10. If her use was to suffer the flow on the fifteenth day and the habit changed and she suffered it on the twentieth day, both are forbidden times. If the habit changed and she twice suffered the flow on the twentieth day, both are still forbidden times to her. If the habit changed and she three 1 Quoting from i1, above.
756 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH times suffered the flow oil the twentieth, then the fifteenth becomes a per¬ mitted time, and she has made the twentieth day her fixed period; for no woman may deem her period fixed unless it has befallen her regularly three times, nor may she account herself clean at [what had been] a fixed period until it has three times ceased to befall her.
ii. Women, as touching [the blood of] virginity1 are like vines: one vine has red wine, another black; one vine gives much wine, another little. R. Judah says: Every vine has its wine; and that which has no wine is called a dorketi vine.2 10. i. If a girl was married that had not yet suffered a flow, the School of Shammai say: They allow her four nights. And the School of Hillel say: Until the wound heals.3 If her time was come to suffer a flow, and she was married, the School of Shammai allow to her the first night; and the School of Hillel say: Until the outgoing of the Sabbath: four nights.4 If she suffered a flow while yet in her father’s house, the School of Shammai says: She is allowed but the coition of obligation. And the School of Hillel say: The whole night.
2. If a menstruant examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself clean, but at twilight did not mark her separation3 [from uncleanness], and after certain days she examined herself and found herself unclean, then [in the days between] she was in a condition of presumed cleanness. If she examined herself and found herself unclean in the morn¬ ing of the seventh day, but at twilight did not mark her separation [from uncleanness], and after some time she examined herself and found herself clean, then [in the days between] she was in a condition of presumed uncleanness, and she conveys uncleanness both during the twenty-four hours that have gone before, and the time between [the present] examina¬ tion and [the previous] examination. But if she has a fixed period it is enough for her [that she be deemed unclean only from] her time [of suffer¬ ing a flow]. R. Judah says: She that has not marked her separation [from uncleanness] after the afternoon is in a condition of presumed uncleanness. But the Sages say: Even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found herself clean, and at twilight did not mark her separation [from uncleanness], and afterward found herself unclean, then [in the days between] she was in a condition of presumed cleanness.
3. If a man or a woman that had a flux examined themselves on the first day and found themselves clean, and again on the seventh day and found themselves clean, yet did not examine themselves in the days between, R. Eliezer says: They were in a condition of presumed cleanness. R. Joshua says: They can reckon [as days of uncleanness] the first and the seventh days only. R. Akiba says: The seventh day only.
4. If a man or a woman that had a flux, or a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a leper have died, they convey uncleanness by carrying, until the flesh has decayed. A gentile that has died does not convey un¬ cleanness by carrying. The School of Shammai say: All women that die • See Deut. 22u.
2 Apparently a corrupted form of TpwKrq, an adjective applied to grapes used for eating only and not for making wine.
3 Until then any blood is not deemed unclean menstrual blood.
4 The marriage of a virgin must be performed on a Wednesday, See Ket. I1.
5 Examine herself finally to mark the close of her seven prescribed days of uncleanness.
are deemed [to have died while they were] menstruants. And the School of Hillel say: Only she that dies while she was a menstruant is deemed a menstruant.
5. If a woman died and a quarter -log of blood issued from her, she con¬ veys uncleanness by virtue of the blood-stain, and also by overshadowing.1 R. Judah says: She does not convey uncleanness by virtue of the blood¬ stain, since [her period] ceased to befall her after she died. But R. Judah agrees that if a woman was sitting on the travailing stool and died, and a quarter-fo^ of blood issued from her, she conveys uncleanness bv virtue of the blood-stain. R. Jose said: Therefore she does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing.
6. Beforetime they used to say: She that continues in the blood of her purifying 1 was permitted to pour out water for [washing] the Passover¬ offering.3 But they changed their opinion and said: For the Hallowed Things she is as one that has had contact with one that suffered corpse-unclean¬ ness.4 So the School of Hillel. The School of Shammai say: Even as one that suffered uncleanness from a corpse. s 7. But they agree that she may eat of [Second] Tithe6 and set apart Dough-offering7 and bring near [to the other dough the vessel wherein she has put the portion set apart as Dough-offering] to designate it as Dough¬ offering, and that if any of her spittle or of the blood of her purifying fell on a loaf of Heave-offering, it remains clean. The School of Shammai say: She needs immersion at the end [of the days of her purifying]. But the School of Hillel say: She does not need immersion at the end.
8. If she suffered a flux on the eleventh day8 and immersed herself at nightfall and then had connexion, the School of Shammai say: [Both] con¬ vey uncleanness to what they lie upon or sit upon, and they are liable to an offering. And the School of Hillel say: They are not liable to an offer¬ ing. If she immersed herself the next day, and she had connexion and afterward suffered a flux, the School of Shammai say: They convey un¬ cleanness to what they lie upon or sit upon, but they are not liable to an offering. And the School of Hillel say: Such a one is gluttonous [yet is he not culpable]. But they agree that if she suffered a flux during the eleventh day and immersed herself at evening and then had connexion, they convey uncleanness to what they lie upon or sit upon, and they are liable to an offering. If she immersed herself the next day and then had connexion, such is evil behaviour, and [whether] their contact [conveys uncleanness] or their connexion [is culpable] is left in suspense.
* See Obol. 21. * Lev. 124*. She had immersed herself after the pre¬ scribed seven (or fourteen) days of uncleanness. She was deemed to be suffering second- grade uncleanness only (see p. 714, n. 3; p. 773, n. 6.)
1 But not to touch it. 4 i.e. she is deemed to suffer first-grade uncleanness.
5 She is deemed a ‘father of uncleanness’; she renders even vessels unclean.
SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH I. x. If any liquid was acceptable in the beginning even though it was not acceptable in the end, or if it was acceptable in the end even though it was not acceptable in the beginning, the law If water be put on applies.1 2 3 Liquids that are unclean [forthwith] convey uncleanness whether [their presence is] acceptable or not acceptable.
2. If a man shook a tree to bring down fruit or some uncleanness [and he brought down also drops of rain and these fell upon the fruit], the law If water be put on does not apply; but if [he shook it] to bring down the drops of rain, the School of Shammai say: The law If water be put on applies to the drops that fell and to them that remained [and that fell later]. And the School of Hillel say: The law If water be put on applies to the drops that fell but not to them that remained, since his purpose was that all should fall off together.
3. If he shook a tree and the drops of rain fell on another tree; or a bush, and the drops of rain fell on another bush,5 and beneath them were seeds or unplucked vegetables, the School of Shammai say: The law If water be put on applies. And the School of Hillel say: It does not apply. R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Jose Holi Kufri of Tibeon: Marvel at thyself if anywhere the Law prescribes that a liquid can render aught susceptible to uncleanness unless it was applied of set purpose, for it is written, But if water be put upon the seed S 4. If a man shook a bunch of herbs and [the drops of rain thereon] fell from the top side to the bottom, the School of Hillel say: The law If water be put on applies. And the School of Hillel say: It does not apply. The School of Hillel said to the School of Shammai: If a man shakes the stalk [of a plant] do we take thought lest the drops fall from one leaf to another? The School of Shammai said to them: A stalk is but a single thing, but a bunch of stalks is many things. The School of Hillel said to them: If a man pulled out a sack full of fruit [that had fallen into the river] and put it on the river bank, do we take thought lest water falls from the top to the bottom? — yet if he had pulled out two sacks and put them one above the other, the law If water be put on applies to the lower sack. R. Jose says: Here also the lower one is not rendered susceptible.
5. If a man rubbed [the wetness] from off a leek or squeezed [the wet¬ ness] out of his hair with his garment, R. Jose says: The law If water be put on applies to the drops that fall but not to them that remain, since his purpose was that all should fall off together.
6. If a man blew on lentils to test whether they were good [and his spittle fell thereon], R. Simeon says: The law If water he put on does not apply. But5 the Sages say: It does apply. If a man ate sesame with his [wet] finger, 1 Lit. ‘predisposers’, or ‘means which render (foodstuffs) susceptible (to uncleanness)’. From Lev. 11“ (‘But if water be put upon the seed and aught of their carcase fall thereon, it is unclean unto you’) is deduced the rule that foodstuffs become susceptible to unclean¬ ness after they are made wet by water or the like of water (see 64), provided that such liquid was applied purposely, or if, when not applied purposely, such liquid’s presence was acceptable.
1 This formula is used throughout the tractate with the meaning ‘it is made susceptible to uncleanness’ by virtue of the law of Lev. 1 i**.
3 And so fell indirectly upon foodstuffs lying below. + Lev. nM.
s Some texts omit this sentence.
R. Simeon says: The law If water be put on does not apply to the liquid that is on his hand. But the Sages say: It does apply. If a man hid away his fruit in the water because of thieves, the law If water be put on does not apply. It once happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig-cakes in the water because of usurping owners;1 and the Sages declared them not susceptible.2 If a man floated his fruit on the stream of the river to bear it along with him, the law If water be put on does not apply.
2. 1. The drippings [of damp walls] in houses, cisterns, trenches, or caverns do not render food susceptible to uncleanness. A man’s sweat does not render food susceptible to uncleanness. If he drank unclean water and sweated, his sweat is clean; but if he had been into drawn3 water and sweated, his sweat is unclean; if he dried himself and afterwards sweated, his sweat is clean [and does not render food susceptible to uncleanness].4 2. If [the water of] a bath-house was unclean5 the drippings [of the walls] are unclean; and if it was clean, the law If water be put on applies to the drippings thereof. If there was a pool within the house and the [walls of the house] dripped moisture by reason of it, and the pool was unclean,6 the drippings of the whole house that are caused by the pool are unclean.
3. If there were two pools, the one clean and the other unclean, the drippings of the walls near to the unclean pool are unclean, and those near to the clean pool are clean; and those that are midway are unclean. If unclean iron7 was smelted with clean iron, and the greater part was unclean iron, the whole is unclean; if the greater part was clean iron, the whole is clean; if they were equal, the whole is unclean. If in pots8 wherein Israelites and gentiles have made water the greater part was from the clean persons, the whole is clean; if the greater part was from the unclean persons,9 the whole is unclean; if they were equal, the whole is unclean. If rain had fallen into dirty water and the greater part was from the clean [water], the whole is clean; if the greater part was from the unclean [water] the whole is unclean; if they were equal, the whole is unclean. This applies only if the dirty water came first; but if the rain water, however great in quantity, came before the dirty water, it becomes unclean.
4. If a man was plastering his roof [with dirty water and clay] or washing his raiment, and rain came down [on the dirty water], if the greater part was from the unclean [water], the whole is unclean; if the greater part was from the clean, the whole is clean; if they were equal the whole is unclean. R. Judah says: If the rain continued falling [the ’whole is clean].
5. If both Israelites and gentiles dwelt in a city and in it was a bath-house which was open and heated for bathing on the Sabbath, if most [of the people in the city] were gentiles [an Israelite] may bathe there at once [after the close of the Sabbath]; but if most of them were Israelites, he must wait time enough for the water to be heated; if they were equal, he must wait time enough for the water to be heated. R. Judah says: If it was a small bath * Though the water was applied purposely it was ‘not acceptable’ for its own sake.
* Throughout the tractate the terms ‘unclean’ and ‘clean’ frequently convey the supple¬ 6 Full of drawn water. 7 Cf. Kel. 11*.
* The word is that rendered ‘flawed earthenware vessel’ in Kel. 4*.
* See App. IV. to (cf. 3a ii).
760 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH and there was there some [gentile] of high estate, an Israelite may wash therein at once.1 6. If vegetables [gathered on the Sabbath] were sold in the city [at the close of the Sabbath] and most of the people were gentiles, an Israelite may buy them at once; if most of them were Israelites he must wait time enough for others to come [with vegetables gathered after the Sabbath] from a place near by; if they were equal he must wait time enough for others to come from a place near by. But if there was there some [gentile] of high estate, an Israelite may buy them at once.
7. If he found an abandoned child in the city and most of the people were gentiles, it may be deemed a gentile child; if most of them were Israelites, it may be deemed an Israelitish child; if they were equal, it may be deemed an Israelitish child. R. Judah says: It should be determined by which are more wont to abandon children.
8. If he found lost property in the city and most of the people were gentiles, he need not proclaim it; if most of them were Israelites he must proclaim it; if they were equal he must proclaim it. If he found any bread in the city, they determine [whether it is the bread of Israelites or gentiles] bv which of them have the greater number of bakers; if the bread was made of pure flour, it is determined by which [of the two] are more wont to eat bread of pure flour. R. Judah says: [Only] if it was bread of coarse meal should it be determined by which [of the two] are more wont to eat bread of coarse meal.
9. If he found any flesh in the city, they determine [whether it is flesh belonging to Israelites or gentiles] by which of them have the greater number of butchers; if it was boiled flesh it is determined by which [of the two] are more wont to eat boiled flesh.
10. If he found produce by the wayside2 and the greater number of the people were wont to store up their fruit in their houses,3 he is not liable [to give Tithes from it]; but if [the greater number were wont to take it] to sell it in the market, he is liable [to give Tithes from it]; if they were equal, it must be accounted demai- produce.4 If there was a store-house into which both Israelites and gentiles cast their produce, and most of them w'ere gentiles, it must be deemed produce certainly untithed; if most of them were Israelites it must be deemed demai- produce; if they were equal it must be deemed produce certainly untithed. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: Even though all were gentiles and but one Israelite cast his produce therein the whole may be deemed <£emtf*-produce.
11. If fruit of the second year exceeded in quantity the fruit of the third year, or fruit of the third year the fruit of the fourth, or fruit of the fourth year the fruit of the fifth, or fruit of the fifth year the fruit of the sixth, or fruit of the sixth year the fruit of the seventh year, or fruit of the seventh year the fruit of the year after the seventh year, they determine [under what obligations5 the fruit lies] by which [of the two] is the greater in * The principle implied is that the Israelite may not bathe in water specially heated on the Sabbath for the benefit of Israelites.
1 Between the field where it was harvested and the town to which it was being taken to be stored up.
3 So that the produce was not fully harvested, and therefore not liable to tithes (see Maas. i‘, end).
3 In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years the produce is subject to First Tithe and Second Tithe; in the thud and sixth years it is subject to First Tithe and Poorman’s Tithe.
quantity; if they were equal they must apply the more stringent of the rules [governing the two years].1 3. 1. If a sack that was full of produce was put on a river-bank or over the mouth of a cistern or on the ledge of a [pool in a] cavern, and it absorbed [any water], the law If water be put on applies to [any of the produce] that absorbed the water. R. Judah says: It applies to what is over against the water but not to what is not over against the water.2 2. If a jar3 that was full of produce was put into liquid, or if a jar that was full of liquid was put into produce, and the produce absorbed [any of the liquid], the law If water be put on applies to any produce that has ab¬ sorbed [the liquid]. These are the liquids of which they have spoken: water, wine, or vinegar; but with other of the liquids4 that can render [dry foodstuffs] susceptible, the produce would remain insusceptible to uncleanness. R. Nehemiah declares pulse insusceptible, since pulse does not absorb moisture.
3. If a man took off hot bread5 [from the oven’s side] and put it over the mouth of a jar of wine, R. Meir declares it thereby susceptible to uncleanness, but R. Judah declares it insusceptible. R. Jose declares it insusceptible if it was wheaten bread but susceptible if it was barley bread, since barley absorbs moisture.
4. If a man besprinkled his house with water and put wheat therein, and the wheat grew damp, if it was by reason of the water, the law If water be put on applies to it; but if by reason of the rock -floor, it does not apply. If a man washed his clothes in a trough and afterward put wheat therein, and it became damp, if it was by reason of the water, the law If water be put on applies to it, but if it grew damp of itself, it does not apply. If wheat was made damp with sand, the law If water be put on applies. It once hap¬ pened to the men of Machuz6 who used to damp their grain with sand that the Sages said to them: If thus ye have been wont to do, never in your lives have ye prepared food in conditions of cleanness.
5. If grain was damped with dried clay, R. Simeon says: If there was still dripping moisture in it, the law If water be put on applies to it; but if there was not, it does not apply. If a man besprinkled his threshing-floor, he need not scruple lest wheat be put therein and it be made damp. If a man gathered grass to moisten wheat, and the dew was still on it, the law' If water be put on does not apply; but if it was his purpose that the dew should moisten it, the law If water be put on does apply. If a man took his wheat to the miller and rain fell on it and he rejoiced thereat, the law If water be put on applies to it. R. Judah says: It is impossible that he should not rejoice; but, rather, the law applies only if he stood still.
6. If his olives were put out on the roof and rain fell on them and he rejoiced thereat, the law If water be put on applies. R. Judah says: It is 1 e.g. if it is in doubt whether it should come under the Seventh-Year produce restrictions, it is liable to ‘removal’ (i.e. it must be forthwith consumed or destroyed if that same produce is no longer growing in the fields; Shebi. 92), and also to tithes (from which Seventh Year produce is exempt); and in the years when it is in doubt whether the produce is liable to Second Tithe or Poorman’s Tithe, the tithe must be given to the poor, and the value of it must also be consumed by the owner in Jerusalem in the conditions required for Second 2 The water is ‘acceptable’ as a means of freshening the produce.
3 Of earthenware, which absorbs moisture through its sides, and from which the liquid slowdy percolates. 4 See below, 64. These others are less easily absorbed.
762 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH impossible that he should not rejoice; but, rather, the law applies only if he stopped up the water-spout or soaked the olives in the rain.
7. If ass-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks fell into the water and they rejoiced thereat, the law If water be put on applies. R. Judah says: It is impossible that they should not rejoice; but, rather, it applies only if the sacks were turned over. If a man’s feet were covered with mud (so, too, the feet of his beast) and he crossed through a river, and rejoiced thereat, the law If water be put on applies. R. Judah says: It is impossible that he should not rejoice; but, rather, it applies only if he stood still and rinsed them. But in the case of the man or an unclean beast, the water always makes them susceptible to uncleanness.
8. If a man took wagon-wheels and cattle-yokes down to the water at the time of the east wind1 for the cracks to swell out, the law If water be put on applies. If he took down his beast to drink, the law If water be put on applies to the water that comes up on its mouth, but not to the water on its legs; yet if his purpose was that its legs should be rinsed, the law If water be put on applies also to the water on its legs; and in times of footsoreness or threshing, [the water on its legs] always renders them susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor led down the beast, even if its owner’s purpose was that its feet should be rinsed, the law If water be put on does not apply, because with them only the act is of consequence, while the intention is of no consequence.2 4. 1. If a man stooped down to drink [from a river] the law If water be put on applies to the water that comes up to his mouth or on his moustache, but not to what comes up in his nose or on his head or his beard. If a man drew' water [from a well] in a jar, the law If water be put on applies to the water that is brought up on its outside and on the rope wound round its neck and on the [part of the] rope needful in handling it. How much is needful in handling it?3 R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: One handbreadth. If it was put beneath a water-spout, the law If water be put on does not apply [to the water on its outside and on the rope].
2. If rain fell on a man, even though he was a Father of Uncleanness,4 the law If water be put on does not apply.5 But if he shook off [the rain] the law If water be put on applies. If he stood beneath a water-spout to cool himself or to rinse himself and he was unclean, the water becomes unclean;6 even if he was clean, the law If water be put on applies.
3. If a man put a dish on end against a wall that it might be rinsed, the law If water be put on applies; but if that the wall might not suffer hurt, it does not apply.
4. If water leaking from the roof dripped into a jar,7 the School of Shammai say: It must be broken.8 And the School of Hillel say: It may be emptied out. But they agree that a man may put forth his hand inside and take out produce, and that this is not susceptible to uncleanness.
1 The very hot, dry wind common in Palestine in May and October.
* Cf. Kel. 17“; Toh. 89; Maksh. 6‘.
3 Cf. Kel. 14*. ■* See p. 604, n. a. According to the rule in t1, unclean liquids render susceptible whether their presence is acceptable or not.
s To foodstuffs on which the drops fell, since the rain, in the first place, was not accept¬ able to him. 6 Besides rendering susceptible foodstuffs on which it falls.
7 Filled with produce, and the lesser part of the produce was made wet.
* And not emptied out in the ordinary way; since if the produce was emptied out all the produce would be rendered susceptible by contact with the water.
5. If water leaking from the roof dripped into a trough, the law If water be put on does not apply to the water that splashed out or overflowed.1 If the trough was taken away to pour out [the water elsewhere], the School of Shammai say: The law If water be put on applies to it.2 And the School of Hillel say: It does not apply. If it had been so set that the water leaking from the roof should fall into it, the School of Shammai say: The law If water be put on applies to what splashes out or overflows. And the School of Hillel say: It does not apply. But they agree that if it was taken away to pour out [the water elsewhere], the law If water be put on applies to it.3 If a man immersed vessels or washed his raiment in a [pool in a] cavern, the law If water be put on applies to the water that comes up on his hands, but not to what comes up on his legs. R. Eliezer says: If it was impossible for him to go down without his feet becoming muddy, the law If water be put on applies also to the water that comes up on his feet.
6. If a basket full of lupines was put in an Immersion-pool, a man [that is unclean] may put out his hand and take lupines therefrom and they will remain clean;4 but if he raised them5 out of the water, those that touch the basket are unclean, but all the other lupines remain clean.6 A men- struant may rinse a radish in [a pool in] a cavern and it remains clean, but if she lifted it at all out of the water it becomes unclean.
7. If produce had fallen into a channel of water, and one whose hands were unclean put out [his hands] and took it, his hands become clean and the produce remains clean; if his purpose was that his hands should be rinsed, his hands become clean, but the law If water be put on applies to the produce.
8. If a pot full of water was put in an Immersion-pool and a Father of Uncleanness thrust his hand into the jar, it becomes unclean; but if he was unclean only from contact with uncleanness,7 it remains clean,8 but any other liquids [than water] become unclean, since water cannot render other liquids clean.