meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/Mishnah Kelim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: Mishnah Kelim
  משנה כלים
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  Mishnah Kelim
  
  
  
  
  
  The fathers of impurity are a: sheretz, semen, [an Israelite] who has contracted corpse impurity, a metzora during the days of his counting, and the waters of purification whose quantity is less than the minimum needed for sprinkling. Behold, these convey impurity to people and vessels by contact and to earthenware by presence within their airspace, But they do not convey impurity by being carried.
  Above them are nevelah and waters of purification whose quantity is sufficient to be sprinkled, for these convey impurity to a person [even] by being carried so that he in turn conveys impurity to clothing by contact. Clothing, however, is free from impurity where there was contact alone.
  Above them is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, for he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. Above them is the issue of a zav, his spit, his semen and his urine, and the blood of a menstruant, for they convey impurity both by contact and by carrying. Above them is an object on which one can ride, for it conveys impurity even when it lies under a heavy stone. Above the object on which one can ride is that on which one can lie, for contact is the same as its carrying. Above the object on which one can lie is the zav, for a zav conveys impurity to the object on which he lies, while the object on which he lies cannot convey the same impurity to that upon which it lies.
  Above the zav is the zavah, for she conveys impurity to the man who has intercourse with her. Above the zavah is the metzora, for he conveys impurity by entering into a house. Above the metzora is a [human] bone the size of a barley grain, for it conveys impurity for seven days. More strict than all these is a corpse, for it conveys impurity by ohel (tent) whereby all the others convey no impurity.
  There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person:A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A "proper quantity of flesh" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.
  There are ten grades of holiness: the land of Israel is holier than all other lands. And what is the nature of its holiness? That from it are brought the omer, the firstfruits and the two loaves, which cannot be brought from any of the other lands.
  Cities that are walled are holier, for metzoras must be sent out of them and a corpse, though it may be carried about within them as long as it is desired, may not be brought back once it has been taken out.
  The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.
  The area between the porch (ulam) and the altar is holier, for [priests] who have blemishes or unkempt hair may not enter it. The Hekhal is holier, for no one whose hands or feet are unwashed may enter it. The Holy of Holies is holier, for only the high priest, on Yom Kippur, at the time of the service, may enter it. Rabbi Yose said: in five respects the area between the porch and the altar is equal to the Hekhal, for those afflicted with blemishes or with a wild growth of hair, or who have drunk wine or whose hands or feet are unwashed may not enter there, and the people must keep away from the area between the porch and the altar  when the incense is being burned.
  
  
  
  Vessels of wood, vessels of leather, vessels of bone or vessels of glass: If they are simple they are clean If they form a receptacle they are unclean. If they were broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. Earthen vessels and vessels of sodium carbonate are equal in respect of impurity: they contract and convey impurity through their air-space; they convey impurity through the outside but they do not become impure through their backs; and when broken they become clean.
  As regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of the larger but broken vessels] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold oil sufficient for the anointing of a little finger of a child [if their former capacity] was that of a log. If [their former capacity] was from one log to a se'ah [their present capacity] must be a quarter of a log. If it was from a se'ah to two se'ah it must be half a log. If from two se'ah to three se'ah or as much as five se'ah it must be a log, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: I do not prescribe any size for the unbroken vessels, rather: as regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of larger but broken ones] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold enough oil to anoint the little finger of a child. [This size is prescribed for pots] that are not bigger than the small cooking-pots. For small cooking-pots and for those between these and the jars from Lydda the prescribed capacity is a quarter of a log. For those which have a size between that of Lydda jars and Bethlehem jars the capacity must be that of half a log. For those between Bethlehem jars and large stone jars the capacity must be that of a log. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai says: [the prescribed capacity for the fragments] of large stone jars is two logs, and that for the bottoms of broken Galilean flasks and small jars is any whatsoever, but the fragments of their sides are not susceptible to impurity
  The following are not susceptible to impurity among earthen vessels: A tray without a rim, A broken incense-pan, A pierced pan for roasting corn, Gutters even if they are bent and even if they have some form of receptacle, A cooking vessel that was turned into a bread-basket cover, A bucket that was turned into a cover for grapes, A barrel used for swimmers, A small jar fixed to the sides of a ladle, A bed, a stool, a bench, a table, a ship, and an earthen lamp, behold these are no susceptible to impurity. The following is a general rule: any among earthen vessels that has no inner part is not susceptible to impurity on its outer sides.
  A lantern that has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to impurity, but one that has none is not susceptible. A potter's mould on which one begins to shape the clay is not susceptible to impurity, but that on which one finishes it is susceptible. A funnel for home use is not susceptible to impurity, but that of merchants is susceptible because it also serves as a measure, the words of Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Akiva says: because he puts it on its side to let the buyer smell it.
  The covers of wine jars and oil jars and the covers of papyrus jars are not susceptible to impurity But if he adapted them for use as receptacles they are susceptible. The cover of a pot: When it has a hole or it has a point, it is not susceptible to impurity, But if it does not have a hole or a pointed top it is susceptible because she drains the vegetables into it. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: because she turns out the contents [of the pot] on to it.
  A damaged jar found in a furnace: Before its manufacture was complete it is not susceptible to impurity, But if after its manufacture was complete it is susceptible. A sprinkler: Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok holds it is not susceptible to impurity; But Rabbi Yose holds it to be susceptible because it lets the liquid out in drops only.
  The following among earthen vessels are susceptible to impurity:A tray with a rim, An unbroken fire-pan, And a tray made up of dishes, If one of them was defiled by a [dead] creeping thing they do not all become unclean, But if it had a rim that projected above the rims of the dishes and one of them was defiled all are unclean. Similarly with an earthen spice-box and a double ink-pot. If one container was defiled from a liquid, the other is not unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: its thickness is divided and that side which serves the unclean one is unclean while that which serves the clean one remains clean. If its rim projects above the others and one of them contracted impurity the other is unclean.
  A torch is susceptible to impurity. And the reservoir of a lamp contracts impurity through its air- space. The comb of a tzartzur: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is susceptible.
  
  
  
  The size of a hole that renders an earthen vessel clean:If the vessel was made for food, the hole must be big enough for olives [to fall through]. If it was used for liquids it suffices for the hole to be big enough for liquids [to go through it]. And if it was used for both, we apply the greater stringency, that olives must be able to fall through.
  A jar: the size of the hole must be such that a dried fig [will fall through], the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah said: walnuts. Rabbi Meir said: olives. A stew-pot or a cooking pot: such that olives [will fall through]. A bucket and a pitcher: such that oil [will fall through]. A tzartzur: such that water [will fall through]. Rabbi Shimon says: in the case of all three, [the hole] must be such that seedlings [will fall through]. A lamp: the size of the hole must be such that oil [will fall through]. Rabbi Eliezer says: such that a small perutah [will fall through]. A lamp whose nozzle has been removed is clean. And one made of earth whose nozzle has been burned by the wick is also clean.
  A jar that had a hole and was mended with pitch and then was broken again: If the fragment that was mended with the pitch can hold a quarter of a log it is unclean, since the designation of a vessel has never ceased to be applied to it. A potsherd that had a hole and was mended with pitch, it is clean though it can contain a quarter of a log, because the designation of a vessel has ceased to be applied to it.
  If a jar was about to be cracked but was strengthened with cattle dung, although the potsherds would fall apart were the dung to be removed, it is unclean, because the designation of vessel never ceased to apply. If it was broken and some of its pieces were stuck together again, or if he brought other pieces of clay from elsewhere, and it was also lined with cattle dung, even though the potsherds hold together when the dung is removed, it is clean, because the designation of vessel ceased to apply. If it contained one potsherd that could hold a quarter of a log, all its parts contract impurity by contact, but that potsherd contracts impurity through its air-space.
  One who lines a sound vessel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: [the lining]   contracts impurity. But the sages say: a lining over a sound vessel is not susceptible to impurity, and only one over a cracked vessel is susceptible. And the same dispute applies to the hoop of a pumpkin shell.
  As to dog's tooth which which they line large jars: anything that touches it becomes unclean. The plug of a jar is not regarded as connected. That which touches the lining of an oven is unclean.
  A cauldron which was lined with mortar or with potter's clay: That which touches the mortar is unclean; But that which touches the potter's clay is clean. A kettle which was punctured and the hole was stopped with pitch: Rabbi Yose rules that it is clean since it cannot hold hot water as cold. The same ruling he also gave concerning vessels made of pitch. Copper vessels which were lined with pitch the lining is clean, But if they are used for wine, it is unclean.
  A jar which which was pierced and the hole stopped up with more pitch than was necessary: That which touches the needed portion is unclean, But that which touches the unneeded portion is clean. Pitch which dripped upon a jar, that which touches it is clean. A wooden or earthen funnel which was stopped up with pitch: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean when it is of wood and clean when it is of earthenware. Rabbi Yose says that both are clean.
  
  
  
  A potsherd that cannot stand unsupported on account of its handle, or a potsherd whose bottom is pointed and that point causes it to overbalance, is clean. If the handle was removed or the point was broken off it is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. If a jar was broken but is still capable of holding something in its sides, or if it was split into a kind of two troughs: Rabbi Judah says it is clean But the sages say it is unclean.
  If a jar was cracked and cannot be moved with half a kav of dried figs in it, it is clean. If a damaged vessel (gistera) was cracked and it cannot hold any liquid, even though it can hold foodstuffs, it is clean, since remnants do not have remnants.
  What is meant by a "damaged vessel" (gistera)? One whose handles were removed. If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space. If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space. Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner.
  An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity. If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity. When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture.
  
  
  
  A baking oven originally must be no less than four handbreadths [high] and what is left of it four handbreadths, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: this applies only to a large oven but in the case of a small one it originally can be [any height] and what is left is the greater part of it. [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. Rabbi Judah says: when a new oven has been heated to a degree that sufficed for the baking of spongy cakes in an old one.
  A double stove: its original height must be no less than three fingerbreadths and what is left of it three fingerbreadths. [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of the lightest of eggs when scrambled and put in a saucepan. A single stove: if it was made for baking its prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking its prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. A stone that projects one handbreadth from a baking-oven or three fingerbreadths from a double stove is considered a connection. One that projects from a single stove, if it was made for baking, the prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking the prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. Rabbi Judah said: they spoke of a ‘handbreadth’ only where the projection was between the oven and a wall. If two ovens were adjacent to one another, they allot one handbreadth to this one and one to the other and the remainder is clean.
  The crown of a double stove is clean. The fender around an oven: if it is four handbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, but if it was lower it is clean. If it was joined to it, even if only by three stones, it is unclean. The place [on the stove] for the oil cruse, the spice-pot, and the lamp contract impurity by contact but not through their air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael rules that they are clean.
  An oven that was heated from its outside, or one that was heated without the owner's knowledge, or one that was heated while still in the craftsman's house is susceptible to impurity. It once happened that a fire broke out among the ovens of Kefar Signah, and when the case was brought up at Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel ruled that they were unclean.
  The additional piece of a householder's oven is clean, but that of bakers is unclean because he rests the roasting spit on it. Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar said: because one bakes on it when pressed [for space]. Similarly the additional part of the boiler used by olive cookers is susceptible to impurity, but that of one used by dyers is not susceptible.
  If an oven was half filled with earth, the part from the earth downwards contracts impurity by contact only while the part from the earth upwards contracts impurity [also] from its air- space. If he put the oven over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar and he put a stone at its side: Rabbi Judah says: if when heated below it becomes also heated above it is susceptible to impurity. But the sages say: since it was heated, no matter how, it is susceptible to impurity.
  If an oven contracted impurity how is it to be cleansed? He must divide into three parts and scrape off the plastering so that [the oven] touches the ground. Rabbi Meir says: he does not need to scrape off the plastering nor is it necessary for [the oven] to touch the ground. Rather he reduces it within to a height of less than four handbreadths. Rabbi Shimon says: he must move it [from its position]. If it was divided into two parts, one large and the other small, the larger remains unclean and the smaller becomes clean. If it was divided into three parts one of which was as big as the other two together, the big one remains unclean and the two small ones become clean.
  If an oven was cut up by its width into rings that are each less than four handbreadths in height, it is clean. If he subsequently plastered it over with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. If he distanced the plastering, and sand or gravel was put between it and the oven sides   of such an oven it has been said, "A menstruant as well as a clean woman may bake in it and it remains clean."
  An oven which came cut up in sections from the craftsman's house and he made for it hoops and put them on it, it is clean. If it contracts impurity, and then he removed its hoops it is clean. If he put them back on, it is still clean. If he plastered it with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity and there is no need to heat it since it was once heated.
  If he cut the oven up into rings, and then he put sand between each pair of rings,   Rabbi Eliezer says: it is clean. But the sages say: it is unclean. This is the oven of Akhnai. As regards Arabian vats, which are holes dug in the ground and plastered with clay, if the plastering can stand of itself it is susceptible to impurity; Otherwise it is not susceptible. This is the oven of Ben Dinai.
  An oven of stone or of metal is clean, But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. If a hole was made in it, or if it was damaged or cracked, and he lined it with plaster or with a rim of clay, it is unclean. What must be the size of the hole [for it to be pure]?  It must be big enough for the flame to come through. The same applies also to a stove. A stove of stone or of metal is clean. But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. If a hole was made in it or if it was damaged or cracked but was provided with props it is unclean. If it was lined with clay, whether inside or outside, it remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: if [the lining was] inside it is unclean but if outside it remains clean.
  
  
  
  If he put three props into the ground and joined them [to the ground] with clay so that a pot could be set on them, [the structure] is susceptible to impurity. If he set three nails in the ground so that a pot could be set on them, even though a place was made on the top for the pot to rest, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity. One who made a stove of two stones, joining them [to the ground] with clay: It is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that it is not susceptible to impurity, unless a third stone is added or [the structure] is placed near a wall. If one stone was joined with clay and the other was not joined with clay, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity.
  A stone on which he placed a pot, [on it] and on an oven, or on it and a double stove, or on it and on a stove, is susceptible to impurity. [If he set the pot] on it and on another stone, on it and on a rock, or on it and on a wall, it is not susceptible to impurity. And such was the stove of the Nazirites in Jerusalem which was set up against a rock. As regards the stove of the butchers, where the stones are placed side by side, if one of the stoves contracted impurity, the others do not become unclean.
  If one made two stoves of three stones and one of the outer ones was defiled the half of the middle one that serves the unclean one is unclean but the half of it that serves the clean one remains clean. If the clean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the unclean one. If the unclean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the clean one. Should the two outer ones become defiled, if the middle stone was large, each outer stone is allowed such a part of it as suffices for the support of a pot and the remainder is clean. But if it was small all of it is unclean. Should the middle stone be removed, if a big kettle can be set on the two outer stones they are unclean. If the middle stone is returned they all become clean again. If it was plastered with clay it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of an egg.
  If two stones were made into a stove and they became defiled, and a stone was set up near the outer side of the one and another stone near the outer side of the other, [the inner half] of each [inner stones] remains unclean while [the outer] half of each [of these stones] is clean. If the clean stones are removed the others revert to their impurity.
  
  
  
  The fire-basket of a householder which was lessened by less than three handbreadths is susceptible to impurity because when it is heated from below a pot above would still boil. If [it was lessened] to a lower depth it is not susceptible to impurity. If subsequently a stone or gravel was put into it, it is still not susceptible to impurity. If it was plastered over with clay, it may contract impurity from that point and onwards. This was Rabbi Judah's reply in connection with the oven that was placed over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar.
  A hob that has a receptacle for pots is clean as a stove but unclean as a receptacle. As to its sides, whatever touches them does not become unclean as if the hob had been a stove, But as regards its wide side: Rabbi Meir holds it to be clean But Rabbi Judah holds it to be unclean. The same law applies also where a basket was inverted and a stove was put upon it.
  A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air- space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.
  If it [the extension] was detached from the stove, whenever it was three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, If it was lower or if it was smooth it is clean. If three props on a stove were three fingerbreadths high, they contract impurity by contact and through their air-space. If they were lower, all the more so they contract impurity, even where they were four in number.
  If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.
  How do we measure them? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he puts the measuring-rod between them, and any part that is outside the measuring-rod is clean while any part inside the measuring-rod, including the place of the measuring-rod itself, is unclean.
  
  
  
  An oven which they partitioned with boards or hangings, and in it was found a sheretz in one compartment, the entire oven is unclean. A hive which was broken and its gap was stopped up with straw and was suspended within the air-space of an oven while a sheretz was within it, the oven becomes unclean. If a sheretz was within the oven, any food within the hive becomes unclean. But Rabbi Eliezer says that it is clean. Rabbi Eliezer said: if it affords protection in the case of a corpse which is more consequential, should it not afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is less consequential? They said to him: if it affords protection in the case of corpse impurity, this is because tents are divided, should it also afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is not divided?
  If the hive was complete, and so too in the case of a basket or a skin-bottle, and a sheretz was within it the oven remains clean. If the sheretz was in the oven, any food in the hive remain clean. If a hole was made in it: A vessel that is used for food must have a hole large enough for olives to fall through, If it is used for liquids the hole must be large enough for liquids to pass into it, And if it is used for either it is subjected to the greater restriction: the hole need only be large enough for liquids to pass into it.
  Netting placed over the mouth of an oven and slightly sinking into it, and having no frame: If a sheretz was in it, the oven becomes unclean; If the sheretz was in the oven, the food in the netting becomes unclean, since only vessels afford protection against an impurity in an earthen vessel. A jar full of pure liquids placed beneath the bottom of an oven, and a sheretz in the oven – the jar and the liquids remain clean. If it was inverted, with its mouth projecting into the air-space of the oven, and a sheretz was in the oven, the liquid that clings to the sides of the jar remains clean.
  A pot which was placed in an oven if a sheretz was in the oven, the pot remains clean since an earthen vessel does not impart impurity to vessels. If it contained dripping liquid, the latter contracts impurity and the pot also becomes unclean. It is as if this one says, "That which made you unclean did not make me unclean, but you have made me unclean."
  If a rooster that swallowed a sheretz fell within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean; If the rooster died, the oven becomes unclean. If a sheretz was found in an oven, any bread in it contracts second degree impurity since the oven is of the first degree.
  A leavening pot with a tightly fitting lid which was put in an oven, and there was some leaven and a sheretz within the pot, but there was a partition (of inedible bread) between them, the oven is unclean but the leaven is clean. But if it was an olive's bulk of corpse, both the oven and the house are unclean, and the leaven remains clean. If in the partition there was an opening of one handbreadth, all become unclean.
  A sheretz which was found in the eye-hole of an oven or of a double stove or of a single stove: If it was outside the inner edge, it is clean. If it [the oven] was in the open air, even if it was an olive's bulk of corpse it is clean. If there was [in the eye-hole] an opening of one handbreadth, it is all unclean.
  If a sheretz was found in the [place in a stove] where wood is put: Rabbi Judah says: if it was within the outer edge, [the stove] becomes unclean. But the sages say: if it was outside the inner edge [the stove] remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: if it was found beneath the spot where the pot is placed and inwards, the stove becomes unclean, but if beneath the spot where the pot is set and outwards, it remains clean. If it was found on the place where the bath-keeper sits, or where the dyer sits, or where the olive-boilers sit, the stove remains clean. It only becomes unclean only [when the sheretz] is found in the enclosed part and inwards.
  A pit which has a place on which a pot may be set is unclean. And so also an oven of glass-blowers, if it has a place on which a pot may be set, it is unclean. The furnace of lime-burners, or of glaziers, or of potters is clean. A purna: If it has a frame is unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if it has coverings [for compartments.] Rabban Gamaliel says: if it has edges.
  If a person who came in contact with one who has contracted corpse impurity had (food liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was clean, they cause the oven to be unclean. If a person who was clean had food or liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was unclean, they become unclean. If a person was eating a pressed fig with impure hands and he put his hand into his mouth to remove a small stone: Rabbi Meir considers the fig to be unclean But Rabbi Judah says it as clean. Rabbi Yose says: if he turned it over [in his mouth] the fig is unclean but if he did not turn it over the fig is clean. If the person had a pondion in his mouth, Rabbi Yose says: if he kept it there to relieve his thirst it becomes unclean.
  If milk [of an impure woman] dripped from a woman's breasts and fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since a liquid conveys impurity regardless of whether one wanted it there or not. If she was sweeping it out and a thorn pricked her and she bled, or if she burnt herself and put her finger into her mouth, the oven becomes unclean.
  
  
  
  If a needle or a ring was found in the ground of an oven, and they can be seen but they don't stick out into the oven, if one bakes dough and it touches them, the [oven] is unclean. Regarding which dough did they speak? Medium dough. If they are found in the plaster of an oven with a tightly fitting lid: If the oven is unclean, they are unclean, If the oven is clean, they are clean. If they are found in the stopper of a jar: If on the sides, they are unclean. If opposite the mouth, they are clean. If they can be seen in it, but they do not enter its airspace, they are clean. If they sink into it, and there is [plaster] underneath them as thick as garlic peel, they are clean.
  A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai.
  If a sheretz was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that it fell there while it was still alive and that it died only now. If a needle or a ring was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that they were there before the oven arrived. If it was found in the wood ashes, the oven is unclean since one has no ground on which to base an assumption of cleanness.
  A sponge which had absorbed unclean liquids and its outer surface became dry and it fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven is unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. And the same with regard to a piece of turnip or reed grass. Rabbi Shimon says: the oven is clean in both these cases.
  Potsherds that had been used for unclean liquids which fell into the air-space of an oven, if the oven was heated, it becomes unclean, for the liquid   would eventually come out. And the same with regard to fresh olive peat, but if it was old, the oven remains clean. If it was known that liquid emerges, even after the lapse of three years, the oven becomes unclean.
  If olive peat or grape skins had been prepared in conditions of cleanness, and unclean persons trod upon them and afterwards liquids emerged from them, they remain clean, since they had originally been prepared in conditions of cleanness. If a spindle hook was sunk into the spindle, or the iron point into the ox goad, or a ring into a brick, and all these were clean, and then they were brought into a tent   in which was a corpse, they become unclean. If a zav caused them to move they become unclean. If they then fell into the air-space of a clean oven, they cause it to be unclean. If a loaf of terumah came in contact with them, it remains clean.
  If there was netting placed over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly fitting lid, and a split appeared between the oven and the colander, the minimum size [to allow impurity to enter] is that of the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that cannot actually enter it. Rabbi Judah says: it must be one into which the tip can actually enter. If a split appeared in the netting, the minimum size is the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can enter it. Rabbi Judah says: even if it cannot enter. If the split was curved it must not be regarded as straight, and still the minimum size must be the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can actually enter.
  If there was a hole in the "eye" of an oven, the minimum size [for it to leave the category of being tightly closed] is the circumference of a burning spindle staff that can enter and come out [without being extinguished]. Rabbi Judah says: one that is not burning. If the hole appeared at its side, the minimum size must be that of the circumference of a spindle staff that can enter and come out while it is not burning. Rabbi Judah says: while burning. Rabbi Shimon says: if the hole is in the middle its size must be such that a spindle staff can enter it, but if it was at the side it need only be such as the spindle staff cannot actually enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning the stopper of a jar in which a hole appeared: the minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in an oat stalk. If the hole was in the middle the stalk should be able to enter, and if at the side it need not be able to enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning large stone jars in the stoppers of which appeared a hole. The minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in a reed. If the hole was in the middle the reed must be able to enter it, and if it was at the side the reed need not be able to enter it. When is this so? When the jars were made for wine, but if they were made for other liquids, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. When is this so? When the holes were not made by a person, but if they were made by a person, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. If a hole appeared [in other vessels its prescribed size ] is as follows: if the vessel was used for food, [the hole must be one] through which olives can fall out; if for liquids, one that lets out liquids; If for either, the greater restriction is imposed [even with regard to the issue of] a tightly fitting cover [the size of the hole need only be] one that admits a liquid.
  
  
  
  The following vessels protect their contents when they have a tightly fitting cover:  those made of cattle dung, of stone, of clay, of earthenware, of sodium carbonate, of the bones of a fish or of its skin, or of the bones of any animal of the sea or of its skin, and wooden vessels that are always clean. They protect whether the covers close their mouths or their sides, whether they stand on their bottoms or lean on their sides. If they were turned over with their mouths downwards they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. Rabbi Eliezer declares this unclean. These protect everything, except that an earthen vessel protects only foods, liquids and earthen vessels.
  How may it be tightly covered? With lime or gypsum, pitch or wax, mud or excrement, crude clay or potter's clay, or any substance that is used for plastering. One may not make a tightly fitting cover with tin or with lead because though it is a covering, it is not tightly fitting. One may not make a tightly fitting cover with swollen fig-cakes or with dough that was kneaded with fruit juice, since it might cause it to become unfit. If he did make a tightly fitting cover [from such material] it protects.
  A stopper of a jar that is loose but does not fall out: Rabbi Judah says: it protects. But the sages say: it does not protect. If its finger-hold was sunk within the jar and a sheretz was in it, the jar becomes unclean. If the sheretz was in the jar, any food in it, become unclean.
  If a ball or coil of reed grass was placed over the mouth of a jar, and only its sides   were plastered, it does not protect unless it was also plastered above or below. The same is true with regard to a patch of cloth. If it was of paper or leather and bound with a cord, if he plastered it from the sides, it protects.
  If [the outer layer] a jar had been peeled off but its pitch [lining] remained intact, And similarly if pots of fish brine were sealed up with gypsum at a level with the brim: Rabbi Judah says: they do not protect. But the sages say: they do protect.
  If a jar had a hole in it and wine lees stopped it up, they protect it. If one stopped it up with a vine shoot [it does not protect] until he plasters it at the sides. If there were two vine shoots, [it does not protect] unless he plastered it at the sides and also between the one shoot and the other. If a board was placed over the mouth of an oven, it protects if he plastered it at the sides. If there were two boards [it does not protect] unless he plastered at the sides and also between the one board and the other. If they were fastened together with pegs or with bamboo joints there is no need for them to be plastered in the middle.
  An old oven was within a new one and netting was over the mouth of the old [new] one: If [it was placed such that if] the old one were to be removed the netting would drop, all [the contents of both ovens] are unclean; But if it would not drop, all are clean. A new oven was within an old one and netting was over the mouth of the old one if there was not a handbreadth of space between the new oven and the netting,  all the contents of the new one are clean.
  If [earthenware] pans were placed one within the other and their rims were on the same level, and there was a sheretz in the upper one or in the lower one, that pan alone becomes unclean but all the others remain clean. If [they were perforated] to the extent of admitting a liquid, and the sheretz was in the uppermost one, all become unclean. If in the lowest one, that one is unclean while the others remain clean. If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, both are unclean. If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, any one that contained dripping liquid becomes unclean.
  
  
  
  Metal vessels, whether they are flat or form a receptacle, are susceptible to impurity. On being broken they become clean. If they were re-made into vessels they revert to their former impurity. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: this does not apply to every form of impurity but only to that contracted from a corpse.
  Every metal vessel that has a name of its own [is susceptible to impurity,] Except for a door, a bolt, a lock, a socket under a hinge, a hinge, a clapper, and the [threshold] groove under a door post, since these are intended to be attached to the ground.
  If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels. From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean. [If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean.
  If unclean iron was smelted together with clean iron and the greater part was from the unclean iron, [the vessel made of the mixture] is unclean; If the greater part was from the clean iron, the vessel is clean. If each was half, it is unclean. The same law also applies to a mixture of cement and cattle dung. A door bolt is susceptible to impurity, but [one of wood] that is only plated with metal is not susceptible to impurity. The clutch and the crosspiece [of a lock] are susceptible to impurity. A door-bolt: Rabbi Joshua says: he may remove it from one door and hang it on another on Shabbat. Rabbi Tarfon says: it is like all other vessels and may be carried about in a courtyard.
  The scorpion [-shaped] bit of a bridle is susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces are clean. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cheek-pieces are susceptible to impurity. But the sages says that the scorpion-bit alone is susceptible to impurity, When they are joined together it is all susceptible to impurity.
  A metal spindle-knob:Rabbi Akiva says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is not susceptible. If it was only plated [with metal] it is clean. A spindle, a distaff, a rod, a double flute and a pipe are susceptible to impurity if they are of metal, but if they are only plated [with metal] they are clean. If a double flute has a receptacle for the wings it is susceptible to impurity in either case.
  A curved horn is susceptible to impurity but a straight one is clean. If its mouthpiece was covered with metal it is unclean. If its broad side [is covered with metal]: Rabbi Tarfon says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is clean. While they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity. Similarly: the branches of a candlestick are clean. And the cups and the base are susceptible to impurity, But while they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity.
  A helmet is susceptible to impurity but the cheek-pieces are clean, But if they have a receptacle for water they are susceptible to impurity. All weapons of war are susceptible to impurity: a javelin, a spear-head, metal boots, and a breastplate are susceptible to impurity. All women's ornaments are susceptible to impurity: a golden city (a tiara), a necklace, ear-rings, finger-rings, a ring whether it has a seal or does not have a seal, and nose-rings. If a necklace has metal beads on a thread of flax or wool and the thread broke, the beads are still susceptible to impurity, since each one is a vessel in itself. If the thread was of metal and the beads were of precious stones or pearls or glass, and the beads were broken while the thread alone remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. The remnant of a necklace [is susceptible] as long as there is enough for the neck of a little girl. Rabbi Eliezer says: even if only one ring remained it is unclean, since it also is hung around the neck.
  If an earring was shaped like a pot at its bottom and like a lentil at the top and the sections fell apart, the pot-shaped section is susceptible to impurity because it is a receptacle, while the lentil shaped section is susceptible to impurity in itself. The hooklet is clean. If the sections of an ear-ring that was in the shape of a cluster of grapes fell apart, they   are clean.
  
  
  
  A man's ring is susceptible to impurity. A ring for cattle or for vessels and all other rings are clean. A beam for arrows is susceptible to impurity, but one for prisoners is clean. A prisoner's collar is susceptible to impurity. A chain that has a lock-piece is susceptible to impurity. But that used for tying up cattle is clean. The chain used by wholesalers is susceptible to impurity. That used by householders is clean. Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? When it attaches to one door, but if it attaches to two doors or if it had a snail[-shaped] piece at its end it is susceptible to impurity.
  The beam of a wool-combers’ balance is susceptible to impurity on account of the hooks. And that of a householder, if it has hooks is also susceptible to impurity. The hooks of porters are clean but those of peddlers are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of the peddlers' [hooks], [the hook] that is in front is susceptible to impurity but that which is behind is clean. The hook of a couch is susceptible to impurity but that of bed poles is clean. [The hook of] a chest is susceptible to impurity but that of a fish trap is clean. That of a table is susceptible to impurity but that of a wooden candlestick is clean. This is the general rule: any hook that is attached to a susceptible vessel is susceptible to impurity, but one that is attached to a vessel that is not susceptible to impurity is clean. All these, however, are by themselves clean.
  The metal cover of a basket of householders: Rabban Gamaliel says: it is susceptible to impurity, The sages say that it is clean. But that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. The door of a cupboard of householders is clean but that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. Tongs are susceptible to impurity but stove-tongs are clean. The scorpion [-shaped] hook in an olive-press is susceptible to impurity but the hooks for the walls are clean.
  A blood-letters’ nail is susceptible to impurity. But [the nail] of a sundial is clean. Rabbi Zadok says that it is susceptible to impurity. A weaver's nail is susceptible to impurity. The chest of a grist-dealer: Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean. If its wagon was made of metal it is susceptible to impurity.
  A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity. But one used for guarding is clean. A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it. A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity. There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean.
  There are four things which Rabban Gamaliel says are susceptible to impurity, and the sages say are not susceptible to impurity.The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders; And the hanger of a strigil; And metal vessels which are still unshaped; And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.
  If a dinar had been invalidated and then was adapted for hanging around a young girl's neck it is susceptible to impurity. So, too, if a sela had been invalidated was adapted for use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity. How much may it depreciate while one is still permitted to keep it? As much as two denars. Less and he must be cut it up.
  A pen-knife, a writing pen, a plummet, a weight, pressing plates, a measuring-rod, and a measuring-table are susceptible to impurity. All unfinished wooden vessels also are susceptible to impurity, excepting those made of boxwood. Rabbi Judah says: one made of an olive-tree branch is also clean unless it was first heated.
  
  
  
  The sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-sickle, harvest-sickle, clipper, and barbers’ whose component parts were separated, are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose says: the part that is near the hand is susceptible to impurity, but that which is near the top is clean. The two parts of shears which were separated: Rabbi Judah says: they are still susceptible to impurity; But the sages say that they are clean.
  A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work.
  A harhur that is damaged is still susceptible to impurity until its greater part is removed. But if its shaft-socket is broken it is clean. A hatchet whose cutting edge is lost remains susceptible to impurity on account of its splitting edge. If its splitting edge is lost it remains susceptible on account of its cutting edge. If its shaft-socket is broken it is clean.
  An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. The block of a plane by itself is clean.
  A needle whose eye or point is missing is clean. If he adapted it to be a stretching-pin it is susceptible to impurity. A pack-needle whose eye was missing is still susceptible to impurity since one writes with it. If its point was missing it is clean. A stretching-pin is in either case susceptible to impurity. A needle that has become rusty: If this hinders it from sewing it is clean, But if not it remains susceptible to impurity. A hook that was straightened out is clean. If it is bent back it resumes its susceptibility to impurity.
  Wood that serves a metal vessel is susceptible to impurity, but metal that serves a wooden vessel is clean. How so?  If a lock is of wood and its clutches are of metal, even if only one of them is so, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the lock is of metal and its clutches are of wood, it is clean. If a ring was of metal and its seal of coral, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the ring was of coral and its seal of metal, it is clean. The tooth in the plate of a lock or in a key is susceptible to impurity by itself.
  If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity. If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity. And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer.
  A flax-comb: if the teeth were missing but two remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If only one remained it is clean. As regards all the teeth, each one individually is susceptible to impurity. A wool-comb: if one tooth out of every two is missing it is clean. If three consecutive teeth remained, it is susceptible to impurity. If the outermost tooth was one of them, the comb is clean. If two teeth were removed from the comb and made into a pair of tweezers, they are susceptible to impurity. Even if only one was removed but it was adapted to be used for a lamp or as a stretching-pin, it is susceptible to impurity.
  
  
  
  What is the minimum size of [broken] metal vessels [for them to be susceptible to impurity]? A bucket must be of such a size as to draw water with it. A kettle must be such as water can be heated in it. A boiler, such as can hold selas. A cauldron, such as can hold jugs. Jugs, such as can hold perutahs. Wine-measures, such as can measure wine; and oil-measures, such as can measure oil. Rabbi Eliezer says: the size for all these is such as can hold perutahs. Rabbi Akiva says: a vessel that lacks trimming is susceptible to impurity, but one that lacks polishing is clean.
  A staff to the end of which he attached a nail like an axe is susceptible to impurity. If the staff was studded with nails it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon ruled: only if he put in three rows. In all cases where he put them in as ornamentation the staff is clean. If he attached a tube to its end, and so also in the case of a door, it is clean. If it was once an independent vessel and then it was fixed to the staff, it remains susceptible to impurity. When does it become pure? Bet Shammai says: when it is damaged; And Bet Hillel says: when it is joined on.
  A builder's staff and a carpenter's axes are susceptible to impurity. Tent-pegs and surveyors’ pegs are susceptible to impurity. A surveyor's chain is susceptible to impurity, but one used for wood is clean. The chain of a big bucket [is susceptible to impurity to a length of] four handbreadths, and that of a small one [to a length of] ten handbreadths. A blacksmith's jack is susceptible to impurity. A saw whose teeth were made in a hole susceptible to impurity, but if they were turned from below upwards it is clean. All covers are clean except that of a boiler.
  The parts of a wagon that are susceptible to impurity: the metal yoke, the cross-bar, the side-pieces that hold the straps, the iron bar under the necks of the cattle, the pole-pin, the metal girth, the trays, the clapper, the hook, and any nail that holds any of its parts together.
  The clean parts of a wagon are the following: the yoke that is only plated [with metal], side-pieces made for ornamentation, tubes that give out a noise, the lead at the side of the necks of the cattle, the rim of the wheel, the plates and mountings, and all other nails, all of these are clean. Metal shoes of cattle are susceptible to impurity but those made of cork are clean. When does a sword become susceptible to impurity? When it has been polished. And a knife? When it has been sharpened.
  A metal basket-cover which was turned into a mirror: Rabbi Judah rules that it is clean. And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. A broken mirror, if it does not reflect the greater part of the face, is clean.
  Metal vessels remain unclean and become clean even when broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: they can be made clean only when they are whole. How so? If they were sprinkled upon and on the same day they were broken and then they were recast and sprinkled upon on the same day, they are clean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: there can be no effective sprinkling earlier than on the third and the seventh day.
  A knee-shaped key that was broken off at the knee is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean because one can open with it from within. A gamma-shaped key that was broken off at its shorter arm is clean. If it retained the teeth and the gaps it remains unclean. If the teeth were missing it is still unclean on account of the gaps; if the gaps were blocked up it is unclean on account of the teeth. If the teeth were missing and the gaps were blocked up, or if they were merged into one another, it is clean. If in a mustard-strainer three holes in its bottom were merged into one another the strainer is clean. A metal mill-funnel is unclean.
  
  
  
  Vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass: those that are flat are clean and those that form a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. If they are broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket, a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship, that have flat bottoms and can hold a minimum of forty se'ah in liquid measure which represent two kor in dry measure, are clean. All other vessels whether they can contain the minimum or cannot contain it, are susceptible to impurity, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the tub of a wagon, the food chests of kings, the tanners trough, the tank of a small ship, and an ark, even though they are able to contain the minimum,  are susceptible to impurity, since they are intended to be moved about with their contents. As to all other vessels, those that can contain the minimum are clean and those that cannot contain it are susceptible to impurity. There is no difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah except a baking trough which belongs to a householder.
  Bakers’ baking-boards are susceptible to impurity, but those used by householders are clean. But if he dyed them red or saffron they are susceptible to impurity. If a bakers’ shelf was fixed to a wall: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is clean And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. The bakers' frame is susceptible to impurity but one used by householders is clean. If he made a rim on its four sides it is susceptible to impurity, but if one side was open it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if he fixed it so that one can cut the dough upon it, it is susceptible to impurity. Similarly, a rolling-pin is susceptible to impurity.
  The container of the flour-dealers’ sifter is susceptible to impurity, but the one of a householder is clean. Rabbi Judah says: also one that is used by a hairdresser is susceptible to impurity as a seat, since girls sit in it when their hair is dressed.
  All hangers are susceptible to impurity, except for those of a sifter and a sieve that are used by householders, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: all hangers are clean, excepting those of a sifter of flour-dealers, of a sieve used in threshing-floors, of a hand-sickle and of a detective's staff, since they aid when the instrument is in use. This is the general rule: [a hanger] that is intended to aid when the instrument is in use is susceptible to impurity and one intended to serve only as a hanger is clean.
  The grist-dealers’ shovel is susceptible to impurity but the one used in grain stores is clean. The one used in wine- presses is susceptible to impurity but that used in threshing- floors is clean. This is the general rule: [a shovel] that is intended to hold anything is susceptible to impurity but one intended only to heap stuff together is clean.
  Ordinary harps are susceptible to impurity, but the harps of Levites are clean. All liquids are susceptible to impurity, but the liquids in the Temple slaughtering house are clean. All scrolls convey impurity to the hands, excepting the scroll of the Temple courtyard. A wooden toy horse is clean. The belly-lute, the donkey-shaped musical instrument and the erus are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: the erus is susceptible to sitting impurity since the wailing woman sits on it. A weasel-trap is susceptible to impurity, but a mouse- trap is clean.
  
  
  
  A wooden vessel that was broken into two parts becomes clean, except for a folding table, a dish with compartments for [different kinds of] food, and a householder's footstool. Rabbi Judah says: a double dish and a Babylonian drinking vessel are subject to the same law. When do wooden vessels begin to be susceptible to impurity? A bed and a cot, after they are sanded with fishskin. If the owner determined not to sand them over they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir says: a bed becomes susceptible to impurity as soon as three rows of meshes have been knitted in it.
  Wooden baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. But those that are made of palm-branches [become susceptible to impurity] even though their ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since they are allowed to remain in this condition. A basket [of reed-grass becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its rim is rounded off, its rough ends are smoothed off, and its hanger is finished. A wicker basket flasks or for cups [is susceptible to impurity] even if the rough ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since these are allowed to remain in this condition.
  Small reed baskets and baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. Large reed baskets and large hampers, as soon as two rows have been made round their sides. The container of a sifter or a sieve and a cup of the balances, as soon as one circling band has been made round their sides. A willow basket, as soon as two twists have been made around its wide sides. And a rush basket, as soon as one twist has been made round it.
  When do leather vessels become susceptible to impurity?A leather pouch, as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and its straps sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: so soon as its ears have been sewn on. A leather apron  [becomes susceptible to  impurity] as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough end trimmed and its strings sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its loops  have been sewn on. A leather bed cover [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says:  as soon as its straps have been sewn on. A leather cushion or mattress [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched  and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as it has been sew up and less than five handbreadths remained open.
  A basket [for figs] is susceptible to uncleanness but a basket for wheat is clean. Small baskets made of leaves are clean, but those made of branches are susceptible to uncleanness. The palm wrapping [in which dates are left] and into which they can be easily put     and from which they can easily be taken out is susceptible to uncleanness, but if this cannot be done without tearing it or undoing it, it is clean.
  The leather glove of winnowers, travelers, or flax workers is susceptible to uncleanness. But the one for dyers or blacksmiths is clean. Rabbi Yose says: the same law applies to the glove of grist dealers. This is the general rule: that which is made for holding anything is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which only affords protection against perspiration is clean.
  The dung bag of a bull and its muzzle, a bee shelf, and a fan are clean. The cover of a small box is susceptible to uncleanness; The cover of a clothes chest is clean. The cover of a box, the cover of a basket, a carpenter's vice, a cushion under a box     or its arched cover, a reading-desk for a book, a bolt-socket, a lock-socket, a mezuzah case, a lyre case, a violin case, the block of the turban-makers, a wooden musical toy horse, the clappers of a wailing woman, a poor man's parasol,  bed posts, a tefillin mould, and the mould of string makers   all these are clean. This is the general rule which Rabbi Yose stated: all objects that serve as a protection to objects that a man uses, both when the latter are in use and when they are not in use, are susceptible to uncleanness; but those that serve them as a  protection only when the latter are in use are clean.
  The sheath of a sword, a knife or a dagger, the case for scissors, or shears or a razor, the case of make-up and the make-up box, the stylus case, the compass case, the tablet case, the case for a board,  a quiver and a javelin case     all these are susceptible to  uncleanness. The case for a double flute is susceptible to uncleanness if the instrument is put in from above, but if it is put in from the side it is clean. A case for flutes Rabbi Judah says it is clean because these are put in from the side. The covering of a club, a bow or a spear is clean. This is the general rule: that which serves as a case is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which is merely a covering is clean.
  
  
  
  All [wooden] vessels that belong to householder [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of pomegranates. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the size of the hole depends] on what it is used for. Gardeners’ vegetable baskets [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of bundles of vegetables. Baskets of householders [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of [bundles] of straws. Those of bath-keepers, if bundles of chaff [will drop through]. Rabbi Joshua says: in all these the size is that of pomegranates.
  A skin bottle [becomes clean if the holes in it are of] a size through which warp-stoppers [can fall out]. If a warp-stopper cannot be held in, but it can still hold a woof-stopper it remains unclean. A dish holder that cannot hold dishes but can still hold trays remains unclean. A chamber- pot that cannot hold liquids but can still hold excrements remains unclean. Rabban Gamaliel rules that it is clean since people do not usually keep one that is in such a condition.
  Bread-baskets [become clean if] the size [of their hole is such] that loaves of bread [would fall through]. Papyrus frames through into which reeds were inserted from the bottom upwards to strengthen them, are clean. If he fixed walls to it, they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: if it cannot be lifted up by these walls it is clean.
  The pomegranates of which they have spoken--three attached to one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in a sifter or a sieve [the size of the hole must be such that a pomegranate will drop out] when one picks it up and walks about with it. In a basket it must be such [as would allow a pomegranate] to fall through while one hangs it behind him. And all other vessels which  cannot hold pomegranates as, for instance, the quarter kav measure and the half quarter kav measure, and small baskets, the size  [of their holes must be] such as would extend over the greater part of  them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: [the size of their hole must be such that] olives [could fall through]. If their sides were broken [the size of their hole must be] such as olives would drop through. If they are worn away the size must be such as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them [to drop through].
  The pomegranate of which they spoke refers to one that is neither small nor big but of moderate size. And why did they mention the pomegranates of Baddan? That whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: to use them as a measure for holes in vessels. Rabbi Akiva said: they were mentioned for both reasons: that they are to be used as a measure for holes in vessels and that whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden. Rabbi Yose said: the pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba were mentioned only to indicate that they must be tithed everywhere with certain tithe.
  The egg of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Rabbi Judah says: the largest and the smallest  must be brought and put in water and the  displaced water is then divided. Rabbi Yose says: but who can tell me which is the largest and which is the smallest?  Rather, it all depends on the observer's estimate.
  The dried fig of which they spoke--- it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Rabbi Judah says:  the biggest in the land of Israel is like one of medium size in other lands.
  The olive of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the egori. The barleycorn of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the midbarit The lentil of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size--the egyptian kind. "Any movable object conveys  uncleanness if it is of the thickness of an ox goad" it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. What is meant by "one of moderate size?" One whose circumference is just a handbreadth.
  The cubit of which they spoke is one of  medium size. There were two standard cubits in Shushan Habirah, one in the north-eastern corner and the other in the south-eastern corner. The one in the north-eastern corner exceeded that of Moses  by half a fingerbreadth, while the one in the  south-eastern corner exceeded  the other by half a fingerbreadth, so that the latter exceeded that of Moses by a fingerbreadth. But why were there a larger and a smaller cubit? Only for this reason: so that craftsmen  might take their orders according to the smaller cubit and return their finished work according to the larger cubit,  so that they might not be guilty of any possible trespassing of Temple property.
  Rabbi Meir says: all cubits  were of the moderate length  except that for the golden altar, the horns,  the surround  and the  base. Rabbi Judah says: the cubit used for the building  was one of six  handbreadths and that for the vessels one of five handbreadths.
  Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures  were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who  drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv, The quantity being the food one eats on weekdays and not on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: as on Shabbat and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the more lenient ruling. Rabbi Shimon says:   two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made of a kav. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says:  not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pundium when the price of wheat is four se'ah for a sela’.
  And sometimes  they stated a large measure:A ladleful of corpse mould  refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease  refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes]   must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands  the prescribed size of  which  is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size  is that of the  large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela  or like the hole in a yoke.
  All that live in the sea are clean, except the sea-dog because it seeks refuge on dry land, the words of Rabbi Akiba. If one made vessels from what grows in the sea and joined to them anything that grows on land, even if only a thread or a cord, if it is susceptible to uncleanness, they are unclean.
  The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the first day. There can be no uncleanness in what was created on the second day. The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the third day. No there can be no uncleanness in what was created on the fourth day and on the fifth day, except for  the wing of the vulture or an ostrich-egg that is plated. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:  why should the wing of a vulture be different from all other wings? The laws of uncleanness can apply to all that was created on the sixth day.
  If one made a receptacle whatever its size it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one made a couch or a bed whatever its purpose it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one made a wallet from untanned hide or from papyrus it is susceptible to uncleanness. A pomegranate, an acorn and a nut which children hollowed out to  measure dust or fashioned them into a pair of scales, are susceptible to uncleanness, since in the case of children an act is valid though an intention is not.
  The beam of a balance and a leveler that contain a  receptacle for metal, carrying-stick that has a receptacle for  money, a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water, and a stick that has a receptacle for a mezuzah and for pearls are susceptible  to uncleanness. About all these Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Oy to me if I should mention them, Oy to me if I don't mention them.
  The base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean. A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A straw  mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth  is subject to the same law. A mat of reeds or rushes is clean. A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed.
  
  
  
  A wooden chest: Beth Shammai says: it is measured on the  inside; And Bet Hillel says: on the outside. Both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are not included in the measurement. Rabbi Yose says: both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are included in the measurement, but the space between them is not included. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri ruled: if the legs are one handbreadth high the space between them is not included in the measurement, otherwise it is included.
  Its carriage: if it can be slipped off, is not regarded as connected, nor is it included in its measurement, nor does it afford protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, nor may it be drawn along on Shabbat if it contains money. If it cannot be slipped off, it is regarded as connected, it is included in its measurement, it affords protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, it may be drawn along on Shabbat even if it contains money. Its arched top, if it is fixed [to the box], is considered connected and is measured with it, but if it is not fixed it is not connected and is not measured with it. How is it measured? As an ox-head. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand by itself it is clean.
  If one of the legs was missing from a chest, a box or a cupboard, even though it is still capable of holding [things], it is clean, since it cannot hold [things] in the usual manner. But Rabbi Yose says: it is susceptible to impurity. The poles of a bed, its base, and [its] covering are clean. Only the bed itself and its rectangle [frame] are susceptible to uncleanness. The rectangle frames of the Levites are clean.
  A bed frame that was put on props: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say it is susceptible to uncleanness. But Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that it is clean. Rabbi Yose said: Why is this different from the rectangle frames of the Levites which are clean?
  A bed that had contracted midras uncleanness: If a short side was removed and its two legs still remains it is unclean. But if a long side and two legs were removed it becomes clean. Rabbi Nehemiah says: it is unclean. If two props at opposite corners were cut off, or if two legs at opposite corners were cut off, or if the bed was reduced to a level of less than a handbreadth, it becomes clean.
  A bed that had contracted midras impurity:If a long side of it was broken and then he repaired it, it still retains its midras impurity. If the second side was also broke and then he repaired it, it becomes pure from midras impurity but is unclean by virtue of contact with midras. If before one could manage to repair the first side the second one broke, the bed becomes clean.
  If a [bed] leg that had contracted midras uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts midras uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off, it retains its midras uncleanness while the bed is unclean from contact with midras. If a bed leg that was subject to a seven-day uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts seven-day uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it remains subject to seven-day uncleanness while the bed is only subject to evening-uncleanness. If a leg that was subject to evening uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts evening uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it is still subject to evening uncleanness while the bed becomes clean. The same law applies also to the prong of a mattock.
  A tefillin box consisting of four vessels: if the first compartment was unloosed, and then he mended it, it retains its corpse uncleanness. So is it also the case with the second and the third. If he unloosed the fourth it becomes free from corpse uncleanness but it is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. If he went back to the first compartment and unloosed and mended it, it remains unclean from contact. So also in the case of the second compartment. If he then unloosed the third compartment and mended it becomes clean, since the fourth is unclean from contact, and what is unclean from contact cannot convey uncleanness by contact.
  A bed half of which was stolen or lost, or one which brothers or joint owners divided between themselves, becomes clean. If it was restored it is susceptible to uncleanness henceforth. A bed may contract uncleanness and be rendered clean when all its parts are bound together, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: it can contract uncleanness and is rendered clean in single parts.
  
  
  
  One who dismantles a bed in order that he might immerse it and [while doing so] touches the ropes remains clean. When does the rope begin to constitute a connective with the bed? As soon as three rows of meshes of it have been knotted. And [if another rope was tied to this one] and a person touches it: If from the knot inwards he becomes unclean; But if from the knot outwards he remains clean. As to the loose ends of the knot, any one that touches that part which is needed for it  becomes unclean. And how much is needed for it?  Rabbi Judah says: three fingerbreadths.
  A rope that hangs out from a bed:If it is shorter than five handbreadths, it is clean, If it is from five to ten handbreadths long, it is unclean. From ten handbreadths and longer is clean; For it is with [this rope]  that paschal lambs were tied  and beds were lowered down.
  If a part of a mattress hangs over, it is unclean whatever  its length, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: only that which is shorter than ten handbreadths. The remnant of a mattress remains unclean if the length is at least seven handbreadths from which a donkey's covering can be made.
  If a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress, the latter causes an uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress the part that is shorter than ten handbreadths causes an  uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, but that which is over the ten handbreadths causes only an uncleanness of one grade and an unfitness of one grade. If he was carried on the mattress, [on the overhanging part] that was shorter than ten handbreadths, it becomes unclean, but if on the part that was longer than ten handbreadths it remains clean.
  If around a bed that had contracted midras uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to midras uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to midras uncleanness but the mattress is unclean only from contact with midras. If around a bed that had contracted seven-day uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to seven-day uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to seven-day uncleanness but the mattress is unclean until the evening. If the bed was subject to evening uncleanness and around it he wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to evening uncleanness; If it was removed, the bed remains subject to evening uncleanness but the mattress becomes clean.
  If a mattress was wrapped around a bed and a corpse touched them, they are subject to a seven-day uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to a seven-day uncleanness. If  a sheretz touched them they are subject to an evening uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to evening uncleanness. A bed from which the two longer sides were removed  and  two new ones were prepared for it but the original sockets were not changed: If the new sides were broken the bed retains its uncleanness, But if the old ones were broken it becomes clean, since all depends on the old ones.
  A box whose opening is at the top is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If a piece fell out above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If it was damaged below, it becomes clean. The compartments within it remain unclean and are not regarded as a connected to it.
  If a shepherd's bag was damaged, the pocket within it retains its uncleanness and is not regarded as a connected to it. A skin whose testicle bags serve also as receptacles and they were damaged, they become clean, since they will no longer serve their original purpose.
  A box whose opening is at the side is susceptible to both midras uncleanness  and corpse uncleanness. Rabbi Yose said: When does this apply? When it is less than ten handbreadths in height or when it does not have a rim one handbreadth deep. If it was damaged above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If it was damaged below: Rabbi Meir rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages rule that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases.
  A dung-basket that was so damaged that it will not hold pomegranates: Rabbi Meir says is still susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases.
  
  
  
  Pillows, bed coverings, sacks and packing cases that were damaged are still susceptible to midras uncleanness. A fodder-bag that can hold four kav, a shepherd's bag that can hold five kav, a  traveling bag that can hold a se'ah, a skin that can hold seven kav, Rabbi Judah adds: also a spice-bag, and a food wallet that can hold the smallest quantity are susceptible to midras uncleanness. If any of them was damaged it becomes clean, since if the primary function   ceases the secondary function   also ceases.
  A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness , And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse  uncleanness only. If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness. If he left it out in the rain and it swelled   it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone. [If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition. It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean.
  If a stick was used as a handle for a hatchet, it is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of use. A yarn winder is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of its use. If it was fixed to a pole it is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not considered connected to it. If the pole itself was converted into a yarn winder, only that part which is needed for use is susceptible to uncleanness. A seat that was fixed to the pole is susceptible to uncleanness, but the latter is not regarded as connected to it. If the pole itself was turned into a seat, only the place of the seat is susceptible to uncleanness. A seat that was fixed to the beam of an olive-press is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not connected to it. If the end of a beam was turned into a seat it remains clean, because people would tell him, "Get up and let us do our work."
  If a large trough was so damaged that it could no longer hold pomegranates and he fixed it to be used as a seat: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless its rough parts have been smoothed. If it was turned into a feeding bowl for cattle, even if it was fixed to a wall, it is susceptible to uncleanness.
  A wood block  that was fixed to a row on a wall, whether he fixed it and did not built upon it or built upon it but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he fixed it and also built upon, it is clean. Matting that was spread over the roof-beams, whether he fixed it but did not put on the plasterwork or whether he put on the plasterwork but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If it was fixed and he laid plasterwork over it, it is clean. A dish that was fixed to a chest, box or cupboard: If in such a manner as to hold its contents in the usual way, it is susceptible to uncleanness, But if it was in a manner that it cannot hold its contents in the usual way  it is clean.
  If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it.  . Bet Hillel says:  when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed.
  A mat whose reeds stretched lengthwise is insusceptible to uncleanness; But the sages rule: only if they lay in the shape of [the Greek letter] chi. If they were laid along its width and there was a distance of less than four handbreadths between the two reeds, it is insusceptible to uncleanness. If it was divided along its width, Rabbi Judah rules that is clean. So also, where the end-knots  are untied, it is clean. If it was divided along its length but three end-knots remained intact across a stretch of six handbreadths, it is susceptible to uncleanness. When does a mat become susceptible to uncleanness? When its rough ends are trimmed, this being the completion of its manufacture.
  
  
  
  One who touches the upper beam, the lower beam, the harnesses, the sley, the thread that is drawn over purple material, or a spool which is not to be shot back, remains clean. If he touches the woof, the standing warp, the double thread that is drawn over purple material or a spool which is to be shot back, he becomes unclean. If one touches the wool that is on the distaff, or on the spool, he remains clean. If he touches the spinner: Before it was uncovered  he is unclean, After it was uncovered   he remains clean.
  One who touches the yoke, the crossbar, the collar-piece, or the thick ropes, even when they are being used, he remains clean. If he touched the tail piece, knee or handle, he becomes unclean. If he touched the metal rings, the guides, or the flanks, he becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says that he remains clean if he touched the guides since they only serve to increase the soil.
  One who touches the handle of a saw at either end  becomes unclean; [If he touched] its string, cord, cross-piece or side-pieces, a carpenter's vice, or the bow-handle of a bow-drill, he remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: so too he who touches the frame of a large saw remains clean. One who touches the bow-string or the bow, even though it was stretched, he remains clean. A mole-trap is clean. Rabbi Judah says: when it is stretched, the separate parts are [regarded as] connected.
  
  
  
  If a table or a side-board was damaged or he covered them with marble but room was left for cups to be set, it is unclean. Rabbi Judah ruled: there must be room enough for pieces of food.
  A table one of whose legs was removed is clean. If a second leg was removed it is still clean. But if a third was removed it becomes unclean where the owner has the intention of using it. Rabbi Yose says: no intention is necessary. The same law applies also to the side-board.
  A bench, one of whose legs was removed, is clean. If its second leg also was removed it is still clean. If it was one handbreadth high it is unclean. A footstool one of whose legs was removed is unclean. The same applies to the stool in front of a cathedra.
  A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool  is susceptible to uncleanness. A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness.
  A chair whose seat boards did not project and then they were removed, it is still susceptible to uncleanness, for it is usual  to turn it on its side and to sit on it.
  A chair whose middle seat board was removed but the outer ones  remained, it is still susceptible to uncleanness. If the outer ones were removed and the middle seat board remained it is also  susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was a handbreadth wide.
  A chair, of which two seat boards were removed, this one next to this one: Rabbi Akiva says: it is susceptible to impurity; And the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Judah said: so too if the seat boards of a bride's chair were lost, though the receptacle under remained, it is clean, since where the primary function has ceased,  the secondary one  also ceases.
  A chest whose top part was removed is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bottom; If its bottom was removed it is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its top part. If both the top part and the bottom part were removed: Rabbi Judah says that it is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its sides, But the sages rule that it is clean. A stonecutter's seat is subject to midras uncleanness.
  A [wooden] block which was painted red or saffron, or was polished: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless [a seat] was carved out. A small basket or a big one that was filled with straw or other soft material remains clean [even] if it was prepared as a seat. But if it was plaited over with reed-grass or with a cord it becomes susceptible to uncleanness.
  A toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the leather seat was separated, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness and the iron is subject only to corpse uncleanness. A folding stool whose cover is of leather is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If it was taken apart, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness while the stool is altogether clean. A bath-house bench that has two wooden legs is susceptible to uncleanness. If one leg was of wood and the other of stone it is clean. Boards in a bath-house which were joined together: Rabbi Akiva says that they are susceptible to [midras] uncleanness; But the sages say that they are clean, since they are made only for the water to flow under them. A fumigation-cage that contains a receptacle for garments is susceptible to uncleanness, But one that is made like a bee-hive is clean.
  
  
  
  If a ball, a mould, an amulet or tefillin were torn, one that touches them becomes unclean, But one that touches what is inside them remains clean. If a saddle was torn, one that touches its contents unclean, because the stitching joins them.
  The following are susceptible to uncleanness as objects that are fit for riding upon (merkav): an Ashkelon donkey belt, a Medean saddle, a camel's pillow, and a horse-cloth. Rabbi Yose says: a horse-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness  as a seat, since people stand on it  in the arena. But a saddle of a female camel is susceptible to [sitting] uncleanness.
  What is the practical difference between [the uncleanness of an object used for] riding upon and [one used for] sitting upon? In the case of the former the effect of contact with it is different from the effect of carrying it, but in the case of the latter there is no difference between the effect of coming in contact with it or carrying it. The pack-frame of a donkey on which a zav sat is clean; But if the size of the spaces has been changed or if they have been broken one into another it is susceptible to uncleanness.
  A bier, the mattress and the pillow of a corpse are susceptible to the uncleanness of midras. A bride's stool, a midwife's stool, and a launderer's stool on which he piles the clothes: Rabbi Yose says: it is not regarded as a seat.
  A fishing net is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bag. Nets, snares, bird-traps, slings and fishermen's skeins are susceptible to uncleanness. A fish-trap, a bird-basket and a bird-cage are not susceptible to uncleanness.
  
  
  
  There are three different types of shields:A bent shield  is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A shield used in the arena is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And the Arabian toy shield is pure from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of wagons:The one made like a cathedra  is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The one made like a bed is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, And the one for [the transport of] stones is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of baking-troughs:If a baking-trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav was split  it is  susceptible to midras uncleanness; If it was whole it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free  from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of boxes:A box whose opening is at the sides  is susceptible to midras uncleanness; If it is on the top it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of leather covers:That of barbers is susceptible to midras uncleanness; That on which people eat is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. And that for [spreading out] olives is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of bases:One which lies before a bed or before a scribe is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One for a side-table is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And one for a cupboard is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of writing tablets:That of papyrus  is susceptible to midras uncleanness; That which had a receptacle for wax is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And that which is smooth is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of beds:One that is used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used by glass makers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And one used by weavers is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of baskets:The one for dung  is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The one for straw is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And a camel's rope bag is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of mats:One used for sitting upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used by dyers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. And one used in wine-presses is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of water skins and three different types of shepherds' wallets:Those that can hold the  prescribed quantity  are susceptible to midras uncleanness; Those that cannot hold the prescribed quantity are susceptible to corpse  uncleanness; And those made of fish skin are free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of hides:That which is used as a rug is susceptible to midras uncleanness; That which is used as a wrapper for vessels is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And that which is intended for straps and sandals is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of sheets:One used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used as a curtain is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And one used as a mural decoration is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of napkins:One used for hands is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used for books is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And the one used as a shroud or a covering for the harps of the Levites is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of hip-boots:Those used by the hunters of animals and birds are susceptible to midras uncleanness; Those used by locust gatherers are susceptible to corpse uncleanness. And those used by fig-pickers are free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of hair nets:A girl's is susceptible to midras uncleanness; An old woman's is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And [the hair net] of a woman who "goes out" is free from all uncleanness.
  There are three different types of baskets: If a worn-out basket is patched on to a sound one,  all is determined by the sound one; If a small basket is patched on to a large one  all is determined by the large one; If they are equal all is determined by the inner one. Rabbi Shimon says: if the cup of a balance was patched on to the bottom of a boiler on the inside, the latter becomes unclean; but if on the outside it remains clean. If it was patched on to the side, whether on the inside or the outside, it remains clean.
  
  
  
  All vessels have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, as for instance, cushions, coverings, sacks and packing-bags, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: any vessel that has loops has [different laws] for inner and outer sides   but one that has no loops does not have different laws for outer and inner sides. A table and a side-board  have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: they do not have a different law for their outer sides. The same applies to a frame.
  An ox-goad has different laws for its outer and inner parts, [The outer part is] the seven handbreadths from the broad blade and four handbreadths from the point, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: it is not to [subject to such distinction],  the four and the seven handbreadths were mentioned only in regard to its remnants.
  Measures of wine or oil, a fork-ladle, a mustard-strainer and a wine-filter have an outer and inner side, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: they do not have. Rabbi Shimon says: they do have, for if their outer parts contracted uncleanness that which is inside remains clean, and immersion is required.
  If [in a measure consisting of] a quarter [of a log] and half a quarter [of a log] the quarter measure contracted uncleanness, the half-quarter measure does not become unclean, and if the half-quarter contracted uncleanness the quarter does not become unclean. They argued before Rabbi Akiva:  since the half quarter measure is the outer part of the quarter measure, should not the outer side of the vessel whose inner side contracted uncleanness become unclean? He answered them: Are you sure that it belongs to the category [of vessels] that have inner [and outer] parts? Perhaps the quarter is to be regarded as the outer side of the half quarter and, surely, the inner side of a vessel does not become unclean if the outer side contracted uncleanness.
  If the [inside of the] quarter contracted uncleanness, the quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the half quarter and its outer side remain clean. If the [inside of the] half quarter contracted uncleanness, the half quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the quarter and its outer side remain clean. If the outer side of the quarter contracted uncleanness,the outer side of the half quarter remains clean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the outer side cannot be divided. When he immerses the vessel, he must immerse the whole thing.
  The bases, rims, hangers or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which an unclean liquid fell, one dries them and they remain clean. But [if unclean liquid fell] on any part of any other vessel which cannot hold pomegranates (or in which no distinction is made between its outer and inner sides), the whole becomes unclean. If the outer side of a vessel contracted uncleanness from a liquid, only its outer side is unclean but its inner side, rim, hanger and handles remain clean. If its inner side contracted uncleanness the whole is unclean.
  All vessels have outer and inner sides and have a part by which they are held. Rabbi Tarfon says: this applies only to a large wooden [kneading] trough. Rabbi Akiva says: it applies to cups. Rabbi Meir says: it applies to unclean and clean hands. Rabbi Yose says: they said this only concerning clean hands.
  How so?If one's hands were clean and the outer side of a cup was unclean, one may hold it by its holding-place and need not be concerned lest his hands have contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup. If one was drinking from a cup whose outer side was unclean he need not be concerned lest the liquid in his mouth contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup and that it then conveyed uncleanness to the cup. If a kettle was boiling one need not be concerned lest liquid should come out from it and touch its outer side and return again within it.
  Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.
  
  
  
  An Imki sandal and a laced-up bag, Rabbi Judah says: also an Egyptian basket; Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says: also to a Lattakian sandal can be made susceptible to uncleanness  and again be made insusceptible  without the aid of a craftsman. Rabbi Yose said: But can't all vessels be made susceptible to uncleanness  and again insusceptible  without the aid of a craftsman? Rather, these, even when they are unlaced are susceptible to uncleanness since a layman is able to restore them. They spoke only of an Egyptian  basket  which even a craftsman cannot [easily]  restore.
  A laced-up bag whose laces were removed is still susceptible to uncleanness; But if it was made flat it is pure. If a strip of cloth has been put on it below, it is susceptible. If a bag was within another bag and one of them became unclean from a liquid, the other does not become unclean. A pearl pouch is susceptible to uncleanness. A money pouch: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is pure.
  The hand-coverings of thorn-pickers are pure. A belt and leg guards are susceptible to uncleanness. Sleeves are susceptible to uncleanness. But hand-coverings are pure. All finger-coverings are pure except that of fig-pickers, since the latter holds the sumac berries. If it was torn, if it cannot hold the greater part of a sumac berry it is pure.
  A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean. If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it     becomes clean. A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean. A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot. A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible. All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness,     except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean.
  The following hides are susceptible to midras uncleanness: A hide which he intended to use as a rug, A hide used as an apron, A hide used as the lower covering of a bed, A hide used by a donkey-driver, A hide used by a flax-worker, A hide used by a porter, A hide used by a doctor, A hide used for a crib, A hide put over a child's chest, A hide for a cushion. A hide for a covering. All these are susceptible to midras uncleanness. A hide for wrapping up combed wool and a hide worn by a wool-comber: Rabbi Eliezer says it is susceptible to midras, But the sages say that it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only.
  A bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras. A bag or wrapper for purple wool: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras, But Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness. A hide which was made to be a covering for vessels is not susceptible to uncleanness, but for weights it is susceptible. Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that it is pure.
  Whenever no act is lacking, intention alone causes a vessel to be susceptible to uncleanness, But whenever an act is lacking, intention alone does not render it susceptible to uncleanness, except for a fur cover.
  The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber  do not become susceptible by mere intention. Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief  do not become susceptible by  intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery.
  If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness and its owner then intended it to be used for straps or sandals, it becomes clean as soon as he put the knife to it, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: it does not become clean until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: even if one made a napkin from a hide it remains unclean, But if [he made one from] a covering it becomes clean.
  
  
  
  Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness; Sack-cloth is susceptible to four; Leather to three; Wood to two; And an earthenware vessel to one. An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part. Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness   as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one. Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent. Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work. Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.
  Cloth is susceptible to midras uncleanness when it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths, and to corpse uncleanness when it is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. Sack-cloth when it is four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Leather, five handbreadths by five handbreadths. And matting, six handbreadths by six handbreadths. [All of these] are equally susceptible to both midras and corpse uncleanness. Rabbi Meir says: what remains of sack-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness if it is four handbreadths, but when in its first condition [it becomes susceptible only after its manufacture] is completed.
  If one made up a piece of material from two handbreadths  of cloth and one of sack-cloth, or of three of sack-cloth and one of leather or four of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to  uncleanness. If the piece of material was made up of five handbreadths of matting and one of leather or four of leather and one of sack-cloth, or three of sack-cloth and one of cloth it is susceptible to uncleanness. This is the general rule: if the material added is subject to greater restrictions it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the material added was subject to lesser restrictions     it is not susceptible.
  If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. [If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness.
  Worn-out pieces of a sifter or a sieve that were adapted for use as a seat: Rabbi Akiva rules that they are susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages rule that they are not susceptible unless their rough ends were cut off. A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness. A child's shirt: Rabbi Eliezer rules it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size. But the sages rule: it is susceptible only if it is of the prescribed size, and it is measured when doubled over.
  The following are measured when doubled: Felt socks, long stockings, pants, a cap and a money-belt. As regards a patch sewn on the hem, if it was simple it is measured simple, but if it was doubled it is measured when doubled.
  If a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three by three handbreadths, and then it contracted midras uncleanness, and then he completed the rest of the piece, and then one removed a single thread from the original part, it  is free from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. If he removed a thread from the original part and then he finished the whole cloth, it is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness.
  Similarly, if a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three [fingerbreadths] square, and it contracted corpse uncleanness, and afterwards he finished the entire piece, and then he removed a single thread from its original part, it is free from corpse uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. If a thread was removed from the original part and then all the cloth was finished it remains clean, for the sages have ruled: if a piece of three [fingerbreadths] square is lessened it becomes clean. But if one of three handbreadths square is lessened, even though it is released from midras, it is still susceptible to all other forms of uncleanness.
  If a sheet that had contracted midras uncleanness was made into a curtain, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had  touched it  is it unclean from contact with a zav.
  If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square was divided,  it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had  touched it  is it unclean from contact with a zav.
  If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must  be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house.
  [A piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was torn: if he put it on a chair, and his skin touches the chair, it is pure; And if not, it remains pure. [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square one thread of which was worn away, or in which a knot was found, or in which two threads ran alongside each other, is pure. [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was thrown on the rubbish heap becomes pure. If he brought it back, it it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Throwing it away always renders it pure and taking it back renders it susceptible to uncleanness, except when it is of purple or fine crimson. Rabbi Eliezer says: a patch of new cloth is also subject to the same law. Rabbi Shimon says: all these materials become pure; they were mentioned only in connection with the return of lost property.
  
  
  
  [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball or was itself made into a ball is clean. But [a piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was stuffed into a  ball remains unclean. If he made it into a ball itself, it is clean because the sewing reduces its size.
  [A piece of cloth] less than three [handbreadths] square that was adapted for the purpose of stopping up a hole in a bath house, of emptying a cooking-pot  or of wiping with it the mill stones, whether it was or was not kept in readiness for any such use, is susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: whether it was or was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Akiba ruled: if  it was kept in readiness it is susceptible, and if it was not kept in  readiness it is pure.
  If a bandage is made of cloth or leather it is pure. (Rabbi Yose says: with leather it is pure.) A poultice is pure if it is on cloth, but if on leather it is susceptible. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if it was on cloth it remains susceptible to uncleanness because it can be shaken off.
  Covers of scrolls, whether they are decorated or not, are susceptible to uncleanness according to the view of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: those that are decorated are pure, but those that are not decorated are susceptible. Rabban Gamaliel says: both the former and the latter are pure.
  If a head-wrap that had contracted midras uncleanness was wrapped around a scroll, it is released from midras uncleanness but it remains susceptible to corpse uncleanness. A skin that was made into a rug or a rug that was made into a skin becomes clean. A skin that was made into a [shepherd's] wallet or a [shepherd's] wallet that was made into a skin; Or a cushion cover that was made into a sheet or a sheet that was made into a cushion cover; Or a sheet cover that was made into a plain sheet or a plain sheet that was made into a sheet cover, remains unclean. This is the general rule: any object that has been changed into one of the same class  remains unclean, but if into one of another class it becomes clean.
  If a patch was sewn on to a basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If it was separated from the basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, but the patch becomes clean. If it was sewn on to cloth it conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If it was separated from the cloth, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, while the patch conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. The same law applies to a patch was sewn on to sacking or leather, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean. Rabbi Yose says: if [it was sewn] on leather it becomes clean; but if on sacking it remains unclean, since the latter is a woven material.
  The three (fingerbreadths) square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square. If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected. If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected. If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected.
  Poor men's clothes, though made up of pieces none of which is three [fingerbreadths] square are susceptible to midras uncleanness. If a cloak began to be torn, as soon as its greater part is torn [the pieces] are not regarded as connected. Exceptionally thick or thin materials are not governed by the prescribed minimum of three [fingerbreadths] square.
  A porter's pad is susceptible to midras uncleanness. A wine filter is not susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. An old woman's hair-net is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. A prostitute's shirt which is woven like a net is not susceptible to uncleanness. A garment made of fishing net is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one made of its bag is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a garment is made out of a fishing net but is made double it is susceptible to uncleanness.
  A hair-net that one began to make from its upper hem remains pure until its bottom section is finished. If one began from its bottom section, it remains pure until its hem is finished. Its head band is susceptible to uncleanness in itself. Its strings are susceptible to uncleanness because they are connected. A hair-net that is torn becomes pure if it cannot contain the greater part of the hair.
  
  
  
  The fringe strings of a sheet, a scarf, a head-wrap and a felt cap [are regarded as connected]  up to a length of six fingerbreadths; Those of an undergarment up to ten [fingerbreadths]. The fringes of a thick wool cloak, a veil, a shirt, or a light cloak [are regarded as connected] up to a length of three fingerbreadths. The fringes of an old woman's head-wrap, of Arabian face wraps, of Cilician goat's-hair clothing, of a money-belt, of a turban or of a curtain are  regarded as connected whatever their length may be.
  Three woolen pillow-covers, six linen ones, three sheets,  twelve handkerchiefs, two pant-sleeves, one shirt, one cloak, or one winter-cloak,  can be regarded as connected in respect of both uncleanness  and sprinkling. If they exceed this number they are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Rabbi Yose says: not even in respect of uncleanness.
  The string of a [common] plumb-line is regarded as connected up to a length of twelve [cubits]; That of the carpenters’ plumb-line, up to eighteen [cubits]; And that of the builders’ plumb-line up to fifty cubits. The parts that exceed these lengths, even if it was desired to retain them, are pure. The plumb-line of plasterers or moulders is regarded as connected whatsoever its length.
  The cord of the balances of goldsmiths or the weighers of fine purple cloth is regarded as a connective up to a length of three fingerbreadths, The handle of an axe behind the grip, up to a length of three fingerbreadths. Rabbi Yose says: if the length behind the grip is no less than one handbreadth the entire handle is unsusceptible to uncleanness.
  The cord of the balances of shopkeepers or householders is regarded as connected up to a length of one handbreadth. The shaft of an axe in front of the grip, up to one handbreadth. The projection of the shaft of a compass, up to one handbreadth. That of the shaft of the stone-masons’ chisel, one handbreadth.
  The cord of the balances of wool dealers  or of glass-weighers is regarded as connected up to a length of two handbreadths. The shaft of a millstone chisel, up to a length of two handbreadths. The shaft of the battle-axe of the legions, up to a length of two handbreadths. The shaft of the goldsmiths’ hammer, up to a length of two handbreadths. And that of the blacksmiths' hammer, up to three handbreadths.
  The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its upper end is regarded as connected up to a length of four [handbreadths]. The shaft of a spade, to a length of four [handbreadths]. The shaft of a weeding-spade, to five handbreadths. The shaft of a small hammer, to five handbreadths. That of a common hammer, to six handbreadths. The shaft of an axe used for splitting wood or of one used for digging, to  six [handbreadths]. The shaft of the stone-trimmers’ axe, up to six handbreadths.
  The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its lower end is regarded as connected up to a length of seven handbreadths. The shaft of a householders' shovel Bet Shammai says: to a  length of seven handbreadths, And Bet Hillel says: eight handbreadths. That of the plasterers: Bet Shammai says: nine handbreadths And Bet Hillel says: ten handbreadths. Any parts exceeding these lengths, if he wanted to retain it, is also susceptible to uncleanness. The shafts of fire instruments are susceptible to uncleanness whatsoever their length.
  
  
  
  Glass vessels--those that are flat are pure and those that have receptacles are susceptible. After they are broken they become clean. If he again made vessels of them they become susceptible to uncleanness from that point and onward. A glass tray or a flat dish is pure. If it has a rim it is susceptible. The concave bottom of a glass  bowl or plate which was adapted for use is pure. If it was polished or scraped with a file it becomes susceptible to  uncleanness.
  A mirror is pure. A tray that was made into a mirror remains susceptible, but if it was originally made to serve as a mirror it is pure. A large [glass] spoon that has been placed on a table is susceptible to uncleanness if it can hold anything whatsoever. But if it cannot do so: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible, And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure.
  A cup the greater part of which is broken off is pure. If it was broken in three places extending over its greater part it is pure. Rabbi Shimon says: if it lets the greater part of the water leak out it is pure. If a hole appeared in it and it was mended with tin or pitch it is pure. Rabbi Yose says:  if with tin it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if with pitch it is pure.
  A small flask whose neck  was removed remains susceptible to uncleanness, But a large one whose neck was removed becomes pure. [A small flask] of spikenard oil whose neck was removed becomes pure, since it scratches the hand. Large flagons whose necks were removed remain susceptible to uncleanness, since they are adapted for the use of holding pickled foods. A glass funnel is clean. Rabbi Yose said: Happy are you Kelim; for you began with uncleanness, but you ended with cleanness.