meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה טהרות
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot
  
  Introduction
  
  Toharot means purity. Indeed this tractate has the same name is the entire Seder.  There are three topics discussed in Tractate Toharot. 
  1) The purity of food and liquids.  The Torah explicitly states that food and drink can be susceptible to impurity. For instance Leviticus 11:34 reads, "As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become unclean if it came into contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become unclean if it was inside any vessel."   The rabbis hold that the impurity of liquids is greater than that of food. This is expressed in several differences between how these materials convey impurity. Food conveys impurity to other food and liquids but it doesn't convey impurity to vessels. In contrast, impure liquids convey impurity to vessels as well as other food and liquid.  Another stringency is that a liquid gets first degree impurity whether it came into contact with a "father of impurity" or a derivative thereof. If it now comes into contact with another liquid the second liquid also gets first degree impurity. This continues on no matter how many subsequent liquids are touched (see Parah 8:5-7).  The third stringency is that the smallest amount of liquid conveys impurity, whereas food must be the size of an egg in order to defile something else.
  2) Doubtful impurity in the private and public domain. The tractate deals with the category of "doubtful impurity" meaning cases where something may or may not have been impure in either the public or private domain. From the laws concerning the Sotah (the doubtfully adulterous woman) the sages derived that all cases of doubtful impurity arising in the private domain are deemed as impure. The Sotah woman is prohibited to her husband because she may have been defiled by adultery. This doubtful impurity occurred in the private domain (where she may have hid from her paramour). Just as the doubtful impurity that occurs with the Sotah happens in the private domain, so too all cases of doubtful impurity that occur in the private domain are deemed impure. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with purity rules that govern the carrion of a clean bird. Leviticus 17:15 states, "Any person, whether citizen or stranger, who eats what has died or has been torn by beasts shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening, then he shall be clean." The rabbis interpret this verse as referring to clean birds, meaning birds that can be eaten if slaughtered in a valid manner. This distinguishes the impurity of the carrion of a bird from the carrion of a beast which is referred to in Leviticus 11:39-40.
  There are thirteen rules with regard to the carrion of a clean bird. They are outlined in today's mishnah and in tomorrow's.
  Thirteen rulings govern the carrion of a clean bird:There must be intention;  For the carrion of the clean bird to be impure he must have thought about using it for food. For instance, he might have thought about giving it to a non-Jew. In contrast, regular food that is permitted to a Jew need not have been intended to be eaten for it to be susceptible to impurity.
  It need not be rendered susceptible;  The carrion need not be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid for it to defile. This is because it itself is impure, unlike other foods that are merely susceptible to impurity. The bird carrion is treated like impure food even though it did not come into contact with anything impure.
  It conveys food uncleanness if its minimum bulk is that of an egg;  If clean food comes into contact with a piece of bird carrion the size of an egg, the clean food becomes defiled with second degree impurity.
  And it conveys uncleanness  when in one's gullet  if its minimum bulk is that of an olive;  If a person eats of this carrion (it is forbidden to do so, but he does so anyway) as long as the carrion is in his gullet he is a "father of impurity." During this period he will defile clothes and vessels which he is contact with. This is how the rabbis interpreted the verse quoted in the introduction above.
  He that eats of it must wait  until sunset [to be clean];  The person who eats the carrion remains impure until the evening. He is not purified just by immersing in the mikveh. This is stated explicitly in the verse above.
  Guilt is incurred on account of it for entering the sanctuary;  If one eats the carrion and then unwittingly enters the Temple while still impure, he is liable for entering the Temple while impure. He will need to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin.
  Terumah is burned on account of it;  If the carrion touches terumah it defiles it and the terumah must be burned. Similarly, if a person eats the carrion and then touches terumah, it must be burned.
  He who eats a limb of it while it is alive suffers forty lashes;  If one eats a limb torn from a living clean bird he is liable for eating a limb torn from a living animal. Elsewhere we learn that other sages say that this law is applicable only to limbs torn from beasts. The punishment for this is forty lashes, the same punishment that is, at least theoretically, applicable to one who transgresses any negative commandment.
  Slaughtering it or nipping [off its neck] cleanses it even if it is terefah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: they do not cleanse it. Rabbi Yose says: the slaughtering  does cleanse it but nipping does not.  A terefah is a bird/animal that has been found to have a defect that would have caused it to die (for a list of such defects see chapter three of Hullin). A bird that is a terefah defiles, as does carrion. According to Rabbi Meir, if one slaughters a bird correctly, or if it is a sacrificial bird one nips off the head at the neck (this is how birds were sacrificed), and then it turns out that the bird is a terefah, the bird is not impure. In other words, since the bird was properly slaughtered, it doesn't defile, even if in the end, it was not edible. Rabbi Judah says that since the bird is after all inedible, it still defiles. Rabbi Yose argues that melikah (nipping off the head of a bird sacrifice) does not cause it to be pure, if it is found to be a terefah. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose argue out their logic in Zevahim 7:6, see there for more information.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of the list of 13 rules regarding the carrion of a clean bird.
  The large feathers and the down contract uncleanness and  convey uncleanness  but do not combine [with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum]. Rabbi Ishmael says: the down does combine [with the flesh].  When it comes to matters of purity and impurity, the large feathers and the downy feathers both count as part of the bird. Therefore, they can both be defiled and defile other things. However, when it comes to making up enough to have a minimum measure to defile (the amount of an egg if the issue is food defilement, or the amount of an olive if the issue is the defilement caused in the gullet) the feathers do not join together with the flesh of the bird. In other words, let's say one has 3/4 of an egg's worth of bird flesh and 1/4 of an egg's worth of feathers, the total amount if impure does not convey impurity because it is not sufficient. You would need a sufficient amount of flesh or feathers alone. The reason seems to be that the feathers and flesh are both part of the bird but they are off different categories. Therefore, they don't join together. Rabbi Yishmael says that the downy feathers are like the flesh and therefore they do join together to convey impurity.
  The beak and the claws contract uncleanness  and  convey uncleanness and also combine [with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum].  The beak and the claws are considered to be part of the bird for all purposes. They even join with the flesh to constitute a minimum measure. Perhaps this is because, unlike feathers which can't be eaten, the beak and claws could either be eaten (I'm pretty sure that I read a story about how claws were a delicacy in China) or at least put into some kind of soup.
  Rabbi Yose says: also the ends  of the wings and the end  of the tail combine [with the flesh to constitute the minimum] since they are left unplucked on fattened birds.  Rabbi Yose adds that the tips of the wings and tip of the tail are left on fattened birds and eaten with them. Therefore, they too join with the rest of the flesh to convey impurity and to become impure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The carrion of an unclean bird requires intention; and it must be rendered susceptible;It conveys food uncleanness  if its minimum bulk is that of an egg;The consumption of a half of half a loaf's bulk of it renders one's person unfit to eat terumah;There is no rule that an olive's worth defiles in the gullet;He who eats of it need not wait for sunset;No guilt is incurred on account of it for entering the sanctuary;But on account of it terumah must be burnt.He who eats a limb of it while it is alive is not subject to the penalty of forty stripes;Slaughtering it does not render it fit.The large feathers and the down contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and combine with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum.The beak and the claws contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and combine [with the flesh to make up the prescribed minimum].The mishnah now proceeds to talk about the purity rules governing the carrion of an unclean bird, one that is not "kosher." As we will see, some of these rules are the same as those we saw with regard to the carrion of a clean bird, but some are different.Section one: The carrion of an unclean bird (a bird that one is not allowed to eat) is not unclean in a ritual purity sense, in and of itself. In order for it to become unclean, first one would have to have the intention to eat it and then it would have to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid. If these two things happen, and then it comes into contact with a source of impurity, it is impure. This differs from the carrion of a clean (edible) bird, which is a source of defilement in and of itself.Section two: If it becomes impure, it now conveys impurity if there is the minimum size of an egg.Section three: If a person eats an amount of carrion of unclean bird that is equivalent to the size of two eggs (half of the size of half of a loaf of bread) he cannot eat terumah until he immerses in a mikveh. This is the usual amount to cause a person to become impure through eating something impure.Section four: Unlike the carrion of a clean bird, there is no special rule concerning one who swallows the amount of an olive. Such a person remains pure.Section five: One who eats an amount the size of half of a half of a loaf of bread is impure, but he is pure immediately after he goes to the mikveh. He need not wait for the sun to set.Section six: The defilement caused by eating this amount is only rabbinic. Therefore, if someone enters the sanctuary after having done so, he is not liable for transgressing a biblical commandment.Section seven: Nevertheless, if this person touches terumah, the terumah must be burned. This is because terumah can be burned even if the level of the impurity is only rabbinic.Section eight: The biblical prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal refers only to clean animals (and birds). Therefore, one who eats the limb of a living unclean bird is not liable for transgressing the biblical commandment. [Please understand this doesn't mean that one can do so, just that one who has done so is not liable for transgressing that particular negative commandment. He has transgressed another.]Section nine: Obviously, slaughtering it does not render the unclean bird fit for consumption. This type of bird is unclean and forbidden for eating in all cases. The truth is that this clause is overly obvious. It is only here because it contrasts with the case of the clean bird.Sections ten and eleven: When it comes to the unclean bird, since it is never permitted to be eaten, the edible and inedible parts combine to convey uncleanness.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This entire mishnah, save for the first word, can be found in Hullin 9:1. After having explained the rules governing the purity/impurity of the carrion of clean and unclean birds, the mishnah discusses cattle, meaning large herd animals (sheep, goats and cows).
  The hide, meat juice, sediment, dried-up meat, bones, sinews, horns and hooves join together [to make up the minimum quantity in order] to convey food-uncleanness, but not to [make up the minimum quantity in order to] convey nevelah-uncleanness.  These are all parts of the animal that are not generally or ever eaten. However, these parts, joing together with the generally edible parts of the animal to create a minimum volume the size of an egg to convey uncleanness to other foods if the animal was rendered unclean. The reason is that all although these parts are not eaten on their own, they are sometimes eaten with other parts of the meat. Alternatively, some of these things protect the meat of the animal, even if they themselves are not eaten. Therefore, they join with the meat in adding up to this minimum value. However, these things do not join together with the rest of the meat to cause nevelah-uncleanness, which requires the minimum volume of an olive.
  Similarly, if a man slaughtered an unclean animal for a Gentile and it still has convulsions, it can convey food-uncleanness, but it conveys nevelah-uncleanness only after it is dead, or its head has been chopped off.  This animal cannot be eaten by a Jew or by a Gentile. It can’t be eaten by a Jew because it is an unclean animal, for instance a camel. It can’t be eaten by a Gentile because it is still convulsing and is therefore prohibited under the Noahide prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal. Nevertheless, this animal is considered food because just as when a Jew slaughters a kosher (clean) animal he causes it to be able to receive impurity, so too when he slaughters a non-kosher animal, he causes it to be able to receive impurity. However, it is not considered a nevelah in order to convey nevelah uncleanness until it is truly dead or has its head cut off. If its head is cut off, it is considered dead even if it is still convulsing.
  [Scripture] has [thus] made more cases that convey food-uncleanness than those that convey nevelah-uncleanness.  The mishnah closes by noting there are more cases where something conveys food-uncleanness than nevelah uncleanness.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with food that has become unclean and how much of it needs to be gathered together to convey uncleanness.
  Food that contracted uncleanness from a "father of uncleanness" and one that contracted uncleanness from a derived uncleanness   may be combined together   to convey uncleanness according to the lighter grade of the two.  Food that has become unclean by contact with a "father of uncleanness" such as a sheretz, has first degree impurity. If it had contact with derived uncleanness, then it has second degree impurity. The mishnah now will illustrate how 1/2 of an egg's worth of food with one level of impurity can combine with another half of an egg's worth of food with another level of impurity to create the requisite amount to convey impurity.
  How so? If the amount of half an egg of food that has first grade uncleanness and the amount of half an egg of food that has second grade uncleanness were mixed together, the two are regarded having second grade uncleanness.  The two half eggs that are mixed are considered only to have second degree impurity. This is the lighter form of impurity. If this piece of food comes into contact with terumah it will render the terumah invalid.
  And if the amount of half of an egg of food that has second grade uncleanness and the amount of half an egg of food that has third grade uncleanness were mixed together, the two are regarded as having third grade of uncleanness.  The piece of food with third degree uncleanness will render sacred things (such as sacrifices) invalid, but it will not disqualify terumah.
  If the amount of an egg of food having first grade uncleanness and the amount of an egg of food having second grade uncleanness were mixed together, both are regarded   as having first grade uncleanness; But if they were then divided, each part is regarded as having second grade uncleanness. If each part separately fell on a loaf of terumah, they cause it to become unfit. But if the two fell together they cause it to have second grade uncleanness.  In this case, both pieces of food are the size of an egg. Here, both are treated more stringently, as if both have first degree uncleanness. If after they were mixed together he separated them, then both are treated as if they have only second degree uncleanness, because both pieces now have less than an egg's worth of the original piece that had first degree uncleanness. If each of these pieces now falls separately on a piece of terumah, both are treated as if they have second degree impurity and they render the terumah invalid. They do not, however, cause it to be impure. However, if they both fall on one piece of terumah, then we know that an egg's worth of food that has first degree impurity fell on the terumah and the terumah now has second degree impurity.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues yesterday's mishnah which discussed quantities of food that have different levels of impurity that were mixed together.
  An egg's worth of food that has second degree uncleanness and an egg's worth of food that has third decree uncleanness that were mixed together are regarded as having second degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is regarded as having only third degree uncleanness. If each part separately fell on a loaf of terumah they do not render it invalid. But if the two fell together they convey to it third degree uncleanness.  This section is the same as the last section in yesterday's mishnah, only here the two pieces of food have second and third degree impurity. Food with third degree impurity does not invalidate terumah. But food with second degree impurity does invalidate terumah, although it doesn't defile it.
  An egg's worth of food that has first degree uncleanness and an egg's worth of food that has third degree uncleanness that were mixed together are regarded as having first degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is regarded as having only second grade uncleanness, for even the third grade that touched the first has become only a second grade.  In this case one piece has first degree and one piece has third degree. When the piece with third degree touches the piece with first degree, it now has second degree impurity. This now becomes a case of one piece with first degree and one piece with second degree, the same case as we had in yesterday's mishnah.
  If two eggs worth of food that have first degree uncleanness and two eggs worth of food that have second degree uncleanness were mixed together they are regarded as having first degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is still regarded as having first degree uncleanness. But if they were divided into three or four parts, each is regarded as having second grade.  Here there are two eggs with first degree and two eggs with second degree. The difference between this situation and the previous ones is that even when the piece is divided into two, it still has first degree impurity because there is still an egg's worth that has the higher degree. The pieces go down to the lower degree of impurity only if they are further divided up into three or four pieces.
  If two eggs worth of food having second degree uncleanness and two eggs worth of food having third degree uncleanness were mixed together, they are regarded as having second degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is still regarded as having second degree uncleanness. But if they were divided into three or four parts, each is regarded as having only third degree uncleanness.  The same situation as in section three only the two pieces have second and third degree impurity and not first and second.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with loaves or pieces of dough that are stuck together. The principle is that if one loaf or piece of bread is defiled, they are all regarded as defiled. They retain this impurity even if they are later separated.
  Pieces of dough which are stuck to each other  or loaves stuck to each other, if one of them was defiled from a sheretz, they all become unclean in the first degree; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having first degree uncleanness.  All of the loaves have first degree impurity because one had contact with the sheretz. They retain this even when they are separated.
  If one of them was defiled by a liquid they all have second degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as have second degree uncleanness.  Impure liquids always have first degree impurity. Therefore, the loaves or dough has second degree impurity.
  If one of them was defiled from the hands, they all become have third degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having third degree of uncleanness.  Hands are considered to have second degree impurity. If the loaves are of terumah, they will be invalidated but not made impure. If the loaves were holy, then they are impure.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with pieces of dough that have different levels of impurity and then become stuck together.
  A piece of dough that had first degree uncleanness, and then others became stuck to it, they all become unclean in the first degree. If they were separated, it still remains unclean in the first degree but all the others are have only second degree uncleanness.  The pieces of dough that are stuck to the original piece of dough are considered to become part of the original piece. Therefore they too have impurity in the first degree. If they are subsequently separated, the original piece retains its first degree impurity. The other pieces have second degree impurity because they came into contact with the piece that had first degree impurity.
  If [the original piece] had second degree uncleanness and then others became stuck to it, they all become unclean in the second degree; If they were separated, it still remains unclean in the second degree but all the others are only unclean in the third degree.  The same situation as in section one, just the original piece has second degree impurity. [This tractate seems to enjoy doing this repeating the same scenarios over and over again with foods that have different levels of impurity.]
  If [the original piece] had third degree uncleanness, and then other became stuck to it, it remains unclean in the third degree but all the others remain clean, whether they were subsequently separated from it or whether they were not separated.  Something that has only third degree impurity does not defile other things, even if the other thing is attached to it. It only invalidates holy food and the bread referred to here is probably terumah.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Holy loaves  in whose hollows there was holy water, if one contracted uncleanness from a sheretz, they all become unclean.  The holy loaves are for instance the showbread or the two loaves brought on Shavuot. There is holy water, meaning water whose purity was preserved in order to be used with sacrifices, in the hollows within the loaves. This water, as we shall see, can act as conveyor of impurity. The first loaf has contact with a sheretz, which causes it to have first degree impurity. The next loaf has second degree impurity and the third loaf has third degree impurity. The third loaf defiles the water in its hollows such that the water has first degree impurity. The reason for this is that anything that defiles holy food, meaning even something with third degree impurity, causes holy water to have first degree impurity. The water then ups the level of defilement within that very loaf causing it to have second degree impurity, which will then defile the next loaf. Thus all the touching loaves will be defiled, if all of them are holy loaves.
  In the case of loaves of terumah, uncleanness is conveyed to two loaves and one is invalidated.  If the loaves are terumah, the process is arrested quicker. The first loaf has first degree impurity and the loaf that touches it has second degree impurity. The third loaf is invalid, although not impure. It doesn't convey impurity to the fourth loaf. It also doesn't defile the water in its hollows. This is because this loaf, or anything with third degree impurity in cases of terumah, doesn't cause water to become impure.
  If there was dripping liquid between them, even in the case of terumah all become unclean.  In this case the liquid is dripping, meaning that if one puts one's hand on it, it will become moist. The first loaf has first degree impurity and every subsequent loaf has second degree impurity. This is because since there is a greater quantity of water it becomes defiled with first degree impurity. It then causes the loaf that touches it have second degree impurity and on and on, no matter how many loaves there are. In sum, we can see that water is a great conduit for impurity and that things that are really moist are even better conduits of impurity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  When learning this mishnah it is important to remember that produce is not susceptible to impurity until it has been made wet.
  A woman who  was preserving vegetables  in a pot and touched  a leaf outside the pot on a dry spot, even though the leaf had an egg's bulk of volume, it alone becomes unclean  while all the rest  remains clean.  The woman is preserving some vegetables that are either terumah or are regular vegetables whose purity she wishes to preserve as if they had the sanctity of terumah. She is preserving the vegetables in either vinegar or salt. Note that the only reason a woman and not a man is mentioned is that it seems that women were more likely to do this work than men. The same laws would apply to men. Before the pickling, the vegetables had not come into contact with liquid to make them susceptible to impurity. The vegetables and the leaf sticking out of the pot did become susceptible when she poured liquid on them to begin the preserving process. If she touches the leaf at a dry spot the leaf becomes impure with third degree impurity because hands have second degree impurity. In this case it doesn't matter how big the leaf is, only the leaf will be impure. The leaf doesn't convey impurity to the attached vegetables because things with third degree impurity don't defile terumah.
  If she touched it at a wet spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean. If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If it is returned into the pot, everything becomes unclean.  In this case the leaf was wet when she touched it. If the leaf is the size of an egg, then it will convey its impurity to other things. The liquid on it now has first degree impurity, and it conveys second degree impurity back to the leaf. The leaf will convey third degree impurity to the vegetables in the pot. However, if the leaf is smaller than the size of an egg, while it is impure because there is no minimum size for produce to receive impurity, it will not convey uncleanness because food needs to be the size of an egg to convey impurity. If the leaf goes back into the pot, then the liquid on the leaf will convey its impurity to the liquid in the pot and everything will be impure. There is no minimum amount for liquids for them to convey impurity.
  If the woman was unclean due to contact with one who had corpse uncleanness, and she touched the leaf either at a wet spot or at a dry spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean; If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean.  In the previous two sections the woman's hands had second degree impurity, as do all hands unless they have been ritually cleansed. In this section, she had contact with something (either a person or a vessel) that had been defiled by a corpse. The woman has first degree uncleanness. The difference here is that the leaf will have second degree uncleanness even if it is not wet. Again, if it is large enough it will convey its impurity back into the pot.
  If a woman who was a tevulat yom emptied out the pot with unwashed hands, and she observed some liquid on her hands, and it is uncertain whether it was splashed from the pot or whether a stalk had touched her hands, the vegetables are invalid   but the pot remains clean.  A "tevulat yom" is one who has been to the mikveh but has not yet had the sun set. She has second degree impurity. She pours out the pot while her hands also have second degree impurity. While doing so she notices that some water has gotten onto her hands. If the water sprayed out of the pot, then it doesn't affect the contents of the pot. But if her hand touched the stalk of one of the vegetables in the pot, then the liquid on it would be impure and it would convey impurity back into the pot. The rule is that in cases of doubt with regard to a tevul yom, they do disqualify terumah. Therefore, the vegetable(s) itself is impure and if it is terumah will not be able to be eaten. However, the pot itself remains pure for a tevul yom does not defile liquids causing them to have first degree impurity (see Parah 8:7).
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  The rabbis decreed that a person who eats unclean food becomes unclean. In our mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagree with regard to his level of uncleanness.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness  contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness].  Rabbi Eliezer's system is simple. A person takes on the level of impurity of the food he ate. Literally, you are what you eat.
  Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah.  According to Rabbi Joshua, if one eats food that has either first or second degree impurity, he gets second degree impurity. This will mean that he will defile terumah. The reasoning is explained by analogy to food. Food with second degree impurity can give other food second degree impurity, if the second food is wet. The food with second degree impurity defiles the liquid, which takes on first degree impurity. The liquid can then defile the other food, giving it second degree impurity. But there are no cases where food with first degree impurity can give other food first degree impurity. Therefore, argues Rabbi Joshua, the same is true with human beings. According to Rabbi Joshua if he eats food with third degree impurity, he gets second degree impurity vis a vis holy things. This means he will defile holy things such as sacrifices. However, he will not defile or even invalidate terumah, because vis a vis terumah he does not have second degree impurity. The mishnah concludes by noting that the previous clause refers not only to terumah, meaning one who ate terumah that had third degree impurity, but even to common food that was prepared with the intent of it being eaten with the sanctity of terumah. This refers to the practice of some pious Jews, including perhaps the Pharisees, who strived to preserve the purity of all of the food that they ate, not just terumah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah provides some basic rules as to the implications of the levels of impurity in common food, meaning non-sacred food, neither terumah nor sacrifices.
  First [degree uncleanness] in common food is unclean and conveys uncleanness;  Hullin (regular or common food) that has first degree uncleanness can defile other foods, giving them second degree uncleanness.
  Second [degree uncleanness] invalidates but does not convey uncleanness.  Hullin that has second degree uncleanness invalidates other food. If the other food is terumah, the terumah is invalid. If the other food is hullin which the person wishes to eat with the sanctity of terumah, then it is invalid. But it doesn't give other food third degree impurity.
  And third [degree uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish mixed with terumah.  Basically, there is no such thing as hullin with third degree impurity. If food came into contact with other hullin food with second degree impurity, that food can be eaten in a dish with terumah because it is not all impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is the same pattern as yesterday's mishnah, except it deals with terumah. As we shall see, the rules governing terumah are one degree stricter than those governing common food.
  First [degree] and second [degree uncleanness] in terumah are unclean and convey uncleanness;  When it comes to terumah, even something with second degree uncleanness can defile other terumah.
  Third [degree uncleanness] causes invalidity but does not convey uncleanness.  Terumah with third degree impurity is invalid but it does not convey uncleanness to other terumah with which it comes into contact.
  And fourth [degree uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish containing holy food.  Basically, there is no such thing as fourth degree uncleanness when it comes to terumah. Something that has been in contact with third degree uncleanness can be eaten in a dish with holy food.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is the same as the previous two mishnayot except it discusses holy food, such as sacrifices. Again, the purity rules are one degree stricter.
  First, second and third [degrees of uncleanness] in holy foods are unclean and convey uncleanness;  When it comes to holy food, even food with third degree uncleanness can convey impurity.
  Fourth [degree of uncleanness] is invalid and causes no uncleanness;  Food with fourth degree uncleanness is invalid but doesn't convey uncleanness onward.
  And fifth [degree of uncleanness]   may be eaten in a dish containing holy food.  There is no such thing as fifth degree uncleanness. Such food can be eaten together with other holy food.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah builds on the three previous mishnayot but adds in the factor of liquids, which as we have seen on many occasions, amplify impurity.
  Second [degree uncleanness] in common food conveys uncleanness to unconsecrated liquids and causes invalidity to terumah food.  We learned before that food with second degree impurity invalidates terumah. This mishnah teaches a rule: anything that invalidates terumah also conveys impurity to non-sacred liquids, even if the food wouldn't defile common food. So common food (hullin) with second degree impurity defiles all liquids, but when it comes to food, it only disqualifies terumah.
  Third [degree of uncleanness] in terumah conveys uncleanness to consecrated liquids and causes invalidity to holy food that was prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to holy food; But if it was only prepared under conditions of cleanness appropriate to terumah, it conveys uncleanness at a first and at a second remove, and causes invalidity to holy food at one additional remove.  The same is true with terumah food that has third degree uncleanness. It conveys first degree impurity to holy liquids, because terumah with third degree uncleanness does invalidate holy food. The mishnah now adds a caveat to this previous rule. If the terumah food was prepared in order to have the sanctity of holy food, then if it has third degree impurity it disqualifies holy food but doesn't cause it to be defiled. But if it was prepared under the conditions of purity appropriate to terumah, it is not considered to have been guarded for the purpose of being used with holy food. Therefore, it is treated as if it has first degree impurity. It will defile the first thing it touches, and that will defile something else, giving it third degree impurity. The third thing will invalidate holy food.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  In today's mishnah Rabbi Eliezer presents his version of exactly how defilement works. The disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the other sages is brought at the end of this mishnah.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent.The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes  and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food.  Food that has first degree impurity, no matter what it is (hullin, terumah or holy food), conveys impurity in the same way. This will now be explained. If any food with first degree impurity comes into contact with holy food it conveys uncleanness in two removes. What this means is that if it touches something it gives it second degree impurity and the second degree food conveys third degree. The third degree only invalidates the holy food this food will not convey any other impurity down the line. In the case of terumah it conveys second degree impurity and the second degree invalidates the terumah that it touches. And if it touches common food it invalidates it (in reality it gives it second degree impurity) but such food will not convey any impurity onward.
  The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove  and causes invalidity at one additional remove  in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food.  Food that has second degree impurity cause holy food to have third degree impurity and this holy food will invalidate other holy food that it touches. It will defile common liquids, giving them first degree impurity. Note that it will not defile common food, just liquid. And it will invalidate terumah food.
  The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food.  Something that has third degree impurity will not defile anything common or terumah. But it will cause holy liquids, such as sanctified wine or oil, to have first degree impurity and it will invalidate holy food. This is where Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the other sages. He holds that terumah that has third degree impurity does not convey uncleanness at two removes and invalidity at one extra remove, as does the opinion in mishnah six. Furthermore, he holds that even common food that has third degree impurity can defile holy food, whereas the previous opinion said it needed to have second degree impurity to do so.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If one eats food with second [degree uncleanness   he must not work in an olive-press.  A person who eats food with second degree uncleanness gets second degree uncleanness, as we learned in mishnah two. Therefore, he shouldn't work in an olive press because when he touches the olive oil, he will convey to it first degree uncleanness, because it is a liquid.
  Common food that was prepared under conditions proper to the cleanness of consecrated food is still regarded as common food. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: it is regarded as terumah to convey uncleanness at two removes and to render terumah invalid at one additional remove.  The mishnah again makes reference to common food (hullin) that was prepared under the conditions of purity that are normally used for holy food. Such food is still considered to be hullin, and therefore there is no such thing as third degree impurity. Food that had contact with such food that had second degree impurity can still be eaten. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that it is like terumah. First and second degree are impure, third degree is invalid but doesn't convey impurity onward. In other words, by treating this common food as if it was holy, it does attain added holiness.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  We have learned previously that impure liquids always have impurity in the first degree. Only food can have second and third degree impurity. Our mishnah deals with liquids that then become solids.
  Sauce, bean-mash and milk, when in a condition of fluidity, are unclean in the first degree.  While they are in their liquid state, these liquids, if they are defiled, have first degree impurity.
  If  they turned solid they become unclean in the second degree.  When they turn into solids, they lose their first degree impurity but they still retain second degree impurity. This is because as it solidified, the solid part was touching the liquid part and the liquid conveyed second degree impurity to the solid.
  If they again melted: If their bulk was exactly that of an egg, they are clean. But if it was more than the bulk of an egg they remain unclean, for as soon as the first drop issued forth it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk.  If they melt again, they are now no longer food, but they have lost their original liquid impurity. If there is exactly an egg's worth then it is pure. This is because as soon as one drop melted the solid part was less than an egg, and food needs to be the size of an egg to convey impurity. So the drop remains pure, as does the rest. However, if there is more than an egg, then when the first drop melts it is defiled by the solid part. That drop will subsequently defile all the following drops and the whole thing will be impure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Rabbi Meir says: oil always remains unclean in the first degree. And the sages say: honey also. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: also wine.  Rabbi Meir says that unclean oil retains its first degree of impurity even if it becomes solid and then melts again and there is exactly the volume of an egg (see yesterday's mishnah, which discussed sauce, barley-mash, and milk). This is because when it became solid it was neither a liquid nor was it considered food. Therefore, when it turned back into a liquid, it is considered as never having lost its status as liquid. The sages add that the same is true of honey. This refers to honey directly flowing from the hive. R. Shimon Shezuri adds in wine as well.
  A mass of olives that fell into an oven that was heated: If [the olives] were exactly the size of an egg it [the oven] remains pure; But if it was more than that of an egg the oven becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If the olives were separated even if there was a se'ah of them, it remains clean.  A mass of olives that are stuck together and are impure falls into a hot oven. As food, the olives do not defile the oven because food does not defile vessels. But if liquid comes out of the olives and is impure it will defile the oven because liquid can defile vessels. If the olive mass is only exactly the amount of an egg, it won't defile the oven. Even if liquid begins to flow from the mass when it hits the oven, the remainder of the mass is less than an olive, so it doesn't defile. But if it was more than an egg, then as soon as the first drop comes out, the food will defile the liquid and the liquid will then defile the oven. If the olives fall separately into the oven, then each is less than the size of an egg, and even if liquid comes out of the olive, the oven will remain pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with cases where one drop comes out of something, becomes impure through contact with the food from which it came and then conveys uncleanness back to the food.
  A man who had corpse uncleanness who pressed olives or grapes: If its bulk was exactly that of an egg, the juice remains clean provided he does not touch the place on which the liquid is; But [if the bulk was] more than that of an egg, the juice becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out, it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk.  The impure person is pressing olives or grapes, and we need to know whether he conveys his impurity to the grape juice or olive oil. If the amount of juice or oil is exactly the volume of an egg, then the juice or oil remains pure, for the same reason we learned in the first two mishnayot of our chapter. Once the first drop is removed, there is less than an egg's worth of food and less than an egg's worth of food is not susceptible to impurity. However, the mishnah notes, if the person with corpse impurity touches the liquid then the liquid is impure and all subsequent drops will be impure as well. But if there is more than an egg's worth of liquid then all of the juice (or oil) will be unclean because the first drop is defiled by contact with the impure olives or grapes.
  If the person was a zav or a zavah [the juice] becomes unclean even if only one berry [was pressed out], for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by carrying.  The difference between a zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) and a person who has corpse impurity is that a zav or zavah defiles through carrying, even if they don't touch that which they are carrying. So in this case, it doesn't matter how many berries (of grapes or olives, both are called "berries") the juice will be impure by virtue of its being carried by a zav or zavah.
  If a zav milked a goat, the milk becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop comes out it becomes unclean by carrying.  Similarly, if a zav milks a goat (notice, goat and not cow) the milk will immediately be defiled even if the zav doesn't touch it because a zav conveys impurity by carrying.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with food that originally was large enough to be impure (or to have some other rule apply to it) and then became smaller because it was left out in the sun.
  If an egg's bulk of food was left in the sun and it was lessened,  and so also in the case of an olive's bulk of corpse, an olive's bulk of carrion, a lentil's bulk of a sheretz, an olive's bulk of piggul, an olive's bulk of notar, or an olive's bulk of forbidden fat they become clean;  In all of these cases something was the requisite size to convey impurity or to be impure. It was then left in the sun and it dried out and thereby lost the requisite size. Since the object is no longer large enough, it becomes clean. I will explain what each of these items is: Food: needs to be the size of an egg to become impure. Pieces of corpse, carrion (an animal that was not properly slaughtered) and a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing): needs to the size of an olive to transmit impurity. Piggul: is sacrificial meat slaughtered by a priest who had the intent to eat the meat in the wrong place or at a time when it couldn't be eaten. Notar: sacrificial meat left over beyond the time when it should have been eaten. Forbidden fat: helev, the forbidden fat of a permitted animal.
  Nor is one liable on account of these for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat.  Just as the piggul, notar and forbidden fat do not convey impurity if their bulk becomes less than an olive, so too one who eats them is not liable for karet, which is the usual punishment for eating one of these substances.
  If they were then left out in the rain and they swelled, they become unclean and guilt is incurred on account of them for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat.  If any of these substances is left out in the rain, it returns to its original impurity and if one eats one of the latter substances (piggul, notar or forbidden fat) he is liable.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah begins a new subject which will be discussed until the end of chapter six cases of doubtful impurity.
  Our mishnah deals with a doubt concerning when something became impure or became susceptible or unsusceptible to impurity.
  All cases of uncleanness are determined according to their appearance at the time they are found: If they were then unclean they are assumed to have been unclean [all the time]; And if clean they are assumed to have been clean [all the time].  This clause means that if a substance is found and it currently is large enough to convey impurity or to be impure, then it is assumed to have been unclean at an earlier time as well. For instance, if the food has an egg's bulk then any food that is known to have touched it earlier is assumed to be impure (if this is a case in which the food would convey impurity, such as to a liquid). The opposite is true as well. If the food is currently too small to be impure, we assume that it was always too small to be impure.
  If they were then covered they are assumed to have been covered [all the time]; And if uncovered they are assumed to have been uncovered [all the time].  If a piece of corpse impurity is found in a tent (an ohel) that is covered in a way that would prevent the impurity from escaping, we do not have to be concerned lest the impurity was once uncovered and has defiled the vessels that were above or below it. If the corpse impurity is not covered, we must assume that vessels which had been above it or below it were defiled even if they are not there now.
  If a needle was found full of rust or broken it is clean, for all doubtful cases of uncleanness are determined according to their appearance at the time they are found.  A needle is now found in an unusable state and therefore it is pure. Again, anything that touched it earlier is assumed to be pure because we judge doubtful cases as they are currently found, and not as they might have been earlier.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a deaf-mute, a person not of sound senses, or a minor was found in an alley way   that contained something that was unclean, he is presumed to be clean.  An alleyway is considered to be a private domain. In this alleyway there is something that is impure, but we are not sure if the person came into contact with it. The rule in section three will state that if someone or something cannot be asked if they came into contact with something impure, they are ruled to be pure. A deaf-mute, and a person not of sound senses and a minor are all considered to lack what we might call awareness or intelligence. One cannot legally ask them if they came into contact with the impure thing. Therefore, they are pure.
  But any one of sound senses is presumed to be unclean.  The person of sound senses can be asked, but in this case he doesn't know if he had contact with the impure thing. Therefore, he is impure.
  And anyone/anything that lacks understanding to be inquired of is in a case of doubtful uncleanness presumed to be clean.  This is the general rule that explains section one.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A child who was found at the side of a graveyard with lilies in his hand, and the lilies grew only in a place of uncleanness, he is nevertheless clean, for I could say that another person gathered them and gave them to him.  Although it seems quite likely that the child picked the lilies from a place that was unclean, and therefore the child is unclean, since the rule is that if a person cannot be asked if he touched an impurity he is pure, even this child is still considered pure. We can see here just how lenient the sages could be in matters of doubtful impurity.
  So also a donkey that was in a graveyard, his harness remains clean.  Since you can't ask the donkey if he went over the graves (unless the donkey happens to be from Shrek), his harness or any other vessels that are on him, remains clean.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A child  was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough  is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough.  A child can be assumed to have had contact with unclean things, such as a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) or something else that was unclean (children play with yucky stuff). If a child is found playing next to some dough and he has some dough in his hands, we would think that it is nearly certain that the dough came from there. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir rules leniently he says that it is possible that a pure person gave the dough to the kid. The other sages are not so lenient. They say that even if the child is not holding on to the dough, it is impure because children like to play with dough. Sort of like ancient play-doh!
  Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean.  The rest of the mishnah deals with dough that bears traces of an animal having pecked or licked it. Near the dough there is some liquid. We need to now figure out how likely it is that the animal licked the liquid and then brought it over to the dough before the dough dried. If the marking was made by a hen, then the dough is pure if the liquid is far enough away such that the hen could have dried its mouth on the ground. Evidently, hens do this. Who knew?
  And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue.  If the mark was made by a dog or cow, then they must have had enough time for their tongue to dry out. Dogs and cows lick their lips this I knew.
  And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry.  If it was made by any other animal, there must have been enough time for the liquid to dry off their mouths or tongues. In all of these cases, if the liquid can be assumed to have dried, the dough is pure.
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.  Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob appreciates that dogs are not stupid. Since there are water and food in the area, the dog would not be foolish enough to go for the water and not the food. Therefore the dough remains pure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  In the cases in this mishnah a clean loaf of bread is thrown among an unclean pile of keys, or an unclean key is thrown among a pile of clean loaves of bread. The question is: are the loaves or loaf made impure.
  One who throws an unclean  object from one place to another: [for instance] a loaf  among keys  or a key  among loaves,  [that which was clean remains] clean.  According to the first opinion we can assume that the clean loaf did not touch the unclean keys, and therefore it remains pure.  According to this opinion it doesn't matter which was thrown and which remained stationary. In either case, the loaf remains pure.
  Rabbi Judah  says: if a loaf  was thrown among keys  the former becomes unclean, but if a key was thrown among loaves  the latter remain clean.  Rabbi Judah holds that in cases where something pure is thrown and we don't know if it became impure, it is deemed impure. This is because the source of impurity is stationary. But in cases where something impure is thrown and we don't know whether it defiled something else, the other thing remains pure for the impurity was moving.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A dead sheretz that was held in the mouth of a weasel that was passing over loaves of terumah and it is doubtful whether the sheret did or did not touch them, in such condition of doubt [the loaves] are clean. As in yesterday's mishnah, today's mishnah describes a case of moving doubtful impurity. The dead sheretz, a source of impurity, is moving for it is in the mouth of a weasel. Since the sheretz is moving and we don't know for sure if it touched the loaves, the loaves remain pure. However, you might just want to think twice before you eat them…
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is based on the distinction that we have seen several times already if the source of impurity was moving, and we are not sure if it defiled someone or something, the doubt remains pure. But if the source of impurity was considered to be stationary, the doubt is impure.
  A weasel that had in its mouth a [dead] sheretz or a dog that had carrion in its mouth and they passed between clean [persons] or if clean persons passed between them,   their condition of doubt is deemed clean, since the uncleanness , had no resting place.  A dead sheretz and carrion both defile. But since they were moving by being held by the weasel or dog, the people among whom these things moved are clean.
  If they were picking at them while these   lay on the ground,   and a person stated, "I went to that place but I do not know whether I did or did not touch it,"   his condition of doubt is deemed unclean, since the uncleanness had a resting place.  In case two, the dog or weasel are picking at the sheretz or carrion and dragging them on the ground. Despite the fact that the sources of defilement are indeed moving, the mishnah considers anything on the ground to be stationary. Therefore, they do defile the people who might have walked among them.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  An olive's bulk of corpse was held in a raven's mouth and it is doubtful whether it overshadowed a person or vessels in a private domain: The person's condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean But the vessels’ condition of doubt is deemed clean.  There are two reasons why the person is unclean. First of all, a person has the ability to be asked (see mishnah 3:6) and any time someone can be asked, the doubtful case is deemed impure. Second, although the impurity is moving, there is a special rule with regard to impurity transmitted through overshadowing (ohel) it defiles in cases of doubt even though it is moving. The vessels remain pure because they don't have intelligence such that they can be asked.
  One who drew water in ten buckets   and a dead sheretz was found in one of them,   it alone is deemed unclean but all the others remain clean.  The dead sheretz found in one bucket clearly defiles that bucket. We might have thought that the other buckets should also be impure because they may have had contact with the dead sheretz while it was in the cistern. The mishnah teaches that the other buckets are pure for if we know that impurity is in one place (the bucket in which it is found) we do not assume that it might have been in another place. Furthermore, the sheretz doesn't defile the water, for water that is still connected to its source in the ground (the well or cistern) is not susceptible to impurity.
  If one poured out from one vessel into another and a dead sheretz was found in the lower vessel, the upper one remains clean.  If one is pouring from one vessel to another and a dead sheretz is found in the lower vessel, only the lower vessel is impure. We don't assume that the sheretz was originally in the upper vessel, for the same reason that we said in section two impurity found in one place is not assumed to have been in another.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with six cases where a person touched something of doubtful impurity and then touched terumah. In these six cases the terumah must be burned, as if we were certain that the terumah had been defiled. Note that this is the mishnah's way of saying that something is to be treated as if it was certainly defiled, for one would not burn terumah unless he had no other choice. It is prohibited to burn terumah unless one is certain that it is impure.
  Section one: 1. A bet ha-peras is a place where there used to be a grave but was plowed over. The ground defiles because it might have bones in it. 2. The rabbis say that land from outside the land of Israel is impure (see Ohalot 2:3). The origin of the dirt referred to here is unclear. 3. The garments of an am haaretz, one who is not observant of the strictures of the purity laws, defile. These clothes may have come from such a person. 4. Vessels that were simply found might be impure. Therefore, they have to be treated as such. 5. Spit that is simply found (yuck) might have come from a zav or from a niddah, and the spit of both such people defiles (we will learn more about this in the future). 6. Human urine defiles if it comes from an impure person. Albeck explains that in mishnaic times they would use urine as a cleaning agent. They would usually gather human urine and animal urine separately. The person in this section therefore knows that the urine he touched is human urine. What he does not know is if this human urine was impure.
  On account of a certainty of having touched these which causes the doubtful uncleanness, terumah is burned.  In all of these cases the person knows that he had contact with one of these things, he just doesn't know whether they were unclean. If he didn't know whether he had even touched them, then he is pure.
  Rabbi Yose says: also on account of their doubtful contact in a private domain; But the sages say: in a private domain the terumah is only held in suspense and in a public domain it is deemed clean.  Section one referred to things found in the public domain. Doubtful impurity is more likely to be deemed impure in the private domain. Rabbi Yose says if this occurred in the private domain then even if he is not sure if he had contact with the item he is impure. The sages are more lenient. In the private domain if he is not sure if he had contact with it, the terumah is "held in suspense." This means that it is not treated as pure, but neither is it burned. However, in the public domain the person is impure only if he is certain that he had contact with the item.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with spittle that is found and whether or not one must treat it as impure lest it have come from a zav or a nidah, both of whose spit is impure.
  Two kinds spittle, one of which was [possibly] unclean and the other was definitely clean: [Terumah] is to be held in suspense if [touched by one who] touched or carried or shifted [one of the two kinds of spittle] while they were in a private domain; Or who touched one of them in a public domain while it was still moist; Or who carried it whether it was moist or dry.  In this section there are two kinds of spittle, meaning that they came from two different people. The first kind of spittle was simply found; we don't know who it came from. The second kind of spittle was definitely clean. The mishnah now goes on to describe various scenarios where a person might have been defiled by the unknown spittle. If a person touched, carried or shifted one of them while in a private domain, but he is not sure which spittle it was, then if he subsequently touched terumah, the terumah is "suspended." As we have seen, this means that it is not burned, as it would be if it was impure, but neither can it be eaten. This matches the opinion of the sages in yesterday's mishnah, that in cases of doubtful impurity in the private domain terumah is suspended. Terumah is also suspended if the person touched the spittle in the public domain and it stuck to his body because the spittle was still moist. The sages considered a person's body to be like a private domain and the spittle attached to him is treated as doubtful impurity found in the private domain. Similarly, if the person carries it, the spittle is considered to be in the private domain because a person treated like a private domain.
  If there was but one [kind of possibly] unclean spittle and a person touched, carried or shifted it in a public domain, terumah is burned on account of it; And one does not even need to say that this is the case if it was in a private domain.  However, if there is only one kind of spittle and he is sure that he had contact with it, or carried it or shifted it, then the rule reverts to the general principle found in mishnah five. The terumah is burned even if this occurs in the public domain, all the more so if it occurs in the private domain, where the rule is stricter.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean:A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh,A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water.A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean.A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean.A doubt that arose in a public domain;A doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes;A doubt concerning non-sacred food;A doubt concerning a sheretz;A doubt concerning negaim;A doubt concerning a nazirite vow;A doubt concerning a first-born;A doubt concerning sacrifices.This mishnah introduces all sorts of cases of doubt where the sages ruled that something was clean. Except for the first case, the remainder of the list is explained from mishnah eight until the end of the chapter. Therefore, we will not explain these sections here.Section one: If drawn water falls into a mikveh, the mikveh is disqualified. If there is a doubt whether this occurred, the mikveh remains valid.Sections 2-12: These are explained in the following mishnayot. Stay tuned!
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah begins to explain cases of doubtful uncleanness that the rabbis rule pure.
  "A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon water:"  There is an unclean object floating on some water and there is doubt as to whether a person touched it. Since the object of impurity does not "have a set place," the person who might have touched it is pure. We have seen this principle before in mishnah three.
  [It is clean] whether the water was in vessels or in the ground. Rabbi Shimon says: if in vessels he is deemed unclean but if in the ground he is deemed clean.  The first opinion holds that it does not matter whether the object was floating in water on the ground, let's say in a pond, or in water in a vessel. In both cases it is considered to not have a fixed place. Rabbi Shimon says that if the water is in a vessel then we consider the impure thing to have a place, because the vessel is set in a specific place.
  Rabbi Judah says: if the doubt arose when the man went down into the water he is deemed unclean, but if when he came up he is deemed clean.  Rabbi Judah notes that when a person gets into water and there is something floating in the water, it is normal for the thing to come closer and even touch the person. Thus, if the doubt arose when he was getting into the water, he is impure. But when someone gets out of water, it is normal for things to move away from him. Thus in this case the person is pure.
  Rabbi Yose says: even if there is only enough room for a man and the uncleanness the former remains clean.  Rabbi Yose rules that even if there is only enough room in the water for the person and the object, thereby making it quite likely that the person touched the object, the person remains clean. Note that he seems to simply apply the rule cases of doubtful uncleanness where the impurity is moving are pure. This is a legal truth even if it doesn't seem to be realistic.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  "In the case of a doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean:" How so? If an unclean person stretched his foot between clean liquids and there is doubt whether he touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. If a man had an unclean loaf in his hand and he stretched it out between clean liquids, and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean.  This section deals with cases where something might have touched an unclean liquid and it is ruled impure. Since liquids are susceptible to impurity according to toraitic law, these liquids are impure.
  "But if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed, it is deemed clean." How so? If a man had in his hand a stick on the end of which there was an unclean liquid and he threw it among clean loaves and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean.  Liquids do not convey impurity according to toraitic law only through rabbinic decree. Therefore, in these cases the loaf remains pure. Note that although the source of uncleanness seems to be moving, the sages say that since it is stationary on the stick, it is not moving. Were it moving it would obviously not convey impurity in cases of doubt, as we have learned previously.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to deal with cases of doubtful impurity involving liquids.
  Rabbi Yose says: a condition of doubt in the case of liquids is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels.  Rabbi Yose holds that if there is a case of doubt involving impure liquids that might have defiled food, the food is impure. But if the doubt involves vessels, the vessels remain pure. He illustrates this in section two.
  How so? If there were two jars, the one unclean and the other clean, and he made dough with the contents of one of them and a doubt arose as to whether he prepared it with the contents of the unclean, or of the clean one, such is "a condition of doubt in the case of liquids [which] is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels."  In this case, the dough is impure because it might have been made with the water from the impure jar. But the trough in which the dough was kneaded remains pure.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  "If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean."  This section is just a quote of mishnah seven without any expansion. It is explained in Yadayim 2:4 (a whole tractate about the impurity of hands!). For now it is enough to note that any case of doubt involving the impurity of hands is ruled leniently.
  "Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean.  This clause will be explicated in chapters five and six.
  "A condition of doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes": [For instance, he is uncertain whether] he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean.  If there is a doubt and the impurity is only of rabbinic ordinance (derabanan) then the doubt is ruled clean. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of this. The first is when a person ate or drank something and is not sure if it is unclean. A person is only impure "derabanan" if he eats or drinks something impure. The second is concerning drawn water. The rabbis decreed that drawn water defiles if a person immerses his head and most of his body in them or if three log of drawn water falls on him (we shall learn more about this in Tractate Mikvaot). In both of these cases, the doubt is deemed pure. But if the doubt involved a "father of uncleanness" whose provenance is derabanan, then the doubt is unclean. For example, "mixed blood" which is blood that came out of a person, some when he was alive (doesn't defile) and some after his death (does defile). Such blood is a "derabanan father of uncleanness." In this case, although the doubt is only derabanan, it defiles.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  "A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees.  The Pharisees are known, at least in rabbinic literature, to have eaten regular non-sacred food in a state of purity. Nevertheless, the mishnah notes that they ruled leniently if a doubt occurred as to the purity of the food. In this case, the doubt is ruled pure. The leniency is because the law does not actually require non-sacred food to be eaten in a state of purity.
  "A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found.  This is a general principle that we learned in 3:5 all cases of impurity are judged by what we can see when they are found. The mishnah will return to the case of the sheretz, the creepy crawly thing which is a father of impurity, at the end of chapter 9. We should note that the mishnah uses "sheretz" merely as an example. The same would be true of any "father of impurity." All cases are judged by the time at which they are found.
  "A condition of doubt concerning negaim"    it  is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean.  We learned this in Negaim 5:4-5. Briefly if a doubt arises concerning a nega, a sign of scale disease, and the person has not yet been deemed impure, then the doubt is ruled clean. But if it occurs after the person was deemed impure, then the doubtful case is deemed unclean.
  "A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow"     [in such a condition of doubt   he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite].  Here a doubt occurs as to whether a person is a nazirite or not. For instance, he said, "I am a nazirite if my wife gives birth to a child." His wife then has a baby who dies and it is unknown whether the child was viable and something just happened that caused it to die, in which case he is a nazirite, or the child was never viable, which means he is not a nazirite, because he never had a child. In such a case, he is deemed not to be a nazirite.
  "A condition of doubt concerning first-borns"    whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.  In this case there is some doubt whether a human or an animal is a first-born. If the human was a first-born the father must redeem the boy by giving five selas to the priest. If a clean animal was the first-born the animal itself must be given to the priest. If it was a donkey, an impure animal, then the owner must give a sheep to the priest (see Bekhorot for more info on all of this). In all of these cases we invoke the rule that the one who wishes to extract something from his fellow must bring proof. Since the priest cannot prove that the animal was a first-born, the owner or father need not give anything to the priest.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  "And a condition of doubt concerning sacrifices" if a woman has experienced five doubtful cases of miscarriage or five discharges of doubtful zivah she brings only one sacrifice and may then eat other sacrifices, she being under no obligation to bring the remainder. The final mishnah of our chapter explains the last case of leniency with regard to doubt. The entire mishnah is found in Keritot 1:7. Below is my explanation from there: There are two situations that are described here. 1) A woman had genital discharge for three consecutive days once a month for five months and she doesn’t know if these occurred during her menstrual cycle, in which case she was not a “zavah” and does not need to bring a sacrifice, or not during her menstrual cycle and she is a zavah and does need to bring a sacrifice. 2) She had five miscarriages and she doesn’t know whether what she miscarried counts as a birth and she must bring a sacrifice or doesn’t count as a birth and she does not bring a sacrifice. In both of these cases, the woman might be liable for as many as five sacrifices (each consisting of an olah and a hatat) or she might not be liable at all. The rule in this case is that she needs to bring only one sacrifice and then she can eat any sacrificial meat, as is always the case when a woman brings a sacrifice for being a zavah or for giving birth. While she can, if she wants, bring four more sacrifices, she need not do so.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A [dead] sheretz and a [dead] frog in a public domain,And so also [if there was there] an olive's bulk of a corpse  and an olive's bulk of carrion,A bone of a corpse and a bone of carrion;A clod of clean earth and a clod from a doubtful grave areaA clod of clean earth  and a clod from the land of the Gentiles,Or if there were two paths, the one unclean  and the other clean, and a man walked through one of them but it is not known which,Or if overshadowed one of them but it is not known which,  or he shifted one of them but it is not known which:Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.Today's mishnah brings up a series of cases in which one of two possible things occurred one which would have caused him to be impure and one in which he was not impure. In the end of the mishnah we can see that the rabbis and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to whether or not the person is pure or impure.Section one: A dead sheretz causes impurity but a dead frog does not because it is not one of the defiling creepy crawly things listed in Leviticus 11:29.Section two: Flesh from a corpse defiles in all ways, but flesh from carrion of an animal defiles only by touch and by carrying, not by overshadowing.Section three: Bone of carrion is pure. Bone from a corpse defiles through contact and carrying.Sections four and five: Earth from an area that might have been a graveyard defiles through contact and carrying, as does dirt from outside of the land of Israel.Section seven: This section refers to all of the sections above.Section eight: Rabbi Akiva says that doubtful cases of impurity in the public domain are pure only if the person didn't perform any action. But in the cases listed here the person moved, carried or overshadowed one of the objects that might have been impure, and therefore he is impure.The other sages disagree doubtful cases of impurity are always pure in the public domain.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday's mishnah, in which a person was not sure if he had been defiled in the public domain.
  One who said, "I touched an object but I do not know whether it was unclean or clean," or "I touched one but I do not know which of the two I touched": Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.  This section refers to the frog and sheretz (dead creepy crawly thing) case from section one in yesterday's mishnah. The person knows that he touched one of the two, but isn't sure which one he touched. Some commentators point out that a turtle, which does count as a sheretz, might be considered to look a little like a frog. This might be especially true when they are dead, which is when the sheretz defiles. The positions of the sages and R. Akiva are the same as they were above Rabbi Akiva says that he is impure and the sages say that he is pure.
  Rabbi Yose says that he is unclean in every case  and clean only in that of the path,   since it is the usual custom for people to walk but it is not their usual practice to touch.  Rabbi Yose distinguishes between the person who walked down the path but doesn't know whether it was the pure or impure path and the other cases. Walking down a path is a normal activity. Therefore, we can assume he might not remember which path he walked down. But randomly touching things (like bones or dead flesh!) is not normal. He could live without touching these things. Therefore, he is considered impure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah goes back to the case of the two paths, one pure and one impure. The case discussed here is one where he walks down both paths.
  If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and one walked on one of them and then prepared clean foods which were then eaten and, then he was sprinkled upon once and a second time and he performed immersion and became clean, then he walked on the second path and then prepared clean foods, the latter are clean.  This case is a bit complicated. The man walks down one of the paths and doesn't know which one he walked down. After walking down the first path, he goes and prepares food, probably terumah. After having prepared the food, he realizes that he might have become unclean so he cleanses himself by having the hatat waters sprinkled on him and by going to the mikveh. He is now certainly clean. Then he goes down the second path (seems to have forgotten that this was not a wise thing to do). And then he prepares food again. The first food was originally deemed clean because of the sages' opinion in mishnah one. The second is also deemed clean because we also don't know if it was impure, since he was purified after having walked down the first path. In other words, each set of food is judged on its own, as if the other case didn't even happen.
  If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense.  However, if both sets of food are still in existence, then we can't look at each set individually. In this case, we must consider both of them as potentially impure. If they are terumah, both are "suspended." This means that they are not burned, because they might not be impure, but neither can they be eaten because it is forbidden to eat impure terumah.
  If he had not become clean in the meantime, the first is held in suspense and the second must be burnt.  If he didn't become clean in the meanwhile then we know that the second set of food must be impure because by this point he has walked down both paths. If the first set of food is still in existence, it is suspended, as it was in section two.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If there was a sheretz and a frog in a public domain and a man touched one of them   and then prepared clean foods which were subsequently consumed; and then he immersed, and then he touched the other and then prepared clean foods, the latter are deemed clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, the first are held in suspense and the second must be burnt   .This mishnah is basically the same mishnah as yesterday's mishnah, except the doubt about whether the person was impure is slightly different. In today's mishnah the person is not sure whether he touched a frog, in which case he is pure, or a sheretz, a dead creepy crawly thing, in which case he is impure. The mishnah teaches that the rule here is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah concerning one who walked down two paths, one of which was impure. For an explanation, see yesterday's mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked by one of them and then prepared clean food, and subsequently another man came and walked by the second path and then prepared clean foods:  The difference between this case and that in the previous two mishnayot is that here we have two people, one of whom is definitely impure. The food prepared by one of them must be impure, although the other food must be pure.
  Rabbi Judah rules: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean. But if they asked for a ruling simultaneously, both are to be declared unclean.  Rabbi Judah says that if each asked a sage for a ruling individually, then each is considered separately and all of the food is pure. This is because we invoke the normal rule, that cases of doubtful impurity are pure. However, if both ask together then we must treat this as if one person walked down both paths without immersing in between. One must be impure, and therefore both are regarded as impure.
  Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.  Rabbi Yose rules more stringently and says that since one is definitely unclean, both must be treated as unclean.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If there were two loaves, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man ate one of them and then prepared clean food, and afterwards another man came and ate the second loaf and then prepared clean food:Rabbi Judah ruled: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean, but if they asked simultaneously both are to be declared unclean.Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.This mishnah contains the same ruling as yesterday's mishnah, it just refers to a different case of doubtful impurity. Whereas yesterday's case discussed a situation in which we are not sure which of two men walked down an impure path, today's mishnah discusses a case where we are not sure which of two men ate an impure loaf of bread. Other than that, the mishnah is the same, so look at yesterday's mishnah for an explanation.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If a man sat in a public domain and someone came and trod on his clothes, or spat and he touched his spit, on account of the spit terumah must be burnt, but on account of the clothes the majority principle is followed.  Spit of undetermined origin found in the public domain is considered impure (see 4:5). Therefore, if the person who was spit upon (yuck) then touched terumah, the terumah must be burned lest it is impure. However, when it comes to this person's clothes we follow a majority principle. If a majority of the people who were walking past him were pure, then the clothes that one of them touched are pure. If the majority is impure (for instance the person finds himself in a zav colony), then the clothes are impure.
  If a man slept in the public domain, when he rises his clothes have midras uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say that they are clean.  If a person slept out in the public domain then it is likely that many people have stepped on his clothes. If any one of them was a zav, he would have imparted midras impurity, the type of impurity that is transmitted by pressing on something (leaning, sitting, standing etc.), to the clothes. Rabbi Meir rules strictly and says that the clothes are impure. The other sages retain the rule that cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are pure.
  If a man touched someone in the night and it is not known whether it was one who was alive or dead, but in the morning when he got up he found him to be dead: Rabbi Meir says that he is clean. But the sages rule that he is unclean, since all doubtful cases of uncleanness are [determined] in accordance with [their appearance at] the time they are discovered.  In this case, Rabbi Meir follows the rule that cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are pure. But the sages say that in this case we must follow the rule that was found in 3:5 we always judge cases of doubtful impurity according to how they appear at the time they are discovered. Since the person was dead when he was discovered, and we are not sure if he was alive when the person touched him, we must consider the person to be impure.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  The spit of a woman who is a menstruant is impure. Women who are menstruating are expected not to go around spitting in the public domain. Our mishnah deals with a town in which there are women who may not observe this i.e. they go around spitting. Glad this doesn't seem to happen as much anymore.
  If there was in the town one who was not of sound sense, a Gentile, or a Samaritan woman, all spit encountered in the town is deemed unclean.  The woman who is not of sound senses is not assumed to refrain from spitting when she is menstruating. Gentile and Samaritan women also don't refrain from spitting because they don't know or perhaps don't care that their spit defiles (when menstruating). Therefore, if there is one such woman in the city, all found spit is impure. Note that according to rabbinic understanding of the Torah, only Jews transmit impurity. However, the rabbis decreed that Gentiles too can transmit impurity. Thus a Gentile menstruant's spit is impure. Samaritans are sometimes considered as Jews, and sometimes not. The rabbis said that a Samaritan woman is considered as a menstruant from birth. See Nidah 4:1 (we will learn this in a few months).
  If a woman trod on a man's clothes or sat with him in a boat: If she knew that he was one who eats terumah, his clothes remain clean: But if not, he must ask her.  A zavah or a menstruant impart midras impurity by pressing on clothing. This includes sitting on something, leaning on it or standing upon something. If a woman stepped on a man's clothing or sat close to her on a boat, he needs to know whether she is impure if he wants to eat terumah. So if the woman knew that he ate terumah, for instance, if she knew that he was a priest, then we can assume that she would have been careful and his clothes are clean. However, if she didn't know him, he must ask her if she is indeed a menstruant or zavah. You can imagine that this would have been awkward. Probably not a good way to start a conversation, especially on the tight quarters of a boat.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of chapter five deals with cases where witness testify as to whether a person had been defiled.
  If one witness says, "You have become unclean," but he says, "I have not become unclean," he is regarded as clean.  His own testimony outweighs that of the witness, and therefore he is considered clean.
  If two witnesses say, "You have become unclean," and he says, "I have not become unclean," Rabbi Meir says: he is unclean. But the sages say: he may be believed on his own evidence.  Rabbi Meir says that the two witnesses outweigh the person's own statement that he is pure. Two witnesses are always believed. Therefore, he must accept that he is impure. The other sages say that since he claims to know with certainty that he is pure, he may continue to act upon his own words.
  If one witness says, "You have become unclean," and two witnesses say, "He has not become unclean," whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as clean.  Since two witnesses say he is clean, he is not considered unclean no matter where the defilement purportedly occurred.
  If two witnesses say, "He has become unclean’, and one witness says, ‘"He has not become unclean," whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as unclean.  The opposite case: since two witnesses say he is unclean, he is considered unclean no matter where it occurred.
  If one witness says, "He has become unclean," and another says, "He has not become unclean," or if one woman says, "He has become unclean’, and another woman says, "He has not become unclean," he is regarded as unclean if in the private domain, but if in a public domain he is regarded as clean.  In this case there is contradictory testimony between two men or two women, one saying he is unclean and one saying he is clean. If this occurred in the public domain, he is clean because cases of doubtful impurity are clean in the public domain. However, if the defilement supposedly occurred in the private domain, he must be considered unclean. Women are generally not allowed to testify in rabbinic law. However, this mishnah teaches that one woman's testimony with regard to matters of impurity is sufficient to create suspicion that he might be impure. Were the opposing witness a man, the mishnah would have said that the man's testimony outweighs her testimony. But since the opposing witness was also a woman, the person in question must be considered impure, if it occurred in the private domain.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A place that was a private domain and then became a public domain  and then was turned again into a private domain: while it is a private domain any condition of doubt arising in it is unclean but while it is a public domain any condition of doubt arising in it is deemed clean.  The mishnah discusses a place that was essentially a private domain and then many people passed through it, causing it to become a public domain temporarily. Basically, if a situation of doubtful impurity arises, the place is judged as it is at the moment when the doubt arises. If the doubt arises when it is a private domain, the rule is strict, as it always is in a private domain. But there is room to be lenient if the doubt arises in a public domain.
  If a man who was dangerously ill in a private domain was taken out into a public domain and then brought back into a private domain, while he is in the private domain any condition of doubt arising through him is deemed unclean but while he is in the public domain any condition of doubt arising through him is deemed clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the public domain causes a break.  This is a similar rule with regard to a person who is dangerously ill and about to die. He begins in a private domain, others then take him out, assumedly on a stretcher and he passes through a public domain and then he goes back into a private domain. If he is found dead in the public domain, then only the things that are with him in the public domain are impure. We don't assume that he died in the first private domain because when a doubt occurs in a public domain, the doubt remains pure. However, if he is found dead in the second private domain then anything that was with him in the first private domain is also considered impure. This is because we apply the normal rule any case of doubt that arises in the private domain is impure. The doubt here is whether he was dead when he went through the first private domain. Rabbi Shimon rules that the public domain interrupts because we can't say he was dead in the first private domain, alive in the public domain and then dead again in the second private domain. Since we treat the things that were with him in the public domain as pure, then we are in essence saying he must have died in the second private domain. Only the things found there are impure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  There are four cases of doubt which Rabbi Joshua ruled are unclean and the sages rule are clean.How so? If an unclean man stood  and a clean man passed by  or the clean man stood and the unclean one passed by; or if an unclean object was in a private domain and a clean one in the public domain or the clean object was in the private domain and the unclean one in the public domain, and there is doubt whether there was contact  or not, or whether there was overshadowing  or not, or whether there was shifting or not: Rabbi Joshua rules that the clean becomes unclean, But the sages rule that the clean remains clean.There are four cases here:1) An unclean man is standing and a clean man passes by him and he may have been defiled by contact, overshadowing or shifting.2) The same situation but the clean man is standing and the unclean one is moving.3) There is an unclean object in the private domain and an clean one in the public domain and the clean one may have had contact with the unclean one.4) The same situation but the positions are reversed.Rabbi Joshua says that since at least one of the elements was in the private domain, the doubt is impure.The other sages say that for impurity to occur both elements have to be in the same situation within the private domain both must be moving or both must be standing. Since in all of these cases one element is either not in the private domain or one element is moving and the other standing, there is no impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a tree standing in a public domain had within it an object of uncleanness and a man climbed to the top of it, and a doubt arose as to whether he did or did not touch the object of uncleanness, such a condition of doubt is unclean.  The top of the tree is considered a private domain and therefore a case of doubtful impurity that occurs there is ruled unclean.
  If one put his hand into a hole [in the wall] in which there was an object of uncleanness and there is doubt whether he did or did not touch it, such a condition of doubt is unclean.  Similarly, the hole is considered to be a private domain.
  If a shop that was unclean was open toward a public domain and there is doubt whether a man did or did not enter it, such a condition of doubt is clean.  Although the shop is a private domain, the doubt actually arose in the public domain we don't Therefore, he is pure.
  If there is doubt whether he did or did not touch anything, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean.  Same as section three, except here he may have touched something impure in the store.
  If there were two shops, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man entered into one of them, and a doubt arose as to whether he entered the unclean, or the clean one, such a condition of doubt is deemed unclean.  In this case he knows he went into one of the stores, both of which are private domains. Therefore, the doubt is which private domain he went into. Since the doubt occurred in a private domain, he is impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah demonstrates that the general rule that conditions of doubt in the private domain are unclean and in the public domain are clean remains stable, no matter how many doubts about the uncleanness there are.
  However many doubts and doubts about doubts that you can multiply, a condition of doubt in a private domain is unclean, and in a public domain it is deemed clean.  This is the general principle that will be illustrated in the continuation of the mishnah.
  How so? If a man entered an alley  and an unclean object was in the courtyard, and a doubt arose as to whether he entered or did not enter [the courtyard]; Or if an object of uncleanness was in a house and there is doubt whether he entered or not;  This is the first doubt he is not sure if he even went into the courtyard, or he is not sure whether he entered the house.
  Or even if he entered, there is doubt whether the uncleanness was there or not;  This is the second level of doubt even if he entered he is not sure if the potential source uncleanness was even there.
  Or even if it was there, there is doubt whether it consisted of the prescribed minimum or not;  Third level of doubt even if it was there, he is not sure if it was large enough to defile.
  Or even if it consisted of the prescribed minimum, there is doubt whether it was unclean or clean;  Fourth doubt even if it was there, and it was large enough, he is not sure if it was even unclean.
  Or even if it was unclean, there is doubt whether he touched it or not;  Fifth doubt even if he went in, he is not sure if he touched it.
  Any such condition of doubt is deemed unclean.  In all of these cases, despite the fact that there is a multiplicity of doubts, since the doubt occurred in the private domain, he is unclean.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: if there is a doubt whether he entered, he is clean, but if there is a doubt whether he touched it, he is unclean.  Rabbi Eliezer says if he is not sure whether he even went in, then he is clean. Evidently, Rabbi Eliezer does not consider this to be a case of doubtful impurity in the private domain, because he is not sure if he even entered the private domain. However, if he knows he went in but is just not sure if he touched the source of impurity, then he is impure because this is a case of doubtful impurity in the private domain.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If a man entered a valley in the rainy season  and there was an uncleanness in a certain field, and he stated, "I went into that place  but I do not know whether I entered that field   or not: Rabbi Eliezer rules that he is clean; But the sages rule that he is unclean. In mishnah seven below, we will learn that during the rainy months, a field in the valley is a private domain. Therefore, we again have a case where a person is not sure whether he entered a private domain. Rabbi Eliezer considers this a case of doubtful entrance, and as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, in such cases Rabbi Eliezer rules that he is clean. The other sages rule more strictly and deem him to be unclean.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A condition of doubt in a private domain is unclean unless he says, "I did not touch the unclean thing." A condition of doubt in a public domain is clean unless he can say, "I did touch the unclean thing."  In the private domain there is a presumption of uncleanness. To override that he must be able to say with certainty that he did not touch the source of uncleanness. Similarly, in the public domain there is a presumption of cleanness. He is unclean only if he knows for certain that he touched the source of uncleanness.
  What is regarded as a public domain? The paths of Bet Gilgul and similar places are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat, and a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer says: they only mentioned the paths of Bet Gilgul because they are regarded as a private domain in both respects.  The location of Bet Gilgul is uncertain. However, the Babylonian Talmud says that the paths there are narrow and sharply angled such that even a single person would have trouble running there with a pack on. The first opinion in our mishnah says that paths like this are considered to be private domains when it comes to Shabbat. This is relevant to the issue of carrying. We shold note that many commentators say that this is not a true private domain rather it is what is called a "karmelit." A "karmelit" is a zone that is not public because to be a public domain for Shabbat it must truly be a public thoroughfare. However, it is not truly a private domain. When it comes to issues of uncleanness, the area is considered a public domain, which will also result in a leniency. We can see that this opinion is in essence lenient in both directions. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the reason that the paths of Bet Gilgul were even mentioned in the earlier tradition. The earlier sages sited these paths to say that they were considered a private domain for both counts. We can see here that the background to our mishnah was some earlier halakhah that mentioned these paths. The sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed as to what was special about these paths.
  Paths that open out towards cisterns, pits, caverns or wine-presses are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat and as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness.  Paths that end on one side with a cistern, pit, cave or winepress are deemed as private domains with regard to the rules of Shabbat. However, when it comes to the rules of uncleanness, they are a public domain.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A valley: in summer time  is a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat, but as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness;  In the summer there are more people in the valley working the fields. Therefore, for matters of uncleanness it is considered a public domain. When it comes to Shabbat it is still a private domain, or, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah, at least not a public domain.
  And in the rainy season it is regarded as a private domain in both respects.  In the rainy season people can't work the land in the valleys. Therefore, it is not considered a public domain for either purpose.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A basilica:   is a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat but as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness.  A basilica is a large building through which many people pass. Probably something akin to city hall in our day. When it comes to Shabbat it is still a building and therefore it is considered a private domain. However, when it comes to the laws of uncleanness since so many people pass through and it is a public building, it is considered a public domain.
  Rabbi Judah says: if one is standing at one door can see those that enter and leave at the other door, it is regarded as a private domain in both respects; otherwise it is regarded as a private domain in respect of Shabbat and as a public domain in respect of uncleanness.  Rabbi Judah adds a criterion to the definition of when a basilica is a public or private domain. If it is small enough so that one standing at one door can see the other door, then it is a private domain. If it is larger than that, he agrees with the previous opinion.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A covered forum:: is a private domain in respect of Shabbat and a public domain in respect of the laws of uncleanness;  I have translated the term that begins this mishnah, in Hebrew "paran," in accordance with most commentators explanation, who say it is similar to a basilica. The forum is considered a private domain for Shabbat, but since many people have access to it, it is a public domain for matters of uncleanness.
  And so too the sides. Rabbi Meir says: the sides are regarded as a private domain in both respects.  The sides of the forum are, according to the first opinion, treated the same way as is the forum itself. However, Rabbi Meir says that since people are not found as much on the sides, it is considered a private domain even for matters of impurity.
  And so too the sides. Rabbi Meir says: the sides are regarded as a private domain in both respects.  The "colonnades" referred to here is a hall that is supported by columns and is open on multiple ends.
  Colonnades: are a private domain in respect of Shabbat and a public domain in respect of the laws of uncleanness.  A courtyard typically has one main entrance and would not be considered a public domain for any matter. But if people go in one door and then go out another door, it has become a public thoroughfare. In such a case it is not a public domain for the matter of Shabbat, but it is a public domain for matters of impurity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A potter who left his pots and went down to drink:  the innermost pots remain clean but the outer ones are unclean.  A potter who wished to preserve the purity of his pots, left them for a few moments in the public domain unguarded. When he returns he must regard the outer ones as defiled lest an am haaretz, a Jew who does not preserve his purity, touched them with his cloaks which are considered impure. Note that the am haaretz might have done so accidentally for when the potter left his pots in the public domain, the path became a bit narrower. However, the inner pots are pure.
  Rabbi Yose says: When is this so? When they are not tied together, but when they are tied together, all the pots  are clean.  Albeck explains that Rabbi Yose thinks that the concern is that the am haaretz picked up one of the pots to inspect it. If the pots are tied together, then he could not have done so and they remain pure.
  One who gave over his key to an "am haaretz" the house remains clean, since he only gave him the guarding of the key.  A person who preserves the purity of the objects in his house who has given over his key for guarding to a person who does not observe the laws of purity need not worry that the am haaretz went into his house and defiled the things there. Just as is the case today, when one gives his key to his neighbor the understanding is that he is only giving him the key. He does not expect him to enter the house.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with an am haaretz who was left in the house of a person who wished to preserve the purity of the objects in his house. The question is whether we have to be concerned lest he touched anything in the house and thereby defiled it.
  If he left an am haaretz in his house awake and found him awake, or asleep and found him asleep, or awake and found him asleep, the house remains clean.  If he left him awake and found him awake in the same place where he left him, then the owner need not worry that the am haaretz has moved around and touched other objects. According to the mishnah, an am haaretz is concerned lest the owner of the house come back suddenly and catch him touching his stuff. If he left him asleep and found him asleep, he need not be concerned lest he woke up in the meanwhile and touched something. Similarly, if he left him awake and he fell asleep he need not be concerned that his stuff was touched.
  If he left him asleep and found him awake, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where he can stretch out his hand and touch it.  However, if the owner left him asleep and when he came back the am haaretz was awake, Rabbi Meir says that all of the vessels in the house are considered defiled.  According to Rabbi Meir, the am haaretz reasons that since the owner left him asleep he will think that he is still asleep and he won't come back to make sure that he doesn't touch any of his stuff. Since the am haaretz is not afraid of getting caught, he won't hesitate to make himself feel at home. The sages say that only things that can be touched by the am haaretz while stretching out his hand are unclean. It is interesting sociologically to note that the mishnah does anticipate a rabbi (or someone else who is cautious about the purity laws) leaving an am haaretz alone in his house. However, it is equally interesting to note that the mishnah does not afford the am haaretz a full degree of trust.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  One who left craftsmen in his house, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir.  The craftsmen that he left in his home are amei haaretz (plural of am haaretz). Just as he held in yesterday's mishnah, so too here Rabbi Meir holds that all of the items in the house are considered defiled. The owner of the house does not sit there and guard them to make sure they don't touch anything.
  But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where they can stretch out their hand and touch it.  This is the same as their opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Only the things that they can reach out and touch from the place where they are doing their work are impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If the wife of a haver left the wife of an am haaretz grinding grain in her house, if the handmill stopped turning, the house is unclean. But if the handmill did not stop turning, that part of the house which she can stretch out her hand and touch is unclean.  A haver is a term used to describe the opposite of an am haaretz. The wife of a haver has the status of a haver. She leaves the wife of an am haaretz, who also has the status of am haaretz, grinding a handmill in her home. If the am haaretz stops turning the mill, we must suspect that she will walk around the house and touch things. Therefore, all of the objects in the house are suspected of being impure. But if she kept milling the whole time, we need only be concerned about the things that are close enough for her to reach out and touch.
  If there were two women, the house is unclean in either case, since while the one is grinding, the other can go about touching, the words of Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where she can stretch out her hand and touch it.  If there were two women in the house taking turns at grinding (this is hard work), then Rabbi Meir is consistent with his position from mishnayot two and three, the whole house is impure. The other sages are also consistent. We need only be concerned lest she touched things that are within hand's reach. .
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  One who left am haaretz in his house to guard him, if he can see those that enter and leave, only food and liquids and uncovered earthenware are unclean, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean.  The owner of the house left an am haaretz in his house for the am haaretz to be guarded there. If the owner can see whoever comes in and comes out then only food, liquid and uncovered earthenware vessels are impure. Couches and seats are impure because the sages did not decree that an am haaretz defiles place that he sits that they should become "fathers of impurity." Similarly, earthenware vessels with tightly fitting lids are not impure because a male am haaretz does not defile such vessels just by shifting them, and they can't be defiled by touch.
  And if he cannot see either those who enter or those who leave, even though the am haaretz has to be led and even though he was bound, all is unclean.  However, if the owner cannot see who is going in or out, then we must be concerned lest someone else came in and defiled the vessels in the house. Thus everything is deemed impure, even if we can be sure that the am haaretz himself didn't touch anything because he was tied up.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If tax collectors entered a house, the house is unclean.  The tax collectors are amei haaretz and since they enter the house to collect something in lieu of taxes we must be concerned that they touched the things in the house and therefore everything is impure.
  If a Gentile was with them  they are believed if they say, "we did not enter" but they are not believed if they say "we didn't touch anything."  I have explained this section according to Albeck's preferred version. If a Gentile boss is with the tax collectors they are only believed to say that we didn't go into a certain house or room. But they are not believed to say that they didn't touch something in certain room into which we know they entered because the Gentile would have instructed them to touch whatever he felt was necessary. However, if no Gentile is with them then they are even believed if they say that they didn’t touch anything, since they came with a specific purpose in mind.
  If  thieves entered a house, only that part in which the feet of the thieves have stepped is unclean.  Thieves who come into a house will only defile the places where we know they walked. We can assume that thieves are going to want to be in and out as quickly as possible, therefore we need not fear that they walked elsewhere and touched other things.
  And what do they cause to be unclean? Food and liquids and open earthenware, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean.  This is the same as in mishnah five above.
  If a Gentile or a woman was with them, all is unclean.  A Gentile and a female am haaretz both defile by sitting on something or by shifting earthenware vessels. Therefore, everything in the house is impure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  One who left his clothes in the cubbies of the bath house attendants: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that they are clean, But the sages say: [they are not clean] unless he gives him the key or the seal or unless he left some sign on them.  The mishnah describes bath house attendants to whom one gives his clothes to watch over while bathing. The bath house attendant would put the clothes in the cubby. The fear is that someone else might have touched the clothes and thereby defiled them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules leniently the clothes are assumed to have been watched over and they are pure. The other sages rule more strictly. The clothes are pure only if the owner takes some precaution to make sure no one else touches them. If the attendant gives him the key they are pure. If he gives him a seal to make sure no one opens the cubby, they are also pure. Finally, if he puts a sign on the clothes so that he could tell if they were touched, then they are pure.
  One who left   his clothes from one wine-pressing to the next, his clothes remain clean.  This refers to a priest who wants to make sure that the wine he presses is pure. Therefore he has special clothes that he uses just for wine pressing. If he leaves them from one wine pressing to the next, they can stay pure.
  If he left them with an Israelite [the clothes are unclean] unless he says, "I have watched over them carefully."  However, if he gives them to a regular Israelite to watch over, the Israelite must be able to declare that he watched over them carefully. If he is not sure, then the clothes must be treated as potentially having been defiled.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  One who was clean and had given up the thought of eating [pure food]: Rabbi Judah says that it remains clean, since it is usual for unclean persons to keep away from it. But the sages say that it is deemed unclean.  The person described here is someone who usually eats his food while the food is pure (as he is). Then he decides to no longer eat in a state of purity. Rabbi Judah says that the food remains pure because people have grown accustomed to staying away from his food because they know that he wants it to be pure. The other sages disagree and say that once he decides to no longer eat pure food, we can't be sure that he preserved the purity of this food and it must be assumed to be impure.
  If his hands were clean and he had given up the thought of eating [pure food], even though he says, "I know that my hands have not become unclean," his hands are unclean, since the hands are always busy.  Once the person decides to no longer eat his food in a state of purity, he can't really be trusted to keep his hands pure. Hands are "busy" they constantly touch things. Therefore, even if he thinks he preserved their purity, his hands are unclean.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A woman entered her house to bring out some bread for a poor man and when she came out she found him standing at the side of loaves of terumah; Similarly a woman went out and found her friend raking out coals under a cooking pot of terumah: Rabbi Akiva says that they are unclean, But the sages say that they are clean.  There are two situations in this section. In both a woman leaves an am haaretz near some terumah food. In both Rabbi Akiva says that the food must be reckoned unclean lest the am haaretz touched the food and the rabbis say that the food remains clean.
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila: but why does Rabbi Akiva rule that they are unclean and the sages rule that they are clean? Because women are gluttonous and each may be suspected of uncovering her neighbor's cooking pot to get to know what she is cooking.  While it looks like Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila is explaining the dispute, he is really explaining Rabbi Akiva's position, specifically why should he rule so strictly that even the cooked dish is defiled? We might assume that the woman won't touch the inside of a hot dish and earthenware vessels are not susceptible to impurity from the outside. It would seem that the food should be safe from impurity. Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila answers that women are gluttonous, which really means that they are exceedingly curious about what is being cooked in the pot. The woman will inevitably uncover the pot to see what's cooking. Once she touches it, the food is defiled. Perhaps this is the source for the phrase she is always sticking her nose in other people's pots?
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter eight continues to deal with a person cautious about matters of purity who lives in close proximity to an am haaretz, one who does not observe the laws of purity.
  One who dwells in a courtyard with an am haaretz and forgot some vessels in the courtyard, even though they were jars with tightly fitting lids, or an oven with a tightly fitting cover, they are unclean.  All of the vessels that he leaves in the courtyard are impure lest they were defiled by the am haaretz. Earthenware jars with tightly fitting lids cannot be defiled by touch, but if a niddah (a menstruating woman) shifts them, they are impure. Since this might have occurred, the mishnah says these too must be regarded as impure. The first opinion does not differentiate between ovens and other vessels with tightly fitting covers.
  Rabbi Judah says that an oven is clean if it has a tightly fitting lid.  Rabbi Judah says that the oven can be regarded as clean because it is impossible to shift it, since it is attached to the ground.
  Rabbi Yose says: even an oven is unclean unless he made for it a partition ten handbreadths high.  Rabbi Yose rules that even the oven is unclean for we are concerned that the am haaretz may have opened the lid to use the oven. Therefore, to preserve the purity of the oven he must keep the am haaretz away by making a partition at least ten handbreadths high. As a side note, it is again interesting that the mishnah assumes such a high degree of contact between the "haver" (the opposite of the am haaretz) and the "am haaretz." People of complete opposite religious inclinations and observances may end up living even in the same courtyard, and if so, the haver will simply have to be more cautious about the purity of his vessels.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is about a person who deposits vessels with an am haaretz. What kind of impurity do we assume that these vessels have contracted?
  One who deposited vessels with an am haaretz they are unclean with corpse uncleanness  and with midras uncleanness.  The person who gave over his vessels (this term can include clothes and other items) to an am haaretz must suspect that they have become defiled with corpse uncleanness, which would make them unclean for seven days. He must also treat the clothes as if they have midras uncleanness, which is the uncleanness caused when a zav, zavah or niddah sit or apply pressure on a vessel. Something that has midras uncleanness defiles another person even if it is carried and not touched. Thus the law is stringent in both the length of the impurity and the manner in which the object defiles.
  If he knew that he eats  terumah,  they are free from corpse uncleanness  but  are unclean with midras uncleanness.  If the am haaretz knows that the person who deposited the clothes (or other vessels with him) is one who eats terumah, then we can assume that the am haaretz would be careful not to contract corpse impurity. However, his wife might have sat on the vessel or clothes while she was a niddah (a menstruant) and therefore the vessels have to be treated as if they have midras impurity. Thus we can assume that he was diligent, but not that his wife was. We should also note that once she has menstruated she will be considered a niddah until she goes to the mikveh. So if she never went to the mikveh, she wills always count as a niddah.
  Rabbi Yose says: if he deposited with him a chest full of clothes, they are deemed to be unclean with midras when they are tightly packed,   but if they are not tightly packed they are only unclean with madaf uncleanness, even though the key is in the possession of the owner.  Rabbi Yose deals with a situation in which the depositor gives the am haaretz a chest full of clothes. If the chest is tightly packed then it is likely that someone sat on it, including the am haaretz's wife, while she was a niddah. Therefore, in this case it has to be treated as if it has midras impurity. However, if it is not full then it only has the lightest form of impurity, which is called madaf impurity. The chest and clothes will only defile food and liquids, but not other vessels or people. The clothes are defiled even if the owner retained possession of the keys to the chest. The problem is that if a niddah shifts the chest, she defiles it, even without touching the clothes. Therefore, the fact that the am haaretz and his wife could not touch the clothes does not mean that they are free of defilement.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  One who loses something during the day and finds it on the same day it remains clean. If it was lost during the daytime and found in the night, or if it was lost in the night and found during the day or if it was lost on one day and found on the next day, it is unclean. This is the general rule: if the night or part of the night has passed over it, it is unclean.  If one loses an object during the day and finds it the same day, he can be sure that no one impure had touched it, for had someone stumbled over it, he would have picked it up and taken it. However, at night someone might have stumbled over it without seeing it. Therefore, if night passes over it, it must be assumed to be impure.
  One who spreads out his clothes: If in a public domain, they remain clean; But if in a private domain they are unclean. If he kept watch over them, they remain clean. If they fell down and he went to bring them, they are unclean.  The person here spreads out his clothes in a high place in order for them to dry. If he does this in the public domain, then we have a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain and the clothes are pure. But if he does so in the private domain  and there is a chance that someone impure touched the clothes, they have to be assumed impure. If he watches over them, they are pure. If they fall down from the high place in which they were, then someone might have stepped on them. Therefore, even if they are on the ground only for a very short while, they must be treated as impure.
  If one's bucket fell into the cistern of an ‘am ha-arez and he went to bring something to draw it up with, it is unclean, since it was left for a time in the domain of an am haaretz.  The person left his bucket in the domain of the am haaretz while he went to get a rope to bring it up. Even though it is unlikely that the am haaretz touched the bucket, he must treat it as if it is impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  One who left his house open and found it open, or locked and found it locked, or open and found it locked, it remains clean.  One doesn't assume that someone had broken into one's house and defiled the things in there without some sign of breaking and entering. So if he left the house open or locked and returned and found it in the same state, the house and its contents remain pure. Even if he left it open and found it locked, we don't assume that someone came in and locked the door when he went out.
  But if he left it closed and found it open: Rabbi Meir says that it is unclean; But the sages say that it remains clean, since, though thieves had been there, they may have changed their mind and gone away.  If he left it closed and found it open and then looked around and even it didn't look like anyone had been there, Rabbi Meir says that he must assume that impure thieves touched the objects in the house. Therefore, all of the contents must be regarded as defiled. Obviously, if he could see that people had touched the stuff, he would have to treat it as impure. The other sages say that there is a possibility that no one touched the contents of the house, and therefore the contents remain pure. After all, if thieves had really touched the stuff, one might ask why they didn't steal it.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If the wife of an am haaretz entered a haver's house to take out his son or his daughter or his cattle, the house remains clean, since she had entered it without permission. The assumption in this mishnah is that the wife of the am haaretz does not stay in the house. She goes in to take out one the child or animal of the haver (a person who is strict about the purity laws, the opposite of the am haaeretz) and she immediately leaves. "Without permission" does not mean that she entered the house without permission. It means that she didn't have permission to stay. Therefore, the things in the house remain pure.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah discusses how spoiled food can be for it no longer to count as food such that it would be susceptible to uncleanness.
  They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption.  If food is meant to be human food it stays susceptible to uncleanness until it becomes so despoiled that even a dog won't eat it. However, if the food was meant to be animal food, it is not susceptible to impurity until someone changes his mind and designates it for human consumption. In other words, even if it is fit for human consumption it remains pure unless someone actually decides to eat it.
  How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness.  A pigeon living in a pigeon cote above a winepress dies and falls into the winepress (yuck!). When it was alive, the pigeon would have been fit for human consumption (yes, people often ate pigeons back then). However, once it dies and falls into the wine it is no longer considered fit for human consumption. If the owner decides to give it to a Gentile it is impure. This is bird carrion and as we learned in the first mishnah of this tractate, the carrion of pure birds is impure. However, if he decides to give it to a dog, the pigeon is considered animal food and it is pure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the pigeon is impure for pure bird carrion does not need to be considered food for it to defile.
  If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.  The three people in this section do not have legal consequences to their intention. They are considered to lack "da'at" which I translate as awareness. Therefore, if they intend to eat the food it still is not considered food. However, their actions do have legal consequences. When they pick the food up to eat it, it becomes human food and it is susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  The outer parts of vessels that have contracted uncleanness from liquids: Rabbi Eliezer says: they defile liquids but they do not disqualify foods. Rabbi Joshua says: they defile liquids and also disqualify foods.  The outsides of these vessels are impure through contact with impure liquids but the inside remains pure. This is a light form of impurity, and the sages will now debate just how light it is. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the backs of the vessels defile liquids, even non-sacred liquids. They don't defile regular food and neither does it disqualify terumah. Rabbi Joshua says that it even disqualifies terumah food. This is because the liquids that defiled the vessel cause the vessel to have second degree impurity. Second degree impurity defiles liquids and disqualifies terumah.
  Shimon the brother of Azariah says: neither this nor that. Rather, liquids that were defiled from the outer parts of vessels defile at one remove and disqualify at a second remove. It is as if it say, "that which defiled you did not defile me but you have defiled me."  According to Albeck, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua were arguing about an older halakhah. Shimon brother of Azariah responds that both of them are incorrect for neither recited the ancient halakhah correctly. Rather, the earlier sages had said that if liquid is defiled by the outer portion of a vessel it has first degree impurity. It will defile terumah and give it second degree impurity. If this terumah that has second degree impurity has contact with other food, it will disqualify it. The final line of the mishnah is a personification of the food (such personifications were found in Parah 8:2-7). The food says to the liquid that which defiled you, the outside of the vessel, was not sufficient to defile me. For the outside of vessels can only defile liquids. But you, Mr. Defiled Liquid, you did defile me!
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If a kneading trough was sloping downwards and there was dough in the higher part and dripping moisture in the lower part, then three pieces that jointly make up the bulk of an egg cannot   be combined together, but two are combined.  There is a kneading trough with a sloping side. On the top of the slope, stuck to the sides, are pieces of impure dough. Below them and beneath each piece is some moist liquid. If the dough defiles the moist liquid, then the liquid will defile the trough as well. According to the first opinion, if the dough is in three pieces and together they make up the minimum amount to cause defilement (the bulk of an egg), then they do not join together to defile the liquid. This is because there is not an egg's worth of dough touching any portion of liquid, for each part of the liquid only touches 2/3 of the volume of an egg. However, if there are only two pieces that add up to the volume of an egg, then the pieces do defile the liquid between them because the liquid touches the entire volume of an egg.
  Rabbi Yose says: the two also cannot be combined unless they compress liquid between them.  Rabbi Yose says that for the two pieces of dough to combine they must be pressing the liquid in between them. This means that the liquid is not simply below the pieces of dough, it is right between them, and the dough holds the liquid up, preventing it from flowing to the bottom of the trough.
  If the liquid was level, even though the piece was the size of a mustard seed they   are combined together.  If there is liquid simply standing at the bottom of the trough and there is a lot of it, not just moistness on the sides as there is in sections one and two, then even if the pieces are in small crumbs the size of a piece of mustard, they defile the liquid which defiles the trough.
  Rabbi Dosa says: crumbled food cannot be combined together.  Rabbi Dosa says that crumbs don't add up to the requisite amount to transmit impurity. He disagrees only with the opinion in section three, not those in sections one and two.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed.  According to Rabbi Joshua as soon as any part of the stick covered with impure liquids is put in the mikveh, it is pure. The water of the mikveh "flows" through the impure liquids on the stick and purifies them, even before it actually touches them. The sages rule more strictly. The entire stick must be immersed for it to be pure.
  A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness.  "Flow" refers to liquid that is being poured from an upper vessel to a lower vessel. The slope is the sides of the vessel, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. In both of these cases we do not consider the lower liquid to be attached to the upper liquid. As an aside, the purity of "flow" was a big debate among ancient Jews. In one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, called Miktzat Maase Torah, the author complains that "you" (this refers to the other Jews with whom he doesn't agree) say that a "flow" is pure. The fact that in our Mishnah the rabbis do indeed say that the "flow" is pure, has been a major proof for scholars who wish to say that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls opposed the Pharisees (with whom the rabbis certainly did identify). While the sloping or flowing liquid does not serve as a connective, a standing pool of water does. If one side is impure, the entire body is pure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter nine deals with olives that were pressed in an olive press in which an am haaretz was working. For olives (or any produce) to become susceptible to impurity they must have had contact with one of seven liquids (water, dew, oil, wine, milk, blood or date honey). The secondary requirement is that the produce became wet with the approval of the owners meaning they were not opposed to the produce getting wet.  We will learn more about this when we get to tractate Makhshirin, a whole tractate about this subject!
  Our mishnah deals with the liquid that comes out of the oil and whether that is sufficient for the olives to be susceptible to impurity.
  At what stage do olives become susceptible to uncleanness?When they exude the moisture [produced] by [their lying in] the vat  but not the one [produced while they are still] in the basket, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Rabbi Shimon says: the minimum time prescribed for proper exudation is three days.  There are three opinions as to when olives have exuded moisture that makes them susceptible to impurity. Bet Shammai holds that the moisture they exude must occur in the vat into which they are placed to "warm up." This is before they are pressed. The moisture that might have been exuded in the basket in which they were first placed does not count. However, Bet Shammai seems to hold that any moisture that comes out in the vat is to the "approval" of the owners and therefore it makes them susceptible. Rabbi Shimon modifies Bet Shammai's opinion. The moisture that comes out during the first three days does not count. They must be in the vat for three days and then if they remain there, the moisture makes them susceptible to impurity.
  Bet Hillel says: as soon as three olives stick together.  Bet Hillel rules more leniently. The olives must become so soft that three of them will stick together.
  Rabban Gamaliel says: as soon as their preparation is finished, and the sages agree with his view.  Rabban Gamaliel rules even more leniently. The olives are not susceptible to impurity until he has completed their preparation in the vat. Once he decides to bring them to the press, they are susceptible. The sages agree with this opinion.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah is a continuation of Rabban Gamaliel and the sages' opinion from yesterday's mishnah, that the olives are not susceptible to impurity until he has decided to take them to the olive press.
  If he finished the gathering but intended to buy some more, or if he had finished buying but intended to borrow some more, or if  a time of mourning, a wedding feast or some other hindrance befell him then even if zavim and zavot trampled over them   they remain clean.  In all of these cases, the owner of the olives does not want more liquid to flow from the olives because he either intends to add more olives later, or he is going to be delayed from pressing due to some unforeseen circumstance (a relative died, he was invited to a wedding or something of that nature). In these cases the olives are not susceptible to impurity. So if a zav or a zavah (people with abnormal genital discharge) trample over the olives, they do not become impure.
  If any unclean liquids fell upon them, only the place where it touched them becomes unclean.  Unclean liquids that fall on produce cause it to become susceptible to impurity and impure simultaneously. If some unclean liquid falls on these olives, only the part upon which the liquid fell is impure. The remaining olives are still clean.
  Any liquid that comes out of them is clean.  Any liquid that comes out of the olives whose processing has not been completed is clean. This rule is obvious and is already stated in section one. It is only here to be contrasted with the cases we will learn tomorrow in mishnah three. So stay tuned!
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  When their preparation is finished behold they are susceptible to uncleanness. If an unclean liquid fell upon them they become unclean.  Once the preparation of the olives has been completed, they are susceptible to impurity for they have had contact with the sap that flows out of them. What this means is that if unclean liquid falls on them, it renders all of the olives impure, not just the place it touched. This is because the independent olives have now become one lump of olives, all connected to one another.
  The sap that issues from them: Rabbi Eliezer says it is clean, But the sages say that it is unclean.  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the opinion in section one. The sap that issues from the olives does not render them susceptible to impurity. It is not yet considered oil. The sages agree with section one. This sap renders them susceptible and once they are impure it will also defile other olives.
  Rabbi Shimon says: they did not dispute the ruling that sap that issues from olives is clean. But about what did they dispute? About that which comes from the vat: That Rabbi Eliezer says is clean And the sages say is unclean.  Rabbi Shimon gives another version of the debate found in sections one and two. According to Rabbi Shimon, all of the sages agree that the sap that comes forth from the olives does not render them susceptible. They disagree about the liquid that comes out of the vat. The olives are placed in this vat after they have been crushed and before they are to be squeezed. This sap contains some oil and therefore the sages say it makes them susceptible to impurity. But the sap that flows before they have been placed in the vat is not "oil" and does not make them susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  One who had finished [the gathering of his olives] and put aside one basketful, let   him put it [in the container] in front of a  priest, the words of Rabbi Meir.  The mishnah refers to an am haaretz who has crushed all of his olives in the crushing container but left over one container so that the olives would not become susceptible to impurity. From these olives he intended to separate terumah. Note that an am haaretz does seem to separate terumah and to respect the purity of the terumah so that a priest could make use of it. However, he doesn't separate tithes, nor does he preserve the purity of his common food. The question that the sages ask is what must he do to make sure that the olives remain pure? Rabbi Meir says that he should put the olives in the container in which they are crushed in front of the priest. This way the priest can make sure they stay pure.
  Rabbi Judah says: he must hand him over the key immediately. Rabbi Shimon says:   within twenty-four hours.  Rabbi Judah says that the am haaretz must immediately give over to the priest the key to the container. Evidently, he affords little trust to the am haaretz. Rabbi Shimon gives him a little leeway he has twenty-four hours in which to give over the key.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  One who put his olives in a basket that they might be softened so that they will be easy to press, they become susceptible to uncleanness;  The olives put into this basket to be softened so that they can be crushed will expel some sap. The sap causes them to be susceptible to impurity. This is because the person wants them to expel some of their juices, for in the end he is going to crush them to make olive oil in any case.
  [If he put them in a basket] to be softened so that they may be salted: Bet Shammai says: they become susceptible. Bet Hillel says: they do not become susceptible.  In contrast, if he puts them in a basket to soften so that they can be salted, Bet Hillel holds that they are not susceptible to impurity. This is because he doesn't really want them to expel their liquid. Bet Shammai holds that they are susceptible to impurity even in this case. It is possible that Bet Shammai simply holds that susceptibility to impurity is not dependent upon a person's intention whether the person wants the liquid to have contacted the produce or not. This is typical of a Shammaite system of halakhah the halakhah is less determined by intention and more determined by reality, i.e. what actually happened.
  One who splits his olives with unwashed hands, he causes them to be unclean.  Here he clearly intends for the liquid to come out and therefore even Bet Hillel agrees that the liquid causes them to be susceptible. Since his hands have not been washed, we assume that they are impure and the olives are impure.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to explore the distinction between cases where one wants the olives to sweat and cases where he does not.
  If one put his olives on a roof to dry, even though they are piled up to the height of a cubit, they do not become susceptible to uncleanness.  If he put them on the roof to dry they are not susceptible to impurity because he does not want them to sweat. This is true even if they are piled high enough that the bottom ones definitely will sweat. Again, the issue is not whether they sweat, but whether he wants them to.
  If he put them in the house to putrify, even though he intends to take them up on the roof, or if he put them on the roof so that they might open so that they could be salted,  they become susceptible to uncleanness.  In these cases, he put them somewhere for them to start to soften or go bad so that he could crush them and make oil. Or he put them on the roof so that they would split open so he could salt them. In all of these cases, he wants them to sweat. Therefore, the liquid that they emit makes them susceptible to impurity.
  If he put them in the house while he secured his roof or until he could take them elsewhere, they do not become susceptible to uncleanness.  In this case he put them in his house temporarily, just until he could bring them somewhere else to soften them. Even though he does want the olives to be softened, they are not susceptible because he doesn't really want them to start this process in the house, where he is currently storing them.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction Our mishnah deals with a person who wants to take some olives that are in a condition that doesn't make them susceptible to impurity and bring them to the olive press to press them into oil. In other words, he has changed his mind about what to do with the olives. At first he didn't want them to sweat because he wasn't using them for oil, but now he changed his mind.
  If one wants to take from them [a quantity sufficient for] one pressing or for two pressings:Bet Shammai says: he may scrape off [what he requires] in a condition of uncleanness, but he must cover up [what he takes] in a condition of cleanness.  According to Bet Shammai when he goes to scrape off some of the olives he doesn't need to do so in a state of purity. Since the olives have not yet been made susceptible to impurity, they will not become impure even if he is impure. However, after he takes those olives out, they are immediately susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if he wishes to cover the olives so that they can be pressed he must do so in a state of purity, otherwise they will become impure. In other words, Bet Shammai holds that the sweat that they exuded previously now causes them to be susceptible.
  Bet Hillel says: he may also cover it up in a condition of uncleanness.  Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that he can even cover them up in a state of uncleanness. The sweat they exuded before does not make them susceptible to impurity. However, Bet Hillel agrees that if he takes the entire lot of olives, he has changed their status and made them all susceptible to impurity. In this case, he will have to cover them in a state of purity.
  Rabbi Yose says: he may also cover it up in a condition of uncleanness.  Rabbi Yose rules even more leniently. He can even take metal axes and remove all of the olives that were set aside in a state in which they were not susceptible. They are still not susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with a dead sheretz found among the olives of the olive press.
  If a [dead] sheretz was found in the milling stones, only the place that it has touched becomes unclean. But if moisture was running, all become unclean.  If a dead sheretz, which causes impurity, is found in the milling stones which are used to crush the olives before they are pressed, only the olives that the sheretz touches is impure. The rest of the olives that touch these olives remain pure because each olive is not the size of an egg such that it could transmit impurity to the other olives. Furthermore, each olive is considered to be a separate entity. However, if the moisture is running over all the mill stones it transmits purity to everything and all of the olives are impure. This is because all of the olives are considered one lump.
  If it was found on the leaves, the olive-press men shall be asked whether they can say, "we did not touch it."  In this case the sheretz is found on the leaves that cover the olives. These leaves are not food and they are not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, they themselves are not the problem. The problem is that the leaves were put there by somebody.  We must ask the men who work at the olive press whether they touched the sheretz. If they admit that they did not, then the olives are pure. In other words, these men are trusted.
  If it touched the mass [of olives], even by as little as the bulk of a barley grain, [the mass becomes] unclean.  However, if the sheretz touched the mass of olives that are all stuck together, then all of the olives are considered unclean. This is because they are all considered to be connected.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah concerning the sheretz found among the olives.
  If it was found on broken off pieces but it touched as much as an egg's bulk, [the entire mass] becomes unclean.  In this case the sheretz is found on broken off pieces of olives that are resting on top of the olive mass. If these pieces are as much as the bulk of an egg, then they join the mass and all of the olives are impure. However, if they are smaller than the size of an egg, which means they themselves can't defile other things, then they are not considered part of the mass.
  If it was found on broken off pieces that lay upon other broken off pieces, even though it touched as much as an egg's bulk, only the place it touched becomes unclean.  In this case, the sheretz is found on top of pieces of olives that are themselves on tops of other pieces of olives. The mass that is underneath does not join them all together, even if they are the size of an olive. The only part that is impure is the part that touches the sheretz, for this is always impure, no matter how small it is.
  If it was found between the wall and the olives, they remain clean.  In this case we find the sheretz next to the wall, not touching the olives. We don't suspect that the sheretz touched the olives.
  If it was found [on olives that were lying] on the roof, [the olives in] the vat remain clean.  There were some olives in the vat and then a person took some up to the roof to dry out. A sheretz is found among the olives on the roof. The olives in the vat remain pure, for we do not suspect that the sheretz was brought up to the roof with the olives.
  If it was found in the vat, [the olives on] the roof are [also] regarded as unclean.  In contrast, if it is found in the vat, we do suspect that it defiled the olives that were later taken up to the roof. Therefore, they too are impure.
  If it was found burnt upon the olives, and so also in the case of a rag that was completely worn out, [the olives remain] clean, because all cases of uncleanness are determined in accordance with their appearance at the time they are found.  As we learned in 3:5, when it comes to matters of purity, we judge according to the way in which things are found. A burnt sheretz or a completely worn out rag no longer defiles. If either of these is found on the olives, the olives are pure. We don't suspect that they were there before they were burned or became worn out.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter ten continues to deal with purity laws related to the pressing of olives.
  Today's mishnah deals with the owner of an olive press who locks the workers in the olive press so that they won't go out and become impure. [Not very nice to the workers, but I guess they'll be okay].
  If one locked in olive-workers in the olive-press and there were objects in there that had midras uncleanness:  The owner first purified the olive-workers and then locked them in the olive press. Unfortunately for his sake, there were objects inside the olive-press that had become impure through contact with a zav. This gives them "midras impurity" which means that they defile a person who has contact with them, who carries them or who shifts them (even without touching them).
  Rabbi Meir says: the olive-press is deemed to be unclean.  Rabbi Meir says that we must be concerned lest the olive-workers became defiled through contact with the objects and therefore the entire olive-press is unclean.
  Rabbi Judah says: the olive-press remains clean.  Rabbi Judah rules leniently. Since the owner went through the process of purifying the workers, they know that they must be careful. Assuming that they know that the objects are impure, they will be careful and not have contact with them.
  Rabbi Shimon says: if they regard them  as clean, the olive-press is deemed unclean;  but if they regard them as unclean,the olive-press remains clean.  Rabbi Shimon says that it depends on what the am haaretz thinks about the objects. If he mistakenly thinks that they are pure, then he won't be careful about touching them, and the rest of the olive press is impure. However, if he thinks they are impure, then he won't touch other things and the olive press is pure. It is interesting to note that Rabbi Shimon assumes that the am haaretz will try to preserve the purity of the olive press. He just doesn't always know what objects are pure and what are not. In other words, he is trustworthy, but ignorant.
  Rabbi Yose: why are they unclean?  Only because the am haaretz is not an expert in the laws of hesset.  Rabbi Yose says that the am haaretz doesn't know that shifting causes impurity. Therefore, even if he thinks that the stuff is impure and he refrains from touching it, he will not know not to shift the objects and he will be defiled. Therefore, he agrees that everything in the olive press is considered unclean.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If the olive-workers in an olive-press went in and out, and in the olive-press there was unclean liquid, if there is space enough [on the ground] between the liquid and the olives for their feet to be dried on the ground, the olive workers remain clean.  This section deals with clean olive-press workers. There is unclean liquid on the floor inside the olive press. The workers tread on the liquid with their bare feet. This does not cause them to be impure because impure liquid does not defile people. But, if this liquid comes into contact with the olives, it will defile it. If there is space enough for them to walk on the ground and have their feet dried off before they get to the olives, then the olives are clean.
  If something unclean was found in front of olive-workers in the olive-press or grape harvesters, they are believed to say, "We have not touched it." And the same law applies also to the young children among them.  In general, olive workers and grape-harvesters are believed to say that they didn't touch something unclean. Similarly, they are believed to say that the grapes or olives that they are working with were not touched by any children who are categorically assumed to be impure.
  They may go outside the door of the olive-press and relieve themselves behind the wall, and still be deemed clean. How far may they go and still be deemed clean? As far as they can be seen.  The olive-workers can go outside of the olive-press in order to "go to the bathroom" (this is how we like to say this, but obviously there was no bathroom back then). They are not assumed to be impure unless they go further away than they can be seen. [The consequences of this would of course be that the area surrounding the olive press might get a bit dirty. Something you might want to keep in mind next time you order Israeli olive oil!]
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with taking the olive or grape workers to a mikveh for them to immerse themselves and the vessels with which they will be working.
  If the olive-workers or the grape harvesters were only brought within the domain of the cavern, it is sufficient, the words of Rabbi Meir.  The mikveh in which they are immersing happens to be found in a cavern, as mikvaot probably often were in this period. According to Rabbi Meir it is sufficient for the employer who wants to preserve the purity of his grapes or olives to bring the workers to the cave. Once he sees that they have entered, he can trust that they will immerse themselves and the vessels. [This kind of reminds me of telling your kid to get in the shower. Do you need to make sure that he soaps and shampoos? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about].
  Rabbi Yose says: he should stand over them until they immerse.  Rabbi Yose does not trust that the workers will immerse without supervision.
  Rabbi Shimon say: if they regard the vessels as clean, one must stand over them until they immerse; but if they regard them as unclean, it is not necessary to stand over them until they immerse.  This is similar to Rabbi Shimon's opinion in mishnah one. The workers can be trusted if they think that the vessels or their bodies are unclean. However, if they think they and the vessels are clean, he must make sure they immerse them and themselves.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  One who puts his grapes [into the wine-press] from the baskets or from what was spread out on the ground: Bet Shammai says: he must put them in with clean hands, and if he puts them in with unclean hands he defiles them. Bet Hillel says: he may put them in with unclean hands and then he may set aside his terumah in a condition of cleanness.  Someone wants to take grapes out of either a basket or from the ground and putting them into the wine press. According to Bet Shammai, he must first purify his hands, for if he touches the liquid that is exuded from the grapes with unclean hands, he will defile them. Bet Hillel says that the liquid that comes out at this point does not render the grapes susceptible because this liquid is not something he wishes to preserve. The baskets and the ground will just let the liquid seep through. Therefore, the grapes are not susceptible to impurity. When he goes to separate terumah from the wine in the winepress, only then must be make sure he is pure.
  [If they are taken] from the grape-pot or from what was spread out on leaves, all agree that they must be put in with clean hands, and if they are put in with unclean hands they become unclean.  Both houses agree that if he takes the grapes out of a special pot made to hold grapes or off of leaves on the ground, that he must be pure. In this case, the liquid is preserved (the leaves serve to prevent the liquid for being wasted into the ground), and therefore this is liquid that he wants. In this case, the liquid makes the grapes susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  One who eats grapes out of the baskets or from what is spread out on the ground, even though they burst and dripped into the wine-press, the wine-press remains clean.  The person who is acting in this mishnah is assumed to be impure, for most people are assumed not to preserve their purity. In the first case, since the liquid that comes out of the grapes is not something he desires, it does not render the grapes susceptible to impurity. Even if some of this liquid should burst out and go into the winepress, the other grapes in the winepress remain pure. This accords with Bet Hillel's opinion in yesterday's mishnah.
  If he eats the grapes out of a grape-basket or from what was spread out on leaves, and a single berry dropped into the vat: If it has a seal all in the vat remains clean; But if it has no seal, all in the vat becomes unclean.  In this case he takes the grape from a place where if liquid had oozed out, the liquid would render it susceptible to impurity. One grape then falls into the vat. If the grape had a "seal" meaning that the stem from which the grape was plucked from the cluster remained in the grape (this happens to me all the time then I end up spitting it out), then the other grapes remain pure because we can assume that no liquid came out. When the man touched the grape it was not susceptible to impurity. However, if it had no seal, then we can assume that some liquid had come out and the grape was impure. It would defile the rest of the grapes in the vat.
  If he dropped some of the grapes and trod upon them in an empty part of the wine-press: If the bulk of the grapes was exactly that of an egg, the contents remain clean; But if it was more than the bulk of an egg, the contents become unclean, for so soon as the first drop came out it contracted uncleanness from the remainder whose bulk is that of an egg.  In this case, a cluster of grapes falls in a part of the vat that is empty. Then he steps on the grapes. If there is exactly an egg's volume of grapes then the vat remains pure. When the first drop comes out of the grapes, the cluster now has less than the volume of an egg and food that is less than the volume of an egg does not defile liquid. Even though he defiled the food, the liquid is pure. However, if there is even a little bit more than the volume of an egg, the liquid that is emitted becomes impure by virtue of contact with the impure egg. Then the liquid will defile the winepress, for liquid can defile vessels. This is a similar situation to that found in Toharot 3:1.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  One who was standing and speaking by the edge of the cistern and some spittle squirted from his mouth, and there arises the doubt whether it reached the cistern or not, the condition of doubt is regarded as clean. If the spit went into the vat and reached the wine, the wine would be impure. However, the Tosefta explains that the Mishnah rules that the wine is pure because the spit may have been absorbed into the walls of the vat and it may not have reached the wine. Therefore, the vat is pure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If one is emptying out the cistern [into jars] and a [dead] sheretz was found in the first jar, all the other jars are deemed unclean; but if it was found in the last, only that one is unclean but all the others remain clean.  A person is emptying out the wine from a cistern and placing it into jars. He finds a dead sheretz which will defile the wine (and make it a bit gross, but that's another matter). If he finds it in the first jar, we must assume that all of the wine put into all of the jars is impure, for the sheretz might have been in the cistern and then got into the first jar. Alternatively, if the sheretz was in the first jar (and not in the cistern) when he dipped that jar into the cistern, the rest of the wine in the cistern was defiled. However, if he finds it in the last jar, then we can assume that the sheretz was originally in the last jar. Only the contents of that jar are impure.
  When does this apply? When the wine was drawn directly with each jar, but if it was drawn with a ladle and a [dead] creeping thing was found in one of the jars, it alone is unclean.  If he draws with a ladle and pours that wine into each jar, and a dead sheretz is found in one of the jars, then only that jar's wine is impure. This is because it is possible that the sheretz was originally in that jar and never was in the cistern.
  When does this apply? Only when the man examined [the jars] but did not cover them up or covered them up but did not examine them;  The leniencies in the previous two sections can only occur if he wasn't cautious with the jars. If he didn't cover the jars up, it is possible that a sheretz got in directly to the jar. If he didn't check the jars before he filled them then it is possible that the sheretz was there before he filled them (from the ladle). In any of these cases, it is possible to isolate the impurity to one jar.
  But if he both examined them and covered them up and a [dead] creeping thing was found: If in one jar, all the contents of the cistern are deemed unclean. If it was found in the cistern, all its contents are deemed unclean And if it was found in the ladle all the contents of the cistern   are deemed unclean.  However, if he checked and covered the jars, then it is clear that the sheretz came from the cistern. Therefore, no matter where the sheretz is found, all of the wine in all of the containers is unclean.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Last mishnah in Toharot!
  [The space] between the rollers and grape skins is regarded  as a public domain.  The rollers are used to press the grapeskins to try to get more juice out of them after the grapes have already been trodden upon. The area between the rollers and the grapeskins is considered a public domain, such that if a case of doubtful impurity is found there, the doubt is ruled pure. It is considered a public domain because many people are found in this area.
  A vineyard in front of the grape harvesters is deemed  to be a private domain and one which is behind the harvesters  is deemed   to be a public domain.  The part of the vineyard that the grape harvesters still have not harvested is considered a private domain. This is because people are not allowed into that area, since the grapes are still on the vines. Once the grape harvesters have been through a section of the vineyard, it is considered a public domain.
  When is this so? When the public enter at one end and go out at the other.  However, it is only considered a public domain if people will go in one side and out the other. If there is only one way to go in and out, then it seems less people will go there and it can be considered a private domain.
  The vessels of the olive-press, the wine-press and the basket-press, if they are of wood, need only be dried  and they become clean; But if they are of reed grass they must be left unused for twelve months, or they must be scalded in hot water. Rabbi Yose says: if he put them  in the current of the river, it is sufficient.  The mishnah now discusses what must be done to vessels used in presses in order to purify them. If these vessels are of wood, all one needs to do is dry them off from the liquid that defiled them and they are pure. This is because the wood is not assumed to have absorbed the liquid. However, the vessels are more absorbent if they are made of reed grass. In this case they either need to be scalded in hot water in order to get the impure liquid out. Or they can be left unused for 12 months (this is probably impractical). Rabbi Yose says that he can put them in the river and (according to the Tosefta) leave them there for 12 hours. The current will wash them out and they will be pure. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Toharot! 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. Tractate Toharot was not easy. It contains somewhat of a random assortment of purity laws, which are in general difficult for us to relate to. I thought that there were two very interesting parts. The first was what to do with cases of doubtful impurity. In a world in which people were very concerned with these laws, it is certain that these situations would have arisen quite frequently. The second interesting part were the laws governing interaction between the "haver" (one who is careful about the laws of purity) and the am haaretz, who does not observe many of these laws. I found these laws interesting because we can see how people of different religious inclinations and practices can live together. As always, a hearty yasher koach on completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Mikvaot.