meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה כלים
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim
  
  Introduction
  
  Before I begin to discuss Kelim, I would like to begin with a note on learning the laws of purity, a subject which we have only indirectly touched upon until now. The very fact that at least 1/6 of the Mishnah and probably a large percentage of Leviticus are dedicated to the laws of purity certainly implies that these rules had important meaning in their lives. For us it is hard to determine what exactly that meaning might have been, but my sense is that all societies, primitive and modern, have their ways of ordering the world, and that purity/impurity systems are a means of going about this. This is a subject that Mary Douglass, an anthropologist, has written extensively about (she even has a book on Leviticus). I would urge any of you who are interested in further reading to look at some of her work, or the commentaries of Jacob Millgrom, for further insights into some of these subjects. Jonathan Klawans has also written an excellent book on purity. While nearly all of these rules are no longer practiced, I think that if we want to truly enter into the rabbinic bet midrash, into their way of thinking, there is no better way to do so than to learn Seder Toharot.  There are five main causes of impurity discussed in Seder Toharot: 1) A dead body. 2) The eight creepy-crawly things listed in Leviticus 11. These are called "sheretz/sheratzim." 3) The carcass of a nevelah, a kosher animal that was not slaughtered properly.  4) The zav or zavah (man or woman suffering abnormal genital discharge), a menstruant or a woman who gave birth.  5) Tsaraat, which is some sort of skin disease.  These five sources of impurity are discussed in the first chapter of Kelim. 
  The following items can become impure: people, vessels, food and drinks. To become susceptible to impurity, food must first come into contact with a liquid. People and vessels can become pure by entering a mikveh. After entering the mikveh they become pure after sunset. A person who becomes impure through contact with a dead body must undergo a stricter purification process, involving the ashes of the red heifer.  There are obviously many more rules that we will learn on the way, but these are the basics, and if you remember them, you will find the Seder a bit easier (just a bit!). 
  The word "kelim" means "vessels" but it has a broader meaning in mishnaic Hebrew than the word "vessels" in English. It basically includes most things made for human use—utensils, tools, clothing, furniture and many others. Our tractate deals with how these objects can become impure and pure, and how they convey purity to other things, mostly food and drink. At the outset, I will describe certain rules that the rabbis established. Most of these were learned either directly or indirectly from biblical verses, but I shall not go in to all of the midrashim that lie at the heart of these rules. The verses are found below, and we shall make frequent reference to them throughout.
  How a vessel receives/conveys impurity depends largely on the material from which that vessel was made. We shall now deal with the materials addressed throughout the tractate.
  Earthenware: Earthenware vessels become impure only if something impure falls into them. They cannot become impure by something touching their outside. However, from the inside they can become impure even without contact, for instance the impure thing hangs inside their air space. Because of this rule, for an earthenware vessel to become impure it must have an inside, such as a cup, a tub, a jar, etc. If the earthenware vessel has a lid and the lid is sealed to it, impurity cannot enter. Earthenware vessels convey impurity to food and drink found inside, even if they are not touching. But they do not convey impurity to other vessels. 
  Other types of vessels (especially wood, leather and bone): Vessels made of other types of material receive impurity by contact, even if they don't have any inside. However, if impurity enters their airspace, they are not impure. Wooden, leather and bone vessels must be meant to receive or hold both people and things in order to become impure. For instance, a wooden table can become impure, because it serves both people and things, but a ladder only serves people and therefore it cannot become impure. They most also be the types of vessels that are moved for them to become impure. Thus a very large container cannot become impure.   They convey impurity to food and drink. Vessels made of stone, dirt or manure cannot become or convey impurity. According to Torah law, glass vessels also cannot become or convey impurity. However, rabbinic law treats them as wood, leather and bone vessels. 
  The major difficulty in understanding Kelim is that we often don't have a clear picture as to what the vessel being discussed actually was. The words for vessels tend to change over time, as technology and language develop, and rabbinic traditions did not always preserve what the meaning of these words was. In addition, Kelim and all of Seder Toharot was not as well learned as other sedarim and tractates, again contributing to a loss in meaning. As is typical in the Mishnah, the mishnah often conveys its meaning by using specific examples, as opposed to outlining general rules. The problem is that when one doesn't understand the example, the rule is harder to understand. We will do the best we can in learning this tractate, and as a rule, I shall use Albeck's explanations. In order to prevent confusion, I will infrequently cite variant explanations. I hope that despite these difficulties, the tractate is interesting and somewhat intelligible.
  Leviticus 11 29 The following shall be unclean for you from among the things that swarm on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and great lizards of every variety; 30 the gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. 31 Those are for you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. 32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. 33 And if any of those falls into an earthen vessel, everything inside it shall be unclean and [the vessel] itself you shall break. 34 As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become unclean if it came in contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become unclean if it was inside any vessel. 35 Everything on which the carcass of any of them falls shall be unclean: an oven or stove shall be smashed. They are unclean and unclean they shall remain for you. 36 However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be clean, but whoever touches such a carcass in it shall be unclean. 37 If such a carcass falls upon seed grain that is to be sown, it is clean; 38 but if water is put on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be unclean for you.  
  Leviticus Chapter 15 1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: 2 Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When any man has a discharge issuing from his member, he is unclean. 3 The uncleanness from his discharge shall mean the following — whether his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up so that there is no discharge, his uncleanness means this: 4 Any bedding on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean, and every object on which he sits shall be unclean. 5 Anyone who touches his bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 6 Whoever sits on an object on which the one with the discharge has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 7 Whoever touches the body of the one with the discharge shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 8 If one with a discharge spits on one who is clean, the latter shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 9 Any means for riding that one with a discharge has mounted shall be unclean; 10 whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until evening; and whoever carries such things shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 11 If one with a discharge, without having rinsed his hands in water, touches another person, that person shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 12 An earthen vessel that one with a discharge touches shall be broken; and any wooden implement shall be rinsed with water.  19 When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days; whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. 20 Anything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; and anything that she sits on shall be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; 22 and anyone who touches any object on which she has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 23 Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat, on touching it he shall be unclean until evening. 24 And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean.  25 When a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or when she has a discharge beyond her period of impurity, she shall be unclean, as though at the time of her impurity, as long as her discharge lasts. 26 Any bedding on which she lies while her discharge lasts shall be for her like bedding during her impurity; and any object on which she sits shall become unclean, as it does during her impurity: 27 whoever touches them shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 
  Numbers 19 14 This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Mishnah Kelim begins by listing five types of impurity that are called "fathers of impurity." The word "fathers of…" is also used in connection with damages  and in connection with the 39 types of labor prohibited on Shabbat.
  The fathers of impurity are a: sheretz, semen, [an Israelite] who has contracted corpse impurity, a metzora during the days of his counting, and the waters of purification whose quantity is less than the minimum needed for sprinkling.  Below in sections three and four the mishnah explains the shared characteristics of these types of impurity. A) Sheretz one of the eight creepy crawly things listed in Leviticus 19:29ff. B) See Leviticus 15:16-17. C) See Numbers 19: 11, 17. D) Once the metzora (person with skin disease) is healed, he spends seven days outside of the camp until he is allowed back in. During these days he is still impure and he conveys impurity to other things. See Leviticus 14. E) These are waters with the red heifer's ashes in them. See Numbers 19:21. If there is not sufficient water to be used to sprinkle on the dead, then these waters convey impurity in the ways described below. Tomorrow's mishnah will discuss how they convey impurity if there is enough to sprinkle.
  Behold, these convey impurity to people and vessels by contact and to earthenware by presence within their airspace,  These five "fathers of impurity" convey impurity by contact with people and vessels. When it comes to earthenware, as we explained in the introduction, the vessel is impure only if the source of impurity enters its airspace. It does not convey impurity through contact.
  But they do not convey impurity by being carried.  If a person carries one of these things without coming into physical contact with it, he is not thereby made impure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Moving up on the hierarchy of "fathers of impurity," we now encounter two more types of impurity which are even more contagious than the five listed in yesterday's mishnah.
  Above them are nevelah and waters of purification whose quantity is sufficient to be sprinkled, for these convey impurity to a person [even] by being carried so that he in turn conveys impurity to clothing by contact.  Nevelah is carrion of a pure animal, that is, a kosher animal that was not slaughtered properly. See Leviticus 11:24-28, 39-40. Anyone who even carries nevelah, or a piece of nevelah, is impure, even if he doesn't directly touch the carrion. Furthermore, he in turn defiles the clothing that he is wearing while carrying the carrion. The same halakhah applies to the waters of impurity (see yesterday's mishnah) if there is a sufficient amount to sprinkle on a person to purify him.
  Clothing, however, is free from impurity where there was contact alone.  If a person touches one of these things, his clothes are not thereby defiled. They are only defiled if he carries one of these things.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  We continue moving up the line of defiling agents.
  Above them is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, for he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding].  The impurity of a man who has sex with a menstruant is referred to in Leviticus 15:24: "And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean." The rabbis interpret the end of this verse to mean that no matter how much bedding lies beneath him, they are all impure. The bedding will have first degree impurity, which means it defiles food and drink, but not other people or vessels.
  Above them is the issue of a zav, his spit, his semen and his urine, and the blood of a menstruant, for they convey impurity both by contact and by carrying.  Fluids which come out of the zav (spit, semen and urine) and menstrual blood convey impurity to a person by carrying and contact, such that he in turn conveys impurity to his clothing. This is different from the impurities mentioned above in mishnah two, which through contact do not defile a person such that he defiles his clothing. And a person who has sex with a menstruant does not defile others by being carried.
  Above them is an object on which one can ride, for it conveys impurity even when it lies under a heavy stone.  If a zav sits on a heavy stone, and underneath the stone there is a vessel used for riding (such as a saddle) the vessel is impure even though the stone cannot become impure. This is a special characteristic of something that is ridden upon.
  Above the object on which one can ride is that on which one can lie, for contact is the same as its carrying.  Something that a zav lies upon (and is a vessel used for lying down, such as a bed) is even more serious in its impurity than something upon which he rides, in that the former conveys impurity through both contact and carrying. Furthermore, if someone has contact with something upon which the zav lay, he will himself further convey impurity to clothing. In contrast, one who has contact with something upon which the zav rides, does not defile clothing.
  Above the object on which one can lie is the zav, for a zav conveys impurity to the object on which he lies, while the object on which he lies cannot convey the same impurity to that upon which it lies.  The zav himself can cause anything upon which he lies to become a defiling agent. However, the thing upon which he lies does not itself cause other bedding to become a "father of impurity." Rather, anything it touches just has "first degree impurity." We will learn more about the implications of being either a "father of impurity" or merely a "first" or lower degree of impurity as we proceed.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This is the last mishnah that ranks defiling agents. It ends with the greatest source of impurity the dead body.
  Above the zav is the zavah, for she conveys impurity to the man who has intercourse with her.  The zavah conveys impurity to the man who has relations with her, just as does the menstruant. In other words, not only is he impure, but he also defiles that which he lies upon, even without contact.
  Above the zavah is the metzora, for he conveys impurity by entering into a house.  When a metzora enters a house, everything in the house is impure, even if he doesn't come into contact with it.
  Above the metzora is a [human] bone the size of a barley grain, for it conveys impurity for seven days.  Contact with a bone from a dead body makes a person impure for seven full days.
  More strict than all these is a corpse, for it conveys impurity by ohel ( whereby all the others convey no impurity.  This is the final clause of the hierarchy. The most severe form of impurity is conveyed by a dead body, for it conveys a significant form of impurity to anyone found in the same "ohel" as the body. In rabbinic parlance, "ohel" doesn't just mean "tent" as it does in Hebrew. It means "overhanging." We shall learn more details concerning this concept throughout the tractate, and also in tractate Ohalot (I bet you can't wait!).
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  There are ten grades of impurity when it comes to impurities that are a result of  emissions from a male body. These include semen, flux (abnormal genital discharge), skin disease (tsaraat) and separated limbs.
  There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person:A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe.  The lowest level of impurity is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is not fully pure until he brings his sacrifices. An example is the metzora (see Keritot 2:1). Such a person cannot eat sacrifices, but he can already eat terumah and second tithe.
  If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe.  A tevul yom is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is waiting for the sun to set before he becomes fully pure. He can't eat terumah or sacrifices, but he can still eat second tithe.
  If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three.  A man who has a seminal emission (and has not yet been to the mikveh) cannot eat any of these three things, giving him a more serious form of impurity than the tevul yom.
  If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding].  A man who has intercourse with a menstruant has an even more serious form of impurity. This was explained above in mishnah three.
  If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.  A zav who has had one or two abnormal discharges has a higher form of impurity, in that he needs to immerse in a spring in order to become pure. See Leviticus 15:13, "When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge, he shall count off seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes and bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean."
  If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice.  If he has three abnormal discharges within three days, he must bring a sacrifice of either two turtle-doves or two pigeons. See Leviticus 15:14.
  If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering.  There are two stages when it comes to the impurity of a person who has developed tzaraat (skin disease). The first is when the priest sends him away to wait and see if fuller signs of the affliction develop. Already at this period he conveys impurity by entering a house (see mishnah four). However, he does not have to rend his clothes, loosen his hair or shave his body. Concerning these things see Leviticus 13:45. He also does not need to bring sacrifices, if later he is determined not to have tzaraat.
  But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these.  Once it is determined that he does have tzaraat, he is liable to do all of these things.
  If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel.  A limb which is severed from a living person conveys impurity, even if the person remains alive. If it does not have a sufficient amount of flesh, then its level of impurity is such that it defiles by contact and carrying, but not by entering into an ohel. Below the mishnah will explain "sufficient amount of flesh."
  But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A "proper quantity of flesh" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.  If there is a sufficient amount of flesh, then it also conveys impurity by being in an ohel. For there to be "a sufficient amount of flesh" there must be enough flesh on the limb such that it could heal if it was attached to the body. So if one's finger falls off, for instance, but it had already been damaged so much that there was barely any flesh on it, it doesn't convey impurity by being in an ohel. Rabbi Judah provides a slightly different interpretation. If there is enough flesh in one place on the limb, such that if it was stripped off it could surround the limb, and the strip would have the width of the thread of a woof, then it is sufficient.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  The remainder of this chapter establishes geographical grades of holiness which lands are holier than others, and which places within Israel holier than other places.
  There are ten grades of holiness: the land of Israel is holier than all other lands. And what is the nature of its holiness? That from it are brought the omer, the firstfruits and the two loaves, which cannot be brought from any of the other lands. The first grade of holiness, meaning the first place with any degree of holiness at all, is the land of Israel, which is holier than any other land. The mishnah then proceeds to explain what are the ramifications of Israel being holier than the other lands. Israeli is holier for three reasons: 1) The barley that is reaped on the day after Pesah (see Leviticus 23:10-15), called the omer, must be harvested in the land of Israel. 2) First fruits, which are brought to the Temple (see Mishnah Bikkurim) and eaten in Jerusalem by their owners, are brought only from fruits that grow in the land of Israel. We should note that this is true of all agricultural offerings terumah, tithes, etc. Anything brought directly from produce grown on the land comes only from the land of Israel. The mishnah specifies first fruits because they are brought to the Temple in a formal ceremony, whereas the other offerings are given directly to the priest or Levite, without any special ritual. 3) The two loaves are brought on Shavuot. They must come from grain grown in Israel (see Leviticus 23:17). It is revealing that the rabbis grade holiness by opportunities to perform mitzvot. A place in which more mitzvot can be performed is holier than others. This implies that holiness is wrapped up in the performance of God's will, as if to say that the more one can perform God's will, the more holiness is brought to the world. A different view of gradations of holiness might claim that God "resides" in a certain place, and therefore, that place is holier.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Cities that are walled are holier, for metzoras must be sent out of them and a corpse, though it may be carried about within them as long as it is desired, may not be brought back once it has been taken out. There are two halakhot that make walled cities holier than non-walled cities. First of all, metzoras must be sent out of walled cities. This is based loosely on Leviticus 13:46 which states that a metzora must be sent out of the "camp." The second halakhah is that a corpse may not be brought into a walled city. However, a corpse that is already in a walled city need not be removed quickly.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten.  Within the walls of Jerusalem is holier than within other walled cities, for within these walls one may eat lesser holy things (kodashim kalim) such as the pesah sacrifice and shelamim sacrifices. One may also eat second tithe inside the walls of Jerusalem.
  The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it.  Men or women who are zavim or zavot, and menstruants and women after childbirth are not allowed to enter the Temple Mount. This is stated with regard to the woman who gave birth in Leviticus 12:4.
  The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it.  The chel is a sort of corridor surrounding the Temple's courtyards. See Middot 2:3. Strictly speaking, its area is not considered part of the Temple. Non-Jews and Jews who contracted corpse impurity are not allowed into this area. This seems to be an extra insurance policy to keep these two categories further away from the Temple itself.
  The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so.  The Women's court was the first court into which one would enter upon entering the Temple. See Middot 2:5-6. A person who had gone to the mikveh but who had not yet waited till sundown could not go into this court, meaning he/she cannot enter the Temple. However, if he/she accidently enters this court, he is not liable for a sin-offering, as would be a person who entered the Temple while fully impure.
  The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat.  After going through the Women's Court, one would enter the Israelites' court. Obviously, any impure Israelite cannot enter here. The mishnah adds that a metzora (skin disease) who had been purified but had not yet offered his sacrifices cannot enter this area, and if he does so, he is liable for a hatat.
  The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.  The Priests' Court is basically off limits to the Israelites. However, they may enter in order to perform one of the sacrificial actions that they are either obligated or permitted to perform. These including laying one's hands on the sacrifice (see Menahot 9:8), slaughtering the sacrifice (Israelites can, but do not have to perform this see Zevahim 3:1) and waving the sacrifice (see Menahot 5:6-7).
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  The area between the porch ( and the altar is holier, for [priests] who have blemishes or unkempt hair may not enter it.  There were 22 cubits between the porch and the altar (see Middot 3:6, 5:1). This section is off-limits to a priest who is blemished (Leviticus 21:17), or one who grew his hair too long (Leviticus 10:6).
  The Hekhal is holier, for no one whose hands or feet are unwashed may enter it.  Priests who had not washed their hands and feet could not enter the Hekhal, the Sanctuary. However, according to the first opinion they could enter the area between the porch and the altar without washing their hands.
  The Holy of Holies is holier, for only the high priest, on Yom Kippur, at the time of the service, may enter it.  The highest degree of sanctity is accorded to the Holy of Holies, for the high priest could only enter there once a year, on Yom Kippur.
  Rabbi Yose said: in five respects the area between the porch and the altar is equal to the Hekhal, for those afflicted with blemishes or with a wild growth of hair, or who have drunk wine or whose hands or feet are unwashed may not enter there, and the people must keep away from the area between the porch and the altar  when the incense is being burned.  According to Rabbi Yose the prohibitions that the first opinion says begin at the Sanctuary, begin between the porch and the altar. He also holds that priests who had drunk wine (or other alcohol) cannot go into this area (see Leviticus 10:9). If you go back and count, Rabbi Yose holds that there are ten levels of holiness whereas the first opinion holds that there are eleven. In addition, when the incense is being burned on a daily basis, the people must leave both the Sanctuary and the area between the porch and the altar. On Yom Kippur they need not withdraw all the way to the porch, but rather just leave the Sanctuary itself.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  After the introductory chapter, our mishnah begins to deal with the purity and impurity of vessels.
  Vessels of wood, vessels of leather, vessels of bone or vessels of glass: If they are simple they are clean If they form a receptacle they are unclean.  Vessels made of wood, leather, bone or glass can come in two forms: simple or with a receptacle.  They are simple if they are not made to accept anything. Simple vessels cannot become defiled. They are susceptible to impurity only if they have a receptacle. This rule seems to be derived from Leviticus 11:32.
  If they were broken they become clean again.  If the vessel was impure when it was whole and then was broken, it now automatically becomes pure.
  If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth.  Once it is fixed, it is now susceptible again to impurity. However, the vessel does not return to its old impurity. In other words, the slate is wiped clean.
  Earthen vessels and vessels of sodium carbonate are equal in respect of impurity: they contract and convey impurity through their air-space; they convey impurity through the outside but they do not become impure through their backs; and when broken they become clean.  The rules regarding earthenware and sodium carbonate vessels are different. As I explained in the introduction, they can be made impure only by something entering their air space, even if the defiling agent does not touch them. They also convey impurity to food or other vessels that enter their air space, even if they do not come into contact with them. This is derived from Leviticus 11:33. They also convey impurity through their outsides. So if they are impure, and a piece of food touches the outside of the vessel, the food is impure. But if something impure touches the outside of the vessel (their backs) they are not defiled. Earthenware vessels cannot be made pure by entering a mikveh. The only way they can become pure is by being broken (see Leviticus 6:21, 11:33, 15:12).
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday's mishnah we learned that vessels become pure when they are broken. Our mishnah modifies yesterday's mishnah, by teaching that the vessels are "broken" and thereby pure only when they are no longer usable. If pieces of the vessel can be used for any purpose, that piece retains its impurity, or at least its capacity to become impure.
  The tannaim in our mishnah argue as to how big the piece must be in order to still be able to become impure or retain its impurity.
  As regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of the larger but broken vessels] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold oil sufficient for the anointing of a little finger of a child [if their former capacity] was that of a log. If [their former capacity] was from one log to a se'ah [their present capacity] must be a quarter of a log. If it was from a se'ah to two se'ah it must be half a log. If from two se'ah to three se'ah or as much as five se'ah it must be a log, the words of Rabbi Ishmael.  This section is Rabbi Yishmael's opinion. In each section there are two sizes how big the vessel was before it was broken, and how big the piece left needs to be in order to still be susceptible to impurity. When it comes to broken pieces, if it is a side piece it needs to be able to stand unsupported. If it can't, the size of the piece is irrelevant, for it won't receive impurity. If the vessel (or the broken piece thereof) was very small, and couldn't even hold a log (1/2 liter) before it was broken, then it only needs to be able to hold enough oil for a small child to soak his finger in. If it can't hold even this small amount of oil, then it cannot receive impurity. If the original size was from a log to a seah (24 logs), then it needs to be able to hold at least a 1/4 of a log. If the original size was from one to two seahs, it must now be able to hold 1/2 of a log, and if the original size was from two to five seahs, it must be able to hold a full log. The assumption behind all of this seems to be that if a person has a small vessel, he may save a smaller shard of that vessel. But if the vessel was originally very large, very small shards will seem to lack any value and he will get rid of them. In this case, the vessel is not susceptible to impurity.
  Rabbi Akiva says: I do not prescribe any size for the unbroken vessels, rather: as regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of larger but broken ones] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold enough oil to anoint the little finger of a child. [This size is prescribed for pots] that are not bigger than the small cooking-pots. For small cooking-pots and for those between these and the jars from Lydda the prescribed capacity is a quarter of a log. For those which have a size between that of Lydda jars and Bethlehem jars the capacity must be that of half a log. For those between Bethlehem jars and large stone jars the capacity must be that of a log.  Rabbi Akiva basically agrees with Rabbi Yishmael, but he uses a different system to delineate the original sizes of the vessels. Instead of listing capacities, he lists typical types of jars or other containers used in his day. Other than that, he agrees with Rabbi Yishmael as to how big the pieces must be in order to still be susceptible to impurity. Jars and containers seem to have been typically named based on their place of manufacture.
  Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai says: [the prescribed capacity for the fragments] of large stone jars is two logs, and that for the bottoms of broken Galilean flasks and small jars is any whatsoever, but the fragments of their sides are not susceptible to impurity  Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai seems to basically agree with Rabbi Akiva. He disagrees in that he gives different measures for how big the pieces must be for large stone jars. Whereas Rabbi Akiva held that they need hold only one log, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai holds that they must hold two logs. He also holds that small jars and Galilean flasks can still receive impurity no matter how small a piece was left. Assumedly, people would use these shards even if they were very small. However, this only applies to the base. In his opinion, the walls of these flasks or jars were not usable at all, and therefore once broken, they cannot receive impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  In our mishnah we learn that earthenware vessels are susceptible to impurity only if they have an "inner part" that is made to receive something.
  The following are not susceptible to impurity among earthen vessels: A tray without a rim, A broken incense-pan, A pierced pan for roasting corn, Gutters even if they are bent and even if they have some form of receptacle, A cooking vessel that was turned into a bread-basket cover, A bucket that was turned into a cover for grapes, A barrel used for swimmers, A small jar fixed to the sides of a ladle, A bed, a stool, a bench, a table, a ship, and an earthen lamp, behold these are no susceptible to impurity.  The vessels listed in this section cannot become impure because they do not have any "inner part," which is made to accept things. Some of these should be understandable, but I will make an attempt to explain some of the others. Gutters are not meant to hold the rain or other things and therefore they can't be defiled. The cooking vessel does have a receptacle, but since they changed it to be used as a cover for grapes which does not "receive" things, it is not susceptible to impurity. The fact that the barrel holds a person does not seem sufficient to consider it a vessel that receives. The little jar fixed to the sides of the ladle has a receptacle, but it is not used to put things in it. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity.
  The following is a general rule: any among earthen vessels that has no inner part is not susceptible to impurity on its outer sides.  This is the general rule. An earthenware vessel that does not have an "inner part" cannot become impure by having something touch it on the outside. In contrast, vessels made of wood etc., can become impure even if they do not have an inner part. If they are made to "receive" something, such as a tray, then they are impure even though they do not have an "inner part."
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A lantern that has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to impurity, but one that has none is not susceptible.  All of the vessels mentioned in this mishnah are earthenware vessels. If the lantern has a receptacle for oil, it is susceptible to impurity. If it does not, it cannot be made impure. Even though it has walls, they are only there to protect the fire and not to contain the oil.
  A potter's mould on which one begins to shape the clay is not susceptible to impurity, but that on which one finishes it is susceptible.  The mould on which the potter begins to shape the clay does not have a receptacle, therefore it is not susceptible to impurity. However, the mould on which he finishes making the vessel does have a receptacle and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.
  A funnel for home use is not susceptible to impurity, but that of merchants is susceptible because it also serves as a measure, the words of Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Akiva says: because he puts it on its side to let the buyer smell it.  A funnel doesn't hold the liquids or dry goods poured into it, therefore it is not susceptible to impurity. However, since a merchant uses the funnel for measuring (sticking his finger below to hold in that which he is measuring), his funnel is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Akiva agrees that the funnel used by the merchant is impure but for a different reason. Occasionally, the merchant will tilt the funnel on its side so that a little bit of liquid stays in it. This qualifies it as a receptacle.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the covers of various types of vessels.
  The covers of wine jars and oil jars and the covers of papyrus jars are not susceptible to impurity But if he adapted them for use as receptacles they are susceptible.  Generally, the covers of wine, oil and papyrus jars are not susceptible to impurity because they are not usually used as receptacles. However, if one fixes them in such a way that they can be used as receptacles, then they take on the characteristic of being able to receive impurity.
  The cover of a pot: When it has a hole or it has a point, it is not susceptible to impurity, But if it does not have a hole or a pointed top it is susceptible because she drains the vegetables into it. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: because she turns out the contents [of the pot] on to it.  If the cover of a cooking pot has a hole in it, or has a pointed lid, then it cannot be stood on its reverse side so as to contain the contents of the pot. Since it can't be used as a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, if it does not have a hole or a pointed top, the person (assumed by the Mishnah to be a woman) might use the top as a colander for her vegetables (the lid does not have sides, so the water goes out the side). Since it holds the vegetables, it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok agrees that in this case the lid is susceptible to impurity but provides a slightly different explanation. When the woman turns over the pot, she uses the lid to hold in the contents of the pot while the water goes out the side. I think that this is something we still do when we make pasta.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A damaged jar found in a furnace: Before its manufacture was complete it is not susceptible to impurity, But if after its manufacture was complete it is susceptible.  A damaged jar is one that is not complete, and is considered damaged even if only its handles have been removed. Mishnah 4:3 will discuss the damaged jar. If it is found in the furnace before its manufacturing process was complete, then it cannot become impure. In other words, if it was broken before it ever became a complete vessel, then it is pure, even though it has a receptacle. However, if it is first forged in the oven thereby completing its manufacturing, and then it breaks, since it does have a receptacle it is susceptible to impurity. In other words, once something is a finished vessel, it can receive impurity so long as it has a receptacle.
  A sprinkler: Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok holds it is not susceptible to impurity; But Rabbi Yose holds it to be susceptible because it lets the liquid out in drops only.  The "sprinkler" referred to here was a vessel with one hole above and many holes below. When one would cover the top hole with his finger, the water would not sprinkle out below. According to Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok, such a vessel is not considered a receptacle and therefore is not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose holds that it is susceptible because it only lets out small drops. However, if it lets the liquid out faster, then it is not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Our Mishnah deals with some vessels that have multiple parts. The main issue at hand is whether all parts become unclean if one part does.
  The following among earthen vessels are susceptible to impurity:A tray with a rim,  This is the opposite of the tray mentioned in Mishnah three, which did not have a rim.
  An unbroken fire-pan,  Also referred to in mishnah three.
  And a tray made up of dishes, If one of them was defiled by a [dead] creeping thing they do not all become unclean, But if it had a rim that projected above the rims of the dishes and one of them was defiled all are unclean.  The mishnah refers to a tray that has dishes attached to it. If one dish is defiled, the others remain pure. However, if the tray has a rim above it that surrounds all of the dishes, it joins them into one vessel. In such a case if one dish is defiled, all are unclean.
  Similarly with an earthen spice-box and a double ink-pot. If one container was defiled from a liquid, the other is not unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: its thickness is divided and that side which serves the unclean one is unclean while that which serves the clean one remains clean. If its rim projects above the others and one of them contracted impurity the other is unclean.  These two vessels also have multiple parts, such that if one is defiled the other is not. For instance if the liquid in one side becomes impure by contact with a sheretz, the liquid only touches the outside wall of the other side of the vessel and vessels are not defiled by having their outsides defiled by a liquid. However, if the sheretz had touched the vessel itself, one side of the wooden vessel will convey its impurity to the other side. This is a subject to which we return later in the tractate. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says that the wall that separates the two sides can be divided in two. The side that was on the impure half is impure, whereas the side on the half that didn't come into direct contact with the liquid remains clean. Finally, as in the previous case, if there is a rim that projects above and around both sides, it serves to join the two separate halves into one vessel, meaning that all sides are defiled.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A torch is susceptible to impurity.  A torch made of earthenware has a receptacle and is therefore susceptible to impurity.
  And the reservoir of a lamp contracts impurity through its air- space.  The reservoir of an earthenware lamp is considered a "receptacle" and therefore if something defiling comes within its airspace, it is defiled.
  The comb of a tzartzur: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is susceptible.  A tzartzur is some sort of bottle whose mouth is covered with netting made of earthenware. Around the mouth are teeth that look like those of a comb. Rabbi Eliezer holds that if impurity goes into the airspace of the comb, the comb is not defiled. But the sages hold that this area is considered a receptacle, and the comb can therefore be defiled.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  As we have learned previously, if an earthenware vessel is broken, it becomes clean. "Broken" would include a vessel that has a hole in it. The general rule is that if the hole is large enough to make the vessel unusable, it is clean.
  Our mishnah begins discussing how large the holes need to be in various vessels for them to be rendered pure.
  The size of a hole that renders an earthen vessel clean:If the vessel was made for food, the hole must be big enough for olives [to fall through].  If the vessel was made to hold food, it is impure until the hole is big enough to let out olives. Olive's are often the standard size used in food measures.
  If it was used for liquids it suffices for the hole to be big enough for liquids [to go through it].  If the vessel was used for liquids, then the hole must be large enough to let the liquids escape.
  And if it was used for both, we apply the greater stringency, that olives must be able to fall through.  If a vessel was used for both food and liquids, then the rule is stringent. If the hole is big enough to let out liquid but not food then the vessel is still partially usable, so the vessel is still susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A jar: the size of the hole must be such that a dried fig [will fall through], the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah said: walnuts. Rabbi Meir said: olives.A stew-pot or a cooking pot: such that olives [will fall through].A bucket and a pitcher: such that oil [will fall through].A tzartzur: such that water [will fall through].Rabbi Shimon says: in the case of all three, [the hole] must be such that seedlings [will fall through].A lamp: the size of the hole must be such that oil [will fall through]. Rabbi Eliezer says: such that a small perutah [will fall through].A lamp whose nozzle has been removed is clean.And one made of earth whose nozzle has been burned by the wick is also clean.Section one: There are three different opinions as to how big the hole in a jar must be for the jar to become pure: big enough to let fall through, dried figs, walnuts or olives. Of these three the fig is the largest, then the walnut then the olives. So Rabbi Meir is the most lenient (the jar is pure even if it can still hold figs or walnuts) and Rabbi Shimon is the most stringent (the jar is impure until it can no longer hold even the larger figs).Sections three and four: This section lists vessels used for liquids. Since the bucket and the pitcher are usually used for oil, the hole must be big enough to let out oil, which flows thickly and contains considerable sediment.As I explained in 2:8, a tzartzur is some sort of bottle whose mouth is covered with netting made of earthenware. It is pure once it can no longer hold water. It seems that such a vessel was usually used to hold water. This is a smaller hole than the one required to purify the bucket or the pitcher.Section five: Rabbi Shimon refers to the vessels mentioned in sections three and four. While the earlier opinion held that when these vessels can no longer hold liquid they are pure, Rabbi Shimon is more stringent and holds that the hole must be large enough to let out seedlings. If the vessel cannot be hold oil/water but can still be used for seedlings, it is still impure or at least susceptible to impurity.Section six: There is a debate about the hole needed to render a lamp pure. According to the first opinion, since a lamp usually holds oil, the measure of the hole is such to hold in oil. If it no longer holds in oil it is unusable and therefore pure. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent and holds that the hole must be sufficient to let out a small coin (a perutah). It seems that according to Rabbi Eliezer, lamps are occasionally used to store such coins, and therefore they continue to be useful until even small coins fall out.Section seven: Since the mishnah began to discuss lamps, we have a small digression on the purity of lamps (sounds like the title of a nineteenth century book "A Small Digression on the Purity of Lamps"). If the nozzle, the place where the wick rests, of a lamp is removed, the lamp can no longer be used and it is pure.Section eight: A lamp made of earth must be forged for it to become susceptible to impurity. Forging is the completion of its manufacturing process and vessels are generally not susceptible to impurity until they have been completed. If the nozzle has been burned by the heat of the fire of the wick, the lamp's manufacturing is still not complete and therefore the lamp is pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A jar that had a hole and was mended with pitch and then was broken again: If the fragment that was mended with the pitch can hold a quarter of a log it is unclean, since the designation of a vessel has never ceased to be applied to it.  A jar had a hole in it and thereby became pure, as we learned in mishnah two. When someone fixed it, it again became susceptible to impurity. Then it was broken yet again, leaving a fragment that had been fixed with the pitch.  As long as this fragment can still hold a quarter of a log, it is susceptible to impurity. The reason is that although the jar broke, it is still considered a vessel, and when it was fixed it could receive impurity again. Therefore broken pieces of it that can hold a quarter of a log are susceptible to impurity.
  A potsherd that had a hole and was mended with pitch, it is clean though it can contain a quarter of a log, because the designation of a vessel has ceased to be applied to it.  In contrast, a potsherd that had a hole in it and was then fixed, cannot become impure because a potsherd is not a vessel, even if it can contain a quarter of a log. The rule in this matter is as follows: if a broken piece of earthenware gets a hole in it, it can never become impure again because even if it is fixed, it is not considered a vessel.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a jar was about to be cracked but was strengthened with cattle dung, although the potsherds would fall apart were the dung to be removed, it is unclean, because the designation of vessel never ceased to apply.  The jar was about to fall apart, but dung was applied to the outside as glue and the pieces were held together. Although the jar would fall apart were the dung removed, it is still susceptible to impurity because the jar never broke, and therefore never lost its designation as a vessel.
  If it was broken and some of its pieces were stuck together again, or if he brought other pieces of clay from elsewhere, and it was also lined with cattle dung, even though the potsherds hold together when the dung is removed, it is clean, because the designation of vessel ceased to apply.  In this case the jar actually broke, thereby ceasing to be a vessel. Although it has been repaired, the jar can no longer receive impurity, because once a vessel has been completely broken (and not just pierced) it can no longer receive impurity.
  If it contained one potsherd that could hold a quarter of a log, all its parts contract impurity by contact, but that potsherd contracts impurity through its air-space.  If one potsherd was large enough to hold a quarter of a log, then if a defiling agent touches the inside of the jar, the entire jar is impure, even if it touched a different potsherd. Since one potsherd was large enough to be considered a "vessel" the entire repaired vessel can still be defiled. The large potsherd can become impure even through something defiling entering its airspace. So if a piece of something impure enters the airspace opposite that piece, then the entire jar is impure. But if something impure enters the airspace opposite the other potsherds, nothing is impure.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  One who lines a sound vessel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: [the lining]   contracts impurity.But the sages say: a lining over a sound vessel is not susceptible to impurity, and only one over a cracked vessel is susceptible.And the same dispute applies to the hoop of a pumpkin shell.Section one: The debate in this mishnah concerns a person who lined the outside of a vessel that was in sound shape. According to the Tosefta, he did this so that he could cook with this vessel.Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule that if the vessel becomes defiled from the inside (earthenware vessels can only be defiled from the inside), the lining on the outside is also impure. The lining can then subsequently defile any food or drink that touches it on the outside.The other sages say that the lining is susceptible to impurity only if it is necessary to hold the vessel together. So the lining of a sound vessel is not susceptible, whereas the lining of a cracked vessel is.Section two: Dried pumpkin shells were used to draw water. They would attach a hoop to the shell in order to strengthen it. This is similar to the previous case, in that both are cases of strengthening a vessel that is in sound shape. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon the hoop is susceptible to impurity, whereas the sages hold that it is not.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  As to dog's tooth which which they line large jars: anything that touches it becomes unclean.  Dog's tooth is a type of grass that was used to line jars. If the large jar becomes defiled, then the grass is defiled as well.  If food or liquids then touch the lining they too are impure.
  The plug of a jar is not regarded as connected.  The jar's impurity does not affect the plug of the jar because the plug is meant to be removed.
  That which touches the lining of an oven is unclean.  The lining of an earthenware oven is an integral part of the oven. Therefore, if the oven becomes impure the lining is impure as well and it will subsequently cause food or drink that comes into contact with it to become impure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A cauldron which was lined with mortar or with potter's clay: That which touches the mortar is unclean; But that which touches the potter's clay is clean.  The mishnah presents an earthenware cauldron which was lined with either of two materials: mortar or potter's clay. The mortar is thick and is a permanent coating. Therefore, if the kettle is defiled the coating is as well and it will subsequently affect food or liquid as well, as if they touched the kettle. But the potter's clay is not permanent and is thinner than the mortar. Therefore the lining is not affected by the impurity of the kettle.
  A kettle which was punctured and the hole was stopped with pitch: Rabbi Yose rules that it is clean since it cannot hold hot water as cold.  According to Rabbi Yose the pitch used to stop up the hole is not sufficient to make the kettle useful again. Since it cannot be used for its main purpose, to hold hot water, it is not considered to be a vessel and it cannot contract impurity. This is true even though it can be used to hold cold water.
  The same ruling he also gave concerning vessels made of pitch. Copper vessels which were lined with pitch the lining is clean, But if they are used for wine, it is unclean.  Rabbi Yose issued the same ruling with regard to all vessels coated with pitch. If the vessel was meant to be used with hot water, the pitch cannot be made impure by the impurity of the vessel. This is illustrated with regard to copper vessels. If the copper vessel was designed to be used with hot liquids, the impurity of the vessel is not transmitted to the coating. But if the vessel is used to hold wine which is cold, the vessel can transmit impurity to the lining because the lining is sufficient for holding wine.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A jar which which was pierced and the hole stopped up with more pitch than was necessary: That which touches the needed portion is unclean, But that which touches the unneeded portion is clean.  If one used more pitch than necessary to stop up an earthenware jar, only the part of the pitch that is necessary to stop up the hole is considered to be part of the jar. The unnecessary part is not part of the jar and therefore even if the jar is impure, this part remains pure.
  Pitch which dripped upon a jar, that which touches it is clean.  Pitch that simply dripped onto a jar has no function and is not considered to be part of the jar and therefore it remains pure even if the jar is impure.
  A wooden or earthen funnel which was stopped up with pitch: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean when it is of wood and clean when it is of earthenware. Rabbi Yose says that both are clean.  By plugging the funnel with pitch he has now created a receptacle. The rabbis debate whether this makes the funnel (not just the pitch) susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that this does indeed turn it into a receptacle, thereby making it susceptible to impurity (a susceptible receptacle this should remind you of a Supertramp song). Rabbi Akiva notes that since pitch is made of wood extract, it can turn a wooden funnel into a receptacle. However, it does not turn an earthenware funnel into a receptacle because it is of a different kind, so therefore the funnel remains pure. Rabbi Yose holds that since the plug is not permanent, in neither case is the funnel susceptible to impurity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  In mishnah 2:2 we learned that a potsherd (broken piece of pottery) which can stand without support and can be used to contain a minimal amount of liquid is still susceptible to impurity. In today's mishnah we learn that if it cannot stand without support than it is not susceptible.
  A potsherd that cannot stand unsupported on account of its handle, or a potsherd whose bottom is pointed and that point causes it to overbalance, is clean.  Since the broken piece of pottery cannot stand on its own, it is not considered a vessel and it is not susceptible to impurity.
  If the handle was removed or the point was broken off it is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean.  According to the first opinion, once a broken piece of pottery becomes pure (because it cannot stand on its own) it can never go back to becoming susceptible to impurity. This serves to distinguish a broken piece from a whole vessel, because if whole vessels are repaired they can again become susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah disagrees, holding that broken pieces are just like whole vessels. Once repaired such that they can hold a minimal amount of liquid, they again become susceptible to impurity.
  If a jar was broken but is still capable of holding something in its sides, or if it was split into a kind of two troughs: Rabbi Judah says it is clean But the sages say it is unclean.  The jar was broken such that it can still hold liquids when stood on its side. Alternatively, it was split into two pieces, both of which can hold some liquid when stood on their side. In this case, Rabbi Judah rules leniently. According to Rabbi Judah a potsherd can retain its susceptibility to impurity only if it can contain liquids in the same way that the original vessel did. Since these potsherds receive liquids only when standing on their sides and not when standing upright, they are pure. The other sages disagree and hold that as long as it can hold liquids, the potsherd is still susceptible to impurity. Note that the mishnah seems to want to balance a lenient ruling of Rabbi Judah with a stringent one, and so too when it comes to the sages. This could either be an easier way of remembering things, or perhaps a way of telling the reader that rabbis cannot necessarily be classified as either stringent or lenient on these matters. Rather they differ based on principles, and those principles sometimes lead them in differing directions.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a jar was cracked and cannot be moved with half a kav of dried figs in it, it is clean.  Half a kav of dried figs is an amount deemed worthy of a meal (see Peah 8:5). If a jar cannot hold this minimum measure of food, it is not susceptible to impurity.
  If a damaged vessel ( was cracked and it cannot hold any liquid, even though it can hold foodstuffs, it is clean, since remnants do not have remnants.  A damaged broken piece of an earthenware vessel that is still used to hold liquids is still susceptible to impurity. However, if it then becomes cracked such that it cannot hold liquids, it is no longer susceptible to impurity. This is because there is a general rule that once a damaged piece of earthenware becomes further damaged, it is usually discarded and therefore no longer susceptible to impurity. Note that is true even though this broken piece of a utensil could be used to hold food. Since people generally throw such a thing away, it is no longer considered a vessel.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  What is meant by a "damaged vessel" (? One whose handles were removed.  Yesterday's mishnah dealt with a damaged vessel called a gistera. A vessel is considered to be a gistera once its handles have fallen off.
  If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space.  The gistera described here has sharp edges protruding where the handle broke off from the vessel. These sharp edges seem to be on the top of the broken vessel. If these edges are close enough together so that the vessel can still hold olives, then the entire vessel can be defiled by contact on the inside of the vessel. And anything inside the vessel facing the sharp edges will convey impurity through air space, even if it does not come into contact with the vessel. In this case the sharp edges are simply part of the vessel. However, if the sharp edges are far enough apart so that they cannot hold olives, then they can still become impure through contact, but they cannot become impure by something entering their airspace. In this case the sharp edges are considered to be a handle to the vessel, and handles are not defiled by something that enters their airspace.
  If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space.  If the gistera was split in two from top to bottom so that it looks like a "cathedra," a carriage seat with a back and two sides. In other words, one side is open but three sides are closed. In such a case any part of the vessel that can be used to hold olives, contracts impurity both by contact and by defiling agents entering its airspace. The part of the gistera that cannot contain olives contracts impurity only through contact and not through defiling agents entering its airspace. Note that this halakhah matches the opinion of the sages in 4:1.
  Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner.  Korfian bottoms are pointed so that the bowl cannot stand unsupported. So too, Sidonian cups have pointed bottoms. Generally, the "gistera" of a vessel that cannot stand unsupported is not susceptible to impurity. But because these vessels were originally made to be this way, their gisteras are susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity.  The vessel referred to here has three rims, forming three circles around the vessel. Since earthenware vessels do not become impure by contact through their backs (their outside) the mishnah needs to determine which of the rims is "inside" and which is the actual rim. The basic determining factor is that the highest rim is the "real" rim. So if the innermost rim is highest, the outer two rims are the outside of the vessel and are not susceptible to impurity. And if the outermost rim is highest, then it is the "real" rim and everything inside is susceptible.
  If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity.  If all three rims are of the same height, then Rabbi Judah says we split them right down the middle. From the middle of the middle rim and inwards is susceptible and the outside is not susceptible. The other sages disagree and hold that anything outside of the inner rim is not susceptible to impurity.
  When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture.  This clause contains an essential principle in the laws of impurity. Vessels are susceptible to impurity once their manufacture is complete. At that point they become "vessels." The manufacture of earthenware vessels is complete once they are baked in the furnace. If a defiling agent comes into contact with them before that point, they are still clean.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The next five chapters of Mishnah Kelim will do with the purity of oven and stoves. The oven referred to in the mishnah was like an inverted pot, with a narrow top to let a little air escape and enter. It had no floor, but rather the earth served as the floor. It was used primarily for the cooking of flat bread, which would be stuck to its sides.
  A baking oven originally must be no less than four handbreadths [high] and what is left of it four handbreadths, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: this applies only to a large oven but in the case of a small one it originally can be [any height] and what is left is the greater part of it.  According to Rabbi Meir for an oven to be susceptible to impurity, its original size must be at least four handbreadths. If it was originally higher than four handbreadths, and then it broke and not all of it remains, the minimum height for it to be susceptible to impurity is still four handbreadths. The sages make a distinction between ovens that were intended to be large from the outset and ovens that were originally intended to be small. When it comes to the large oven they agree with Rabbi Meir. However, they hold that some ovens were intended to be small from the outset. Such an oven can originally be of any height for it to be susceptible to impurity and if it breaks as long as a majority of it remains it is still susceptible to impurity.
  [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. Rabbi Judah says: when a new oven has been heated to a degree that sufficed for the baking of spongy cakes in an old one.  The oven is susceptible to impurity once its manufacture is complete. The rabbis debate what is considered the completion of its manufacturing. According to the first opinion, the oven is susceptible once it has been forged sufficiently for it to be used to cook spongy cakes, which can be cooked at a relatively low temperature. Rabbi Judah slightly modifies this. Sponge-cakes would require more heat in a new oven than in an old one. If the new oven had been heated up enough for an old oven to cook sponge-cakes, then it is already susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah begins to deal with the "stove" which either had one or two holes on its top upon which they would place pots and pans.
  A double stove: its original height must be no less than three fingerbreadths and what is left of it three fingerbreadths.  Stoves were much smaller than ovens and therefore as long as it was originally three fingerbreadths or if it was broken and there remain three fingerbreadths, the stove is considered usable and susceptible to impurity.
  [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of the lightest of eggs when scrambled and put in a saucepan.  A stove of this height is susceptible to impurity once its walls have been fired enough to cook on it a scrambled egg.
  A single stove: if it was made for baking its prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking its prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove.  A single stove was hotter than a double stove and therefore it could either be used to bake bread inside like a baking oven, or to cook on top. If it was made to bake bread, then it must be as large as an oven (see yesterday's mishnah) in order to contract impurity. If it was made to serve as a stove, then it only needs to be as large as a stove to become impure.
  A stone that projects one handbreadth from a baking-oven or three fingerbreadths from a double stove is considered a connection. One that projects from a single stove, if it was made for baking, the prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking the prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove.  Stones protruding from ovens and stoves may either be useless, in which case they are not susceptible to impurity, or they may be handles through which the oven or stove is carried, in which case they are susceptible to impurity. For an oven the stone can be up to a handbreadth for it to be considered connected and therefore a handle. If it is larger than it is not susceptible. For a double stove, which is smaller, the measure is only three fingerbreadths. Again, the single stove does not have its own set of rules rather it is considered like an oven if made for baking and like a double stove if made for cooking on top.
  Rabbi Judah said: they spoke of a ‘handbreadth’ only where the projection was between the oven and a wall.  Rabbi Judah says that the measure of the stone as a "handbreadth" was only given in the case of a stone that was between the oven and the wall. In order to push the oven up against the wall, they reduced the stone to a handbreadth. But if the oven is not next to the wall, the stone is considered connected as a handle no matter how long it is. It will always be susceptible.
  If two ovens were adjacent to one another, they allot one handbreadth to this one and one to the other and the remainder is clean.  If two ovens were next to each other and one stone connected them, then the handbreadth closest to each oven is susceptible to impurity. Any space between the two beyond the handbreadth allotted to each remains clean, even if the oven is impure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The crown of a double stove is clean.  The crown is like a lid for the stove. It was placed on top of the hole to keep the heat in. Since it is unattached, it is unaffected by the impurity of the stove.
  The fender around an oven: if it is four handbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, but if it was lower it is clean.  The fender around the oven is not attached to the oven. Some commentators explain that the purpose of this structure was to hold bread after it had been removed from the oven. If this fender is four handbreadths high, which is the minimum height of the oven, it is susceptible to the impurity of the oven. Thus an oven which is rendered impure by a defiling agent which comes into contact with it or enters its air-space will cause the fender to be impure. However, if it is lower than the oven than it is not susceptible to impurity.
  If it was joined to it, even if only by three stones, it is unclean.  In all cases if the fender was joined to the oven, then it is susceptible to the oven's impurity because it is part of the oven.
  The place [on the stove] for the oil cruse, the spice-pot, and the lamp contract impurity by contact but not through their air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael rules that they are clean.  On the stove's outer walls were compartments to hold the oil cruse, the spice-pot and the lamp. However, they are only susceptible to impurity if the oven came into actual contact with a defiling agent. If an impurity came into the oven's air-space, while the oven is impure the compartments remain pure. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael holds that the compartments are independent of the stove and therefore unaffected by the stove's impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  An oven that was heated from its outside, or one that was heated without the owner's knowledge, or one that was heated while still in the craftsman's house is susceptible to impurity.  Usually an oven is heated up from the inside, with the owner's knowledge, after the craftsmen has put on the finishing touches. However, as long as the oven is heated up enough to cook sponge-cakes, the oven is susceptible to impurity.
  It once happened that a fire broke out among the ovens of Kefar Signah, and when the case was brought up at Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel ruled that they were unclean.  Even though these ovens were not heated up intentionally, and they were heated up probably in the craftsmen's house, they are still susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  The additional piece of a householder's oven is clean, but that of bakers is unclean because he rests the roasting spit on it.Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar said: because one bakes on it when pressed [for space].Similarly the additional part of the boiler used by olive cookers is susceptible to impurity, but that of one used by dyers is not susceptible.Section one: This additional piece was put around the hole at the top but since it serves no special function, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, the same piece when part of a baker's oven is susceptible because the baker may occasionally use this piece to roast some meat.Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar agrees that this piece is susceptible but he holds that it serves a different function. Sometimes the baker will use it to bake bread when the oven is full.Section two: The same principle is employed here. Since the additional part of the boiler is used by olive cookers it is impure, but the dyers did not use this additional part and therefore it is pure.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If an oven was half filled with earth, the part from the earth downwards contracts impurity by contact only while the part from the earth upwards contracts impurity [also] from its air- space.  If a person filled part of an oven up with earth, then it is less susceptible to impurity than the empty/usable part. The filled part is impure only if a defiling agent touched the upper part, whereas the empty part is impure even if the defilement only enters the oven's airspace.
  If he put the oven over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar and he put a stone at its side: Rabbi Judah says: if when heated below it becomes also heated above it is susceptible to impurity. But the sages say: since it was heated, no matter how, it is susceptible to impurity.  In this case a person put an unfinished oven above either a pit or over a cistern and he wedged a stone to keep it from falling. Rabbi Judah says that it must be possible to forge the oven from below in the pit or cistern. If the oven can only be heated up by using its own bottom part, then the oven's manufacturing is not complete. Rabbi Judah holds that an oven must be attached to the ground when heated for the first time. The other sages do not share this rule with Rabbi Judah. They hold that as long as the oven is heated up, it is susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah discusses how one can purify an oven. To recall, in the time of the mishnah the oven was like an upside down pot, and it was attached to the ground before it was used. To provide with extra insulation, they would cover the walls with clay.
  If an oven contracted impurity how is it to be cleansed? He must divide into three parts and scrape off the plastering so that [the oven] touches the ground.  According to the first opinion, the first step in purifying an oven is to divide it into three parts, from top to bottom. As we will learn in the final clause, he should divide it so that no part is equal to half of the oven. Then he scrapes off the clay on the outside of the oven. This either refers to the clay that covers the wall of the oven, or the clay which attaches the oven to the ground. In either case, the oven has now ceased to be a functional vessel and is therefore no longer impure.
  Rabbi Meir says: he does not need to scrape off the plastering nor is it necessary for [the oven] to touch the ground. Rather he reduces it within to a height of less than four handbreadths.  Rabbi Meir is a bit less strict. To purify the oven, he can split the oven from inside, without removing the layer of clay on the outside. The split should be less than four handbreadths from the ground. Since Rabbi Meir holds that any oven that is not four handbreadths from the ground is not susceptible to impurity (see 5:1) this oven is now pure.
  Rabbi Shimon says: he must move it [from its position].  Rabbi Shimon rules more strictly than either two previous opinions. Not only must he split the oven and scrape off the coating, but he must also move it from its position.
  If it was divided into two parts, one large and the other small, the larger remains unclean and the smaller becomes clean.  If he split it into only two pieces, one large and one small, the small piece is pure because it is less than half the size of the original oven. The large piece remains impure.
  If it was divided into three parts one of which was as big as the other two together, the big one remains unclean and the two small ones become clean.  Furthermore, if he split it into three pieces but one piece was still as large as the other two combined, then the large piece is still impure because it is more than half of the size of the oven. In other words, when section one stated that the oven must be split into three, it meant that no piece should be more than half of the size of the original oven.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If an oven was cut up by its width into rings that are each less than four handbreadths in height, it is clean.  If instead of cutting the oven into pieces from top to bottom, he cut it along its breadth into rings, each ring of the oven that is less than four handbreadths high is clean. This accords with Rabbi Meir's opinion in 5:1, who said that if the remnants of the oven are less than four handbreadths, the oven is clean. The other sages in that mishnah would limit this to a case where the oven was larger than eight handbreadths. If it was smaller, then it remains unclean until less than a majority is left in the ring.
  If he subsequently plastered it over with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes.  If after taking the oven apart he reassembles it and plasters it over with clay, the oven is not susceptible to impurity until he fires it up sufficiently so that it could be used to bake sponge cakes. This is the same rule for when a new oven is susceptible to impurity. In other words, a reconstituted oven is treated the same as a new oven.
  If he distanced the plastering, and sand or gravel was put between it and the oven sides   of such an oven it has been said, "A menstruant as well as a clean woman may bake in it and it remains clean."  If instead of plastering the clay directly back on the rings of the oven, he made a covering of plaster and then filled in the space with stones or gravel, the oven is not susceptible to impurity because for an oven to be susceptible the clay must be directly on the oven. In this case, a pure woman and a menstruant can bake in the oven at the same time, without fear that the menstruant will defile the oven which would subsequently defile the pure woman's bread. It seems that this may have been a way to circumvent what was certainly a problem how can women who are menstruationg bake their bread without the need for a separate oven?
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  An oven which came cut up in sections from the craftsman's house and he made for it hoops and put them on it, it is clean.  The oven came to the person who ordered it cut up in pieces from top to bottom. The craftsmen had made hoops for it so that it could be held together while it was plastered and heated. The oven is still clean while he assembles it with the hoops because it is not yet ready to be used.
  If it contracts impurity, and then he removed its hoops it is clean.  If he put a clay coating on it while the hoops were still attached and heated it up and then it became impure and then he removed the hoops, it is clean again because removal of the hoops causes the clay to fall off.
  If he put them back on, it is still clean.  It is still pure when he puts the hoops back on because there is still no coating of clay.
  If he plastered it with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity and there is no need to heat it since it was once heated.  If he again plasters it with clay, it is susceptible to impurity. It does not need to be reheated because it was heated up earlier while the hoops were still attached.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  If he cut the oven up into rings, and then he put sand between each pair of rings,   Rabbi Eliezer says: it is clean. But the sages say: it is unclean. This is the oven of Akhnai.  In this case a person took an oven and cut it into rings, and then reassembled it, filling in with sand in between the rings. He then coated it all over with clay and heated it up so that it would be usable. Rabbi Eliezer rules that such an oven is not susceptible to impurity because of the presence of the sand between the rings, whereas the sages hold that the coating makes the oven into one unit and therefore it is susceptible. This oven is known as "the oven of Akhnai," which probably refers to the manufacturer of the oven. The Talmud's famous tale of the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua is told concerning this oven. In this tale Rabbi Eliezer calls upon God to break the laws of nature to prove that his position is correct, and the miracles indeed occur. Rabbi Joshua responds "it is not in Heaven," meaning that after God gave the Torah to Israel, the law is no longer in Heaven, but rather subject to the independent interpretation of human beings. This is a foundational story for the rabbis, for it substantiates their understanding of Torah interpretation.
  As regards Arabian vats, which are holes dug in the ground and plastered with clay, if the plastering can stand of itself it is susceptible to impurity; Otherwise it is not susceptible. This is the oven of Ben Dinai.  An "Arabian vat" is simply a hole dug in the ground whose walls are covered with plaster. If the plaster can stand on its own, then the oven is susceptible to impurity, but if it requires the earth to support it, then it is not susceptible. This oven is called the oven of "Ben Dinai." Some hold that Ben Dinai was a robber who would bake his bread in such an oven. Others hold that "Ben Dinai" comes from the word "din" which is Hebrew for either logic or law. It was called "Ben Dinai" because there were debates over such an oven.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  An oven of stone or of metal is clean, But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel.  All stone vessels are totally unsusceptible to impurity, so a stone oven can never become impure. A metal oven can become impure but not in the same way as an earthenware oven. While an earthenware oven is susceptible to impurity through its interior space, and not from its outside, the reverse is true for a metal oven. Also, a metal oven that has been attached to the ground is not susceptible, whereas an earthenware oven is.
  If a hole was made in it, or if it was damaged or cracked, and he lined it with plaster or with a rim of clay, it is unclean. What must be the size of the hole [for it to be pure]?  It must be big enough for the flame to come through.  If the oven was in some way damaged such that a flame could go through the hole in the side, the oven is pure because it is not usable. However, it becomes susceptible again to impurity once it has been repaired.
  The same applies also to a stove. A stove of stone or of metal is clean. But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. If a hole was made in it or if it was damaged or cracked but was provided with props it is unclean.  The same general rules apply to a stove. The mishnah adds that if he makes "props" which is either a tripod for pots put on top of the stove or legs to plug the holes on the bottom, the stove is again susceptible because it is usable. As usual, once a vessel has been repaired, it is susceptible to impurity.
  If it was lined with clay, whether inside or outside, it remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: if [the lining was] inside it is unclean but if outside it remains clean.  According to the first opinion, if he spread a clay lining over a stone or metal stove, it is still pure, meaning it is not considered an earthenware vessel. This is because the clay is not necessary and does not affect the functioning of the oven. Rabbi Judah holds that if the clay lining is spread inside the oven it does make the stove into an "earthenware vessel" and subject to the purity rules governing such a vessel. But if he spreads it on the outside of the vessel, it is still considered to be of stone/metal and the rules governing an earthenware vessel do not apply.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the purity of makeshift stoves.
  If he put three props into the ground and joined them [to the ground] with clay so that a pot could be set on them, [the structure] is susceptible to impurity.  The props used to make this stove are of earthenware. If he set three of them together so that he could rest a stove on top of them and attached them to the ground with clay, the structure is susceptible to impurity.
  If he set three nails in the ground so that a pot could be set on them, even though a place was made on the top for the pot to rest, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity.  The nails are made of metal and metal that is attached to the ground is not susceptible to impurity. Therefore this structure remains pure even if he makes a place on top out of earthenware for a pot to sit on. The fact that it is covered with some earthenware does not affect its status.
  One who made a stove of two stones, joining them [to the ground] with clay: It is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that it is not susceptible to impurity, unless a third stone is added or [the structure] is placed near a wall.  According to the first opinion, since the stones are wide enough to support the pot, once they are attached with clay to the ground they are considered a stove and they are susceptible to impurity. However, Rabbi Judah retains the rule that we need a tri-partite structure in order to be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, he must either add a third stone or put the structure next to the wall to serve as a third stone.
  If one stone was joined with clay and the other was not joined with clay, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity.  According to the sages both stones must be attached to the ground for it to be susceptible to impurity. If one was attached to the ground with clay and the other was not, the structure is not susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A stone on which he placed a pot, [on it] and on an oven, or on it and a double stove, or on it and on a stove, is susceptible to impurity.  In this case a person places a pot on a makeshift stove, where one side consists of a stone attached to the ground by clay and the other side consists of either an oven a double stove or a single stove. The stone is susceptible to impurity in this case because the oven or stove counts as a second attached stone. This is similar to the situation in yesterday's mishnah.
  [If he set the pot] on it and on another stone, on it and on a rock, or on it and on a wall, it is not susceptible to impurity. And such was the stove of the Nazirites in Jerusalem which was set up against a rock.  In this case he sets the other side of the pot not on another oven or stove, but on another stone which was unattached to the ground with clay or on a rock which was part of the ground, or on a wall. These do not count as a "second stone attached to the ground" which as we learned in yesterday's mishnah causes both stones to be susceptible to impurity. Rather in this case the stone which is attached to the ground with clay is susceptible. At the end of his/her term of naziriteship a nazirite must bring a shelamim offering. To prevent the sacrifice from being defiled, they would cook it in a stove made of one stone attached to the ground and the other side of the pot resting on the wall.
  As regards the stove of the butchers, where the stones are placed side by side, if one of the stoves contracted impurity, the others do not become unclean.  Butchers would make a line of stoves made of stones attached to the ground. Each stone, except for the outer ones, could be used to hold up two pots, one to the left and one to the right. The mishnah looks at each pair of stones as an independent unit such that if one stone becomes impure, the pair next to it retains its purity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues the subject of stones lined up in a row to make multiple stoves.
  If one made two stoves of three stones and one of the outer ones was defiled the half of the middle one that serves the unclean one is unclean but the half of it that serves the clean one remains clean.  The structure described here consists of three stones, each attached either to the ground with clay or to each other. This will make two stoves, one between each stone. If one of the outer stones is defiled, then the half of the middle stone facing the impure stone is impure. But the side facing the pure stone remains pure.
  If the clean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the unclean one.  If he removed the clean stone on the outside, then the middle stone is used entirely with the unclean stone. Therefore the middle one is now entirely unclean.
  If the unclean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the clean one.  Similarly, if the unclean stone is removed, the middle stone is entirely pure because it is only used with the pure stone.
  Should the two outer ones become defiled, if the middle stone was large, each outer stone is allowed such a part of it as suffices for the support of a pot and the remainder is clean. But if it was small all of it is unclean.  If both outer stones are defiled, then the parts of the middle stone that are used with the outer stones are also considered defiled, but if there remains unused space in between the used portions, the unused space is pure. If the middle stone was small and all of it was used to rest the pots whose other side was placed on the outer stones, then the entire stone is impure.
  Should the middle stone be removed, if a big kettle can be set on the two outer stones they are unclean.  If the middle stone is removed, the outer stones remain impure if they can still be used to heat up a large vat.
  If the middle stone is returned they all become clean again. If it was plastered with clay it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of an egg.  If after removing the middle stone he returns it, the entire structure becomes pure again. We look at this stove as if it was first destroyed, which causes it to shed its impurity and then was rebuilt. In such cases the vessel does not return to its original impurity. In order for this stove to again become susceptible to impurity, he must plaster it with clay to attach it to the ground and heat up all three stones such that they could be used to cook an egg. In other words this is a new stove.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If two stones were made into a stove and they became defiled, and a stone was set up near the outer side of the one and another stone near the outer side of the other, [the inner half] of each [inner stones] remains unclean while [the outer] half of each [of these stones] is clean.  At the outset there are simply two stones attached to the ground and made into a stove. These stones become defiled. Then he put another stone on each side, creating three stoves made of four stones. The inner half of each of the original stones remains impure because it serves the inside stove. The outer half which faces the pure stone becomes pure because it has now been made into a new stove.
  If the clean stones are removed the others revert to their impurity.  If he then removes the outer stones, the inner stones revert to their earlier state of impurity which means they are completely impure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  The fire-basket of a householder which was lessened by less than three handbreadths is susceptible to impurity because when it is heated from below a pot above would still boil. If [it was lessened] to a lower depth it is not susceptible to impurity.  The fire-basket referred to in our mishnah is a portable earthenware stove. The bottom was thick so that it could be placed on any surface. Coals would be placed inside and the pot would be placed on top. If the fire-basket was reduced, meaning the bottom was further from the top, but the reduction is less than three hand-breadths, it is still susceptible to impurity because it is still usable.  However, if it was lessened more than three handbreadths, it is pure because the fire-basket is not usable.
  If subsequently a stone or gravel was put into it, it is still not susceptible to impurity.  Putting stone or pebbles into the stove to fill in the gap does not restore the fire-basket to its original state and therefore it remains impure.
  If it was plastered over with clay, it may contract impurity from that point and onwards.  However, if he put in stones or pebbles and then plastered them over with clay, they again become susceptible to impurity.
  This was Rabbi Judah's reply in connection with the oven that was placed over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar.  This section refers to mishnah 5:6, where Rabbi Judah and the sages had a dispute concerning an oven placed over the mouth of a cistern or a cellar. According to Rabbi Judah the oven was not susceptible to impurity unless the fire in the pit could heat it sufficiently. According to our mishnah, he referred to the fire-basket to prove his point. The fire-basket is not impure unless the coals in the bottom are close enough to the top to heat up the pot.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Most of today's mishnah deals with a protrusion on the side of the oven used to store pots to keep them warm. It is called a "dachon" in Hebrew and is usually translated as a "hob" (a word that I will admit I have never used before).
  A hob that has a receptacle for pots is clean as a stove but unclean as a receptacle.  The hob is not considered to be a part of the stove, and therefore if the stove is defiled the hob remains pure. However, it can become impure independently since it is a receptacle. This means that it will contract impurity if something impure enters its airspace.
  As to its sides, whatever touches them does not become unclean as if the hob had been a stove,  The outer edges of the hob which are not connected to the stove are not considered part of the stove. Thus if the stove is impure and food touches them, the food remains pure.
  But as regards its wide side: Rabbi Meir holds it to be clean But Rabbi Judah holds it to be unclean.  The rabbis argue with regard to the wide side that is attached to the stove. Rabbi Meir says that the part of the earthenware that faces the hob is clean, although the part that faces the stove is unclean. Rabbi Judah says that this entire piece of earthenware is used for the stove therefore it is all unclean.
  The same law applies also where a basket was inverted and a stove was put upon it.  The same rule as above applies to a situation where a person took a basket, and turned it over and used the bottom as a base for the stove. He then left part of the bottom as a hob. The hob itself is not subject to the impurity of the stove. The dispute is concerning the wall of the stove facing the hob part of the basket: is it part of the hob (Rabbi Meir) or not (Rabbi Judah)?
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity.  If a double stove was split lengthwise it is rendered unusable since each opening is cut in half. Therefore it is pure. However, if it split by its breadth, it is pure because it is still usable. In contrast, a single stove is rendered useless if it split, no matter how it is split. Therefore, in all cases it is pure.
  As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air- space.  The "extension" is an earthenware base that surrounds the stove. Occasionally pots were placed on the extension. If it is three fingerbreadths high, the minimum height of a stove, then it is subject to impurity through contact and through airspace. This means that if a defiling agent enters the stove's airspace or touches the inside of the stove, the extension is also impure. If it is less than three fingerbreadths high, then it is impure only if the stove is defiled by touching and not by airspace. It seems that in this case the extension is not a vessel in and of its own right, but only a "yad" an "appendage" of the stove. A "yad" cannot be defiled through airspace.
  How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space.  The mishnah questions how we determine the airspace of the extension. This is a problem because the extension surrounds the stove which is much higher than the extension. Rabbi Ishmael says that we take a spit and lay it diagonally from the top of the stove to the top of the extension. If a defiling agent enters its airspace below this diagonal line, it transmits its impurity.
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.  Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov considers the extension to be an appendage to the stove. Hence, if the stove becomes defiled, its extension is always impure, even if the stove contracted impurity through its airspace and the extension is less than three fingerbreadths high. However, an appendage cannot transmit impurity to the main vessel and therefore if the extension contracts impurity, the stove remains pure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If it [the extension] was detached from the stove, whenever it was three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, If it was lower or if it was smooth it is clean.  If the extension that surrounds the stove was not attached to the stove, it is susceptible to impurity only if it is three fingerbreadths high. This means that if the stove contracts impurity through its airspace or by contact, the extension will also be impure. If, however, the extension was less than three fingerbreadths high, or it had no rim (it was smooth), then it is considered separate from the stove and if the stove becomes defiled the extension remains pure.
  If three props on a stove were three fingerbreadths high, they contract impurity by contact and through their air-space. If they were lower, all the more so they contract impurity, even where they were four in number.  Some commentators explain that the three props form a tri-pod for the pot to rest on the stove, while others explain them as serving as a base for the stove itself. If they are no more than three fingerbreadths above the stove, then they are considered part of the stove and the impurity of the stove contracted either by contact or through its airspace will similarly defile the props. If the props are closer to the stove, they are all the more so susceptible to impurity. This is true even if there were four of them, meaning that one was superfluous. However, if there were five or more props, they are not considered to be part of the stove and if the stove is defiled the props remain clean.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah contains four debates between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon concerning the purity of the props used to support either the stove or the pot that rests on top of the stove.
  The basis for this debate seems to be the same in all four cases. If the props are not considered to be attached to the stove, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible to the stove's impurity, but just to a lesser extent. Rabbi Shimon holds that the props are not susceptible at all.
  If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.  If one of the props is removed, leaving two props, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible to impurity but only through contact and not through airspace. This means that if the oven is defiled through its airspace, the props remain pure, but if the oven is defiled by contact, the props are impure. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon considers the props to be separate from the stove and therefore pure even if the stove contracts impurity through contact.
  If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.  If he originally made two props but he made them opposite each other so that he could rest a pot on them, Rabbi Meir holds that they are fully susceptible to impurity, both through airspace and contact. We should note that there is a variant reading of this section, according to which these props are susceptible to impurity only through contact and not through airspace (making this section consistent with the others). Rabbi Shimon considers this to be the same as the previous case, and the props are pure.
  If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.  In yesterday's mishnah we learned that if the props were less than three fingerbreadths high, they are susceptible to the stove's impurity. If they are more than three fingerbreadths high, then according to Rabbi Meir we draw an imaginary line three fingerbreadths over the stove. Above this line the props are susceptible to the impurity of the stove, but only if the stove contracts impurity through contact. Below the line, the props are fully susceptible. Rabbi Shimon considers these oversized props to be independent of the stove and therefore any part above three fingerbreadths is completely unsusceptible to impurity.
  If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean.  If the props were moved away from the stove by a distance of less than three fingerbreadths they are still fully susceptible to impurity. If they were removed by a greater distance, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible but only through contact and not through airspace. Again, Rabbi Shimon holds that since these props are considered to be unattached from the stove, they are pure.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  How do we measure them? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he puts the measuring-rod between them, and any part that is outside the measuring-rod is clean while any part inside the measuring-rod, including the place of the measuring-rod itself, is unclean. Today's mishnah asks how we measure the three fingerbreadths separating the stove from the three props. The prongs themselves can simply be measured from the edge of the stove, but we need to figure out what is considered to be inside the airspace of the area that is not directly corresponding to the prongs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that he uses a measuring rod to form a straight line from prong to prong, thereby creating a triangle around the stove. Anything outside of this triangle is not susceptible to impurity, and anything inside the triangle is susceptible.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  An oven which they partitioned with boards or hangings, and in it was found a sheretz in one compartment, the entire oven is unclean.  If people divided an oven into different parts, all the way from the bottom to the top, and then a dead sheretz (an impure creepy crawling thing) is found in one section, the entire oven is impure. This is because a partition put into an earthenware vessel does not count as far as stopping impurity from spreading from one side to the other.
  A hive which was broken and its gap was stopped up with straw and was suspended within the air-space of an oven while a sheretz was within it, the oven becomes unclean.  The mishnah now complicates the picture a bit more. If a vessel shaped as a beehive was broken, it no longer counts a vessel, even if the gap was stopped up with straw. If there is a sheretz in this vessel and the entire vessel is suspended in an oven, the impurity breaks out of the hive-vessel and defiles the oven.
  If a sheretz was within the oven, any food within the hive becomes unclean. But Rabbi Eliezer says that it is clean.  Similarly, at least according to the sages, if there is a sheretz within the oven, the impurity of the sheretz defiles that which is in the hive-vessel. Rabbi Eliezer disputes and holds that the hive which has been stopped up with straw protects the food within it from being contaminated by the sheretz in the oven.
  Rabbi Eliezer said: if it affords protection in the case of a corpse which is more consequential, should it not afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is less consequential?  Rabbi Eliezer argues his point by making an analogy with a corpse found in a building. If a corpse is in a building and the building has been divided by boards or curtains, the vessels found in sections of the building in which the corpse is not present are not considered contaminated. If, Rabbi Eliezer reasons, partitions protect against corpse impurity which is the most serious form of impurity, then the partition of the hive should also protect the food within it. In other words, even if the vessel is not complete, it should still count as a partition, just as do curtains and boards in a building.
  They said to him: if it affords protection in the case of corpse impurity, this is because tents are divided, should it also afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is not divided?  The other rabbis reject his argument because the situations are not analogous. Tents, i.e. buildings, are commonly partitioned, and therefore their partition succeeds in dividing one section from the other. In contrast, as we learned in the first half of the mishnah, partitions within ovens are not typical and therefore they do not succeed in stopping the impurity from going to the other side. Here is a classic example where we can see that the laws of impurity are not purely physical but that they in some way describe reality. The material that is used to divide an oven or a house may be the exact same thing, but in one case it provides a barrier to the spread of impurity and in the other case it does not. The law conveys the reality that houses are divided into parts and ovens are not.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If the hive was complete, and so too in the case of a basket or a skin-bottle, and a sheretz was within it the oven remains clean.  If the hive-vessel had not been broken, or alternatively the vessel placed into the oven was an unbroken basket or skin-bottle, the sheretz in the vessel does not defile the oven. Since this is a complete vessel it works as a barrier to keep the impurity away from oven.
  If the sheretz was in the oven, any food in the hive remain clean.  Similarly, if the sheretz was in the oven, the hive-vessel protects the food within it from becoming impure.
  If a hole was made in it: A vessel that is used for food must have a hole large enough for olives to fall through, If it is used for liquids the hole must be large enough for liquids to pass into it, And if it is used for either it is subjected to the greater restriction: the hole need only be large enough for liquids to pass into it.  If one of these vessels was perforated with a large enough hole, it no longer counts as a vessel and therefore will not prevent impurity from going from the oven to the inside of the vessel and vice versa. The mishnah now repeats that which we learned in 3:1. The vessel is "annulled" from being considered a vessel if the hole is large enough to let out that which it normally holds. So if it normally holds food, if the hole is large enough to let olives fall through, it is no longer a vessel. If it holds liquids, it must be large enough to let liquids out. If it is used for both liquids and solids then we go by the stricter measure if the hole is large enough to let even liquids out, it is not a vessel and it does not serve as a barrier to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Netting placed over the mouth of an oven and slightly sinking into it, and having no frame: If a sheretz was in it, the oven becomes unclean; If the sheretz was in the oven, the food in the netting becomes unclean, since only vessels afford protection against an impurity in an earthen vessel.  This netting is not considered to be a vessel because it does not have an "inside." Therefore it does not serve as a barrier for impurity vis a vis the oven. This means that if a sheretz was in it, it defiles the oven. And if a sheretz is in the oven, then the food in the netting becomes unclean.
  A jar full of pure liquids placed beneath the bottom of an oven, and a sheretz in the oven – the jar and the liquids remain clean. If it was inverted, with its mouth projecting into the air-space of the oven, and a sheretz was in the oven, the liquid that clings to the sides of the jar remains clean.  Since the jar is below the oven, the impurity of the oven doesn't spread into the jar. This is true even if the jar is open and there is a hole in the bottom of the oven. As long as the jar is not in the oven's airspace, it is not susceptible. If they put the jar on top of the oven and its mouth is open the liquid which remains in the jar is still pure. Again, this liquid is not in the airspace of the oven, rather above it. Therefore it remains pure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A pot which was placed in an oven if a sheretz was in the oven, the pot remains clean since an earthen vessel does not impart impurity to vessels.  The sheretz in the oven does not defile the pot because it is not in the air-space of the pot, but rather in the air-space of the oven. And the oven's contact with the pot does not defile the pot because earthenware vessels do not defile other earthenware vessels.
  If it contained dripping liquid, the latter contracts impurity and the pot also becomes unclean. It is as if this one says, "That which made you unclean did not make me unclean, but you have made me unclean."  If there is liquid dripping off the pot, it is defiled by the oven which was defiled by the sheretz. In turn this liquid causes the pot itself to become impure because liquids can defile earthenware vessels.  The mishnah personifies a dialogue between the pot and the liquid (think Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast). The pot says to the liquid the oven which made you unclean didn't directly make me unclean. But you, Mr. Liquid, you made me unclean!
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If a rooster that swallowed a sheretz fell within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean;  A source of impurity that is contained within a living being, such as a rooster, does not spread out and cause impurity to the vessel in which the rooster is found.
  If the rooster died, the oven becomes unclean.  However, if the rooster dies, it can no longer contain the impurity of the sheretz and the impurity of the sheretz will escape and defile the oven.
  If a sheretz was found in an oven, any bread in it contracts second degree impurity since the oven is of the first degree.  When a sheretz is found in an oven, contracts first degree impurity. The oven then imparts its impurity to the bread, which now has second degree impurity. We do not consider the air of the oven to be impure such that it directly defiles the bread. This would cause the bread to have first degree impurity. As we proceed we will learn about the practical differences between first and second degree impurity.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A leavening pot with a tightly fitting lid which was put in an oven, and there was some leaven and a sheretz within the pot, but there was a partition (of inedible between them, the oven is unclean but the leaven is clean.  The mishnah describes a situation where a special pot used to leaven bread has a tight lid and was placed in an oven. Inside the pot there are two parts separated by a piece of inedible bread. On one side of the pot is some leaven and on the other side is a sheretz. The sheretz does not defile the leaven on the other side of the pot because it is totally separated, from the lid to the bottom. However, the lid does not stop the impurity from leaving the pot through its top. Therefore, the sheretz's impurity defiles the oven.
  But if it was an olive's bulk of corpse, both the oven and the house are unclean, and the leaven remains clean.  Similarly, if there is an olive's worth of corpse in the pot, its impurity escapes and defiles the entire house.
  If in the partition there was an opening of one handbreadth, all become unclean.  If there is a hole in the partition at least one handbreadth wide, then the partition no longer separates the sheretz from the leaven, and even the leaven is impure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A sheretz which was found in the eye-hole of an oven or of a double stove or of a single stove: If it was outside the inner edge, it is clean.  The eye-hole of an oven is a hole made in the bottom of the oven or stove to let in air and let out smoke. It also could have been used to remove the ashes. If a sheretz was found outside of the inner edge of this hole, the oven remains pure. This is because the hole is not considered to be inside the oven or stove.
  If it [the oven] was in the open air, even if it was an olive's bulk of corpse it is clean.  If the oven was outside in the open air, meaning it was not inside a house or other building, and a source of impurity is found in its eye-hole, the oven is pure because the impurity cannot enter the oven. And since it is outside, there is no "tent" through which an olive's bulk of corpse could convey its impurity to the oven (we will learn a lot more about this as we proceed). Thus the oven remains clean.
  If there was [in the eye-hole] an opening of one handbreadth, it is all unclean.  However, if there was an opening the size of a handbreadth in the eye-hole (besides its main opening) then the impurity can enter through it into the oven, and the oven is impure.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If a sheretz was found in the [place in a stove] where wood is put: Rabbi Judah says: if it was within the outer edge, [the stove] becomes unclean. But the sages say: if it was outside the inner edge [the stove] remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: if it was found beneath the spot where the pot is placed and inwards, the stove becomes unclean, but if beneath the spot where the pot is set and outwards, it remains clean.  In this section a sheretz is found in the bottom part of a stove, where they put the wood to burn. Rabbi Judah says that the sheretz defiles the stove if it is found within the outer edge of the place where the wood is put and inwards, inside the stove. The other sages say that if the sheretz was outside of the inner edge, then the stove remains clean. In other words, the debate exists in a situation where the sheretz is found between the inner and outer edge. Rabbi Yose defines the place where the sheretz can defile the stove in a slightly different manner. If the sheretz is found directly below the place where the pot is placed on top of the stove, or anywhere within this area, it defiles the whole stove. But if it is outside this area, the stove remains clean.
  If it was found on the place where the bath-keeper sits, or where the dyer sits, or where the olive-boilers sit, the stove remains clean. It only becomes unclean only [when the sheretz] is found in the enclosed part and inwards.  This mishnah now describes ovens upon which people sit: bath-keepers, dyers and olive-boilers. If a sheretz is found on this place, the oven remains pure. The mishnah explains that the sheretz defiles the oven only if it is found in the closed part of the oven. These workers sit on the outside part of the oven, where it is open to the air. Therefore, the sheretz does not defile the oven. However, Albeck notes that according to the Tosefta, if the sheretz comes into contact with the oven, the oven is impure. It does not convey impurity through entering the oven's air-space unless it is within the oven.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A pit which has a place on which a pot may be set is unclean.  The pit to which this section refers is an oven placed into the ground and attached to the ground with clay. There was a place on top where they could rest a large pot. Since it is an oven, and it can be used to make food, it can contract impurity.
  And so also an oven of glass-blowers, if it has a place on which a pot may be set, it is unclean.  Since this oven can be used for cooking food, it too is susceptible to impurity, as long as it has a place on it upon which one could balance a pot.
  The furnace of lime-burners, or of glaziers, or of potters is clean.  The furnace used by lime-burners, glaziers or potters is not made for cooking or baking and therefore it is not susceptible to impurity, even if it has a place on which a pot can be placed. In other words, whereas the oven used by glass-blowers is also made to be used for cooking or baking the oven used by these three professions is not.
  A purna: If it has a frame is unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if it has coverings [for compartments.] Rabban Gamaliel says: if it has edges.  A purna is an oven similar to the ovens that we use today. It has a hole in its side, and one doesn't stick the bread to the side as was typically done with ovens during the mishnaic period. Rather the bread was put into bottom of the purna-oven as we do today. There are three different opinions as to what the purna needs for it to be susceptible to impurity. The first opinion holds that if it has a frame around it upon which one could balance a pot, it is susceptible. If it has no frame, and only the ground part of the oven is used for cooking, then it is not considered to really be an "oven" and it is not susceptible. The second opinion holds that if it has covered compartments it is susceptible. The third opinion is that it needs edges upon which one could balance a pot. Without at least one of these three things, the purna is simply some clay attached to the ground to keep the heat in, and none of it is used for actual cooking. Such a simple oven is not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals mostly with the purity of food or liquids that are found in a person's mouth.
  If a person who came in contact with one who has contracted corpse impurity had (food liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was clean, they cause the oven to be unclean.  When a person comes into contact with another person who has contracted corpse impurity, the second person contracts first degree impurity. The liquids that he has in his mouth are impure. If he puts his head into an oven (not sure why one would do this, but let's just forget about that for a moment) the liquids cause the oven to be impure. This is because liquids can defile vessels. The person himself, who has first degree impurity, does not defile the vessel, because people don't defile vessels unless they have a higher form of impurity. We should note that Albeck explains that the word "foods" is not really relevant here because only liquids defile vessels. Foods cannot. The word "foods" is, however, relevant in the subsequent clauses.
  If a person who was clean had food or liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was unclean, they become unclean.  If a pure person has pure food or liquid in his mouth, and he puts his head into an impure oven (didn't learn the first time) then the food or liquids are defiled by the oven.
  If a person was eating a pressed fig with impure hands and he put his hand into his mouth to remove a small stone: Rabbi Meir considers the fig to be unclean But Rabbi Judah says it as clean. Rabbi Yose says: if he turned it over [in his mouth] the fig is unclean but if he did not turn it over the fig is clean.  This person's hands are impure, although the rest of his body is not (this is a concept which we will deal with when we learn Tractate Yadayim). If he puts his hand in his mouth to take something out, and at the same time he has a fig in his mouth, Rabbi Meir considers the fig to be impure. His hands defile the spit in his mouth, and it in turn defiles the fig. Rabbi Judah disagrees because he holds that the spit in his mouth is not considered to be a liquid. Rabbi Yose says that the spit in his mouth is considered a liquid only if he moved the fig around in his mouth, thereby uprooting the spit from its original space. In other words, if one gathers up his spit, it is considered a liquid and is susceptible to impurity, but the mere moistness of his mouth is not.
  If the person had a pondion in his mouth, Rabbi Yose says: if he kept it there to relieve his thirst it becomes unclean.  Rabbi Yose has another qualification for when spit can be considered a liquid. If he has a small coin, a pondion, in his mouth in order to cause him to salivate and thereby feel less thirsty, then his spit is considered to be a liquid and it can be impure. As an aside, I have heard of people putting small stones in their mouths on fast days. They say it helps one get over being thirsty.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with various liquids that come from an impure woman and defile an oven.
  If milk [of an impure woman] dripped from a woman's breasts and fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since a liquid conveys impurity regardless of whether one wanted it there or not.  Liquids convey impurity whether or not one wanted them to end up where they end up. As we shall see, there are other purity laws concerning liquids that work differently, namely when does a liquid make a food susceptible to impurity. In any case, assumedly the woman did not want her breasts to leak onto the oven. Nevertheless, if this impure milk (impure because she is impure) falls into the oven, it defiles the oven.
  If she was sweeping it out and a thorn pricked her and she bled, or if she burnt herself and put her finger into her mouth, the oven becomes unclean.  If she is sweeping out the oven and she pricks her finger and bleeds into the oven, her blood defiles the oven, even though she certainly didn't want it there. Similarly, if she burns herself and puts her finger in her mouth, covering it with spit, and then puts her finger back into the oven, the spit on her finger defiles the oven, even though she wanted the spit on her finger, not on the oven. In all cases, if an impure liquid enters an oven, it defiles it.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a needle or a ring (metal vessels) that are found in certain places, and with the question of whether or not they have become impure.
  If a needle or a ring was found in the ground of an oven, and they can be seen but they don't stick out into the oven, if one bakes dough and it touches them, the [oven] is unclean.  In this section we don't know for certain whether or not the needle or the ring is impure, but we have reason to suspect that they might be. They are found in the floor of an oven and can be seen from inside the oven but they do not project into the oven's air-space. If a person bakes dough and the dough can expand into the hole in the floor in which these instruments are found, the oven is defiled by the needle or ring.  In other words, since the dough enters this space, it is considered part of the oven and if a defiling agent is found there, it defiles the oven. If the dough did not touch them, then it would be a sign that the place in which they are found is not considered to be part of the oven.
  Regarding which dough did they speak? Medium dough.  The mishnah clarifies that the dough which the mishnah uses as a barometer is of medium elasticity. It is not so soft that it would sink into any hole, nor is it so hard that it wouldn't sink at all.
  If they are found in the plaster of an oven with a tightly fitting lid: If the oven is unclean, they are unclean, If the oven is clean, they are clean.  Here we have an oven that has a layer of plaster around its outside. In this layer of plaster the ring and needle are imbedded. The oven is tightly covered and it is found in a building in which a dead body is also located. If the oven is impure, then the needle and ring are impure. An earthenware vessel with a tightly fitting lid prevents impurity from entering, but only if the vessel itself is impure. And since the oven doesn't prevent impurity, so too anything attached to it doesn't prevent impurity.
  If they are found in the stopper of a jar: If on the sides, they are unclean. If opposite the mouth, they are clean.  Now this pesky little ring or needle is found in the stopper of a tightly closed jar, which is also found in a building with a dead person in it. The jar, since it is tightly closed, does prevent impurity from infiltrating but only if the needle or ring is found opposite the mouth of the jar. If it is found on the sides of the stopper, since this is not the part of the stopper used by the jar, it doesn't count as part of the jar. Thus the needle and ring are defiled.
  If they can be seen in it, but they do not enter its airspace, they are clean.  If the ring or needle can be seen from the top in the stopper, then they have not gotten into the airspace of the stopper, which is the airspace of the jar. Since they are part of the stopper, they are pure.
  If they sink into it, and there is [plaster] underneath them as thick as garlic peel, they are clean.  If they are sunken into the stopper, and there is still stopper, even as thin as a peel of garlic, underneath them, then they are pure. However if they have truly entered the jar's air-space they are impure because an earthenware vessel with a tightly covered lid does not save metal vessels found inside it from being defiled.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean.  The siphon is made of metal, and as we learned, an earthenware vessel with a tightly fitting cover does not prevent impurity from defiling metal vessels that are within it. Therefore, Bet Shammai rules that the metal siphon is impure. The jar and the liquids inside are clean because the covered earthenware vessel does protect them from the impurity.
  Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai.  At first Bet Hillel disagreed and held that even the siphon was pure. However, they eventually changed their mind and agreed with Bet Shammai. This is a phenomenon that occurs occasionally in the Mishnah. Bet Hillel at first disagrees with Bet Shammai, but eventually they change their mind.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a sheretz was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that it fell there while it was still alive and that it died only now.  Underneath the bottom of the oven does not count as the air-space of the oven. Therefore, the dead sheretz found there does not defile the oven. We can assume that the sheretz was still alive while it passed through the air-space of the oven, and did not defile the oven on its way down. Thus the oven is clean.
  If a needle or a ring was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that they were there before the oven arrived.  Similarly, if an unclean needle or ring is found underneath the oven, we need not assume that it made its way there through the oven's air-space, defiling the oven while it was going down.
  If it was found in the wood ashes, the oven is unclean since one has no ground on which to base an assumption of cleanness.  However, if the needle or ring is found in the midst of the oven's ashes, even if it is underneath the oven, it defiles the oven, because we cannot assume that it was there before the oven was put there. Had it been there before the oven, it should have been underneath the ashes, not in them.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A sponge which had absorbed unclean liquids and its outer surface became dry and it fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven is unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out.  Since the unclean liquids in the sponge will eventually seep out, the oven is unclean as soon as the sponge enters. In other words, since the liquids will eventually seep out, we look at them as if they are already out, and as we have learned, unclean liquids can defile an oven.
  And the same with regard to a piece of turnip or reed grass. Rabbi Shimon says: the oven is clean in both these cases.  Evidently, turnips and reed grass were also used in a "sponge-like" manner, to gather in liquids and then to squeeze them out later. Therefore, according to the first opinion, if a piece of turnip or reed grass that has been used to soak up unclean liquids falls into the oven, the oven is immediately unclean, the same as it is with a sponge. Rabbi Shimon says that in these two cases the liquid will not seep out like it does from a sponge and therefore the oven remains clean.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Potsherds that had been used for unclean liquids which fell into the air-space of an oven, if the oven was heated, it becomes unclean, for the liquid   would eventually come out.  The potsherd which was used in a vessel which contained unclean liquids would have absorbed some of that liquid. When it falls into a heated oven, the liquids will eventually come out and therefore the oven is unclean.
  And the same with regard to fresh olive peat, but if it was old, the oven remains clean. If it was known that liquid emerges, even after the lapse of three years, the oven becomes unclean.  Olive peat is the olive waste that is left over after the olives have been pressed. If the olive press was unclean (or the pressing was done by unclean people), the oil is also unclean. Fresh olive peat will still retain some of this oil, so if fresh peat falls into a hot oven, the oven is unclean. The oil will emerge due to the heat. Old olive peat (after twelve months) no longer contains the oil and therefore impure oil will not seep out and defile the oven. This is true unless we know that liquid came out of the old olive peat. If we know that liquid came out, then it can defile the oven even if the peat is as old as three years.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If olive peat or grape skins had been prepared in conditions of cleanness, and unclean persons trod upon them and afterwards liquids emerged from them, they remain clean, since they had originally been prepared in conditions of cleanness.  The olives and grapes were squeezed or tread upon by people who were in a state of purity. Then unclean people tread upon the waste products the olive peat or the grape skins and then liquids emerged. Generally, liquids make things susceptible to impurity. But because the person treading upon the olive peat or grape skins did not intend to squeeze out the liquids (because he probably wanted them to remain dry), this type of liquid does not make the olive peat or grape skins susceptible to impurity. They both remain pure, and if they are put into an oven, the oven also remains pure.
  If a spindle hook was sunk into the spindle, or the iron point into the ox goad, or a ring into a brick, and all these were clean, and then they were brought into a tent   in which was a corpse, they become unclean.  The instruments in this section consist of one metal instrument sunk into another larger instrument that cannot become impure because it does not have a receptacle. If the larger item with the smaller instrument inside it are taken into a tent in which a corpse is found, the sunken metal instrument is not protected by the larger item from becoming impure. Metal instruments are not protected from impurity unless they were swallowed by a living being (animal or human).
  If a zav caused them to move they become unclean.  A zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) who moves something causes it to be impure, even without touching it. Again, the outer vessel does not protect these instruments from becoming impure.
  If they then fell into the air-space of a clean oven, they cause it to be unclean.  Just as they are not protected from being defiled, so too they can defile an oven if they enter its airspace.
  If a loaf of terumah came in contact with them, it remains clean.  However, if a loaf of terumah bread comes into contact with them, it remains pure because it did not directly come into contact with the spindle hook, iron point or ring. It only touched the spindle, goad or brick and they were pure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If there was netting placed over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly fitting lid, and a split appeared between the oven and the colander, the minimum size [to allow impurity to enter] is that of the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that cannot actually enter it. Rabbi Judah says: it must be one into which the tip can actually enter.  We have learned that if an earthenware vessel has a tightly fitting cover, impurity cannot enter into it and defile it. If such a vessel is found in the same room as a dead body, the vessel remains pure. In the case discussed here, if the netting (some sort of colander) is truly "tightly fitting" it counts as a cover and the vessel remains pure. If the part between the oven and the netting is split, if the split is the exact same measurement as the circumference of the tip of an ox goad, it is not considered tightly fitting, and the oven is impure (if it is in a tent with a corpse). According to the first opinion, the tip need not actually be able to enter the split. Rabbi Judah holds that in order for the oven to be considered to not have a "tightly fitting lid" the split needs to be large enough to allow the tip to actually enter.
  If a split appeared in the netting, the minimum size is the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can enter it. Rabbi Judah says: even if it cannot enter.  In this case, the split is not between the netting and the oven but in the netting itself. The opinions from section one are reversed. We should note that there is no inherent logic as to when the measure is "the ox goad can enter" and when it is "even if it cannot enter." It seems random why the sages reverse their opinions in the two cases. Albeck explains that all of the sages of the Mishnah (the tannaim) had a tradition that in one case the split must be large enough for the ox goad to actually enter, and in the other case, the split need be no larger than the ox goad. The sages and Rabbi Judah disagreed as to which measure was applicable in which case. In other words, they had some sort of halakhic tradition that they had received from their predecessors, but its details were not received and therefore they argued over them.
  If the split was curved it must not be regarded as straight, and still the minimum size must be the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can actually enter.  If the split was really like a small hole, from the oven to the netting, and it wasn't just a regular crack, the minimum size still remains in effect. Albeck explains that this means that if we were to even out the curved split, and only then could it allow in the tip of the ox goad, the oven is still not considered to have a tightly fitting lid. It must actually be the size of the ox goad.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with the topic of how large a hole in an oven can be before it ceases to be considered "tightly closed." The size of this hole will vary depending upon where in the oven it is located.
  If there was a hole in the "eye" of an oven, the minimum size [for it to leave the category of being tightly closed] is the circumference of a burning spindle staff that can enter and come out [without being extinguished]. Rabbi Judah says: one that is not burning.  The "eye" of the oven is the hole made in the oven's bottom to let in wind and let out smoke (see 8:7). If there is a hole that would allow a burning spindle staff to come in and go out while burning and not be extinguished, the oven is not considered to be "tightly covered" and if found in a tent with a dead body, it is impure. Again, Rabbi Judah argues about one of these details. He holds that it need not be able to enter and come out while burning (and not be extinguished). As long as it can come in and out, the oven is unclean.
  If the hole appeared at its side, the minimum size must be that of the circumference of a spindle staff that can enter and come out while it is not burning. Rabbi Judah says: while burning.  If the hole is in the side of the oven, then the opinions in section one are reversed, although the basic measure is the same. Note that this debate is formatted similarly to the debate in yesterday's mishnah. There is no rational reason why one place should have to allow in a burning and one place need not. Rather all sages (the anonymous opinion and Rabbi Judah) hold that in one case the spindle staff must be burning and in one case it need not, and they dispute as to which case is which.
  Rabbi Shimon says: if the hole is in the middle its size must be such that a spindle staff can enter it, but if it was at the side it need only be such as the spindle staff cannot actually enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning the stopper of a jar in which a hole appeared: the minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in an oat stalk. If the hole was in the middle the stalk should be able to enter, and if at the side it need not be able to enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning large stone jars in the stoppers of which appeared a hole. The minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in a reed. If the hole was in the middle the reed must be able to enter it, and if it was at the side the reed need not be able to enter it.  Rabbi Shimon holds that there is a difference if the hole is in the middle of the oven, or in its side. If the hole is in the middle, the spindle must be able to go in and out, but if it is on the side, the measure is smaller, and the oven is considered open even if the hole is the exact same size as the spindle-staff. According to other sources, the other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold the reverse if the hole is on the side, the measure is larger than if it's in the middle. The mishnah now proceeds to list several cases, in which Rabbi Shimon holds that if the hole is in the side, the measure is larger than if the hole is in the middle. The first is a hole found in a stopper. The minimum measure is the size of the second knot in an oat-stalk. Oat stalks (so I gather from this mishnah) had many knots, and the sages used the second knot as a basis this measure. The second instance is a hole found in a large jar. Here the measure was the second knot found in a reed (which I guess also have knots).
  When is this so? When the jars were made for wine, but if they were made for other liquids, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean.  The above two halakhot are true when it comes to wine jars, which regularly had holes in them. Since holes were normal in these vessels, they had to establish minimum sizes for a hole to nullify the vessel from being considered "tightly covered." If the vessel was used for other liquids, then it shouldn't have any holes. Therefore, even the smallest hole will nullify it from being considered "tightly lidded."
  When is this so? When the holes were not made by a person, but if they were made by a person, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean.  If the hole was done intentionally by a person, then even the smallest hole nullifies it from being "tightly covered." The minimum measurements refer only to cases where the hole appeared on its own.
  If a hole appeared [in other vessels its prescribed size ] is as follows: if the vessel was used for food, [the hole must be one] through which olives can fall out; if for liquids, one that lets out liquids; If for either, the greater restriction is imposed [even with regard to the issue of] a tightly fitting cover [the size of the hole need only be] one that admits a liquid.  If other types of vessels (not wine jars) have holes in them, then the minimum measure depends on what the jar is used for. If it is used for food, it must be a big enough hole to let out food. If it holds liquids, then the vessel is not considered tightly covered if it would allow in other liquids. Finally, if the vessel is used for both liquids and solids, the more stringent measure, that of liquids is applied.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Finally, a mishnah whose focus is not ovens!
  The tenth chapter of Kelim deals with the types of vessels who remain clean if they have a tightly fitting lid. This halakhah is rooted in Leviticus 19:14-15 which reads: "14This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean."
  The following vessels protect their contents when they have a tightly fitting cover:  those made of cattle dung, of stone, of clay, of earthenware, of sodium carbonate, of the bones of a fish or of its skin, or of the bones of any animal of the sea or of its skin, and wooden vessels that are always clean.  Vessels made of the materials listed in this section protect their contents from becoming unclean if the vessel is found in a tent (any building) with a dead body in it. We should note that vessels made of cattle dung, stone and clay (that has not been fired in a kiln) are never susceptible to impurity. Similarly most vessels made of the skins of fish or animals of the sea are not susceptible to impurity. There are wooden vessels that are susceptible to impurity and there are some that are not. Basically, there are two kinds of vessels listed here that can become impure earthenware and sodium carbonate. These two types of vessels have rules that differ from metal, glass and wooden vessels. As we have learned, the former can become impure from their air-space, but are not made impure by contact with their outside. Thus any vessel that cannot be defiled by contact with its outside, protects against impurity if it has a tightly fitting lid.
  They protect whether the covers close their mouths or their sides, whether they stand on their bottoms or lean on their sides.  It doesn't matter where the lid is or how the vessel is standing. In all cases it protects its contents.
  If they were turned over with their mouths downwards they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. Rabbi Eliezer declares this unclean.  If the vessel is turned over and it was connected to the ground by some plaster, then it protects anything below it from becoming unclean. In other words, the ground is the lid. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that the ground cannot be considered a lid.
  These protect everything, except that an earthen vessel protects only foods, liquids and earthen vessels.  Most of these vessels protect anything that is found in them, including metal vessels. However, earthenware vessels only protect other things that cannot be made pure in a mikveh (bath) food, liquid and other earthenware vessels. If there are metal vessels inside the earthenware vessels, they become unclean in the tent with a corpse.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah discusses what materials can be used to seal the cover of an earthenware vessel such that it will protect it from becoming impure.
  How may it be tightly covered? With lime or gypsum, pitch or wax, mud or excrement, crude clay or potter's clay, or any substance that is used for plastering.  All of the materials listed here will form a tight seal around the lid's edges. Thus all of these materials cause the vessel to be protected from impurity if the vessel is found in a building with a corpse in it.
  One may not make a tightly fitting cover with tin or with lead because though it is a covering, it is not tightly fitting.  Soft metals such as tin or lead do not offer as tight of a seal and therefore they do not protect the vessel. They are a "covering" but they are not "tightly fitting."
  One may not make a tightly fitting cover with swollen fig-cakes or with dough that was kneaded with fruit juice, since it might cause it to become unfit. If he did make a tightly fitting cover [from such material] it protects.  These soft, pliable food products will, at least temporarily, offer a tightly fitting seal. Therefore, if one makes a seal out of them, they do protect the vessel from impurity. However, since they will dry up and no longer be a tight seal, the mishnah says that one should not use them.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A stopper of a jar that is loose but does not fall out: Rabbi Judah says: it protects. But the sages say: it does not protect.  According to Rabbi Judah, although the stopper is loose in its place, it still protects the jar from becoming impure. The sages disagree.
  If its finger-hold was sunk within the jar and a sheretz was in it, the jar becomes unclean. If the sheretz was in the jar, any food in it, become unclean.  The finger-hold is the depression within the stopper used to get a grip on the stopper and pull it out. If there was a sheretz in this finger-hold and it was sunk within the jar, then the jar is unclean. The finger-hold does not count as sealing the jar, even though the stopper does. Similarly, if the sheretz was in the jar and the finger-hold was sunk into the jar and there was food in the finger-hold, the food is impure. Put simply, the finger-hold does not protect from impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a ball or coil of reed grass was placed over the mouth of a jar, and only its sides   were plastered, it does not protect unless it was also plastered above or below.  The reed grass does not offer an especially good sealant. Therefore, for it to protect he must also plaster either over or under the ball or coil. The jar is not considered tightly sealed if all he does is plaster its sides.
  The same is true with regard to a patch of cloth.  The same is true with a small patch of cloth (too small to be itself susceptible to impurity).
  If it was of paper or leather and bound with a cord, if he plastered it from the sides, it protects.  The paper or leather, bound to the jar with a cord, does not have holes (as does the reed grass and the cloth). Therefore, as long as he plasters from the side, the paper or leather protect the jar. [It would seem that their paper was probably far thicker and more durable than our paper].
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If [the outer layer] a jar had been peeled off but its pitch [lining] remained intact, The outer layer of plaster peeled off the jar, but the inner layer of pitch remains, thereby sealing the jar off at the place where the outer layer peeled off. 
  And similarly if pots of fish brine were sealed up with gypsum at a level with the brim: Rabbi Judah says: they do not protect. But the sages say: they do protect. The type of fish pot referred to here has a lip below the rim and inside the pot. The person sealed the pot at this point, in other words within the pot.
  It turns out that in both of these cases the seal is inside the pot or jar and not external to it. According to Rabbi Judah these containers do not protect their contents because the lid must be on the jar. This is a very literal reading of Numbers 19:15”a tightly fitting lid on it.”
  The other sages do not read the text quite as literally, and therefore claim that these types of lids or seals do protect their contents from impurity.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a jar had a hole in it and wine lees stopped it up, they protect it.  This section goes according to the opinion of the sages in yesterday's mishnah. The wine lees protect the jar from impurity because they form a tight seal from within.
  If one stopped it up with a vine shoot [it does not protect] until he plasters it at the sides.  In order for the vine shoot to count as a tightly-fitting lid, he must plaster it around from the sides.
  If there were two vine shoots, [it does not protect] unless he plastered it at the sides and also between the one shoot and the other.  If he closed it up with two vine shoots, then he must plaster it from both the sides and between the shoots in order for the shoots to be considered a tight seal.
  If a board was placed over the mouth of an oven, it protects if he plastered it at the sides.  A board, one that cannot become impure, can offer a protective seal to an oven, as long as he plasters it from the sides.
  If there were two boards [it does not protect] unless he plastered at the sides and also between the one board and the other. If they were fastened together with pegs or with bamboo joints there is no need for them to be plastered in the middle.  Similar to the case of the two vines, if he uses two boards, he must plaster in between them as well as at the sides. However, if the two boards were fastened together with either pegs or joints, he need not plaster in between them for them to be considered a tight lid.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah discusses a case where one oven is within another oven. A note of introduction will help in understanding this mishnah. For a jar (susceptible to impurity) to be protected from impurity when it is found inside a tent with a dead body it must have a tightly fitting lid. However, an inner tent (not susceptible to impurity) can protect its contents from an outer tent with a dead body in it, even if the covering of the inner tent is not "tightly-fitting." As long as the inner tent is covered, it protects its contents.
  An old oven was within a new one and netting was over the mouth of the old [new] one: If [it was placed such that if] the old one were to be removed the netting would drop, all [the contents of both ovens] are unclean; But if it would not drop, all are clean.  In this scenario, the old oven, one that had already been used, was within a new one, which had not been glazed and therefore was not susceptible to impurity (see 5:1). There is netting over the new one (this according to Albeck is how the mishnah should read. The reading "old one" is a mistake.) Concerning "netting" see 9:7. The first possibility is that when the old one is removed the netting would fall. In such a case the netting is on the old, inside oven, and not on the new outer oven. The mishnah rules that if the old oven is found in a tent with a dead body, it and all of its contents, are impure. The outer oven cannot serve as a tent-covering because its opening is not covered by the netting. And the inner oven is not considered to have a lid, because although the netting is over its opening, it is not considered a tight-fitting lid. However, if the netting was placed over the outer, new oven, it protects the inner oven because the new oven serves as a "tent." In other words, the netting is not sufficient to act as a lid for the old oven, but it is sufficient to turn the new oven, one that is not susceptible to impurity, into a "tent" such that the inner oven is not directly in a tent with a dead body. Rather it is inside one tent which is inside another tent with a dead body.
  A new oven was within an old one and netting was over the mouth of the old one if there was not a handbreadth of space between the new oven and the netting,  all the contents of the new one are clean.  In this case, the new oven is on the inside and the old, susceptible to impurity oven, is on the outside. The netting is over the old, outer one but if the old one is removed, it won't fall into the new oven, because its mouth is narrower. The outer one is definitely impure because nothing is protecting it from the impurity in the tent. But if there is less than a handbreadth between the new one and the netting, then the netting turns the new one into a "tent" and it can protect its contents from the impurity found in the larger tent in which it is all found.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If [earthenware] pans were placed one within the other and their rims were on the same level, and there was a sheretz in the upper one or in the lower one, that pan alone becomes unclean but all the others remain clean.  If the sheretz is in the upper pan, the lower pans are still clean because the sheretz is not considered to be in the air-space of the lower pans. Only the upper pan is impure because the sheretz is in its air-space. If the sheretz is in the lower pan it is unclean but the upper pans are clean because the sheretz is not in their air-space.
  If [they were perforated] to the extent of admitting a liquid, and the sheretz was in the uppermost one, all become unclean. If in the lowest one, that one is unclean while the others remain clean.  If the pans were perforated enough that they could let liquid in and out, they are still susceptible to impurity. In order for them not to be susceptible they must be able to admit and let out an olive (see 3:2). Nevertheless, they are not considered to be "vessels" vis a vis other vessels in order to afford protection from impurity. Therefore, if the sheretz is in the upper one, it doesn't protect the lower ones. The sheretz is considered to be in their air-space as well. However, if it is in the lower one, the upper (inner) pans are pure because the sheretz is still not in their air-space.
  If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, both are unclean.  The mishnah now returns to the first scenario, where the pans are not perforated. If the lowest pan projects above the upper one, and the sheretz is in the upper one, then both of those pans are unclean, because the sheretz is in both of their air-spaces. However, the middle pans remain clean because the sheretz is not in their air-space.
  If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, any one that contained dripping liquid becomes unclean.  This section seems to be some sort of later addition to the mishnah which relates to that which was immediately stated before. When it was stated in section three that the middle pans are pure, that was true only if they were dry. If they were moist with dripping liquid, then the liquid is unclean and it in turn defiles the pan.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapters eleven through fourteen deal with purity issues related to metal vessels.
  Metal vessels, whether they are flat or form a receptacle, are susceptible to impurity.  Metal vessels are susceptible to impurity whether or not they have a receptacle. This distinguishes them from other material (wood see 2:1) which needs to have a receptacle.
  On being broken they become clean.  If they break such that they are no longer usable, they become pure again.
  If they were re-made into vessels they revert to their former impurity.  If they are re-fashioned, their original impurity is restored to them. In other words, they don't only become susceptible to impurity, they actually get their old impurity back. In the Talmud, it is explained that this was a rabbinic decree made by Shimon ben Shetach, a Second Temple sage. According to the rules of the Torah, once the metal vessel has been broken, it does not go back to its former impurity.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: this does not apply to every form of impurity but only to that contracted from a corpse.  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel limits this rabbinic decree to a case where it had contracted corpse impurity. If it had been defiled in some other, less significant way, then it does not revert to its former impurity.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Every metal vessel that has a name of its own [is susceptible to impurity,]  As long as a metal vessel has a name of its own, and its name is not based on another vessel, it is susceptible to impurity.
  Except for a door, a bolt, a lock, a socket under a hinge, a hinge, a clapper, and the [threshold] groove under a door post, since these are intended to be attached to the ground.  The exceptions are various parts of doors. These are not susceptible to impurity because they are meant to be attached to the ground, and any vessel that is attached to the ground is not susceptible to impurity (see 8:9).
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels.  Vessels that are made from any of these materials are pure (unless they contract impurity). We need not be concerned that they come from material that was at one time impure because all of the things that are listed here are not "vessels" and therefore they are not susceptible to impurity. In other words, if a vessels comes from recycled material that could never have been impure, it is itself pure. "Pieces of vessels" are pieces that are cut off of the raw metarl material when vessels are being made. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that these too cannot be impure, and therefore vessels made of them are pure.
  From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean.  In this case the older vessels may have been impure before they were broken and recycled. Therefore, the new vessels made from them must also be treated as impure, for when the old vessels were forged into new vessels, they return to their former state of impurity (see mishnah one).
  [If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean.  In this case, we don't know whether the nails were once parts of vessels, in which case they are susceptible to impurity, or were from nails that were never parts of vessels, in which case they are not susceptible to impurity. Bet Shammai rules strictly and renders them unclean lest they came from vessels that were once impure. Bet Hillel rules leniently, reasoning that there is a double-doubt in this case. The nails may not have ever been part of vessels, and even if they were, there is the possibility that the previous vessel was clean.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If unclean iron was smelted together with clean iron and the greater part was from the unclean iron, [the vessel made of the mixture] is unclean; If the greater part was from the clean iron, the vessel is clean. If each was half, it is unclean.  The unclean iron comes from vessels that were unclean, and the clean iron comes from vessels that are clean. The status of the new vessel follows the majority of the material used. If both materials are used in equal amounts the law is strict and the new vessel must be treated as unclean.
  The same law also applies to a mixture of cement and cattle dung.  Cement is susceptible to impurity, whereas cattle dung is not. If one makes a vessel by mixing these two materials together, the vessel's susceptibility to impurity depends on which material composes the majority, as in the previous section.
  A door bolt is susceptible to impurity, but [one of wood] that is only plated with metal is not susceptible to impurity.  The susceptibility of the type of door belt referred to here depends upon whether it is made of metal, in which case it is susceptible, or of wood which is only plated with metal, in which case it is not susceptible.
  The clutch and the crosspiece [of a lock] are susceptible to impurity.  These two pieces of the door are susceptible to impurity.
  A door-bolt: Rabbi Joshua says: he may remove it from one door and hang it on another on Shabbat. Rabbi Tarfon says: it is like all other vessels and may be carried about in a courtyard.  These laws relate to the door-bolt mentioned in section three. According to Rabbi Joshua one can remove it from one door and drag it to another door on Shabbat. But he can't directly carry it, because it is not a vessel and one is not allowed to handle non-vessels on Shabbat. This opinion flows or at least accords with the opinion above, that the door bolt is not a vessel. Rabbi Tarfon says that the door-bolt is a vessel and can be carried about in the courtyard, as can vessels in general on Shabbat. Since it is a vessel, it is also susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees with the opinion in section three.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  The scorpion [-shaped] bit of a bridle is susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces are clean. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cheek-pieces are susceptible to impurity. But the sages says that the scorpion-bit alone is susceptible to impurity,  The two pieces of equipment mentioned here are used in bridling an animal. According to the Rambam, the scorpion-shaped bit is susceptible because it has its own name, whereas the cheek-pieces do not. Rabbi Eliezer holds that since the cheek-pieces are made for people to use and they are part of the bit, they too are susceptible.
  When they are joined together it is all susceptible to impurity.  The sages agree that if the cheek-pieces are attached to the bridle, they too are susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A metal spindle-knob:Rabbi Akiva says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is not susceptible. If it was only plated [with metal] it is clean.  A metal-spindle knob is placed on top of the spindle used in spinning wool.  According to the sages, it does not have its own name and therefore it is clean. Rabbi Akiva holds that it does have its own name, so it is susceptible. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if it is only covered with metal, it is considered a simple wooden vessel, and it is not susceptible.
  A spindle, a distaff, a rod, a double flute and a pipe are susceptible to impurity if they are of metal, but if they are only plated [with metal] they are clean.  All of these vessels have their own name and therefore they are all susceptible to impurity, if made of metal. However, if they are only covered with metal, but their base is wood they are not susceptible, because they do not have a receptacle.
  If a double flute has a receptacle for the wings it is susceptible to impurity in either case.  If the double-flute has a receptacle in which to receive "wings" which somehow make other types of musical noises, then it is susceptible even if it is made of wood. Wooden vessels are not-susceptible only if they have no receptacle.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A curved horn is susceptible to impurity but a straight one is clean.  A curved horn (perhaps a type of shofar, although some explain this to be a wood instrument) is susceptible to impurity because it contains a receptacle in which it would be possible to receive liquids. But the straight one is not susceptible, as is the rule with vessels made of bone or wood.
  If its mouthpiece was covered with metal it is unclean.  If parts of the horn are covered with metal, it may be susceptible to impurity. If the mouthpiece is covered with metal, it is considered a metal vessel and is susceptible whether or not it is curved.
  If its broad side [is covered with metal]: Rabbi Tarfon says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is clean.  There is a debate over whether the straight horn is susceptible if its broader side is covered with metal. According to Rabbi Tarfon, this is sufficient to turn it into a metal vessel, whereas the sages say that it is not. Only if the mouthpiece is covered with metal is it susceptible.
  While they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity.  If the mouthpiece is joined together with the broad side, making one seamless whole, then if any part is susceptible, it is all susceptible.
  Similarly: the branches of a candlestick are clean. And the cups and the base are susceptible to impurity, But while they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity.  Similar rules apply to a candlestick. Its branches are not susceptible when they are separated from the whole, because they do not have their own names. The cups and base are susceptible because they contain receptacles. But if they are all joined together, all of the parts are susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the purity of weapons and jewelry. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah often juxtaposes these topics, as if to create an analogy weapons are adornments to men, as jewelry is an adornment to women.
  A helmet is susceptible to impurity but the cheek-pieces are clean, But if they have a receptacle for water they are susceptible to impurity.  The helmet has its own name and is therefore susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces do not have their own name, and therefore they are not susceptible unless they also have a receptacle for water.
  All weapons of war are susceptible to impurity: a javelin, a spear-head, metal boots, and a breastplate are susceptible to impurity.  Weapons of war are all susceptible to impurity because they are made of metal.
  All women's ornaments are susceptible to impurity: a golden city (a, a necklace, ear-rings, finger-rings, a ring whether it has a seal or does not have a seal, and nose-rings.  Similarly, women's jewelry is made of metal and therefore it too is susceptible to impurity. The ring need not have a receptacle for a seal for it to be susceptible. Note that "a golden city" this refers to a "Yerushalayim shel Zahav,"  or any other city.
  If a necklace has metal beads on a thread of flax or wool and the thread broke, the beads are still susceptible to impurity, since each one is a vessel in itself.  A whole the necklace is susceptible, as we learned in section three. If the thread breaks, the beads are still susceptible because each is considered its own vessel.
  If the thread was of metal and the beads were of precious stones or pearls or glass, and the beads were broken while the thread alone remained, it is still susceptible to impurity.  If the thread is metal, it is susceptible even if the beads that served as its adornments broke and fell off.
  The remnant of a necklace [is susceptible] as long as there is enough for the neck of a little girl. Rabbi Eliezer says: even if only one ring remained it is unclean, since it also is hung around the neck.  If a chain necklace breaks, it is still susceptible as long as enough remains to serve as a necklace for a young girl. If it is smaller than that, it is not susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer says that as long as one ring in the chain remains it is still usable because a person might hang that ring on another chain around her neck. Therefore it is still susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the purity of earrings.
  If an earring was shaped like a pot at its bottom and like a lentil at the top and the sections fell apart, the pot-shaped section is susceptible to impurity because it is a receptacle, while the lentil shaped section is susceptible to impurity in itself.  The earring described here has two parts: the top is shaped like a pot and the bottom like a lentil (maybe someone should go into designing Talmudic jewelry might make a good business). When the earring is whole, all of it is of course susceptible to impurity. If it falls apart both parts are still susceptible to impurity. The bottom part is no longer considered a piece of jewelry, but since it has a receptacle, it is still susceptible. The top part has no receptacle, but it is still susceptible because it is still considered a piece of jewelry.
  The hooklet is clean.  However, the hooklet thread used to attach the earring to the ear is pure.
  If the sections of an ear-ring that was in the shape of a cluster of grapes fell apart, they   are clean.  The individual pieces of this type of earring are not considered to be jewelry, and therefore when it falls apart they are clean. To summarize: if the parts of a larger piece of jewelry are considered to be jewelry in their own right, they are still susceptible to impurity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A man's ring is susceptible to impurity.  The ring that a man wears is susceptible to impurity, just as is a ring worn by a woman.
  A ring for cattle or for vessels and all other rings are clean.  On its own and not used as jewelry, a ring is not considered a vessel. Therefore, if it is used for cattle or for other vessels, the ring is clean.
  A beam for arrows is susceptible to impurity, but one for prisoners is clean.  The beam described here is made of metal, and is used as a target for shooting arrows. It is susceptible because it is considered a vessel. On the other hand, the beam used to shackle prisoners is not considered a vessel and is therefore not susceptible.
  A prisoner's collar is susceptible to impurity.  The collar which is put on the necks of multiple prisoners is susceptible because it is considered a vessel.
  A chain that has a lock-piece is susceptible to impurity. But that used for tying up cattle is clean.  A chain that has a place for a lock is susceptible, but if it is just used to tie up cattle it is not susceptible.
  The chain used by wholesalers is susceptible to impurity. That used by householders is clean. Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? When it attaches to one door, but if it attaches to two doors or if it had a snail[-shaped] piece at its end it is susceptible to impurity.  Albeck explains that the chain used by the wholesalers was used to lock up their storehouses. It is susceptible because it is used as a means of locking up something. In contrast, the chain used by householders is only decorative and therefore it is not susceptible. Albeck explains that according to Rabbi Yose, if this chain attaches to only one door, then it is merely decorative, but if it attaches to multiple doors, it is susceptible. It is also susceptible if it has a vessel at its end (the snail-shaped piece). This vessel gives the entire chain the status of vessel. [I should note that I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. There are other interpretations of the last section].
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  The beam of a wool-combers’ balance is susceptible to impurity on account of the hooks.And that of a householder, if it has hooks is also susceptible to impurity.The hooks of porters are clean but those of peddlers are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of the peddlers' [hooks], [the hook] that is in front is susceptible to impurity but that which is behind is clean.The hook of a couch is susceptible to impurity but that of bed poles is clean.[The hook of] a chest is susceptible to impurity but that of a fish trap is clean.That of a table is susceptible to impurity but that of a wooden candlestick is clean.This is the general rule: any hook that is attached to a susceptible vessel is susceptible to impurity, but one that is attached to a vessel that is not susceptible to impurity is clean.All these, however, are by themselves clean.Most of this mishnah deals with the susceptibility of various types of hooks to impurity.Section one: Wool-combers' hooks are used for hanging and weighing wool. Since the hooks are a vessel, they can receive impurity, and by extension, so can the whole beam.Section two: Generally, the beam that a householder uses to weigh things doesn't have metal hooks. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, if it does have metal hooks, it is susceptible.Section three: The porters use a beam with hooks attached to carry their load. The hooks are metal and the beam is wood. These hooks are clean, because the main instrument is the beam, and since it is made of wood and has no receptacle, it is pure. In contrast, the hooks used by peddlers have receptacles in which to hang their wares. Therefore, they are susceptible.Rabbi Judah says that only the front hooks are used to hang the peddlers' wares, and therefore only they are susceptible.Sections four-seven: The general rule here explains the particular details in sections 4-6.  In all of these cases, as long as the hook is attached to a susceptible vessel, the hook has the status of the vessel and it too is susceptible. However, if the hook is attached to something that cannot become impure (poles, fish-trap or wooden candlestick), it too is pure.Section eight: When the hooks are not attached to something else, they are clean. There are two possible reasons: 1) they don't have their own name; 2) they are not usable unless attached to something else.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The metal cover of a basket of householders: Rabban Gamaliel says: it is susceptible to impurity, The sages say that it is clean.  According to Rabban Gamaliel, the cover of the basket is itself considered a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity, even separate from the basket. The other sages hold that the cover is not a vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible.
  But that of physicians is susceptible to impurity.  Since physicians would make use of the cover of a basket, it has the status of a vessel and it can become impure.
  The door of a cupboard of householders is clean but that of physicians is susceptible to impurity.  Since the cupboard is not susceptible to impurity, its door is not either. However, physicians would use the door of their cupboard, draping the bandage over it before applying it to their patient. Therefore, it is susceptible.
  Tongs are susceptible to impurity but stove-tongs are clean.  Metal tongs used to lift a hot pan off a stove and empty their contents elsewhere are susceptible to impurity. But tongs that come attached to the stove are not susceptible because they are considered to be attached to the ground.
  The scorpion [-shaped] hook in an olive-press is susceptible to impurity but the hooks for the walls are clean.  The scorpion-shaped hook is susceptible because it is attached to the beams used in the olive-press. However, the hooks which are attached to the wall of the olive-press are not susceptible because the wall itself is not susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah, as well as tomorrow's, deals with the purity of various types of "nails." When the Mishnah uses the word "nail" it does not refer only to building nails, but to various nail-like instruments used in a variety of ways.
  A blood-letters’ nail is susceptible to impurity.  The word "nail" is used here, but we are probably talking about a small scalpel. It is considered a vessel and therefore is susceptible to impurity.
  But [the nail] of a sundial is clean. Rabbi Zadok says that it is susceptible to impurity.  Since the nail of a sundial is fixed in the stone that serves as its base, it counts as if it were attached to the ground, and things that are attached to the ground are not susceptible to impurity.
  A weaver's nail is susceptible to impurity.  This "nail" is an instrument used to straighten out the thread on the loom. It is susceptible to impurity.
  The chest of a grist-dealer: Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean.  Albeck brings two interpretations of the "chest of a grist-dealer." The first is that it refers to the chest itself. The second that it refers to the nail used to attach the chest to a wagon. Rabbi Zadok and the sages debate whether this nail is susceptible to impurity.
  If its wagon was made of metal it is susceptible to impurity.  If the wagon used to draw the chest is made of metal, then it (the wagon) is susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity.  A nail which one bent to be able to open or close a lock is considered to be a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity.
  But one used for guarding is clean.  However, a nail that is simply stuck in a door to close it and keep out cats or other animals is not sophisticated enough to be a vessel and it is clean.
  A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it.  According to Rabbi Akiva, if he bends the nail to be able to open up a jar, it is already susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that to turn a simple nail into a jar opener he must forge it again in the oven. It is not susceptible until he does so.
  A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity.  The Rambam explains that the money-changer uses his nail to hang up his scale. Another possible explanation is that this nail was used in the daily set up of the money changers "table" (in Hebrew the money-changer is called "the table-man"). According to Rabbi Zadok this nail is a vessel and is susceptible, whereas the sages disagree.
  There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean.  This section and mishnah six were brought to Mishnah Kelim from Mishnah Eduyot 3:8-9. In the case of Rabbi Zadok, this section merely repeats that which we learned in the previous two mishnayot. It is interesting to note the different literary styles between the regular tractate, Kelim, which organizes its material by topic, and Eduyot, which organizes its material by name.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is found word for word in Eduyot 3:9. It is brought here due to the fact that it discusses the purity of vessels, and that the first vessel discussed is also mentioned above in mishnah three.
  Rabban Gamaliel and the other sages dispute over the susceptibility of four items to impurity.
  There are four things which Rabban Gamaliel says are susceptible to impurity, and the sages say are not susceptible to impurity.The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders;  See mishnah three for an explanation.
  And the hanger of a strigil;  A strigil was a type of comb used during baths to scrape off dead skin.  All agree that the strigil itself is susceptible to impurity.  They disagree about the small chain attached to the strigil to hang it on a hook.  According to Rabban Gamaliel it too is considered a vessel and therefore receives impurity.  According to the sages it does not.
  And metal vessels which are still unshaped;  Generally speaking, unformed vessels cannot receive impurity.  However, when it comes to metal vessels that have not been fully finished, meaning they have not been polished, Rabban Gamaliel holds that they are susceptible to impurity, since they can be used.  The sages insist that as long as they are not fully finished they cannot receive impurity.
  And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.  According to Rabban Gamaliel, a plate broken in two can still receive impurity.  The sages hold that broken vessels cannot generally speaking receive impurity.  However, they agree with Rabban Gamaliel that if one of the pieces was large, that it still can receive impurity, since it is still useful.  The small piece cannot receive impurity.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the susceptibility to impurity of invalidated coins that have put to a secondary purpose.
  If a dinar had been invalidated and then was adapted for hanging around a young girl's neck it is susceptible to impurity.  A coin is not susceptible to impurity, but if it is invalidated and cannot be used and is then hung around a young girl's neck as jewelry, it is susceptible.
  So, too, if a sela had been invalidated was adapted for use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity.  A sela is a heavier, more valuable coin, worth four denars. If a sela was invalidated, but then used as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity.
  How much may it depreciate while one is still permitted to keep it? As much as two denars. Less and he must be cut it up.  It is forbidden for a person to hold on to an invalidated coin, lest he deceive people with it and exchange it for a real coin. However, if the coin is obviously defective, he can keep it because people will know that it is defective. Our mishnah therefore asks how much the coin can depreciate before he has to cut it up and get rid of it. The answer is that it can be up to two denars defective. Two denars is equivalent to a shekel. If it has depreciated more than this, he may not hold on to it, lest he try to exchange it for a shekel.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A pen-knife, a writing pen, a plummet, a weight, pressing plates, a measuring-rod, and a measuring-table are susceptible to impurity.  All of the instruments in this section are metal vessels and are therefore susceptible to impurity. Pressing plates are used in pressing olive.
  All unfinished wooden vessels also are susceptible to impurity, excepting those made of boxwood.  Wooden vessels, unlike earthenware ones, are considered susceptible to impurity even if they are not completely finished. This is because they are usable even in their unfinished state. The exception is boxwood, because its bark is thick and vessels made of it are not considered vessels until they are finished.
  Rabbi Judah says: one made of an olive-tree branch is also clean unless it was first heated.  Rabbi Judah adds that vessels made of olive-tree branches are not susceptible unless the branches were first heated up to remove their moisture.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  The sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-sickle, harvest-sickle, clipper, and barbers’ whose component parts were separated, are susceptible to impurity.  All of these instruments are metal and are therefore susceptible to impurity. The scissors are susceptible even though their two knives have been separated.
  Rabbi Yose says: the part that is near the hand is susceptible to impurity, but that which is near the top is clean.  Rabbi Yose says that when any of these instruments has been separated into multiple pieces, only the part that is near the hand is still susceptible, because only it can be held. The other parts are not susceptible because they can't be held without cutting one's hands.
  The two parts of shears which were separated: Rabbi Judah says: they are still susceptible to impurity; But the sages say that they are clean.  The "shears" referred to here have only one knife, which is bent to aid in cutting. If this type of shears was split into two, Rabbi Judah says that it is still susceptible, since each part is still usable. The other sages say that since it is difficult to use each individual part on its own, both are clean.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with tools that have two ends with which two different types of work can be performed.
  A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon.  The koligrophon has a shovel on one end which was used to remove bread baking on the sides of an oven. On its other end are teeth, used to rake the coals in the oven. As long as one side is still functional, the entire instrument is susceptible to impurity.
  A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon.  A makhol has a spoon on one end for cleaning out one's ears, and a sharp other end to apply make-up to one's eyes. Again, as long as one side is still functional, the entire instrument is susceptible to impurity.
  A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point.  The stylus has one end used for writing and one end used for erasing.
  A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon.  A zomalister seems to be the ancient version of the spork, except it had it spoon (actually a ladle for pouring soup) on one end and its fork (for taking meat out of a dish).
  So too with regard to the prong of a mattock.  A mattock is a tool shaped like an axe and used to break up the ground before planting. Sometimes they would affix teeth to its other end to aid in breaking up ground. It is susceptible to impurity as long as one side remains.
  The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work.  As is normally the case, as long as the tool is still usable for its original purpose, it is still susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A harhur that is damaged is still susceptible to impurity until its greater part is removed. But if its shaft-socket is broken it is clean.  A harhur is the iron vessel into which an ox-goad (see 9:7) can be placed in order to dig and to remove dirt from a plow. It is susceptible to impurity even if damaged, as long as its shaft-socket, the opening into which the ox-goad is placed, is intact.
  A hatchet whose cutting edge is lost remains susceptible to impurity on account of its splitting edge. If its splitting edge is lost it remains susceptible on account of its cutting edge. If its shaft-socket is broken it is clean.  The head of the hatchet has a thin side for cutting and a thick side for splitting wood. If either side remains usable, it is still susceptible. If the shaft-socket, the hole into which the head is affixed, is broken, the entire hatchet is unusable and it is pure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean.  The ash-shovel is used to rake out coals from an oven. According to Rabbi Meir even if the shovel was removed, it is still susceptible because its heavy iron body is still usable as a hammer. Although this was not its original use, it still has some use, this use is sufficient for it to remain susceptible. The other sages hold that since it can no longer be used for its original purpose, it is no longer susceptible to impurity.
  A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity.  If one out of every two teeth is missing, the saw is no longer susceptible to impurity, because with so many teeth missing, it is no longer usable. However, if a hasit (some say that this is the length between the forefinger and thumb and some say between the forefinger and middle finger) length of teeth remain in one place, then the saw is still usable and is still susceptible.
  An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean.  In general, these instruments remain usable and therefore susceptible to impurity even when damaged. They would put a piece of steel in all of these instruments to strengthen and sharpen it. If this piece of steel was removed, then the instrument is no longer susceptible.
  In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill.  Except for the drill, all of these instruments are usable even if split in two. Therefore, they are all still susceptible. Since the drill is not usable when it is split in two, it is not susceptible.
  The block of a plane by itself is clean.  The block of a plane whose steel edge has been removed is no longer usable and therefore it is clean.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  A needle whose eye or point is missing is clean. If he adapted it to be a stretching-pin it is susceptible to impurity.  If the needle is missing its eye or point it is pure because it cannot be used. However, if he fixed this needle to use it as a stretching-pin (to stretch out canvases or laundry for them to dry), it is susceptible because stretching-pins don't need points or eyes to be usable.
  A pack-needle whose eye was missing is still susceptible to impurity since one writes with it. If its point was missing it is clean.  A "pack-needle" is generally used to sew packs. However, due to its large size it can be used to write with on wax, and therefore it is still susceptible to impurity even without an eye through which to thread it. But if its point is missing, it is not at all usable and is clean.
  A stretching-pin is in either case susceptible to impurity.  As we learned in section one, a pin without an eye or a point can still be used as a stretching pin. Therefore it is susceptible in all cases.
  A needle that has become rusty: If this hinders it from sewing it is clean, But if not it remains susceptible to impurity.  A needle which has become rusty is susceptible to impurity as long as the rust does not hinder it from use.
  A hook that was straightened out is clean. If it is bent back it resumes its susceptibility to impurity.  The hook loses its usability if it is straightened out. Thus it is pure. If he bends it back to make it a hook, it is again susceptible to impurity. The Rambam explains this line as meaning that it returns to its original state of impurity, as is the rule with metal vessels that are broken and then fixed (see 11:1).
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our principle teaches and illustrates the general principle that a vessel is considered to be made of the material which makes up its function part. This principle is of importance because the rules governing wooden and metal vessels are different.
  Wood that serves a metal vessel is susceptible to impurity, but metal that serves a wooden vessel is clean.  If the functional part of a vessel is made of metal, it is susceptible to impurity even if its ancillary parts are made of wood. But if the functional part is made of wood, it is not susceptible even if its ancillary parts are metal.
  How so?  If a lock is of wood and its clutches are of metal, even if only one of them is so, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the lock is of metal and its clutches are of wood, it is clean.  The mishnah now illustrates this through several examples. The first example is a lock. The clutches are the functional part. Therefore, even if only one of them is of metal, the lock is susceptible.
  If a ring was of metal and its seal of coral, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the ring was of coral and its seal of metal, it is clean.  The main part of the ring is the ring itself. Therefore if it is of coral, the ring is clean (coral is never susceptible to impurity), but if it is of metal, it is susceptible.
  The tooth in the plate of a lock or in a key is susceptible to impurity by itself.  Since the mishnah discussed locks, it adds that if the tooth in the plate of a lock is separate from the lock or key, it can still be susceptible to impurity, because it is considered a vessel in and of itself.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal.
  If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity.  Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.
  If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity.  These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.
  And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer.  Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of chapter thirteen deals with various types of combs that have their teeth missing.
  A flax-comb: if the teeth were missing but two remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If only one remained it is clean.  As long as two teeth of the flax-comb remained, the comb is somewhat usable and is therefore susceptible to impurity. If only one tooth remains, it is useless and therefore clean.
  As regards all the teeth, each one individually is susceptible to impurity.  According to the Tosefta one can use the teeth of this type of comb as a writing instrument, and therefore if they are separated from the comb they can still become impure.
  A wool-comb: if one tooth out of every two is missing it is clean. If three consecutive teeth remained, it is susceptible to impurity. If the outermost tooth was one of them, the comb is clean.  The rules governing a wool-comb are slightly different. If one out of every two teeth is missing, it is not usable and it is clean. But if three remain in one place, it can be used so it is susceptible, but only if the outer, wider tooth is not one of them. Since this tooth can't be used for combing, it doesn't count for the requisite three.
  If two teeth were removed from the comb and made into a pair of tweezers, they are susceptible to impurity. Even if only one was removed but it was adapted to be used for a lamp or as a stretching-pin, it is susceptible to impurity.  As was the case with the flax-comb, it is possible for the teeth to be removed and put to secondary use. Thus, if one uses the teeth of the wool-comb as tweezers, they are susceptible. And even a single tooth can be impure if it is removed and fixed to be used for a candle (to trim the wick) or for a stretching pin (see above, mishnah five).
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the minimum size that broken pieces of metals vessels need to be in order for them to be susceptible to impurity or for them to still retain the impurity that they already have.
  What is the minimum size of [broken] metal vessels [for them to be susceptible to impurity]? A bucket must be of such a size as to draw water with it. A kettle must be such as water can be heated in it. A boiler, such as can hold selas. A cauldron, such as can hold jugs. Jugs, such as can hold perutahs. Wine-measures, such as can measure wine; and oil-measures, such as can measure oil.  A bucket is used to draw water, therefore if a piece remains that is large enough to do so, it is still susceptible. A broken piece of a kettle must still be large enough to heat up water. A boiler must still be large enough to hold the hot stones that are thrown in to aid in heating up its contents. A cauldron was a large pot used to hold smaller jugs. The broken pieces of the jugs must be large enough to hold perutahs, which are small coins. Wine and oil measures must still be large enough to hold either wine or oil. We can see that the general rule is quite simple: the broken piece must still be able to perform at least some of its former functions.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: the size for all these is such as can hold perutahs.  Rabbi Eliezer rules differently and more strictly. With regard to any of these vessels, as long as they can hold perutahs, meaning as long as what remains of them is large enough to hold basically anything, they are still susceptible.
  Rabbi Akiva says: a vessel that lacks trimming is susceptible to impurity, but one that lacks polishing is clean.  Rabbi Akiva says that if the broken vessel lacks decorative aspects, then it is still susceptible to impurity because the decoration is not necessary for its functioning. However, polishing is necessary for a metal vessel to be used. Therefore, if the broken piece of metal vessel needs to be polished it is clean.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with various metal objects that are attached to a wooden staff. The wooden staff itself has no receptacle and is therefore not susceptible to impurity. The question is: does the metal instrument attached to it cause it to be susceptible.
  A staff to the end of which he attached a nail like an axe is susceptible to impurity.  I have translated the word for the instrument describe as being affixed at the end of the staff as "axe" but there are other explanations. The Rambam, for instance, says that it was a round piece of iron that looked like a pomegranate. In any case, as long as this vessel has some function, it is susceptible.
  If the staff was studded with nails it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon ruled: only if he put in three rows.  The staff studded with nails is clearly a weapon. According to Rabbi Shimon it must have a minimum of three rows of nails for it to be susceptible.
  In all cases where he put them in as ornamentation the staff is clean.  In all of the above cases, if the metal vessels were attached to the wooden staff only for decorative purposes, the staff is still clean. There must be some functional reason they were adjoined for it to be susceptible.
  If he attached a tube to its end, and so also in the case of a door, it is clean. If it was once an independent vessel and then it was fixed to the staff, it remains susceptible to impurity.  The metal tube was attached to the end of the staff for decorative purposes, and therefore the staff is still pure. Similarly, if one attaches a tube to a door so that the door doesn't get worn down by the ground, the metal tube is pure. This is a case where a metal vessel serves a wooden vessel and as we learned in 13:6, such metal vessels are pure. If the tube was once an independent vessel, used for instance to pour liquids (see 9:6) and then he attached it to the staff, it retains its ability to become impure.
  When does it become pure? Bet Shammai says: when it is damaged; And Bet Hillel says: when it is joined on.  This section is a continuation of section four. When does a tube that was once an independent vessel and was now attached to a staff lose its susceptibility to impurity? Bet Shammai says that it must be damaged sufficiently so that it can no longer be used. Bet Hillel says that as soon as it is attached to the staff or door, it is susceptible. Interestingly, it seems that the opinion in section four is closer, if not identical to Bet Shammai, for Bet Hillel holds that as soon as the tube is attached to the door or staff, it is pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A builder's staff and a carpenter's axes are susceptible to impurity.  Since these are metal tools, they are susceptible to impurity.
  Tent-pegs and surveyors’ pegs are susceptible to impurity.  Tent pegs are considered utensils and are therefore susceptible to impurity. Surveyors' pegs are put into the ground and strings are attached to them to measure the ground. They too are susceptible.
  A surveyor's chain is susceptible to impurity, but one used for wood is clean.  A chain used by surveyors to measure the length of the ground is susceptible to impurity, just as are the pegs. However, if the chain is used to bundle up wood, it is not susceptible because it is not considered a vessel.
  The chain of a big bucket [is susceptible to impurity to a length of] four handbreadths, and that of a small one [to a length of] ten handbreadths.  Up until four handbreadths, the chain attached to a large bucket is considered to be part of the bucket and it is susceptible to impurity. However, the large bucket does not need a chain any longer than this, and therefore if the chain is longer, the remainder is not susceptible. Smaller buckets have longer chains and therefore the chain is susceptible to impurity up to a length of ten handbreadths.
  A blacksmith's jack is susceptible to impurity.  The blacksmith's jack is the iron base which he uses to forge his vessels. It itself is considered a vessel and is susceptible to impurity.
  A saw whose teeth were made in a hole susceptible to impurity, but if they were turned from below upwards it is clean.  In this section I am following the Rambam's interpretation. If a person made a saw by inserting teeth into the holes in the saw, the saw is susceptible to impurity. However, if he turns the teeth in such a way that he cannot use the saw, it is clean.
  All covers are clean except that of a boiler.  Generally, metal covers are pure because they are not considered vessels. The exception is the cover of a boiler, which is on occasion used independently of the boiler.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  The next two mishnayot deal with the parts of an ox-pulled wagon that are susceptible to impurity and the parts that are not.
  The parts of a wagon that are susceptible to impurity: the metal yoke, the cross-bar, the side-pieces that hold the straps, the iron bar under the necks of the cattle, the pole-pin, the metal girth, the trays, the clapper, the hook, and any nail that holds any of its parts together. Rather than explain what each of these things exactly is (I'm not even sure I could explain), I think it is better to simply point out that all of these vessels serve indispensable functions on the wagon. Without them, the wagon will not function properly. Therefore, they are all susceptible to impurity. In other words, functional and necessary vessels are susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  The clean parts of a wagon are the following: the yoke that is only plated [with metal], side-pieces made for ornamentation, tubes that give out a noise, the lead at the side of the necks of the cattle, the rim of the wheel, the plates and mountings, and all other nails, all of these are clean.  This section is the opposite of yesterday's mishnah. The objects mentioned here are either ornamental or not absolutely necessary for the functioning of the wagon. The yoke that is made of wood but is covered with metal is considered to be a wood vessel and the metal parts serve the wood. Therefore it is clean.
  Metal shoes of cattle are susceptible to impurity but those made of cork are clean.  Metal shoes made so that animals don't slip are susceptible but not simply because they are shoes. They are susceptible for soldiers, in time of need, use them for drinking. But cork shoes are not used for drinking, and therefore they are not susceptible.
  When does a sword become susceptible to impurity? When it has been polished. And a knife? When it has been sharpened.  The mishnah now returns to discuss the topic of when the manufacturing of certain objects is considered to have been completed such that they are susceptible to impurity. A sword is used only after it has been polished, and therefore it is susceptible only then. In contrast, a knife is susceptible as soon as it has been sharpened.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A metal basket-cover which was turned into a mirror: Rabbi Judah rules that it is clean. And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity.  Had it not been made into a mirror, all would agree that this metal basket-cover is pure because it is a metal object used for the purposes of a wooden object (see 12:6). As we learned, in such cases the vessel has the status of being made of wood. However, if he polishes it and makes it into its own vessel to be used as a mirror, it is susceptible, according to the sages. Rabbi Judah holds that it is still not considered a vessel and it is still pure.
  A broken mirror, if it does not reflect the greater part of the face, is clean.  If the broken mirror cannot show most of a person's face, it is no longer susceptible to impurity because it is really not usable. But if it can still reflect most of the face, it is still usable.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Metal vessels can be purified by having hatat waters (the water that contains the ashes of the red heifer) sprinkled on them on the third and seventh days from their impurity. Metal vessels also can become clean by being broken.
  Our mishnah deals with how these two ways of becoming pure work (or don't work) together.
  Metal vessels remain unclean and become clean even when broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: they can be made clean only when they are whole.  Rabbi Eliezer basically says that just as a whole metal vessel found in a tent with a dead body is unclean and can be purified by the sprinkling of the hatat waters, so too broken metal vessels can become impure and clean in such a manner. Rabbi Joshua disagrees and holds that metal vessels can be made impure and then made clean only when they are whole. If they are broken they can't be made clean and if they are made unclean when whole and then broken they cannot be purified until they are repaired. Note that this doesn't mean that they are impure. It means that if he repairs them, they are still impure until the water is sprinkled upon the.
  How so? If they were sprinkled upon and on the same day they were broken and then they were recast and sprinkled upon on the same day, they are clean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: there can be no effective sprinkling earlier than on the third and the seventh day.  The words "How so?" usually imply that section two is an illustration of section one. However, Albeck and some other traditional commentators, claim that in this mishnah section two is an independent debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua and that the words "How so?" should not be there. We will explain accordingly. According to Rabbi Eliezer, once the metal vessel was broken and then repaired, there is no need to wait for the seventh day for the second sprinkling. Since their breaking also purifies them, they do not need to wait for a full period. Rabbi Joshua is consistent with his opinion in section one. Once the process of purification has begun, it must be completed on a whole vessel. The sprinkling is only effective if done on the third and seventh days.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the purity of keys.
  A knee-shaped key that was broken off at the knee is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean because one can open with it from within.  The first opinion holds that if a knee-shaped key is broken off at the knee, the key is pure because it can no longer be used to open the door. Rabbi Judah says it still retains some function. The key can be used from the inside to unlock the door, but from the outside, the key would not reach the lock. Because it still has some use, it is still susceptible.
  A gamma-shaped key that was broken off at its shorter arm is clean.  This key is similar to the Greek letter gamma. If it is broken off such that he can no longer handle it, it is clean.
  If it retained the teeth and the gaps it remains unclean. If the teeth were missing it is still unclean on account of the gaps; if the gaps were blocked up it is unclean on account of the teeth. If the teeth were missing and the gaps were blocked up, or if they were merged into one another, it is clean.  This mishnah discusses keys in general, and not just the gamma key mentioned in section two. A key has teeth and gaps both are necessary to open the lock. Obviously, if both remain, the key is functional and susceptible to impurity. However, even if only the teeth or gaps are still there, the key is still susceptible to impurity. The key only becomes clean when both the teeth are missing and the gaps are blocked up.
  If in a mustard-strainer three holes in its bottom were merged into one another the strainer is clean.  If there were three holes in a mustard-strainer that joined together to form one large gap, the strainer is no longer usable and it is clean.
  A metal mill-funnel is unclean.  The metal mill-funnel that is used for pouring wheat into the mill is considered a vessel and is susceptible to impurity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapters fifteen through nineteen deal with vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass.
  Vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass: those that are flat are clean and those that form a receptacle are susceptible to impurity.  The general rule here was already taught in 2:1. Unlike metal vessels that can always become impure, wood, leather, bone or glass vessels must have a receptacle.
  If they are broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth.  If they are broken they become clean again, and when one remakes them they do not return to their original impurity (unlike metal vessels which do). Rather, they are merely susceptible again.
  A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket, a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship, that have flat bottoms and can hold a minimum of forty se'ah in liquid measure which represent two kor in dry measure, are clean.  The mishnah lists various large containers.  The general rule is that in order to be susceptible the vessel has to be something that is carried around. If a container can hold forty seah of liquid (about 480 liters), it is simply too heavy to be carried around and it is clean. These vessels are meant to be stationary.
  All other vessels whether they can contain the minimum or cannot contain it, are susceptible to impurity, the words of Rabbi Meir.  Rabbi Meir holds that the list in section three is exhaustive. All other vessels, even if they hold this amount , are susceptible to impurity.
  Rabbi Judah says: the tub of a wagon, the food chests of kings, the tanners trough, the tank of a small ship, and an ark, even though they are able to contain the minimum,  are susceptible to impurity, since they are intended to be moved about with their contents. As to all other vessels, those that can contain the minimum are clean and those that cannot contain it are susceptible to impurity.  Rabbi Judah provides a list of vessels that are always susceptible to impurity, even though they can hold more than 40 seahs. These vessels are always susceptible because they are meant to be moved around, and anything that is meant to be moved around is susceptible. But when it comes to all other vessels, they are susceptible if they can't hold forty seahs, and they are clean if they can.
  There is no difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah except a baking trough which belongs to a householder.  The only practical debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah is over a baking trough that belongs to a householder. According to Rabbi Meir since it is not part of the list in section three, it is susceptible. Rabbi Judah holds that if the vessel is not on the list and it doesn't hold forty seahs, it is clean. This includes the baker's trough. The debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah is interesting. It seems that there was some sort of accepted list of vessels that cannot become impure. Rabbi Meir acts like a traditionalist and limits the halakhah to those on the list. Rabbi Judah is more of an innovator (at least in this case). He derives a general rule from the list and then applies it to most other vessels.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  In the wake of yesterday's mishnah which ended by mentioning a baker's trough, our mishnah continues to deal with various instruments used by a baker.
  Bakers’ baking-boards are susceptible to impurity, but those used by householders are clean. But if he dyed them red or saffron they are susceptible to impurity.  Since bakers' boards are specially designed to hold the dough so that it can be arranged into loaves, they are susceptible to impurity. But householders will use any old board, and therefore one used for such a purpose is not susceptible. However, if he dyes it, he turns it into a vessel and it is susceptible.
  If a bakers’ shelf was fixed to a wall: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is clean And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity.  The baker's shelf is where the baker would put the loaves of bread while they wait to rise. Rabbi Eliezer rules that since it is attached to the wall, it is clean, because anything that is attached to the ground is clean. The other rabbis disagree and hold that despite it being attached to the ground, it is still considered a vessel. We will see this same type of debate in subsequent chapters.
  The bakers' frame is susceptible to impurity but one used by householders is clean. If he made a rim on its four sides it is susceptible to impurity, but if one side was open it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if he fixed it so that one can cut the dough upon it, it is susceptible to impurity.  This frame was used by bakers to hold their water pitchers while they were baking. The one used by professionals is susceptible because it is specified for this purpose. But generally the one used by householders is not, because it is not specified for this type of use. However, if the householder makes a frame for it from all four of its sides he has specified it for this type of use and it is susceptible. Similarly, if he fixed the board so that he could use it for cutting dough, it is susceptible.
  Similarly, a rolling-pin is susceptible to impurity.  Albeck explains that this rolling pin was also used to bring the bread to the oven. Since it "receives" the bread, it is susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The container of the flour-dealers’ sifter is susceptible to impurity, but the one of a householder is clean.  Albeck explains that they would attach a container to either the bottom or the top of the flour-dealer's sifter to catch loose flour when sifting. The type of container used by a professional is large enough to be considered an independent vessel and therefore it can become impure on its own. But the one used by a householder is small and insignificant and is therefore clean.
  Rabbi Judah says: also one that is used by a hairdresser is susceptible to impurity as a seat, since girls sit in it when their hair is dressed.  A similar type of container is used by women when dressing other women's hair. This container is sometimes used as a seat, and therefore it is susceptible to "sitting impurity." This means that if an impure person sits on it, the chair is impure even if the person doesn't touch it.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is about the susceptibility to impurity of hangers. These hangers seem to have been attached to vessels and were used to hang the vessels. They don't seem to be the types of hangers we use today to hang clothes.
  All hangers are susceptible to impurity, except for those of a sifter and a sieve that are used by householders, the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir the fact that most hangers are kept on a vessel and are used to hang the vessel is sufficient for them to be considered part of the vessel and therefore susceptible to impurity. The exceptions are the hangers used with sifters and sieves owned by non-professionals. Since these are sometimes removed from the vessel, they do not count as part of the vessel.
  But the sages say: all hangers are clean, excepting those of a sifter of flour-dealers, of a sieve used in threshing-floors, of a hand-sickle and of a detective's staff, since they aid when the instrument is in use. This is the general rule: [a hanger] that is intended to aid when the instrument is in use is susceptible to impurity and one intended to serve only as a hanger is clean.  The other sages say that hangers that are used only to hang vessels are not susceptible. In order to be susceptible they must have a use other than hanging. This is the case with the types of hangers mentioned here. A "detective's staff" was used by people inspecting produce. A modern example of such an instrument might be an umbrella. Its "hanger" is also used as its handle. The sages conclude their section with the general principle which serves as the basis for their halakhah.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  The grist-dealers’ shovel is susceptible to impurity but the one used in grain stores is clean.The one used in wine- presses is susceptible to impurity but that used in threshing- floors is clean.This is the general rule: [a shovel] that is intended to hold anything is susceptible to impurity but one intended only to heap stuff together is clean.The general rule expressed in section three summarizes this halakhah well. A shovel is susceptible to impurity if it is used to hold things, even temporarily. This is enough to fill the requirement that the vessel have a receptacle.However, if the shovel is used only to move things around, then it is clean because it is not considered to have a receptacle.The rest of the mishnah is straightforward, so there is no commentary below.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Ordinary harps are susceptible to impurity, but the harps of Levites are clean.  According to one explanation of this section, ordinary harps are susceptible because the harp-player sometimes uses certain parts of the harp to collect the coins he receives for playing. The harps used by the Levites do not have places to collect coins, so they are pure.
  All liquids are susceptible to impurity, but the liquids in the Temple slaughtering house are clean.  The seven main types of liquid are: water, wine, oil, honey, milk, blood and dew. These are all susceptible to impurity and if they moisten food items, the food item becomes susceptible to impurity (we will learn more about this when we learn Tracate Makshirin). The exception is the liquids found in the place in the Temple were they would slaughter. One explanation of this is that the concept of the impurity of liquids is a rabbinic innovation (derabanan).  The Rabbis did not include in this innovation the liquids found in the Temple, so as not to increase the impurity of things found in the Temple (see Eduyot 8:4).
  All scrolls convey impurity to the hands, excepting the scroll of the Temple courtyard.  Sacred scrolls, Torah, Prophets and Writings, convey impurity to the hands of one who handles them. This is a concept we shall discuss when we learn Tractate Yadayim. This is true of all sacred scrolls with one exception the official copy of the Torah which was held in the Temple.
  A wooden toy horse is clean.  Others explain this word (markof) to be a musical instrument made of cedar. In any case, it is pure.
  The belly-lute, the donkey-shaped musical instrument and the erus are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: the erus is susceptible to sitting impurity since the wailing woman sits on it.  These are various types of musical instruments. The "belly-lute" rests on the player's belly. The "donkey-shaped instrument" is, according to one interpretation, carried by clowns on their shoulders. The "erus" is some sort of bell. They are all susceptible to impurity, probably because they all have some sort of receptacle. Rabbi Judah holds that it is also susceptible to sitting-impurity, which means that if someone sits on it, they defile it, even if they don't touch it.
  A weasel-trap is susceptible to impurity, but a mouse- trap is clean.  One explanation for the difference between the weasel-trap and the mouse-trap is that the former has the shape of a vessel, whereas the latter does not. Others explain that the former has a receptacle, whereas the mouse-trap does not.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A wooden vessel that was broken into two parts becomes clean, except for a folding table, a dish with compartments for [different kinds of] food, and a householder's footstool.Rabbi Judah says: a double dish and a Babylonian drinking vessel are subject to the same law.When do wooden vessels begin to be susceptible to impurity?A bed and a cot, after they are sanded with fishskin. If the owner determined not to sand them over they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir says: a bed becomes susceptible to impurity as soon as three rows of meshes have been knitted in it.Section one: Generally, if a wooden vessel is broken into two parts it becomes clean if it was previously impure. So too, the two parts are no longer susceptible to impurity. The exceptions are wooden vessels whose pieces can still be used when the original vessel is cut into two. All of the vessels listed here can be used even when broken into two parts.Section two: The mishnah now asks the question that it has asked with regard to vessels made of other types of material (earthenware and metal) when is the manufacture of the vessel completed such that the vessel can become impure?For a bed and a cot to be susceptible, the wood frame must have been sanded.However, if the owner decided to use them without sanding them, then they are susceptible even without sanding.Beds were made by tying ropes under the frame and then tightening them to form a support (hence the phrase sleep tight!). The ropes ran the length and the breadth of the bed. According to Rabbi Meir, as soon as three rows are made in each direction, the bed is usable and is susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the completion of the manufacturing of various types of baskets.
  Wooden baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off.  Wooden baskets are considered to be completed once the loose ends around the rim of the basket are tied together and the ends of pieces of wood are cut off, both on the rim and inside. From this point on the basket is susceptible to impurity.
  But those that are made of palm-branches [become susceptible to impurity] even though their ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since they are allowed to remain in this condition.  Baskets made of palm-branches do not need for their ends to be cut off on the insides of the basket, because they are used even without this step being performed. Again, the principle is straightforward a vessel is considered to be completed once it is in a state in which people will typically use it.
  A basket [of reed-grass becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its rim is rounded off, its rough ends are smoothed off, and its hanger is finished.  The basket made of reed grass referred to here has a hanger by which it can be hung. Since this hanger is necessary for its normal functioning, it is not susceptible until the hanger is completed. Other than that, the other steps needed for wooden vessels also apply.
  A wicker basket flasks or for cups [is susceptible to impurity] even if the rough ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since these are allowed to remain in this condition.  Evidently, wicker baskets used to hold flasks or cups are used in a state similar to the palm-branch baskets mentioned in section two. Therefore, they too do not need their inside parts to be finished off for them to be susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with various types of baskets and when they become susceptible to impurity.
  Small reed baskets and baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off.  These small baskets are ready for use and therefore susceptible as soon as their ends are tied and the loose pieces cut off, as was the rule with regard to the baskets mentioned in yesterday's mishnah.
  Large reed baskets and large hampers, as soon as two rows have been made round their sides.  Larger baskets are susceptible as soon as they have a bottom and they are built up two rows from the bottom. It seems that since they were large in their width, their sides did not need to be too high.
  The container of a sifter or a sieve and a cup of the balances, as soon as one circling band has been made round their sides.  These containers don't even need to be built up two rows one row is sufficient for them to be of minimal use.
  A willow basket, as soon as two twists have been made around its wide sides.  The word "twists" which I have translated here reflects the fact that the Hebrew uses a different word for rows and twists. However, commentators interpret them to mean basically the same thing, the only difference being that willow and rush baskets are made in a slightly different fashion. Nevertheless, if they are built up two rows/twists, they are susceptible.
  And a rush basket, as soon as one twist has been made round it.  The rule regarding rush baskets is the same as that regarding the containers mentioned in section three.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah begins to deal with leather vessels and when they become susceptible to impurity.
  When do leather vessels become susceptible to impurity?A leather pouch, as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and its straps sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: so soon as its ears have been sewn on.  A leather pouch's manufacturing is completed once its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and the straps used to cinch it up are sewn on. Note that this is similar to the rule regarding baskets that we learned in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Judah says that the processing is complete once its two "ears" or handles have been sewn on. Throughout this mishnah Rabbi Judah seems to give a later stage as the time when the item is susceptible to impurity. This means his opinion is more lenient.
  A leather apron  [becomes susceptible to  impurity] as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough end trimmed and its strings sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its loops  have been sewn on.  The rule and the debate between the first opinion and Rabbi Judah concerning a leather apron are nearly identical to that which was in section one.
  A leather bed cover [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says:  as soon as its straps have been sewn on.  The straps to which Rabbi Judah refers are used to attach the bed cover to the bed. Note that leather bed covers, cushions and mattresses do not have receptacles and therefore we would think that they should not be susceptible to impurity (see 15:1). However, they are susceptible because a vessel made for sitting or lying is susceptible even without a receptacle.
  A leather cushion or mattress [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched  and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as it has been sew up and less than five handbreadths remained open.  Rabbi Judah says that the cushion or mattress is not susceptible until most of it has been sewn up so that it can be stuffed with whatever cushioning will go inside.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to deal with the case of baskets you might call it another basketcase! (I know, this was not good, but I couldn't resist).
  A basket [for figs] is susceptible to uncleanness but a basket for wheat is clean.  The basket for figs is considered to be a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. But the basket for wheat is not usually moved, and therefore it is not susceptible.
  Small baskets made of leaves are clean, but those made of branches are susceptible to uncleanness.  The small baskets made of leaves are clean because they are only used in a temporary fashion, and therefore they don't have the status of "vessel." However, if the same basket is made of branches, it is more permanent and it does have the status of vessel.
  The palm wrapping [in which dates are left] and into which they can be easily put     and from which they can easily be taken out is susceptible to uncleanness, but if this cannot be done without tearing it or undoing it, it is clean.  To aid in the ripening of dates, they would wrap them in the leaves of the palm tree. If this wrapping had an opening which made it easy to add and remove dates, then it is considered a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity. However, if in order to remove or add dates one had to tear or undo the wrapping, then it is not a vessel. This seems to me analogous to some of the items we use on a daily basis. If one has to tear a wrapper, then it's not a vessel, because it can't be reused. But if one can easily open a lid, then the container has at least the potential to be used again in the future.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  The leather glove of winnowers, travelers, or flax workers is susceptible to uncleanness.But the one for dyers or blacksmiths is clean.Rabbi Yose says: the same law applies to the glove of grist dealers.This is the general rule: that which is made for holding anything is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which only affords protection against perspiration is clean.Today's mishnah deals with the purity of gloves. The general rule is stated clearly in section four: if the glove is made to protect the hand while holding potentially lacerating or irritating objects, then the glove is considered a receptacle and it is susceptible. However, if it is only made to prevent slippage due to sweat, then it is not susceptible. To use a modern case: a baseball fielder's mitt would be susceptible because it is meant to hold the ball. Without it, one would hurt one's hands. But a wide receiver's gloves are meant largely to give him a better grip on the ball and to prevent slippage due to sweat. Therefore they would probably be pure.The mishnah itself is straightforward once we know the general rule, therefore I have refrained from commenting below.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  The dung bag of a bull and its muzzle, a bee shelf, and a fan are clean.The cover of a small box is susceptible to uncleanness;The cover of a clothes chest is clean.The cover of a box, the cover of a basket, a carpenter's vice, a cushion under a box     or its arched cover, a reading-desk for a book, a bolt-socket, a lock-socket, a mezuzah case, a lyre case, a violin case, the block of the turban-makers, a wooden musical toy horse, the clappers of a wailing woman, a poor man's parasol,  bed posts, a tefillin mould, and the mould of string makers   all these are clean.This is the general rule which Rabbi Yose stated: all objects that serve as a protection to objects that a man uses, both when the latter are in use and when they are not in use, are susceptible to uncleanness; but those that serve them as a  protection only when the latter are in use are clean.Section one: The dung bag is attached to the bull and used to collect its dung when it is threshing. Think of it as a bull-diaper (I wouldn't want to be one to change it!). The muzzle keeps the bull from eating. The bee shelf is placed in front of the hive and the bees sit on it before entering. None of these objects is susceptible because none of them are considered to be vessels.Section two: Since people will use the cover of the small (jewelry) box to hold things, even temporarily, it is susceptible.Section three: In contrast, people don't use the cover of a clothes chest, so it is not considered a vessel.Sections four-five: The mishnah now contains a long list of items that are clean. Rabbi Yose's general rule in section five explains why they are pure. If an item is used to protect and store other objects then it is susceptible. The fact that it is used to store something when not in use proves that we consider it a container. However, if it is only used when the object it serves is in use then it is not considered to be susceptible. For instance, if a lid is only used on a container when the container is full, then the lid is pure. But if the lid is always on the vessel, then it is susceptible.We should note that some of the objects in section four would seem to be used for storage. Therefore commentators explain that the "cases" here do not have receptacles and therefore are not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  The sheath of a sword, a knife or a dagger, the case for scissors, or shears or a razor, the case of make-up and the make-up box, the stylus case, the compass case, the tablet case, the case for a board,  a quiver and a javelin case     all these are susceptible to  uncleanness.The case for a double flute is susceptible to uncleanness if the instrument is put in from above, but if it is put in from the side it is clean.A case for flutes Rabbi Judah says it is clean because these are put in from the side.The covering of a club, a bow or a spear is clean.This is the general rule: that which serves as a case is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which is merely a covering is clean.Our mishnah deals with cases for weapons and musical instruments. Sections one through five bring various examples of cases, but the explanation for the entire mishnah comes in section five. If the case is used for storage then it is susceptible. This means that it is something that the vessel is put into, such as the sheath of a sword. But if it is merely a "covering" and not a "container" it is not susceptible. To use a modern example a bread box would be susceptible, but a hallah cover would not.In section two, if the double flute is put in from the top, then the case is considered to be a container and it is susceptible. However, if it is put in from the side, then it is considered to only be a covering.I think the rest of the mishnah is understandable in light of the general rule in section five.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  All [wooden] vessels that belong to householder [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of pomegranates.Rabbi Eliezer says: [the size of the hole depends] on what it is used for. Gardeners’ vegetable baskets [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of bundles of vegetables. Baskets of householders [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of [bundles] of straws. Those of bath-keepers, if bundles of chaff [will drop through].Rabbi Joshua says: in all these the size is that of pomegranates.In previous chapters 3:1 and 14:1 we learned that a vessel gets a hole in it large enough so that the vessel will not be use the vessel becomes pure. Our mishnah deals with this rule concerning wood and leather vessels.Section one: According to the first opinion in the mishnah, all wooden vessels which are owned by non-professionals are clean if the hole that appears in the them is the size of a pomegranate. This is the same opinion as Rabbi Joshua in section six.Section two: Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with Rabbi Joshua and holds that there is no standard for how big the hole must be. It all depends on what the vessel is used for.Rabbi Eliezer now illustrates this rule with regard to several types of wooden baskets.The chaff collected by the bath-keepers is used to heat the fires to keep the bath warm.I have interpreted the mishnah according to the interpretation offered by most major commentators. In contrast, Albeck interprets the words that I have translated in Rabbi Eliezer's statement to mean "at the smallest size." According to this interpretation, Rabbi Eliezer says that the smallest hole renders a wooden vessel owned by a householder clean. This impacts our interpretation of the following sections. According to Albeck's interpretation, these sections are not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer but rather the anonymous opinion. It would seem that the vessels listed here are not "vessels belonging to householders" and therefore their measure is not that of a pomegranate. Rabbi Joshua disagrees and holds that even in these cases, the measure is that of a pomegranate.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A skin bottle [becomes clean if the holes in it are of] a size through which warp-stoppers [can fall out].If a warp-stopper cannot be held in, but it can still hold a woof-stopper it remains unclean.A dish holder that cannot hold dishes but can still hold trays remains unclean.A chamber- pot that cannot hold liquids but can still hold excrements remains unclean.Rabban Gamaliel rules that it is clean since people do not usually keep one that is in such a condition.Section one: The warp-stopper is smaller than the woof-stopper. According to the opinion in this section, if the smaller stopper can fall out, the skin-bottle is impure.Section two: Albeck explains that this section, and sections two through four, are all the opinion of the sages who disagree with Rabban Gamaliel, whose opinion is in section one. The sages hold that as long as the skin can hold the larger woof-stopper it is usable and remains unclean.Sections three and four: This is a continuation of the sages' opinion. The sages hold that as long as the original vessel can hold something similar to that which it was designated to hold, or one of the things that it was designated to hold, the vessel is still unclean.Section five: Rabban Gamaliel disagrees and holds that since people generally discard such things, they are no longer unclean. This accords with what Albeck ascribes to him in section one.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Bread-baskets [become clean if] the size [of their hole is such] that loaves of bread [would fall through].  This section continues the list found in yesterday's mishnah.
  Papyrus frames through into which reeds were inserted from the bottom upwards to strengthen them, are clean. If he fixed walls to it, they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: if it cannot be lifted up by these walls it is clean.  These vessels were made of weak papyrus and then reeds were inserted into the frame in order to strengthen them. The vessel is still clean because it is not considered to have a receptacle. The reeds don't seem to have been strong enough to really make it useful. However, if he fixes walls for them, then they are susceptible to impurity because they are strong enough to be considered vessels. Rabbi Shimon says that the walls must be strong enough that the vessel can be lifted by them. Otherwise it is not considered a vessel and it is clean.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  In the first mishnah of this chapter we learned that if the vessel has a hole large enough to let pomegranates fall through, it is clean. Our mishnah expands on that mishnah.
  The pomegranates of which they have spoken--three attached to one another.  In mishnah one of this chapter, the first (and anonymous) opinion stated that if a wooden or leather vessel has a hole large enough to let out pomegranates, the vessel is clean. Our mishnah states that the hole must be soooo large as to let out three pomegranates attached to one another. I don't know exactly how large this is, but it strikes me as quite large.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in a sifter or a sieve [the size of the hole must be such that a pomegranate will drop out] when one picks it up and walks about with it.  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that when it comes to a wooden sifter or a sieve if the hole is large enough so that the three pomegranates would fall out while they are being carried, it is clean, even if the pomegranates would not fall out while the vessel is stationary.
  In a basket it must be such [as would allow a pomegranate] to fall through while one hangs it behind him.  This seems to be a continuation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel's opinion. When it comes to a basket, the pomegranates must be able to fall out when the person takes the basket and slings it behind his back.
  And all other vessels which  cannot hold pomegranates as, for instance, the quarter kav measure and the half quarter kav measure, and small baskets, the size  [of their holes must be] such as would extend over the greater part of  them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: [the size of their hole must be such that] olives [could fall through].  When it comes to small wooden or leather vessels which are too small to hold a pomegranate, they are susceptible to impurity until the hole covers a majority of them. If a majority of the vessel remains, then the vessel is still susceptible. Rabbi Shimon is more lenient and rules that the vessel is clean if olives can fall through.
  If their sides were broken [the size of their hole must be] such as olives would drop through. If they are worn away the size must be such as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them [to drop through].  The anonymous opinion agrees with Rabbi Shimon if the sides of the vessel were broken. In such a case, if the hole will let olives fall through, it is clean. However, if the vessel was worn away at its edges, then it is susceptible as long as it can still hold the objects that are usually kept in it. [I should note that this is the traditional explanation. Albeck explains that the words I have translated as "as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them" to mean "in the smallest amount." According to this interpretation the rule is even more lenient if the vessel is worn away.]
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  More discussion of pomegranates which by the way are delicious and very healthy.
  This mishnah begins a series of mishnayot which refer to various items that were used for the purposes of measuring. This will lead us to some side discussions about issues that don't relate directly to Tractate Kelim.
  The pomegranate of which they spoke refers to one that is neither small nor big but of moderate size.  The pomegranates referred to in previous mishnayot are of middle size.
  And why did they mention the pomegranates of Baddan? That whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: to use them as a measure for holes in vessels. Rabbi Akiva said: they were mentioned for both reasons: that they are to be used as a measure for holes in vessels and that whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden.  This section refers to an old halakhah concerning the pomegranates of Badan, a region in the north of Israel (Samaria). Our mishnah knows that something was said about these pomegranates by previous generations of sages, but the current sages debate why these pomegranates were mentioned. According to Rabbi Meir if orlah (produce during its first three years, which is prohibited) pomegranates are mixed up with non-orlah pomegranates, the whole lot is prohibited, no matter how few forbidden pomegranates there are. This deviates from the normal rule according to which as long as there are 200 permitted fruits for every orlah fruit, the whole mixture is permitted (see Orlah 3:7). Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that the pomegranates of Baddan were mentioned because they were the middle-sized pomegranates used to measure how large the holes must be for the vessel to be clean. Our chapter was written according to this perspective. Rabbi Akiva, the peacemaker, agrees with both opinions and says that the pomegranates were mentioned with regard to both halakhot.
  Rabbi Yose said: the pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba were mentioned only to indicate that they must be tithed everywhere with certain tithe.  Rabbi Yose has a different opinion. The pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba both come from Samaria, which was at the time dominated by the Samaritans. According to the rabbis the Samaritans did not tithe their produce, or at least did not do so in a proper fashion. Therefore, if a person bought pomegranates or leeks that grew in this region he can be sure that they were not tithed. And although usually when one buys produce from an am haaretz (a non-educated person) he only needs to separate tithes out of doubt (called demai, and there was a whole tractate about this) when it comes to this produce, he can be sure that the am haaretz didn't separate tithes, because the am haaretz will think that the Samaritan did. Note that Rabbi Yose is the only sage who connects this produce with the region from which it comes.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  The egg of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size.  Concerning many halakhic measures, the egg is used as the standard. The egg to which these halakhot refer is an egg of medium size.
  Rabbi Judah says: the largest and the smallest  must be brought and put in water and the  displaced water is then divided.  The problem is that it is not easy to determine what egg is of medium size. As a solution Rabbi Judah says that one should bring the largest egg and the smallest egg and place both in a bowl of water. The water that is displaced can be divided into two to determine the volume of the medium egg.
  Rabbi Yose says: but who can tell me which is the largest and which is the smallest?  Rather, it all depends on the observer's estimate.  Even this method is not perfect, because it requires a person to know what the "largest" egg is and what the "smallest" egg is. In other words, there is no way to remove subjectivity from this. In the end, no matter what you do, it will always depend upon the subjective estimate of the observer.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  The dried fig of which they spoke--- it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size.  Dried figs are a measure used in several halakhot (see for instance Shabbat 7:4 and Kelim 3:2, and 4:2). As with the egg and pomegranate, these laws referred to medium sized eggs.
  Rabbi Judah says:  the biggest in the land of Israel is like one of medium size in other lands.  Rabbi Judah now notes that what are considered to be large figs in the land of Israel, are only medium sized in other lands. Note that some commentators say that the mishnah should be reversed and read "the smallest in the land of Israel is like one of medium size in other lands." This would imply that the figs in Israel are the best. I can personally attest to the fact that the figs here in Israel are delicious, and I am tempted to go to the store right now and buy some (seriously). But I really don't know how good they are in surrounding countries, especially since I can't visit many of them.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  The olive of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the egori.  Many halakhic measures are based on the olive, including many minimum measures of how much food a person needs to eat to fulfill a mitzvah. This olive is of medium size. This medium-sized olive even had a name the egori oliv.
  The barleycorn of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the midbarit  The barleycorn is the size that a piece of a bone needs to be to convey impurity. This barleycorn is of medium size and it is called "midbarit," which means wild.
  The lentil of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size--the egyptian kind.  For a piece of a dead creepy crawly thing (a sheretz) to convey impurity it needs to be the size of a medium lentil, of the Egyptian kind.
  "Any movable object conveys  uncleanness if it is of the thickness of an ox goad" it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. What is meant by "one of moderate size?" One whose circumference is just a handbreadth.  This halakhah is taken from Ohalot 16:1 (a tractate which we have not yet learned). An "ohel" or tent is anything that overhangs. If a dead body or piece thereof is found under an ohel and under the same ohel there is a pure vessel, the dead body defiles the pure vessel. Here we learn that if the ohel is a movable object, it must be the thickness of a medium-sized ox goad. Its circumference must be at least one handbreadth for it to convey uncleanness.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  The cubit of which they spoke is one of  medium size.  The measure of a cubit is a standard measure found in connection to many halakhot, including the issue of carrying on Shabbat (see Shabbat 11:3).
  There were two standard cubits in Shushan Habirah, one in the north-eastern corner and the other in the south-eastern corner. The one in the north-eastern corner exceeded that of Moses  by half a fingerbreadth, while the one in the  south-eastern corner exceeded  the other by half a fingerbreadth, so that the latter exceeded that of Moses by a fingerbreadth.  Shushan Habirah is the capital of Persia, as mentioned in Esther. There was a place on the eastern gate of the Temple with a drawing of Shushan Habirah (see Middot 1:3). At this place there were two rods which were used to set the size of the amah, the cubit. The rod in northeastern corner was shorter than the other rod by a fingerbreadth. The cubit that was normative in the days of Moses was right in between the size of these two rods one fingerbreadth larger than the small rod and one fingerbreadth smaller than the large rod.
  But why were there a larger and a smaller cubit? Only for this reason: so that craftsmen  might take their orders according to the smaller cubit and return their finished work according to the larger cubit,  so that they might not be guilty of any possible trespassing of Temple property.  The mishnah now asks the logical question why have two different sized cubits? The answer has to do with the artisans who work for the Temple. These craftsmen would take their orders using the smaller cubit, meaning they would receive material from the Temple based on the smaller measure. Then when they made their products for the Temple, they would return them based on the larger measure. This ensured that they did not transgress the prohibition of trespassing, meaning illegal use of Temple property. In this way, the Temple could be sure that the craftsmen would make sure they used every bit of material they received from the Temple.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to deal with the size of the cubits used to measure various parts of the Temple. In today's mishnah we learn that there were two different size cubits, one of six handbreadths (this is the cubit referred to in yesterday's mishnah) and one of five handbreadths.
  Rabbi Meir says: all cubits  were of the moderate length  except that for the golden altar, the horns,  the surround  and the  base.  According to Rabbi Meir, everything in the Temple was measured in the moderate length of the cubit, the one that was exactly six handbreadths, and not the longer length mentioned in yesterday's mishnah (six handbreadths and one fingerbreadth). The only exceptions were the golden incense altar, the horns of the outer altar, the surround (a protrusion around the outer altar), and the base of the altar. All of these were measured with the five handbreadth cubit.
  Rabbi Judah says: the cubit used for the building  was one of six  handbreadths and that for the vessels one of five handbreadths.  Rabbi Judah says that all of the measurements made in the building of the Temple itself were based on the six handbreadths cubit, while those used for making the vessels, used the smaller cubit of five handbreadths.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  In previous mishnayot we learned all of the halakhot in which the medium measure was used. In today's mishnah we learned that sometimes smaller measures were used, and sometimes the measure used depended upon the person for whom the halakhah was relevant.
  Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures  were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness.  The dry and liquid measures used in the Temple, for instance the measures of wine, oil and flour that accompanied sacrifices (see Menahot 9:1-2) were all measured using an Italian standard that was considered to be the same as that used in the Temple.
  Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who  drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv,  For other halakhot, the size of the measure depends upon the individual person. The mishnah lists four such cases. The first is the priest who removes a handful from the minhah offering (Leviticus 2:2). The size of the handful depends on the person. The same is true with the two handfuls of incense on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:12). If one drinks a cheek full of liquid on Yom Kippur he is liable for karet. The size of this amount obviously depends upon the size of the individual's cheek. Finally, when it comes to Shabbat border eruvim (an eruv set to allow a person to travel further outside of his city on Shabbat, see Introduction to Eruvin) the food set aside as the eruv must consist of two meals. The amount of food necessary for the meal depends on how much the person setting the eruv eats.
  The remainder of this mishnah is found in Eruvin. It is clearly brought here because once we mention the amount of food necessary for an eruv meal, the mishnah deals briefly with a debate concerning the issue. According to Rabbi Meir, the eruv must consist of enough food for two weekday meals.  Rabbi Judah says the food should be enough for Shabbat meals and not weekday meals.  Seemingly we would think that a person eats more on Shabbat than during the week, so Rabbi Judah would be stricter than Rabbi Meir.  However, the mishnah says that both intended to be lenient.  In order to understand this, we need to explain that the eruv’s minimum measurement was set according to the amount of bread eaten at a typical meal.  According to Rabbi Meir, on Shabbat one eats a lot of different types of food and a lot of bread to accompany the food.  Therefore, on Shabbat one eats more, and the minimum amount of food for the eruv is set according to the bread eaten during the week, a lesser amount. According to Rabbi Judah, since on Shabbat there are many side dishes a person eats less bread than he would during the week when there are less side dishes.  Therefore, Rabbi Judah sets the minimum amount of bread for the eruv according to what one eats on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Shimon, two meals are equivalent to two-thirds of a loaf when three loaves are made from a kav of wheat.  A loaf is therefore 1/3 of a kav and 2/3 of a loaf is two meals. Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka gives a minimum amount of bread that must be used for the eruv.  This amount of bread is what is sufficient for two meals.  It is the size of a loaf that can be bought for one pundion (a coin) when 4 se’ah (24 kav, a measure of volume) of wheat are sold for a sela (a coin worth 48 pundion).   If we do the math, we can see that a kav of wheat is bought for two pundionim, meaning that one pundion will buy half a kav of wheat, which according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka is sufficient for two meals. This is a larger amount than that set by Rabbi Shimon.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah describes six cases in which a large measure was the standard.
  And sometimes  they stated a large measure:A ladleful of corpse mould  refers to the big ladle of physicians;  Decomposing dead bodies and their rot can cause defilement within a tent. However, there must be a minimum amount of material for this defilement to spread. The minimum amount is a ladleful. The size of the ladle for this halakhah is the large ladle used by physicians.
  The split bean in the case of skin disease  refers to the Cilician kind;  For a spot of skin disease to defile it must be the size of a split bean. The split bean referred to in this halakhah is of the Cilician kind (a region in Asia Minor). Evidently, this is a largish bean.
  One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit;  One who eats a quantity of food equivalent to a large date and its pit on Yom Kippur is liable for karet.
  In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes]   must be as big as their large stopper;  If skins containing wine and oil have holes that are as large as their large stopper they are pure.
  In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands  the prescribed size of  which  is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head.  The last two sections are relevant to the laws concerning purity in tents. If a dead body is in one room vessels in another room are clean, unless there is some way for the impurity from the first room to get into the second room. If there is a hole in the wall, one not made by a person, and it lets in light from one room to the other, it allows impurity to travel to the second room if the hole is the size of a large fist. The large fist referred to here is the first of Ben Batiah. Albeck explains that this man was known for having large fists thanks Albeck! Rabbi Yose says that his fist was as large as a human head. Don King would be very excited.
  And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size  is that of the  large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela  or like the hole in a yoke.  The measure is smaller if the hole was made by human hands. In such a case if the hole is the size of the large drill used to make holes in the Temple, then it conveys impurity. This drill, the mishnah notes, was the size if the Italian pundion coin, or the Neronian sela coin, or the hole put in a yoke in which the straps were placed. All three of these measures (the pundion, the sela and the hole in the yoke) are the same size.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with one who makes vessels out of the bones or skin of fish or other creatures that come from the sea.
  All that live in the sea are clean, except the sea-dog because it seeks refuge on dry land, the words of Rabbi Akiba.  Vessels made of skin and bones of all creatures of the sea are not susceptible to impurity only of those of land creatures. Rabbi Akiva notes that the one exception is the sea-dog (probably a seal) because it lives both in the sea and on land. Since it lives partly on the land, vessels made from its skin and bones are susceptible to impurity.
  If one made vessels from what grows in the sea and joined to them anything that grows on land, even if only a thread or a cord, if it is susceptible to uncleanness, they are unclean.  If one made a vessel that is mostly of material from the sea, if even a small part of the vessel was made from something that comes from land, it is susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  Introduction
  This fascinating mishnah goes through the six days of creation and discusses whether or not the laws of impurity can apply to the things that were created on each day.
  The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the first day.  The earth was created on the first day of creation. Vessels made of earthenware are susceptible to impurity. But the rules of impurity do not apply to vessels made of stone or dirt. Therefore, the mishnah states that the laws of impurity can apply to that which was created on the first day.
  There can be no uncleanness in what was created on the second day.  The heavens were created on the second day. Obviously they cannot become impure.
  The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the third day.  Trees were created on the third day and vessels made of wood are susceptible to impurity.
  No there can be no uncleanness in what was created on the fourth day and on the fifth day, except for  the wing of the vulture or an ostrich-egg that is plated. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:  why should the wing of a vulture be different from all other wings?  On the fourth day the stars, moon and sun were created no impurity there. On the fifth day the birds and fish were created. Vessels made of anything that comes from birds or fish are basically not susceptible to impurity, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah.  There are two exceptions. The first are lasting vessels made from the wings of vultures. The second is a metal-plated ostrich egg. Most commentators explain that these vessels are susceptible to impurity because they are similar to other vessels. In order to prevent confusion, the sages decreed that they too are susceptible. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri questions why there should be a difference between vulture wings and other wings. Rather all wings are the same; if they are used to make lasting vessels that have receptacles, the vessels are susceptible to impurity.
  The laws of uncleanness can apply to all that was created on the sixth day.  On the sixth day land animals were created. Vessels made from their skin or bones is susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  If one made a receptacle whatever its size it is susceptible to uncleanness.  A vessel that has a receptacle is susceptible to impurity, no matter how small the receptacle is. Others explain the words that I have translated "whatever its size" to mean "whatever it is made of," which then refers to the law in section three even vessels made of poor quality material can be susceptible.
  If one made a couch or a bed whatever its purpose it is susceptible to uncleanness.  Vessels which are made to sit upon or lay upon are susceptible, no matter the actual type of sitting or laying done upon them. Commentators explain that this includes vessels which are meant to be leaned upon.
  If one made a wallet from untanned hide or from papyrus it is susceptible to uncleanness.  A proper wallet is made from tanned leather. However, a wallet made from the inferior materials of papyrus or untanned leather is still usable and hence susceptible to impurity.
  A pomegranate, an acorn and a nut which children hollowed out to  measure dust or fashioned them into a pair of scales, are susceptible to uncleanness, since in the case of children an act is valid though an intention is not.  If an object can be used as a receptacle, all that an adult has to do for it to be susceptible is think about using it in such a manner. Thinking counts as using. However, children must actually use the object in that way for it to be susceptible. So if a child takes a piece of fruit or a nut and makes it into a receptacle it is susceptible once he uses it. But if all he does is think about using it this way, it is not susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  The beam of a balance and a leveler that contain a  receptacle for metal, carrying-stick that has a receptacle for  money, a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water, and a stick that has a receptacle for a mezuzah and for pearls are susceptible  to uncleanness.About all these Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Oy to me if I should mention them, Oy to me if I don't mention them.Sections one and two: All of these vessels are various sticks or things like sticks that can contain other things and are therefore susceptible to impurity. In addition, each could be or is generally used for a negative purpose. The beam of a balance that has room to hide metal in it can be used to deceive a buyer by tilting the scales. A leveler is used to level out measuring cups. A person could make a receptacle in the leveler in order to skim the tops of the cups and cheat the buyer.A carrying-stick with a hidden compartment for money could be used by a worker to deceive his employer into paying him a second time. I.e. he could say search me if you find the money on me, then you paid me.What's wrong with a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water? The Rambam explains that the beggar can claim that he has not been drinking so that people will have pity on him.The sticks that have a receptacle for a mezuzah or a pearl could be used to cheat a tax collector.Albeck explains that while all of these things also have legitimate uses, since they can be used deceptively, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai laments having to mention them. In other words, he has to teach these halakhot because these vessels can be used in a legal way, but he wishes he could forget about them.
  
  Mishnah 17
  
  The base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean.  The base of the goldsmiths' anvil is susceptible because it has a place to store small pieces of gold that break off.  However, the blacksmiths' anvil has no such receptacle and therefore it is clean.
  A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean.  A whetting board is used for sharpening a knife. If it has a receptacle to store oil it is susceptible but if it is not it is clean.
  A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean.  To write on a writing tablet one would rub wax on the tablet and carve into the wax. If the tablet has a receptacle to store the wax it is susceptible.
  A straw  mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth  is subject to the same law.  According to Rabbi Akiva a straw mat or straw tube both last long enough to be considered a vessel and therefore they are both susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that they do not last long enough, and therefore they are clean. Rabbi Shimon says the same debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri also exists with regard to the hollow stalk of a colocynth plant or a mat made from colocynth. The following is the intro to colocynth that I found on Wikipedia: The colocynth, also known as bitter apple, bitter cucumber, egusi, or vine of Sodom, is a viny plant native to the Mediterranean Basin and Asia, especially Turkey (especially in regions such as İzmir), Nubia, and Trieste.
  A mat of reeds or rushes is clean.  A mat made of reeds or rushes is not soft enough to sit on and is therefore not susceptible to impurity. These mats are generally used for shade.
  A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed.  If a reed tube was cut to be used as a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity until the pith, the stuff inside the stalk, has been removed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Above in 15:1 we learned that if a chest or box can contain 40 seahs of liquids it is too big to be susceptible to impurity. The sages say that the dimensions of such a box are: 1 x 1 x 3 cubits. In our mishnah the rabbis debate how such measures are taken.
  A wooden chest: Beth Shammai says: it is measured on the  inside; And Bet Hillel says: on the outside.  According to Bet Shammai when measuring the chest, one measures it from the inside. Meaning it must actually be able to hold 40 seahs to be pure. Bet Hillel holds that the thickness of the walls is included in the measurement because the box is measured from the outside.
  Both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are not included in the measurement. Rabbi Yose says: both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are included in the measurement, but the space between them is not included. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri ruled: if the legs are one handbreadth high the space between them is not included in the measurement, otherwise it is included.  The mishnah now discusses whether the thickness of the legs or the rim are included in the measurement. There are three different opinions in this section. According to the first opinion, both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that the area of the legs and the rim are not included in the measurement to get to forty seahs. This makes sense since this area does not add to the weight of the box. According to Rabbi Yose, Bet Hillel only agrees that the area between the legs is not counted in the measurement. The thickness of the legs is counted in measurement to get to forty seahs. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says that if the legs are only one handbreadth away from the chest, then the space in between them is counted in the measurement. In such a case we look at it as if the legs were simply an extension of the walls of the chest. But if they are more than one handbreadth high, then the space in between them is not counted. We can see in this mishnah the progressive leniencies. Bet Hillel is more lenient than Bet Shammai and "fictionalizes" the traditional forty seah amount. The box doesn't even have to hold forty, it just has to have the dimensions of forty seah. The later sages extend the leniency of Bet Hillel even further. The box doesn't even have to be that big for one can occasionally even count the spaces in between the legs despite the fact that this space is empty! Note how far this halakhah has developed from its original rational a large box is too heavy to be moved therefore it isn't considered a vessel.Empty spaces don't weigh anything so it's not going to be any harder to move the box.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with how the box is measured.
  Its carriage: if it can be slipped off, is not regarded as connected, nor is it included in its measurement, nor does it afford protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, nor may it be drawn along on Shabbat if it contains money.  The word I have translated as "carriage" is interpreted by some to mean the box's wheels and by others to mean the box's base. In any case, as we shall see, the rules differ depending on whether the carriage can be detached. If the carriage can be slipped off then it is not regarded as connected to the box, even when it is connected. This means that its status as far as purity goes is independent of the box. If the box is small enough to become impure, the carriage remains pure. And if the carriage becomes impure, the box is pure. And if the box is too large to become impure, the carriage is still susceptible. When measuring the size of the box, the carriage is not included, since it can be taken off. Vessels that are in a box are not defiled if the box is found in the tent of a corpse. However, if the carriage is what separates the vessels from the air of the tent, the carriage does not offer such protection and the vessels will be defiled. If the carriage has coins it, it may not be drawn on Shabbat because the carriage is the base for an object that cannot be used on Shabbat (the coins).
  If it cannot be slipped off, it is regarded as connected, it is included in its measurement, it affords protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, it may be drawn along on Shabbat even if it contains money.  If the carriage cannot be slipped off, all of the above halakhot are reversed. It is regarded as connected and therefore has the same purity status as the box. It is measured with the box and it affords protection as if it was part of the box. It can be drawn on Shabbat even though there are coins in it. This is because there are permitted things in the box (clothes, etc.) and when something has permitted and forbidden things in it, it may be moved.
  Its arched top, if it is fixed [to the box], is considered connected and is measured with it, but if it is not fixed it is not connected and is not measured with it.  The box's arched top is considered to be part of the box only if it is fixed to the box with nails. In such a case its purity status goes with the box itself and it is measured with the box. If it is not nailed to the box, it is not considered part of the box.
  How is it measured? As an ox-head.  How do they measure the arched top when it measurements are included with the box? They measure it with a sharp angle called "an ox head." Picture a half circle with a triangle inside it. Whatever is in this triangle is counted as far as the dimensions of the box.
  Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand by itself it is clean.  Rabbi Judah says that if the box cannot stand without the aid of the arched top, then the box is pure even if it cannot contain forty seahs.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If one of the legs was missing from a chest, a box or a cupboard, even though it is still capable of holding [things], it is clean, since it cannot hold [things] in the usual manner. But Rabbi Yose says: it is susceptible to impurity.  According to the first opinion, if a leg is missing the box, chest or cupboard is no longer susceptible to impurity, even if it can still hold things in it. The reason it is clean is that it can no longer be used in its usual fashion. Rabbi Yose says that as long as the box, chest or cupboard is usable, it is still susceptible.
  The poles of a bed, its base, and [its] covering are clean.  The mishnah now begins to discuss the various parts of beds. The poles, the base and the bed covering are all clean, because they are no truly necessary for the bed's functioning. The poles stand one at each end of the bed and they hold up the canopy.
  Only the bed itself and its rectangle [frame] are susceptible to uncleanness.  The rectangular frame is put into the empty area of the bed and the bedding is placed on it. Since the frame and the bed are actually slept upon, they are susceptible to impurity.
  The rectangle frames of the Levites are clean.  The Levites would take their rectangular frames with them when they went to Jerusalem and sleep on them without putting them into a real bed. Since they were not used with a bed, they are not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A bed frame that was put on props: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say it is susceptible to uncleanness. But Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that it is clean.  The rectangle frame was not put into a proper bed but rather propped up so that it stood off the ground. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah this setup is enough like a bed that it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that it is clean.
  Rabbi Yose said: Why is this different from the rectangle frames of the Levites which are clean?  Here Rabbi Yose argues out his point, by referring to the end of yesterday's mishnah, where we learned that the rectangle frames used by the Levites are clean. Rabbi Yose says that if those frames are clean since they were not put into a bed, then the frames put on props should also be clean because they too were not put into a bed.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with how much of a bed must be removed for it to be considered defective and therefore no longer unclean (or susceptible to impurity).
  A bed that had contracted midras uncleanness: If a short side was removed and its two legs still remains it is unclean. But if a long side and two legs were removed it becomes clean. Rabbi Nehemiah says: it is unclean.  Midras impurity is impurity conveyed when an object is sat upon or laid upon by a zav (one with abnormal genital discharge). If the board on the short side of the bed, meaning the head or foot of the bed, was removed and with it its two legs the bed is still unclean, because it can still be used. However, if one of the long sides is removed the bed can no longer be used because the person lying on it will fall off. Therefore the bed is clean. Rabbi Nehemiah says that what remains is still unclean because he can use it by leaning it up against the wall or in some other way. If we were to summarize the principle that emerges from this debate, the sages would say that a vessel that is broken and can no longer be used without support of another vessel is clean. Rabbi Nehemiah holds that as long as it can still be used, it is still unclean.
  If two props at opposite corners were cut off, or if two legs at opposite corners were cut off, or if the bed was reduced to a level of less than a handbreadth, it becomes clean.  The "props" referred to here are the supports upon which the rectangle rests. If two props or two legs at opposite corners were cut off then the bed won't be able to stand. In both cases the bed is clean because it is unusable. In addition, if he cuts down the legs so that the bed is lower than a handbreadth high, the bed is clean because it is considered unusable.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to deal with a bed that has contracted midras impurity. In order to understand this mishnah we should note that there is a difference between "midras impurity" and "contact with midras." Midras impurity is a "father of impurity" and it defiles other things. "Contact with midras" is a first degree impurity and its defiling powers are limited.
  A bed that had contracted midras impurity:If a long side of it was broken and then he repaired it, it still retains its midras impurity.  If the long side broke and then he repaired it, the bed still retains its madras impurity.
  If the second side was also broke and then he repaired it, it becomes pure from midras impurity but is unclean by virtue of contact with midras.  However, if the second long side broke and then he repaired it as well, the bed sheds its original midras impurity because it is considered new. In other words, when does a repaired bed become a new bed? When both long sides were fixed. Although the original midras impurity is gone, the bed does have a lesser degree of impurity because it was in contact with something that had midras impurity. I shall explain. When the first long side was repaired and put back into the bed it contacted impurity from the rest of the bed. And even when the second side broke, and the bed lost the impurity it had by being in contact with a zav, it does not lose the impurity it had by being in contact with other impure parts of the bed. This is because the bed continued to be usable.
  If before one could manage to repair the first side the second one broke, the bed becomes clean.  If both sides were broken at the same time, then the bed is completely pure, even from contact with midras. This is because when both sides are broken, the bed cannot be used.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a bed leg that has a high level of impurity that is attached to a clean bed and then removed from the bed. Commentators explain that the leg was leaned or sat upon by the zav while it was separate from the bed.
  If a [bed] leg that had contracted midras uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts midras uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off, it retains its midras uncleanness while the bed is unclean from contact with midras.  Once the leg with the midras uncleanness becomes part of the bed the whole bed contracts midras uncleanness. However, if he removes the leg, the midras uncleanness, the higher level of impurity, is removed from the bed. The bed continues to retain the status of unclean by virtue of contact with midras because it was once in contact with the leg. This, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, is a lower level of impurity.
  If a bed leg that was subject to a seven-day uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts seven-day uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it remains subject to seven-day uncleanness while the bed is only subject to evening-uncleanness.  "Seven day uncleanness" is contracted by coming into contact with a dead body. If the leg had seven day uncleanness and then it was attached to the bed, the bed is also considered to have seven day uncleanness. When the leg is removed, it still has seven day uncleanness, but the bed only has the lesser uncleanness of "evening uncleanness" (uncleanness that only lasts until night). When the bed came into contact with the leg the bed was defiled, but only for one day.
  If a leg that was subject to evening uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts evening uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it is still subject to evening uncleanness while the bed becomes clean.  In this case, the leg only has a lower state of impurity evening uncleanness. When the leg is attached to the bed, the bed takes on the status of the leg. But when the leg is removed, the bed becomes fully clean. A vessel that only has evening uncleanness does not defile other vessels.
  The same law applies also to the prong of a mattock.  The same relationship between leg and bed would also apply in similar situations to the prong of a mattock. The mattock is a tool used for loosening the soil and cutting through roots. The prong is equivalent to the leg of the bed and the mattock is equivalent to the bed.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  The tefillin box worn on one's head has four compartments to hold four scrolls. The box was defiled with corpse impurity. Our mishnah deals with cases where one replaces the compartments, eventually causing the entire tefillin box to be pure.
  A tefillin box consisting of four vessels: if the first compartment was unloosed, and then he mended it, it retains its corpse uncleanness. So is it also the case with the second and the third.  If he opens up the first compartment and removes it, and then makes a new compartment, the whole box of tefillin retains its corpse impurity. The same is true if he removes and then repairs all three of the first boxes. Since one compartment is still there, the tefillin is not considered new and it retains the same level of impurity.
  If he unloosed the fourth it becomes free from corpse uncleanness but it is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness.  If after having replaced all three of the first compartments, he now replaces the fourth compartment, then the box loses it corpse impurity because it is an entirely new tefillin box. However, the box still has some level of uncleanness. When he replaced each of the first three compartments he put them back into contact with a compartment that has corpse uncleanness. The unclean compartment which is a "father of impurity" defiles by contact the compartment that it touches, giving it first degree impurity. So all of the first three compartments have this status, and therefore the whole box has this status.
  If he went back to the first compartment and unloosed and mended it, it remains unclean from contact. So also in the case of the second compartment.  Going back and undoing the first compartment and then replacing it, and then doing the same with the second department, will not cause the box to be entirely clean. Because some of the compartments are unclean, the whole box is unclean.
  If he then unloosed the third compartment and mended it becomes clean, since the fourth is unclean from contact, and what is unclean from contact cannot convey uncleanness by contact.  However, if he goes back and replaces the third compartment, the whole box becomes completely pure. As long as one of the first three replacement boxes was still around, the whole box is impure with first degree impurity, because these three replacement compartments came into contact with something that was a "father of impurity." The first came into contact with the second, the second witht the third and the third with the fourth. However, once the first three compartments are replaced again, none of the compartments left was ever in contact with something that was a "father of impurity." All that is left is the fourth compartment which also was never in contact with a "father of impurity." It has "first degree impurity" only because it was part of a box that had "first degree impurity." The fourth compartment does not now return to defile the new third compartment, because something with "first degree impurity" does not defile other vessels. And since the first three compartments are completely pure, the fourth one is also pure.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A bed half of which was stolen or lost, or one which brothers or joint owners divided between themselves, becomes clean.  If a bed was half stolen or lost (perhaps he lost it under the bed?) or if it was divided up by two different owners (I would want the side closest to the TV) the bed is clean because it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to its whole state.
  If it was restored it is susceptible to uncleanness henceforth.  If it is restored, then the bed is only clean from that point and onward. The impurity it had before half of it was lost, stolen or divided does not return to it.
  A bed may contract uncleanness and be rendered clean when all its parts are bound together, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: it can contract uncleanness and is rendered clean in single parts.  I am going to explain this section according to Albeck's commentary. Others explain it differently. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if a bed is broken into pieces and then one part of the broken piece is defiled, the whole broken piece is defiled. In other words, just as all of a bed is considered defiled if one of its pieces is defiled, so too all of a piece of a bed is considered to be defiled if any one of its components is defiled. If one immerses an entire piece of a bed in a mikveh (a piece made up of several components) then the whole piece is pure, and the pieces do not serve as a barrier for the effectiveness of the mikveh (this is called hatzitzah in Hebrew). The other rabbis disagree. If a bed is broken into pieces and one component becomes impure, the whole piece is not thereby impure. A piece of a bed does not have the same rules as the whole bed. Similarly, if one immerses a piece of a bed in a mikveh, he must immerse each part separately. If he does not, each part will serve as a barrier (hatzitzah) for the part that it is connected to.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  One who dismantles a bed in order that he might immerse it and [while doing so] touches the ropes remains clean.  If while dismantling a large bed in order to immerse it in a mikveh to purify it a person touched the ropes of the bed, he is not thereby defiled. This is because the ropes of a dismantled bed are not considered impure. As we shall see, the ropes are considered to be impure only when attached to the bed.
  When does the rope begin to constitute a connective with the bed? As soon as three rows of meshes of it have been knotted.  Beds in the time of the Mishnah were made by tying ropes tightly around the bed frame. The mishnah now asks when are ropes considered connected to the bed such that their purity/impurity status matches that of the bed. The answer is that as soon as three rows have been tied onto the bed. It would seem that at that point the bed offers at least minimal support.
  And [if another rope was tied to this one] and a person touches it: If from the knot inwards he becomes unclean; But if from the knot outwards he remains clean.  If one ties another rope to the rope that is already tied to the bed, the new rope is considered connected from the knot and inwards. That portion of the rope is impure, and if the bed is impure it will defile him if he touches it. But from the rope and outwards, it is pure and it will not defile him.
  As to the loose ends of the knot, any one that touches that part which is needed for it  becomes unclean. And how much is needed for it?  Rabbi Judah says: three fingerbreadths.  The first three fingerbreadths of the loose ends of the knot were needed to tie the knot. Therefore, they are impure. Anything beyond that is not impure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A rope that hangs out from a bed:If it is shorter than five handbreadths, it is clean,If it is from five to ten handbreadths long, it is unclean.From ten handbreadths and longer is clean;For it is with [this rope]  that paschal lambs were tied  and beds were lowered down.Today's mishnah deals with ropes that hang out from a bed after the main part of the rope was woven around the bed frame.Section one: If the rope is less than five handbreadths long, it is not useful and it is not susceptible to impurity.Sections two and four: If it is longer than five handbreadths, it is useful, but only the portion up to ten handbreadths is susceptible. Section four explains how they would use these ropes. The first use was to tie the paschal lamb to the bed in preparation for the lamb's slaughter on Pesah. On the original Pesah which was celebrated in Egypt it was required that one would set aside the lamb on the tenth of Nissan. This was not required on subsequent observations of the holiday, but evidently people did so in any case. My only explanation for why they would tie it to the bed is so that it wouldn't get mixed up with other non-paschal lambs, or with paschal lambs set aside by other people.The other use was to lower their beds when taking them down from the roofs (where they sometimes slept) or for lowering them down into the mikveh.Section four: Only the part that was between five and ten handbreadths was really needed. The rest of the rope was extraneous and therefore it is clean.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a part of a mattress hangs over, it is unclean whatever  its length, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: only that which is shorter than ten handbreadths.  It seems that during the time of the Mishnah, not all beds were used with mattresses. The Geonim (rabbis in Babylonia in the 8-11th centuries) defined the word that I have translated as "mattress" in the following way: "a wool garment which rich people put on their beds underneath the regular bedding. And they put it on the edge of the bed frame." If the mattress hangs over the bed, according to Rabbi Meir no matter how long the part that hangs over is, it is all considered to be connected to the bed and if the bed is impure, all of the mattress is impure. Rabbi Yose says that only that which is shorter than ten handbreadths (this is quite long). Anything longer is already far enough away from the bed that it has an independent status of impurity.
  The remnant of a mattress remains unclean if the length is at least seven handbreadths from which a donkey's covering can be made.  The remnant of a mattress can remain unclean if it is at least seven handbreadths long, because this is the measure that could be used to make a donkey's covering. This goes according to the general principle that as long as something can still be used as a vessel it retains its impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress, the latter causes an uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, the words of Rabbi Meir.  The zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) causes the mattress to become a primary source of impurity (the bed also is a primary source of impurity, but this mishnah deals only with this mattress). The mattress causes anything that touches it to have first degree impurity. Whatever has first degree impurity imparts second degree impurity to whatever it touches. That which has second degree impurity renders unfit any terumah that it might touch (giving it third degree impurity). But the terumah does not disqualify anything by giving it fourth degree impurity.
  Rabbi Yose says: if a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress the part that is shorter than ten handbreadths causes an  uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, but that which is over the ten handbreadths causes only an uncleanness of one grade and an unfitness of one grade.  Rabbi Yose distinguishes between the part of the mattress that extends from the bed less than ten handbreadths and the part that extends more than ten handbreadths. This accords with what he stated in yesterday's mishnah. The part that extends less than ten handbreadths has the same rule that Rabbi Meir stated above. The part that is further away from the bed is treated not like the bed but as if it were a separate piece that had contact with the remainder of the mattress. Therefore, this part has first degree impurity which it got from the main part of the mattress and it defiles that which it touches, giving it second degree impurity. That which has second degree impurity renders unfit any terumah that it might touch (giving it third degree impurity).
  If he was carried on the mattress, [on the overhanging part] that was shorter than ten handbreadths, it becomes unclean, but if on the part that was longer than ten handbreadths it remains clean.  In this scenario he was carried on the part of the mattress that extends over the bed, but not on the bed itself. If he was carried on the part of the mattress that is less than ten handbreadths from the bed, the mattress is unclean. But if further from the bed, then the mattress is clean because it is not susceptible to "midras" impurity (imparted by sitting, lying or leaning on something) because it is not considered part of the bed. And since the zav did not directly touch the mattress (he touched the mattress covering), the mattress is completely clean.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If around a bed that had contracted midras uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to midras uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to midras uncleanness but the mattress is unclean only from contact with midras.  When he wraps the mattress around the bed, the mattress becomes part of the bed and takes on the impurity status of the bed. And when he removes the mattress from the bed, it loses the impurity status that the bed had. But since it had contact with something that had "midras" impurity, the mattress remains unclean, albeit with a lower type of impurity (first degree impurity).
  If around a bed that had contracted seven-day uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to seven-day uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to seven-day uncleanness but the mattress is unclean until the evening.  The same halakhah is true with regard to seven day uncleanness, the type of uncleanness contracted from contact with a dead body. When the mattress is attached to the bed it has the same impurity as does the bed. When it is removed, it has the lower status of "evening uncleanness," meaning it will become pure in the evening. This is because the bed was a "father of impurity" and it caused the mattress to have first degree impurity, but first degree impurity lasts only until evening.
  If the bed was subject to evening uncleanness and around it he wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to evening uncleanness; If it was removed, the bed remains subject to evening uncleanness but the mattress becomes clean.  However, if the bed was itself unclean only with "evening uncleanness" it does not defile at all other vessels that have contact with it. When the mattress is attached, it has "evening uncleanness" but when it is removed, it is completely pure.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a mattress was wrapped around a bed and a corpse touched them, they are subject to a seven-day uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to a seven-day uncleanness.  In this case the mattress is impure because it too came into contact with a corpse, and not just because it became part of a bed that had corpse impurity (as in yesterday's mishnah). Therefore, even when it is taken apart from the bed, it still retains its corpse impurity.
  If  a sheretz touched them they are subject to an evening uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to evening uncleanness.  The same is true if the bed and mattress become defiled with evening uncleanness through contact with a sheretz. Since the mattress was also defiled, it retains its impurity even when removed from the bed.
  A bed from which the two longer sides were removed  and  two new ones were prepared for it but the original sockets were not changed: If the new sides were broken the bed retains its uncleanness, But if the old ones were broken it becomes clean, since all depends on the old ones.  One removed the two longer sides of the frame of a bed and he made new ones to replace them. But since he did not change the sockets of the bed, if the new ones break he can still replace them with the old ones. If he puts the new ones in and they break, the bed regains its old impurity. In other words, it's not a new bed if the old bed can still be reconstituted. But if the old ones are broken, then the bed cannot be reconstituted and it is pure. As the mishnah notes, the purity of the bed depends on the existence of the old ones, not the new ones.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A box whose opening is at the top is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.  If a box has an opening on its top it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, and to other types of uncleanness as well. The only type of impurity to which it is not susceptible is midras impurity, because midras impurity is imparted only to objects that are meant for sitting.
  If a piece fell out above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness.  If the box broke but only at its top, it is still usable so it is still susceptible to impurity.
  If it was damaged below, it becomes clean.  However, if it was damaged below it is no longer usable so it becomes clean.
  The compartments within it remain unclean and are not regarded as a connected to it.  If the box had compartments and the box became clean because it was broken, the compartments are still usable so they remain unclean. They are not considered as connected to the box, for it is clean and they are unclean.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Just a warning this mishnah might make you chuckle a bit.
  If a shepherd's bag was damaged, the pocket within it retains its uncleanness and is not regarded as a connected to it.  A shepherd's bag which is made of leather has pockets in it to store things. If the bag is damaged, the larger bag is pure, but the smaller pockets retain their impurity because they are still usable.
  A skin whose testicle bags serve also as receptacles and they were damaged, they become clean, since they will no longer serve their original purpose.  Evidently, they would make skins for holding wine that would also have pouches made from the testicles of the animal. They would do this by skinning the animal complete from head to legs. This would leave the testicles intact and usable for storing liquids. If the testicle bags are damaged they become clean because they can't be used to store liquids, which is the normal way in which they are used. Even if they can still be used for some other purpose, since they can't be used in their normal way, they are clean. I bet you wish you had a bag like this. It would definitely be the talk of the town!
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A box whose opening is at the side is susceptible to both midras uncleanness  and corpse uncleanness.  Today's mishnah discusses a box whose opening is at the side. Since this box can be sat upon it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. It is also susceptible to other types of impurity, including corpse impurity.
  Rabbi Yose said: When does this apply? When it is less than ten handbreadths in height or when it does not have a rim one handbreadth deep.  Rabbi Yose says that it is susceptible to midras impurity only if it is less than ten handbreadths high or does not have a rim of at least a handbreadth. A high box with a rim will not be sat upon, and therefore it is not susceptible to midras. But a low box might be sat upon, with or without a rim.
  If it was damaged above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness.  If it was damaged above, it cannot be sat upon so it is no longer susceptible to midras. But it is still usable as a box, so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  If it was damaged below: Rabbi Meir rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages rule that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases.  If it is damaged below, it can be sat upon, but it cannot be used for storage, which is its main purpose. Rabbi Meir rules that since it can still be sat upon, it is susceptible to midras impurity. The sages disagree. They hold that if a vessel cannot be used in its primary function, in this case storing, it is not susceptible due to its secondary function, sitting. Therefore, the box is completely clean.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  A dung-basket that was so damaged that it will not hold pomegranates: Rabbi Meir says is still susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases. The mishnah deals with a "dung-basket," a basket used to take out dung used for fertilizer. If the basket has a hole large enough for pomegranates to escape, then the basket then it can't be used as a dung-basket (it would make some serious mess on the floor). Rabbi Meir says that since it can still be used as a seat cushion, it is still susceptible to impurity. The other sages disagree, invoking the principle we saw in yesterday's mishnah. If something can no longer be used for its primary purpose (to carry dung) then it is no longer susceptible, even if it can be used for a secondary one.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Pillows, bed coverings, sacks and packing cases that were damaged are still susceptible to midras uncleanness.  All of these items were originally made for two purposes to contain something within, and to lie or sit upon. Pillows and bed coverings contain feathers, but they are mostly made for lying or sitting upon. Therefore, they are susceptible to midras impurity (impurity conveyed by sitting, lying or leaning). Sacks and packing cases are mostly for containing things, but from the outset they also are intended to serve as seats or ground coverings. Therefore, even if they are damaged and cannot be used to hold the things that they originally held, they are still susceptible to midras impurity.
  A fodder-bag that can hold four kav, a shepherd's bag that can hold five kav, a  traveling bag that can hold a se'ah, a skin that can hold seven kav, Rabbi Judah adds: also a spice-bag, and a food wallet that can hold the smallest quantity are susceptible to midras uncleanness.  The mishnah now lists a number of types of bags, and provides a minimum amount that each must hold in order for it to be susceptible to impurity. If it cannot hold this amount, it is not useful and therefore is clean. In addition, since these things can also be used as a seat, they are also susceptible to midras impurity.
  If any of them was damaged it becomes clean, since if the primary function   ceases the secondary function   also ceases.  In contrast with the bags listed in section one, these bags have a main purpose to carry things inside them. Sitting is only a secondary function. Therefore, if they are damaged and can no longer carry things, they are no longer susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness.  A bagpipe is not intended for sitting, and therefore it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness.
  A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness , And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse  uncleanness only.  According to Bet Shammai, a trough meant mainly for mixing mortar is also used for sitting and therefore it is susceptible to midras impurity. But Bet Hillel holds that it is not meant for sitting and therefore it is susceptible only to other types of impurity, such as corpse uncleanness. It is not susceptible to midras uncleanness.
  If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness.  A trough that is large enough to hold between two logs of liquid (1/2 of a kav) and nine kav and then is split, is subsequently susceptible to midras impurity because it can be used for sitting. Note that when it was used to hold liquids it would not have been used as a seat and therefore it would not have been susceptible to midras impurity.
  If he left it out in the rain and it swelled   it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone.  If he leaves it out in the rain, it will swell and the split will be repaired. It will now be possible to again fill it with liquids. At this point it will be susceptible to corpse uncleanness, but not to midras uncleanness because it won't be used as a seat.
  [If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness.  If he again leaves it out and a dry east wind comes along, the split will again prevent it from holding liquids. At this point, it will go back to being able to be used as a seat and it will be susceptible to midras uncleanness.
  In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition.  The mishnah now notes an oddity with regard to the impurity of the remnant of wooden vessels. In their original condition, they would not have been susceptible to midras uncleanness, but when they are cracked they become susceptible.
  It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean.  The mishnah notes another case where the law is stricter with vessels later in their existence than it is when they are first produced. The manufacturing of a wicker vessel is not considered complete until its rim is finished (see 16:2). But once their manufacturing is complete , their outer edges can completely wear away and the vessel will still be susceptible to impurity. When we think about it, this makes sense. When we buy something new, we expect it to be in mint shape. We wouldn't buy a pair of shoes with worn-out soles. However, once we own a pair, we will hold onto them even after the soles, or other parts of the shoe show considerable wear.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a stick was used as a handle for a hatchet, it is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of use.  When the hatchet is in use, its handle is considered connected to it with regard to impurity. This means that if either piece, the handle or the hatchet, is defiled, both are defiled.
  A yarn winder is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of its use.  A "yarn winder" is a small stick with a nail attached to it which was used for weaving. While it is in use, the nail is considered connected to the stick for issues of impurity.
  If it was fixed to a pole it is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not considered connected to it.  If he fixed the yarn winder to a pole, the yarn winder remains susceptible to impurity, but it is not considered connected to the pole, which remains clean.
  If the pole itself was converted into a yarn winder, only that part which is needed for use is susceptible to uncleanness.  In this case he makes the end of the pole into a yarn winder. The part that is used as a yarn winder is susceptible, but the remainder of the pole stays clean, because it is a simple wood vessel.
  A seat that was fixed to the pole is susceptible to uncleanness, but the latter is not regarded as connected to it.  If one fixed a seat to the end of a pole, the seat (like the yarn winder) is susceptible to impurity, but it is treated separately from the pole.
  If the pole itself was turned into a seat, only the place of the seat is susceptible to uncleanness.  This is the same as section four, just with regard to the seat.
  A seat that was fixed to the beam of an olive-press is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not connected to it.  The same rule as found in section three and section six.
  If the end of a beam was turned into a seat it remains clean, because people would tell him, "Get up and let us do our work."  If the end of an olive press beam is turned into a seat, even the seat part remains pure. People won't let another person sit there because that would prevent them from doing their work. Therefore, it's a dysfunctional seat and not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a large trough was so damaged that it could no longer hold pomegranates and he fixed it to be used as a seat: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless its rough parts have been smoothed.  According to Rabbi Akiva, although the trough cannot be used for its original purpose, since he set it up to be used as a seat, it is susceptible to impurity. The other sages basically agree with Rabbi Akiva, but add the caveat that the trough is not susceptible unless its rough section has been smoothed to make it fit for a seat.
  If it was turned into a feeding bowl for cattle, even if it was fixed to a wall, it is susceptible to uncleanness.  If he turned it into a feeding bowl, then it is susceptible to impurity even though it is attached to the wall. The vessel is not considered as nullified due to its attachment to something that is attached to the ground.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  A wood block  that was fixed to a row on a wall, whether he fixed it and did not built upon it or built upon it but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he fixed it and also built upon, it is clean.  The Rambam explains that the "row on a wall" referred to here is the scaffolding in between which builders make their wall. The "wood block" is a thick piece of wood that the builders attach to the wall and to the building adjacent to the wall in order to keep the wall close to the building. If he fixes it to the wall but does not build upon it, or if he builds upon it but does not fix it to the wall, then the wood block is not considered part of the building and it is still susceptible to impurity. But if he fixes it to the wall and builds upon it, then it is part of the building and it is not susceptible to impurity.
  Matting that was spread over the roof-beams, whether he fixed it but did not put on the plasterwork or whether he put on the plasterwork but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If it was fixed and he laid plasterwork over it, it is clean.  The matting is used here as a base for the plasterwork which will serve as the ceiling to the house. If the matting has been fixed to the beams but the plasterwork has not yet been put on, or if the plasterwork has been put on, but it has not yet been fixed to the beams, it is not yet part of the building, and it is still susceptible to impurity. The matting is part of the building and therefore clean, only if it has the plasterwork and has been fixed to the building.
  A dish that was fixed to a chest, box or cupboard: If in such a manner as to hold its contents in the usual way, it is susceptible to uncleanness, But if it was in a manner that it cannot hold its contents in the usual way  it is clean.  The chest, box or cupboard referred to here are large enough so that they are not susceptible to impurity. If one attaches a dish to one of these things in such a way that the dish can still hold things, that is the mouth of the dish faces up, the dish is still susceptible to impurity. But if he attaches it face down (not sure why one would do such a thing) then it is considered nullified vis a vis the chest, box or cupboard and it is clean.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness.  A sheet used for bedding is susceptible to midras uncleanness because it is laid upon. But if he makes it into a curtain, it is no longer used for lying upon, and therefore it is not susceptible to madras impurity. It will however be susceptible to corpse impurity as are all vessels made of cloth.
  When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it.  . Bet Hillel says:  when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed.  There are three opinions as to the exact point at which the sheet ceases being a sheet and becomes a curtain. According to Bet Shammai, once loops have been attached to the sheet, it is a curtain. To put it abstractly, it is a curtain if it looks like a curtain even before it functions as such. Bet Hillel says that it must be attached to the opening for it to be a curtain. A curtain must function like a curtain. Rabbi Akiva postpones the time a bit more. It must be fixed to the opening with nails. Abstractly speaking it must be set up as is a normal curtain with loops, attached to the opening with nails. Before that, it is still just a sheet.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  A mat for lying upon was normally made in the following way: reeds would be placed across its breadth every four handbreadths. Lengthwise they would weave straw and other such material. People would lie between the reeds, because it was not comfortable to lie on the hard reeds. Our mishnah deals with mats made in an unusual manner.
  A mat whose reeds stretched lengthwise is insusceptible to uncleanness; But the sages rule: only if they lay in the shape of [the Greek letter] chi.  According to the first opinion, since the reeds were laid lengthwise, the mat is not susceptible for impurity. A mat made in such a way must not have been meant for lying because it would be uncomfortable to lie on the reeds. But the other sages say that even though the reeds were placed lengthwise, one still could lie in between the reeds. It is insusceptible to impurity only if he places the reeds in the shape of the letter x (chi in Greek). Such a mat is certainly not good for lying because the reeds would be unavoidable.
  If they were laid along its width and there was a distance of less than four handbreadths between the two reeds, it is insusceptible to uncleanness.  If he didn't leave four handbreadths between the reeds, then it is not good for lying and it is not susceptible to impurity.
  If it was divided along its width, Rabbi Judah rules that is clean.  If it was divided along its width, it is pure. Eventually the whole mat will fall apart because the straw will come undone.
  So also, where the end-knots  are untied, it is clean.  The same is true if he unties the end knots. Since the mat will eventually fall apart, it is pure.
  If it was divided along its length but three end-knots remained intact across a stretch of six handbreadths, it is susceptible to uncleanness.  Ties are usually made every two handbreadths along the mat's width. If the mat is divided along its length, but three end-knots remain on its width, covering a stretch of six handbreadths, that section of the mat is still usable and is still susceptible to impurity. Note that this is the minimum size in which a mat is susceptible to impurity (we will return to this subject in 27:3 I bet you can't wait).
  When does a mat become susceptible to uncleanness? When its rough ends are trimmed, this being the completion of its manufacture.  Since we're dealing with the purity of mats, the mishnah now answers the question as to when the manufacturing of a mat is complete such that it is susceptible to impurity. The answer is that it is susceptible once its rough ends have been trimmed. These are the ends of the tied knots.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with a situation where a completed unclean woven garment is on a loom and a person touches various parts of the loom. Parts that are considered to be connected to the woven garment defile the person who touches them, whereas parts that are not considered to be as connected do not.
  I am not all that familiar with looms. I did find a decent illustration on the web of a "treadle loom" that seems to be the type referred to in the Mishnah. I will try my best to describe some of the parts. The main issue is the principle, which should be clear after the mishnah is learned.
  One who touches the upper beam, the lower beam, the harnesses, the sley, the thread that is drawn over purple material, or a spool which is not to be shot back, remains clean.  A loom has two beams, an upper and a lower one. These are used to move the warp up and down. The heddles are the strings attached to the reeds laid across the loom. The sley is a reed used to straighten the warp. When making purple cloth, weavers would pass a string over the cloth and then remove it. A spool that is not shot back refers to strings that will not be brought back and woven into the garment. All of these things are not considered to be attached to the garment. Therefore, one who touches them is pure, even if the garment is unclean.
  If he touches the woof, the standing warp, the double thread that is drawn over purple material or a spool which is to be shot back, he becomes unclean.  The "woof" refers to the strings of the woof that have already been put into the warp strings but have not yet been straightened out properly. The "standing warp" refers to the strings of the warp stretched out between the upper and lower beams. The double string passed over the purple cloth will not be removed. And the spool that will be shot back is attached to a string that will be part of the garment. One who touches any of these things is defiled, because these are connected enough to the garment to be considered already as being part of the garment.
  If one touches the wool that is on the distaff, or on the spool, he remains clean.  The wool that is on the distaff or on the spool is not considered to be connected, and therefore one who touches it is pure.
  If he touches the spinner: Before it was uncovered  he is unclean, After it was uncovered   he remains clean.  If the spindle was impure, one who touches the spinner on the head of the spindle is impure if he touches it before he removes the string and uncovers the spinner. But if he touches it after the string was removed and the spinner is uncovered, remains clean.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is similar to yesterday's except that it discusses instruments connected to the plow.
  One who touches the yoke, the crossbar, the collar-piece, or the thick ropes, even when they are being used, he remains clean.  These are all pieces of the plow that are not considered to be connected to it, so if the plow is impure, the person who touches one of them is still pure.
  If he touched the tail piece, knee or handle, he becomes unclean.  These are all pieces of the plow itself, and not just things that connect the plow to something else. Therefore one who touches them is unclean.
  If he touched the metal rings, the guides, or the flanks, he becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says that he remains clean if he touched the guides since they only serve to increase the soil.  The "guides" are two pieces of wood used to bring the soil into contact with the plow, to "increase the soil" in the words of Rabbi Judah. The "flanks" are made to crush the soil. With regard to the metal rings and the flanks, all sages agree that one who touches them is unclean. There is a debate with regard to the "guides." The first opinion holds that they are considered connected to the plow, whereas Rabbi Judah says that they are not really part of the plow. Their sole function is put more soil into contact with the plow. Therefore, one who touches them remains pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  One who touches the handle of a saw at either end  becomes unclean;  The handles of a two-handled saw are both considered to be part of the saw. Therefore, one who touches either of them is unclean.
  [If he touched] its string, cord, cross-piece or side-pieces, a carpenter's vice, or the bow-handle of a bow-drill, he remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: so too he who touches the frame of a large saw remains clean.  The string or cord run from one handle of the saw to the other to keep them attached. A cross-piece is a piece of wood connecting the handles on a saw. The side-pieces support the handles of a saw. The carpenter's vice is made of two boards, between which the carpenter places bent pieces of wood to straighten them. If one touches any of these things, he remains clean. Rabbi Judah adds that the same is true with regard to the frame of a large saw.
  One who touches the bow-string or the bow, even though it was stretched, he remains clean.  The different parts of the bow (as in bow and arrow) are not considered to be connected to one another. Therefore, if one touches the bow-string when the bow is unclean or the bow when the arrow is unclean, he is not unclean. This is true even if the arrow is taut in the bow.
  A mole-trap is clean. Rabbi Judah says: when it is stretched, the separate parts are [regarded as] connected.  The various parts of a mole trap are not considered to be connected one to the other. If one is unclean, and a person touches the other part, he is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that when the mole-trap is stretched, ready to trap the mole, the separate parts are considered to be connected. They are considered unconnected only when the trap mechanism is relaxed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  If a table or a side-board was damaged or he covered them with marble but room was left for cups to be set, it is unclean. Rabbi Judah ruled: there must be room enough for pieces of food.  The mishnah describes two situations. The first is of a table or side-board (what we might call a counter) that was damaged. The second is of a table or side-board (both made of wood) that were covered with marble. Marble is not susceptible to impurity. In both cases, if enough of the table remains undamaged, or if enough remains uncovered with marble, for cups to be placed on the table, it is still susceptible.
  Rabbi Judah says that space for cups is not enough. There must be enough space for pieces of food. If not, the table is not considered usable or is considered to be fully covered with marble, and it is clean.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A table one of whose legs was removed is clean.  If one of a three-legged table's legs is removed, it is no longer functional and therefore it is clean.
  If a second leg was removed it is still clean. But if a third was removed it becomes unclean where the owner has the intention of using it.  If the second leg is removed it is still clean, because it can still not be used. However, if the third leg is removed, then all that remains is a board. If he intends to use the board without the legs, then it becomes susceptible to impurity.
  Rabbi Yose says: no intention is necessary.  Rabbi Yose says that since the board can be used, it is automatically susceptible to impurity. He need not even intend to use it.
  The same law applies also to the side-board.  The same debate occurs in reference to a side-board (mentioned also in yesterday's mishnah).
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A bench, one of whose legs was removed, is clean. If its second leg also was removed it is still clean. If it was one handbreadth high it is unclean.  A bench has two legs, one on either end. Clearly if one leg is removed, the bench cannot be used and it is pure. The same is true even if both legs are removed. One does not sit on a bench when it is simply a board on the ground, because it is usually too thin. However, if the bench-board is at least one handbreadth high, it is unclean because a person might come to sit on it.
  A footstool one of whose legs was removed is unclean.  A footstool can be used to put one's feet up even if one of the legs has been removed. In other words, a footstool does not have to be exactly upright because one doesn't sit on it. Therefore, since it can fulfill its original function, it remains unclean (or susceptible to impurity).
  The same applies to the stool in front of a cathedra.  A "cathedra" is a couch used by the upper class (same word as cathedral). The stool in front of it has the same rule as does a footstool.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah has two parts, each of which contains three opinions: Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and Shammai. In both cases, Shammai rules more strictly than Bet Shammai. This is an interesting historical phenomenon. It might demonstrate that in the generation between Shammai and the founding of his eponymous school, his disciples began to be influenced by the leniencies of Bet Hillel. In other words, Bet Hillel's dominance, which we know of from a later historical period, already influenced the early Shammaites themselves.
  A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool  is susceptible to uncleanness.  A bride's stool is made up of a frame and seatboards placed on top of the frame. On top of the seatboards they would place coverings to make it more comfortable. Think of it as an ancient lazyboy (or lazygirl in this case). According to Bet Shammai, the stool without the coverings can still be used by normal people, and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that since it is not fit for a bride, it is clean. Shammai says that even the frame alone is susceptible, because it can be sat upon in time of need.
  A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness.  The mishnah now deals with a stool attached to a knead-trough. The kneading-trough itself is not susceptible to midras impurity, because it is not meant for sitting. According to Bet Shammai, the stool is not nullified vis a vis the trough and it remains susceptible to midras impurity.  Bet Hillel disagrees, and holds that the stool is part of the trough. Shammai rules that even if the stool was originally made as an attachment to the kneading-trough, and was never made independently for sitting, it is still susceptible to midras impurity.  Again, Shammai is stricter than Bet Shammai.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  A chair whose seat boards did not project and then they were removed, it is still susceptible to uncleanness, for it is usual  to turn it on its side and to sit on it. The seat boards of this chair did not project outside of the frame of the chair. Thus this type of stool could be turned on its side, and one could sit on the boards that were used to form the sides. If the seat boards are removed from the place where the chair is usually sat upon, the chair can still become impure, because even before they were removed, it was common to use the chair from the side.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A chair whose middle seat board was removed but the outer ones  remained, it is still susceptible to uncleanness.  The chair referred to here has three seat boards. If only the middle one is removed, it is still susceptible to impurity. The outer ones should be sufficient to support the sitter's tuches (the seat on my bike is a little like this).
  If the outer ones were removed and the middle seat board remained it is also  susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was a handbreadth wide.  So too, if the outer ones are removed and only the inner one remains. The middle one can still be sat upon, so the chair is still susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon adds that the middle one must be at least one handbreadth wide. If it is not, it is pure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A chair, of which two seat boards were removed, this one next to this one: Rabbi Akiva says: it is susceptible to impurity; And the sages say that it is clean.  If two adjacent seat boards were removed, one of the side ones and the middle one, Rabbi Akiva still considers it susceptible to impurity. One could sit on the side seat board. The other sages say that this is no longer considered a chair, and therefore it is clean.
  Rabbi Judah said: so too if the seat boards of a bride's chair were lost, though the receptacle under remained, it is clean, since where the primary function has ceased,  the secondary one  also ceases.  Rabbi Judah relates back to mishnah four. There Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagreed with regard to a bride's chair whose seat boards were removed. Bet Hillel held that such a chair is clean. Rabbi Judah adds to this. The chair is clean even if the receptacle that they make under the chair to hold various things remained. Since the chair cannot be used in its normal fashion, for the bride to sit upon, the fact that it can be used for other purposes does not mean that it is still susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A chest whose top part was removed is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bottom; If its bottom was removed it is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its top part.  The type of chest referred to here seems to contain some drawers. If the top part is removed, the whole chest is still susceptible to impurity on account of the bottom part. Similarly, if the bottom part is removed, the whole chest is susceptible to impurity on account of the top part.
  If both the top part and the bottom part were removed: Rabbi Judah says that it is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its sides, But the sages rule that it is clean.  According to Rabbi Judah, if both the bottom and top part are removed, the chest is still susceptible to impurity on account of its sides. However, the sages rule that such a chest is no longer usable and is therefore clean.
  A stonecutter's seat is subject to midras uncleanness.  A stonecutter's seat is a temporary seat that a stonecutter will fashion for him to use while performing his work. The seat is considered to be a real seat and is therefore susceptible to midras impurity.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A [wooden] block which was painted red or saffron, or was polished: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless [a seat] was carved out.  The issue at hand in this section is what does one have to do to a plain wooden block in order to turn it into a chair? According to Rabbi Akiva, it is sufficient to paint it or to polish it for it to be considered a chair and therefore susceptible to impurity. The other sages rule that this is insufficient. To make something into a real chair a seat must be carved out.
  A small basket or a big one that was filled with straw or other soft material remains clean [even] if it was prepared as a seat. But if it was plaited over with reed-grass or with a cord it becomes susceptible to uncleanness.  Even if one fills a basket with soft material and intends to use it as a seat, it is not susceptible to impurity. The problem with it is that as soon as he turns the basket over, the stuff will fall out and the seat will no longer exist. To turn the basket into a seat he must fill it with some sort of stuffing and plait over it with some type of binding material to keep the contents in. If he does this, the basket will be a seat and it will be susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  A toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the leather seat was separated, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness and the iron is subject only to corpse uncleanness.  The toilet described here is made of a leather seat and an iron base. When it is whole, the entire toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness, because it is a seat and it is a vessel. If the leather seat is removed, the seat is still subject to midras uncleanness because it is still usable as a seat. But the iron base can no longer be sat upon, and therefore it is subject only to corpse uncleanness, because it is still a vessel.
  A folding stool whose cover is of leather is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If it was taken apart, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness while the stool is altogether clean.  When the leather cover is part of the stool, the entire stool is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the cover is removed, it remains susceptible to midras uncleanness, but the remainder of the stool cannot be used so it is clean.
  A bath-house bench that has two wooden legs is susceptible to uncleanness. If one leg was of wood and the other of stone it is clean.  The bench is made of stone which is not susceptible to impurity. However, if both of its legs are made of wood, the entire bench becomes susceptible on account of the legs. If only one leg is made of wood and the other is made of stone, the bench is still clean.
  Boards in a bath-house which were joined together: Rabbi Akiva says that they are susceptible to [midras] uncleanness; But the sages say that they are clean, since they are made only for the water to flow under them.  In a bath-house, there would be seats made of wood joined together for the bathers to sit on. According to Rabbi Akiva, since people sit on these seats, they are susceptible to impurity. The sages disagree because they see the function of the seats as just letting dirty water already used by others to pass beneath. In other words, people don't want to sit on the seats; they just want to avoid something else.
  A fumigation-cage that contains a receptacle for garments is susceptible to uncleanness, But one that is made like a bee-hive is clean.  A fumigation cage is a vessel into which fire and sulfur are put to fumigate the clothing that would be put above. If it has a receptacle in which to put the clothing, it is susceptible to impurity. But if it is made in the shape of a bee-hive and does not have a receptacle, it cannot become impure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  If a ball, a mould, an amulet or tefillin were torn, one that touches them becomes unclean, But one that touches what is inside them remains clean.  The objects listed here contain something inside them. The ball contains some sort of soft filling (they didn't fill balls with air back then). The mould is made of leather and is also filled with similar material. Artisans would craft their wares around the mould. The amulet and tefillin contain parchment with writing on it. If any of these items are torn, they are still unclean because they can still contain things inside them. A vessel which has a receptacle is impure even if it is not sealed shut. However, the contents are not considered to be connected to the vessel. Therefore, if one touches the contents and they are pure, he is still pure even if the vessel is unclean.
  If a saddle was torn, one that touches its contents unclean, because the stitching joins them.  When it comes to a saddle, the stitching attaches the contents to the saddle. The contents are part of the saddle and not just inside the saddle. Therefore, even if the saddle is torn, a person who touches the saddle (when it is unclean) will be defiled, regardless of whether he touches the saddle or its contents.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah discusses a special type of uncleanness called "merkav" which means "riding" as in riding a camel, horse or donkey. This is a type of uncleanness that only a vessel meant to be ridden upon can contract. Mishnah 1:3 made some mention of special characteristics that characterize things that are "merkav." We shall discuss this more in tomorrow's mishnah.
  The following are susceptible to uncleanness as objects that are fit for riding upon (: an Ashkelon donkey belt, a Medean saddle, a camel's pillow, and a horse-cloth.  The Ashkelon donkey belt and Medean saddle seem to be named after the places in which they are produced. A camel's pillow is not for the camel to sleep with, but to put on the camel's back for the comfort of the rider. The horse-cloth is used to cover the horse's back and on top of it goes the saddle. All of these are meant for riding upon, but they are not directly sat upon.
  Rabbi Yose says: a horse-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness  as a seat, since people stand on it  in the arena.  Rabbi Yose says that a horse-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness not because it is ridden upon but because it is stood upon when people are in the arena. If a zav stands on something that is susceptible to midras, he gives it sitting (moshav) uncleanness. We shall explain this type of uncleanness in tomorrow's mishnah.
  But a saddle of a female camel is susceptible to [sitting] uncleanness.  All agree that it is customary to sit directly upon the saddle of a female donkey. Therefore, it is susceptible to sitting uncleanness.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  What is the practical difference between [the uncleanness of an object used for] riding upon and [one used for] sitting upon? In the case of the former the effect of contact with it is different from the effect of carrying it, but in the case of the latter there is no difference between the effect of coming in contact with it or carrying it.  If one carries something that has contracted uncleanness by a zav riding upon it his clothes are unclean. But if someone touches something that has contracted uncleanness by a zav riding upon it, his clothes remain clean. Thus, when it comes to the uncleanness of something that was used for riding, there is a difference between carrying it and touching it. However, when it comes to something that has contracted sitting impurity (moshav) there is no difference between touching and carrying. In both cases, his clothes are unclean.
  The pack-frame of a donkey on which a zav sat is clean; But if the size of the spaces has been changed or if they have been broken one into another it is susceptible to uncleanness.  One does not normally sit upon the pack-frame of a donkey. Therefore, it is not susceptible to sitting impurity and it remains clean even if a zav sits upon it. However, if he changes the spaces or breaks them one into another such that he can sit upon it, then he has changed it into a seat and it is susceptible to sitting impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A bier, the mattress and the pillow of a corpse are susceptible to the uncleanness of midras.  The fact that these three things are used for a dead body does not make them susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, the Tosefta explains that women sit on these when they wail over the dead. Therefore they are considered seats and they are susceptible to midras impurity.
  A bride's stool, a midwife's stool, and a launderer's stool on which he piles the clothes: Rabbi Yose says: it is not regarded as a seat.  These stools are not sat upon for comfort, just so that one doesn't have to be on one's feet. The bride sits in the chair only as part of the bridal procession. The midwife sits on the stool so that she may assist in the birth. The launderer sits on the stool while he launders and folds the clothes. Since these are not used for comfort, they are excluded from being susceptible to sitting impurity.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  A fishing net is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bag.  The bottom part of a fish-net is sewn together like a bag. Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity.
  Nets, snares, bird-traps, slings and fishermen's skeins are susceptible to uncleanness.  All of these various types of traps are considered to be vessels and therefore they are susceptible to impurity.
  A fish-trap, a bird-basket and a bird-cage are not susceptible to uncleanness.  In contrast, these types are not considered vessels and they are therefore pure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Every mishnah in Chapter Twenty-Four of Kelim has the format of "there are three different types of X." The differences between the different types of X (in our case shields) means that there are differences as to their susceptibility to impurity. All of the mishnayot have the same structure. The first item is susceptible to midras uncleanness because it can be used as a seat. The second item is not used for sitting but it is a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The third item is completely pure.
  There are three different types of shields:A bent shield  is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  A bent shield can be used to lie upon and therefore it is susceptible even to midras uncleanness. All the more so it is susceptible to other types of uncleanness.
  A shield used in the arena is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  A shield used in battle is not meant to be laid upon and therefore it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, like all vessels it is subject to corpse uncleanness, meaning if it comes into contact with a corpse, it is unclean.
  And the Arabian toy shield is pure from all uncleanness.  A shield that is not used as protection is not susceptible to impurity. This is the case with the Arabian toy shield.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  There are three different types of wagons:The one made like a cathedra  is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  A "cathedra" is a seat upon which important people sit (see 22:3). If a wagon is made in such a manner it is considered a seat and it is susceptible to midras uncleanness.
  The one made like a bed is susceptible to corpse uncleanness,  A wagon made like a bed is used for transporting goods and it is not meant for people to sit or lie upon. Therefore, it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  And the one for [the transport of] stones is free from all uncleanness.  A wagon used to transport large stones is made of boards placed upon the length and breadth of the wagon. There are large gaps between the boards such that it cannot hold in pomegranates. Therefore, it is not considered a vessel that can become impure. Rather, it is a simple wooden vessel (17:1) and simple wooden vessels are not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  There are three different types of baking-troughs:If a baking-trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav was split  it is  susceptible to midras uncleanness;  This section was explained above in 20:2. There I wrote: A trough that is large enough to hold between two logs of liquid (1/2 of a kav) and nine kav and then is split, is subsequently susceptible to midras impurity because it can be used for sitting. Note that when it was used to hold liquids it would not have been used as a seat and therefore it would not have been susceptible to midras impurity.
  If it was whole it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  As stated above, when whole the trough could not have been used as a seat and therefore it was just a normal vessel, susceptible to corpse impurity.
  And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free  from all uncleanness.  If the trough can hold 40 seahs, it is too big to be transported and therefore it is not susceptible. This halakhah was learned in 15:1.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  There are three different types of boxes:A box whose opening is at the sides  is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  This was explained above in 19:9. Since this box can be sat upon, it is susceptible to midras impurity.
  If it is on the top it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  See 19:7. Since this box cannot be sat upon, it cannot contract midras impurity. But it is a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness.  If it holds more than 40 seahs, it is not susceptible to impurity at all (see the end of yesterday's mishnah).
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  There are three different types of leather covers:That of barbers is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  The leather cover that barbers use is meant to be sat upon, therefore it is susceptible to midras.
  That on which people eat is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.  The leather cover people eat on is not meant for sitting but it is considered a vessel. Therefore, it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  And that for [spreading out] olives is free from all uncleanness.  The leather cover used to spread out olives isn't even considered a vessel, and therefore it is pure
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  There are three different types of bases:One which lies before a bed or before a scribe is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  The base which is put in front of a bed or in front of a scribe is sometimes sat upon. Therefore it is susceptible to midras impurity.
  One for a side-table is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  The base next to a side-table is sometimes stood upon by a servant, therefore it is considered a vessel. But it is not sat upon therefore it is not susceptible to midras.
  And one for a cupboard is free from all uncleanness.  The one that serves as the base for a cupboard is not considered a vessel at all, and therefore it is not susceptible to uncleanness.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  There are three different types of writing tablets:That of papyrus  is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  Evidently, a scribe would lean on the papyrus while he was writing. This is sufficient for it to be susceptible to midras impurity, for things that are leaned upon are susceptible to midras.
  That which had a receptacle for wax is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  Some tablets were set up so that they would be covered with wax and the writing would be written in the wax. If such a tablet has a receptacle to hold the wax before it is spread on the surface of the table, it is susceptible to impurity.
  And that which is smooth is free from all uncleanness.  A smooth writing tablet, one that has no receptacle, is not susceptible to impurity. It is considered a simple wooden vessel.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  There are three different types of beds:One that is used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  A regular bed made to lie upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness.
  One used by glass makers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  Glass makers would use the bed to arrange the glass that they had already made. This type of bed is considered a vessel and therefore is susceptible to impurity. I should note that some of the commentators ask why this type of bed is considered to be a vessel and is susceptible, whereas the wagon used in olive making (mishnah five) is pure. The same question might be asked concerning the next section: why is this bed susceptible but a bed used by weavers not?
  And one used by weavers is free from all uncleanness.  The bed used by weavers (there are various interpretations as to how this bed is used) is pure because it is not considered to be something used by a person.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  There are three different types of baskets:The one for dung  is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  The basket used to take dung out to the fields to be used as fertilizer is susceptible to midras impurity because it can be sat upon.
  The one for straw is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  The type of basket used for straw is not sat upon, so it is not susceptible to midras. But it is a vessel, therefore it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  And a camel's rope bag is free from all uncleanness.  The rope bag put onto a camel has holes in it that are large enough to let out pomegranates. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  There are three different types of mats:One used for sitting upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  A mat used to sit upon is obviously susceptible to midras uncleanness.
  One used by dyers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.  The mat used by dyers is not sat upon (would be a bit messy). But it is considered a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  And one used in wine-presses is free from all uncleanness.  The mat used in wine-presses is used to cover the grapes. Therefore, it is not a vessel and it is not susceptible to uncleanness.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  There are three different types of water skins and three different types of shepherds' wallets:Those that can hold the  prescribed quantity  are susceptible to midras uncleanness;  In 20:1 we learned that for a water skin to be susceptible to midras impurity it must be capable of holding seven kavs and a shepherds' wallet must be capable of holding five kavs. If they are of this size, then they are also meant to be sat upon.
  Those that cannot hold the prescribed quantity are susceptible to corpse  uncleanness;  If they are smaller than this size, then they are not meant for sitting. They are still vessels, so they are susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  And those made of fish skin are free from all uncleanness.  Fish skin cannot become impure (see 10:1).
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  There are three different types of hides:That which is used as a rug is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  An animal hide used as a rug is sat and lain upon. Therefore, it is liable to midras.
  That which is used as a wrapper for vessels is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  If it is used to wrap vessels, it counts as a vessel because it "contains something." Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity, just not midras impurity.
  And that which is intended for straps and sandals is free from all uncleanness.  If the hide was made such that straps and sandals can be cut from it, it is not yet a vessel and it is not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  There are three different types of sheets:One used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness;One used as a curtain is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;And one used as a mural decoration is free from all uncleanness.I think by now the principles underlying this mishnah should be clear.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  There are three different types of napkins:One used for hands is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  The word that I have translated here as "napkins" really would be best translated as a small piece of cloth. If the cloth is used to clean one's hands, it is susceptible even to midras impurity because it is sometimes used to cover the seat cushion and then it is sat upon.
  One used for books is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  If it is used to cover a book, it counts as a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.
  And the one used as a shroud or a covering for the harps of the Levites is free from all uncleanness.  If the cloth is used only to cover a dead body or to cover a harp it is not considered a vessel. The difference between this and a book cover is that one continues to use a book when it is covered, whereas one cannot use a harp (or a dead body for that matter) when it is covered.
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  The word which I have translated "hip-boots" is based on Albeck's explanation of this mishnah. Traditional commentators explain the word to mean some sort of leather gloves.
  There are three different types of hip-boots:Those used by the hunters of animals and birds are susceptible to midras uncleanness;  According to Albeck, when hunters wear these boots, they cover all the way down to the foot. Since they are walked upon, they are susceptible to midras.
  Those used by locust gatherers are susceptible to corpse uncleanness.  The hip-boots used by locust gatherers are considered vessels, but they do not cover the feet. Therefore, they are not susceptible to midras. Note that in the time of the mishnah Jews would have eaten locusts. Today very few Jews do so, although certain locusts are still considered kosher.
  And those used by fig-pickers are free from all uncleanness.  The hip-boots used by fig-pickers are not considered vessels at all.
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  There are three different types of hair nets:A girl's is susceptible to midras uncleanness;  A girl's hair net is made so that it can also be sat upon. Therefore, it is susceptible to midras.
  An old woman's is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;  According to our mishnah, an old woman's hair net is not made to be sat upon, therefore it is not susceptible to midras. Note that in 28:9 the Mishnah will teach the opposite: a girl's is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness but an old woman's is susceptible to midras. Albeck seems to think that the version preserved in 28:9 is more accurate.
  And [the hair net] of a woman who "goes out" is free from all uncleanness.  There are two explanations for a woman who "goes out." Some explain this to be a temporary hair net used by a woman who merely goes out to the courtyard. Others explain that a woman who "goes out" refers to a prostitute. Her hair net does not cover much hair so it is not considered a vessel.
  
  Mishnah 17
  
  Introduction
  The last mishnah of this chapter (yes, we made it there) ostensibly follows the same literary pattern as the first sixteen mishnayot. It begins with the words "there are three types of…" However, the internal structure is quite different. The topic is baskets that are attached to other baskets in cases where one basket is pure and one is impure.
  There are three different types of baskets: If a worn-out basket is patched on to a sound one,  all is determined by the sound one; If a small basket is patched on to a large one  all is determined by the large one; If they are equal all is determined by the inner one.  Whereas in the previous sixteen mishnayot the "three different types of x" meant that one was subject to midras impurity, one to corpse impurity and one was pure, today's mishnah deals with three possible results of one basket being attached to another. If a worn-out basket is attached to a sound one, the purity/impurity is determined by the sound basket, because that is the basket that is essential. Thus is the sound basket is pure, both are pure, and if the sound basket is impure, both are impure. Similarly, if a small basket is attached to a large basket, the status of the large basket determines the purity/impurity of both baskets. If both baskets are equal in size and soundness, then the inner basket is the one that is essentially used so it determines the purity status. If the inner one is pure, both are pure and if the inner one is impure, both are impure.
  Rabbi Shimon says: if the cup of a balance was patched on to the bottom of a boiler on the inside, the latter becomes unclean; but if on the outside it remains clean. If it was patched on to the side, whether on the inside or the outside, it remains clean.  Rabbi Shimon extends the principle learned above. If an impure cup of a balance was patched on to the inside of a hot water boiler then the cup has the status of the "inside" vessel and the entire apparatus is impure. However, if the cup is patched onto the side of the hot water boiler, then the boiler is considered the inside vessel and the entire apparatus is pure. This is true even if the cup is inside the boiler. Since it is not attached to the bottom, it is not the main part and the boiler determines the status of the cup.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Most of chapter twenty-five deals with the differences between cases in which an impure liquid touched the inside of a vessel and cases in which the liquid touched the outside of a vessel. Mishnah six will teach this rule explicitly if the liquid touched the outside of the vessel, the inside remains pure. But if it touches the inside of the vessel, the outer side is impure as well. Our mishnah, as well as the subsequent ones discuss which vessels are deemed to have "insides" and "outsides" such that these rules apply.
  All vessels have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, as for instance, cushions, coverings, sacks and packing-bags, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: any vessel that has loops has [different laws] for inner and outer sides   but one that has no loops does not have different laws for outer and inner sides.  According to Rabbi Judah all vessels have different laws depending on whether the impure liquid touched them on the inside or the outside.  This includes even cushions etc, which might not seem to have insides and outsides because they can be reversed. Rabbi Meir however limits the distinction to cases where the vessel has loops on the outside through which one can put a belt or something else. If a vessel has loops sewn on the outside, then it is clear what side is supposed to face out and what side is supposed to face in. However, if there are no loops than the vessel could be turned inside out and used either way. In such a case there is no way to determine what is inside and what is outside. Therefore, it doesn't matter what side the impure liquid comes into contact with. It is impure.
  A table and a side-board  have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: they do not have a different law for their outer sides.  According to Rabbi Judah, the side of a table or side-table that is used is considered to be the inside. If an impure liquid touches this side, both sides are impure. However, the back side is the outside and if the liquid touches there, the inside remains pure. Rabbi Meir rules that such rules do not apply tables.
  The same applies to a frame.  Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir have the same argument concerning a tray. Rabbi Judah says that the face of the tray is considered its "inside" whereas Rabbi Meir holds that both sides are considered "inside."
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  An ox-goad has different laws for its outer and inner parts, [The outer part is] the seven handbreadths from the broad blade and four handbreadths from the point, the words of Rabbi Judah.  An ox-goad is the stick which was used to drive the oxen (to goad them on). On one end was a point. The other end was a broad piece of iron that was also used for plowing and for cleaning the dirt off the plow. According to Rabbi Judah beyond seven handbreadths on the piece of iron and four handbreadths on the point is considered the outer part of the ox-goad. If impure liquids come into contact with the ox-goad beyond these two points, the "inner" part of the ox-goad remains pure.
  Rabbi Meir says: it is not to [subject to such distinction],  the four and the seven handbreadths were mentioned only in regard to its remnants.  Rabbi Meir again disagrees and holds that there is no "inner" or "outer" portion for an ox-goad. He does admit that the numbers four and seven handbreadths were mentioned by earlier generations of sages. But he holds that these numbers were mentioned with regard to the remnants of an ox-goad, not with regard to the "inner" or "outer" sides. According to Rabbi Meir, if seven handbreadths of the blade or four handbreadths of the point remain, the ox-goad is still impure (or susceptible to impurity). Less than that and the ox-goad is pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Measures of wine or oil, a fork-ladle, a mustard-strainer and a wine-filter have an outer and inner side, the words of Rabbi Meir.  A "fork-ladle" is an instrument with a ladle on one end and a fork on the other end. According to Rabbi Meir, all of these vessels have inner and outer sides, so if an impure liquid touches them on the outer side, the inner side remains pure.
  Rabbi Judah says: they do not have.  Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that they do not have inner and outer sides. No matter where the liquid touches, the entire vessel is impure.
  Rabbi Shimon says: they do have, for if their outer parts contracted uncleanness that which is inside remains clean, and immersion is required.  Rabbi Shimon seems to bridge between these two opinions. These vessels do, in some sense, have inner and outer sides, and if an impure liquid comes into contact with the outer side, the content on the inside remains clean. However, the entire vessel requires immersion in order to purify it, even the inside of the vessel. In other words, the paradox is the inside of the vessel requires immersion, but the contents are clean.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If [in a measure consisting of] a quarter [of a log] and half a quarter [of a log] the quarter measure contracted uncleanness, the half-quarter measure does not become unclean, and if the half-quarter contracted uncleanness the quarter does not become unclean.  Today's mishnah deals with a measuring vessel that has two measures built into one vessel one that measures a quarter-log of liquid (about 1/2 a liter) and the other that measures a half-quarter of a log (about 250 ml). There is a partition that separates the two sides of the vessel. According to the first opinion, which later will be identified with Rabbi Akiva, both sides are basically considered to be independent vessels. If one measure becomes unclean, the other measure remains clean. In other words, one vessel is not the inside vessel and the other the outside.
  They argued before Rabbi Akiva:  since the half quarter measure is the outer part of the quarter measure, should not the outer side of the vessel whose inner side contracted uncleanness become unclean?  Some other figures, whose names are not mentioned, argue in front of Rabbi Akiva. These are probably students, as can be sensed from the way that Rabbi Akiva addresses them. In any case, they argue that since the main measuring cup is the half-quarter log, it should be considered the "inner" vessel. So if the inner, half-quarter log is defiled, the outer measure, the quarter-log, should also be considered impure.
  He answered them: Are you sure that it belongs to the category [of vessels] that have inner [and outer] parts? Perhaps the quarter is to be regarded as the outer side of the half quarter and, surely, the inner side of a vessel does not become unclean if the outer side contracted uncleanness.  Rabbi Akiva responds by noting that their assumption that the half-quarter is the inner vessel may not be correct. Rather, the half-quarter might be the outer vessel, in which case the other side is pure. Therefore, we have to treat each side as if it might be the outside, in which case no matter which side is defiled, the other side remains pure.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to discuss the measuring vessel that has two sides one of a quarter log and one of a half-quarter.
  If the [inside of the] quarter contracted uncleanness, the quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the half quarter and its outer side remain clean.  Having determined in yesterday's mishnah that each vessel is independent, the mishnah now deals with the thorny issue of their shared wall. If the inside of the quarter log became unclean, its own outer side is also unclean. However, the walls of the vessel that surround the half-quarter measuring cup remain clean.
  If the [inside of the] half quarter contracted uncleanness, the half quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the quarter and its outer side remain clean.  The same rules apply if the inside of the half-quarter vessel become unclean.
  If the outer side of the quarter contracted uncleanness,the outer side of the half quarter remains clean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the outer side cannot be divided.  According to Rabbi Meir, if the outer wall of the quarter vessel becomes unclean, only this outer wall is unclean. The outer wall of the half-quarter remains clean. In other words, although this wall surrounds the entire vessel, we look at it as if it were divided in half and only the part that surrounds the quarter is unclean. The other sages disagree and say that you can't divide the wall of a vessel in half. So if the outer wall of either side becomes unclean, both outer walls are considered unclean.
  When he immerses the vessel, he must immerse the whole thing.  Despite the fact that it is possible for one side to be clean and the other to be unclean, when he immerses the vessel, he must immerse both sides. If he does not do so, the vessel remains unclean. Note that this is similar to the end of mishnah three.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  The bases, rims, hangers or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which an unclean liquid fell, one dries them and they remain clean.  If an unclean liquid falls on an ancillary part of a vessel, such as its base, rim, hanger or handle, the entire vessel need not be immersed in the mikveh. It is sufficient to dry off the liquid and the vessel will remain clean. However, this is true only if the vessel is one that has a receptacle. In such a case we can distinguish between the main part of the vessel and its ancillary parts.
  But [if unclean liquid fell] on any part of any other vessel which cannot hold pomegranates (or in which no distinction is made between its outer and inner, the whole becomes unclean.  If the vessel cannot hold pomegranates, meaning it does not have a proper receptacle (see 17:1, 4), then no matter where the unclean liquid falls the whole vessel is impure. Alternatively, if the vessel is the type that is not considered to have an inside or an inside, which would preclude vessels with receptacles, then similarly the impure liquid defiles the whole thing. In such cases we can't distinguish between the main part of the vessel (the receptacle) and the ancillary parts, so we must treat the entire vessel as impure.
  If the outer side of a vessel contracted uncleanness from a liquid, only its outer side is unclean but its inner side, rim, hanger and handles remain clean. If its inner side contracted uncleanness the whole is unclean.  This section contains the general rule that has been mentioned throughout the chapter. If the outside becomes unclean, the inside is still clean, but if the inside becomes unclean, the outside is unclean. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah waits a full six mishnayot before providing us with the background which we need in order to understand what we're talking about. This demonstrates that the Mishnah is not a didactic text meant to teach students who do not know the Mishnah's laws. Rather, the Mishnah is better understood as a recording of the main halakhot and some discussions that serve as the background to rabbinic law and culture. Put another way in order to understand the Mishnah, you have to already know the Mishnah. If this makes it a bit frustrating for the beginning student, you can be thankful that we have two thousand years of commentary to help us along the way!
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the "bet tzviah" the rabbinic word for the place where the vessel is held. This is not a handle but rather an indentation in the wall of the vessel from where the vessel can be held. It is considered part of both the inner and outer sides of the vessel. If unclean liquids touch the bet tzviah the inner and outer sides remain pure. And if the outer part of the vessel becomes impure, the bet tzviah is still pure. But if the inner side of the vessel becomes impure, the entire vessel is impure.
  In the mishnah various sages debate the applicability of this law.
  All vessels have outer and inner sides and have a part by which they are held.  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, all vessels have a part by which they are held. This means that the rule reported in the introduction can apply to any vessel that has an indentation by which the vessel may be held.
  Rabbi Tarfon says: this applies only to a large wooden [kneading] trough.  Rabbi Tarfon limits this rule to a large wooden trough. The result is that if impure liquids came into contact with the outside of the trough, he can hold the trough by this part without his hands being defiled. This might be important if the kneader wants to ensure the purity of the bread, such that pure hallah could be separated from it and given to the kohen. But when it comes to other vessels, they are not considered as having a bet tzviah.
  Rabbi Akiva says: it applies to cups.  Rabbi Akiva says that the rule [also] applies to cups. This will allow one to drink from a cup whose outer side has become impure without defiling one's hands and perhaps defiling the contents of the cup.
  Rabbi Meir says: it applies to unclean and clean hands.  According to Rabbi Meir, if one's hands are unclean and the outer side of the vessel is clean and there is some liquid on the outside of the vessel, one can hold the bet tzviah and need not be concerned lest these liquids become unclean and defile the vessel. This is what Rabbi Meir means when he says that these laws apply to unclean hands. Tomorrow's mishnah will explain how they apply to clean hands, so stay tuned!
  Rabbi Yose says: they said this only concerning clean hands.  Rabbi Yose limits the applicability of these laws to clean hands. This shall be explained in tomorrow's mishnah. But if he has clean hands and he holds the vessel by its bet tzviah, he must be concerned lest the liquids were defiled and they would thereby defile the cup.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah teaches how the laws of the "bet tzviah" the indentation on a cup (or other vessel) through which the vessel may be held applies to clean hands. This was a point of agreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose at the end of yesterday's mishnah.
  How so?If one's hands were clean and the outer side of a cup was unclean, one may hold it by its holding-place and need not be concerned lest his hands have contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup.  If one has clean hands that have some liquid on them, and he wants to hold an impure cup without defiling the liquids on his hands which would then defile his hands, he can hold the cup by the bet tzviah, the holding place. In such a case he need not be concerned lest his hands accidentally touched the outside of the cup.
  If one was drinking from a cup whose outer side was unclean he need not be concerned lest the liquid in his mouth contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup and that it then conveyed uncleanness to the cup.  This section is independent of the halakhah taught in section one. It is brought here because of the similar formula "he need not be concerned." If one is drinking from a cup whose outer side is impure and whose inner side is pure he does not have to be concerned that the liquid in his mouth became impure and then conveyed impurity to the inside of the cup.
  If a kettle was boiling one need not be concerned lest liquid should come out from it and touch its outer side and return again within it.  The kettle is impure on the outside and pure on the inside. If one is boiling water in the kettle he need not be concerned lest the water boils over, becomes impure upon contact with the outside of the kettle and then spills back inside and conveys impurity to the inside of the kettle.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of chapter twenty-five gives a few general rules concerning the purity of vessels.
  Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held.  The laws concerning holy vessels are more stringent than the laws governing regular vessels. Therefore, if one side of a holy vessel becomes impure, the entire vessel is impure. Similarly, the holding place is not considered separate from the rest of the vessel. If any part of the vessel is impure, even the holding place is impure.
  One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use.  It is possible to purify multiple non-sacred vessels by immersing one vessel within another one in a mikveh. But the laws governing holy vessels are more stringent. Each vessel must be immersed separately.
  All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.  This section contains a crucial general principle with regard to the purity of vessels. Generally, a vessel is susceptible to impurity once its manufacturing has been completed. However, a vessel can become susceptible to impurity merely by intention, even if its manufacturing does not seem to be complete. For instance, if one has not fully completed the manufacturing of a vessel, but then decides that he is not going to work on it anymore and that he is going to use it as is, it is susceptible at that point to impurity (see 22:2, 26:5, 7). But if he has a vessel that is already susceptible to impurity and then he decides to modify it into a vessel that is not susceptible, it remains susceptible until he actually changes it. In other words, intent to use something as a vessel is sufficient to make it susceptible to impurity, but intent to change a vessel into a non-vessel is not sufficient. The mishnah further clarifies physical changes wrought on a vessel can annul both the original manufacturing of the vessel or the intent the person had to use the vessel before it was ready. Put another way physically modifying a vessel can make it no longer susceptible to impurity (see 20:6, 26:9). However, intent cannot annul the original intent to use the vessel in a certain manner, or the original manufacturing. Intention is weaker than action (a good motto for life, if you ask me).
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapters 26-28 deal with vessels made of leather and cloth. The general rule with regard to these vessels was stated in 2:1 if they are simple, they are clean but if they form a receptacle they are susceptible to impurity.
  Today's mishnah lists four vessels that are either laced or tied up.
  An Imki sandal and a laced-up bag, Rabbi Judah says: also an Egyptian basket; Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says: also to a Lattakian sandal can be made susceptible to uncleanness  and again be made insusceptible  without the aid of a craftsman.  The "Imki sandal" seems to have been made in a village called Imki. We don't really know much more about how this sandal was formed. Assumedly, it was a distinct enough brand that it would have been known to all by name. An "Egyptian basket" is woven from branches of palm trees. Lattakian sandals come from the town with that name in Syria, and assumedly they were distinctive as well. The commonality of all of these vessels is that even a lay person, one who is not a craftsman, can make these vessels and cause them to be susceptible to impurity. Such a person can also undo the vessels so that they are no longer susceptible to impurity. For instance, a non-expert can put the laces into a laced bag and thereby make it susceptible to impurity. He can also remove the laces and flatten the bag out such that the bag is no longer susceptible (we will learn more about the lace-bag in particular in tomorrow's mishnah).
  Rabbi Yose said: But can't all vessels be made susceptible to uncleanness  and again insusceptible  without the aid of a craftsman? Rather, these, even when they are unlaced are susceptible to uncleanness since a layman is able to restore them. They spoke only of an Egyptian  basket  which even a craftsman cannot [easily]  restore.  Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that all vessels can be made by a non-expert, if he knows how to do so. In other words, if a non-expert succeeds in making any vessel, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. And if he succeeds in taking it apart, it is no longer susceptible. In this respect, these four vessels are not unique. While Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous halakhah, he does acknowledge that these vessels are in some ways distinct from others. They were indeed "mentioned" in an older list and moreover, this list is connected to the distinction between acts performed by a craftsman and acts performed by a layman. The distinctiveness of these vessels is that even when they are untied, they are still susceptible to impurity because even a non-expert can retie and refashion them into a vessel. Of the vessels mentioned in section one, only the Egyptian basket is clean when it is untied because even an expert has trouble retying this vessel. Since this vessel is so hard to tie once it has been untied, it differs from the other vessels, and it is pure when untied.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A laced-up bag whose laces were removed is still susceptible to uncleanness; But if it was made flat it is pure.  If the laces from a lace-bag are completely removed, it is still susceptible to impurity. It only becomes pure if it is flattened out such that it does not have a receptacle (see yesterday's mishnah).
  If a strip of cloth has been put on it below, it is susceptible.  By taking a strip of cloth and sewing it below the lace-bag he changes the lace-bag into a regular pouch without laces. If he does so, it has a receptacle and it is susceptible to impurity.
  If a bag was within another bag and one of them became unclean from a liquid, the other does not become unclean.  In this case the rabbis were lenient because liquids defile vessels only "derabbanan" from rabbinic decree. According to Torah law, liquids cannot convey impurity to vessels. Therefore, if one bag was inside another bag and one bag came into contact with an unclean liquid, only that bag is defiled. The other bag remains pure.
  A pearl pouch is susceptible to uncleanness.  A pearl pouch is a small piece of leather sewed up to protect a pearl. It is susceptible to impurity.
  A money pouch: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is pure.  Rabbi Eliezer says that a money pouch is susceptible in the same way that a pearl pouch is. Both have receptacles, and therefore both can become impure. The sages disagree. A money pouch is opened frequently and when it is opened it no longer has a receptacle. Since it is so frequently found in its "simple" state, without a receptacle, it is considered a "simple" vessel and is not susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with various types of protective clothing worn by fruit-pickers.
  The hand-coverings of thorn-pickers are pure.  The hand-coverings used by thorn-pickers are simple pieces of leather, not fashioned fully into gloves. Since they do not have a receptacle, they are pure.
  A belt and leg guards are susceptible to uncleanness.  However, their belt or leg-guards are susceptible either because they do have receptacles or because they are considered to be vessels.
  Sleeves are susceptible to uncleanness.  The sleeves referred to here are not attached to a shirt, but are independent. They are susceptible for they are considered vessels, even though they don't have a receptacle.
  But hand-coverings are pure.  But hand-coverings (these are different from those mentioned in section one) are not susceptible.
  All finger-coverings are pure except that of fig-pickers, since the latter holds the sumac berries. If it was torn, if it cannot hold the greater part of a sumac berry it is pure.  Fruit-pickers would use finger-coverings to protect their fingers while harvesting the fruit. Generally these finger-coverings are simple pieces of leather and are pure. The exception is the finger-coverings used by fig-pickers for they would use these finger-coverings to hold sumac berries. If the fig-pickers finger-coverings were torn, they could no longer hold berries and they would be pure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean.  The sandal has two holes through which straps are put in to tie the sandal to the shoe. The mishnah deals with the purity of the sandal when one or both of these holes are broken. This type of mishnah, one which distinguishes between something that has midras uncleanness and something that had contact with midras uncleanness can be found in 18:6-7. My explanation here is similar to my explanation there. If one hole was broken, and then it was fixed, the whole sandal and even the part with the new hole, retain the midras uncleanness that was there in the original sandal. This is because the new hole is part of the old sandal and the old sandal never lost its impurity. However, if the second hole broke and then he repaired it as well, the sandal lost its original midras impurity because it is considered new. Although the original midras impurity is gone, the sandal does have a lesser degree of impurity because it was in contact with something that had midras impurity. When the first hole was repaired it contacted impurity from the rest of the sandal. And even when the second hole broke, and the sandal lost the impurity it had, it did not lose the impurity it had by being in contact with other impure parts of the sandal. This is because the bed continued to be usable. If both holes were broken at the same time, then the sandal is completely pure, even from contact with midras. This is because when both holes are broken, the sandal cannot be used.
  If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it     becomes clean.  In these cases the sandal is unusable and therefore it is pure.
  A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean.  The heel-less slipper has a forefoot but no heel (duh!). Since it is so insubstantial, any missing part renders it is unusable and pure.
  A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot.  If any shoe is damaged so much that it doesn't hold even the greater part of the foot, meaning at least half of the foot, it is pure.
  A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the shoe's manufacturing is not considered to be complete until it is removed from the last, the model upon which the shoe is formed. The sages disagree and rule that as long as the work on the shoe has been completed, it is susceptible to impurity.
  All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness,     except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean.  The mishnah now begins to deal with water skins. If they have simply been tied up but not sewn shut, they are not fully usable and therefore are pure. They need to be sewn in order to hold in water well. The one exception is the Arabian water skin which was customarily tied tightly and not sewn. Rabbi Meir says that if the tie is temporary, meant to last only a short time, the skin is not considered a vessel and is pure. But if it is tied with a permanent tie, then it is a vessel and is susceptible. Rabbi Yose disagrees with both previous opinions. All water skins that are tied up are pure, even Arabian ones, and even ones that are permanently tied. A water skin needs to be sewn in order to be considered a vessel.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  The following hides are susceptible to midras uncleanness: A hide which he intended to use as a rug, A hide used as an apron, A hide used as the lower covering of a bed, A hide used by a donkey-driver, A hide used by a flax-worker, A hide used by a porter, A hide used by a doctor, A hide used for a crib, A hide put over a child's chest, A hide for a cushion. A hide for a covering. All these are susceptible to midras uncleanness.  For a hide to be subject to midras uncleanness it must be either sat, laid or leaned upon. All of the following hides fit this criterion. I shall explain the ones that seem to require some explanation. A hide used by a donkey-driver: While usually put over his clothing, sometimes he would sit on this hide. A hide used by a flax-worker: Placed in front of the flax-worker to protect him while he beats the flax. A hide used by a porter: The hide covers his shoulders. A hide used by a doctor: As an apron. A hide put over a child's chest: Like a bib. While the main use of these hides is not necessarily for sitting, leaning or lying down, they are sometimes used in this manner and therefore they are susceptible to midras impurity.
  A hide for wrapping up combed wool and a hide worn by a wool-comber: Rabbi Eliezer says it is susceptible to midras, But the sages say that it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the hide used to cover combed wool and the hide used to protect wool-worker are also susceptible to midras, because sometimes one might sit or lie on them. The sages disagree and say that these types of hides are not sat or laid upon and therefore are susceptible only to corpse impurity, which is true of all vessels.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras.  Since these leather bags or wrappers are occasionally sat upon, they are susceptible to midras.
  A bag or wrapper for purple wool: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras, But Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness.  Purple wool was more expensive than regular cloth. Due to its expense, Bet Hillel holds that one would not use a bag or wrapper of purple wool for sitting or lying upon. Bet Shammai disagrees and does not differentiate between wrappers and bags for regular clothing and wrappers or bags for purple wool.
  A hide which was made to be a covering for vessels is not susceptible to uncleanness, but for weights it is susceptible. Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that it is pure.  A hide that is simply used as a covering for regular vessels does not have a receptacle and therefore is free from impurity. However, a hide used as a covering for weights used on scales does have a receptacle, so it is not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose states in the name of his father, R. Halafta, that even hides used to cover weights are not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Above, in 25:9 we learned that vessels can become susceptible to impurity by virtue of the fact that a person intends to use them in their current state, even though their manufacturing has not been entirely completed. Our mishnah limits that halakhah.
  Whenever no act is lacking, intention alone causes a vessel to be susceptible to uncleanness,  If a given article is in a physical state in which it can be used, it is susceptible to impurity as soon as a person decides to use it, even if its manufacturing has not been fully completed. Let's take a table for instance. If it was usable and the owner decided to not polish it and use it immediately, the table is susceptible.
  But whenever an act is lacking, intention alone does not render it susceptible to uncleanness, except for a fur cover.  But if the article cannot be used, then merely intending to use it does not render it susceptible to impurity. The exception to this rule is a fur cover, put over a saddle. This fur cover is susceptible as soon as a person decides to use it, even though he has not yet fully cut it into its proper shape. The reason for its "early" susceptibility is that it is not unusual for people to use unshaped pieces of fur to cover the saddle.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention.  If a householder, a non-professional, owns a hide, as soon as he decides that it is ready for use it is susceptible to impurity (providing it is usable in its current state). However, the same is not true of a tanner. Even if he decides to use a hide before its processing is fully completed, it is still not susceptible to impurity for he is likely to change his mind and go back and finish the hide's processing. In other words, since the tanner is a professional, he is less likely to be satisfied with less than perfect results. Therefore, his intention is less final.
  Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber  do not become susceptible by mere intention.  A "thief" is a person who surreptitiously steals something. His identity will not be known to those from whom he stole. A "robber" is someone who violently takes something in broad daylight. His identity will be known. According to the first opinion, if a thief steals something, the owners' will lose all hope of getting it back because they don't know who stole it. Therefore, the thief's intentions determine whether the article is susceptible to impurity. But if a robber robs something, they will have hope of recovering the item, and therefore his intention is not determinative.
  Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief  do not become susceptible by  intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery.  Rabbi Shimon reverses the reasoning expressed by the previous opinion. When a thief steals something, the owner hopes to get it back, because all he must do is discover who the thief is and he will be able to recover his item. But when a robber robs a person, right in front of their eyes and there was nothing they could do to stop it, the owner loses hope of recovering the item. [Note there is little faith in any form of law enforcement]. Therefore, a robber's intentions are determinative, and a thief's are not.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness and its owner then intended it to be used for straps or sandals, it becomes clean as soon as he put the knife to it, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: it does not become clean until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths.  The hide mentioned here is one that has already been designated for a use and then contracted midras uncleanness. The owner then decided to cut the hide up and use the leather for straps or sandals. Leather cut into straps for such use is pure (until it is attached to another vessel). According to Rabbi Judah, as soon as he begins to cut the leather up, it loses its status as a hide and it becomes pure. The other sages argue that it is not pure until it is reduced to a size of less than five handbreadths. A piece of hide less than five handbreadths in size is not considered usable (we will learn this in 27:2) and is pure. But simply beginning to cut the hide is not a sufficient act to free it from its impurity.
  Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: even if one made a napkin from a hide it remains unclean, But if [he made one from] a covering it becomes clean.  According to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, if one makes a small napkin out of a large hide used as a rug, the hide is still impure because a napkin is considered just a small rug. Merely reducing the size of a hide is not the type of physical change required to rid it of its impurity, because the leather is still being used in the same manner. However, if he changes a covering into a napkin he has changed the nature of the hide's usage. In this case, even though he changed it into another item that is susceptible to impurity (a napkin is susceptible), it loses its old impurity. While the new item will be susceptible, the impurity that was within the hide is gone.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness;Sack-cloth is susceptible to four;Leather to three;Wood to two;And an earthenware vessel to one.An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part.Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness   as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one.Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent.Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work.Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.Section one: There are five different ways in which cloth can become impure, and each way differs from the other in respect to how large a piece of cloth there needs to be for it to be susceptible. The first is a piece of cloth that has a receptacle. In such a case even the smallest piece of cloth is susceptible. The second is cloth that is either sat or laid upon. Such cloth is susceptible if it is three handbreadths. The third is a piece of cloth that functions as a "tent," meaning an overhanging. In such a case, the smallest piece of cloth is sufficient. The fourth is a woven piece of cloth; again, the smallest piece is susceptible. The fifth is that a piece of cloth that is three by three handbreadths is susceptible.Sections two-five: Below, the mishnah will explain these categories.Section six: If an earthenware vessel does not have a receptacle, meaning an "inside," then even its outside is not susceptible to impurity.Section seven: Wood can become impure by having a receptacle, like earthenware. Even without a receptacle, it is impure if it is made for sitting.If one makes a wood tablet without a frame it is susceptible to impurity, whereas an earthenware tablet without a frame is pure because it does not have a receptacle.Section eight: Leather that hangs over a dead body is impure, but if a wood or earthenware vessel hangs over a dead body, the vessel remains pure.Section nine: If sack-cloth is woven, even the smallest piece is susceptible to impurity.Section ten: As explained in section one, a piece of cloth is susceptible to impurity if it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Cloth is susceptible to midras uncleanness when it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths, and to corpse uncleanness when it is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. Sack-cloth when it is four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Leather, five handbreadths by five handbreadths. And matting, six handbreadths by six handbreadths. [All of these] are equally susceptible to both midras and corpse uncleanness.  This section provides minimum sizes for various materials to be susceptible to impurity. When it comes to cloth, there is a distinction between the minimum size susceptible to midras impurity and corpse impurity. For a piece of cloth to be susceptible to midras, it must be a piece of cloth that someone might use for sitting on or laying upon. Thus it must be at least three by three handbreadths. But for it to be susceptible to corpse impurity it need be only three by three fingerbreadths, which is quite a small piece of cloth. We can learn from here of the value of cloth during the mishnaic period people would save pieces as small as one's fist. When it comes to the other materials, there is no distinction between the minimum size to be susceptible to midras or corpse impurity. We should also note that the mishnah demonstrates the relative value of materials. Cloth was most valuable, then the coarser sack-cloth, then leather and finally matting, which was made from reeds.
  Rabbi Meir says: what remains of sack-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness if it is four handbreadths, but when in its first condition [it becomes susceptible only after its manufacture] is completed.  Rabbi Meir partially modifies the halakhah found in section one. Sack-cloth that remains from a larger piece of sack-cloth is impure as long as four handbreadths by four handbreadths remain. This accords with the previous opinion. However, when one first manufactures a piece of sack-cloth, it is not susceptible to impurity until it is finished. If it is unfinished, it is not susceptible, even if it is larger than four by four handbreadths.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If one made up a piece of material from two handbreadths  of cloth and one of sack-cloth, or of three of sack-cloth and one of leather or four of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to  uncleanness.  In this section, the piece added is subject to lesser restrictions, and therefore the entire piece is not susceptible to impurity. For instance, cloth needs to be three handbreadths to be susceptible (greater restrictions) and sack-cloth must be four (lesser restrictions). If he takes two pieces of cloth and adds one piece of sack-cloth, it is not susceptible, even though there are three handbreadths altogether.
  If the piece of material was made up of five handbreadths of matting and one of leather or four of leather and one of sack-cloth, or three of sack-cloth and one of cloth it is susceptible to uncleanness.  In contrast, matting must be six handbreadths (lesser restrictions) but leather only five (greater restrictions). So if he takes one handbreadth of leather and adds it to five handbreadths of matting, it is susceptible.
  This is the general rule: if the material added is subject to greater restrictions it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the material added was subject to lesser restrictions     it is not susceptible.  This is the general rule that explains the halakhot in sections one and two.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a person who takes a piece of one of the materials mentioned in mishnah two and cuts off a swatch one handbreadth by one handbreadth in order to sit on it.
  If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness.  If one takes a piece of cloth, leather, sack-cloth or matting and makes a one square handbreadth swatch in order to sit upon it, it is susceptible to midras impurity. The sages provided minimum measures which a piece of cloth needs to be to be susceptible, but only in cases where the cloth was not meant for a seat.
  [If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness.  The same rule applies if one cuts off a piece of material from the bottom of a basket.
  If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness.  There is a debate over whether a one square piece cut from the sides of the basket is susceptible. Rabbi Shimon holds that it is not. Albeck proposes that the sides of the basket are curved and not good for sitting, unless he reshapes the material. Therefore, simply cutting a piece from the sides to sit upon does not make it susceptible to uncleanness. The other sages disagree and say that even a piece cut from the side is susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Worn-out pieces of a sifter or a sieve that were adapted for use as a seat: Rabbi Akiva rules that they are susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages rule that they are not susceptible unless their rough ends were cut off.  If one takes a worn-out sifter or sieve and cuts a piece out of it to use as a seat (not really sure how comfy this must have been, but what do I know?), Rabbi Akiva says that it is immediately susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that before it can be considered a seat he must cut off the rough edges (see 20:4 for a similar dispute).
  A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness.  A child's stool (meaning chair, not the other kind ☺) need not be one handbreadth high to be susceptible to impurity.
  A child's shirt: Rabbi Eliezer rules it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size. But the sages rule: it is susceptible only if it is of the prescribed size, and it is measured when doubled over.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, a child's shirt can be of the smallest size and still be susceptible because it is considered a vessel. The other sages say that even a child's shirt must fulfill the minimum sizes mentioned in mishnah two. If it is made of cloth, it must be three handbreadths square and it is measured on each side, i.e. the front must be three by three and the back must be three by three as well.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday's mishnah we learned that a child's shirt is measured when doubled, meaning that it needs to be three handbreadths square on both sides. Today's mishnah teaches that there are other pieces of clothing that are measured doubled.
  The following are measured when doubled: Felt socks, long stockings, pants, a cap and a money-belt.  All of these articles of clothing are measured "doubled," meaning they must have three square handbreadths in the front and back for them to be susceptible to impurity.
  As regards a patch sewn on the hem, if it was simple it is measured simple, but if it was doubled it is measured when doubled.  If he sewed the patch on one side of the hem, then it is measured "singly" but if he sewed it on two sides, then it is measured doubled.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three by three handbreadths, and then it contracted midras uncleanness, and then he completed the rest of the piece, and then one removed a single thread from the original part, it  is free from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness.  When he makes a piece of cloth that is three by three, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. It then is defiled so that it has midras. When he makes the rest of the cloth, the whole piece of cloth has midras uncleanness. But then when he removes one string from the original three by three, the whole cloth loses midras uncleanness because only the original piece actually had midras, and it is no longer there. However, the cloth still has uncleanness by virtue of its contact with something that had midras. For a similar type of mishnah see 19:5.
  If he removed a thread from the original part and then he finished the whole cloth, it is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness.  In this case, first he made the three by three and it became impure and then he reduced it by a single thread, and then completed the rest of the cloth. Even though the cloth was reduced in size before he completed it, thereby losing its midras impurity, the whole cloth is impure by virtue of contact with midras. This is because the three by three piece of cloth is considered as having contact with itself before it was reduced. After it was reduced, although it can no longer have midras impurity, it still has impurity by contact with midras, and when he completes the cloth, the whole thing has impurity by contact with midras.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Similarly, if a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three [fingerbreadths] square, and it contracted corpse uncleanness, and afterwards he finished the entire piece, and then he removed a single thread from its original part, it is free from corpse uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness.  This is virtually the same halakhah as was found in section one of yesterday's mishnah, except that today's mishnah deals with a smaller piece of cloth, three fingerbreadths square. A piece this size cannot contract midras, but it can contract corpse impurity.
  If a thread was removed from the original part and then all the cloth was finished it remains clean, for the sages have ruled: if a piece of three [fingerbreadths] square is lessened it becomes clean.  If a three fingerbreadths piece of cloth contracts corpse uncleanness and then is reduced, it is completely pure. Even if he then enlarges the cloth, there is no impurity left, so the whole cloth is pure.
  But if one of three handbreadths square is lessened, even though it is released from midras, it is still susceptible to all other forms of uncleanness.  This is the difference between the type of impurity contracted by a three fingerbreadths piece of cloth, and one that is three handbreadths. A three handbreadths piece of cloth is still susceptible to other forms of impurity, such as corpse impurity. In contrast, something smaller than three fingerbreadths square is completely pure.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If a sheet that had contracted midras uncleanness was made into a curtain, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness.  Once he turns the sheet into a curtain it loses its midras impurity because it is no longer something that is sat or lain upon. However, the curtain is considered to have had "contact with itself," and therefore it is still unclean by virtue of contact with midras uncleanness.
  Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had  touched it  is it unclean from contact with a zav.  Rabbi Yose holds that having "contact with itself" does not cause something to be impure. In other words, if the sheet/curtain is no longer impure with midras, then it is not impure by virtue of contact with midras. However, this does not necessarily mean that the curtain (former sheet) is pure. If a zav (the one who conveys midras impurity) touched it when it was a sheet, he gave it both midras impurity because he sat on it and contact impurity by touching it. When it becomes a curtain, it loses its midras impurity because it is no longer sat or lain upon, but it retains its impurity by virtue of contact with the zav. Note that if the zav had sat or lain upon the sheet without touching it, it would have only had midras impurity and when it was turned into a sheet it would be completely pure.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square was divided,  it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness.  In order for the piece of cloth to be susceptible to midras uncleanness, it must be three handbreadths square, as we learned in mishnah two. If it is divided in half, each piece can no longer be unclean with midras, but each piece had "contact with itself." Therefore, both pieces retain uncleanness by virtue of contact with midras.
  Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had  touched it  is it unclean from contact with a zav.  Rabbi Yose's words here are exactly the same as in yesterday's mishnah. Again he holds that impurity is not conveyed by "contact with itself." Therefore, if the two halves of the piece of cloth do not have midras uncleanness, they also do not have uncleanness by contact with midras. Nevertheless, if a zav had actually touched the cloth, it retains the uncleanness contracted through contact with a zav. Such uncleanness is not lost when the cloth becomes less than three handbreadths square, as long as it is at least three fingerbreadths square.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah discusses how strong a small piece of cloth needs to be to be susceptible to impurity.
  If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must  be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt.  For the piece of cloth found in a garbage heap to be susceptible to impurity it must fulfill two conditions, besides the usual stipulation that it be three handbreadths square. First of all, it must be sound, meaning of strong quality so that it doesn't easily tear. Second, it must not have holes in it, so that it could be used to bundle up salt without the salt passing through. In contrast, a piece of cloth found in a house is more easily susceptible to impurity, because no one has discarded it. Thus it only needs to fulfill one of the criteria either strong quality or no holes (can carry salt).
  How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient.  The rabbis disagree as to what type of salt the cloth must be able to carry. According to Rabbi Judah it must be able to hold fine salt, whereas the sages say it needs to hold coarse salt. It would seem that Rabbi Judah is lenient, because he holds that the cloth is pure unless it can hold even fine salt, and that the sages are more stringent. However, the mishnah says that both the sages and Rabbi Judah intended to be lenient. Rabbi Judah was lenient as we explained above. But even the sages are lenient because they hold that the cloth is not susceptible unless it is strong enough to hold a quarter of a kav of coarse salt without the salt melting. Since coarse salt will last longer, the cloth will have to last longer to protect the salt.
  Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house.  Rabbi Shimon holds that just as a three fingerbreadths square piece of cloth that is found in a house is not susceptible to midras, but is susceptible to other types of impurity, so too a three handbreadths square piece of cloth found in a garbage heap is not susceptible to midras, but is susceptible to other forms of impurity.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  [A piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was torn: if he put it on a chair, and his skin touches the chair, it is pure; And if not, it remains pure.  The piece of cloth described here is torn, but has not yet been completely torn into two pieces. Therefore, we need a test to determine whether or not it is still considered one piece of cloth such that it should be susceptible to midras impurity. If when one puts the cloth on a chair and then sits on the chair, one's skin touches the chair, the cloth is considered as if it had been torn completely, and it is not susceptible. If the cloth does block his contact with the chair, then it is considered to be whole and is still susceptible to impurity.
  [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square one thread of which was worn away, or in which a knot was found, or in which two threads ran alongside each other, is pure.  The piece of cloth here is exactly large enough to be susceptible to impurity, but in some way something is awry with one of the strings. Either one of the strings was worn out, or a knot was found in one of the strings, or two of the strings ran parallel and not opposed to each other, as is supposed to be the case in woven garments. In all of these cases the cloth is considered to be smaller than three fingerbreadths and therefore it is pure.
  [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was thrown on the rubbish heap becomes pure. If he brought it back, it it becomes susceptible to uncleanness.  Throwing away a small piece of cloth renders it pure because it is no longer considered of use. Taking it back renders it again susceptible.
  Throwing it away always renders it pure and taking it back renders it susceptible to uncleanness, except when it is of purple or fine crimson.  There are two exceptions to the rule in section three purple and fine crimson cloth. Since these are such expensive materials, even throwing them away does not render them free from uncleanness.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: a patch of new cloth is also subject to the same law.  Rabbi Eliezer says that the same exception applies to a new piece of cloth. Since it is new, it is more important and even throwing it away does not render it free from impurity.
  Rabbi Shimon says: all these materials become pure; they were mentioned only in connection with the return of lost property.  Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the anonymous opinion in section four. All material is free from impurity when it is thrown into the garbage heap. However, there is a difference between purple and crimson cloth and regular cloth in that if one finds the former in the trash heap he must announce that he has found them in an attempt to find the owners. The assumption is that no one would throw away such fine cloth. But if one finds a piece of regular cloth in the trash heap, one can assume that it was intentionally thrown away and he may keep it.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  [A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball or was itself made into a ball is clean.But [a piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was stuffed into a  ball remains unclean.If he made it into a ball itself, it is clean because the sewing reduces its size.Section one: By making this small piece of cloth either into a ball or using it as stuffing for a ball, the cloth loses its importance and it becomes clean from impurity. Note that this does not mean that the ball is necessarily clean. It just means that the piece of cloth that used to be unclean has shed its impurity.Section two: In contrast, if one takes a larger piece of cloth and puts it into a ball it is still susceptible to impurity because it is still significant. However, if he sews the cloth into a ball itself, it still loses its impurity because it loses its size. A ball that is made of a less than three handbreadths piece of cloth is not large enough to be susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  [A piece of cloth] less than three [handbreadths] square that was adapted for the purpose of stopping up a hole in a bath house, of emptying a cooking-pot  or of wiping with it the mill stones, whether it was or was not kept in readiness for any such use, is susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, any time a worn-out piece of cloth that was too small to be impure was adapted for a specific use it goes back to being susceptible to impurity. The cloth might be used to stop up a hole in the floor of a bath-house. It might be used to hold a hot pot so that one could pour out its contents. Or it might be used to wipe up millstones. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cloth is impure whether or not it was previously designated for such usage. In other words, as long as it is being used, it is susceptible.
  Rabbi Joshua says: whether it was or was not kept in readiness it is pure.  Rabbi Joshua completely disagrees and holds that since the cloth is less than three handbreadths and it is worn out, it is no longer susceptible.
  Rabbi Akiba ruled: if  it was kept in readiness it is susceptible, and if it was not kept in  readiness it is pure.  Rabbi Akiva mediates between these two warring sages. If it was designated for such usage, then it was intentionally not thrown away (see 27:12). In this case it is still susceptible to impurity. However, if it was not designated for such usage, then even using it in such a manner does not change the fact that the cloth was discarded. In such a case, it is not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a bandage is made of cloth or leather it is pure. (Rabbi Yose says: with leather it is pure.)  A piece of cloth or leather that is used as a bandage on a wound will not afterwards be used for another purpose. Therefore, it is pure. Serving as a bandage is not sufficient for it to be considered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose's words are not found in many manuscripts of the Mishnah and they are probably out of place here. There actual context is mishnah six.
  A poultice is pure if it is on cloth, but if on leather it is susceptible. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if it was on cloth it remains susceptible to uncleanness because it can be shaken off.  If one puts a poultice on cloth, the cloth will no longer be used for another purpose. Therefore it is pure. However, if he puts it on leather, the leather can be cleaned off and reused. Therefore, the leather remains susceptible to impurity. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that even if put on cloth the poultice could be shaken off and the cloth reused. Therefore, the cloth also remains susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Covers of scrolls, whether they are decorated or not, are susceptible to uncleanness according to the view of Bet Shammai.  According to Bet Shammai, one might take a scroll covering and convert it for another usage. Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity.
  Bet Hillel says: those that are decorated are pure, but those that are not decorated are susceptible.  Bet Hillel says that this is true only of an undecorated scroll cover. It might be converted to other usage. However, a decorated scroll cover is not susceptible because one would take such a beautiful scroll cover and use it for some other need. Note that this accords with the mishnah in 24:14.
  Rabban Gamaliel says: both the former and the latter are pure.  Rabban Gamaliel says that even undecorated scroll covers will not be used for another purpose. Therefore they are pure.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with various cases where one cloth item that is susceptible to impurity is turned into a different item that is also susceptible to impurity. The question is: does it lose its earlier impurity?
  If a head-wrap that had contracted midras uncleanness was wrapped around a scroll, it is released from midras uncleanness but it remains susceptible to corpse uncleanness.  Head-wraps are susceptible to midras impurity for occasionally a person will use it for sitting. However, undecorated scroll covers are susceptible only to corpse uncleanness (see yesterday's mishnah). So when he changes the head-wrap to a scroll cover it loses its midras uncleanness but it is now susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  A skin that was made into a rug or a rug that was made into a skin becomes clean.  A skin for carrying liquids is not in the same category as a rug. Therefore, if one changes a skin into a rug or vice versa, the vessel is pure. Note that it is susceptible to impurity; it only loses its old impurity.
  A skin that was made into a [shepherd's] wallet or a [shepherd's] wallet that was made into a skin; Or a cushion cover that was made into a sheet or a sheet that was made into a cushion cover; Or a sheet cover that was made into a plain sheet or a plain sheet that was made into a sheet cover, remains unclean.  In all of these cases he changes something to something else that is in the same general category. Therefore, the object retains its impurity.
  This is the general rule: any object that has been changed into one of the same class  remains unclean, but if into one of another class it becomes clean.  This is the general rule that explains the distinction between the case found in section two and that found in section three.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a patch was sewn on to a basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness.  The piece of cloth (the patch) discussed in today's mishnah was already defiled with midras impurity. Then someone used it to patch up a basket, thereby transforming it from a vessel that is sat upon to a vessel that is not sat upon. The patch loses its midras impurity. The entire basket, including the patch, is now impure by virtue of its contact with something that had midras impurity. This is first degree impurity and anything that touches it will now have second degree impurity. This is what the mishnah means when it states "it conveys one grade of uncleanness." And when terumah touches something with second degree impurity, it becomes "unfit," although it is not impure. This is the meaning of "one of unfitness."
  If it was separated from the basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, but the patch becomes clean.  If he separates the patch from the basket, the basket retains its level of impurity, but the patch is pure. Note that it has shed its midras impurity (see 18:8).
  If it was sewn on to cloth it conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness.  If he puts the patch on a piece of cloth, it doesn't lose its midras impurity and all of the cloth becomes impure with midras. This is because the function of the cloth has not changed. Something that has midras impurity is a "father of uncleanness" and conveys first degree uncleanness to things that come into contact with it. Therefore, this cloth conveys two degrees of uncleanness (father to first degree to second degree) and one degree of unfitness (second to third degree).
  If it was separated from the cloth, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, while the patch conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness.  When it is removed from the cloth, the cloth's level of impurity is reduced. Now it only has "contact with midras" impurity, which is first degree. The patch, however, never changed its status, and therefore it still has midras impurity.
  The same law applies to a patch was sewn on to sacking or leather, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean. Rabbi Yose says: if [it was sewn] on leather it becomes clean; but if on sacking it remains unclean, since the latter is a woven material.  According to Rabbi Meir, it doesn't matter whether the cloth onto which the patch was sewn was made of cloth, sacking or leather. Rabbi Meir holds that sacking and leather are really types of cloth and therefore in all cases when the patch is removed, it retains its impurity. Rabbi Shimon holds that sacking and cloth are not types of cloth. Therefore, it is like patching a basket which is of a different type, and when he removes the patch it will be pure. Rabbi Yose holds that sacking is a sub-category of cloth because like cloth it is woven. However, leather is different from cloth and therefore, if used to patch a cloth and then removed, the patch is pure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  The three ( square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square.  In 27:2 we learned that for a piece of cloth to be susceptible to impurity it must be at least three fingerbreadths square. According to Rabbi Shimon, this does not include the hem. Some commentators interpret this to mean that it doesn't include the strings that come out of the edges of the piece of cloth. The other rabbis disagree and hold that as long as the piece of cloth is at least three fingerbreadths square, the cloth is susceptible to impurity.
  If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected.  If a patch is sewn on to the cloth and it is attached only at one side, then it is not considered to be attached to the cloth. If the cloth is impure, the patch remains pure and vice versa.
  If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected.  If it was sewn on two opposite sides, it is sufficiently attached for it to be considered connected and for impurity to be conveyed from one to the other.
  If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean.  To be sewn on in the shape of a gamma means that it was sewn on two perpendicular sides. Rabbi Akiva considers this connection to be sufficient to convey impurity from the patch to the cloth and vice versa. But the sages say that if the patch is unclean, the cloth remains clean because this is not sufficient for it to be considered connected.
  Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected.  Rabbi Judah says that the rule in section two applies only if the garment under discussion is a cloak that is worn above one's other garments. In such a case, a patch sewn on by one side will not stay well on the garment. But when it comes to an undershirt, if the patch is sewn to the shoulder part of the shirt, it will stay in place and therefore it is considered connected. But if it is sewn by one side only onto the lower side of the shirt, it will not stay in place and therefore it is not considered connected.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Poor men's clothes, though made up of pieces none of which is three [fingerbreadths] square are susceptible to midras uncleanness.  Poor people's clothing is susceptible to midras uncleanness even if each piece is smaller than three fingerbreadths square. This is because poor people settle for whatever clothing they can find and therefore what they consider worthy of wearing might be thrown out by others.
  If a cloak began to be torn, as soon as its greater part is torn [the pieces] are not regarded as connected.  The two parts of the cloak are considered to be separate once the greater part of the cloak is torn. At this point, if one piece is impure, the other can remain pure.
  Exceptionally thick or thin materials are not governed by the prescribed minimum of three [fingerbreadths] square.  If material is exceptionally thin or thick, it is not usable. Therefore, it is not subject to the usual rule that a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square is susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A porter's pad is susceptible to midras uncleanness.  A porter's pad is what the porter places on his back to help him carry his load. Since he sometimes sits on it while resting, it is susceptible to midras impurity.
  A wine filter is not susceptible to uncleanness as a seat.  People don’t sit on wine filters, so they are not susceptible to uncleanness as seats.
  An old woman's hair-net is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat.  An old woman might sit occasionally on her hair net. Therefore, it is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Note that this mishnah disagrees with a mishnah that we learned in 24:16.
  A prostitute's shirt which is woven like a net is not susceptible to uncleanness.  A prostitute's shirt is not considered clothing. I guess it was simply too revealing. Therefore, it is not susceptible to uncleanness, just as her hair covering is not susceptible (see 24:16).
  A garment made of fishing net is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one made of its bag is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a garment is made out of a fishing net but is made double it is susceptible to uncleanness.  The garment made of fishing net is not substantial enough to count as clothing, therefore it is not susceptible. But the bag at the bottom (see 23:5) is closed and therefore if one makes a garment out of it, the garment is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that if the fishing net is doubled over, then it too is substantial enough for a garment made of it to be susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the susceptibility to impurity of a hair-net.
  A hair-net that one began to make from its upper hem remains pure until its bottom section is finished. If one began from its bottom section, it remains pure until its hem is finished.  When making a hair-net, it is not considered completed until both the top hem and bottom hem are finished, and it doesn't matter whether one begins to sew from top to bottom or bottom to top.
  Its head band is susceptible to uncleanness in itself.  The head band is considered a vessel independent of the rest of the hair-net and therefore is susceptible even if separate. Furthermore, it is not considered connected to the head band and if it is impure, the hair-net can still be pure.
  Its strings are susceptible to uncleanness because they are connected.  The strings which come out of the hair-net are considered connected, because they cannot be removed. Therefore, if the hair-net is impure, the strings are impure as well.
  A hair-net that is torn becomes pure if it cannot contain the greater part of the hair.  Once the hair-net is torn enough such that it cannot contain the greater part of the hair, it is no longer functional and it is not susceptible to impurity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  The fringe strings of a sheet, a scarf, a head-wrap and a felt cap [are regarded as connected]  up to a length of six fingerbreadths;Those of an undergarment up to ten [fingerbreadths].The fringes of a thick wool cloak, a veil, a shirt, or a light cloak [are regarded as connected] up to a length of three fingerbreadths.The fringes of an old woman's head-wrap, of Arabian face wraps, of Cilician goat's-hair clothing, of a money-belt, of a turban or of a curtain are  regarded as connected whatever their length may be.Today's mishnah continues to discuss the strings that hang off a garment and whether they are considered connected to the garment.For certain garments, only part of the strings are considered as connected to the garment. The reason seems to be that anything longer is going to be removed. Therefore, these parts are not connected. But small amounts of strings that hang out from a garment may be retained, and are therefore considered connected. And with some garments, no matter how long the strings are, they are retained and therefore they are considered connected.With this in mind, the mishnah is understandable on its own and therefore there is no commentary below.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Three woolen pillow-covers, six linen ones, three sheets,  twelve handkerchiefs, two pant-sleeves, one shirt, one cloak, or one winter-cloak,  can be regarded as connected in respect of both uncleanness  and sprinkling.  If one sews or weaves together a combination of these numbers of items, they are considered connected in terms of both uncleanness and sprinkling. What this means is that if one becomes impure, all are impure and if one is sprinkled with the waters of purifications (red heifer waters) all are clean. Note that the number of pieces that can be sewn or woven together depends on the size of the cloth. Small pieces such as handkerchiefs can have large numbers but larger garments such as a cloak cannot be considered as connected to other cloaks. Once something is that big, attaching it to another large piece would be cumbersome and probably was not done. It seems to me that the smaller pieces may have been sewn together by merchants carrying them to market.
  If they exceed this number they are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Rabbi Yose says: not even in respect of uncleanness.  If there are more than this number sewn together the law is stringent. This means that they are regarded as connected for matters of uncleanness, so if one is unclean all are unclean. But when it comes to purification, they are not considered connected, and all must be sprinkled upon for them to be pure. Rabbi Yose says that the law is consistent. Just as they are not considered connected with regard to the laws of sprinkling, so too with regard to the laws of uncleanness they are not considered connected.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The string of a [common] plumb-line is regarded as connected up to a length of twelve [cubits]; That of the carpenters’ plumb-line, up to eighteen [cubits]; And that of the builders’ plumb-line up to fifty cubits. The parts that exceed these lengths, even if it was desired to retain them, are pure.  The string of a plumb-line is regarded as connected for most types of plumb-lines as far as is generally necessary to drop the weight. A common plumb-line is only used for twelve cubits, a carpenters' is used for 18 and a builders for fifty (that's a pretty high building). Anything beyond that is pure, even if he wishes to retain the extra length.
  The plumb-line of plasterers or moulders is regarded as connected whatsoever its length.  Plasterers and moulders work on walls and therefore can use plumb-lines of any length.  Therefore, no matter how long it is, it is considered connected.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  The cord of the balances of goldsmiths or the weighers of fine purple cloth is regarded as a connective up to a length of three fingerbreadths,  The cord is attached to the balance in the middle and it is used to grip the balance. Three fingerbreadths are sufficient for this small cord, and therefore any longer and it is not considered connected to the balance.
  The handle of an axe behind the grip, up to a length of three fingerbreadths. Rabbi Yose says: if the length behind the grip is no less than one handbreadth the entire handle is unsusceptible to uncleanness.  The "handle" of an axe is the part directly behind the hole in which the blade is inserted. Up to three fingerbreadths of this handle are considered connected to the axe. Rabbi Yose adds that if the handle is more than one handbreadth, it will interfere with the functioning of the axe and it is all pure.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with how much of a vessel is regarded as connected to the vessel.
  The cord of the balances of shopkeepers or householders is regarded as connected up to a length of one handbreadth.  These cords are regarded as connected for a greater length than those mentioned in mishnah four, assumedly because a longer cord is needed to weigh heavier material. Gold and purple cloth, the topic of yesterday's mishnah, are expensive and therefore smaller amounts will be measured.
  The shaft of an axe in front of the grip, up to one handbreadth.  This is the part of the axe that is used, as opposed to yesterday's mishnah which referred to the back part which is not used. Therefore, the connected part is longer.
  The projection of the shaft of a compass, up to one handbreadth.  I must admit that I don't have a clear picture of how their compass looked. In any case, this part of the compass is considered attached up to a length of one handbreadth.
  That of the shaft of the stone-masons’ chisel, one handbreadth.  This handle is also considered connected up to a length of one handbreadth.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  The cord of the balances of wool dealers  or of glass-weighers is regarded as connected up to a length of two handbreadths.The shaft of a millstone chisel, up to a length of two handbreadths.The shaft of the battle-axe of the legions, up to a length of two handbreadths.The shaft of the goldsmiths’ hammer, up to a length of two handbreadths.And that of the blacksmiths' hammer, up to three handbreadths.Today's mishnah continues to list how much of various cords and shafts are considered connected to the main vessel, be it a balance or a type of axe, or a type of hammer.The principles behind this mishnah are the same as those behind the other mishnayot we have already learned in this chapter. Therefore, there is not much commentary below.Section two: A millstone chisel is used to roughen the surface of the millstone so that it will more effectively grind the grain.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its upper end is regarded as connected up to a length of four [handbreadths].The shaft of a spade, to a length of four [handbreadths].The shaft of a weeding-spade, to five handbreadths.The shaft of a small hammer, to five handbreadths.That of a common hammer, to six handbreadths.The shaft of an axe used for splitting wood or of one used for digging, to  six [handbreadths].The shaft of the stone-trimmers’ axe, up to six handbreadths.Another mishnah discussing the lengths of shafts. If you're getting a bit bored with this (and I'm sure you're not) don't worry, we are almost done with the tractate!As with yesterday's mishnah, I have commented below on the sections that I believe need some extra clarification.Section one: We discussed the ox-goad briefly in 25:2. This shaft seems to work similarly to the shaft of an ax. The mishnah discusses the "remnant" which is the part that sticks upward out of the ox-goad. It is considered connected up to a length of four handbreadths.I am trying to put a picture in here that I found on the web, but I'm not sure that you will all receive it. If you don't google "oxgoad" and you should be able to find some pics.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its lower end is regarded as connected up to a length of seven handbreadths.The shaft of a householders' shovel Bet Shammai says: to a  length of seven handbreadths, And Bet Hillel says: eight handbreadths.That of the plasterers: Bet Shammai says: nine handbreadths And Bet Hillel says: ten handbreadths.Any parts exceeding these lengths, if he wanted to retain it, is also susceptible to uncleanness.The shafts of fire instruments are susceptible to uncleanness whatsoever their length.Section one: Concerning the ox-goad, see yesterday's mishnah. Yesterday's mishnah referred to the upper end, whereas today's mishnah refers to the lower end.Section two: The next two sections contain disputes between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning the length of the shaft of different types of shovels. It is curious that the two houses have not had any disputes until the end of this chapter. I would imagine that indeed they did dispute many other vessels mentioned in this chapter, but for some reason the editors of the Mishnah did not preserve their disputes.Section four: The lengths of the shafts or cords for all of the vessels mentioned in this chapter are default lengths. What this means is that up to such a length is always susceptible to impurity and we can assume that beyond that length is pure, because the person doesn’t really want the cord or shaft to extend beyond that length. However, as this section notes, if one does want to retain the shaft or cord for a greater length, then whatever he wants to retain is susceptible to impurity. In other words, his personal intention can supersede the default.Section five: It is understandable why one might want a very long handle on an instrument used with fire. Therefore, the handle is susceptible to impurity for as long as it might be.[By the way you just finished the chapter. Only one more chapter to go four days!]
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter thirty, the final chapter of Kelim (phew!), deals with the rules of purity that relate to glass vessels.
  Glass vessels--those that are flat are pure and those that have receptacles are susceptible.  This general rule was already taught in 15:1.
  After they are broken they become clean. If he again made vessels of them they become susceptible to uncleanness from that point and onward.  Once a glass vessel is broken, it is not usable. Therefore it is pure it loses any impurity that it once had, and it is not susceptible to impurity. If one repaired the glass such that it could again be used, it is considered a new vessel and is susceptible to impurity from that point and onward. It does not regain its old impurity.
  A glass tray or a flat dish is pure. If it has a rim it is susceptible.  These glass vessels are usually flat. Therefore, they are pure. However, if they have a rim, they are susceptible to impurity because they have a receptacle.
  The concave bottom of a glass  bowl or plate which was adapted for use is pure. If it was polished or scraped with a file it becomes susceptible to  uncleanness.  This section refers to the bottom of a bowl or plate that remained after the bowl or plate was broken. The person then made some modification so that he could use them. Despite the fact that these do now have a receptacle, and would seem to be susceptible to impurity, they are still pure because the edges are still rough. However, if he polished the edges, the vessel is now susceptible to impurity because it is finished.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A mirror is pure.  A mirror is pure because it is a glass vessel without a receptacle.
  A tray that was made into a mirror remains susceptible, but if it was originally made to serve as a mirror it is pure.  A glass tray is susceptible to impurity. Therefore, even if he backs it up with some metal to be able to use it as a mirror, it is still considered a tray and it is still susceptible to impurity. However, if he made it to be a mirror from the outset, it is pure, even if it could be used as a tray. Reading this mishnah made me a bit curious concerning the history of mirror making. I found the following in Wikipedia: Metal-coated glass mirrors are said to have been invented in Sidon (modern-day Lebanon) in the first century AD,[6] and glass mirrors backed with gold leaf are mentioned by the Roman author Pliny in his Natural History, written in about 77 AD.[7] The Romans also developed a technique for creating crude mirrors by coating blown glass with molten lead.[8] It would seem that our mishnah would serve as additional evidence for the existence of glass mirrors during the first two centuries C.E. If any of you out there are Wikipedia editors, maybe you should even write this reference in!
  A large [glass] spoon that has been placed on a table is susceptible to uncleanness if it can hold anything whatsoever.  The test of whether this spoon is susceptible is whether it can stand on a table and still retain its liquid. If it can, everyone considers it a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity.
  But if it cannot do so: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible, And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure.  If the spoon cannot hold liquids when placed on the table, Rabbi Akiva still considers it impure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the purity of glass cups.
  A cup the greater part of which is broken off is pure.  If most of the cup is broken off, it is unusable and no longer susceptible to impurity.
  If it was broken in three places extending over its greater part it is pure.  If there are three breaks spread out onto the greater part of the cup, it is also pure. However, if the three cracks are all in the same place and most of the cup is intact, the cup can remain impure or susceptible to impurity.
  Rabbi Shimon says: if it lets the greater part of the water leak out it is pure.  Rabbi Shimon adds that if the cracks are sufficient such that it lets most of the water out, then it is pure.
  If a hole appeared in it and it was mended with tin or pitch it is pure. Rabbi Yose says:  if with tin it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if with pitch it is pure.  According to the first opinion, even though he fixed the hole in the cup with tin or pitch it is still pure. According to this opinion, it is not really possible to fix glass cups. Rabbi Yose holds that if one fixes the cup with tin it is considered repaired and is again susceptible to impurity. He agrees that if it is fixed with pitch, it is still not susceptible. Assumedly, the one drinking from the cup will taste/smell the pitch while he will not taste or smell the tin.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of Kelim (yes, it really is) deals with the purity of various glass flasks.
  A small flask whose neck  was removed remains susceptible to uncleanness,  A small flask whose neck was removed is still usable. Therefore, it is still susceptible to impurity.
  But a large one whose neck was removed becomes pure.  However, a large flask used to store oil or wine, one that requires two hands to hold, can no longer be used if its neck is broken because its contents will be spilled.
  [A small flask] of spikenard oil whose neck was removed becomes pure, since it scratches the hand.  Spikenard oil is a fragrant oil used for perfume. One would use this oil by putting a finger into the flask and then dabbing the oil onto one's body. If the flask's neck is broken one will cut one's hand when taking out the oil. Since the flask cannot be used properly, it is not susceptible to impurity.
  Large flagons whose necks were removed remain susceptible to uncleanness, since they are adapted for the use of holding pickled foods.  Large flagons (a type of jar) whose neck is broken off can still be used to pickle vegetables. Therefore, they are still susceptible.
  A glass funnel is clean.  Glass vessels must have a receptacle to be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, a glass funnel is pure.
  Rabbi Yose said: Happy are you Kelim; for you began with uncleanness, but you ended with cleanness.  Even Rabbi Yose wanted to celebrate when finishing Tractate Kelim. The first mishnah in the chapter, which we learned on October 31 (!), over eight months ago, dealt with the "fathers of impurity." In other words, the tractate began by dealing with matters of impurity and the final section of the last mishnah deals with a vessel that is pure. Thus we have moved from a state of impurity to purity. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Kelim! I bet you never thought this day would really come. Seriously, as I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Kelim is the longest tractate in the Mishnah, and as I noted above, we began to learn it many months ago. While it is at times hard for us to comprehend, the laws of purity were a major part of the religious life of Jews from the time of the Torah through the Second Temple period, and as we see, continued to be a major focus of rabbinic law. I do admit that the tractate did tend to get a bit detailed (understatement) and without a clear picture of what all of these vessels looked like, it is hard to understand some of the laws. Nevertheless, we did learn some important principles that will help us throughout the rest of our learning. I am sure that we will review most of these as we can continue to learn together. Our learning of Seder Toharot continues tomorrow with Tractate Ohalot, where we learn the laws associated the impurity of a dead body.