uncleanliness

One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

Who is the authority for that which our Rabbis taught: ‘A house which is not four cubits square is free from the mitzvos of Mezuzah and parapet, does not contract uncleanliness from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the dwelling houses of a walled city,

R. Huna replied: A handbreadth since we find a handbreadth [prescribed as the minimum size] with regard to overshadowing in cases of uncleanliness, as we have learned: [A space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high acts as a carrier of uncleanliness and as an interposition to it, but if it is less than one handbreadth high it neither conveys nor interposes.

R. Huna replied: A handbreadth since we find a handbreadth [prescribed as the minimum size] with regard to overshadowing in cases of uncleanliness, as we have learned: [A space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high acts as a carrier of uncleanliness and as an interposition to it, but if it is less than one handbreadth high it neither conveys nor interposes.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan, Scripture says, "The Festival [hag] of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves. The Sukkah is thus compared to the Festival [offering]. Just as the Festival offering is a thing which is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grows from the soil, so the Sukkah must be unsusceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grow from the soil.

When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan, Scripture says, "The Festival [hag] of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves. The Sukkah is thus compared to the Festival [offering]. Just as the Festival offering is a thing which is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grows from the soil, so the Sukkah must be unsusceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grow from the soil.

R. Abba further said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests grapes for the vat, does not render their "handles" [stalks] susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness;

While R. Menashia b. Gada said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests [ears of grain] for skhakh does not render their handles susceptible to uncleanliness.

The one that said this with regard to harvesting [grain] certainly holds it with regard to harvesting grapes, since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one's wine; But the one that said this with regard to harvesting grapes, that he does not render their stalks susceptible to uncleanliness, holds that the harvesting [ears of grain] does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the skhakh in order that [the grains] be not scattered.

Isn't it this that they argue about: that one master holds the opinion they render the handles susceptible to uncleanliness, while the other master holds the opinion that they do not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness?

Isn't it this that they argue about: that one master holds the opinion they render the handles susceptible to uncleanliness, while the other master holds the opinion that they do not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness?

To R. Abba this is certainly a tannaitic dispute. But shall we say that it is also a tannaitic dispute according to R. Menashye bar Gada? All agree that he who harvests grain for skhakh does not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness, but here we are dealing with a particular case where he harvests them for food, and then changed his mind [and used them] for skhakh.

can be rendered susceptible to uncleanliness by intention, but cannot be rendered insusceptible except by an act of change, since an act can annul a [prior] act or intention, while an intention cannot annul either a [previous] act or a [previous] intention.

And if you will say that this refers only to vessels which are of importance but that ‘handles’ which are needed only as aids for the eating of the food, are made [susceptible to uncleanness] by intention and are also unmade by intention [it may be objected], But have we not learned: The handles of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to ritual uncleanliness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible?

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

In that case the reason has been given, as Rabbi Shimon said: "What is the reason? Since they are susceptible to uncleanliness if [a zav] sits on them, as we have learned: if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’.

In that case the reason has been given, as Rabbi Shimon said: "What is the reason? Since they are susceptible to uncleanliness if [a zav] sits on them, as we have learned: if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’.

if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of R. Yannai said, it can be used as a patch for [the saddle of] a donkey.

What is the reason of the one who says that the rule of lavud is not applied in the middle? — Because we learned: If a skylight in [the roof of] a house was of one handbreadth square, and there was an object of uncleanliness in the house, all the house is unclean, but what is directly below the skylight is clean. If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.

And [what does] the other [say]? The laws of uncleanliness differ [from those of sukkah] since they have a tradition about them.

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, if made for reclining upon is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for skhakh.

And then it is taught: if made for a covering it is valid as skhakh and is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. The reason then is because it was made specifically for a covering, but if it was made without specific purpose [it would be assumed that it was] made for reclining upon?

But read the latter portion [of the Mishnah]. R Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that he made it for reclining, but if made without a specific purpose it can be used as skhakh

But [again] read the later portion [of the Mishnah] If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. The reason then is that it was made specifically for covering, but if made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for reclining upon?

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

Furthermore, is it not in fact with regard to a large mat that they are in dispute, and it is R. Eliezer who takes the stricter view, for it was taught: A large mat of reeds is valid for skhakh. R. Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, it is valid for skhakh.

[Can it mean] to the uncleanliness of midras but not to that of a corpse! But haven't we learned: Whatever is susceptible to uncleanliness of midras is also susceptible to uncleanliness from a corpse? Say rather also to the uncleanliness of midras.

[Can it mean] to the uncleanliness of midras but not to that of a corpse! But haven't we learned: Whatever is susceptible to uncleanliness of midras is also susceptible to uncleanliness from a corpse? Say rather also to the uncleanliness of midras.

[Can it mean] to the uncleanliness of midras but not to that of a corpse! But haven't we learned: Whatever is susceptible to uncleanliness of midras is also susceptible to uncleanliness from a corpse? Say rather also to the uncleanliness of midras.

[Can it mean] to the uncleanliness of midras but not to that of a corpse! But haven't we learned: Whatever is susceptible to uncleanliness of midras is also susceptible to uncleanliness from a corpse? Say rather also to the uncleanliness of midras.

that they are susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, or of Tiberias that they are not susceptible. About what do they dispute? About those of other places. One Master is of the opinion that since they are not [as a rule] used for sitting upon, they are like those of Tiberias, and the Masters are of the opinion that since it sometimes happens that they are used for sitting upon, they are like those of ‘Usha

The Master said: ‘All reed mats are susceptible to corpse uncleanliness. These are the words of R. Dosa’. But was it not taught: ‘And R. Dosa also said according to his words’?

It was objected: Mats of bamboo, of reed grass, of sackcloth or of goat's-hair are susceptible to corpse uncleanliness, the words of R. Dosa, But the sages say: they are also susceptible to midras uncleanliness. It goes well according to him who says [that hozlot means] ‘bags filled with foliage’, since those of bamboo and of reed-grass can be used for a basket fruit, while those of sackcloth and goat's-hair can be used for sacks or baskets,

It was objected: Mats of bamboo, of reed grass, of sackcloth or of goat's-hair are susceptible to corpse uncleanliness, the words of R. Dosa, But the sages say: they are also susceptible to midras uncleanliness. It goes well according to him who says [that hozlot means] ‘bags filled with foliage’, since those of bamboo and of reed-grass can be used for a basket fruit, while those of sackcloth and goat's-hair can be used for sacks or baskets,

We have learned elsewhere, Both a hole which has been hollowed out by water or by insects or eaten through by saline corrosion, and similarly a row of stones, or a pile of beams, overshadow uncleanliness.

Rava said, [It means that] they did not bring doors at all because the child, feeling confident might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanliness

GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Judah? R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree. One says, It is because the Sukkah has no permanence, and the other says, It is because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

What [case] differentiates between them? If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes [in the ground] and covered them with skhakh According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

What [case] differentiates between them? If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes [in the ground] and covered them with skhakh According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

Abaye said: They taught this only if he supported it, but if he placed skhkah above a bed, it is valid. What is the reason? According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, here he does not prop it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

Abaye said: They taught this only if he supported it, but if he placed skhkah above a bed, it is valid. What is the reason? According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, here he does not prop it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

And on this it was taught, when do these apply? When the beams are each a handbreadth [wide] and there is [a gap] of a handbreadth between them, but if there is not [a gap] of a handbreadth between them, if there is uncleanliness under one of them, whatever is under that beam is unclean while the space between them and above them is clean. Thus it clearly follows that if there is a handbreadth we apply the law of ‘beat and throw it down’, but if there is not a handbreadth we do not apply this law. Conclude from this.

Now whether according to the one who says: Lest it die, or according to the one who says, Lest it escape, according to Toraitic law it is a valid partition, and it is the rabbis who made a restrictive enactment against it. But if this is so, according to R. Meir, it should convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learned: R. Judah says it is subject to the laws of uncleanliness that are applicable to the covering tone of a grave, while R. Meir declares it unsusceptible to such uncleanliness?

Now whether according to the one who says: Lest it die, or according to the one who says, Lest it escape, according to Toraitic law it is a valid partition, and it is the rabbis who made a restrictive enactment against it. But if this is so, according to R. Meir, it should convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learned: R. Judah says it is subject to the laws of uncleanliness that are applicable to the covering tone of a grave, while R. Meir declares it unsusceptible to such uncleanliness?

Now whether according to the one who says: Lest it die, or according to the one who says, Lest it escape, according to Toraitic law it is a valid partition, and it is the rabbis who made a restrictive enactment against it. But if this is so, according to R. Meir, it should convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learned: R. Judah says it is subject to the laws of uncleanliness that are applicable to the covering tone of a grave, while R. Meir declares it unsusceptible to such uncleanliness?

If it was of second tithe in Jerusalem. According to him who explained: Because he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness], behold he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness]; according to him who explained because he diminishes it, behold he diminishes it

If it was of second tithe in Jerusalem. According to him who explained: Because he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness], behold he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness]; according to him who explained because he diminishes it, behold he diminishes it

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

And from where does Rebbi Yitzchak [who uses kares b'achoso to teach us that kares is not subject with malkus] derive the principle of separating? He derives it from (Leviticus 18,19) "And to a woman (אשה) impure by her uncleanliness", to make one liable for each and every woman.