meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/Mishnah Tahorot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mishnah Tahorot
  משנה טהרות
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mishnah Tahorot
  
  
  
  
  
  Thirteen matters regarding the carcass of a pure fowl: it requires thought [i.e. one must initially think to use it for food, in order for it have the impurity of foods]; and it does not necessitate becoming primed [for impurity, unlike other foods, which are primed for impurity when they become wet]; and it renders foods impure [upon contact] when it has [at least the volume] equivalent to an egg; and [it renders one impure] while it is being swallowed when it has [at least the volume] equivalent to an olive; and one who eats it requires [waiting until] sunset [on the day of his immersion before he becomes pure again]; and [if rendered impure] by it, one would be liable for entering the temple; and [one rendered impure by it renders <i>terumah</i> impure, such that the] <i>terumah</i> needs to be burned on its account; and one who eats a limb taken from it while alive endures the forty [lashes]. According to Rabbi Meir, its slaughter or its <i>melikah</i> [ritual killing of fowl brought as sacrifices in the temple] purify [the pure fowl, if it was discovered to have been] a <i>treifah</i> [an animal which will not survive, and is generally rendered impure and cannot be eaten]. Rabbi Yehuda says: they do not purify. Rabbi Yose says: its slaughter purifies, but its <i>melikah</i> does not. [The first nine of the thirteen matters are listed in this Mishna; the final four appear in the following Mishna.]
  The wings and the feathers [of the carcass of a pure fowl] can be rendered impure and can render [other items] impure, and they are not added together [to reach a volume measure sufficient for causing impurity]. Rabbi Yishmael says: the feather is added [to complete the sufficient measure]. The beak and the talons render impure and they are added together. Rabbi Yose says: even the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail are added together, as they are left on the fatted [birds, for serving].
  The carcass of an impure fowl requires thought [one must initially think to use it for food] and being primed [for impurity, by becoming wet]; and it renders foods impure when it has [at least the volume] equivalent to an egg, and [at least the volume] equivalent to half a loaf invalidates one's body [from eating <i>terumah</i> by rendering him impure]; and it does not have [the law of rendering one impure] when it is being swallowed when it has [at least the volume] equivalent to an olive; and one who eats it does not require [waiting until] sunset [on the day of his immersion before he becomes pure again]; and one is not liable for entering the temple [while impure] because of it; but <i>terumah</i> is burned on its account [i.e. one rendered impure by it renders <i>terumah</i> impure]; and one who eats a limb taken from it while alive does not endure the forty [lashes]; and slaughtering it does not purify it. The wings and feathers can be rendered impure, and can render impure, and are added together. The beak and the talons can be rendered impure, can render impure, and are added together.  
  And regarding an animal: the hide, the sauces [in which it is cooked], the seasonings, the meat stuck to the hide, the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hooves combine to render impure with the impurity of foods, but not with the impurity of carcasses. Similarly, one who slaughters an impure animal for a gentile and it is still twitching, it can render impure with the impurity of foods, but not with the impurity of carcasses until it dies or until its head is chopped off. The rendering of the impurity of foods was made more numerous than the rendering of the impurity of carcasses. 
  Food which has become impure from an origin of impurity [and has thus attained a first degree level of impurity], and [food] which has become impure from a generated impurity [such as something of a first degree level, causing it, in turn, to attain a second degree level of impurity], they are added together to impart impurity [at the level] of the less stringent of the two. How so? The equivalent [in volume] of half an egg of food of a first degree [level of impurity] and the equivalent [in volume] of half an egg of a second degree [level of impurity] that one mixed with each other, [the mixture] is of a second degree.  The equivalent of half an egg of a second degree and the equivalent of half an egg of a third degree that one mixed with each other, [the mixture] is of a third degree.  The equivalent of a full egg of a first degree and the equivalent of a full egg of a second degree that one mixed with each other, [the mixture] is of a first degree; but if one [then] divided them [into two], this one is of a second degree and this one is of a second degree. If one [of these two] fell on its own and [the other] one [also fell] on its own onto a loaf of <i>terumah</i>, they invalidate it [by giving it a third degree level of impurity]. If both fell at once they render it to be of a second degree [impurity, since it came into contact with a full egg's measure of food of a first degree impurity].  
  The equivalent of an egg [in volume] of a second degree food and the equivalent of an egg [in volume] of third degree food that one mixed with one another, [the mixture] is of a second degree; if one divided them [into two], this one is of a third degree and this one is of a third degree. If one [of these two] fell on its own, and [the other] one [also fell] on its own onto a loaf a <i>terumah</i>, it has not invalidated it [since <i>terumah</i> is not made impure by something of third degree impurity]. If both fell at once they render it to be of a third degree [impurity]. The equivalent of an egg [in volume] of first degree food and the equivalent of an egg [in volume] of third degree food that one mixed with each other, [the mixture] is of a first degree; if one divided them [into two], this one is of a second degree and this one is of a second degree, since even that of a third degree, when it touched that of a first degree, it became of a second degree. The equivalent of two eggs [in volume] of first degree food and the equivalent of two eggs [in volume] of a second degree food that one mixed with each other, [the mixture] is of a first degree; if one divided them [into two], this one is of a first degree and this one is of a first degree; if [one divided them] into three or four, they are [all] of a second degree. The equivalent of two eggs [in volume] of second degree food and the equivalent of two eggs [in volume] of third degree that one mixed with each other, [the mixture] is of a second degree; if one divided them [into two], this one is of a second degree and this one is of a second degree;  if [one divided them] into three or four, they are [all] of a third degree.
  Pieces of dough which are touching each other or loaves that are touching one another, if one of them is rendered impure by [touching] a vermin, they are all [rendered] primary [in their impurity; i.e. they all become of a first degree of impurity]. If they were [then] separated, they are all [still] primary [in their impurity]. Regarding liquids [that are similarly touching each other, if one liquid is rendered impure by impure liquids, which are always of a first degree level of impurity, then] they are all of a second degree [level of impurity]; if they were [then] separated, they are all [still] of a second degree. If [they were made impure] by hands [which are of a second degree level of impurity], they are all of a third degree.
  A piece of dough that was primary [i.e. of a first degree impurity], and one attached other pieces to it, they are all primary; if one [then] separated them, it [the original piece] is primary, and all the others are second degree. If it [the original piece] was second degree and one attached other pieces to it, they are all second degree; if one [then] separated them, it is second degree, and all the others are third degree. If it was third degree and one attached other pieces to it, it is third degree, and all the others are pure, whether they were separated or not. 
  Sanctified loaves whose ridges have sanctified [i.e. sufficiently pure] water in them, if one of them became impure by [coming into contact with] a vermin, they all become impure [any loaves touching it, along with any loaves touching those loaves, and so on, since even a fourth degree impurity, which generally does not generate further impurity, can render sanctified liquids primary, meaning they can then go on to render the rest of the loaves impure]. With [loaves of] <i>terumah</i>, [a vermin that comes into contact with one of them] makes two [loaves] impure and invalidates one [i.e the first loaf that touched the vermin becomes impure in the first degree, and any loaf that touches that loaf becomes impure in the second degree, and any loaf touching that loaf becomes impure in the third degree and thus is still invalid for <i>terumah</i>, but it does not cause any more impurity]. If there is dripping liquid between them, even with [loaves of] <i>terumah</i>, everything is impure [because the liquid, which is made primary by the loaves, and which causes the loaves it then touches to become secondary, and those loaves, in turn, cause the water touching the next loaves to become primary, and so on, to all the loaves]. 
  
  
  
  A woman who was pickling vegetables in a pot and touched [with impure hands] a dry part of a leaf outside the pot [but which was partially immersed, or connected to a stalk immersed in the pot], even if it [the entire leaf] has the equivalent of an egg [in volume], it is impure, and everything else is pure [because when her impure hands, which are a second degree impurity, touched the dry part of the leaf, it became a third degree impurity, which does not generate further impurity].  If she touched a wet part, if it has [at least] the equivalent of an egg [in volume], everything is impure; if it does not have the equivalent of an egg, it is impure and everything [else] is pure. If it [the wet part of the leaf] returns to the pot, everything is impure. If it [her hand] had been rendered impure through contact with a dead body, and she touched either a moist or dry part [of a leaf sticking out of the pot], if it has the equivalent of an egg [in volume], everything is impure; if it does not have the equivalent of an egg, it is impure and everything [else] is pure. If a woman who had immersed that day [and therefore was still of a second degree impurity until sunset] was emptying the pot with dirty [i.e. impure] hands and she saw liquids on her hands, and it is doubtful as to whether they were splashed from the pot, or that the stalk touched her hands, the vegetable [connected to the stalk] is invalid [i.e. impure], and [the rest of] the pot is pure. 
  Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats foods of a first degree [level of impurity] is [himself rendered] of a first degree; [if he eats] foods of a second degree, [he is rendered] of a second degree; foods of a third degree, [he is rendered] of a third degree. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats foods of a first degree or of a second degree is [rendered] of a second degree; [one who eats foods] of a third degree, [he is rendered] of second degree for sanctified foods, but not for <i>terumah</i>, [and this applies] with non-sacred food prepared with the purity stringency of <i>terumah</i> [since regular non-sacred foods do not have third degree impurity]. 
  Non-sacred food of a first degree [level of impurity] is impure and can render others impure. That of a second degree, is invalid [literally: renders invalid], but does not render impure. And [non-sacred food] of a third degree can be eaten in a soup of <i>demai</i> [non-sacred foods into which some amount of <i>terumah</i> has been mixed]. 
  <i>Terumah</i> of a first or second degree is impure and can render [other things] impure. [<i>Terumah</i>] of a third degree, is invalid [literally: renders invalid], but does not render impure. And that of fourth degree can be eaten in a soup containing sanctified foods. 
  Sanctified foods of a first, second, or third degree are impure and render [other things] impure. [Sanctified foods] of a fourth degree are invalid [literally: render invalid], but do not render impure. [Sanctified foods] of a fifth degree can be eaten in a soup containing sanctified foods.
  Non-sacred foods of a second degree render non-sacred liquids impure, and invalidate [foods] for those who eat <i>terumah</i>. <i>Terumah</i> of a third degree renders sanctified liquids impure, and invalidates [foods] for those who eat sanctified foods, [and this applies] when they were prepared with the purity stringency of sanctified things. But if they were prepared [only] with the purity stringency of <i>terumah</i>, it [<i>terumah</i> of a third degree] renders, with regard to sanctified foods, two impure [i.e. creates, upon contact, a first degree impurity and, in turn, a second degree impurity] and invalidates one [in turn, to be a third degree level of impurity, but not a fourth degree; this is because foods prepared with the purity stringency of <i>terumah</i> are still impure at a first degree level with regard to sanctified foods, but they do not retain a fourth degree impurity, since <i>terumah</i> cannot retain a fourth degree of impurity]. 
  Rabbi Eliezer says: The three of them are the same. First degree sanctified foods, <i>terumah</i> foods, and non-sanctified foods, [all] render two impure and invalidate one with regard to sanctified foods; [they all] render one impure and invalidate one with regard to <i>terumah</i>; and they invalidate non-sanctified foods [by rendering them impure]. The second degree [foods] for all [of these three categories], render one impure and invalidate one with regard to sanctified foods, render non-sanctified liquids impure, and invalidate [foods, by rendering them impure] for those who eat <i>terumah</i>. The third degree [foods] for all [of these three categories], render sanctified liquids impure, and invalidate [foods] for those who eat sanctified foods. 
  One who is eating foods of a second degree [impurity] should not work in an olive press [since his body becomes of a second degree, and he then renders liquids impure]. And non-sacred foods that were prepared with the stringency of sacred foods still follow the rules of non-sacred foods [i.e. unlike sacred foods, they cannot be rendered third degree by a second degree impurity, nor are they rendered fourth degree by a third degree impurity].  Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok says: In fact they are like <i>terumah</i>, in that [if they touch an origin of impurity] two are rendered impure [those rendered of a first and second degree impurity] and one is invalidated [that of a third degree; and it does not produce a fourth]. 
  
  
  
  Sauce, ground beans, and milk, when they are a liquid and able make other things wet, [they are considered liquids such that] they are [made] primary [i.e. of a first degree level of impurity, if they become impure]. If they congeal, they are [able to become] of second degree [like foods in general]. If [when impure] they were then re-softened [into liquid], if there is exactly the equivalent of an egg [in volume] of them, they are pure [since they lost their impurity status in shifting states]; if there is more than the equivalent of an egg [in volume] of them, they are impure, since once the first drop came out [and softened into liquid] it was rendered impure by the [remaining] egg's volume [which is a sufficient amount of food to render impurity, and the rest of the food, as it softens, is rendered impure by that impure liquid, since liquids of any amount can be rendered impure; but when there is exactly an egg's volume of food, the first drop of it that softens into liquid is not rendered impure by it, since there is not a sufficient measure of food left there to render it impure, since foods are only rendered impure and render impurity when there is at least an egg's volume of them]. 
  Rabbi Meir says: Oil is always primary [in its impurity, i.e. of a first degree level, even if it congeals into a solid].  The sages say: even honey.  Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even wine.  A clump of [impure] olives which fell into an oven and it was lit, if [the olives are] exactly the equivalent of an egg [in volume], it [the oven] is pure [since foods cannot render a vessel impure]; if they are greater than the equivalent of an egg [in volume], it is impure, since once the first drop came out, it [that drop of liquid] was rendered impure by the [remaining] egg's volume [which is a sufficient amount of food to render impurity, and that impure drop then renders the oven impure; but when there is exactly an egg's volume of olives, the first drop of it that melts into liquid is not rendered impure by it, since there is no longer a sufficient measure of food left to render it impure]. If they [the impure olives] are separated [from one another], even if there is a <i>se'ah</i> [a large measure] of them, it [the oven] is pure. 
  An individual rendered impure through contact with a dead body, who squeezed olives or grapes, if [the fruits he squeezed were] equivalent to exactly an egg [in volume], it [the liquid coming out of them] is pure, as long as he does not touch the part of the [fruit that was already squeezed into] liquid.  [If they are] more than the equivalent of an egg [in volume], it is impure, since once the first drop emerged it was rendered impure by an egg's volume [of fruit, which is a sufficient amount to render impurity; but when there is only exactly an egg's volume of fruit, the first drop that emerges is not rendered impure by it, since there is no longer a sufficient measure of food left to render it impure]. If the individual was a <i>zav</i> or <i>zava</i> [a male or female, respectively, with a genital discharge that renders them an Origin of impurity], even with [the squeezing of] one berry, it [the liquid from the fruit] is impure, since when the first drop emerged it became impure through carrying [since a <i>zav</i>/<i>zava</i> also renders impure anything he or she carries or moves]. A <i>zav</i> who milked a goat, the milk is impure, because when the first drop emerged, it became impure through carrying. 
  The equivalent [in volume] of an egg of [impure] foods which one placed in the sun and they shrank, and similarly the equivalent of an egg [in volume] of a dead body, or the equivalent of an egg [in volume] of an animal carcass, or the equivalent of a lentil [in volume] of a vermin, or the equivalent of an olive of <i>pigul</i> [any sacrifice about which the priest bringing it had any invalidating intention], or the equivalent of an olive of remainders [leftover sacrifices left past their designated time, which then become forbidden for eating], or the equivalent of an olive of forbidden fats, [if one placed any of these in the sun and they shrunk to less than their initial measure,] these things [the impure foods, the body, the carcass, and the vermin, all of which were impure] are pure, and these [the final three items on the list], one is not subject to liability on account of them, not for <i>pigul</i>, nor for remainders, nor for [eating] forbidden fats [literally: for impurity].  If one placed them in the rain and they swelled [back to their original full measure], they are impure, and one is subject to liability on account of them for <i>pigul</i>, for remainders, and for [eating] forbidden fats [literally: for impurity]. 
  All impurities [are determined] as they are found: if items are [found] impure, they are [deemed to have been] impure [at the relevant moment for an object in question]; if they are [found] pure, they are [deemed to have been] pure [at the relevant moment for the object in question]. If they are [found] covered [such as an earthenware vessel which protects its contents from impurity when covered by a tight seal], they are [assumed to have been] covered [at the relevant time, and we do not worry that it may have initially been uncovered in the presence certain impurities, and that its contents are therefore impure]; if they are [found] uncovered, they are [assumed to have been] uncovered [at the relevant time]. A needle found full of rust or broken [and therefore unusable, and thus unable to retain impurity], it is pure [and we do not worry that it came into contact with the object in question before it became invalid, i.e. while it was still impure and therefore able to render the object impure], since all impurities [of items are determined] as they are found. 
  A deaf-mute, an <i>shoteh</i>, or a minor, if they were found in an alley that has an impurity in it [but there is a doubt as to whether it rendered them impure], they are assumed to be pure. But anyone fully competent is assumed to be impure. And [this is because] anyone who does not have sufficient understanding to be questioned [about his purity status], when his status is uncertain, he is [assumed to be] pure. 
  A toddler found at the edge of graveyard holding roses in his hand, and the only roses [in the graveyard] are in the impure area , he is pure, for I may say: Someone else picked them and gave them to him. Similarly a donkey among the graves, his vessels are pure [since the donkey and its vessels also cannot be questioned]. 
  If a baby was found next to a pile of dough and a piece was in his hand [and it is unclear whether he himself took the piece off rendering all the dough impure, or if someone else tore the piece off for him], Rabbi Meir considers it pure. And the Sages consider it impure, because it is the way of babies to touch [the dough]. Dough which has peck-holes from chickens and there are impure liquids in the house, if there is enough space between the liquids and the loaves for them to wipe their beaks on the ground, then they are pure. And regarding a cow or a dog, enough space for them [to have time] to lick [their lips with] their tongues. And with all other animals, enough space [for them to travel] for it to be dried up.  Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov considers it pure in the case of a dog, since he is intelligent, and it is not his way to leave the food and go get water [first, before he finishes eating; and therefore it can be assumed that he did not touch the loaves after touching the impure liquids]. 
  
  
  
  One who throws an impurity from place to place, [such as] a [pure] loaf into [a collection of impure] keys, or a [impure] key into [an collection of pure] loaves, they are assumed to be pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: a loaf into [impure] keys is impure, but a key into [pure] loaves, [they are] pure.  
  If there is a vermin in the mouth of a weasel and it is walking on loaves of <i>terumah</i>, and it is uncertain whether it touched them or not, its uncertainty is pure [i.e. the purity status of the loaves is uncertain, and therefore pure] . 
  If there is a vermin in the mouth of a weasel or an animal carcass in the mouth of a dog, and they passed among pure things, or pure things passed among them, their uncertainty is pure [i.e. their purity status is uncertain, and therefore pure], because the impurity has no [fixed] place. If they [the dog or weasel] were picking at them [the dead animals] on the ground, and someone says, "I went to that place, but I do not know if I touched [the vermin or the carcass] or I did not touch it, his uncertainly is impure [i.e. his purity status is uncertain, and therefore impure], because the impurity has a [fixed] place. 
  If there is an olive's volume of corpse in the mouth of a raven, and it is uncertain if it was in an enclosed space over a person or over vessels in a private domain [which would have rendered them impure], the person's uncertainly is impure [i.e. the purity status of the person is uncertain, and therefore impure]; the vessels' uncertainty is pure [i.e. their purity status is uncertain, and therefore pure]. If one is filling ten buckets [from a well] and a vermin is found in one of them, it [the bucket in which it was found] is impure, and they [the rest] are all pure.  One who pours from one vessel to another and a vermin was found in the lower one, the upper one is pure.
  For six uncertainties [regarding purity status] <i>terumah</i> is burnt: for the uncertainty of a plowed graveyard, and for the uncertainty of dirt that came from the lands of the nations [i.e. outside Israel], for the uncertainty of the clothes of an unlearned person, and for the uncertainty of found vessels, for the uncertainty of found spittle, for the uncertainty of human urine that was found opposite the urine of an animal [thereby allowing it to be clearly identified as human urine]. In [cases where there is] a certainty that any of these touched [<i>terumah</i>], which is [therefore the cause of] an uncertainty regarding their impurity status, the <i>terumah</i> is burnt. Rabbi Yose says: in a private domain, [the <i>terumah</i> is burnt] even in [cases where there is] an uncertainty that they touched. But the Sages say: in a private domain, [when there is an uncertainty that they touched] we suspend [i.e. neither burn nor eat the <i>terumah</i>], but in a public domain it is pure.
  If there are two spittles, one which is impure [like any found spittle, as seen in the previous Mishna] and the other pure [where it is known to have come from a pure person], we suspend [and neither burn nor eat the <i>terumah</i>] for their touching, being carried, or being moved in a private domain [when there is this uncertainty as to whether it was the impure spittle or the pure]; and [the same rule applies also in cases of uncertainty regarding] their touching in a public domain when they are moist, and for their being carried when they are either moist or dry. If there was just one spittle and someone touched it, carried it, or moved it in the public domain, <i>terumah</i> [which he then came into contact with] is burnt on his account, and certainly if this happened in a private domain [it is also burnt].
  The following uncertainties [regarding impurity status] were declared pure by the Sages: the uncertainty of drawn waters for a <i>mikvah</i> [a pool for ritual immersion which must contain natural, undrawn water; the uncertainty is a case in which it is uncertain whether a <i>mikvah</i> contains enough drawn water to invalidate it from being able to purify those that immerse it in]; the uncertainty of an impurity floating on the water's surface; the uncertainty of liquids regarding whether they themselves have become impure--such [liquids] are impure, and [the uncertainty] regarding whether they rendered [something else] impure--such [items] are pure; the uncertainty of hands regarding whether they themselves have become impure, or have rendered [something] impure, or have themselves become pure, [in all three cases] they are pure; the uncertainty of the public domain [i.e. an uncertainty regarding purity status which was generated when something was in the public domain]; the uncertainty regarding [the purity status of something that came into contact with something that is impure only according to] the words of the Scholars; the uncertainty [regarding the purity status] of non-sanctified foods; the uncertainty regarding [the purity status of something which may have been rendered impure by] vermin; the uncertainty of blights [i.e. regarding the purity status of someone or something that may have been rendered impure by someone impure due to an illness, such as leprosy]; the uncertainty regarding [one's] status as a Nazirite[i.e. like someone who took a vow to be a Nazirite contingent on something which remains uncertain]; the uncertainty regarding [the status of] a first born; and the uncertainty regarding [one's obligation to bring] sacrifices. 
  The uncertainty of an impurity floating on the water's surface [where it is uncertain whether or not someone came into contact with the floating object: this was declared pure by the Sages] whether in a vessel or on the earth. Rabbi Shimon says: in a vessel it is impure [since it is in a fixed place], and on the earth it is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the uncertainty was [one that arose] when he went down [into the water] he is impure, but if the uncertainty was when he was coming up [out of the water] he is pure. Rabbi Yose says: even if there is room [in the water] only for one person plus the impurity, he is [still] pure. 
  What is the case of the uncertainty of liquids regarding whether they themselves have become impure--and where such [liquids] are impure?  If an impure person extended his foot amid pure liquids and it is uncertain if he touched them or not, its uncertainty is impure [i.e. the purity status of the waters is uncertain, and therefore impure]. If there was an impure loaf in his hand and he threw in among pure liquids and it is uncertain whether they touched or did not touch, its uncertainty is impure [i.e. the purity status of the waters is uncertain, and therefore impure]. And what is the case [of the uncertainty] regarding whether they [liquids] rendered [something else] impure--where such [items] are pure? If there was a stick in his hand on at its tip were impure liquids, and he threw it among pure loaves, and it is uncertain whether they touched or did not touch, its uncertainty is pure [i.e. the purity status of the loaves is uncertain, and therefore pure].
  Rabbi Yose says: The uncertainty of [impure] liquids regarding [whether or not they came into contact with] foods is impure [i.e. the purity status of the loaves is uncertain and therefore impure], and regarding vessels it is pure [i.e. when it is uncertain whether or not the liquids came into contact with vessels, the vessels are pure]. How so? If there were two jugs [of water], one impure and the other pure, and someone made dough from [the water from] one of them, and it is uncertain if he made it from the impure one or made it from the pure one, this is the case of the uncertainty of [impure] liquids, regarding foods is impure and regarding vessels it is pure. 
  The uncertainty of hands regarding whether they themselves have become impure, or have rendered [something] impure, or have become pure, [in all three cases] they are pure. The uncertainty of the public domain [i.e. any uncertainty regarding purity status which was generated when something was in the public domain], is pure. As for the uncertainty regarding [the purity status of something that came into contact with something impure only according to] the words of the Scholars: If [there is an uncertainty as to whether] one ate impure foods or drank impure liquids, or whether one's head and the majority of one's body came into drawn water, or whether three <i>login</i> of drawn water fell on one's head and a majority of one's body, [all of which are instances of someone whom the Sages decreed becomes impure on a rabbinic level,] in the case of uncertainty, he is pure. But for something which is an Origin of impurity according to the words of the Scholars [i.e. something that the Sages decreed should be treated as an Origin of impurity], in the case of uncertainty [if someone might have come into contact with it], he is impure.  
  The uncertainty [regarding the purity status] of non-sanctified foods, this is the purity of abstention [i.e. of those who are careful to eat in purity even non-sanctified foods; and such foods, when their status is uncertain, are pure]. The uncertainty regarding [something which may or may not have been rendered impure by] vermin, [its status is] in accordance with how they were found [i.e. if the item in question was not actually touching the vermin when it was found, it is assumed to be pure]. The uncertainty of blights [i.e. regarding the purity status of someone that may have been rendered impure by someone impure due to an illness, such as leprosy], at the beginning he is pure until he is determined [by the priest] as impure; once he has been determined impure, his uncertainty [i.e. a case of someone or something which may or may not have been rendered impure by him] is impure. The uncertainty regarding [one's] status as a Nazirite [i.e. if someone took a vow to be a Naziritecontingent on something which remains uncertain], he is permitted [to do the things a Nazirite is forbidden from doing, i.e. he is not a Nazirite]. The uncertainty regarding [the status of] a first born, whether first born humans or first born animals, whether pure or impure [i.e. kosher or non-kosher], the burden of proof is upon the one [who wants] to remove [possessions] from his fellow [i.e. the priest who makes a claim on the first born must demonstrate that it is a first born before he can take it]. 
  The uncertainty regarding [one's obligation to bring] sacrifices, [for example]: a woman who has upon her five uncertain [obligations to bring the sacrifice brought after] births [i.e. if she miscarried and is uncertain whether it was a birth obligating her to bring a sacrifice], or five uncertain discharges [i.e. she is uncertain if they were discharges obligating her to bring a sacrifice]; she brings one sacrifice, and can then eat from the offering, and she does not have an obligation to bring the rest [of the sacrifices]. 
  
  
  
  A vermin and a frog in the public domain, and similarly an olive's volume of a dead body and an olive's volume of an animal carcass, or a bone from a dead body and a bone from an animal carcass, or a clod [of dirt] from a pure land and a clod from a plowed cemetery, a clod from a pure land and a clod from the lands of the nations [i.e. outside Israel], or two paths one impure and one pure, if someone walked down one of them and he does not know which one he walked down, or [in passing by] he covered over one of them [i.e. over the olive's volume of the dead body or of the animal carcass] and he does not know which one he covered over, or he moved one of them [i.e. one of the two bones, or one of the two clods of dirt] and he does not know which one he moved, Rabbi Akiva declares him impure, but the Sages declare him pure. 
  One who said, "I touched this thing and I do not know if it is impure or if it is pure," or [if he says,] "I touched one, but I do not know which of the two I touched," [i.e. like if one does not know if he touched the impure vermin or the pure frog,] Rabbi Akiva declares him impure, but the Sages declare him pure. Rabbi Yose declares them all impure, but in [the case of] the paths he declares [him] pure because it is the way of people to walk [down a path], but it is not their way to touch [the objects on the ground]. 
  Two paths, one impure and one pure, if someone walked down one of them and prepared pure things [i.e. pure <i>terumah</i> foods] and they were eaten, and then he [was] sprinkled [i.e. with the sanctified waters, as part of the red heifer purification process], and [then sprinkled] a second time, and he immersed and became pure, and then he walked down the second path and prepared pure things, they are pure. If the first ones still exist they are both held in suspension [and can be neither eaten nor burned]. If he did not purify [himself] in between, the first ones are in suspension and the second ones should be burned. 
  If a vermin and a frog are in the public domain, and someone touched one of them and then prepared pure things, and they were eaten, and he then immersed, and then touched the second one and prepared pure things, these [latter] things are pure. If the first ones still exist then both [sets] are held in suspension [and can be neither eaten nor burned]. If he did not immerse in between, the first ones are in suspension and the second ones should be burned. 
  Two paths, one impure and one pure, if someone walked down one of them and then prepared pure things, and then his fellow came and walked down the second one and prepared pure things, Rabbi Yehuda says: If each one of them inquired individually [regarding his own purity status], they are both pure, but if they inquired together, they are impure. Rabbi Yose says: in either case they are impure. 
  Two loaves of bread, one impure and one pure, if someone ate one of them and then prepared pure things, and then his fellow came and ate the second one and then prepared pure things, Rabbi Yehuda says: If each one of them inquired individually [regarding his own purity status], they are both pure, but if they inquired together, they are impure. Rabbi Yose says: in either case they are impure. 
  One who sat in the public domain, and someone came and stepped on his clothes, or spat and he [the sitter] touched his spit: on account of the spit the <i>terumah</i> is burned, but regarding the [stepped on] clothes we follow the majority [of the area's population, in order to determine the status of the person who stepped on the clothes, and thereby to determine whether or not the sitter was rendered impure]. One who slept in the public domain, when he arises his clothes are impure as <i>midras</i> [an impurity caused when something is sat or stepped upon by a <i>zav</i> or a <i>zava</i>, rendering it an Origin of impurity], according to Rabbi Meir; but the Sages declare them pure. One who touched someone in the night, and it is not known whether it was someone living or dead, and in the morning when he arose he found him dead, Rabbi Meir declares him pure; but the Sages declare him impure, since all [uncertain cases of] impurities are [ruled] in accordance with [their apparent status at] the time they are discovered.  
  If there was even one <i>shotah</i> in the town, or a non-Jewish woman, or a Samaritan woman, all spit [found] in the town is impure. Someone whose clothes were stepped on by a woman, or if she sat with him in a boat, if she knows that he is one who eats <i>terumah</i> [and therefore has to be careful to remain pure, then] his clothes are pure; but if not, he must ask her [if she is a <i>niddah</i>, in order to determine whether or not his clothes have become impure].  
  If one witness says, "He has become impure," but he says, "I have not become impure," he is pure. If two [witnesses] say, "You have become impure," and he says, "I have not become impure," Rabbi Meir declares him impure; but the Sages say: he is believed regarding himself. One witness says, "He has become impure," and two [witnesses] say, "He has not become impure," whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is pure. Two [witnesses] say, "He has become impure," and one witness says, "He has not become impure," whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is impure. One witness says, "He has become impure," and another witness says, "He has not become impure," or if one woman says, "He has become impure," and another woman says, "He has not become impure," in a private domain he is impure, but in a public domain he is pure. 
  
  
  
  A place that was a private domain, and then became a public domain, and then was turned again into a private domain: while it is a private domain its uncertainty [i.e. any cases of uncertainty regarding the purity status of something found in it] is impure; while it is a public domain its uncertainty is pure. A man who was gravely ill in a private domain, and they took him out into a public domain, and then they returned him to a private domain: while he is in the private domain his uncertainty [i.e. the uncertainty of the purity status of any person or object that came in contact with him, if it was not clear whether he was alive or dead at the time] is impure; while he is in the public domain his uncertainty is pure. Rabbi Shimon says: the public domain interrupts [i.e. and once he is in the public domain and thereby determined to be alive, we can no longer maintain that earlier, while he was in the private domain, he was dead].   
  There are four cases of uncertain impurity which Rabbi Yehoshua declares impure and the Sages declare pure. How so? If an impure person stood [in a covered area, such as under a tree, constituting a "tent" or area of impurity,] and a pure person passed by; or a pure person stood [in a covered area] and an impure person passed by; or if something impure was in a private domain and [it was next to] something pure in the [adjacent] public domain; or if something pure was in the private domain and [it was next to] something impure in the [adjacent] public domain; if there is an uncertainty as to whether one touched [the impure object] or did not touch it, or whether it [i.e. the covered area] covered over [both the impure and the pure person at once] or did not cover over, or whether someone moved [the impure object, even indirectly] or did not move it; [in all these cases of uncertainty] Rabbi Yehoshua declares it impure, and the Sages declare it pure.  
  A tree standing in a public domain which has something impure within it [i.e. among its branches], if someone climbed to its top, and it is uncertain whether he touched [the impurity] or did not touch it, its uncertainty is impure [i.e. such a case of uncertainty is ruled to be impure]. If someone put his hand into a hole containing something impure, and it is uncertain whether he touched it or did not touch it, its uncertainty is impure. A shop that was impure and open to the public domain, if there is an uncertainty as to whether someone entered it or did not enter it, its uncertainty is pure. If there is an uncertainty as to whether one touched [something impure inside a shop] or did not touch, its uncertainty is pure. If there were two shops, the one impure and one pure, and someone entered into one of them, and there is an uncertainty as to whether he entered into the impure one or entered into the pure one, its uncertainty is impure. 
  However many uncertainties, and uncertainties upon uncertainties that you might increase, a case of uncertainty in a private domain is impure, and [an uncertainty] in a public domain is pure. How so? If one entered an alleyway and something impure was in the courtyard [which one enters into through the alleyway], and there is an uncertainty as to whether he entered [the courtyard] or did not enter; or if something impure was in a house and there is an uncertainty as to whether he entered or did not enter; or even if he entered, if there is an uncertainty as to whether it was there [i.e. whether the impure thing was in the house at the time that he entered] or was not there; or even if it was there, if there is an uncertainty as to whether it consisted of the [sufficient] amount [required in order for something to render one impure] or did not consist of the [sufficient] amount; or even if it did consist [of the sufficient amount], if there is an uncertainty as to whether it was something impure or pure; and even if it was something impure, if there is an uncertainty as to whether he touched it or not; [for any such case] its uncertainty is impure. Rabbi Elazar says: if there is an uncertainty as to whether one entered [into the impure courtyard or house], it is pure; but if there is an uncertainty as to whether one touched [something impure], it is impure. 
  If one entered a valley during the rainy season, and there was something impure in a particular field and he said, "I walked to that place, but I do not know whether I entered that field or did not enter it, Rabbi Elazar declares him pure, but the Sages declare him impure. 
  A case of uncertainty [originating] in the private domain [regarding ones purity status] is impure until he says, "I did not touch [the impure object]." A case of uncertainty [originating] in the public domain is pure until he says, "I touched [the impurity]." Which is a public domain? The [narrow, steep and winding] streets [leading up to] <i>Beit Gilgul</i> and those [areas] similar to them are [considered] a private domain regarding [matters of carrying on] Shabbat, but a public domain regarding [matters of purity and] impurity. Rabbi Elazar says: the streets of <i>Beit Gilgul</i> were only mentioned because they are a private domain regarding both of them [i.e. both for matters of carrying on Shabbat and matters of purity]. The paths that lead to pits, cisterns, caves, and wine presses are each a private domain regarding Shabbat, but a public domain regarding impurity. 
  A valley in the summer time is a private domain regarding [matters of carrying on] Shabbat and it is a public domain regarding [matters of purity and] impurity; and in the rainy season it is a private domain regarding both of them. 
  A basilica is a private domain regarding [matters of carrying on] Shabbat, but it is a public domain regarding [matters of] impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says: if one who stands in one entrance can see those who enter and exit through the other entrance, it is a private domain regarding regarding both of them; and if not then it is a private domain regarding Shabbat and a public domain regarding impurity.
  A forum is a private domain regarding Shabbat, but a public domain regarding impurity; and similarly the sides [of the forum are also a private domain regarding Shabbat and a public domain regarding impurity].  Rabbi Meir says: the sides are a private domain regarding both of them. 
  A colonnade is a private domain regarding Shabbat but a public domain regarding impurity. A courtyard which the masses enter into through one [entrance] and exit through the other is a private domain regarding Shabbat but a public domain regarding impurity.
  
  
  
  A potter who left his pots and went down to drink, the inner pots are pure but the outer ones [those facing the road or public domain] are impure. Rabbi Yose says: to which cases does this apply? To unbound ones; but if they are tied together, everything is pure. One who gives over his [house] key to an <i>am ha'aretz</i> [a non-learned person, assumed to be impure], the house is pure, because he only gave over to him [the rights of] the guarding of the key.
  One who leaves an <i>am ha'aretz</i> in his house awake and finds him awake, [or leaves him] asleep and finds him asleep, [or leaves him] awake and finds him asleep, [in these three cases] the house is pure. If [one leaves him] asleep and he finds him awake, the house is impure, according to Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: things are only impure as far as to where he [the <i>am ha'aretz</i>] could extend his hand and touch. 
  If one leaves craftsmen in his house, the house is impure, according to Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: things are only impure as far as to where they could extend their hands and touch. 
  The wife of a <i>chaver</i> [one who is meticulous about keeping all his foods pure] who left the wife of an <i>am ha'aretz</i> grinding in her house [i.e the house of the wife of the <i>chaver</i>], if the milling stopped, the house is impure. If the milling did not stop, things are only impure as far as to where she could extend her hand and touch. If there were two of them [i.e. two wives of <i>amei ha'aretz</i>], the house is impure regardless, because one woman could grind while the other goes around touching [other vessels in the house], according to Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: [even when there are two of them] things are only impure as far as to where they could extend their hands and touch. 
  One who leaves an <i>am ha'aretz</i> in his house to guard it, as long as he [the homeowner] can see those who are entering and those who are exiting, the food and the drinks and the earthenware vessels that are unsealed are all impure, but the beds and couches and the earthenware vessels closed with a tight seal are all pure. And if he cannot see those entering nor those who are exiting, even if he [the <i>am ha'aretz</i> guard] was being lead [by someone] or was tied up, everything is impure.  
  If tax collectors [assumed to be impure] entered a house, the house is impure. If there is a non-Jew with them, they are believed to say, "We did not enter," but they are not believed to say, "We entered but did not touch anything." Robbers who entered a house, only places where the robbers walked are impure. And what do they render impure? Foods and drinks and open earthenware vessels; but beds, couches and earthenware vessels closed with a tight seal are pure. If there was a non-Jew or a woman with them, everything is impure. 
  If one left his clothing in a cabinet [literally: a window] of a bath attendant, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares them pure; and the Sages say: [they are not pure] until he [the attendant] gives him the key, or a seal, or makes a sign [to ensure the clothes were untouched].  One [a priest] who leaves his vessels from one wine press to the next wine press [i.e. he leaves his vessels by the wine press at the end of one season to use them for the next season], his vessels are pure. If he was [not a priest nor a Levite, but] an Israelite, [they are not pure] until he says, "I intended to watch over them." 
  One [a priest] who was pure and decided not to eat [<i>terumah</i>], Rabbi Yehuda declares him pure because it is the way of impure individuals to stay away from him [lest they render him impure]; but the Sages say he is impure.  If his hands were pure and he decided not to eat [<i>terumah</i>], even if he says, "I know that my hands were not rendered impure," his hands are impure, because hands are active. 
  If a woman went inside to bring out bread for a poor man and she came out to find him standing next to loaves of <i>terumah</i>, and similarly if a woman came out to find her friend raking coals under a pot of <i>terumah</i>, Rabbi Akiva declares them impure, but the Sages declare them pure.  Rabbi Elazar ben Pilah says: What is the reason that Rabbi Akiva declares them impure but the Sages declare them pure?  Because women are greedy [with regard to food], and she is suspected of having uncovered the pot of her friend to know what she is cooking.
  
  
  
  One who lives in the same courtyard as an <i>am ha'aretz</i> [a non-learned person, assumed to be impure], if he [the former] leaves vessels in the courtyard, even if they are barrels with a tight seal, or an oven with a tight seal, these are all impure. Rabbi Yehuda declares the oven pure when it has a tight seal. Rabbi Yose says: even the oven is impure, until he makes a wall around it ten handbreadths high. 
  One who leaves vessels in the care of an <i>am ha'aretz</i>, they are [assumed to be] impure with the impurity of a dead body and with <i>midras</i> impurity [a type of impurity due to being sat on by certain types of impure individuals, rendering it an Origin of impurity]. If he [the <i>am ha'aretz</i>] knows that he [the vessels' owner] is one who eats <i>terumah</i>, they are pure from the impurity of a dead body, but they are still impure with <i>midras</i> impurity. Rabbi Yose says: If he gave him a chest full of clothes, if it was brimming they are impure with <i>midras</i> impurity, if it was not brimming [but rather, was loosely packed] they are impure with <i>madaf</i> impurity [a lesser type of impurity which can only render food and liquids impure], even if the key remains with the owner. 
  If one loses something during the day and finds it that day, it is pure.  If [he loses it] during the day and he finds it that night, or at night and he finds it the next day, or that day and finds it the next day, it is impure. This is the rule: Anything which the night, or part of it, passed over it [while it was lost] is impure. If one spread out vessels in a public domain they are pure. If [he did so] in a private domain they are impure, but if he was guarding them they are pure. If they fell [beyond his view] and he went to retrieve them, they are impure. If his bucket fell into the pit of an <i>am ha'aretz</i>, and he [the owner] went to bring something with which to bring it up, it is impure because it was left it in the domain of an <i>am ha'aretz</i> for even one moment. 
  One who left his house open and finds it open, locked and finds it locked, open and finds it locked, it is pure. If he left it locked and finds it open, Rabbi Meir declares it impure, but the Sages say it is pure because [they assume that] there were robbers who changed their minds and left [without entering the house]. 
  The wife of an <i>am ha'aretz</i> who enters the house of a <i>chaver</i> [one who is meticulous about keeping all his foods pure] in order to take out his son or his daughter or his animal, the house is pure because she entered without permission [to stay in the house]. 
  A rule was stated with regard to purities [of foods]: Anything which is designated for human consumption [if it becomes impure it] remains impure until it is rendered unfit for a dog to consume; and anything which is not designated for human consumption remains pure [and cannot be rendered impure] until one designates it for a human. How so? A fledgling which fell into a wine press, if one intended to take it out for a non-Jew [to eat], it is impure; if for a dog, it is pure. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri declares it impure [in either case]. If a deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i>, or a minor had the intention [to take it out, even for a non-Jew to eat], it is pure. If he took it out [for a non-Jew to eat], it is impure because these [categories of people] are capable of action but not of intention. 
  The outsides of vessels which were rendered impure by liquids, Rabbi Eliezer says: they can render liquids impure but do not invalidate [<i>terumah</i>] foods [by rendering them impure]. Rabbi Yehoshua says: they can make liquids impure and invalidate [<i>terumah</i>] foods. Shimon the brother of Azaryah says: neither this or that, but rather liquids that became impure from the outsides of vessels render impure one [item upon contact, rendering it a second degree level of impurity], and [that item, in turn, is able to] invalidate one [more item, rendering it a third degree level of impurity, which invalidates <i>terumah</i> foods]. Behold it [is as though the <i>terumah</i> food] says [to the liquids], "that which renders you impure [i.e. the outsides of vessels] does not impurify me, yet you have rendered me impure!"
  An inclined kneading trough with dough above and liquid dripping [enough to wet something that touches it] below, if there are three pieces [of impure dough] that [together] make up the equivalent to [the volume of] an egg, they do not combine [to constitute a sufficient measure of foods to render the liquid impure; this is because the incline of the container prevents us from considering the liquid to be touching all three pieces at once]; but two [pieces of dough that together add up to the volume of an egg] do combine [to constitute a sufficient measure to render the liquid impure]. Rabbi Yose says: even two do not combine, unless they were pushing against the liquid [preventing it from falling down the incline]. And if the liquid was standing [i.e. not on an incline], even [if the egg's volume of dough was crumbled into pieces] the size of mustard seeds, they do combine [to constitute the sufficient measure to render the liquid impure, since the standing liquid is considered to be touching all the pieces at once]. Rabbi Dosa says: crumbled food does not combine. 
  A stick which is full of impure liquid, once it touches a <i>mikvah</i> it becomes pure, according to Rabbi Yehoshua. And the Sages say: [it is not rendered pure] until one immerses its entirety. A shower [of liquids being poured], or [liquids flowing down] an incline, or a dripping liquid [enough to make something else wet, but not enough to, in turn, wet something else], these do not constitute a connection for impurity or for purity [i.e. if part of them is rendered pure or impure it does not affect the purity status of the rest]. But a pit [of stagnant water] does constitute a connection for impurity and for purity. 
  
  
  
  Starting when are olives able to be rendered impure [by being primed for impurity by a liquid]? Once they sweat moisture in the vat [into which the olives are placed for them to soften for pressing], but not by moisture in the basket [into which they are placed after being picked], according to Beit Shammai. Rabbi Shimon says: the measure for sweat is three days [i.e. the moisture the olives sweat while in the vat does not prime them for impurity until they have been there for three days]. Beit Hillel says: when [they soften such that] three connect to one another [only then does the moisture that emerges from them prime them for impurity]. Rabban Gamliel says: once their work has been finished [i.e. once no more olives are being added to the vat, and they are ready to be brought to the olive press]; and the Sages say in accordance with him.
  If one finished harvesting [his olives] but intends to buy, or finished buying but intends to borrow [more olives], if it happened that he became a mourner, or had a feast [to attend], or something unavoidable befell him [preventing him from getting more olives or pressing them], even if <i>zavim</i> and <i>zavot</i> [certain individuals with discharges that render them a Source of impurity] walk upon them [i.e. upon the olives he already had] they remain pure [as they have not become primed for impurity]. If impure liquids fell on them, only the area they touched is impure, and the sap that emerges from them is pure.  
  Once their work is finished they are thereby primed [for impurity]. If [impure] liquids fell on them, they are impure, and the sap that emerges from them, Rabbi Eliezer declares pure, and the Sages declare impure. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not differ regarding the sap that emerges from the olives, that it is pure. And regarding what do they differ? Regarding that [sap] which comes out of the vat [after the oil has been removed], which Rabbi Eliezer declares pure, and the Sages declare impure. 
  One who finishes [harvesting] his olives, but leaves one remaining basket [and does not put it in the vat], he should place it in [the vat] before the eyes of a priest [i.e. so the priest can observe it as it is primed for impurity, and ensure that it does not become impure], according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: he should bring the key [to his olive press to a priest] immediately [but the priest does not have to be observing the whole time]. Rabbi Shimon says: [he should bring him they key] from hour to hour [i.e. bringing the key within twenty-four hours is sufficient]. 
  One who leaves olives in the press for them to soften to be easier to press, they are thereby primed [for impurity, by the liquid that emerges from them]. If [one left olives in a press] for them to soften to be salted, Beit Shammai says: they are primed [for impurity]; and Beit Hillel says: they are not primed. One who crushes olives with impure hands has rendered them impure. 
  One who leaves one's olives on the roof for them to dry out into pieces [for eating], even if they are [piled as high as] a cubit tall, they are not primed [for impurity, even if they become moistened]. If one put them in the house for them to wither and he intends to bring them up to the roof, or if one put them on the roof for them to wither or to split them, these are thereby primed [for impurity, if they become moistened]. If one put them in the house until he protects his roof [i.e. improves his roof to create a sufficiently protected area in which to keep his olives] or until he moves them to another place, they are not primed [for impurity]. 
  If one intends to take one pressing or two pressings from them [from olives in the vat], Beit Shammai says: he may cut out [the olives for pressing] in impurity [i.e. with impure hands or utensils, as the olives are not primed to become impure], but he must cover them up [the remaining olives] in purity. And Beit Hillel says: he can even cover them in impurity. Rabbi Yose says: one may dig out [all the olives from the vat] with metal axes and walk them to the olive press in impurity.  
  If a vermin was found among the milling stones [for grinding the olives before they are pressed], only the area it touched is rendered impure. If a liquid was flowing through [all the olives], everything is impure. If it [the vermin] was found on top of the leaves [of the olives], they should ask the press workers to say, "We did not touch [the vermin]." If it was touching the main pile [of olives], even by a hair, it is impure. 
  If it [the vermin] was found upon those [clusters of olives] that were separated [from the main pile, and placed upon it], if it is touching [a cluster] the equivalent of an egg [in volume], it is impure. If those [clusters] that were separated were [placed] upon others that were separated [and not upon the main pile], even though it [the vermin] is touching the equivalent of an egg [in volume], only the area it is touching is impure. If it was found between the wall and the olives it [the pile] is pure. If it was found on the roof, the [contents of the] vat is pure. If it was found in the vat, the [contents of the] roof is impure. If it was found burnt on top of the olives, and similarly a [impure] piece of cloth that was worn out, [if it was found on top of the olives,] it is pure, because all impurities are [determined] in accordance with [their status at] the moment they are found. 
  
  
  
  If one locks the olive press before the [unlearned] press workers [once he has purified them, to ensure that they remain inside and prepare the oil in purity], and in there are also vessels impure with <i>midras</i> impurity [a type of impurity due to being sat or stepped upon by certain types of impure individuals, rendering something an Origin of impurity], Rabbi Meir says: the olive press is impure. Rabbi Yehuda says: the olive press is pure. Rabbi Shimon says: if the workers consider them [the impure vessels] to be pure, the olive press is impure; and if they consider them to be impure, the olive press is pure. Rabbi Yose says: why are they [the workers, considered] impure? Because <i>amei ha'aretz</i> [unlearned individuals, uneducated about matters of purity] are not experts with regard to shifting [the position of something impure, even without touching it, which is one way impurity can be transferred]. 
  If olive press workers are entering and exiting, and there are impure liquids in the olive press, if between the liquids and the olives there is enough room for them to dry their feet on the ground, these are thereby pure. If something impure was found before olive press workers and olive harvesters, they are believed to say, "We did not touch [the impurity]."  And similarly regarding the young children among them [who are assumed to be impure, the workers are believed to say they did not touch them]. They [the workers] can go outside through the entrance to the olive press and turn to the back of the fence [to relieve themselves], and they are pure. How far may they go and still remain pure?  As far as he [the owner of the press] can still see them. 
  Regarding olive press workers and olive harvesters, once he [the owner of the olive press] brings them into the area of the cave [containing a <i>mikvah</i> for ritual immersion], that is sufficient [for him to assume that they immersed themselves and their vessels, and are all pure], according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: he must stand over them until they immerse. Rabbi Shimon says: if they consider them [themselves and the vessels requiring immersion] to be pure, he must stand over them until they immerse; but if they consider them impure, he does not have to stand over them until they immerse.
  If one takes [grapes to the vat for pressing] from a basket or from an area on the ground designated for spreading them out, Beit Shammai says: he must take them with pure hands, and if he took them with impure hands he has rendered them impure. Beit Hillel says: he may take them with impure hands, and he separates his <i>terumah</i> from them in purity. If [one takes the grapes to the vat] from the large basket [into which the grapes are harvested, before being brought to the wine press] or from a leaf-covered area designated for spreading them out, everyone is in agreement that he must take them with pure hands, and if he took them with impure hands he has rendered them impure. 
  One [with impure hands] who eats [grapes] out of baskets or from an area on the ground designated for spreading them out, even if they are split open and dripping into the wine press, the wine press remains pure. If [he was eating grapes] from the large basket or from a leaf-covered area designated for spreading them out, and a single grape fell from them [into the wine press], if it has a seal [i.e. if its stem is still attached] it [the wine press and its contents] is pure, but if it does not have a seal [i.e. if it is missing its stem, and its juice can flow out], it is impure.  If grapes fell from him [who was eating them, with impure hands,] and one stepped on them in a cleared out area [of the wine press, containing no grapes or wine], if it was exactly equivalent to an egg [in volume], it [the wine press, and its contents,] is pure; if it was more than the equivalent of an egg [in volume], it is impure, since when the first drop left it was rendered impure by an amount [of liquids] equivalent to an egg [in volume, and it can therefore go on to render the vat and its contents impure]. 
  If one was standing and speaking at the edge of a [wine] pit, and a stream of saliva flew from his mouth, and there is an uncertainty as to whether it reached the pit or not, its uncertainty is pure [i.e. its status is uncertain and therefore pure]. 
  If one empties a pit [of wine into barrels], and a vermin was found in the first [barrel he filled], they are all impure. If [it was found] in the last one [he filled], it is impure and all the rest are pure. When is this the case? When he empties into each one individually. But if he was emptying with a ladle, if a vermin was found in one of them, that one alone is impure. When is this the case? When he inspects [each barrel, before emptying wine into it] but does not cover [each one after emptying in the wine], or he covers [each barrel] but does not inspect. If he was inspecting [each one] and then covering, and a vermin was found in one of the barrels, everything is impure; if [it was found] in the pit, everything is impure; if [it was found] in the ladle, everything is impure. 
  Between the rollers [heavy stones used to press the last of the juice from the grapes after they have been trampled] and the [already trampled] grape skins is a public domain [for matters of impurity]. The [part of the] vineyard before the grape harvesters [i.e. not yet harvested] is a private domain; behind the harvesters is a public domain. When is this the case? When the public enters through one [end of the vineyard] and exits through another. The vessels of an olive-press, and of a [wine] vat, and a basket press, when they are made of wood, [if they become impure] one may dry them and they are pure; when they are made of reeds, [if they become impure] one must let them age for twelve months [without using them], or rinse them in hot water. Rabbi Yose says: if he put them in a fast moving river, it is sufficient [for ridding them of their impurity]. 