appear, “from the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal” is one or two hours into the night. You want to say that the two opinions are almost identical? Rebbi Yose said: Explain it by people in hamlets who usually leave the roads when there still is some daylight because they are afraid of wild beasts.

HALAKHAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening?. We have stated: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah”. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “From the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal.” We have stated: “Their opinions are almost identical.” Come and see: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah” is still daylight and the stars start to appear, “from the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal” is one or two hours into the night. You want to say that the two opinions are almost identical? Rebbi Yose said: Explain it by people in hamlets who usually leave the roads when there still is some daylight because they are afraid of wild beasts.

Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When the solar disk starts to sink and a man is standing on top of Mount Carmel, he descends and immerses himself in the ocean, ascends and eats his Terumah, one may assume that he immersed himself during daytime. Than is, if he used a shortcut but when he went on the road this does not apply.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Then the Mishnah might be Rebbi Yehudah’s. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is no terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Then the Mishnah might be Rebbi Yehudah’s. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is no terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

The maternal uncle of Rebbi Ada had rolled up the kaftan of Rav on the Great Fastday. He said to him: When you see the sun on top of the date palms, give me my kaftan so that we may pray Minḥah. And when the sun is on top of the date palms it is daytime. As Rebbi Yoḥanan said (Is. 44:27): “He Who said to the deep: dry up!”, that is Babylonia, the filth of the world. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: Why is it called “the deep”, because there the dead of the Deluge were submerged, (Jer. 51:49) “Also in Babylonia the slain of Israel will fall, also in Babylonia the corpses of all the earth did fall.” It is written (Gen. 11:2) “They found a valley in the land Shinear and dwelt there.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, why is it called Shinear? Because there the dead of the Deluge were thrown. Another explanation: Because they die in strangulation, without light or public baths. Another explanation: Shinear, because they are stripped of miẓwot, without terumah and without tithes. Another explanation: Shinear, because its rulers die as youths. Another explanation: Shinear, because it produced a hater and enemy of the Holy One, praise to Him. Who is that? That is Nebuchadnezzar the evil one.

Rav Jeremiah said, one should start to pray only from a practical rule. Rav Jeremiah said, he who deals with public needs is like him who studies Torah. Rav Ḥuna said: a woman who saw a spot like a mustard seed sits and watches seven days of purification because of it; then he stood up and prayed. Zeïra bar Ḥinena said: He who draws blood from a dedicated animal committed larceny; that is one of the decided practices. Bar Qappara stated: Eleven days between periods is a practice taught to Moses at Sinai. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: One may add produce on the stalk and be tricky in order to free it from tithes. Abdan asked Rebbi: How many levels are there for dedicated things? He answered him: four. And how many levels for Terumah? He answered: three, then he stood up and prayed.

Samuel went to visit Rav and saw him eating with his hands covered by cloth. He asked him, what is that? He answered him, I am asthenic. When Rebbi Zeïra immigrated here, he saw Cohanim eating with their hands covered by cloth. He told them, was not that of Rav and Samuel explained away? Rebbi Yose bar bar Cahana came in the name of Samuel: Handwashing is for profane food, not for terumah. Rebbi Yose says, for terumah and for profane food.

Samuel went to visit Rav and saw him eating with his hands covered by cloth. He asked him, what is that? He answered him, I am asthenic. When Rebbi Zeïra immigrated here, he saw Cohanim eating with their hands covered by cloth. He told them, was not that of Rav and Samuel explained away? Rebbi Yose bar bar Cahana came in the name of Samuel: Handwashing is for profane food, not for terumah. Rebbi Yose says, for terumah and for profane food.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rebbi Jonah, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Handwashing for terumah is to the wrist but for profane food it is to the finger joints. Maisha, the grandson of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: If someone wanted to eat with my grandfather and he did not rinse his hands to the wrist, he would not eat with him.

Do the House of Shammai hold that “hands” are for profane food? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it has been stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are primarily impure for profane food and secondarily for terumah.” Or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq, as we have stated there: “Profane food that was prepared under the rules of purity of sacrifices is still profane food. Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Rebbi Ẓadoq said, it is like terumah becoming impure in two stages and unusable in a third.”

Do the House of Shammai hold that “hands” are for profane food? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it has been stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are primarily impure for profane food and secondarily for terumah.” Or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq, as we have stated there: “Profane food that was prepared under the rules of purity of sacrifices is still profane food. Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Rebbi Ẓadoq said, it is like terumah becoming impure in two stages and unusable in a third.”

He who makes a mezuzah for himself, says “to make a mezuzah.” For somebody else, “to make a mezuzah for his name.” When he nails it to the doorpost, he recites: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to about mezuzah.” He who makes tefillin for himself, etc. For somebody else, etc. When he puts them on, he says “about the commandment of tefillin.” He who makes ẓiẓit for himself, etc. For somebody else etc. When he wraps himself in them, etc.. He who separates terumah and tithes says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to separate terumah and tithes.” For somebody else, “to separate terumah and tithes for his name.” He who slaughters must say: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about šeḥitah.” He who covers [the blood] says, “about covering the blood.”

He who makes a mezuzah for himself, says “to make a mezuzah.” For somebody else, “to make a mezuzah for his name.” When he nails it to the doorpost, he recites: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to about mezuzah.” He who makes tefillin for himself, etc. For somebody else, etc. When he puts them on, he says “about the commandment of tefillin.” He who makes ẓiẓit for himself, etc. For somebody else etc. When he wraps himself in them, etc.. He who separates terumah and tithes says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to separate terumah and tithes.” For somebody else, “to separate terumah and tithes for his name.” He who slaughters must say: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about šeḥitah.” He who covers [the blood] says, “about covering the blood.”

He who makes a mezuzah for himself, says “to make a mezuzah.” For somebody else, “to make a mezuzah for his name.” When he nails it to the doorpost, he recites: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to about mezuzah.” He who makes tefillin for himself, etc. For somebody else, etc. When he puts them on, he says “about the commandment of tefillin.” He who makes ẓiẓit for himself, etc. For somebody else etc. When he wraps himself in them, etc.. He who separates terumah and tithes says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to separate terumah and tithes.” For somebody else, “to separate terumah and tithes for his name.” He who slaughters must say: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about šeḥitah.” He who covers [the blood] says, “about covering the blood.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

“Works of kindness.” That means with his person. But with his money it has a measure. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may give a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property and with the first of all your yield;” corresponding to the first of all your yield.

“Works of kindness.” That means with his person. But with his money it has a measure. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may give a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property and with the first of all your yield;” corresponding to the first of all your yield.

The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” When do you start to honor Him? When He was gracious to you! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah,lulav, and shofar,tefillin and ẓiẓit, one feeds the poor and hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not own property, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap, it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet! But he is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap, it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet! But he is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it.

If he wrote for one and changed his mind and wrote for another, Rav says he cannot change his mind, Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan say he may change his mind. What does it mean? If his first and second masters were Cohanim and the third an Israel, in the opinion of Rav he may not eat terumah, in the opinion of Rav Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of R. Joḥanan he may eat terumah. Everybody agrees that if his first master was an Israel, he may not eat terumah; maybe the giver will recuperate.

If he wrote for one and changed his mind and wrote for another, Rav says he cannot change his mind, Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan say he may change his mind. What does it mean? If his first and second masters were Cohanim and the third an Israel, in the opinion of Rav he may not eat terumah, in the opinion of Rav Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of R. Joḥanan he may eat terumah. Everybody agrees that if his first master was an Israel, he may not eat terumah; maybe the giver will recuperate.