meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה אהלות
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot
  
  Introduction
  
  The word "Ohalot" means "tents" and it refers to the halakhah found in Numbers 19 (quoted below) according to which a person or vessel found in a tent with a dead body is impure even without direct contact with the body. In other words, the tent causes the defilement of the corpse to spread throughout the tent and defile everything in the tent. The rabbis define "tent" in a very broad manner. Basically, any covering that hangs over a corpse (or piece thereof) can convey the impurity to anything else which it overhangs. Basically, the only requirement is that this "overhanging" or "tent" be at least one handbreadth long, one handbreadth wide and one handbreadth in height. And just as a "tent" (I will try to use the term "ohel" as well) conveys the impurity to that which is found beneath it, it also prevents the impurity from spreading to that which is above the tent. In other words it conveys and confines at the same time. If a corpse is above the ohel, that which is below the ohel is not defiled. 
  Tractate Ohalot also deals with other issues concerning the impurity of a corpse. The Torah specifically states that anyone that has contact with a corpse is impure for seven days. The rabbis add that carrying a corpse also defiles, even without contact. The Torah also states that a person who had contact with a dead body defiles others and vessels, but only for a period of one day. Thus the dead body itself is the "father of the fathers of impurity" and the person (or vessel) who had contact with a dead body is a "father of impurity." 
  Tractates Ohalot and Negaim, the next tractate, were already famous in the Talmudic period for their difficulty. In a passage which I happened to have just taught a few days ago (Bavli Pesahim 50a) R. Yohanan says that these two tractates are difficult in this world, but will be easier in the world to come. In Bavli Hagigah 14a, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya scolds Rabbi Akiva for dealing in matters of aggadah and tells him to go study Ohalot and Negaim. He chooses these two tractates due to their depth and difficulty.  We are a bit luckier than Rabbi Akiva for we have many commentaries on which to base our study, including a relatively recent modern commentary by Professor Abraham Goldberg (whose son-in-law is a colleague of mine at the Conservative Yeshiva). These laws will be difficult, but perhaps by making them a bit easier than they were at first, we too can have a small taste of the world to come.  Below are the verses most relevant to our tractate.  Good luck!
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah serves as an introduction to the next several mishnayot. As is frequently the case in the beginning of a tractate, the mishnah is based on numbers (see for instance the beginning of Shabbat and Shevuot). It discusses the different levels of impurity that have their source in a corpse.
  Two are defiled through a corpse, one being defiled with seven days' defilement and one being defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening.  This will be explained below in section four.
  Three are defiled through a corpse, two being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening.  This will be explained in mishnah two.
  Four are defiled through a corpse, three being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening.  This will be explained in mishnah three.
  What [is the case of] two? A person who touches a corpse is defiled with seven days’ defilement and a person who touches him is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening.  Numbers 19:11 explicitly states that one who has contact with a corpse is defiled for seven days. Verse 22 states, "and the person who touches him shall be unclean until evening." "Him" refers to the person who came into contact with the corpse.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  What [is the case of] three? Vessels touching a corpse and [other] vessels [touching these] vessels are defiled with seven days’ defilement.  A vessel that comes into contact with a dead body is unclean for seven days. These vessels are "fathers of impurity." The same is true for vessels that come into contact with these vessels. These too are "fathers of impurity" and are unclean for seven days.
  The third: whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening.  But the "third" link in the chain, a person or vessel who comes into contact with a vessel that had contact with another vessel that was in contact with a corpse, has a lower degree of impurity. He or it is impure only until the evening with "first degree impurity."
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  What is the case of four?  Vessels touching a corpse, a person [touching these] vessels, and [other] vessels [touching this] person, are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fourth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening.  When vessels come into contact with a corpse, they are defiled for seven days (as in yesterday's mishnah). If a person touches these vessels, he is impure for seven days, for they also are a "father of impurity." And the person too is a "father of impurity" and if other vessels touch him, they are impure for seven days.
  Rabbi Akiva said: I have a fifth, [if] a peg  was fixed in a tent, the tent,  the peg, a person touching the peg  and vessels [touching] the person  are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fifth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. They said to him: the tent does not count.  However, when it comes to the fourth in the chain, the level of impurity is reduced. So if a person or a vessel has contact with the aforementioned vessel, he or it is impure only until the evening.
  Rabbi Akiva is getting ambitious! He wants to find a series with five elements. A peg is fixed into the ground next to a tent but it is not part of the tent and there is a corpse in the tent. According to Rabbi Akiva, the peg and the tent count as two separate items. The tent overshadows the peg causing it to be impure and Rabbi Akiva counts it like a vessel that overshadows a dead body or touches it. The person who touches the peg is impure and becomes a father of impurity. Any vessels that touch the person are all impure with seven day's impurity. That's four. The person or vessel that touches the aforementioned vessels is impure but only until the evening. The other sages respond that the tent itself does not count. Both the tent and the peg are impure for they are considered to have shadowed over the corpse, and the peg is not impure because of the tent. Therefore, we don't begin the count from the tent, but rather from the peg, in which case there are only four, not five, in this chain.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  [Both] persons and vessels can be defiled through a corpse.  While both people and vessels are defiled through a corpse, there are stringencies that apply to one that don't apply to others.
  A greater stringency applies to persons than to vessels and to vessels than to persons. For with vessels [there can be] three [series of defilements], whereas with persons [there can be only] two.  There can be a series of three defilements involving only vessels, as we saw in mishnah two. Vessel one touches the corpse, vessel two touches vessel one, and vessel three touches vessel two (but it is impure only until the evening). However, when it comes to people, the second person has only "first degree impurity" and the person who touches him is pure, as we learned in mishnah one.
  A greater stringency applies to persons, for whenever they are in the middle of a [series] there can be four [in the series], whereas when they are not in the middle of a [series] there can be [only] three.  This refers to the situation in mishnah three. A vessel touches a corpse, a person touches the vessel and the vessel touches that person and all three are impure for seven days. The fourth, whether person or vessel, is also impure. But if the second element is a vessel, then the third element is impure only until the evening and the fourth element is pure, as is the case in mishnah two.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah is similar to yesterday's mishnah in that it compares the stringency relating to an impure person with the stringency relating to vessels, in this case clothing. The topic of our mishnah is not the impurity caused by a dead body, but rather the impurity caused by a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital emission.
  Persons and garments can be defiled by a zav.  Both human beings and clothing are defiled by contact with a zav, although as we shall see, there are cases in which the law is stricter with regard to the human and other cases in which the law is stricter with regard to the clothing.
  A greater stringency applies to persons than to garments and a greater stringency applies to garments than to persons.  This is the customary introduction to the next section.
  For a person who touches a zav can defile garments, whereas garments that touch a zav cannot defile [other] garments.  A person who has been in contact with a zav defiles clothing. This is explicit in Leviticus 15:7. However, clothing that come into contact with a zav has first degree impurity. This impure clothing will not subsequently convey impurity to other clothing, for clothing is susceptible to impurity only through contact with a father of impurity.
  A greater stringency applies to garments, for garments which form the support of a zav can defile persons, whereas a person who forms the support of a zav cannot defile [other] persons.  Something upon which a zav lays or reclines or sits is impure, even if the zav doesn't touch it (see Leviticus 15:5). This includes clothing. This clothing will subsequently defile other people. However, if a zav lays or reclines on a person (without touching that person) that person does not defile other people. We will learn more about this topic in general when we learn Tractate Zavim (yes, there is a whole tractate devoted to this subject!).
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A person does not defile [as a corpse] until he dies.  A living person, even an almost dead person, does not defile until he is actually dead.
  Even he is cut up or even if he is about to die, he [still] makes levirate marriage obligatory and exempts from levirate marriage, he feeds [his mother]  terumah and disqualifies [his mother] from eating terumah.  If he is about to die, he is still considered alive. The mishnah lists some consequences (besides his still being pure) for the fact that he still counts as being alive. If his brother died without offspring, the wife is liable for levirate marriage (yibbum) as long as he is alive. If his father died, his father's wife is exempt from yibbum as long as he was alive when his father died. If he is a kohen and his mother is an Israelite who was widowed from his father (also a kohen), his mother eats terumah as long as he is alive (assuming no other offspring). In other words, since he is alive, her status can still follow that of her offspring. If he is an Israelite and his mother is a daughter of a kohen widowed from his father (an Israelite) his mother cannot eat terumah as long as he is alive.
  Similarly in the case of cattle or wild animals, they do not defile until they die.  The carcasses of cattle or wild animals that were not slaughtered defile (nevelah). The same is true of animals categorized as "sheratzim." As is the case of human beings, they do not defile until they are dead.
  If their heads have been cut off, even though they are moving convulsively, they are unclean, like a lizard's tail, which moves convulsively.  Dead animals can at times move, even if their heads have been cut off. Despite this movement, they are still considered dead. After all, once the head is off, they're not coming back to life. This is similar to the case of a lizard's tail, which might keep moving, even after it has been cut off.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Whole limbs  [of the body] have no [restriction as to] size: even less than an olive-sized portion of a corpse or less than an olive-sized portion of nevelah (carrion), or less than a lentil-sized portion of a sheretz can defile,  [each in the manner of] their respective defilements. Whole limbs that are separated from either a corpse, or the carrion of an animal, or from a sheretz, always defile even if they don't meet the minimums for size. These minimums are usually: an olive's worth for a human corpse, the same size for nevelah (animal carrion), or a lentil-sized piece from a sheretz. The minimum sizes are only relevant when there are pieces that are no full limbs. But if there is a limb that is smaller than that size, it defiles in all cases.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  There are two hundred and forty-eight limbs in a human body: Thirty in the foot, six for every toe, Ten in the ankle, Two in the shin, Five in the knee, One in the thigh, Three in the hip, Eleven ribs, Thirty in the hand, [that is] six to every finger, Two in the fore-arm, Two in the elbow, One in the upper arm and Four in the shoulder, [For a total of] one hundred and one on the one side [of the body] and one hundred and one on the other. Eighteen vertebrae in the spine, Nine in the head, Eight in the neck, Six in the key of the heart, And five around the genitals.Each one [of these] can defile by contact, carriage or overshadowing.When is this so? When they have upon them the appropriate amount of flesh, But if they do not have the appropriate amount flesh upon them, they can defile by contact and carriage but cannot defile by overshadowing.Today's mishnah defines "limbs." Obviously, the modern use of the word limb is not the same as the rabbinic use of the term. The word "limb" mostly seems to refer to bones, as we shall see.Section one: The count of 248 likely refers to bones and perhaps a few sinews and ligaments as well, and not what we would call limbs. It does not include the teeth. When I googled how many bones are in the human body, most answers seemed to be 206. The rabbinic answer seems to include some parts that modern anatomists do not consider bones. In any case, the count is not that far off.Section two: Each of these "limbs" can cause defilement in any of the three ways that a dead body causes defilement: by contact, by being carried (even without contact) and by overshadowing (ohel). However, for it to defile as a "limb" it must have enough flesh such that if it was attached to the body it could heal.If it does not have this amount of flesh, it still defiles by contact and carriage, but it doesn't defile through overhanging. We shall see more concerning this is 2:3.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah lists what things cause impurity through overshadowing (an ohel). These things defile even if they are not touched or are not carried.
  Below I have explained only terms that are not clear through translation.
  c) Nezel refers to flesh from a corpse that has begun to decompose. It can also refer to liquid that was emitted from the dead body that has begun to congeal. Hope you're not reading this while eating! d) Corpse-mold is a later stage of decomposition. The amount required to defile is greater than that for regular flesh or nezel. e) The spine or the skull causes impurity even if there is no flesh on it. g + h) Bones can cause impurity even without the flesh on them as long as one of two requirements is met. 1) There is a quarter kav (about half of a liter) of bones collected from the structural or numerical majority of the body. The "structural majority" refers to the large leg bones, the ribs and the spine. In other words, it doesn't include most of the smaller bones. 2) The structural or numerical majority is actually present, even if there is not a quantity of a quarter of a kav of bones.
  How many [bones] form the numerical majority? One hundred and twenty-five.  The mishnah assumes you're not too good at math, so it lets you know that a majority of 248 is 125. Thanks!
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to list substances that defile through overshadowing.
  [The following likewise defile:]A quarter [of a log] of blood,  A quarter of a log is about 1/8 of a liter. Less than half a can of coke, for those of you who drink the stuff (coke, not blood).
  A quarter [of a log] of mixed blood from one corpse. Rabbi Akiva says: [even] from two corpses.  Mixed blood is a mixture of blood from a corpse with blood from a living person (that doesn't defile). If there is a quarter of a log of such blood, it too defiles. Rabbi Akiva says that even blood that comes from two different corpses defiles, if there is a minimum mixture.
  [With regard to] the blood of a child that has completely flowed forth: Rabbi Akiva says: [it defiles] in even the smallest quantity, But the sages say: [there must be] a quarter [of a log].  A small child does not have nearly as much blood as an adult. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva says that even the smallest quantity of blood will cause impurity. However, the other rabbis do not make such a distinction. There must always be a quarter of a log for it to cause impurity through an ohel.
  [With regard to] an olive-sized [portion] of [corpse] worms whether alive or dead: Rabbi Eliezer declares [it] unclean, like the flesh, But the sages declare [it] clean.  You're going to love this one. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the worms that come and out of a corpse are treated as if they were part of the corpse itself and if there is the minimum amount, they convey impurity like the corpse. The other rabbis say that these worms are clean (but you might still want to wash your hands after handling them).
  [With regard to] the ashes of burnt persons: Rabbi Eliezer says: the [minimum] quantity [for defilement is] a quarter [of a kav]. But the sages declare [them to be] clean.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that even the ashes of human remains can defile, if there is the same minimum amount as there is of flesh. But the other rabbis disagree. They seem to hold that burning the body obliterates the source of impurity. Perhaps we could even extend this opinion and explain that according to the rabbis burning destroys any of the once-alive spirit that remains in the body (perhaps this is also at least one of the reasons that cremation is prohibited.) We should also note that Rabbi Eliezer seems to hold what we have deemed elsewhere a "realistic" position. The corpse is found in the worms, therefore they defile. The ashes contain the corpse, therefore they too defile. The rabbis hold more of a "nominalistic" position. The worms are not considered by definition to be a corpse, nor are ashes.
  A ladleful and [a little] more of grave-dust is unclean. Rabbi Shimon declares [it to be] clean.  In yesterday's mishnah we learned that a ladleful of corpse mold transmits impurity. According to Rabbi Shimon, a ladleful plus a little more of earth taken from under a corpse will contain a ladleful of corpse. Therefore, it transmits impurity.
  A ladleful of corpse-mold mixed with water is not [regarded as] joined [into one mass] for [the purposes of] defilement.  This section contains a special rule concerning a ladleful of corpse mold. The pieces of corpse in such mold are considered to be separate from each other, even if they have been mixed in with water. Therefore, if one touches such mold he is not impure, because he has touched a piece of corpse that is less than an olive's worth. However, the ladleful still transmits impurity through overshadowing and carrying because there is a total amount of corpse sufficient to transmit impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with elements of a corpse that have a lower degree of impurity, and can only defile through contact and carriage but not through overshadowing.
  a) A single bone does not defile by overshadowing, but as long as there is the size of a barleycorn, it does defile by contact and carriage. b) According to tradition, Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yohanan, two Second Temple sages decreed that foreign lands defile. Our mishnah teaches that even dust from a foreign land defiles, although not through overshadowing. c) A bet peras is a cemetery that has been plowed over. We will learn more about the bet peras in chapter seventeen. d) A spine or a skull that are complete defile through overshadowing. If they are deficient, they still defile through contact and carriage.
  How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra.  Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argue about how much of a spine or skull has to be deficient for it to no longer defile in an ohel. In both cases Bet Hillel is more lenient (meaning the amount they require for the defiency is less).
  And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die.  According to Bet Shammai if there is a hole in a skull the size of a drill, the skull no longer defiles in an ohel. The type of drill of which they are speaking will be explained in section four. Bet Hillel holds that if the hole is large enough such that the person would die, then the skull is deficient.
  Of what drill did they speak? Of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber.  It is interesting to note that in this section, the sages and Rabbi Meir disagree concerning the proper interpretation of Bet Shammai's opinion. It is possible that in this case, both hold that the halakhah is according to Bet Shammai. Rabbi Meir says that the drill is the one used by a physician. [I don't think I would want to be on the receiving end of that drill]. The other rabbis say that the drill is the drill used in the Temple. The size of this drill is explained in Kelim 17:12.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  In mishnaic times burials were often done in caves. Our mishnah discusses the stones used to cover up the graves.
  The covering stone  and the buttressing stone [of a grave] defile by contact and overshadowing but not by carriage. Rabbi Eliezer says: they do defile by carriage. Rabbi Joshua says: if there is grave dust beneath them, they defile by carriage, but if not they do not defile by carriage.  The covering stone is the stone rolled over the grave to seal it up. It transmits impurity by overshadowing and contact but not by carriage, probably because it is not something that is generally carried. Note that impurity by contact is stated explicitly in Numbers 19:16. However, Rabbi Eliezer says it does defile by carriage. Rabbi Joshua notes that if there is grave dust underneath them, then they do defile by carriage because the grave dust is assumed to contain dust that originates with the dead body. But if there is no grave dust, the stones themselves do not transmit impurity through carriage.
  What is the buttressing stone? That upon which the covering stone is supported. But the stone that serves as buttress to the buttressing stone is clean.  The buttressing stone is that upon which the covering stone rests. Some explain that there were two such stones, one on each side. These stones themselves are governed by the same rule that governs the actual covering stone. But the stones that support the supporting stones are clean. They are far enough removed from the grave that they don't count as the grave itself.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  These are clean if they are deficient:An olive-sized [portion] of a corpse;An olive-sized [portion] of nezel,A ladleful of corpse-mold,A quarter [of a log] of blood,A bone of the size of a barley-corn,And a limb [severed] from a living person, the bone of which [limb] is deficient.Our mishnah refers to some of the defiling agents that have been mentioned in other mishnayot in this chapter and notes that if these things do not have the prescribed measure, they are not impure at all. This is different from the skull and vertebrae that are still impure, even if they are not intact (see mishnah three).Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory, so I have only commented where necessary.Section two: On the meaning of "nezel" see 2:1.Section six: If a limb is separated from a living person, and part of the bone itself is missing, the bone is pure, no matter the size. However, if part of the flesh is missing, it is still impure (see mishnah three).And if the limb came from a dead body, the bone is impure as long as there is an amount the size of a barley-corn, as we learn here and in mishnah three.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A backbone or a skull [made up from the bones] of two corpses,A quarter [of a log] of blood from two corpses,A quarter [of a kav] of bones from two corpses,A limb of a corpse from two corpses,And a limb [severed] from a living person, [such a limb being made up] from two persons,Rabbi Akiva declares [the all] uncleanBut the sages declare them clean.In mishnah two we learned that Rabbi Akiva holds that a quarter of a log of blood mixed from two corpses is impure, even though there is not the requisite amount of blood from one corpse.In all of these cases we have the amount of corpse stuff required to transmit impurity, but it is composed (or should I say, decomposed) of material from two different corpses. To be honest, I don't know how one puts together a limb that comes from two different people, whether it has to be attached or not. It seems like the two limbs are placed together such that they look as if they are attached.Rabbi Akiva says that in all of these case, the limb, blood or bones defiles in the same way that a limb, blood or bones from one corpse does by contact, carriage and overshadowing.The other rabbis say that these things are clean. What this means is that they do not defile through overshadowing. However, they do defile through contact and carriage, for even a bone the size of a barley-corn defiles in these manners.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A bone the size of a barley-corn that is divided into two: Rabbi Akiva declares it unclean But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares it clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: they did not say 'bones’ the size of a barley-corn, but ‘bone’ the size of a barley-corn.  For a bone to convey impurity in an ohel it must be the size of a barley-corn. Rabbi Akiva says that even two bones can combine together to add up to this size. This is consistent with his opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees. From the statement in mishnah three that "a bone the size of a barley-corn" conveys impurity he derives that there must be a single bone that size. The rabbis said "a bone" and not "bones." Therefore, one bone must be the size of a barley-corn.
  A quarter [of a kav] of bones crushed fine, and there is not a single [bone] the size of a barley-corn: Rabbi Shimon declares it clean But the sages unclean.  In this case bones have been crushed up and there is no single bone the size of a barley-corn. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. Even though there is a quarter of a kav, \the minimum measure in which multiple bones convey impurity, since they are crushed up they no longer defile. The other sages disagree and hold that they do convey impurity since there is a quarter kav.
  A limb [severed] from a living person which has been divided into two is clean. Rabbi Yose declares [it] unclean; But he agrees that if it is taken from a living person by halves it is clean.  A whole limb severed from a living person is unclean. Rabbi Yose says that if it is divided in two, it still defiles. The other sages disagree and are consistent with their opinion concerning the bone in section one. Rabbi Yose agrees that if the limb is removed from the person in halves, then it is clean because it was never a "full limb from a living person."
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  All objects that defile by overshadowing which were divided and then brought into a house: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares clean. But the sages declare [it] unclean.  According to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, if two of the defiling agents listed in 2:1 are found in an ohel but there is only half of a measure of each, they do not join together to create the necessary amount to defile. The other sages disagree and say that they do join together to defile.
  What is the case? One who touches two pieces of nevelah,  each the size of half an olive, or carries them, Or, in the case of a corpse, if he touches a piece the size of half an olive and overshadows [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him, Or if he overshadows two [pieces, each] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean, And the sages declare him unclean.  This section now explains in what exact case Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sages disagree. We should note that according to the opinion voiced here the debate exists not only in connection with defiling in a tent, but carrying and touching as well. A) He touches or carries two pieces of nevelah (the meat of an animal that was not slaughtered in a kosher fashion). Nevelah does not defile through overshadowing. B) One hand has contact with half of a measure of a piece of corpse and the other hand overshadows half of a measure. C) One hand has contact, and the other piece of corpse is stuck, for instance, in a wall, and it overshadows him. D) He overshadows two pieces of half of an olive's size of corpse. E) He overshadows one piece, and another piece overshadows him. In all of these cases, the sages and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas disagree.
  But if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object  overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, he is clean.  According to the first opinion, the sages agree in the following two cases that the person is pure. In the first case, he touches a half of an olive's size piece of corpse and at the same time something overshadows him and another half of a piece of corpse. In the second case, he overshadows half of a piece of corpse, and something overshadows him and another half of a piece of corpse. The rabbis say that he is pure in these cases. The rabbis hold that when one overshadows a piece of corpse or a piece of corpse overshadows him it is as if he had touched the piece, because the impurity travels up or down within an ohel. This means that in these two cases touching and overshadowing are in the same category or cause of impurity. However, if something overshadows him and a piece of corpse, it is not the same as contact with the corpse, and therefore there are two different causes of impurity overshadowing and contact. As we learn below, two different causes do not join together to add up to a full measure of impurity.
  Rabbi Meir says: Even here Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean and the sages declare him unclean. Every [case] is unclean  except [a case of] contact [combined] with carriage or of carriage [combined] with overshadowing.  Rabbi Meir says that in these cases too, the rabbis hold that the two types of impurity can be joined. Ohel impurity can always be joined with contact impurity because they are essentially the same cause. The only types of impurity that cannot be joined are contact with carriage and carriage with ohel. Put simply, there are two general types of impurity: 1) contact/ohel; 2) carriage.
  This is the general principle:  every object [whose defilement] proceeds from one cause is unclean, from two causes is clean.  The general rule that governs the sages' opinion is that two different causes of impurity cannot be joined, but two of the same category can be joined. The anonymous mishnah in section three and Rabbi Meir disagree as to how we define different "causes of impurity" but they agree with this general principle.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a ladleful of corpse-mold was scattered about in a house, the house is unclean But Rabbi Shimon declares it clean.  In 2:1we learned that a ladleful of corpse mold causes impurity in an ohel. The sages say that even though the mold was mixed in with the dust and dirt of the house, as long as the requisite quantity of corpse is found, the house is unclean. Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that since there is a mixture of corpse-mold and dust, the house is clean.
  If a quarter [of a log] of blood was absorbed in [the ground] of a house, the house is clean.  The sages agree that if blood is mixed in with the ground of the house, the house is clean. As we shall learn in section three, if blood is absorbed in something from which it cannot be expelled, the blood no longer transmits impurity.
  If it was absorbed by a garment: if the garment is washed and a quarter [of a log] of blood emerges from it, it is unclean, if not, it is clean, since anything absorbed that cannot emerge is clean.  The purity of the garment into which the blood has been absorbed depends on whether the blood can be removed from the garment. If it can be removed by laundering the garment, then the garment does not defile in an ohel. However, the garment itself is impure because it came into contact with a quarter of a log of blood. As far as how one can test if a quarter of a log of blood came out of the garment, one would take a measured amount of water and launder the garment in it. Then he would bring the same measure of water, less a quarter of a log, and put in that water a quarter of a log of blood. If the water looks the same, then a quarter of a log emerged. If the water that was used for laundering has less of a red color, then the garment with the blood does not defile in an ohel.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with blood that is poured out and then lands on the ground and someone or something overshadows it.
  [Blood] which was poured out in the air: If the place [where it fell] was an incline and [a person or vessel] overshadowed part of it, he [remains] clean. If it was a cavity, or if the blood congealed,  he [becomes] unclean.  In this case the blood is poured out outside of a house. If it lands on an inclined space, and a person or vessel overshadows part of this blood, he/it is not considered to have overshadowed the entire quarter of a log. While the blood flows down the incline, each part is not considered to be connected to the other part and so he has overshadowed only part of the blood. However, if the blood falls into a cavity (a depression in the ground) or if it congeals then because the blood has stopped flowing when one overshadows part of the blood he is considered as having overshadowed all of it and he/it is impure.
  If it was poured out on a threshold: If it inclined either inwards or outwards and the house overshadowed it [that which is in the house] is clean. If there was a cavity, or if it congealed, [that which is in the house becomes] unclean.  In this case the blood is poured out onto the threshold outside of the house, and the house (or part of it) overshadows part of the blood. If the blood is on an incline and is still flowing (either towards or away from the house), then again the blood is not considered to be connected to its other parts and the people or vessels in the house are pure. In other words, we don't consider the house to be overshadowing the entire quarter of a log of blood. However, if the blood falls into a cavity or it congeals such that it is no longer flowing, the blood is connected to itself and the house conveys the impurity.
  When teeth, hair and nails are separate from a corpse they are not impure as is the flesh and blood. However, when they are joined to the corpse, they are as impure as is everything else. Tomorrow's mishnah will continue to deal with this topic.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  How so? If the corpse was outside and its hair inside, the house is unclean.  As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if the hair is connected to the corpse, it is impure like the corpse. The ramification of this is that if a corpse is found outside of a house, and the hair is in the house, the house (meaning its contents) is impure because the house overshadows the corpse.
  [With regard to] a bone which had upon it an olive-sized portion of flesh, if one brought part of it within so that the house was overshadowing it, [the house] is unclean.  This section deals with a bone that in and of itself does not convey impurity in an ohel (see 2:3) but has enough flesh on it to do so. If he brings part of the bone into the house, the house is impure, even if the flesh is outside of the house because the bone serves as a connective for the flesh. It is as if the flesh is in the house.
  [With regard to] two bones which had upon them two pieces of flesh, [each] the size of half an olive, if one brought part of them within so that the house was overshadowing them, [the house] is unclean.  Similarly, two bones, each with half of an olive's worth of flesh, serve to connect the flesh that is found on them to the part of the bone that is in the house. Again, the contents of the house are impure.
  But if [the pieces of flesh] were set into [the bone] by a person, the house is clean since connections created by human agency are not [regarded as] connections.  In the previous two sections we learned that the bone serves as a connective for the flesh found on it, such that as long as part of the bone is in the house, the house is considered to overshadow the flesh that is out of the house. However, this is true only of flesh that grew on the bone and was naturally found there. If a person puts some flesh onto a bone, the bone does not connect the flesh, for "connections" in the case of the corpse must be natural. If the "human" world gets involved in this process, the connections created do not have ramifications on the purity status.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Mishnah 2:2 stated that a quarter of a log of "mixed blood" defiles in an ohel. Our mishnah discusses what "mixed blood" is. To understand this mishnah we must remember that only the blood of a corpse defiles. Blood that comes out from a person during his lifetime does not defile.
  What is ‘mixed blood? The blood of a corpse of which an eighth [of a log] came out during his lifetime and an eighth after death, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: a quarter [of a log] during his lifetime and a quarter after death.  Both Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael agree that "mixed blood" is an amount of blood, part of which came from a living person and part of which came from a corpse. Rabbi Akiva rules strictly even if only half of the requisite quarter log came from a corpse, 1/8 of a log, and then was mixed with another 1/8 of a log of pure blood from a living body, the mixture defiles. Rabbi Ishmael says that "mixed blood" is a case where there originally was a quarter of a log of blood from a corpse and the same amount from a living body. Then from this amount, which clearly does defile, one takes a quarter of a log. Since there was originally the requisite amount of impure blood, the quarter of a log removed still defiles. However, if originally there was only 1/8 of a log of impure blood mixed with the same amount of pure blood it would not defile.
  [If] a quarter [of a log] is taken from both of these: Rabbi Elazar bar Judah says: both of these are as water. What then is ‘mixed blood’? It is that of a crucified person whose blood is streaming forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood it is unclean. However a corpse whose blood drips forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood, [the blood] is clean. Rabbi Judah says: not so, but that which streams forth is clean and that which drips forth   is unclean.  Rabbi Elazar bar Judah is even more lenient. He responds to Rabbi Ishmael by saying that a quarter of a log of blood that is taken out of a mixture of a quarter log of impure blood and a quarter log of pure blood has the purity status of water. This is an emphatic way of saying it is pure. Still, Rabbi Elazar must define "mixed blood." He defines it as blood that is streaming forth from a living person. This is the blood that has the "life force" in it, for its loss causes the person to die. However, if the blood drips from him it is clean. Even though its loss eventually causes him to die, the earlier drops don't join together with the later drops (which do cause him to die) to create the requisite quarter of a log. Rabbi Judah says that the blood that streams forth is pure because the life force does not come out with this blood (this is the Rambam's explanation). But when the last drop of blood comes out of him, his life will definitely have come out and therefore this blood defiles. [I should note that there are some difficulties in interpreting this mishnah and even in determining who says what, and the relationship of each section to each other.]
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  When we get to 7:3 we will learn that if there is a dead body in a house, all of the openings are impure, even though the dead body will only go out through one of them. [Note that the opening is considered separate from the house]. Our mishnah teaches that if a person decides to take the dead body, or a piece thereof, out through one of the openings, the other openings, as long as they are locked, are pure. However, the opening must be large enough so that the corpse or piece thereof could go out of it. If it is not, then all of the openings remain impure.
  For an olive-sized portion of a corpse, an opening [in the room in which it is found] of one handbreadth [square], and for a [whole] corpse, an opening of four handbreadths [square, is enough] to prevent the uncleanness from [spreading to the other] openings;  If one intends to take an olive size portion of a corpse out of the house through an opening that is one handbreadths square, that opening is unclean, even if it is locked. Anything found in the opening, under the lintel, is unclean. But all of the other locked openings remain pure. However, if the opening is not even the size of a handbreadth, then all of the openings, even though they are locked, are impure, because in the end, the piece of corpse may be taken out through one of them. When it comes to a full corpse, the opening must be four handbreadths square to protect the other openings. If it is less, then the other openings are impure because the body might go out through one of them.
  But for allowing the uncleanness to go out, an opening of one handbreadth [square is enough].  If the opening is not locked, then the impurity escapes as long as the opening is a one handbreadth square.  This is true even if a complete corpse is in the house.
  [A portion] greater than the size of an olive is as a [whole] corpse.  Section one dealt with an olive-sized portion of corpse and a full corpse. But what about something in between? The answer is that anything greater than an olive-sized piece is treated as a full corpse. This means that the opening must be four square handbreadths in order to protect the other openings from being unclean.
  Rabbi Yose says: [only] the spine and the skull are as a [whole] corpse.  Rabbi Yose says that the spine and the skull, even if only the size of an olive remains, are treated like a full corpse. This means that the opening must be four handbreadths to protect the other openings from being impure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah teaches a basic law concerning the ohel. If there is an object that is at least a handbreadth wide and long and a handbreadth high, it can act as an ohel. It conveys impurity that is found beneath it, and it prevents impurity from traveling above or below it. Our mishnah illustrates this with the case of a covered drain found beneath a house. In addition, the mishnah discusses the concept of impurity escaping through openings.
  [An object] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high conveys uncleanness and blocks uncleanness.  This was explained in the introduction.
  How does it [block uncleanness]? In the case of a covered drain beneath a house, if it has a space a handbreadth wide and its outlet was a handbreadth wide, and there is uncleanness inside it, the house remains clean; And when there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the drain] remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.  In this case the drain has the required dimensions 1 x 1 x 1 handbreadths and there is a one handbreadth opening at its end, which spills into the courtyard. The impurity that is in the drain will escape out into the courtyard, and therefore that which is in the house will remain pure. The mishnah's line "for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in" is not exactly appropriate here, for obviously the uncleanness will not simply enter the house. As we shall see, its proper place is below and in other mishnayot (4:1-3; 9:9-10). In addition, if there is impurity in the house it will not enter the drain because the drain is large enough to block the impurity.
  If it had a space one handbreadth wide but its outlet was not one handbreadth wide, when there is uncleanness in it, the house becomes unclean; But when there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within it remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.  In this case, the drain does not have an outlet large enough to allow the impurity out through it. Therefore, the impurity found in the drain will go up into the house and defile whatever is found there. However, impurity in the house will not enter the drain for there is a barrier (the drain itself) between the two.
  If it did not have a space one handbreadth wide and its outlet was not one handbreadth wide, when there is uncleanness within it, the house becomes unclean; And when there is uncleanness in the house, it [also] becomes unclean.  But if the drain is not even of the proper dimensions, then the impurity found in either space will go to the other. The drain is treated simply like the ground under the house and the impurity in the house spreads there as well.
  It makes no difference if the cavity was carved out by water or by a sheretz or if it had been eaten out by salt.  Any hole, no matter how it is made, if it has the features outlined above, is treated just like the drain. It will stop the impurity found in it from entering the structure above, and it will prevent the impurity found above from entering into it.
  And similarly [if it is in] a row of stones or a pile of beams.  Similarly, any structure, no matter how it is made, can serve as an ohel. If there are spaces that are one handbreadths wide, long and tall between the different parts, then the part on top is treated separately from the part below.
  Rabbi Judah says: any "tent" not made by a person is not considered a tent’. But he agrees that crevices and crags [can be considered as ‘tents’].  Rabbi Judah says that only human-made structures can serve as an ohel. However, he agrees that crags and crevices, structures that might form a cave, are treated like an ohel because people often use them in such a manner. We should note that this opinion of Rabbi Judah matches his general tendency to remain close to the simple meaning of the biblical text. An ohel means a tent that is a humanly made structure. While Rabbi Judah is not a true literalist the law does not apply just to tents, he still holds that it only applies to things that are somewhat like tents. In contrast, the other sages seem to be thinking about how impurity is conveyed. If impurity is conveyed in an ohel, why shouldn't, they seem to say, it be conveyed by other types of structures.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A cupboard  standing in the open air: If there is uncleanness within it, vessels in the [niches in the] thickness [of its walls] remain clean. If there is uncleanness in [the niches in] its thickness, vessels inside [the cupboard] remain clean. Rabbi Yose says: half and half.When it is standing inside a house: If there is uncleanness inside [the cupboard], the house is unclean; If there is uncleanness in the house that which is within [the cupboard] remains clean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.Vessels which are between [the cupboard] and the ground, or between it and the wall, or between it and the roof-beams: If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth there, they become unclean. If not they remain clean.If there is uncleanness there, the house becomes unclean.Section one: The cupboard in our mishnah is large enough such that it doesn't receive impurity in itself. The cupboard is outside in the open air and not in the house.If there is a source of impurity in the cupboard, and there are vessels in niches in the thickness of its walls, these vessels remain pure. These niches are not considered to be in the space of the cupboard. Similarly, if there is a source of impurity within the niches, the vessels inside the cupboard are pure.Rabbi Yose disagrees. He divides these niches in half and says that the inner half is considered to be like the cupboard and the outer half is considered to be like the space outside the cupboard.Section two: If the cupboard is within a house, then the impurity can escape the cupboard and go into the house (even if the cupboard is locked), but impurity from the house does not enter the cupboard (as long as the cupboard is closed). This is because of the rule that impurity escapes but does not enter.Section three: This section describes a situation in which vessels are found in between the cupboard and the walls, floor or roof of the house, and there is a source of impurity in the house or in the cupboard. If there is a space that is at least 1 x 1 x 1 handbreadths, then the impurity goes in there through the fact that the house acts as an ohel. But if the space is smaller, the impurity does not enter, for impurity does not enter such small spaces.However, if there is impurity in that space, then the house is impure because the impurity is inside the house. The cupboard is impure because impurity goes out but does not enter.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  [With regard to] a drawer of the cupboard, which is one cubic handbreadth, but whose outlet is not a square handbreadth, if there is uncleanness inside it, the house becomes unclean;  The mishnah now discusses a drawer inside the cupboard. The drawer is one handbreadth cubed, meaning that it is large enough to be considered an ohel. However, its opening is less than a handbreadth's in size. Nevertheless, if there is a piece of corpse (or other corpse type uncleanness) in the drawer it escapes the drawer and defiles everything in the house. This is the same principle we learned in 3:7 impurity can escape an inner ohel and go into a larger ohel (the house).
  But if there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the drawer] remains clean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.  However, impurity does not go into a smaller ohel (the drawer) from the larger ohel. Therefore, if there is impurity in the house it does not defile things that are in the drawer.
  Rabbi Yose declares [the house] clean, since he can remove [the uncleanness] by halves or burn it where it stands.  Rabbi Yose says that even things in the house are pure, in a case where there is a source of impurity in the drawer. He holds that impurity escapes holes smaller than a handbreadth only if it is inevitable that the source of impurity will at some point have to leave its current place (the drawer). In other words, he would state that the contents of the larger ohel are impure only if we can anticipate that the impurity will leave its current ohel and actually enter the larger. However, in this case, it is not inevitable that the impurity will actually enter the house, or at least that an olive's worth of it will. One could either burn the impurity while it's still in the drawer, or he could remove it in pieces smaller than an olive. Since the impurity may not enter the house, the contents of the house are not defiled.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  [In the case where] the cupboard is standing in the doorway and is opened outward, if there is uncleanness inside it, the house remains clean.  The impurity escapes from the cupboard to the outside and therefore the contents of the house remain pure.
  If there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the cupboard] becomes unclean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.  The impurity escapes from the house through the cupboard, thereby defiling all that is in the cupboard.
  If its wheeled base protruded three fingerbreadths behind it and there was uncleanness inside it under the roof-beams, the house remains clean.  The cupboard is sitting in the doorway on a wheeled base. The wheeled base is in the house, but only by three fingerbreadths, less than a handbreadth. The wheeled base has something unclean (piece of corpse) on it and it sits underneath the roof-beams of the house. Since the wheeled base is within three fingerbreadths of the cupboard, it is treated like the cupboard itself and the impurity on the wheeled base does not go into the house, even though it is under the beams of the house.
  When does this ruling apply? When there is a space of one cubic handbreadth,   when it is not easily detachable,   and when the cupboard is of the stipulated size.  The rule in section three is true only if the following three conditions are met: 1) The wheelbase has the dimensions of an ohel a square handbreadth. With these dimensions it can prevent the impurity from escaping into the house. 2) The wheelbase is firmly attached to the cupboard, thereby allowing it to be treated as part of the cupboard. 3) The cupboard is large enough to hold 40 seahs of liquid/60 seah of dry goods, which is the size the cupboard needs to be for it not to be impure. If the cupboard is smaller, it does not prevent impurity from escaping or entering (we will return to this subject in 8:1).
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  [With regard to] an oven which stood in a house, with its outlet curved to the outside [of the house], and those burying a corpse overshadowed it:  The mishnah describes an oven that is inside a house, but whose outlet curves and opens to the outside of the house. The outlet is the hole in the bottom of the oven that lets air in and ashes out. It seems that a pipe has been affixed to the hole to lead it outside. Outside of the house, people carrying a corpse for burial overshadow (create an ohel) the pipe.
  Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean.  Bet Shammai says that everything that is in the house becomes impure. The impurity is considered as entering the oven and since the oven is in the house, the contents of the house are impure.
  Bet Hillel says: the oven becomes unclean, but the house remains clean.  Bet Hillel limits the impurity to the oven itself, because they hold that the impurity does not escape from the oven into the house.
  Rabbi Akiva says: even the oven remains clean.  Rabbi Akiva is even more lenient. Even the oven is impure because they overshadowed the pipe and not the oven itself.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  [With regard to] a hatch  between the house and the upper story, if there was a pot placed over it and it was perforated [by a hole of sufficient size] to admit liquid:  The opening between the house and the upper story has an earthenware pot placed over it. The pot cannot itself become impure because it is of earthenware. However, the pot has a hole in it large enough to let in a liquid and therefore the pot does not offer protection to the pure things in it, even if it is tightly sealed (see Kelim end of chapter 9). Just as we had three opinions in yesterday's mishnah with regard to the oven, today we have three opinions as to whether impurity in the house goes up through the pot into the upper story.
  Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean.  Bet Shammai holds that since the pot is perforated it does not prevent the impurity from going up to the second story. The contents of both stories are impure.
  Bet Hillel says: the pot becomes unclean but the upper story remains clean.  Bet Hillel says that since the pot has a hole large enough to admit liquids, it cannot protect its contents from becoming impure. However, for the impurity to go up to the second story the hole must be a handbreadth wide. Since this hole is much smaller, the contents of the second story remain clean.
  Rabbi Akiva says: all remains clean.  Rabbi Akiva says that the pot is considered to be in the second story and not in the first. Therefore, even the contents of the pot remain clean. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, Rabbi Akiva seems to make a conscious attempt to rule leniently.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If [the pot] was whole:Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness].A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel.Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels.But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.”Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?”Beth Shammai said to them:  “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].”Beth Hillel said to them:  “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?”Beth Shammai said to them:  “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.”Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.Section one: In this scenario instead of the pot having a hole in it, as it did in yesterday's mishnah, it is whole. According to Bet Hillel (at least at first) the pot protects the contents of the upper story from becoming impure.Section two: Bet Shammai holds that the pot only protects things that cannot be purified in a mikveh, such as food, drink or earthenware vessels. Things that can be purified in a mikveh are not protected. The reason for this is a bit complicated and is explained more thoroughly in Eduyot 1:14. Below, to aid in understanding today's mishnah, I have replicated that mishnah in its entirety and I have also replicated my commentary (which I wrote over 8 years ago!). Note that in both mishnayot Bet Hillel changes their opinion and rules like Bet Shammai.According to Numbers 19:15, a clay vessel that is covered with a lid prevents impurity from entering inside of it.  If this vessel is found in a room with a dead body, which would normally cause everything in the room to be impure, the clay vessel and all that is inside of it does not contract the impurity.  Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel argue about what types of things which may be inside the clay vessels are not impure.  According to Beth Hillel any object inside the vessel is pure.  Beth Shammai holds that only food, liquids and other clay vessels remain pure; non-clay vessels would be impure.Beth Shammai explains that we can assume that the clay vessel has been touched by an ignoramus (am haaretz), a person who does not strictly know or observe the laws of ritual purity.  It is assumed that the am haaretz makes the vessel impure.  Since an impure vessel does not prevent the impurity from entering, the things inside of it are impure.Beth Hillel responds to Beth Shammai by pointing out that they did indeed accept that the food and liquids inside the vessel were pure.  If the clay vessel does not prevent impurity from entering, why should anything inside of it remain pure?To this question Beth Shammai responds that when they stated that the food and liquids were pure they meant for the am haaretz himself and not for the haver (a person who scrupulously observes the laws of purity and indeed eats only pure food). Beth Shammai assumes that a haver will not borrow any of these things from an am haaretz, since they cannot be made pure (a clay vessel cannot be cleansed of its impurity).  Therefore Beth Shammai can pronounce these things clean, knowing that they will never come into the hands of a haver.  However, when Beth Hillel pronounced everything inside pure, they were in essence declaring it pure for both the am haaretz and the haver.  Beth Hillel had implied that even metal vessels, inside the clay vessel, remained pure.  A haver might borrow metal vessels from an am haaretz, with the intent of immersing them to cleanse them of their impurities.  However, this immersion will only cleanse them from light impurities and not from impurity contracted from a dead body.  Therefore, a haver might borrow them thinking that he could cleanse them and in reality he could not.  Due to this problem, Beth Hillel retracted their opinion and taught like Beth Shammai.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  [With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean.  In this scenario there is a flagon (a small jar) made of metal or wood that is found in the upper story of a house where a pot is blocking the hatch and there is a source of corpse impurity in the lower story. Our mishnah rules like Bet Shammai (and like Bet Hillel after they too began to rule like Bet Shammai). Since this flagon can be purified in a mikveh, it is defiled by the corpse impurity found in the bottom floor. The liquid remains clean. However, if he pours the liquid out into another vessel that is found in the upper story, the liquid is defiled by contact with the other vessel.
  If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean.  In this scenario, a woman is found kneading in the upper story. The woman and the kneading trough are impure because they can be cleansed in a mikveh. However, the dough cannot be cleansed in a mikveh so it is pure. Again, if he moves the dough to another vessel, it too is unclean.
  Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.  Bet Hillel would have originally opposed the above halakhot, but they changed their mind and ruled like Bet Hillel, just as they did in yesterday's mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If [lying over the hatch] there were vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, everything [in the upper story] remains clean.  Vessels made of dung, stone or unbaked earth cannot become impure. Such vessels protect everything from becoming impure, even things that can be purified in a mikveh. Therefore, everything in the upper story is pure.
  If it was a vessel known to be clean for holy things or for [the water of] purification, everything remains clean, since everyone is trusted with [regard to matters of] purification.  Even amei haaretz (people who are not generally scrupulous concerning matters of purity) are trustworthy if they claim that the purity of a certain vessel was preserved in order to use it for something holy or for the waters of purification. In other words, the assumption is that these people were not careful about matters of purity when it came to daily life; but in regards to the Temple, they were careful. Since we can assume that these vessels are pure, they protect everything in the upper story from being defiled.
  For clean vessels and earthenware vessels that are [known to be] clean protect with the walls of ‘tents'.  The language of this section is a bit awkward. Albeck explains it in the following manner. Just as vessels that cannot become impure and have a tightly covered lid prevent impurity from entering, because they are like earthenware vessels (called "pure" because they cannot be defiled from the outside) which protect their contents when they have a tightly covered lid, so too all pure vessels protect against impurity together with the walls of the houses ("tents") in cases where the vessels are on top of the hatch.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  At the end of yesterday's mishnah we learned that pure vessels protect against impurity together with the walls of an ohel. Today's mishnah illustrates how this rule works.
  How so? If there was a cistern or a cellar in a house and a large basket was placed over it, [the contents of the cistern or cellar] remain clean.  The basket described here is not susceptible to impurity. If there is a source of corpse impurity in the house, the basket protects the contents of the cistern or cellar from becoming impure.
  But if it was a well [with its upper edge] level [with the ground] or a deficient   beehive upon which the basket was placed, [the contents] become unclean.  As we shall learn in section four, for the basket to stop the impurity it must have walls and join with the walls of the house/ohel. If the well is even with the ground then it has no walls and therefore the basket does not offer a barrier to the impurity. In this case there are no "walls of an ohel" with which the walls of the basket can join. The second case is that of a basket placed over a beehive. The beehive may look like an ohel, because it is not stopped up (this is one explanation of the word "deficient"). However, the beehive is not actually treated like an "ohel" but rather like a vessel. Therefore, there are no "walls of an ohel" with which the basket can join in order to prevent the impurity from entering.
  If it was a smooth board or netting without rims, [the contents] remain clean.  A smooth board or a piece of netting that has no rims/solid sides is not considered to be a vessel. They are not susceptible to impurity. If one of these items is placed on top of a well or a cellar it protects the contents of the well or cellar from being defiled by the impurity in the house.
  For vessels cannot protect along with walls of an ohel unless they themselves have walls.  As we learned in section two above, the ohel must have walls for the vessel to protect from impurity.
  How much must the wall be? A handbreadth. If there was half a handbreadth on one side and half a handbreadth on the other, it is not [considered] a wall, as there must be a whole handbreadth on one object.  The walls must be at least a handbreadth high. It does not count if one side is half a handbreadth and the other side is also half a handbreadth. There must be at least one handbreadth in one place for it to count as the wall of an ohel.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Just as they protect inside so they protect outside.  In the previous mishnayot we learned that vessels can prevent the spread of uncleanness when they join together with the walls of the ohel. In today's mishnah we learn that sometimes they can protect outside of an ohel as well.
  How so?  In the case of a large basket supported on pegs on the outside [of an ohel], If there was uncleanness beneath it, vessels in the basket remain clean. But if it was [next to] the wall of a courtyard or of a garden, it does not protect.  Here the basket is outside of the ohel and it is supported in the air on pegs alongside a tent (or other tent-like structure). The basket protects its contents from the impurity that is beneath it as long as the wall of the ohel is at least one handbreadth high. However, this is true only if the wall was made as part of an ohel, meaning a roofed structure, such as a house. If the wall was part of a courtyard or garden, a non-roofed structure, the wall does not count as part of an ohel. And the basket itself is not sufficient to prevent the impurity from entering from below because vessels do not count as an "ohel" to prevent impurity from entering from below. Therefore, the contents of the basket are unclean.
  [In the case of] a beam placed across from one wall to an other, with a pot hanging from it, if there was uncleanness beneath it, Rabbi Akiva declares the vessels inside it to be clean, But the sages declare them unclean.  According to the interpretation of this dispute found in the Tosefta, the pot is one handbreadth from the beam. In such a case, Rabbi Akiva holds that the beam serves to seal the pot because the pot is open less than a handbreadth. The other sages say that since the pot is open, it does not protect its contents. However, all agree that if the pot is further than a handbreadth away, its contents are impure and all agree that if the pot is right up against the beam, that its contents are pure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Both persons and vessels can form ‘tents’ to bring uncleanness, but not to [protect objects so that they] remain clean.  If a person or a vessel overshadows a dead body and a pure thing, or they carry an ohel which overshadows a dead body or a pure thing, the pure thing is defiled. However, if vessels which are not susceptible to impurity overshadow a dead body and a pure thing, or a person or vessel carry a vessel which overshadows a dead body and a pure thing, this type of ohel does not protect the things that are above it.
  How so? There are four people carrying a chest: If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness upon it, vessels beneath it become unclean. Rabbi Eliezer declares them clean.  The mishnah now illustrates cases where something that overshadows does not offer a barrier to protect against impurity because it is held up by a person or a vessel. The chest described in this section was made of stone and was carried with poles. It was possible to place a dead body or the bones from a dead body either above the chest or below it (carried somehow, but not sure). In the first scenario, four people carry the chest. The chest does not prevent impurity from defiling the things that are above it, if there is something impure below, nor does it prevent the things that are below it from becoming impure if there is something impure above. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees for he holds that if an ohel is carried by a person it does offer a barrier.
  [If the chest] is placed upon four vessels, even if they are vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the chest], vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean.  Since the chest is held up by vessels, the chest does not offer a barrier. This is true even if the vessels are of the type that cannot become impure.
  [If the chest] is placed on four stones or on any living creature, If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it remain clean. If there is uncleanness upon it vessels beneath it remain clean.  In this case the chest is not held up by a person or by a vessel. Therefore, the chest does act as an ohel and it does serve as a barrier to protect the things above from being defiled by that which is below and the things below from being defiled by that which is above.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If corpse-bearers were passing along a portico and one of them shut a door and   locked it with a key, If the door can remain in its position on its own,[the contents of the house] remain clean, But if not, they become unclean.  The corpse-bearers were walking along a portico (a structure with pillars and a roof) and one of them locked the door to the house before the dead body was brought into the portico. Subsequently, the corpse was brought into the portico. If the door can stand in place on its own, without relying on the lock, then the contents of the house are pure. However, if the door cannot stand in place without the lock, then the contents of the house become unclean. This is similar to the rule we found in yesterday's mishnah. Something that serves as a barrier to impurity, in this case the door, must be able to stand on its own without relying on a person or a vessel (the lock) to hold it up. If it cannot stand on its own, it does not serve as a barrier.
  Similarly [in the case of] a barrel of dried figs or a basket of straw placed in a window, If the dried figs or the straw can remain in their position on their own, [the contents of the room] remain clean, But if not they become unclean.  This is the same rule except instead of a door serving as a barrier to impurity we have a barrel or a basket. Inside one room is a dead body. The barrel or basket themselves are susceptible to impurity and therefore they do not serve as a barrier (the barrel would serve as a barrier if its back was towards the room with the dead body). The dried figs or straw are not susceptible to impurity. If they can stand on their own, they serve as a barrier. But if they cannot, the impurity will defile the contents of the other room.
  [In the case of] a house partitioned off by wine-jars, which had been plastered with clay, If the clay can remain in its position on its own, [the space partitioned off] remains clean, But if not, it becomes unclean.  In this situation the wine-jars themselves do not provide a barrier because their mouths are open to the impure side. If the clay can remain in place without the wine-jars then it will provide a barrier. But if it does not, there is no barrier and the impurity will spread from one side to the other.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a case where corpse impurity is found inside a wall. The question is does the impurity defile the house which is towards the inside of the wall? Also, does it defile a person standing on top of the wall?
  A wall serving a house is treated as if it was separate halves.  The wall that serves a house is treated as if it was two separate halves. The inner half of the wall is part of the house and the outer half of the wall is not part of the house.
  How so? A wall serving an open space, that has uncleanness within it: If it is in the inward half, the house is unclean, But what is above [the wall]   remains clean.  If the source of uncleanness is in the inside half of the wall, then it defiles the contents of the house. However, someone who is above the wall remains clean as if he were standing on the roof of a house (who is clean if there is uncleanness in the house, because the ceiling is a barrier to the impurity).
  If it is in the outward half, the house remains clean, But what is above [the wall] becomes unclean.  If the source of uncleanness is in the outer half of the wall, then we don't consider it to be in the house and the contents of the house are unclean. What is above the wall is unclean for the impurity in the wall goes up without anything to stop it.
  If it is exactly in the middle, the house becomes unclean, And as for what is above, Rabbi Meir declares it unclean, But the sages declare it clean.  If the source of uncleanness is right in the middle of the wall, the mishnah rules stringently with regard to the contents of the house, and says that they are unclean. With regard to what is above the house, Rabbi Meir again rules stringently. However, the sages are consistent with opinion found in section one. If the contents of the house are unclean, then it means that we look at the uncleanness as if it was in the house. In that case, the person standing above the wall is pure.
  Rabbi Judah says: the whole of the wall belongs to the house.  Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in section one. He holds that if the uncleanness is found anywhere in the wall it is considered to be in the house. The contents of the house are unclean but a person standing above the wall is clean because the impurity is in the house.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  [In the case of] a wall between two houses and there is uncleanness within it, The house nearer to the uncleanness is unclean, And the house nearer to the clean part is clean. If [the uncleanness] is in the middle, both are unclean.  In this section the wall serves to divide two houses, and not one house from the outside (as was the case in yesterday's mishnah). The rule is quite simple whatever house is closest to the source of impurity is impure and the other house is clean. If the impurity is right smack in the middle, the rule is strict and both houses are impure.
  If there is uncleanness in one of the [houses] and there are vessels in [the thickness of] the wall: Those in the half nearer the uncleanness are unclean, Those in the half nearer the clean [house] are clean, And those in the middle are unclean.  In this case, the source of impurity is in one of the houses and there are vessels in the wall. Again, the rule is simple. If the vessels are in the half of the wall nearer to the house with the uncleanness in it, the vessels are impure. If they are in the other side, they are clean. And if they are in the middle, they are clean.
  [With regard to the] plaster-work between the house and the upper story, and there is uncleanness in it: If it is in the lower half, the house [below] is unclean and the upper story is clean If it is in the upper half, the upper story is unclean and the house is clean: If it is in the middle, both are unclean.  Between the upper story and the bottom floor is a plaster ceiling (placed over wooden beams) and there is a source of corpse impurity in it. If it is in the lower half of the ceiling, then it is considered to be in bottom floor and the contents of the upper story are clean. If it is in the upper half, the upper story is unclean but the house is clean. And again, if it is in the middle, the rule is strict.
  If there is uncleanness in either [the house or the upper story] and there are vessels inside the plaster-work, Those in the half nearer the uncleanness are unclean, And those in the half nearer the clean [space] are clean. If they are in the middle, they are unclean.  Again, the mishnah reverses the situation and this time the uncleanness is in either the upper story or house and the vessels are in the ceiling. The rule is the same as it has been in the other sections.
  Rabbi Judah says: all the plaster-work is considered as part of the upper story.  Just as Rabbi Judah said that the wall is considered to belong to the house (in yesterday's mishnah), here he says that the plaster-work is considered part of the upper story. Even if the uncleanness is in the lower half of the plaster-work, it defiles the upper story and not the house.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  [In the case of] uncleanness among the roof-beams, [with a covering] beneath it thin as thin as garlic-skin,  In this case the source of impurity is within the roof-beams, and not within the plastering or the walls. Therefore, the impurity is not part of the building. Separating the impurity from the house is a thin partition, even as thin as the skin of a piece of garlic.
  If there is a space within of a cubic handbreadth, everything becomes unclean.  If the source of impurity is found in a space that has the dimensions of a cubic handbreadth, then it spreads to the rest of the house and to the upper story as well. As we shall see, this is a general principle when it comes to the space in which a piece of impurity is found. If the corpse impurity is in a space that has an opening the size of a cubic handbreadth, then it spreads up and down (and all around). But if it is sealed up, the impurity does not spread, at least not as easily.
  If there is not a space of a cubic handbreadth, the uncleanness is considered plugged up.  As stated, if the impurity is found in a space that is smaller than a cubic handbreadth, then it does not spread to both the house and the upper story. Rather, in this case it would be considered part of the upper story, and only the contents of the upper story will be impure.
  If the uncleanness was visible within the house, in either case the house becomes unclean.  If the garlic thin separation is not sufficient to hide the source of impurity from being seen in the house, then it doesn't matter whether the space in which the impurity is found. The contents of the house are defiled in both cases, as if the impurity was in the house itself.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A house serving a wall is subject to the principle of garlic-skin.  Today's mishnah deals with a case where some sort of natural wall, such as a wall of rocks in the ground, existed before the building of the house adjacent to it. This is different from a case in which a wall was built in order to serve a house, a case discussed in mishnah three.
  How so? [In the case of] a wall between two tomb-niches or two caverns,  The wall described here exists between two structures hewn in the ground, either two tomb-niches, places in which people used to bury the dead, or two caverns.
  If there is uncleanness in them and vessels in the walls, and there is a covering thin as garlic-skin over them, they remain clean.  If there is a source of uncleanness in one of these places, and there are vessels in the wall, even a covering as thin as the skin of garlic will protect them from becoming unclean. Note that if this was a wall built to be part of a house, the vessels would be impure. Since this wall was not built to be part of the house, as long as it is separate, the contents found inside the wall are not actually part of the house.
  If the uncleanness is in the wall and the vessels are in them, and there is a covering thin as garlic-skin over the uncleanness, they remain clean.  The same is true in the opposite case, when the source of impurity is found in the wall and the vessels are in the tomb-niches or in the caverns.
  If there is uncleanness beneath a pillar, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  If there is a source of uncleanness beneath a pillar it spreads up and down so that anything inside the pillar or on top of it or buried further beneath it is impure. However, it does not defile things found on the side because the pillar is not like a wall serving to close in another structure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Vessels beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar] remain clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them unclean.  The first half of today's mishnah continues to deal with the pillar. On top of a pillar there was typically an ornament that looked like a flower and it would extend to the sides of the pillar. If there are vessels in this space, which is not directly above the source of impurity found below the pillar, they remain pure. In other words, the purity goes directly up and misses the vessels found on the side of the pillar. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri considers them to be unclean because the ornament is part of the pillar, even if it is not directly over the source of impurity.
  [In the case of] the uncleanness and the vessels being [together] beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar]: If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth there, [the vessels] become unclean; If not, they remain clean.  There is a source of uncleanness in this ornament itself and there are vessels on the ground beneath this part of the pillar. If the uncleanness is found in an empty space that is one cubic handbreadth within the ornament, then the impurity will go up and down and defile the vessels below. However, if there is not such a space, the impurity remains trapped inside the ornament.
  [In the case of] two wall-cupboards, one beside the other, or one above the other, if one of them was opened, both it and the house become unclean, but its companion remains clean.  The mishnah now discusses some rules concerning cupboards that are built into the walls of a house. If one cupboard has a source of impurity in it and it is opened, anything in the house or in that cupboard is unclean. However, anything in the closed cupboard is pure because it has a space the size of cubit handbreadth, making it into an ohel, and an ohel prevents impurity from entering.
  The wall-cupboard is considered as if it is plugged up, and it is subject to the principle of halves for conveying uncleanness into the house.  The wall-cupboard is seen to be a plugged up part of the wall that serves the house. If the source of impurity is in the half of the wall that is closer to the house, the wall-cupboard is reckoned as part of the wall when considering the width of the wall. For instance, if the thickness of the wall is two handbreadths and it contains a wall-cupboard that is one handbreadth thick, we don't consider the wall to be only one handbreadth thick. That would mean that the impurity would have to be half a handbreadth from the inside of the wall for it to defile the contents of the house. Rather, as long as the impurity is within a handbreadth, it is considered to be to the side of the house.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  We have learned on several occasions that if a source of corpse impurity is found in a space that has one cubic handbreadth of open air, it is as if the impurity is trapped in a grave and it spreads upward and downward, defiling anything above it or below it. It also spreads to the sides. However, if it is trapped in a smaller space, the impurity does not spread to the sides and can only travel directly above and below.
  If there is uncleanness in a wall, in a space of one cubic handbreadth, all upper stories above it, even if there are ten of them, are unclean.  If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth in a wall that serves multiple stories of a house, then the impurity found in it will rise and spread and it will defile everything found in all of the stories. However, if the space was less than a cubic handbreadth, the impurity rises and descends but only directly above or below it. It will not defile the entire contents of all of the upper stories, because the impurity will not spread to the sides.
  If there was a single upper story [built] over two houses, that one becomes unclean but all upper stories above it remain clean.  In this case, the wall was built to support one large upper story that was built over two houses, which are also separated by the wall. Above that upper story are more stories. In this case, the impurity defiles the contents of the large story that is directly above the wall. However the ceiling of the first upper story blocks the impurity from continuing to defile the stories above.
  [In a] beach- wall, uncleanness cleaves upwards and downward.  The word that I have translated as "beach-wall" is obscure and Albeck even goes so far as to state that we don't really know what it means. Some commentators interpret it to mean "beach-wall" which is a wall of sand brought up by the sea. The impurity found in this wall cleaves upward and downward, but it doesn't spread to the sides since it is sealed into a space less than one cubic handbreadth.
  [With regard to] a solid tomb monument,  a person who touches it from the side remains clean, since [its] uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. But if there was a [free] space of a cubic handbreadth in the place where the uncleanness was, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, because it is like a closed grave.  The solid tomb monument is placed over a sealed grave. Since there is no free space in the monument, it seals up the impurity and it doesn't spread to the sides. It only spreads upwards and downwards. However, if there is a free space of a cubic handbreadth, then it is like the situation where the impurity is found in a closed grave. In such a situation the person need not be directly above the impurity to be defiled.
  If he supported sukkot on [the monument] they become unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean.  This section refers back to the situation in the beginning of section four, where the monument was solid. According to the sages, if one uses this monument to support sukkot (booths, not necessarily for the Festival of Sukkot) then the booths are impure because they are like an ohel over the monument. Rabbi Judah says that since one who touches the monument from the side is pure, these sukkot are also pure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  All sloping [parts] of ‘tents’ are reckoned like ‘tents.'  When it comes to determining the laws of when something defiles in a tent, the sloping parts of tents are counted just as the straight and flat parts.
  A ‘tent’ [whose sides] sloped downwards and finished off one fingerbreadth [from the ground]: If there is uncleanness in the ‘tent’, vessels beneath the slope become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath the slope, vessels in the ‘tent’ become unclean.  The tent here as a sloping part and then finishes off one fingerbreadth away from the ground, such that the sides of the tent are only one fingerbreadth high. There is also a one fingerbreadth section that serves as a flat "roof." If there is a source of impurity under the flat roof part, it spreads to the vessels that are under the slope, even though there is only one cubic fingerbreadth in the space where the impurity is found. The same is true in the opposite situation if there is impurity in the sloping part it will defile anything that might be in the "roofed" part.
  If there is uncleanness within, a person who touches [the tent] from the inside acquires a seven [days’] defilement,   but from the outside, a defilement [lasting till] evening.  If there is impurity within a tent, and someone touches the inside of the tent, then the person is defiled for seven days, as he would be if he touched any vessel that was within the tent. However, the impurity conveyed by the outside of the tent is lesser and he will be impure for only one day, until the evening.
  If there had been uncleanness outside, a person who touches the ‘tent’ from the outside acquires a seven [days’] defilement, but from the inside, a defilement [lasting till] evening.  If there is impurity outside of a tent such that it defiles the tent, then one who touches the outside of the tent is impure for seven days. Again, this is similar to one who touches any vessel that has come into contact with the dead. But if he touches it from the inside, he is only impure until the evening.
  If there was [a portion of uncleanness] the size of half an olive [touching it] from inside and half an olive from the outside, a person who touches [the ‘tent’] either from within or without acquires a defilement [lasting till] evening.  There isn't a full-sized piece of impurity touching the tent on any one side, but rather there is half of a piece on each side. These two half-olive portions join to defile the tent, but there is a leniency, and no matter which side a person touches, he is impure only until the evening.
  If a part [of the ‘tent’ side] trailed along the ground, when there is uncleanness beneath or above [this part], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  If the sides of the tent drag on the ground and the impurity is found below this part of the tent, it doesn't spread to the sides, but only goes up and down. In other words, it is not inside the tent. If it is above the tent, it will only go up and down because there is nothing to block it. But it won't go to the sides because it is not inside a tent.
  [In the case of] a ‘tent’ erected in an upper story, with a portion [of its side] trailing over the hatch between the house and the upper story: Rabbi Yose says it does protect. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not protect unless it put up in the usual manner of erecting tents.  The tent is in the upper story and it slopes down and part of it drags over the hatch between the bottom floor and upper story. Rabbi Yose says that it serves as a barrier to prevent the impurity from entering the upper story. Rabbi Shimon says that since the tent is not set up properly, it does not offer protection. The impurity will break through and defile the contents of the upper story.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  A dead body that is found in a house will eventually be removed, and when it is it will defile the exit through which it is removed. The rabbis move this defilement up and consider any potential exit for the dead body to already be impure, even before the body is removed. However, there are cases in which the exit is not impure because the dead body will not be taken out through there.
  If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean.  Since the corpse may be removed through any of the doors of the house, even if they are all locked, the area of the entrance of all of them is defiled immediately. Practically this means that if any vessels are in that space, they are defiled.
  If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean.  If there are several doors, and one of them is open and the others are locked, then only that entrance is impure because the corpse will almost certainly be taken out that way.
  If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died.  If he intends to take the corpse out through one of the doorways, the other doors are not defiled. There is an interesting debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning this intention that protects the other doors from being defiled. Bet Shammai says that one must have the intention before the person dies. Once the person dies and he has not yet decided which doorway to use to remove the body, all of the entrances are automatically defiled. Bet Hillel seems to say that even if he decides to take the dead body out through one of the doorways after the person dies, the other doorways are saved from being defiled.
  If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective]   as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun.  In this case one of the doorways is blocked up with stones and the others are locked. It is not sufficient just to think about taking the body out of one of the doorways, as it was if the doors were merely locked. Since this doorway is blocked up with stones, he must actually do something to the entrance for it to protect the other entrances from being defiled. Bet Shammai says that he must open up a hole that is at least four square handbreadths. Such a hole seems to be large enough to remove a (rather small) corpse. Bet Hillel is more lenient. Once he begins to cut out a hole, he has revealed his intention to remove the body through that door, and all of the other doors are pure.
  They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up.  If there was no door there in the first place, and one is making a new hole in a house through which to take out a corpse, Bet Hillel agrees with Bet Shammai that he must open up four handbreadths for it to protect the other doors. Since this is a new door, he must exhibit a greater demonstration of intention for it to be clear that he will take the corpse out through the new exit and not through one of the other doors.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a woman who gives birth to a stillborn, but while doing so moves from house to house. The question is: when do we consider her womb to have opened such that the fetus would defile the contents of the house?
  If a woman was having great difficulty giving birth and they carried her out from one house to another, the first house is doubtfully unclean and the second is certainly unclean.  The first house is only doubtfully impure, because we don't know if the woman's womb "opened up" there such that the stillborn could defile the house. The second house is certainly impure because that is where she gave birth.
  Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When she is carried out [supported] by the armpits, but if she was able to walk, the first house remains clean, for after the "tomb" has been opened there is no possibility of walking,  Rabbi Judah says that if she was able to walk out of the first house on her own, then the first house is certainly not impure because a woman whose womb has opened up cannot walk on her own. The first house is impure only if she was helped out by being carried by the armpits. The mishnah calls the womb a "tomb" probably because in this case, the fetus died there.
  For stillborn children are not [deemed to have] opened the "tomb" until they present a head rounded like a spindle-knob.  This section is usually explained as the continuation of Rabbi Judah's words. When he said that once the womb (tomb) has been opened a woman cannot walk, that is only the case if the head is round like a spindle-knob. But if the head is smaller, then a woman might be able to walk around even after the womb-tomb has been opened. In such a case, even if she walked from one house to the other, we would have to be concerned lest the first house is also defiled.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with a woman who gives birth to twins, one alive and one a stillborn. The question is: does the stillborn defile the live child?
  If [at the birth of twins] the first came out dead and the second came out alive, the [live one] is clean.  If a woman gives birth to twins and the first comes out dead, the second is pure because before the womb was opened, the dead fetus does not convey impurity. The live child was not made impure in the womb. [Note that they would have had to remove the stillborn from the house before the second child was born, otherwise the live child would be defiled by being in the same house as the dead child.]
  If the first was alive and the second dead, the [live child] is unclean.  If the first was alive, and then the dead child was born, the live child is impure because once the womb has been opened, the dead child defiles things outside of the womb. Thus as soon as the first child is born, it is immediately defiled.
  Rabbi Meir says: if they were in one sac, [the live child] is unclean,  but if there were two sacs, it remains clean.  Rabbi Meir qualifies the halakhah in section two. It is only correct if both children were in one sac, because in that case, when the womb for the live child has opened, the womb for the stillborn has also opened. But if the two children are in different sacs, then the first child remains clean because the dead child is still sealed in the womb when the first child is born alive.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This (very well-known) mishnah discusses whether it is permissible to abort a fetus in order to save the life of the mother.
  I should note that this mishnah is the foundation for all Jewish discussion of abortion. Since this is such a controversial and complex issue, I do not think that this is the right forum for a comprehensive discussion (there are many teshuvot on the topic, many of which can be found on the web). We shall stick with the simple meaning of the mishnah.
  If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child].  While still in the womb, the fetus's life does not take precedence over the mother's. Indeed, one might not even go so far as to call it a "life." Therefore, the doctors/midwives may cut the fetus up in order to save the life of the mother.
  But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for that of another.  However, once most of the child has emerged, it is forbidden to do anything to harm the child because it is forbidden to take one life in order to save another. The child is considered to be a "life" once most of it has emerged from the womb.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah introduces the theme of the entire chapter: what things can act as tents to bring uncleanness from a corpse (or part thereof) to other vessels also found underneath and what objects can prevent impurity from spreading by acting as a barrier.
  Some things bring forth uncleanness and [also] a protect [against it]; [Some things] bring forth uncleanness but do not protect against it; [Some things] protect but do not bring forth; [Some things] do not bring forth nor do they protect. The following bring forth and protect against [impurity]:  This whole section is a typical introduction to the laws that will be taught in several mishnayot.
  A chest,  a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water-tank of an Alexandrian  ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms  and can contain [at least] forty seahs  liquid measure or two kors  dry measure.  The objects in this section are large containers. If they are large enough such that they themselves cannot become impure (see Kelim 15:1) then they can both bring forth impurity, if a piece of corpse is found inside and other vessels as well, and act as a barrier to impurity (if vessels are found inside, they are not defiled by impurity outside).
  [Also] a curtain, a leather apron, a leather bedspread,  a sheet, a matting underlay  or a mat when made into tents.  This section refers to hanging things that are used to form a tent. Even though these items are susceptible to impurity, they also form a barrier against impurity. Obviously, if a corpse (or piece thereof) is found underneath, they will cause the impurity to travel to clean vessels also found underneath.
  A herd of cattle, unclean or clean, packs  of wild animals or birds, a resting bird, a [shady] place that [a woman] makes for her son among the ears of corn;  A herd of domesticated animals or a pack of wild animals or birds can serve as an ohel both to bring impurity and protect against it. This would mean that if a source of corpse impurity is found under one animal and that animal is tightly packed into a herd with other animals, the vessels found underneath another animal will be impure. Also if there is impurity below one of these animals, the vessels above are protected. The same is also true with regard to a tent of shade that a woman might make for her son among ears of corn.
  The iris, the ivy, squitting cucumber, Greek gourds   and clean foodstuffs. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri did not agree with regard to clean foodstuffs except in the case of a cake of dried figs.  This section lists some leafy plants that can form ohalot both to bring and protect against impurity. There is a debate with regard to clean food, whether it brings and forms a barrier against impurity. According to the first opinion, all clean food can perform this function. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that this is true only with regard to cakes of dried figs. Since it was customary to sit underneath such cakes (for shade) they bring impurity and form a barrier to it. But other foodstuffs do not act in this way because it is not customary to sit underneath them.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to list things that both serve as a barrier against impurity and bring impurity.
  Projections from a wall, balconies,   dovecotes, crevices and crags, grottoes,   [overhanging] pinnacles, interlaced boughs and protruding stones as long as they are cable of sustaining thin plasterwork, the words of Rabbi Meir.  These are mostly naturally formed protrusions that either jut out from walls or are carved into them.
  But the sages say a medium plasterwork.  According to Rabbi Meir, for the interlaced boughs and protruding stones to both bring impurity and protect against it, they must be close enough together such that if thin plaster was poured on top it would not drip through. Other commentators interpret  Rabbi Meir differently. Rabbi Meir holds that as long as the boughs and stones are strong enough to hold a thin layer of plasterwork, they can bring impurity and protect against it.
  What are interlaced boughs? A tree which casts shade over the ground. Protruding stones? [Stones] that project from a wall.  Just as there were two interpretations of Rabbi Meir, there are two interpretations of the sages who disagree with him. According to the first interpretation, as long as the boughs and stones can prevent plaster-work of medium thickness from dripping through, they bring impurity and protect against it. According to the second interpretation, the stones and boughs must be strong enough to hold a medium layer of plasterwork to bring and protect against impurity.
  This section defines what interlaced boughs and protruding stones are.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The following bring [impurity] but do not protect against it:  Today's mishnah deals with objects that bring impurity but do not serve as a barrier against it.
  A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms but cannot contain forty se'ahs of liquid measure or two kors dry measure.  This is the same as the list in mishnah one except the boxes are smaller. Since they cannot contain forty seahs of liquid or two kors of dry goods, they are susceptible to impurity. Things that are susceptible to impurity do not act as barriers to impurity.
  A curtain, a leather apron, a leather undercover, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when not made into tents.  This is also the same list as in mishnah one except here the curtains are are laying flat over the hatch between an upper story and a bottom floor and they are not set up as a tent. As we learned in 7:2, in such a situation these things can bring impurity, but they do not act as a barrier against it.
  Cattle or wild animals when they are dead, and foodstuffs that are [liable to become] unclean.  Since these animals or foods are unclean, they do not protect against impurity.
  In addition to these, a human-powered mill.  Hand-mills which can be carried from place to place are susceptible to impurity, and therefore cannot act as a barrier. In contrast, mills operated by animals are heavy and immovable. Therefore they can act as a barrier against impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  The following protect [against impurity] but do not bring it: A loom [with the woof] spread out, the ropes of a bed, waste baskets, and window-lattices. The items listed in this mishnah can act as a barrier against. For instance if one of them covers the hatch between a bottom floor and an upper story, the contents of the upper story are protected. But they don't bring impurity if they overshadow both a piece of corpse and vessels. The loom has the warp spread out over it, but it can't act as an ohel till it is fully woven. The ropes of a bed are tied tight to support the mattress. The waste baskets have small holes in them, enough so that they can't act as an ohel.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Today's mishnah discusses things that act neither to bring uncleanness nor as a barrier for it, even if they are found in a position of overshadowing.
  The following neither bring [impurity] nor protect against it:Seeds, plants [still] attached to the ground, except for the plants mentioned above,  Plants (this doesn't include trees) attached to the ground generally do not act as ohalot to bring impurity or protect against it. The exceptions were the very leafy plants mentioned in 8:1. We should note that this is all in reference to plants attached to the ground. Once detached from the ground plants can, under certain circumstances, act as an ohel.
  A lump of hail, snow, frost, ice and salt.  All of these items cannot act as an ohel because they melt. The salt will crumble when rained upon.
  [Anything] that hops from one place to another, or leaps from one place to another, a flying bird.  Animals or people that are moving do not form an ohel. To "overshadow" the living thing must be stationary.
  A loosely-flapping garment, or a ship floating [freely] on the water.  A ship or garment that is moving around also does not act as an ohel.
  If the ship were tied with something that can keep it steady, or a stone were [placed so as] to hold down the garment, it can bring uncleanness.  Once the ship is tied down so that it doesn't move around, or the garment is held down by a stone, it can again act as an ohel.
  Rabbi Yose says: a house on a ship cannot bring uncleanness.  Although relative to the ship the house is stationary, it does not act as an ohel if the ship is moving. Another interpretation is that Rabbi Yose is referring to a make shift sort of house, one that will be uprooted by a common wind. Since such a house will not last long, it does not act as an ohel.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Two [earthenware] jars in which there are two pieces of corpse the size of half an olive, sealed with tightly fitting lids, lying in a house, they remain clean, but the house becomes unclean.  I bet you read this situation and said to yourself, yes, that's happened to me. Two tightly sealed jars, with two pieces of corpse less than the size of an olive in each, sure, common situation ☺. In all seriousness, the tightly sealed jar does not prevent impurity from coming out in an ohel. Since between the two jars there is the necessary olive's worth of corpse, the house is unclean. However, each jar remains clean because a tightly sealed lid prevents impurity from defiling an earthenware jar.
  If one of them was opened, that [jar] and the house become unclean, but the other remains clean.  If one jar was opened, that jar is unclean by virtue of being in the house. However, the other jar remains pure. The house is unclean as it was in section one.
  A similarly with to two rooms that open into a house.  If there is half of an olive's worth of corpse in each room, and the doors to the house are both locked, they join together to defile the house, because eventually these pieces of corpse will be brought out through the house. However, the rooms themselves remain pure because there is less than an olive's worth in each.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter nine deals with an empty beehive (or something shaped like it) that has impurity either in it, above it or below it and is found either in a house, in the doorway to a house or outside of a house. The beehive itself is one that is not susceptible to impurity. Within each scenario, the mishnah discusses various possibilities as to the exact position of the hive vis a vis the impurity. We should conceive of this chapter as not dealing with a practical/actual problem but as a kind of theoretical exercise of what happens when a smaller structure (the hive) is found within a larger structure (the house).  We could even think of these mishnayot as an extended geometrical/scientific word problem; we know how impurity travels and we know how an ohel works. Now we just have to work out the results in various scenarios.
  The mishnah describes a beehive that is lying in the doorway to a house, open to the outside of the house. The beehive itself is one that is not susceptible to impurity. There will now be three different scenarios as to where the source of impurity is located with three different halakhot as to what is impure.
  [If the uncleanness is] within the house, nothing becomes unclean except that which is within the house.  The piece of corpse is either above or below the hive, and is outside of the house. Everything that is above and below that piece of corpse is impure for vessels do not act as barriers to impurity (see 6:1). However, the impurity does not spread to the sides. Thus anything that is not directly above or below the piece of corpse remains clean. Anything in the hive is clean because the impurity cannot enter the hive since it does not receive impurity. Anything in the house is also pure.
  [If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] everything becomes unclean.  If the impurity is in the house, the house is of course impure. The contents of the hive are pure because its opening is to the outside.
  If the uncleanness is within the hive everything is impure, meaning anything found in the hive, on top or below the hive or in the house. The hive does not act as an ohel to block the impurity but it does bring the impurity. This was stated explicitly in 8:3, where the mishnah listed things that bring impurity but do not block against it.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  [In the case of the hive] being one handbreadth high off the ground,  If the hive is one handbreadth high off the ground, then it will form an ohel over a piece of impurity that is found below it. This will cause the impurity to spread to the sides.
  If there is uncleanness below it or in the house or above it, everything becomes unclean except that which is within [the hive].  Thus if there is uncleanness underneath the hive, it will defile everything else underneath it and anything above it. Similarly, if there is impurity above the tent, the impurity will spread below for there is no barrier, and from there it will spread to the sides. It will even enter the house, as there is nothing sealing the house off. The only thing that will remain clean is the inside of the hive, as was the case in yesterday's mishnah.
  [If the uncleanness is] within the hive everything becomes unclean.  If there is a space of one handbreadth underneath the hive and there is impurity in the hive, everything is unclean, which is the same halakhah as in yesterday's mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  When do these rules apply? When the hive is a vessel and it is loosely placed in the door.  The rules in the above two mishnayot apply only if the hive is a complete and unbroken vessel and it is loosely placed into the doorway.
  If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or it is stuck to the side of the door What is "stuck? Anything which has no opening of one handbreadth :  If the hive is defective, meaning a piece is missing, or it is stuck tightly into the door, then the rules are different. The rest of the mishnah outlines how the impurity spreads if these conditions hold.
  Then, if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below the portion] to the depths becomes unclean;  If there is impurity below, the impurity will defile all the way down to the depths, but it will not defile above. Since the hive is not a vessel, it acts as a barrier against the impurity.
  [If placed] above [the hive everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean.  The same is true if the impurity is above the hive. It will defile anything above it, but the hive acts as a barrier and things that are below are pure.
  [If the uncleanness is] in the house, nothing becomes unclean except the house.  This is the same rule as in mishnah one.
  [If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] nothing becomes unclean except that which is within [the hive].  Since the hive offers a barrier, anything above or below is pure. Only that which is found in the hive is impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to discuss the hive that is either defective or stuck firmly into the doorway of the house. Similar to mishnah two, it adds in the scenario of the hive being slightly above ground level.
  [In the case of such a hive] being [placed] one handbreadth high off the ground:If there is uncleanness below it or in the house, [the space] below it and the house become unclean,   but [the space] above and within remains clean.  Since there is the space of a handbreadth beneath the hive, the hive acts as an ohel and conveys the impurity to the sides and it also enters the house. However, the inside of the hive and the space above it remain pure because the ohel acts as a barrier to impurity.
  [If the uncleanness is] in the hive, nothing is unclean except what is within;  If the impurity is within the hive, only the inside is unclean (as in mishnah three).
  If above [the hive] what is directly above up to the sky becomes unclean.  As in yesterday's mishnah, if the impurity is above the hive, the impurity travels up but not down.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  When do these rules apply? When the mouth [of the hive is pointing] outwards If the mouth is [pointing] inwards [towards the house]:  Our mishnah changes the scenario that we have been examining from mishnayot 1-4 so that the mouth of the hive is open inwards towards the house instead of to the outside. The mishnah now goes through all of the scenarios that we have already seen in the first four mishnayot. Instead of referring the reader to these mishnayot, for ease of reference, when the rules are the same, I have copied the commentary from there.
  If an olive-sized portion of the corpse is placed below or above [that part of the hive which is] outside, everything directly below or above that olive-sized portion becomes unclean, and everything not directly [below or above it] and whatever is within [the hive] and the house, remains clean.  The hive is totally blocking the house, with the opening of the hive facing inward. If impurity is found above or below, it will defile anything that is directly above or below it, but it won't spread to the sides because it is not in an ohel. It also does not defile inside the hive because the hive is not susceptible to impurity (see mishnah one).
  [If the uncleanness is] within the hive or the house, everything becomes unclean.  If the uncleanness is within the hive everything is impure, meaning anything found in the hive, on top or below the hive or in the house. While the hive does not act as an ohel to block the impurity but it does bring the impurity. This was stated explicitly in 8:3, where the mishnah listed things that bring impurity but do not block against it.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  [In the case of the hive] being one handbreadth high off the ground, If there is uncleanness below it or in the house or above it, everything becomes unclean . If the hive is one handbreadth high off the ground, then no matter where the uncleanness is, it will defile everything. If there is uncleanness underneath the hive, it will defile everything else underneath it and anything above it. Similarly, if there is impurity above it, the impurity will spread below for there is no barrier, and from there it will spread to the sides and into the house, as there is nothing sealing the house off. The same is true if the impurity is inside the hive. And unlike the case in mishnah two, here no matter where it is, the impurity will enter the hive itself since the hive's mouth is open to the house and when the house is defiled, the inside of the hive is defiled. In other words, the interior of the hive is reckoned like the house.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  When do these rules apply? When the hive is a vessel and it is loosely placed in the door.  The rules in the above two mishnayot apply only if the hive is a complete and unbroken vessel and it is loosely placed into the doorway.
  If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or it is stuck to the side of the door What is "stuck? Anything which has no opening of one handbreadth :  If the hive is defective, meaning a piece is missing, or it is stuck tightly into the door, then the rules are different. The rest of the mishnah outlines how the impurity spreads if these conditions hold.
  Then, if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below the portion] to the depths becomes unclean;  If there is impurity below, the impurity will defile all the way down to the depths, but it will not defile above. Since the hive is not a vessel, it acts as a barrier against the impurity.
  [If placed] above [the hive everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean.  The same is true if the impurity is above the hive. It will defile anything above it, but the hive acts as a barrier and things that are below are pure.
  [If the uncleanness is] in the house or in the hive, whatever is in the house or hive becomes unclean.  This is where the rule differs from mishnah three. Since the hive is opened to the inside, if there is uncleanness inside the hive or inside the house, it defiles whatever is in either place. Above and below are pure for a broken hive acts as an ohel and prevents the impurity from spreading above and below.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  [In the case of such a hive] being [placed] one handbreadth high off the ground:If there is uncleanness below it, in the house or inside the hive everything is impure except for above it.  The difference between this case and the case in mishnah four is if the mouth is open inward toward the house, then if the uncleanness is in the hive, it also spreads everywhere except for above the hive (and outside the house).
  If above [the hive] what is directly above up to the sky becomes unclean.  This is the same as mishnah four.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  The mishnah now explores other possible spatial relationships between the house and the hive. Today's mishnah discusses what happens if the hive is entirely within the house.
  [In the case when the hive] was entirely within the house and there is not a space of a handbreadth between it and the roof beams, if there is uncleanness within [the hive], the house becomes unclean.  The hive is fully inside the house and its opening is less than one handbreadth's from the ceiling. If there is uncleanness is in the hive, then it will leave the hive and go out and defile the contents of the house.
  But if there is uncleanness in the house, what is within [the hive] remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.  However, the uncleanness will not enter the smaller space of the hive if it is found in the house. This accords with the principle we learned in mishnah 4:1, that impurity goes out to the outer space, but does not travel in to the inner space.
  [Whether [the hive] is standing upright, or lying on its side, whether there is one [hive] or two.  The same is true if the hive is lying on its side, with its mouth up against the wall. It is similarly true if there are two hives, one on top of the other and there is less than a handbreadth between the two hives, and less than a handbreadth between the top hive and the ceiling.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  If it was standing upright in the doorway and there was not a space of one handbreadth between it and the lintel:  In this scenario, the hive is standing upright in the doorway, and there is no significant space between the lintel and the opening of the hive.
  If there is uncleanness within it, the house remains clean.  If there is uncleanness inside the hive, it protects it from going out and defiling the contents of the house.
  But if there is uncleanness in the house, what is within [the hive] becomes unclean,   for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.  However, if there is uncleanness inside the house, it will go out the door and travel through the hive on its way. Therefore, the contents of the hive will be defiled. This is similar to the situation in 4:3 see there for a comparison.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  If it was lying on its side in the open air:  In this scenario, our beloved hive is outside of the house, so the contents of the house need not worry about being defiled.
  If an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse was placed below it or above it, everything directly below or above the olive-sized [portion] becomes unclean; but everything that is not directly below or above, and what is within [the hive] remains clean.  The rules here are exactly the same as in 1-4. If the impurity is above or below the hive, it goes down to the depths and up to the heavens, but it doesn't spread to the side because it is not found in any sort of ohel. See mishnah one.
  [If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] everything becomes unclean.  But if the impurity is inside the hive, it spreads the impurity around inside, but it doesn't act as an ohel to prevent it from spreading above and below. Thus everything inside, above and below the entire hive will be impure.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  [In the case where the hive is in the open air] and is one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness below it or above it, everything becomes unclean except the inside. [If the uncleanness is] within, everything becomes unclean.When do these rules apply? When [the hive is] a vessel.If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or according to the sages, it contains forty seahsThen if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below] to the depths becomes unclean;[If placed] above, [everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean.[If the uncleanness is] is within [the hive] nothing is unclean except that which is within.[If] it was one handbreadth high off the ground, if there was uncleanness below it, what is below becomes unclean;[If the uncleanness] was within it, what is within becomes unclean;Above it, [everything] directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean.This mishnah continues to deal with the various possibilities of where the impurity will be found vis a vis a hive that is found in the open air (not in the house).Section one: The hive acts as a tent to spread the impurity to the sides, both above and below the vessel. The inside remains pure because it is protected by the hive (because it is not susceptible to impurity).If the uncleanness is within the hive, then it acts as an ohel to spread the impurity to the sides above and below.Section two: Similar to mishnah two and seven, but here, since there is no house, it is not relevant to discuss it being jammed into a door.Section three: If it can hold forty seahs then it counts as an ohel to provide a barrier for impurity.Sections four-six: See mishnah seven.Section seven: The hive acts as a barrier to the impurity and limits it to below.Section eight: The hive acts as an ohel to keep the impurity inside.Section nine: The impurity is not found in an ohel, and therefore the impurity does not spread. It is limited to defiling things directly above it.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah discusses cases where a complete hive is outside of the house but instead of lying on its side, it is standing straight up, either right side up or upside down.
  If it was resting on its bottom and it [retained the status of] a vessel: If there is uncleanness below it, within it or above it, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  If the hive is standing right side up and it is a vessel, meaning it is not defective, nor is it attached to the ground with mortar, the no matter where the impurity is located, it will only travel up and down and not to the sides. Since the hive is open, there is nothing to form a barrier against the impurity, no matter where it is found. If found within the hive, it is not trapped there, because the hive is open.
  [In the case where] it was one handbreadth high off the ground or covered or inverted [so as to stand] upon its mouth, if there is uncleanness below it, within it or above it, everything becomes unclean.  There are three situations here: 1) the hive is one handbreadth off the ground; 2) it is covered but not with a tightly fitting lid; 3) it is inverted so that the mouth is on the ground. Situations two and three are similar. When the impurity goes up or down it will enter an empty space that is over one cubic handbreadth. Once this happens, the impurity will spread to the entire empty space and then from there it will defile anything above or below the empty space. The same is true if the hive is above the ground by more than a handbreadth. The space below is a cubic handbreadth; once it gets there the impurity will spread to the entire area of the hive, and from there it will defile anything above or below the hive.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  When do these rules apply? When [the hive retains the status of] a vessel.  As we have done throughout, the mishnah now discusses the case where the hive is not a vessel or it can contain forty seahs, which makes it is not susceptible to impurity.
  [In the case of its] being defective, although [the deficiency may be] stopped up with straw, or according to the sages, [in the case of it] containing forty se'ahs, If the uncleanness is below it, within it or above it, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: uncleanness can neither ascend into [the defective hive] nor descend from it.  According to the first opinion, the rules here are the same as they were in mishnah thirteen, for this is an "open ohel" and an open ohel does not form a barrier. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, it will only go directly up and down. For the first time in this chapter we now hear of a debate. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon hold that an "open ohel" can form a barrier. Therefore, if the impurity is found below, it stops at the bottom of the hive. If the impurity is found within or above, the bottom of the hive protects the space underneath the hive from becoming impure.
  If the hive is above the ground and it is not a vessel or it is not susceptible to impurity (because it can contain forty seahs), then the hive acts as a barrier. If there is impurity below, it remains there, although it does spread there to the sides. If there is impurity inside the hive or above it, since the hive is open, it doesn't spread to the sides. It defiles only that which is directly above or below. It also does not defile that which is below.
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  Finally a mishnah that discusses something besides this mysterious hive. Today's mishnah discusses a coffins of various shapes.A coffin which is broad below and narrow above, and has a corpse within it: A person touching it below remains clean; But above becomes unclean.  The first coffin described is broad below and narrow above. Above the narrow section is the cover of the coffin. The rabbis held that if one touched any portion that is directly below the opening, he is impure. So if he touches it below, on the sides of the broad portion, he is not touching anything that is directly below the opening. Therefore, he remains pure. But if he touches the walls of the narrow section he is impure for they are directly below the opening.
  If it is broad above and narrow below, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean.  In this case the cover above is broader than the remainder of the coffin. Therefore, no matter where he touches the coffin it is below the cover and he is impure.
  If it was the same [above and below], a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: a handbreadth and more below is clean, but from that handbreadth upwards is unclean.  Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate the case of a straight coffin. According to Rabbi  Eliezer, since the entire coffin is below the covering, no matter where a person touches it he is impure. Rabbi Joshua holds that the dead body would be at least one handbreadth above the bottom of the coffin. Therefore, if a person touches from that point of the wall and below, he remains pure. If he touches above the one handbreadth mark, he is impure.
  If it was made like a clothes-chest, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean.  A clothes chest opens to the top. On a coffin built in such a way, everything is below the opening. Therefore, no matter where he touches, he is impure.
  If it was made like a case, a person touching it anywhere remains clean, except at the place where it opens.  A "case" has its opening on the side. None of the coffin is below the opening. Therefore, he is impure only if he touches it on the side that opens.
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of our chapter deals with an earthenware jar which cannot be defiled from the outside.
  A jar resting on its bottom in the open air:  The jar discussed in the beginning of the mishnah is pure, it is open and it is standing on its bottom. The jar is pear-shaped, i.e. it has walls that expand in the middle, as jars often did (and still do).
  If an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed beneath it or within it directly [above] its bottom, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards, and the jar becomes unclean.  There is a source of impurity within the jar or directly below the jar, opposite the bottom of the jar and not opposite the protruding walls. In all of these cases the impurity goes directly up and down, but not to the sides. The inside of the jar is also impure because earthenware jars receive impurity through their airspace. Thus even if the impurity is not within the jar, since it enters the jar through the jar's mouth, anything in the jar is impure.
  [If the uncleanness is] outside below a [protruding] side, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards, but the jar remains clean.  In this case, the impurity is outside the jar, above or below one of the jar's protruding sides.  The impurity goes directly up and down, but it doesn't defile the inside of the jar because earthenware jars are not defiled from the outside and the impurity does not enter the jar rather it goes around the protruding wall.
  [If the uncleanness is] within [the jar] and underneath the protruding sides, If there is within the [cavity of] the side a space of a cubic handbreadth everything [within the cavity] becomes unclean, but what lies directly [below] the mouth remains clean. If there is not [a space of a cubic handbreadth] the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  Here the impurity is inside the jar, but not directly below the opening. Rather it is inside one of the protruding walls. If the space formed by the protruding wall is a cubic handbreadth, then it is an ohel. Anything in this space is impure and the impurity spreads above and below as well. The jar is also impure. However, anything that is not directly above or below the sides remains clean. If the space is less than a cubic handbreadth, then it is not found in an ohel. In such a case the impurity goes up and down but it does not spread to the sides.
  When do these rules apply? When the jar is clean.  The above rules apply only if the jar is clean.
  If it was unclean, or if it was one handbreadth high off the ground,   or covered,   or inverted [so as to stand] on its mouth, if there is uncleanness beneath it, within it or above it, everything becomes unclean.  There are several situations listed here: 1) the jar is unclean before the piece of corpse is found in its proximity. In this case, it does not prevent impurity from entering and even if the impurity is beneath the protruding wall, it is as if it is beneath the jar itself. 2) If the jar is one handbreadth above the ground, then the same rules that we saw in mishnah thirteen apply. 3) If the jar is covered or inverted it becomes an ohel. Even if the impurity is below one of the walls, since the top is covered, there is no difference between the protruding walls and the body of the jar. In all of these cases, no matter where the impurity is found, everything, the contents of the jar, below and above the jar, is impure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter ten discusses cases where there is a hatchway in a house leading to the roof. The mishnah will discuss various scenarios with regard to how large the hatchway is, and whether or not something covers it.
  A hatchway in a house, which has an opening of a [square] handbreadth,  The first mishnah deals with a hatchway that is a square handbreadth. Tomorrow, we will deal with a smaller hatchway (I bet you can't wait). In this case, the place directly below the hatchway is not an ohel.
  If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchway remains clean.  The part underneath the hatchway is not in the ohel (house). Therefore, whatever is there remains clean.
  If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, the house remains clean.  If there is uncleanness right below the hatchway it is not in a tent. The impurity travels straight up and the other things in the house remain clean.
  If the uncleanness is either in the house or directly [below] the hatchway, and a person placed his foot above [the hatchway] he has combined [with the roof to bring] uncleanness.  In this case, a person put his leg over the hatchway and thereby reduced the hatchway to less than a square handbreadth. The entire house is now one tent. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, the contents of the entire house are impure. Furthermore, the person himself is impure.
  If part of the uncleanness is in the room and part of it directly [below] the hatchway, the house becomes unclean and what is directly [above] the uncleanness becomes unclean.  If part of the source of uncleanness is under the house and part is under the hatchway, then the house becomes unclean as if the entire source of uncleanness was in the house. Anything found directly above the part of the impurity that was in the hatchway is impure. But things found opposite the hatchway but not directly above or below the source of impurity remain pure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If the hatchway does not have an opening of a square handbreadth:  Our mishnah discusses a case where the hatchway is less than a handbreadth square.
  If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchway remains clean.  Even though the hatchway is less than one handbreadth, we do not consider the house to be closed and for the tent and the hatchway to be one ohel. Rather the same rule that applied in yesterday's mishnah applies here what is below the hatchway remains clean.
  If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, the house remains clean.  Again, although the hatchway is less than one handbreadth, we don't consider the house to be one ohel. If the impurity is below the hatchway, what is in the house remains clean.
  When the uncleanness is in the house, if he placed his leg above [the hatchway], he remains clean.  The person who put his leg above the hatchway remains pure because the impurity is trapped in the ohel that he created below. This is because the opening is less than one handbreadth. However, since the house and hatchway are one tent, whatever is found below is impure.
  [When] the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, if he placed his leg above it, Rabbi Meir declares [him] unclean, But the sages say: if the uncleanness was [in position] before his leg, he becomes unclean, but if his leg was [in position] before the uncleanness, he remains clean.  According to Rabbi Meir since the person overshadowed the source of corpse impurity, he is impure. The sages say it depends on what comes first. If the source of impurity is there first then he is impure because he put his leg over the hatchway before he made the house into one ohel. However, if his leg was there first, then when the impurity got there, the house was already one ohel and impurity does not escape from an ohel through a hole of less than one handbreadth.
  Rabbi Shimon says: [in the case where] two [men's] legs, one above the other, were [in position] before the uncleanness, if the first person withdrew his leg and the other person's leg was still there, [the second] remains clean, because the first person's leg was [in position] before the uncleanness.  Rabbi Shimon complicates the above scenario a little bit. The sages said that if the impurity was there before the person's leg was there, then the person is impure. Here, two people's legs were there, one on top of the other. When the first person removed his leg, the second person's leg now went over impurity that was there first. Nevertheless, since the house was an ohel by virtue of the first person's leg, the second person is pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If part of the uncleanness is in the house and part directly [below] the hatchway, the house becomes unclean, and what is directly [above] the uncleanness becomes unclean, the words of Meir.  In today's mishnah there is a source of impurity that is partially underneath the house and partially under a hatchway which is less than one square handbreadth (as in yesterday's mishnah). According to Rabbi Meir, the house is impure and anything above the impurity is also impure. Rabbi Meir says that the part of the impurity that is in the house joins with the part that is under the hatchway as if all of the impurity was under the hatchway. Therefore, anything that overshadows this impurity is defiled.
  Rabbi Judah says: the house becomes unclean but what is directly [above] the uncleanness remains clean.  Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that the piece in the house does not join with the piece under the hatchway, for impurity in an ohel (the part in the house) does not join with impurity found under a hole (the hatchway) that is less than one handbreadth.
  Rabbi Yose says: if there is sufficient of the uncleanness for it to be divided so that [one part] defiles the house and [the other part] defiles what is directly [above] the uncleanness, [both spaces] become unclean; if not, the house becomes unclean but what is directly [above] the uncleanness remains clean.  Rabbi Yose seems to mediate between the first two opinions. If there is enough impurity to defile both the house and the space under the hatchway, then both are defiled even if there is not enough impurity under each one to defile it. For instance, if there is a piece of impurity the size of two olives (double the amount necessary) and 1 1/2 of it is found under the house and 1/2 under the hatchway, both are defiled. But if there is not sufficient to defile both, the house is still unclean but the hatchway is clean.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If there are multiple hatchways, one above the other,  and they each have an opening of one handbreadth [square], if there is uncleanness in the house,  what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean.  Our mishnah deals with a multi-story building, with hatchways one over the other, all of them one handbreadth wide. If the uncleanness is in the house (bottom floor), it remains in the house. The space below the hatchways remains clean.
  If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean.  If the uncleanness is below the hatchways, it doesn't enter the house.
  [In the case] where the uncleanness is either in the house or directly [below] the hatchways, if something susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean.  The mishnah now discusses what happens if something that is susceptible to impurity blocks up one of the hatchways, be it the upper or lower one. In this case no matter where the impurity is, under the house or under the hatchways, everything is impure. Seemingly, if the blockage was on the bottom hatchway, the contents of the upper stories should be pure, because the impurity would remain down there. However, since the article is susceptible to impurity, it doesn't block the impurity. It does, though, turn the bottom floor into one ohel, so that even if the impurity is under the hatchway, the whole floor is impure. Furthermore, the sages said that just as the bottom floor is impure, so too all of the floors are impure, even if the article is below the hatchway and would seem to escape through the upper hatchways. We look at all of the floors as if they were all closed up.
  If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, what is below becomes unclean, but what is above remains clean.  If the article is not susceptible to uncleanness, then it blocks the impurity from spreading to the upper floors. Only the bottom floor is impure.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  In a case where the hatchways do not have an opening of a square handbreadth:If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean.If there is uncleanness directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean.[In the case] where the uncleanness is in the house, if an article whether susceptible to uncleanness or insusceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story.[In the case] where the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, if an article susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean.If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, whether [it is placed] in the upper or lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story.Today's mishnah continues to deal with a house with hatchways between multiple stories. The hatchways in today's mishnah are less than one square handbreadth.Sections one and two: These are the same laws as seen in mishnah two, concerning a house that has only one story.Section three: In this case it will not matter what type of article that was used to block up one of the hatchways, nor does it matter which hatchway is blocked up. The impurity is found below in the house and the mishnah rules that it spreads to the entire bottom floor, including the space directly below the hatchway. However, the impurity does not leave the bottom floor to defile the upper floors because the hatchway is less than a handbreadth wide. And even if the covering was placed on the uppermost hatchway, the middle stories do not become impure because we look at the covering as if it was below, on the bottom floor where the impurity is found, and that it serves to stop up the impurity there in the house.Section four: If the impurity is found directly below one of the hatchways, then the halakhah is the same as it was in mishnah four. If the article is susceptible to impurity, it does not block the impurity below and all of the stories are impure (see yesterday's mishnah).Section five: And if the article is not susceptible to impurity, then wherever it is placed, only the lower story is impure. Something not susceptible to impurity can prevent impurity from spreading. And even if the article is placed on the upper hatchway, we look at it as if it was placed below, and only the lower story is impure (just as we did in section three).
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah (and tomorrow's) deal with cases where a pot is placed below the hatchway. The mishnah will discuss various scenarios as to where the pot is, and where the source of impurity is and how that effects what becomes impure.
  In the case of a hatchway in a house with a pot placed below it that, if it was raised, its rims would not touch the [edges of the] hatchway:  The pot is placed directly below the hatchway, such that if the pot was raised it would not close up the entire hatchway. The pot is not as broad as the hatchway.
  If there is uncleanness below, within or above [the pot], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  If there is impurity below the pot, it is in a space that is not one handbreadth cubed. As we have learned, such impurity travels up and down but not to the sides. Below and above the pot is impure, but the remainder of the house is pure.
  In the case where [the pot] was one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness below it or in the house, what is below it and in the house becomes unclean, but what is within [the pot] or above it, remains clean.  If the pot is one handbreadth high off the ground, then it is in a (mini-) ohel. If there is a source of impurity either in the house or below the pot, the house and below the pot are defiled. The impurity spreads from under the pot and defiles the house. However, when it comes to the contents of the pot and what is above, we look at the pot as if it was placed above at the hatchway. Since an earthenware pot is not susceptible to impurity from the outside, it forms a barrier with the walls of the house, so that impurity does not enter inside. What is above the hatchway is also protected. However, if the pot was the same size as the hatchway and it couldn't fit in there, it does not offer a barrier and it is looked at as simply a vessel and vessels cannot become an ohel to protect against impurity (see 6:1).
  [If the uncleanness is] within or above [the pot], everything becomes unclean.  If the uncleanness is inside the pot or above it, then everything, the inside of the pot, above the pot and the entire house are impure. This is because the pot is defiled by the impurity that is within it or above it and an impure vessel does not offer a barrier to impurity. This means that the impurity will go below the pot, and from there spread to the entire house.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  [In the case where the pot was] placed on the side of the threshold [of the house] such that if it was raised it would touch the lintel over a [space of a square] handbreadth:  Today's mishnah deals with a pot that is placed on its side outside of a house, on the threshold of the house. The pot is placed such that if it was lifted up, at least one handbreadth square of the pot would touch the lintel.
  If there is uncleanness below, within or above [the pot], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  In this case, no matter where the impurity is, it goes only up and down. If it is below the pot, then it is not in an ohel that is one cubic handbreadth in size. If it is in the pot or on its side, then the house remains pure because the impurity is not within the lintel (which would place it in the house).
  [In the case] where it was one handbreadth high off the ground:  As the mishnah always seems to do, it now discusses what happens if the pot is a one handbreadth off the ground.
  If there is uncleanness below it or in the house, what is below it and in the house becomes unclean.  In this case there is an ohel (under the pot) that is immediately connected to the house (because there is no space between it and the house). The wall of the pot, if lifted, would connect at the length of a handbreadth with the lintel of the house.  Therefore, if the impurity is either under the pot or in the house, it spreads from one to the other and both are unclean.
  If the uncleanness is within or above [the pot], everything becomes unclean.  If the uncleanness is within or above the pot, then the pot is defiled and it doesn't form a barrier to protect the house (see mishnah six).
  [In the case where the pot] if raised would not touch the lintel over a [space of a square] handbreadth, or is joined to the lintel, if there is uncleanness below it, nothing is unclean except what is below [the pot].  In this case, the pot is again one handbreadth off the ground. In this case, if it were lifted, it would not touch a space of one square handbreadth of the lintel. Alternatively, the pot is raised all the way to the lintel, but it comes into contact with less than one handbreadth of the lintel. In these cases, if impurity is below it, it remains there. The pot does form an ohel over the impurity and therefore the entire area below the pot is impure. However, the house is pure since the pot touches the lintel for a space less than one handbreadth. In order for two ohels to be connected to convey impurity the contact must be at least a handbreadth. The inside of the pot and above the pot are pure for the pot joins with the walls of the house to serve as a barrier, even though it is connected at a point of less than a handbreadth.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A house, which has been split [into two]:  Our mishnah deals with a house that has been split entirely into two.
  If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean.  If there is impurity in the outer part of the house, in the part that is closest to the doorway, it doesn't travel in and defile the vessels that are in the inner part of the house. This is because of the rule that impurity goes out but does not come in.
  If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide.  If the impurity is in the inner part of the house, the two houses debate how large the split must be for it to escape and not defile the vessels that are in the outer part. Beth Shammai says that the opening must be at least four handbreadths wide for impurity to escape. Bet Hillel says that the split can be of any size. Rabbi Yose presents a different version of Bet Hillel's opinion the split must be at least a handbreadth. Smaller than that and the impurity will travel through the outer part of the house and defile the vessels there as well.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A portico which has been split [into two]:If there is uncleanness on the one side, vessels on the other side remain clean.If a person placed his leg or a reed above [the split],  he has combined [with the roof to bring the] uncleanness.If he placed the reed on the ground, it does not form a passage for the uncleanness until it is one handbreadth off the ground.Today's mishnah deals with a portico, a structure made of columns supporting a roof that stands in front of a house.Section one: Since the portico's roof is split, impurity found on one side does not travel to the other.  And in this case there is no difference between vessels that are found in the inner half and those found in the outer half (as there was with the house) because the portico is open from three sides. Thus the impurity can escape to the sides.Section two: If a person put his leg over the crack, then he has made the two halves of the portico into one tent. Thus impurity that is found on one side of the tent will travel to the other.Section four: If a person places a reed on the ground it does not serve to join the two sides of the portico into one tent. However, if he raises it by one handbreadth then the tent that it forms joins the two tents above and everything is considered to be one tent.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to deal with the portico that had a split in it. The mishnah discusses various objects placed below that either do or do not close the split such that impurity on one side can travel to the other.
  A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground.  Despite the fact that these items are one handbreadth thick, they are not considered to be an ohel such that there is an ohel directly beneath the split in the roof of the portico. For something to be an ohel it must also have an empty space.
  If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground.  If there are a few garments folded one on another, they bring uncleanness when placed underneath the split if the bottom part of the upper garment is at least one handbreadth off the ground. In other words, the entire upper garment must be one handbreadth above the ground in order for it to form an ohel over the other garments. We might have thought that since the presence of the lower garments does not prevent an ohel from being formed, then the lower folds of the upper garment also wouldn't prevent an ohel from being formed. The mishnah teaches that there is a difference between the lower and upper garments. The lower garments are in the ohel and the upper garment forms the ohel.
  If a person were placed there [under the split in the portico]: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: a person is hollow and his uppermost side brings the uncleanness.  Bet Shammai says that a person's body cannot be considered an ohel. Bet Hillel looks at a person's abdomen as being hollow. The upper side is the top of the ohel and therefore a person closes the split in the portico.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a person was looking out of a window and overshadowed a funeral procession: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness.  The positions stated by Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in this mishnah follow their opinions in yesterday's mishnah. According to Bet Shammai, if a person leans out the window and overshadows a dead body, there is no "ohel" to bring the uncleanness into the house. The person's body is right up against the bottom of the window, so there is no way for the impurity to get into an ohel and then into the house. Bet Hillel says we look at his abdomen as if it was an empty cavity. The top part is the ohel, and through the cavity formed underneath, the impurity is able to enter into the house.
  They agree that if he was dressed in his clothes or if there were two persons, one above the other, they bring the uncleanness.  Bet Shammai agrees that if a person has his clothes on (bet you didn't realize he was hanging out the window naked in section one!), his clothes they can be considered the upper part of the ohel for they at least a handbreadth above the bottom of the window. The same is true if there is a person above the first person. The top person is at least a handbreadth above the bottom of the window, and therefore he can count as an ohel.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to discuss whether a person overshadowed by a funeral procession brings uncleanness into the house.
  If a person was lying on the threshold and the funeral procession overshadowed him: Bet Shammai says: he does bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness. The person is lying with part of his body on the threshold, outside of the door, and the rest of his body is in the house. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel are consistent with the positions they held in the previous mishnayot. Bet Shammai says that the person is not an ohel through which the impurity could be conveyed into the house. Bet Hillel says that a person's body is considered to be hollow. Therefore, the impurity gets into the ohel formed by his body and from there it enters the house.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is the final one in the series of debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning a person acting as an ohel.
  [In the case] where the uncleanness was in the house and clean persons overshadowed him: Bet Shammai declares them clean, But Bet Hillel declares them unclean. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, the person is again lying on the threshold. In this case, the impurity is in the house and then clean people overshadow him. Since Bet Shammai thinks that the person does not form an ohel to bring the impurity out of the house; they remain clean. Bet Hillel again holds that the person is hollow and that he brings the impurity out of the house, thereby defiling those who overshadow him.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a dog who ate the flesh of a corpse and then died on the threshold of a house. His neck is in the house and his stomach, where the piece of flesh is being digested, is outside of the house. The question is: does the impurity enter the house in order to defile all of the contents of the house?
  We should note that if the dog was still alive there is no question that a source of impurity found inside him does not defile outside.
  A dog which had eaten the flesh of a corpse and then died   and was lying over the threshold:Rabbi Meir says: if its neck has a thickness of one handbreadth it can bring the uncleanness, but if not, it does not bring the uncleanness.  Rabbi Meir says that the purity of the house depends on whether the neck is large enough to serve as an ohel. If it is an ohel, then the impurity enters the ohel of the neck and from there spreads to the body. But if the neck is too small to serve as an ohel, the impurity remains in the dog.
  Rabbi Yose says: we [examine to] see where the uncleanness is. If it is beneath the lintel and inwards, the house becomes unclean; if from the lintel and outwards, the house remains clean.  Rabbi Yose says that the size of the neck doesn't matter. Rather we check to see where in the dog's body the impurity is found. If it is found inside a part of the body that is in the house, then the house is impure. But if the impurity remains outside of the house, the house is pure.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: if its mouth [points] inwards, the house remains clean; if its mouth [points] outwards, the house becomes unclean, since the uncleanness goes out through its hind. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in either case the house becomes unclean.  Rabbi Eliezer says that the impurity escapes through the dog's rear end. Therefore, if the rear end is in the house, the house is impure. But if the mouth is in the house, the house is pure. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that the impurity can also escape through the dog's mouth. Therefore, it does not matter which end is in the house, the house is impure.
  How long can [the uncleanness] remain in its entrails? Three whole days.  The piece of corpse is assumed to be present in the dog's guts for three whole days. After that it will have been fully digested.
  [If in the entrails] of fishes or birds, as long as [it takes for the uncleanness] to fall in the fire and be consumed, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in the case of fishes or birds, twenty-four hours.  Flesh eaten by fish or birds does not remain in their (smaller) guts as long as it does for dogs. According to Rabbi Simon, it will remain there only as long as it would take to burn the flesh in a fire. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that it stays there longer, for an entire day.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A cellar in a house with a candlestick in it, whose calyx protrudes and an olive-basket is placed such that if the candlestick was taken away the olive-basket would still remain over the mouth of the cellar: Bet Shammai says: the cellar remains clean but the candlestick becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the candlestick also remains clean.  The source of corpse uncleanness is found in the house. The cellar has a candlestick protruding from it, and the calyx (a flower-shaped receptacle on the candlestick) is supporting a basket that covers the opening to the cellar. The basket is of a type that is not susceptible to impurity. If the basket can remain in place without the support of the candlestick, then it joins the walls of the cellar to prevent impurity from going below. However, Bet Shammai holds that since part of the candlestick protrudes from the cellar, the candlestick is impure. The basket covering it does not protect it from contracting impurity. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that the basket protects the candlestick as well.
  But they agree that if the olive-basket would fall [into the cellar] if the candlestick was removed, all would become unclean.  If the olive-basket is supported by the candlestick and would collapse without it, it does not protect the impurity from going down below. This is because the candlestick is a vessel and vessels do not act as an ohel to prevent spread of impurity.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Vessels [that are] between the rims of the olive-basket and the rims of the cellar, even to the depths, remain clean.  In this case, the olive-basket is placed over the cellar such that it wouldn't fall into the cellar. In other words, it covers the entire opening. There are vessels placed between the rims of the olive-basket and the rims of the cellar. These vessels are pure as if they were actually in the cellar, because they are protected by the olive-basket. This is true no matter how deep in the cellar the vessels are.
  If there is uncleanness in the cellar, the house becomes unclean.  If the uncleanness is in the cellar, the olive-basket does not protect the house and the contents of the house are impure. This is because the impurity will be eventually removed through the house.
  If there is uncleanness in the house, vessels in the walls of the cellar   remain clean, if the place where they are has a content of one cubic handbreadth;   if not, they become unclean.  In this case, there is no basket placed over the opening to the cellar. If there are vessels in the walls of the cellars, and the space in which they are found has the capacity to hold a cubic handbreadth, then the vessels are protected. They are in an "ohel" and vessels in an ohel are not defiled by what is outside of the ohel. However, if this space is smaller than is needed to form an ohel, they are impure.
  If the walls of the cellar are wider [apart] than those of the house, in either case the vessels remain clean.  If the walls of the cellar are wider than the house, then the vessels in the walls are not considered to be part of the house and they are pure even if they are in a space less than a cubic handbreadth.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A board placed over the mouth of a new oven,  overlapping it on all sides to the extent of a handbreadth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the board], vessels above it remain clean; If there is uncleanness above it, vessels beneath it remain clean.  The oven referred to here is new and its manufacturing has not been completed. Therefore it is not susceptible to impurity (see Kelim 5:1). The board on top of it overshadows a source of impurity. However, the board acts as an ohel and prevents the impurity from going above or, if the source of impurity is above, from going below.
  In the case of an old oven, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean.  If the oven is one that has been used, it is susceptible to impurity. In this case the vessels above and below are impure. This is because the board is supported by a vessel that can become impure and in such cases an ohel is not formed (see 4:1). The oven is also impure. According to the Tosefta Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the oven is pure, but he agrees that the vessels above and below the board are unclean.
  [If the board] is placed over the mouth of two ovens, if there is uncleanness between them, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean.  In this case one board is placed over the top of two ovens. There is a source of uncleanness in between them. Even if the ovens are new, they are impure because we don't look at the walls of the oven as being the outsides of the ovens. Rather we look at them as being the walls of a tent which do become impure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri still holds that the ovens are pure. Evidently, he does look at the walls of the ovens as being the outsides of the ovens and since the oven does not become impure by contact with impurity on its outside, the ovens are pure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Netting  placed  over the mouth of an oven, [so that it is] closed with a sealed lid: If there is uncleanness below [the netting] or above it, everything becomes unclean; But what is directly [above] the air-space of the oven remains clean.  The oven referred to here is assumedly a used oven, one which is susceptible to impurity. The netting placed over it is also attached to the oven such that it forms a tightly sealed lid. This means that the inside of the oven cannot become impure. The netting goes beyond the sides of the oven by a handbreadth, as was the case with the board in yesterday's mishnah. As was the case there, the netting is considered to form an ohel over anything below it. If there is a source of impurity below or above the netting, everything found below or above the netting is impure because the netting is an ohel. However, the inside of the sealed oven is not defiled and therefore, anything found above the air-space of the oven is pure. This is the main difference between this and yesterday's case. In yesterday's mishnah even the oven, and anything in it, was impure.
  If there is uncleanness directly [above] the air-space of the oven, everything directly above it even to the sky becomes unclean.  If the uncleanness is above the oven, directly above its air-space, it travels only upwards. Anything underneath the netting or underneath the oven will remain pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  [In a case where] the board is placed over the mouth of an old oven projects from either [end] to the extent of one handbreadth but not from the sides: If there is uncleanness under one end [of the board], vessels [under] the other end remain clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean.  In this case the board extends over the oven in one direction, for instance, north-south, but not east-west. The first opinion holds that this is not sufficient to convey impurity from one side to the other. The impurity would have to travel through the oven and since the oven cannot become impure from the outside it blocks the impurity from going to the other side. In mishnah one the board hung over the oven from all sides, and therefore the impurity could travel from one side to the other. Rabbi Yose holds that the door does not prevent the impurity from traveling from one side to the other.
  A betach  does not bring uncleanness.  A betach is some sort of projection that juts out from a window both inside and out. Maimonides interprets it as something used to climb on. The mishnah says that it doesn't bring uncleanness from the outside into the house because the wall found in between forms a break.
  If there was a projection ( in it: Rabbi Eliezer says: it [still] does not bring uncleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: we look at the betach as if it is not there, and the projection above brings uncleanness.  In this case there is another type of projection sticking out from the house that is found on top of the betach (in Hebrew this is called a ziz). The impurity is found underneath the betach and the question is does the ziz convey impurity into the house?. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the betach separates the impurity from the ziz and therefore the ziz doesn't convey impurity into the house. Rabbi Joshua holds that we look at the situation as if the betach wasn't there. Therefore, the ziz is found to form an ohel over the impurity. The house to which the ziz is attached will also be impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  [With regard to] the shoe of a cradle, for which a hole had been made [in the ceiling to bring it] into the house [below],  To hold a baby's cradle in place they would make a sort of shoe for the cradle and then attach the shoe to the ground. In this case the cradle is on the upper floor of a house and the bottom of the shoe can be seen in the bottom floor. In other words, they made a hole in the ceiling (of the bottom floor) to attach the cradle to the floor (of the upper story). There is a source of impurity below in the house.
  If [the hole] is one handbreadth square, everything   becomes unclean;  If the hole is at least one handbreadth square then the contents of the upper floor are impure because the impurity can enter through a hole of that size.
  But if it was not [one handbreadth square] its [uncleanness] is reckoned as one reckons with [cases of contact with] a corpse.  However, if the hole is less than one handbreadth then the shoe that hangs over the corpse impurity has the same impurity level as the dead body itself. It defiles the crib and the baby, and we reckon impurity as we normally do. Anything that touches the shoe is a "father of impurity" and anything that touches it has first degree impurity and so on.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a house that has two stories, but is not completed. There are roof beams going across each ceiling, but there are gaps in between each beam that have not yet been filled in with the plaster.
  [With regard to] the roof beams of a house and of the upper story which have no plaster ceiling upon them and are in a line, [the upper ones exactly above the lower]: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, all beneath that one becomes unclean. If it is between a lower and an upper [beam] what is between them becomes unclean. If it is above the upper [roof beams], what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean.  In the first scenario, the upper roof beams are precisely above the lower ones. If there is uncleanness beneath one of the beams of the house, anything below it is impure because it forms an ohel. However, the beam also prevents the impurity from spreading to the area above it. And the impurity doesn't spread to anywhere else in the house because there is nothing overshadowing the spaces in between the beams. If the impurity is on top of the lower beam and below the upper beam, it remains in this area. If it is above one of the upper beam then the impurity only travels upwards.
  [In the case] where the upper [roof beams] were [over the gaps] between the lower [roof beams]: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all of them becomes unclean; If above them, what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean.  In this case the upper and lower roof beams are not lined up. Rather the upper beams are spaced right in between the lower beams. If there is impurity underneath one of them, then it spreads to the area underneath all of them, as if there was only one roof. In other words, we look at the bottom beams as if they had been raised to a level equal to the lower beams. If the impurity is found above any of the beams, it is not in any ohel, and therefore it only defiles that which is found directly above it.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah discusses a beam that goes from one wall to another. It also deals with the rabbinic calculation of circumference, so prepare for some math!
  [With regard to] a beam which is placed across from one wall to another and which has uncleanness beneath it: If it is one handbreadth wide, it conveys uncleanness to everything beneath it; If it is not [one handbreadth wide], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  If the beam is one handbreadth wide, it forms an ohel and the impurity spreads to everything below the beam. However, if the beam is less than one handbreadth, then it is not sufficiently wide to form an ohel. The impurity goes up and down, but does not spread to the sides.
  How much must its circumference be so that its width should be one handbreadth? If it is round, its circumference must be three handbreadths; If square, four handbreadths, since a square has a [circumference] one quarter greater than [that of] a circle.  The general rule for determining the diameter of a circle for the rabbis is three times the circumference (we know that 3 should really be Pi, but they were close). So as long as the circumference is at least 3 handbreadths, the diameter is one handbreadth. If the beam is square, then its circumference must be four handbreadths for it to have a diameter (in this case, side) that is one handbreadth. A circle whose diameter is one handbreadth can fit into a square whose sides are each a handbreadth. The circumference of this square will be four.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a pillar that has fallen onto its side. There is going to be a space on each side of the pillar under which something could lie, because the pillar is round. For this space to be an ohel, the space must be one handbreadth square. Our mishnah calculates how large the pillar must be for the space to be a handbreadth.
  [With regard to] a pillar lying [on its side] in the open air, If its circumference is twenty-four handbreadths, it brings uncleanness to everything under its side; But if it is not, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Okay, ready for some math? If the circumference of the circle is 24, then according to rabbinic math, the diameter is 8. You could then put a square around this diameter where each side is 8 handbreadths. The diagonal line drawn from one end of this square to another would be 8 + 16/5. This is according to the rule that every handbreadth on the side of a square is equivalent to 1 1/5 handbreadths (we know that the real length is the square root of 128, according to the formula a2 + b2=c2. Still, they were pretty close) At the corners of this square with the circle in it would be a smaller square whose diagonal is 8/5 of a handbreadth (half of the extra 16/5). This is the area which would form the ohel over the uncleanness. Since it is more than a handbreadth, it brings uncleanness to the entire pillar. If the pillar is smaller than that, then the overhanging part will be less than a handbreadth and it will not convey impurity.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If an olive-sized portion of a corpse is stuck to the threshold: Rabbi Eliezer declares the house unclean. Rabbi Joshua declares it clean.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the threshold is part of the house. Therefore, if a source of uncleanness is found on the threshold, the house is impure. Rabbi Joshua holds that the threshold is not part of the house. Therefore, if the impurity is found on the threshold, the house is clean.
  If it was placed beneath the threshold, the [case] is judged by the half [in which the uncleanness is found].  If it is found underneath the threshold, then whether it is considered to be in the house depends on whether it is under the inner half of the threshold or the outer half. The house is impure if the impurity is in the inner half.
  If it is stuck to the lintel, the house becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose declares it clean.  The impurity is stuck to the outer section of the lintel. Most sages consider the lintel to be included in the house. Rabbi Yose considers the outer side of the lintel to be outside the house.
  If it was in the house, a person touching the lintel becomes unclean.  As a corollary, if the impurity is inside the house and a person touches the lintel, he is defiled.
  [As for] a person touching the threshold: Rabbi Eliezer declares him unclean. Rabbi Joshua says: [if he touches it at a point] below a handbreadth [from the surface] he remains clean; above that handbreadth he becomes unclean.  Rabbi Eliezer is consistent with his opinion above. Since he considers the threshold to be part of the house, if someone touches the threshold (when the impurity is in the house) he is impure. Rabbi Joshua says that he is impure only if he touches a space on the threshold that is at least one handbreadth above the ground. If it is less than a handbreadth above the ground, then he is pure because less than a handbreadth is considered part of the ground (see 9:15 where Rabbi Joshua says the same thing concerning a coffin). Rabbi Joshua's opinions seem to be inconsistent. In section one he holds that the threshold is not part of the house, but here he holds that it is, at least one handbreadth over the ground. One explanation is that since in this case the impurity is found in the house, the impurity goes out through the threshold and thereby defiles it. In other words, it is not that the threshold is part of the house, rather that the impurity goes out through the threshold and thereby defiles it.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter thirteen deals with the size that a hole in a building must be in order for corpse impurity found in a tent to travel to the other side.
  One who makes a new light hole, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the large drill of the Temple chamber.  When one makes a new light-hole in a house, in order for it to bring impurity to something on the other side, it must be the size of a hole made by the large drill used in the Temple chamber. This drill is referred to also in Kelim 17:12.
  The remains of a light-hole [the size is] two fingerbreadths high by a thumb-breadth broad. The following is considered the remains of a light-hole: a window that a person had blocked up but had not been able to finish [being blocked up].  The "remains of a light hole" is a light hole that they began to close up but they didn't finish closing it up. It needs only be two finger-breadths by a thumb-breadth. The concept behind this halakhah is that once something enters a certain category, it is harder to leave that category than it was to get there in the first place.
  [A hole] that was bored by water, or by reptiles or eaten away by salt: the minimum size is that of a fist. If he intended to use it, its minimum size is one handbreadth square; For lighting its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill.  A hole made by a natural cause must be at least the size of a fist. This is larger than the hole made by the drill. See Kelim 17:12. However, if he intended to use the hole that was created by a natural cause, it takes on the halakhic requirements of a handmade hole, and it depends on what he wants to use it for. If he intends to use it to put his things there, then it must be one handbreadth square. If he intends to use it for lighting, then the size is smaller the size made by the drill (section one).
  The holes in grating  or lattice-work  may be joined together to form [an opening] the size of a hole made by the drill, according to the opinion of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: unless there is a hole of the size made by the drill in one place.  Bet Shammai holds that the small holes made in grating or in lattice-work join together to create the required sized hole to bring impurity from one side to the other side. Bet Hillel says that there must be one hole that is at least the size of the drill. In other words, the smaller holes are not combined.
  [The above applies] for purposes of allowing the uncleanness to come in or to go out. Rabbi Shimon says: only for allowing the uncleanness to come in; but for allowing the uncleanness to go out [the minimum size] is one handbreadth square.  According to the first opinion, the measure of the size of a drill was stated both to allow impurity to enter a house from an adjacent ohel or to allow the impurity to escape from the house to an adjacent ohel. Rabbi Shimon says that the earlier halakhah concerning a hole the size of the Temple drill was stated only with regard to allowing impurity to enter. When it comes to allowing impurity to escape, there is a different requirement the hole must be one square handbreadth. This halakhah is also found in 3:6.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  [With regard to] a window made for letting in air, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill.  If a window was made for letting in air, then it must have been made on the outside of a building. It will also let in light. Therefore, it allows impurity in and out according to the smaller measure, that of a hole made by a drill (see yesterday's mishnah). If the hole was between two rooms, it would need to be at least a handbreadth in order to allow impurity through.
  If a house was built outside it, its minimum size becomes one handbreadth square.  When the window was in the outermost wall of the house, it needed to be only the size of the drill-hole. But now that someone builds a house next to it, it needs to be larger, a full square handbreadth, to allow impurity to travel through.
  If a roof was placed at the height of the middle of the window, the minimum size of the lower part is one handbreadth square and of the upper part that of a hole made by the drill.  In this case, a roof was built right next to the window, assumedly because the city is on a hill. Now the top of the window faces outside and the bottom of the window opens into the adjacent building. The mishnah looks at this as two different windows. The top part needs to be only as large as the drill but the bottom part must be a handbreadth.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with how large an opening in a door must be to allow in and out impurity.
  [With regard to] a hole in the door: Its minimum size is that of a fist, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: one handbreadth square.  Rabbi Akiva holds that since these holes in the door were not made intentionally, they should be compared with the naturally forming holes referred to in mishnah one. For impurity to travel through such a hole, it must be the size of a fist. Rabbi Tarfon says that it needs only be a handbreadth square (slightly smaller than a fist) for these holes are meant for human use (see mishnah one).
  If the carpenter had left a space at the bottom or the top [of the door] or if one had shut [the door] but not closed it tightly, or if the wind blew it open, the minimum size is that of a fist.  There are three spaces in a door referred to here: 1) the carpenter didn't make the door as large as it was supposed to be; 2) the door wasn't tightly closed; 3) the wind blew the door slightly open. All of these are openings that were probably not intentionally formed, nor are they holes that are used by human. Therefore, the measure to allow through impurity is that of a fist, which is larger than a handbreadth.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  One who makes a place for a rod, for tongs, or a lamp, the minimum size is whatever is needful, according to the word of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: one handbreadth square.  According to Bet Shammai, if one makes a hole in the wall to store a specific item, that hole needs to be large enough to actually store the item for it to allow impurity from one side to the other. Bet Hillel imposes a standard size one handbreadth square. This is the measure we saw above in mishnah one.
  [If it was made] for a peep-hole, for speaking through to his fellow, or for [human] use, the minimum size is one handbreadth square.  If one makes a hole to look through (what we might call a peep-hole, ignoring the connotations of this word) or a hole to talk through or for any human use, the hole must be the size of a handbreadth.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  The following [objects serve to] reduce [the area of a square] handbreadth:[A portion] of less than an olive-size of flesh [of a corpse] reduces [the opening for uncleanness that is] caused by a quarter of a kav of bones [from a corpse];[A portion] of less than a barley-corn size of bone reduces [the opening for uncleanness that is] caused by an olive-sized portion of flesh;Less than an olive-sized portion of a corpse,Less than an olive-sized portion of carrion,Less than a lentil-sized portion of sheretz;Less than an egg-sized portion of food;Produce growing next to the window,A cobweb having substance;The carcass of a clean bird that he did not intend to eat,And the carcass of an unclean bird that had been intended [for food] that had not been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness], or which had been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but had not been intended [for food].Our mishnah deals with a window between two rooms that is a square handbreadth and therefore will allow impurity to travel between one room and the other. However, if there is placed in the window something that is not susceptible to impurity, it reduces the size of the window and blocks the impurity from traveling through. The mishnah lists some of the things that cause the window to be reduced in size. Tomorrow's mishnah will list things that do not block the impurity.Section one: In one room there is a quarter kav of bones, an amount which causes impurity in an ohel. There is a window that is a handbreadth square that would allow the impurity to travel to the adjacent room. However, in the window there is a piece of flesh of corpse that is less than the size of an olive. In this case, the window size is considered reduced and the impurity is confined to the room in which the bones are found. However, if the impurity came from an olive sized portion of flesh and there was less than an olive sized portion of flesh in the window, the flesh in the window would be reckoned together with the flesh in the room, and the impurity would travel to the next room. In other words, like substances (flesh) join together whereas unlike substances (flesh and bone) do not.Section two: This is the opposite scenario. In the room there is an olive-sized portion of flesh, sufficient to cause impurity in an ohel. In the window there is a barley-corn size piece of bone, which is not sufficient to cause impurity. Again, the piece of bone in the window reduces its size and the impurity doesn't go to the other room. However, in this case if there was a quarter kav of bones in the room and a small piece of bone in the window, the size of the window would not be reduced.Section three: The less than olive-sized portion of flesh is mentioned here again because it is the opposite of the olive-sized portion of flesh which does not reduce the window, as we will learn in mishnah six.Sections four-six: These substances do not transmit impurity. Furthermore, since they are of a different substance than bones or flesh, they reduce the size of the window no matter what is in the house: bones or flesh.Section seven:  The produce reduces the size of the window if it began to grow near the window and then spread into the window.Section eight: For the cobweb to reduce the window it must have substance.Section nine: The carcass of a clean bird that one did not intend to eat (even had it been slaughtered properly) does not cause impurity. Therefore, it reduces the size of the window.Section ten: The opposite is true for the carcass of an unclean bird. It causes impurity only if one intended to eat the bird and it was rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with water after it died. If he intended to eat it, or it wasn't rendered susceptible to impurity, it is not susceptible to impurity and it does reduce the size of the window.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  The following do not reduce [the area of the window]: Bone does not reduce [the area] for [other] bones; Nor [corpse] flesh for [other] flesh;Nor an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse;Nor an olive-sized portion of carrion;Nor a lentil-sized portion of reptile;Nor an egg-sized portion of food;Nor produce growing in the windows;Nor a cobweb having no substance;Nor the carcass of a clean bird which had been intended [for food];Nor the carcass of an unclean bird which had been intended [for food] and had been rendered susceptible to uncleanness;Nor warp and woof threads that have negaim;Nor a brick from a bet haperas, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the brick can reduce, because the dust [of the bet haperas] is clean.This is the general rule: what is clean reduces [the area], and what is unclean does not reduce it.Today's mishnah refers mostly to cases that are opposite of those found in yesterday's mishnah. It lists things that do not reduce the area of the window.Section one: Since the substance found in the window is the same as is found in the house, they don't reduce the area of the window.Sections two-five: All of these are simply the opposite cases of those taught in mishnah five. There is a sufficient amount that it is susceptible to impurity.Section six: In this case the produce grows directly out of the window and not just adjacent to the window, as it did in yesterday's mishnah. Since one does not want to keep such produce, it doesn't reduce the size of the window.Sections seven-nine: The opposite of those cases found in yesterday's mishnah.Section ten: Negaim are what we might call "plagues" or some type of disease that infects cloth. There will be an entire tractate devoted to this subject. If the cloth has negaim, then it is impure and anything impure does not reduce the area of the window.Section eleven:  A bet haperas is a field that used to be used as a cemetery but was plowed over. The brick was made from the ground of such a field. According to Rabbi Meir, such a brick is impure and therefore it does not reduce the window. The other sages disagree because they hold that dust that comes from a bet haperas is clean.Section twelve: This is the general rule that explains all of mishnayoth 5-6.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A projection brings uncleanness, whatever width it may be;But a balcony or rounded balcony when they are one handbreadth wide.What is a projection? That [projection] whose surface slopes downwards,And a balcony's surface slopes upwards.In what [circumstances] did they say that a projection brings uncleanness whatever width it may be? With regard to a projection which is three rows of stones, or twelve handbreadths, above the doorway. When higher than that, it brings uncleanness only if it is one handbreadth wide.Cornices  and carvings bring uncleanness when they are one handbreadth wide.Chapter fourteen deals with various projections that jut out above the entrance to a house and with whether they form an ohel to allow the impurity to enter the house.Sections one and three: As will be explained in section three, the "projection" referred to here seems to be some sort of canopy that slopes downward and is used to protect the entrance to the house from rain and sun. Since this canopy is really part of the house, it joins the house to bring impurity in. Therefore, it itself does not need to be a handbreadth, the generally required size of an ohel. If a source of corpse impurity is found under this projection, the house will be impure.Sections two and four: In contrast, a balcony's surface slopes upward so that it can be used by those living on the upper floor. It does not join the entrance to the house below to bring impurity into the house unless it is itself the size of an ohel, meaning one handbreadth.Section five: For a projection to join with the opening of a house to allow impurity into the house it cannot be more than twelve handbreadths (equivalent to three rows of stones) above the doorway. Up to such a height and the canopy-projection can conceivably protect the entrance. But above this height it will need to be a handbreadth in order to form a tent to bring impurity in.Section six: Anything made for aesthetic purposes was not designed to protect the entrance. Therefore, it does not join with the entrance
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A projection that is above a doorway forms a passage for the uncleanness when it is one handbreadth wide;  In yesterday's mishnah, we learned that a projection above a doorway brings in impurity no matter how big the projection is. Today's mishnah teaches that the doorway must be at least one handbreadth wide to allow the impurity to enter the house.
  If above a window two fingerbreadths high or the size of a hole made by a drill, when of any width whatsoever. Rabbi Yose says: when of equal size [to the particular window].  If the projection is above the type of window that needs to only be two fingerbreadths high to allow in impurity (this is the remnant of a light-hole, see 13:1) or one that needs to be only the size of a drill (see also 13:1), it (the projection) brings in the impurity no matter how small it is. According to this opinion, the projection will offer protection to such a small window, even if the projection is of very small size. Rabbi Yose says that the projection must be as large as the window that it protects. So if it protects a two fingerbreadths size window, the projection must be two fingerbreadths in order to bring impurity into the house.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A rod above a doorway, even if one hundred cubits higher,  forms a passage for the uncleanness no matter its width, the words of Rabbi Joshua.  The mishnah deals with a rod that was placed above a doorway, assumedly also to serve as some sort of protection for the entrance. The difference between the rod and the projection discussed in yesterday's mishnah is that the projection is fixed into the wall of the house, whereas the rod can be moved. Therefore, according to Rabbi Joshua, it doesn't matter how high the rod is, it always serves to bring impurity into the house. Rabbi Joshua holds that since it can be moved to within twelve handbreadths of the house (see mishnah one) we treat it as if it is within twelve handbreadths of the house.
  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: don't be more stringent than the case of a projection.  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that the rule governing the rod should be no stricter than the rule governing the projection. Therefore, if the rod is more than twelve handbreadths high, it must be at least one handbreadth wide in order to bring impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  [In the case of] a projection which goes all round the house, occupying space above the doorway to the extent of three fingerbreadths, if there is uncleanness in the house, vessels beneath [the projection] become unclean.  In this mishnah the projection surrounds the whole house, and therefore it is not treated like the projection that covers the entrance or a window. At the point of the doorway, it is only three fingerbreadths in width, which is less than the handbreadth (a handbreadth is equivalent to three fingerbreadths) usually required for impurity to enter the house when under a projection. If the uncleanness is in the house, then any vessels underneath the projection are impure for the way of impurity is to go out.
  If the uncleanness is beneath [the projection]: Rabbi Eliezer declares the house unclean, But Rabbi Joshua declares it clean.  If the source of impurity is underneath the projection, Rabbi Eliezer says that even though the projection is not a full handbreadth, the impurity enters the house and defiles anything that is in the house. Since the projection surrounds the whole house, it is looked at as part of the house, even though it is not the usually required width. Rabbi Joshua says that since the projection is not a handbreadth wide, it does not cause the impurity to enter the house.
  A similar [rule applies] to a courtyard surrounded by a portico.  The same rules apply in a case where a portico (a roofed area with pillars) lies outside a courtyard. If the roof of the portico is at least three fingerbreadths, but not a full handbreadth, then impurity in the house will defile vessels under the portico, but if impurity is in the portico, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate. If the portico is more than a handbreadth, then all agree that impurity found there will enter the house.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a case where there are two projections overhanging the entrance to the house. The mishnah will walk us through various scenarios concerning the size of these two projections and where the source of impurity is found.
  [With regard to] two projections, one [directly] above the other, each having a width of one handbreadth and a space of one handbreadth between them: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath them becomes unclean; If it is between them, what is between them becomes unclean; Above them, everything directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean.  In the first scenario, the projections are each at least one handbreadth in width and there is a handbreadth in between the two. Obviously, the lower projection is at least one handbreadth above the ground. This means that there is a full ohel below each projection. If the impurity is below the bottom projection, then the impurity is confined to this area. The lower projection blocks the impurity from going higher. If the impurity is between them, then the impurity is also confined to this area. The lower projection blocks the impurity from going below, and the upper projection blocks it from going above. If the impurity is above the upper projection, it doesn't go below. It defiles only anything that is directly above it.
  If the upper [projection] overlapped the lower to the extent of one handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath or between them, what is beneath and between them becomes unclean; If it is above them, what is directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean.  In this case, the upper projection juts out one handbreadth more than the bottom projection. If the impurity is either below the bottom one or below the top one, it will spread to the entire area below the top projection. This is because the broader upper projection will bring the impurity to the entire area below it. If the impurity is above the top projection, it defiles only things above it.
  If the upper [projection] overlapped the lower to an extent of less than a handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath and between them becomes unclean; If it is between them or beneath the overlapping [part]: Rabbi Eliezer says: what is beneath them and between them becomes unclean. Rabbi Joshua says: what is between them and beneath the overlapping [part] becomes unclean, but what is beneath [the lower one] remains clean.  In this case, the upper projection is broader than the bottom one, but by less than a handbreadth. If the impurity is below the lower projection, it spreads to the area in between, again because the upper projection brings it above. If the impurity is between the two, or is below the upper projection but not below the lower projection, in other words, it's below the extension of the upper projection, Rabbi Eliezer says that the entire area beneath the upper projection is impure. In contrast, Rabbi Joshua says that the area beneath the lower projection remains pure. The upper projection which is less than a handbreadth wider than the bottom projection does not bring the impurity to the area below the lower projection. This is similar to his opinion in mishnah four.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah, concerning two projections, one above the other.
  If they had a width of a handbreadth but there was not a space of a handbreadth between them: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath becomes unclean; If it is between them or above them, everything directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean. Since there is not a handbreadth in between the two projections, there is not an ohel in this area. However, there is still an ohel below the bottom projection. If the uncleanness is found beneath both projections, then it is confined to this area. The lower projection forms an ohel and prevents the impurity from spreading above. However, if the uncleanness is between them, it does not spread throughout an ohel. It only defiles that which is directly above it, just as it does if it is found above the top projection. The upper projection does not prevent the impurity from going above because it is not an ohel, but the bottom projection does prevent the impurity from going below.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If they did not have a width of a handbreadth, whether there is a space of a handbreadth between them or whether there is not, if there is uncleanness beneath, between or above them, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  If neither projection is a handbreadth wide, then no ohel is formed. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, it only travels upwards and downwards, but it does not spread to the sides.
  A similar [rule applies] to two curtains, [the lower one of which is] one handbreadth high off the ground.  The final clause of this chapter notes that the same scenario described in mishnayot 5-7 can occur if two curtains are placed one above the other, and the bottom one is at least one handbreadth above the other.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first two sections of today's mishnah are found word for word in 11:3. I have copied my explanation from there.
  A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground.  Despite the fact that these items are one handbreadth thick, they are not considered to be an ohel such that there is an ohel directly beneath the split in the roof of the portico. For something to be an ohel it must also have an empty space.
  If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground.  If there are a few garments folded one on another, they bring uncleanness when placed underneath the split if the bottom part of the upper garment is at least one handbreadth off the ground. In other words, the entire upper garment must be one handbreadth above the ground in order for it to form an ohel over the other garments. We might have thought that since the presence of the lower garments does not prevent an ohel from being formed, then the lower folds of the upper garment also wouldn't prevent an ohel from being formed. The mishnah teaches that there is a difference between the lower and upper garments. The lower garments are in the ohel and the upper garment forms the ohel.
  Tablets of wood [placed] one above the other do not bring uncleanness unless the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground;  When it comes to pieces of wood, the upper piece is considered an ohel if it is at least a handbreadth over the ground.
  But if they were of marble, the uncleanness  cleaves upwards and downwards.  The slabs of marble placed one on top of another are treated as if they were all one tablet. Therefore, no matter how high the upper tablet is, it does not form an ohel. In other words, marble is treated as one piece (like the coats in section one) whereas the pieces of wood are considered separate.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  [With regard to] wooden tablets which touch each other at their corners, and are one handbreadth high off the ground: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, [a person] touching the second [tablet] becomes defiled with seven-day defilement. Vessels under the first [tablet] become unclean; but those under the second remain clean.  This section describes two wooden tablets that touch each other only at one corner. The part that is touching is less than one handbreadth. The two tablets are one handbreadth off the ground, the required amount to be an ohel. Although they are touching only at their corners, in some ways they are considered to be one ohel. Therefore, if there is uncleanness beneath one of them, a person who touches the other one is impure as if he had been in contact with a dead body. This is where it gets a bit tricky. If there are vessels underneath the tablets, those under the one where the corpse uncleanness is found are defiled, but those under the other one are not. This seems to contradict the previous line. Albeck explains that since the impurity is not under the second tablet and the second tablet is not touching the first tablet by an amount the size of a handbreadth, the impurity doesn't spread beneath it. However, we do look at the tablet as if it was overhanging the impurity and one who touches it is impure.
  A table does not bring uncleanness unless it contains a square of at least one handbreadth.  Tables were often expanded by adding squares, one next to the other, in order to allow more guests (like the leafs we add to our tables). If there is no single square that is at least one handbreadth square, meaning one square to serve as the base of the table, then none of the squares join to form an ohel. This is not considered to be a sustainable ohel (for this concept see 8:5).
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  [With regard to] jars standing on their bottoms or lying on their sides in the open air and touching one another to the extent of a handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards.  The jars mentioned referred to here are made of earthenware and therefore cannot be defiled from the outside (only if a source of impurity enters their airspace are they impure). The jars are found outside, not in a house or other type of ohel. They are standing on their bottoms or on their sides such that there is not a handbreadth of space beneath them. These jars do not form an ohel. Therefore, even if they are touching each other by the length of a handbreadth, impurity doesn't spread from one to the other. Even within one jar it doesn't spread because it is not in an ohel. It only travels up and down.
  When does this rule apply? When the [jars] are clean. But in the case where they were unclean  or one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all becomes unclean.  The above is true only if the jars are clean. If they are unclean they do not prevent the impurity from entering within. Once within, it is as if the impurity is found in an ohel and it spreads from one jar to the other. Similarly, if the jars are at least a handbreadth off the ground, they form an ohel and the impurity will spread from one jar to the other because the contact point is at least a handbreadth long.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  [With regard to] a house, sectioned off by boards or curtains from the sides or from the roof beams: If there is uncleanness in the house, vessels beyond the partition remain clean. If there is uncleanness beyond the partition, vessels in the house become unclean.  [With regard to] the vessels beyond the partition:  The house has been sectioned into two parts such that what was one room is now two. Alternatively, some sort of loft was added such that the house is now separate from the roof beams. The mishnah now discusses what happens if the source of impurity is found in various parts of the house and its partitions. If the source of impurity is in the house then the vessels that are in the partitioned off inner room, or in the newly sectioned off upper room, remain pure. However, if the uncleanness is in the inner room or in the upper chamber, it goes out and defiles the vessels in the house because, as we have learned, impurity goes out of a confined space and defiles things that are in its space.
  If there is a space of a [cubic] handbreadth there, they become unclean, But if not, they are clean.  As far as the petitioned off areas themselves, if they are at least a cubic handbreadth in dimension, then they are an ohel and they are impure. However, if they are less than a cubic handbreadh, then the impurity within would only go up and down and it wouldn't defile any vessels found on the sides of such a space.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  [In the case where] it was partitioned off from the floor: If there is uncleanness beneath the partition, vessels in the house become unclean.  In this mishnah, they build a new floor, thereby separating the house from its old floor. If the source of impurity is below the partition, it travels up and defiles the contents of the house because the way of impurity is to escape from confined spaces. See also 3:7 for a somewhat similar situation.
  [In the case where] the uncleanness is in the house, vessels beneath the partition, If there is a space there of one cubic hand breadth, remain clean; But if not, they become unclean, since the floor of the house is reckoned as the house even to the nethermost deep.  If the uncleanness is in the house, then the purity of any vessels found below the partition depends on whether there is a cubit handbreadth in the area below. If there is such a space, then the impurity is found in an ohel and it is blocked from entering the house. However, if there is not an ohel below, then the vessels are considered as if they are inside the house. This is because the floor of a house is always considered part of the house, no matter how deep.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a house that has basically been filled in, in this case with straw. It is treated similarly to the case in yesterday's mishnah, where a partition was built above the floor.
  [With regard to] a house filled with straw, without a space of a handbreadth [being left] between [the straw] and the roof beams: If there is uncleanness within [the straw], vessels at the exit become unclean.  In this case the uncleanness is within the straw, which is similar to the situation in yesterday's mishnah were the uncleanness was below the partition placed above the floor. Any vessels that are at the exit, meaning they are in the area that is not filled in with straw, will be defiled because the impurity escapes through that area.
  [In the case where] the uncleanness was outside [the area of the straw], with regard to the vessels within: If they are in a space of a cubic handbreadth, they remain clean, But if not they become unclean. If there is a space of a handbreadth between the straw and the roof beams, in either case the vessels become unclean.  If the uncleanness is outside the area of the straw and the vessels are within the straw and within an empty space that is one cubic handbreadth, they are protected by being in an ohel. If they are in a space that is less than a cubic handbreadth, then it is as if they are in the floor of the house and they are impure (as was the case in yesterday's mishnah). If there is a space of a handbreadth above, in the place where the impurity is found, then the straw is not considered a barrier to the impurity, even if the empty space is a cubic handbreadth. The vessels in the straw are impure in both cases.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  [With regard to] a house filled with earth or pebbles which he [decided] to leave there, or similarly a heap of produce or a mound of pebbles even such as Akhan's mound, and even if the uncleanness is by the side of the vessels, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. The mishnah discusses three situations: 1) Someone's house is full of pebbles or earth and he decided not to remove them. 2) A heap of produce that is found outside of a house. 3) A mound of stones, even if it is like the stones that were put on top of Akhan when he was executed (see Joshua 7:26). In all of these cases there is a source of impurity within the mound (or house) but it is not touching the vessels. The mishnah rules that the impurity goes up and down but does not defile the vessels. In other words, the impurity is not found in an ohel, and therefore it doesn't spread to the sides.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  [With regard to] the courtyard of a tomb: A person standing in it remains clean as long as there is a space of four cubits square, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: four handbreadths.  The courtyard described here is at the entrance to a tomb. According to Bet Shammai, the courtyard must be at least four cubits square to be considered its own space. If it is this size, a person standing there will not be defiled by the tomb because he is not considered to be in the "tomb". Bet Hillel provides a smaller measure. If the courtyard is at least four handbreadths square, it is its own space.
  [With regard to] a roof beam which had been used as a covering stone for a tomb, whether it is standing upright or lying on its side, nothing becomes unclean except what [touches] opposite the opening of the grave.  A roof beam was used to close up a burial grave. Typically, this was done with a stone. A person who touches the part of the beam that is opposite the stone is impure; but if he touches it elsewhere, he is pure.
  If the end [of the beam] were made the covering stone of a grave, only [that part] up to four handbreadths [from the grave] becomes unclean.  In this case he puts the end of the beam up against the cave, with the beam extending out from the grave. The first four handbreadths of the beam are considered to be covering the grave and are impure and defile one who touches them. After that, the beam is pure.
  [This applies] when [the beam] is going to be cut. Rabbi Judah says: all the beam is connected.  The above is true if he intends to cut off the beam and leave only the four handbreadths that cover the grave. If he intends to leave the entire beam there, it all defiles. Rabbi Judah rules more strictly. The whole beam is connected to the part that covers the grave and therefore, even if he intends to cut it off, it is still impure.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A jar full of clean liquid and sealed with a tightly fitting lid,  which had been made the covering stone of a tomb, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness but the jar and the liquid remain clean.  The jar used to cover the tomb conveys impurity to one who touches it, just as does a stone. However, an earthenware jar is not defiled on its outside, as long as it is covered with a tightly fitting lid (see Kelim 9:2). Therefore, the jar and its contents remain pure.
  An animal that had been used as a covering stone, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness.  Similarly, if a person uses an animal to temporarily cover a tomb, it too conveys impurity. Note that like the jar, the animal is not impure. It merely conveys impurity to one who touches it. See also Eruvin 1:7.
  Rabbi Meir says: anything possessing the breath of life does convey uncleanness on account of [its being used as] a covering stone.  Rabbi Meir says that anything that is alive does not convey uncleanness if used to cover a tomb. This would mean that he disagrees with the halakhah in section two, although not with the halakhah in section one.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  One who touches a corpse and touches vessels, one who overshadows a corpse and touches vessels, they [the vessels] are unclean.  A person who has become unclean through a corpse, whether by contact or by overshadowing, now defiles vessels by contact (see 1:1-4).
  One who overshadows a corpse and overshadows vessels, one who touches a corpse and overshadows vessels, they [the vessels] are clean.  However, a person who has been defiled by contact with a corpse or by overshadowing a corpse does not defile vessels by overshadowing.
  If his hands are a handbreadth wide, they are unclean.  If one hand is overshadowing or touching a dead body and the other hand is simultaneously overshadowing vessels, it is possible to convey the impurity from the corpse to the vessels, as long as each hand is a handbreadth, such that it can form an ohel. If the hands are smaller than a handbreadth, they do not convey the impurity.
  Two houses, and in each there is a half an olive's worth of corpse and he puts one hand into each house: If his hands are a handbreadth wide, he brings uncleanness; But if not, he does not bring uncleanness.  The mishnah now brings up a similar circumstance where a person can convey impurity if each of his hands is a handbreadth. There are two houses adjacent to one another and their doors or windows are opposite each other. There is less than an olive's worth of impurity in each house and a person puts his hands into both houses simultaneously. If his hands are each a handbreadth, then they successfully bring the impurity from each into the other, and all vessels found in either house are impure. If his hands are not one handbreadth, then they don't join the two half olives, and all remains pure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with how thick vessels need to be for them to convey uncleanness from a corpse to other vessels which they overshadow.
  All movable things convey uncleanness when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad.  In this section we learn of an older tradition according to which a vessel needs to be only as thick as an ox-goad in order to convey uncleanness. This means that if one end overshadows a source of corpse impurity and the other end overshadows vessels, it conveys impurity from the corpse to the vessels. An ox-goad has a circumference of one handbreadth, but it does not have a width of one handbreadth. This is stated directly in Kelim 17:8.
  Rabbi Tarfon said: May I [see the] demise of my sons if this is [not] a demised halakhah  which someone heard and misunderstood. For a farmer was passing by and over his shoulder was an ox-goad, and one end overshadowed a grave. He was declared unclean on account of vessels that were overshadowing a corpse.  Rabbi Tarfon bitterly objects to this halakhah, claiming that it is the result of a misunderstood story. A person heard that someone carrying an ox-goad which overshadows a dead body conveys impurity to the person carrying it, but he didn't properly understand the reason. The story goes as follows. A farmer was carrying an ox-goad and one end of the ox-goad overshadowed a grave. When he came in front of some sages, they declared him impure. However, this is not because a vessel that is less than a handbreadth conveys impurity to another vessel that it overshadows. Rather, the ox-goad itself was made impure by overshadowing a corpse. For this to happen, the ox-goad does not need to be a handbreadth. The farmer touched the ox-goad and was defiled because a vessel that has corpse impurity defiles a person (see 1:3). The person who heard that the farmer was impure thought that it was because the ox-goad overshadowed the person and therefore he said that a vessel need only be as thick as an ox-goad to convey impurity.
  Rabbi Akiva said: I can fix [the halakhah] so that the words of the sages can exist [as they are]: All movable things convey uncleanness to come upon a person carrying them, when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad; Upon themselves when they are of whatever thickness; And upon other men or vessels [which they overshadow] when they are one handbreadth wide.  Rabbi Akiva acts as the traditionalist and a type of peace maker. He wishes to preserve the accuracy of the statement transmitted in section one, without changing the halakhah that for a vessel to convey uncleanness it must be a handbreadth wide. He now proceeds to outline three halakhot. If someone is carrying a vessel that is as thick as an ox-goad (less than a handbreadth) and the vessel overshadows a corpse, even though the person didn't actually touch the vessel and it only touched his clothes, and the person should only be impure until the evening as is the rule when a person touches a vessel that touched another vessel that had contact with a corpse (see 1:2), nevertheless the sages declared that such a person is impure for seven days due to the uncleanness of an ohel. In other words, Rabbi Akiva says that when the rabbis stated the halakhah in section one, it was a stringency related only to that situation. When it comes to the impurity of the vessel itself, a vessel that overshadows a corpse is impure even if it is less than a handbreadth in width. Finally, for the vessel to convey uncleanness from the source of corpse impurity to other vessels it overshadows, it must be at least a handbreadth in width. This shows clearly that there is no debate between him and Rabbi Tarfon.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  The beginning of the mishnah illustrates the general rules listed in the end of yesterday's mishnah.
  How so? A spindle stuck into the wall, with [a portion of corpse] of half an olive-size above it and [a portion of corpse] of half an olive-size below it. Even though one [portion] is not directly [above] the other, [the spindle] becomes unclean. Hence it is found that [a movable object] conveys uncleanness to come upon itself whatever its thickness.  The mishnah illustrates the principle that a vessel can convey uncleanness to itself through overshadowing even if it is of minimal thickness. The mishnah describes a small spindle that is stuck into the wall (perhaps for storage) and there is half an olive size of corpse above it and half an olive size below. In other words, the spindle overshadows half and half overshadows it. Even if the two portions of corpse are not one on top of each other, the spindle overshadows one and is overshadowed by the other and therefore serves to join them into one olive and the spindle is impure.
  A pot seller passes by a grave with a yoke over his shoulder, one end of which overshadows a grave, vessels on the other side remain clean. If the yoke is one handbreadth wide, they become unclean.  This section illustrates the principle that vessels don't convey impurity to other vessels which they overshadow unless they are a handbreadth wide. If the yoke is one handbreadth wide, then it conveys the impurity to the other vessels. If it is not a handbreadth wide then the vessels remain clean.
  Mounds which are near to a city or to a road, whether they are new or old, are unclean. [As for those that are] far away, new ones are clean but old ones are unclean. What counts as near? Fifty cubits. And old? Sixty years old, the words of Rabbi Meir. R. Judah says: Near means there is none nearer than it, and old means that no one remembers [when it was made].  This section deals with mounds that are found outside a city. It seems that women would bury their miscarried fetuses in these mounds, and lepers would bury their lost limbs. These fetuses and limbs are impure and therefore the mounds, under certain circumstances, must be treated as impure. The impurity of the mound depends on two factors: its proximity to the city and its age. The closer it is to the city, the more likely it is that people buried fetuses or limbs there. And the older it is, the more likely that people forgot whether or not anything was buried there. A mound that is close to the city whether or not it is old is impure; but if it is far from the city it is impure only if it is old. Rabbi Meir provides objective numbers for "near" and "old." For a mound to be near, it must be within fifty cubits. And for it to be "old" it must be sixty years old, which probably is the upper end of how long a person might live during that period. Rabbi Judah provides relative numbers. A mound is close if it is the closest mound to the city, for people will be likely to bury their fetuses and limbs there. So if there is one mound that is 25 cubits away and another that is 35, only the one 25 cubits away is impure. Likewise, if the closest mound is 100 cubits away, it is impure. And "old" means that no one remembers when the mound was made. There is no way of giving an objective age.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with how one would know whether he has come across an isolated dead body which he must bring to burial in a proper cemetary, or a burial ground, in which case it is forbidden
  If one finds a corpse unexpectedly lying in its natural position, he may remove it along with the [blood-] saturated earth around it.  The person finds a corpse buried in the ground in a place that wasn't identified as a burial ground. He is allowed to move this corpse into a proper cemetery. He can assume that the body was put there temporarily until a more proper place was found. He should also take the blood-soaked ground around the corpse, for as we have seen, the blood has the status of the corpse and must be brought to burial.
  If he finds two, he may remove them along with the [blood-] saturated earth around it.  The same is true if he finds two corpses. He still does not need to worry lest he has stumbled upon a burial ground.
  If he finds three, if there is a space of from four to eight cubits between the first and the last, that is, the space of a bier and its bearers, then it must be accounted a graveyard.  However, if he finds three corpses and they are between four to eight cubits between each body, he must consider the land to be a burial ground, in which case it is forbidden to move the bodies.
  He must search [the ground] for twenty cubits from that point. If he found [another corpse] at the end of those twenty cubits, he must search for a further twenty cubits from that place, since there are already grounds for belief   [that this is a graveyard], in spite of the fact that if he had found this [lone grave] in the first case, he could have removed it with the [blood-] saturated earth around it.  He now must search the area for other bodies so that he can determine the size of the burial ground. He should search twenty cubits from the outer body on each side. And if he finds another body he must continue to search twenty cubits from the furthest body. This is true despite the fact that had he found this body as a lone grave, he would not have had to search for other bodies in the area. Once it has been established that there might be a burial ground in the area, he must treat each body as evidence of such.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  One who searches, must search over a square cubit and then leave a cubit, [digging down] until he reaches rock or virgin soil.  This section refers to the person in yesterday's mishnah who had found three corpses buried in the ground and was searching to determine how far the burial ground extended. He need not search every cubit of earth. Rather, he can check a cubit and then leave a cubit, because it was customary to leave a cubit between each body buried in the ground. When checking, he must dig down in the ground until he either reaches rock or soil that clearly has never been dug up before.
  [A priest] carrying out earth from a place of uncleanness may eat his terumah mixed with hullin.  This section concerns a priest who is removing earth from a place that has some impurity in it, such as the burial ground referred to in mishnah three. If this person is a priest he may eat terumah that has become mixed in with hullin (non-sacred produce). This is because the earth that he is carrying is not certainly impure, and the terumah that he is eating is also not certainly terumah. Since there is a "double doubt" he may eat the terumah.
  But one who is clearing away a heap of stones, may not eat his terumah mixed with hullin.  However, if one is clearing away a heap of stones that fell on a person and might have killed him, he may not eat such terumah. The problem is that if he finds a corpse, he will certainly be impure. In other words, although there is some doubt in this case as well, it is of a different nature from the doubt in the previous case. In the previous case, the terumah mixed in with hullin will always remain of doubtful status. There is simply no way to determine whether it is terumah or hullin because it is all mixed up. However, in this case, the doubt can be clarified. If he sees that there is a corpse under the stones then the priest is definitely impure. Therefore, he cannot eat the terumah.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If he was searching and came to a river bed, or a pool or a public road, he may end [his search].  If one is searching an area of twenty cubits (mishnah three) to see if there are any more dead bodies, and he gets to a river bed, a pool of water or a public road, he can use that landmark as the end of his search because it is obvious that people don't build a cemetery through or in a river bed, a pool or a public road.
  A field in which men have been slain, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean.  The mishnah now deals with cases where a person need not remove the earth with the bones that he finds. If he finds a field in which people were killed, he can remove just the bones and the area will be clean. He need not remove the earth.
  One who removes a grave from his field, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean.  A person may remove a grave from his field if originally there was a grave outside of his field and the grave broke open into his field. In this case he can also remove the bones without removing the ground.
  A pit into which they throw fetuses or people that had been slain, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean.  Similarly, if one is clearing out a pit into which either fetuses (miscarriages) or dead bodies had been thrown, he need not remove the ground. From all of this we can see that the rule concerning the removal of the ground applies only if the area was originally designated a burial ground.
  Rabbi Shimon says: if it had been prepared as a grave in the first place, there is [blood-] saturated earth.  This is confirmed by Rabbi Shimon who says that if the pit was originally designated to be a burial ground, then when he removes it, he must remove the ground as well.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the formation of a "bet haperas." A bet haperas is the term for a field in which the sages suspect corpse impurity to be found. In our case, the bet haperas is formed by a person plowing a field in which a corpse was buried. The fear is that by plowing the person brought bones to other sections of the field.
  One who plows a grave [into a field], behold he makes it a bet haperas.  If a person plows over a field in which a grave is found, he makes it into a bet peras.
  To what extent does he make it [a bet haperas]? For the length of a furrow of a hundred cubits, a space in which four se'ahs [can grow]. Rabbi Yose says: an area of five [se'ahs].  The mishnah now discusses how far the bet haperas extends. According to the first opinion, the plow might move the bones through a space in which four seahs of seed can be sewn. This is an area of 100 cubits by 100 cubits (about 50 meters by 50 meters, which is about 2/3 of an acre). Rabbi Yose says that the area is the space in which five seahs can be sewn. This is 111.75 cubits by 111.75 cubits.
  But when on an upward or downward slope: he puts a quarter [of a kav] of vetch seed on the knee of the plough, and the space where [the last] three vetches grow next to each other is a bet peras.  The above applies only when the field is flat. There is a different measure when the field is on an upward or downward slope. To find out how far is a bet haperas he does a test with vetch (animal food) seed. He places a quarter of a kav of seed on a piece of wood of the plough and he starts plowing. Due to the movement of the plow, the seeds will begin to fall off. At first many will fall but eventually there will be little left. When he gets to a point at which only three seeds fall at a time, such that three vetch plants will grow at that spot, he knows that he has reached the edge of the bet haperas. This is because the plow will shake so much until this point, that beyond it, it will no longer drag pieces of bone.
  Rabbi Yose says: [a bet haperas is only made by a plough going] downwards but not upwards.  Rabbi Yose holds that when one plows upward he doesn't make a bet haperas. Assumedly, he thinks that gravity will prevent the bones from being pulled upward.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a person was plowing and struck against a rock or a fence, or if he shook the plowshare, he only makes a bet peras up until that spot.  If a person comes up against an obstacle when plowing, the obstacle will shake any bones off of the plow. The same is true if he shakes out the plowshare. Therefore, even if he has only plowed a little bit, he will not make a bet peras at any point further than this.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: one bet peras can form another bet peras.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, if one plows a bet peras and then continues on, even well beyond a hundred cubits from where the original grave was located, the second field is also a bet peras. In other words, just as plowing a burial ground makes a bet peras, so too plowing a bet peras can make a new bet peras.
  Rabbi Joshua says: sometimes it can, but at other times it cannot. How so? If he plowed for half a furrow's length and then returned and plowed a [further] half, or similarly [if he plowed] to the side, he makes a bet peras. If he plowed a full furrow's length and then returned and plowed from that point beyond, he does not make this a bet peras.  Rabbi Joshua says that sometimes plowing a bet peras makes a new one, but sometimes it does not. It all depends on whether the second field is more than fifty cubits beyond the first. In the first set of cases he plows for less than the 100 cubits and then goes back and plows that area again, either in a different direction or in the same direction but further than his first plowing. Since in his first plowing he didn't reach the 100 cubit limit in which a bet peras is formed, he makes a new bet peras. However, if he plows a full 100 cubits and then continues to plow from that point and onward, he doesn't make a new bet peras.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah lists cases in which it would very much seem that a person has made a bet peras and yet the mishnah rules that he has not. We will see that there is something "dogmatic" or "traditional" about the formation of a bet peras. Even though there are clearly bones spread around in this field, it is not considered a bet peras because it doesn't fulfill the dictionary/sages' definition of bet peras. To couch this in other terms the sages said that a bet peras is created under certain circumstances. Even though other circumstances may be very similar, since they are not part of the original tradition, a bet peras is not created.
  If a person plows from a pit full of bones, or from a heap of bones,  According to commentators, the sages declared that when a person plows a grave he creates a bet peras, because this is something that is likely to happen. It is likely that a person will want to plow a field next to a grave, and therefore the sages decreed that one who does so creates a bet peras. But it is not common for a person to want to plow over a pit full of bones or a heap of bones and therefore by doing so, he does not create a bet peras.
  Or from a field in which a grave had been lost,  In this case there is a double doubt. We don't know if he plowed over the grave, and even if he did plow over the grave, we cannot be sure that his plowing moved bones. Therefore, the mishnah rules leniently.
  Or in which a grave was subsequently found,  The formation of a bet peras is a penalty for one who plows a grave. Since he didn't know that there was a grave in the field, he is not penalized.
  Or if he plows a field which was not his own,  The penalty for plowing a grave is only meted out to one who plows his own property.
  Or if a non-Jew plowed, he does not make a bet peras. For the rule of bet peras does not apply [even] to Samaritans.  The rule of the bet peras applies only to Jews, who are penalized for plowing over a grave. If a grave is plowed by Samaritans it is not a bet peras. All the more so, if a non-Jew plows a field, he does not make it into a bet peras.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  [In the case where] there was a bet peras above a pure field, if rain washed down soil from the bet peras to the pure field, even where this was reddish and the [other soil] turned it white, or where this was white and the other turned it red, this does not make it a bet peras. The mishnah refers to a case where one field is on a step above another field. If the upper field is a bet peras and some of its soil washes in to the lower field, it does not make the lower field a bet peras. This is true even if the fields are of a different color and one can see the color of the earth from the original bet peras.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  [With regard to] a field in which a grave had been lost, and upon which a house had been built with an upper story above it: If the entrance of the upper room was directly above the entrance of the house, the upper story remains clean; But if not the upper story becomes unclean.  If the two doors, one of the bottom floor and the one of the top floor, are one on top of the other, the upper story is clean, even though the bottom floor is unclean do to the possibility that it is on top of the grave. If the grave was directly below the house, the ceiling would stop the impurity from entering the upper story. And if the grave was below the outer half of a wall of the house, even the house would be impure (see 6:3). And even if the grave was under the entrance to the house, and we might have thought that the canopy over the entrance to the upper story would form an ohel and bring the impurity into the upper story, the canopy of the bottom floor forms a barrier and doesn't allow the impurity to go above it. It turns out that no matter where the grave actually is, the upper story is pure. However, if the entrance to the upper story is not directly above the entrance to the bottom floor, the upper story must also be treated as impure because it is possible that the grave is beneath the canopy covering the entrance to the upper story. Since there is nothing above it to block it, the impurity would enter the upper story and defile anything therein.
  [With regard to] soil from a bet peras, or soil from a foreign country that came in with vegetables, the pieces of the soil combine together [to transmit impurity if they form a portion] the size of a packing-bag seal, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; But the sages say: there must be one portion of the size of a packing-bag seal.  Soil from a bet peras and soil that comes from outside the land of Israel both defile when carried (see 2:3). Rabbi Eliezer rules that loose pieces of dirt can combine together to form the minimum amount necessary to defile. This minimum amount is defined as the size of the seal placed on a packing-bag. The other sages say that for the soil to defile there must be at least one piece that is as large as the seal on a packing bag.
  Rabbi Judah says: It happened once that letters came from overseas for the sons of the high priests and they had on them about a se'ah or two se'ahs of seals [of dirt],   but the sages were not concerned on account of uncleanness.  Rabbi Judah brings proof that there must be at least one piece of dirt that is the size of the packing-bag seal. He knows of a tradition in which letters came from abroad for "the sons of the high priests" which seems to be some elite group in Jerusalem. Since there was no one piece of dirt that was the size of the packing-bag seal, the sages were not concerned about the purity of the dirt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with how a person can harvest grapes that grow in a bet peras without allowing the grapes to become impure.
  How does one harvest the grapes of a bet peras? They sprinkle [hatat water] on the harvesters and the vessels [once] and then a second time. Then they harvest the grapes and take them out of the bet peras. Others then receive [the grapes] and take them to the winepress. If the latter set [of persons] came into contact with the former, they become unclean, This is according to the words of Bet Hillel.  The first section contains the opinion of Bet Hillel as to how one can harvest the grapes and bring them to the winepress without them becoming impure. The first step is to purify the person harvesting and his vessels. Seven days before the harvesting he goes through the purification process of having hatat water (those containing the ashes of the red heifer) sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh day. Generally this is done only for someone who has corpse impurity, but here it is done even if the person does not actually have corpse impurity. The point of the procedure is to demonstrate that the impurity of the bet peras is being taken with grave consideration (pun intended). After this, the person harvests the grapes and brings them out of the bet peras. It would seem that the grapes should be defiled by the person and the vessels for these are defiled once they are in the bet peras. However, since there is no other way to get the grapes out of the field, the rabbis didn't declare that they would impure. In other words, since the impurity of the bet peras is of rabbinic origin (and not from the Torah), the rabbis have room to dispense with this impurity when they feel the situation requires. The harvesters then give the grapes to pure people who had not gone into the field. Those who have received the grapes can take them to the winepress and press the grapes while they are pure. The harvesters should not because it is possible to pass the grapes on to people that were not in a winepress.  Those people receiving the grapes should not have any contact with those people who were in the field, and if they do, they become impure, as would the grapes.
  Bet Shammai say: [the gatherer] holds the sickle with sinew-rope, or harvests the grapes with a sharp flint, lets [the grapes fall] into a basket, and then he takes [them] to the winepress. Rabbi Yose said: When do these rules apply? [Only] in the case of a vineyard which subsequently became a bet peras; but a person who plants [vines] in a bet peras must sell [the grapes] in the market.  Bet Shammai provides an entirely different solution to the problem. The harvester should harvest the grapes using vessels that cannot become impure. He doesn't touch the sickle, because he wraps it with a type of rope that cannot become impure. Alternatively, he harvests using stone, which is never susceptible to impurity. He then lets the grapes fall into a type of basket that cannot become impure. Since he never touches the grapes and the vessels are not impure, the grapes do not become impure. Then he can take the grapes himself directly to the winepress.
  Rabbi Yose says that all of the above refers only to a case where the vineyard existed prior to its becoming a bet peras. In these situations, the sages gave a solution whereby the person could find a way to harvest without defiling the grapes. However, if the person simply planted a vineyard in a bet peras, the rabbis did not allow him to bring the grapes to the winepress while preserving their purity. His only option in this case would be to sell the grapes in the marketplace. These grapes have not become susceptible to impurity since they weren't harvested to be crushed.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  There are three [kinds of] bet peras:A field in which a grave was plowed may be planted with any kind of plant,But must not be sown with any kind of seed, except with seed [yielding produce] which is reaped.If [such produce] were plucked, the threshing-floor must be piled up in [the field] itself, and the [grain] sifted through two sieves, the words of Rabbi Meir.But the sages say: grain [must be sifted] through two sieves, but pulse through three sieves.And he must burn the stubble and the stalks.[Such a field] conveys uncleanness by contact and carriage but does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing.The next three mishnayot introduce three different types of bet peras: one in which a grave has been plowed, one in which a grave's location was lost (mishnah three), and a "kochin field" (explained mishnah four). Each of these different types of fields has different rules which govern it.Section two: Plants such as trees can be planted in a field in which a grave was plowed because harvesting the fruit of these trees won't uproot the earth. In yesterday's mishnah we learned that Rabbi Yose forbade planting a vineyard, but the other sages seem to allow any type of plant to be planted.Section three: It is permitted to sow seeds which yield produce that is reaped, meaning cut down.Section four: However, it is problematic to plant seeds which yield produce that is plucked, meaning torn out of the ground. The fear is that a bone will get stuck to the bottom of the plant and the harvester will bring it into his house and thereby transmit impurity to other places. To remedy this problem he must pile up the produce in the field itself and not bring it to other places. In the field, Rabbi Meir says he must sift through the produce twice to clean off the dirt and any bones. The other sages say he needs to sift pulse (legumes) three times because more dirt is mixed in with it.Section six: He must burn the stubble and stalks while they are still in the field, again because we are afraid that there is some bone mixed in with them.Section seven: The field and pieces of dirt from the field convey impurity if one comes into contact with them or if one carries them. But the dirt of the field cannot cause impurity by overshadowing (an ohel) because a bone the size of a lentil does not transmit impurity by overshadowing.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A field in which a grave has been lost may be sown with any kind of seed, But must not be planted with any kind of plant; Nor may any trees be permitted to remain there except shade-trees which do not produce fruit.  Today's mishnah deals with a field in which a grave has been lost. Such a field may be planted with seed even if the produce will be plucked. We are not concerned lest a piece of bone get stuck to a plant when it is uprooted and that he will bring it into his home (as we were concerned in yesterday's mishnah) because in such a field the bones were not spread around by plowing. The roots of these types of plants will not reach down to where the body was buried, and therefore there is no concern that when they are uprooted, bones will be uprooted as well. However, one cannot plant trees there because their roots do reach down to the grave. It is even forbidden to leave fruit trees there because their roots receive nourishment from the grave. The only type of tree that can be left there is a tree that is meant just for shade and does not yield fruit.
  [Such a field] conveys uncleanness by contact, carriage and overshadowing.  Since there is an unplowed grave in this field, it conveys impurity in all three ways contact, carriage and overshadowing. In other words, this field is treated more strictly than a field that had a grave but was plowed over.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A kokhin field may neither be planted nor sown, but its earth is regarded as clean and ovens may be made of it for holy use.  The final type of bet peras is called a "kochin field." There are two main explanations for this, one based on a text which reads "bokhin" instead of "kokhin." "Bokhin" means to cry or wail. According to this reading, this type of field was on the way to the cemetery and people would stop there, put the biers down and wail over the dead. The fear is that a limb of the body might have fallen out onto the field (oops, there goes an arm!). The other interpretation (supported by the Tosefta) is based on the word "kokhin". The Tosefta asks: "What is a kokhin field? Any field in which they dig in the ground and moved kokhin to the sides." Kokhin are burial niches. So a kokhin field is one in which the burial niches were moved to the sides of the fields. The fear is that they missed one of the kokhin. According to the first explanation, one cannot plant or sow seeds in such a field because the field was designated to be used as a "mourner's field." According to the second explanation, even though the kokhin were removed, it retains the status of a burial ground and therefore it cannot be used for planting or sowing seed. However, earth taken out of the field is considered pure. The earth in the field is only impure because of a doubt, whether there was a grave there. Therefore the sages decreed that one who entered the field is impure. But they didn't decree that earth taken out of the field should be impure. Therefore, one can take earth out of the bet peras and use it to make a pure oven.
  Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that it [a bet peras in which a grave was plowed over] is examined  for one who wished to perform the pesah sacrifice,but is not examined for one who wants to eat terumah.  Both houses agree that if a person walked through a bet peras which had been plowed over and then wanted to go offer his pesah sacrifice, which can only be done in a state of purity, that they can have the field checked to find out if there really is a bone the size of a barleycorn in it. If such a bone is found, he will be declared impure and he won't be allowed to offer the sacrifice, but if not, he can go on his merry way to Jerusalem. They also agree that the field is not checked if all that the person wants to do is eat terumah. The difference between the pesah sacrifice and the terumah seems to be that the sacrificing and eating the pesah on Pesah is a mitzvah and therefore they should do anything possible to allow him to do so. In contrast, eating terumah is not a mitzvah, it's just allowed to the kohanim. If he doesn't eat terumah, he can eat regular produce.
  And as for a nazirite: Bet Shammai say: it is examined, But Bet Hillel say: it is not examined.  However, the two houses disagree with regard to the Nazirite that walks through a bet peras. According to Bet Shammai they do check the field on his behalf and if no bone is found, the Nazirite remains pure. Bet Hillel says that they do not check the field. The Nazirite is considered impure and he must be purified on the third and seventh days. The days in which he is impure will not count towards his term of naziriteship (see Nazir 7:3).
  How does he examine it? He brings earth that he can move, and places it into a sieve with fine meshes, and crumbles. If a bone of barley-corn size is found there [the person passing through the field] is deemed unclean.  To check the earth they would bring any of it that they could carry and they would check it with a sieve. If a bone the size of a barleycorn was found, the man who went through the field was declared impure, lest he had contact with that bone.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with various ways that a bet peras can be purified.
  How is a bet haperas purified? They remove [soil to a depth of] three handbreadths, or [soil to a height of] three handbreadths is placed upon it.  Basically, the way to purify a bet peras is to either remove the top soil or to add new top soil. Each of these must be done to a depth of three handbreadths, which is the depth of soil that a typical plow overturns.
  If they removed [soil from a depth of] three handbreadths from one half [and upon the other half they placed three hand breadths [of soil], it becomes clean.  It is possible to purify half the field by adding topsoil and half the field by removing topsoil.
  Rabbi Shimon says: even they removed one handbreadth and a half and placed upon it one handbreadth and a half from another place, it becomes clean.  Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient. It is possible to remove 1.5 handbreadths of topsoil and then add 1.5 handbreadths of new topsoil. Note that in reality, when he plows he will plow into the old topsoil because the plow goes to a depth of three handbreadths. In other words, Rabbi Shimon's rule is basically a legal fiction. As long as the adding/removing totals up to a sum of 3 handbreadths, it purifies the field.
  One who paves a bet peras with stones that cannot [easily] be moved, it becomes clean.  If one paves a bet peras with stones, the soil underneath will not be easily moved. Therefore, the field which was a bet peras can be considered pure.
  Rabbi Shimon says: even if one digs up [the soil of] a bet peras [and doesn’t find any bones] it becomes clean.  According to Rabbi Shimon if one digs up a bet peras and finds no bones, the field is pure, for this is considered the best kind of check possible.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A person who walks through a bet peras on stones that cannot [easily] be moved, or [who rides] on a man or beast whose strength is great, remains clean. [But if he walks] on stones that can [easily] be moved, or [rides] upon a man or beast whose strength is lousy, he becomes unclean.  If a person walks through a bet peras but steps only on stones that cannot be moved, or if he gets a ride through a bet peras on the back of another strong person or strong animal, he remains pure. This is because by walking through the bet peras he doesn't move any soil underneath that might contain bones. In the case of the stones, since the stones cannot be moved, he won't move anything that is underneath. And in the case of the person/beast, even though the carrier will move the soil that he treads upon, the person being carried does not move the person carrying him (because he is strong), and therefore he remains pure. However, if he walks on stones that can be moved or on the back of a weak person or animal, he becomes impure because he is considered as moving the soil underfoot. If the carrier moves a bone underneath, then the person carrying is considered as having moved the bones as well.
  A person who travels in the land of the gentiles over mountains or rocks, becomes unclean; But if [he travels] by the sea or along the strand, he remains clean. What is [meant by] ‘the strand’? Any place to which the sea rises when it is stormy.  In 2:3 we learned that the land outside of Israel is considered to be impure. One who walks there is defiled. Our mishnah teaches that this includes even the mountains and rocks. We might have thought that since the dead are not buried there, that these places are pure. Therefore the mishnah teaches that the rabbinic decree that the land of the Gentiles is impure includes even places such as these. However, it doesn't include the sea or the strand close to the sea. It seems that these places are not considered to be "land" and therefore they were not included in the rabbinic decree.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If one buys a field in Syria near to the land of Israel:If he can enter it in cleanness, it is deemed clean and is subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce];But he cannot enter it in cleanness, it [is deemed] unclean, but it is still subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce].The dwelling-places of non-Jews are unclean. How long must [the non-Jew] have dwelt in [the dwelling-places] for them to require examination? Forty days, even if there was no woman with him. If, however, a slave or [an Israelite] woman watched over [the dwelling-place], it does not require examination.Section one: The land of Syria (this is not the same as modern day Syria, but the general area is probably close) is impure as are all lands outside of Israel.If one buys a field in Syria that lies right next to the border with Israel, and he can enter there in cleanness, meaning that there is no cemetery on the Israeli side, then the field on the Syrian side is considered clean. In other words, even though this land is not technically in Israel, since it was bought by a Jew and he can enter there without otherwise being defiled, it counts as part of the land of Israel (definitely not getting into any political implications of this mishnah).Any produce grown on the land is liable for tithes and is subject to the laws of sheviit (the sabbatical year).Section two: However, if he cannot enter there while maintaining his purity because he would have to go through a cemetery, then the field itself is unclean. It is still subject to the laws of tithes and sheviit, because the land of Syria is always subject to these laws.Section three: The rabbis believed that non-Jews would bury their miscarriages inside their houses. I don't know if this is historically true, but it is clear that the rabbis believed this. Therefore, any home owned by a non-Jew, even inside the land of Israel, needed to be examined to see if the non-Jew had buried a fetus there, provided that the non-Jew lived there for at least 30 days. The house needs to be examined even if he doesn't seem to be living with his wife, lest he brought another woman into his house.If an Israelite, even a slave or a woman, was watching over the house so that he wouldn't bury a miscarriage inside the house, then the house is pure. In other words, the non-Jew doesn't inherently defile the house by his presence. For the house to be defiled there must be the possibility that he buried a miscarriage there.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday's mishnah we learned that a Jew wishing to buy a home from a non-Jew must examine the home to make sure that the non-Jew had not buried there a miscarried fetus. Today's mishnah discusses where they must check.
  Warning: there is a strong "yucky" factor to this mishnah.
  What do they examine? Deep drains and foul-smelling waters.  The first opinion seems to imply that the fetus might be cast into drains and other types of drainage ditches.
  Bet Shammai say: even garbage dumps and crumbled earth.  Bet Shammai adds garbage dumps and soft crumbled earth. Note that both opinions agree that the non-Jew would not actually bury the fetus in the floor of the house, for digging up such a floor would not be easy.
  Bet Hillel say: any place where a pig or a weasel can go requires no examination.  Bet Hillel adds a leniency that doesn't seem to disagree with the above opinion (this is unusual). The Jew need not check any place where a pig or weasel might go, because if the fetus had been buried there we could assume that a pig or weasel either ate it or dragged it somewhere else [I told you this was yucky].
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to deal with impurity of Gentile dwelling places and even gets into some specifics as to which cities are impure.
  Colonnades  are not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling places.  Collonades are roofed but open areas with many columns to support the roofs. Since non-Jews don't bury their miscarriages there, they are pure.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a non-Jewish city that has been destroyed is not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling-places.  Wild animals will circulate around in destroyed cities. Therefore, even if miscarriages were once buried there, the wild animals will eat them.
  The east [side] of Caesaron and the west [side] of Caesaron are graveyards.  Caesoron, also known as Caesarea Philippa is near the Jordan springs. Both sides of this ciry were used by non-Jews as graveyards and therefore they are impure.
  The east [side] of Acre was doubtful, but the sages declared it clean.  The sages weren't sure if there was a graveyard on the east side of Acre, but they declared it clean anyway. Very generous of them.
  Rabbi and his law court voted [to decide] about Keni and declared it clean.  Keni is on the southern edge of Israel, according to Albeck, near modern Eilat. Rabbi Judah Hanasi and his court actually had a vote about its purity, and they declared it clean.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Ten places are not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling-places:Arabs’ tents,Field-huts (,Triangular field-huts,Fruit-shelters,Summer shelters,A gate-house,The open spaces of a courtyard,A bath-house,An armory,And the place where the legions [camp].Our mishnah, the final in the tractate (have we really reached the end?), lists places owned by non-Jews that are not considered impure. These places are all for temporary dwelling and therefore there is no assumption that fetuses would have been buried there.