2. The [wooden] beam of the wool-comber’s balance is susceptible to uncleanness by reason of the hooks; that of householders, if it has hooks, is also susceptible. The lading-hooks of porters are not susceptible, but those of pedlars are susceptible. R. Judah says: Only the hook that is carried in front of pedlars is susceptible; that behind is not susceptible. The hooks of a bed-frame are susceptible, but those on the bed-poles3 are not susceptible. [The hook] of a box is susceptible to uncleanness but that of a fish-trap is not susceptible. That of a table is susceptible, but that of a wooden candlestick is not susceptible. This is the general rule: Any hook that is joined to what is susceptible is itself susceptible, and what is joined to what is not susceptible is itself not susceptible; but by themselves they are all insusceptible.
3. The metal covering of a basket belonging to householders Rabban Gamaliel declares susceptible to uncleanness, and the Sages declare it not susceptible; but that of physicians is susceptible. The [metal] door to the cupboard belonging to householders is not susceptible, but that of physicians is susceptible. Smelters’ tongs are susceptible, but fire-bars are 2 The objects specified in the following paragraphs are susceptible or insusceptible to uncleanness according to whether they can be accounted ‘utensils in their own right’ and not merely subsidiary parts.
3 One at the head and one at the foot of the bed. Cf. Sukk. i3.
622 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH not susceptible. The scorpion-shaped hook in the olive-press is sus¬ ceptible, but hooks in walls are not susceptible.
4. The blood-letter’s lancet is susceptible to uncleanness, but the point of a sundial is not susceptible. R. Zadok declares it susceptible. A weaver’s pin is susceptible; the grist-dealer’s chest R. Zadok declares susceptible, but the Sages declare it insusceptible, though if its wagon was made of metal it is susceptible.
5. If a nail is fashioned so that it will open or shut a lock it is susceptible to uncleanness; but if it was only used as a safeguard1 it is not susceptible. If it is fashioned so that it will open a jar R. Akiba declares it susceptible, but the Sages declare it not susceptible unless it was forged [anew]. The nail of a money-changer is not susceptible, but R. Zadok declares it sus¬ ceptible. Three things2 did R. Zadok declare susceptible to uncleanness and the Sages declared them not susceptible: the nail of a money-changer, a grist-dealer’s chest, and the point of a sundial. R. Zadok declared them susceptible and the Sages declared them not susceptible.
6. Four things3 did Rabban Gamaliel declare susceptible to uncleanness and the Sages declared them not susceptible: the metal basket-cover belonging to householders, the hanger of a strigil, unfinished metal vessels, and a plate broken into two [equal] pieces. But the Sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel that if the plate was broken into two pieces, the one large and the other small, the large is susceptible to uncleanness and the smaller becomes insusceptible.
7. If a denar 4 had become defective and was fashioned for hanging around a young girl’s neck, it is susceptible to uncleanness. So, too, if a sela 4 had become defective and was fashioned for use as a weight, it is susceptible to uncleanness. How defective5 may it become and yet be fit for use [as a coin]? So long as it is still worth two denars-, if it is worth less than this it should be cut up.
8. The penknife, pen, plummet, weights, pressing-plates, measuring- rod, and measuring-tables are susceptible to uncleanness. And all un¬ finished utensils of wood are susceptible excepting those of box-wood. R. Judah says: What is made from olive-tree branches is also not suscep¬ tible unless [the wood] has been heated [to drive out moisture].
13. 1. The sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-sickle, harvest-sickle, razor, and barbers’ scissors (even if the two parts are sundered) are susceptible to uncleanness. R. Jose says: The part near the hand is susceptible, but that nearer the point is not susceptible. Shears whose two parts are sundered R. Judah declares still susceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declare them insusceptible.
2. If a shovel-fork has lost its shovel-end, it is still susceptible to un¬ cleanness because of its pointed end; if it has lost its pointed end it is still susceptible because of its shovel-end. If a kohl-stick6 has lost its ear-spoon it is still susceptible because of its point; if it has lost its point it is still susceptible because of its ear-spoon. If a stylus has lost its writing point it is still susceptible because of its eraser;7 if it has lost its eraser it is still 1 To serve as an indication whether any one has entered the house. 1 Eduy. 3*.
6 Used in applying stibium to blacken the eyelids; it has one end shaped for cleaning out the ears.
r For smoothing over the wax that has been written on.
susceptible because of its writing point. If a soup-ladle has lost its spoon it is still susceptible because of its forked end; if it has lost its forked end it is still susceptible because of its spoon. So, too, with the prongs of the mattock. [To be still susceptible to uncleanness], the size of [what remains] of them must in every case be such that they can do their wonted work.
3. If a coulter is damaged it still remains susceptible to uncleanness until it has lost its greater part; but if its shaft-socket is broken it becomes insusceptible. If a hatchet-head has lost its cutting edge it still remains susceptible because of its splitting edge; if it has lost its splitting edge it still remains susceptible because of its cutting edge; but if its shaft-socket is broken it becomes insusceptible to uncleanness.
4. If a shovel has lost its blade it still remains susceptible to unclean¬ ness because it is become the like of a hammer. So R. Meir. But the Sages declare it insusceptible. If a saw has lost one tooth in every two it becomes insusceptible; but if there is left a length of one sit' of teeth at any one place it remains susceptible. If an adze, scalpel, plane, or drill is damaged it remains susceptible to uncleanness, but if it lost its sharp edge it becomes insusceptible. If any of them was split into two they remain susceptible, excepting the drill. The block of a plane is not susceptible by itself.
5. If a needle has lost its eye or its point it becomes insusceptible to uncleanness; but if it was then fashioned to be a stretching-pin it remains susceptible. If a pack-needle has lost its eye it still remains susceptible since one may write with it; but if it has lost its point it becomes insus¬ ceptible. If a stretching-pin lost either, it remains susceptible to unclean¬ ness. If a needle has become rusty and this hinders it from sewing, it is not susceptible; otherwise it remains susceptible. If a hook is straightened out it is insusceptible to uncleanness; if it is bent back it again becomes susceptible.
6. Wood that serves as a part of a metal utensil is susceptible to unclean- nees, but metal that serves as a part of a wooden utensil is not susceptible. Thus if a lock is of wood and its clutches of metal, or even one only of them, it is susceptible to uncleanness; but if the lock is of metal and its clutches of wood, it is not susceptible. If a ring is of metal and its seal of coral, it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the ring is of coral and its seal of metal it is not susceptible. The teeth of the plate in a lock or in a key are susceptible in themselves.
7. If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken yet their hooks remained, they are still susceptible to uncleanness. If a [wooden] pitch-fork, winnow¬ ing-fan, or rake (so, too, a hair-comb) lost one of its teeth and another of metal was made for it, they become susceptible to uncleanness. Concern¬ ing all these, R. Joshua said: The Scribes have invented a new thing, and I cannot make answer [to them that would gainsay them].2 8. If a flax -comb has lost its teeth and but two are left, it is still suscep¬ tible to uncleanness; if one only, it is not susceptible. Each tooth in itself is susceptible. If a wool-comb has lost one tooth in every two, it becomes insusceptible, but if three are left together in any one place it remains susceptible. But if one of them was the outermost3 [of the comb] it is not 1 The distance between the tips of the outstretched thumb and forefinger. According to Maim, it is the distance between the outstretched fore- and middle fingers, or four thumbs’ breadth.
1 Since such wooden vessels are flat and therefore by rule insusceptible to uncleanness. See below, 15*. 3 Which was made broad in shape and was unsuited for combing.
SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH susceptible. If two teeth were taken from the comb and made into a pair of forceps they are susceptible to uncleanness; if one [only was taken] and fashioned to be used for a lamp or as a stretching-pin, it is susceptible to uncleanness.
14. 1. [If] metal vessels [have been broken because of their uncleanness] how large must they be [so that they still remain susceptible to unclean¬ ness or retain their old uncleanness]? A bucket must still be of a size such that it can draw water; a boiler, such that water can still be heated in it; a kettle, such that it can hold selas a cauldron, such that it can hold jugs; jugs, such that they can hold perutahs,1 wine-measures and oil-measures, such that they can still measure wine and oil. R. Eliezer says: With all of them the size must be such that they can hold perutahs. But R. Akiba says; Any vessel that lacks but trimming [to make it of use] is susceptible to uncleanness, but what needs polishing is not susceptible. - 2. A staff that has a club-headed nail fashioned on its end is susceptible to uncleanness. One that is studded with nails is susceptible. R. Simeon says; Only if three rows [of nails] are put in it. But whensoever they are put in only for adornment [the staff] remains insusceptible. If a tube was put on the end (so, too, in the case of a door) it remains insusceptible. But if [the tube] had already served as some utensil and was fastened to it, it remains susceptible. When does it become insusceptible? The School of Shammai say: So soon as it has suffered damage. And the School of Hillel say; So soon as it is fastened on.
3. A builder’s crowbar and a carpenter’s pick are susceptible to unclean¬ ness. Tent-pegs and surveyors’ pegs are susceptible. A surveyor’s chain is susceptible; but a chain used for [binding up] faggots is not susceptible. The chain of a big bucket [is susceptible to uncleanness to a length of] four handbreadths [from the bucket], and that of a little bucket [to a length of] ten handbreadths.3 A blacksmith’s jack is susceptible. A saw in which the teeth are set in sockets is susceptible, but if they were put in upside down it is not susceptible.4 All covers are insusceptible to uncleanness excepting that of a kettle.5 4. These parts in a wagon are susceptible to uncleanness: the metal [cattle-]yoke, the cross-bar, the side-pieces which hold the straps, the iron piece that comes under the neck of the cattle, the pole-pin, the metal girth, the trays, the dapper, the hook, and any nail that holds the parts together.
5. These parts in a wagon are not susceptible to uncleanness: the [cattle-] yoke that is [only] plated with metal, side-pieces made for adornment, tubes that give out a noise, the lead by the side of the necks of the cattle, the rim of the wheel, the metal plates and mountings, and any other nails — these are not susceptible to uncleanness. The metal shoes of the cattle are susceptible to uncleanness but those made of cork are not susceptible. When is a sword susceptible to uncleanness? So soon as it is polished. And a knife? So soon as it is whetted.
2 The first can be done by the householder, while the second requires a skilled craftsman.
J As much as is used in the handling of it.
4 So Maim. Bert, and Tif. Yis. would render: ‘If a saw (had become unclean and) its teeth were put in a hole (of a door, with the teeth outermost, to serve as a door-jamb), it remains susceptible; but if the teeth were put in the reverse way, &c.’
5 Since this alone is used as a utensil in itself.
6. If a mirror is made from a metal basket-cover, R. Judah declares it insusceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declare it susceptible.1 If a mirror is broken and does not reflect the greater part of the face, it is not susceptible to uncleanness.
7. Vessels of metal2 can be rendered unclean and be again made clean even when they are broken. So R. Eliezer. But R. Joshua says: They can only be made clean while they are whole. Thus3 if they were sprinkled* and broken on the same day and recast and sprinkled a second time the same day, then they are clean. So R. Eliezer. But R. Joshua says: They may not be sprinkled earlier than the third day [for the first sprinkling] and the seventh day [for the second sprinkling].
8. If a knee-shaped key is broken at its joint it becomes insusceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah declares it susceptible since one may still open [the door] with the inner portion. If a ^mma-shaped5 key was broken off at its bend it becomes insusceptible.0 if [what remained] still retained the teeth and gaps it remains susceptible. If a key has lost its teeth it is still susceptible because of the gaps; if the gaps were blocked up it is still susceptible because of the teeth. If the teeth were lost and the gaps blocked up or merged into one another, the key becomes insusceptible. If three holes in the bottom of a mustard-strainer merged into one another, it becomes insusceptible to uncleanness, but a metal mill-funnel [in like condition] remains susceptible.
15. 1. Utensils of wood, leather, bone, or glass that are flat are not sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness. If they form a receptacle they are susceptible. After they are broken they become clean, but if again utensils are made of them they once more become susceptible to uncleanness.7 A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket,8 a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship that have [flat] bottoms and that hold [not less than] forty seahs9 of liquid, or two kors 9 of dry wares, are not susceptible to uncleanness. AH other vessels, whether they can hold [such measure] or not, are susceptible to uncleanness. So R. Meir. But R. Judah says: The tub of a [water-] wagon, the food-chests of kings, a tanner’s trough or the tank of a small ship, or an ark, even if they hold [forty seahs] are susceptible to uncleanness since they have no other use than to go about carrying what is in them. All other vessels that can hold [the like measure] are not susceptible to un¬ cleanness, while those that cannot hold [the like measure] are susceptible. The words of R. Meir differ from the words of R. Judah only in what con¬ cerns the baking-trough that belongs to a householder.
2. The baking-boards of bakers are susceptible to uncleanness, but those of householders are not susceptible.10 If they have been coloured red or saffron they are susceptible. The baker’s shelf that is fixed to the wall R. Eliezer declares insusceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declare it susceptible. The baker’s frame is susceptible to uncleanness, but that Since it is always available for its former purpose.
1 See above, ttl.
J Many texts omit 'thus'; the following sentence is not part of the preceding rule.
s Like a right-angle with one arm shorter than the other.
0 Apparently the latter type of key needed to be thrust in deeper than the former.
1 A large round basket; the same word is used for a hive (Shebi. io’; B.B. s’; Kel. 81; 10 They are not fashioned as special utensils. See Eduy. 7.
626 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH which belongs to householders is not susceptible. If it is shut in on all four sides it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if one side is open it is not susceptible. R. Simeon says: If he had arranged it so that he could cut [the dough] thereon it is susceptible to uncleanness. So, too, the rolling- pin is susceptible.
3. The container of the flour-dealer’s sifter is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which belongs to householders is not susceptible. R. Judah says: Also that which belongs to hairdressers is susceptible to uncleanness as being something that is sat upon,1 since girls sit in it to have their hair dressed.
4. All hangers are susceptible to uncleanness excepting that of a house¬ holder’s sifter or riddle. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: They are none of them susceptible excepting the hanger of the sifter belonging to flour- dealers, and the riddle that belongs to threshing-floors, and the hanger of a hand-sickle and the hanger of the exciseman’s staff, since they aid the implement at its time of use. This is the general rule: Any hanger made to aid the implement at its time of use is susceptible to uncleanness, but if it was made as a hanger alone, it is not susceptible.
5. The grist-dealer’s shovel is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of store-rooms [for grain] is not susceptible; that of winepresses is suscep¬ tible, but that of threshing-floors is not susceptible. This is the general rule: Any shovel made to hold anything is susceptible to uncleanness, but if it was made only to heap stuff together it is not susceptible.
6. The harps whereto they sing are susceptible to uncleanness; but the harps of the sons of Levi are not susceptible.2 All liquids3 are susceptible to uncleanness, but the liquid in the shambles [of the Temple] is not sus¬ ceptible. All scrolls [of Scripture] render the hands unclean4 excepting the scroll used in the Temple Court.5 * The markofb is not susceptible to un¬ cleanness. The lute, the niktimon,7 and the drum are susceptible to un¬ cleanness. R. Judah says: The drum is susceptible to uncleanness as being something that is sat upon,8 since the wailing woman sits thereon. A weasel- trap is susceptible, but a mouse-trap is not susceptible.9 16. 1. Any utensil of wood [that had become unclean] becomes clean after it is broken into two pieces, excepting a folding table, a dish made with several partitions for food, and the footstool belonging to house¬ holders.10 R. Judah says: The same also applies to a [double] dish and a Babylonian tray. When do utensils of wood become susceptible to un- 1 i.e. it is susceptible to rntdrar-uncleanness. See App. I. 26, App. IV. 17 b.
1 They were only used in the Temple and had no metal pieces.
3 Those enumerated in Maksh. 6*.
4 See Zab. 5“; Yad. 3*; 4*. The reason given for this rabbinical rule is that it used to be the custom to store the Heave-offering with the scrolls, and the mice among the Heave- offering produce destroyed the scrolls; therefore it was ruled that the scrolls rendered the Heave-offering invalid by contact; in other words (see App. IV. ij; cf. p. 7x4,0. 3) the scrolls suffered 'second-degree uncleanness’; similarly the hands which touched the scrolls were deemed to suffer the same 'second-grade uncleanness’.
s Yom. 7l; Sot. 7'. Instead of 'Temple Court’ (Azctrah), the Tosefta here reads ‘The * Explained as a wooden horse; also as the wooden arm of a harp around which the strings were bound. Cf. i6’.
9 Since the weasel is caught for its skin and the trap is hollowed out to preserve it; but a mouse-trap aims only at crushing the mouse, and has only flat boards.
10 Made to take to pieces.
I cleanness?1 Beds and cots [become susceptible] after they are rubbed over 1 with fish-skin.2 If it was determined not to rub them over, they are [forth¬ with] susceptible. R. Meir says: A bed [becomes susceptible] after three rows of meshes3 have been knit together.
2. Wooden baskets [become susceptible to uncleanness] after their rims are bound round and the rough ends smoothed off; but baskets of palm- branches, even if the ends are not smoothed off inside, become susceptible, for thus they are suffered to remain. A big basket [becomes susceptible] after its rim is bound round and the rough ends smoothed off and its hanger finished. A wicker case for flagons or for cups, even if the rough ends are not smoothed off inside, becomes susceptible to uncleanness, for thus they are suffered to remain.
3. Small food -baskets and hand baskets [become susceptible to unclean¬ ness] after their rims are bound round and the rough ends smoothed off; large food-baskets and large hampers, after two circling bands have been made around their sides; the container of a sifter or sieve and the cup for balances, after one circling band has been made around their sides; a willow basket, after two twists have been made around its sides; a rush basket, I after one twist has been made around its sides.
4. When do leathern articles become susceptible to uncleanness? A shepherd’s bag [becomes susceptible] after its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed and its thongs sewn on. R. Judah says: After its ears4 have been been sewn on. A leathern apron [becomes susceptible] after its hem has been stitched and the rough ends trimmed and its strings sewn on. R. Judah says: After its loops have been sewn on. A leathern bed-cover [is susceptible] after its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. R. Judah says: After its thongs have been sewn on. Leathern cushions or mattresses [become susceptible] after their hems have been stitched and their rough ends trimmed. R. Judah says: After they have been sewn up and less than five handbreadths is left open.
5. A fig-basket is susceptible to uncleanness, but a rubbish-basket is not susceptible. Little fruit-baskets made of leaves are not susceptible, but those made of twigs are susceptible. The wicker wrapping [in which the dates are left to ripen and] whose contents can be put in or taken out [without tearing it] is susceptible to uncleanness; but if they cannot be put in or taken out without tearing it or unbinding it, it is not susceptible.
6. The leathern gloves of winnowers, travellers, or flax-workers is susceptible to uncleanness; but that of dyers or blacksmiths is not sus¬ ceptible. R. Jose says: The same also applies to the glove of grist-dealers. This is the general rule: What is used to seize hold with is susceptible to uncleanness; but what is worn because of sweat is not susceptible to un¬ cleanness.
7. A bag [to hold the dung] of a bullock, its muzzle, a bee-smoker, and a fan are not susceptible to uncleanness. The cover of a casket is susceptible; the cover of a clothes-chest is not susceptible. The cover of an ark, the cover of a basket, a carpenter’s vice, the cushion under an ark and its arched cover, the reading-desk for a book, the bolt-socket, the lock-socket, the 1 At what stage in their manufacture do they become fit for use and so become exposed to uncleanness? 1 To rid the surface of splinters.
3 Of the under-webbing. 4 Flaps to facilitate handling.
s Also explained as a protective apron or head-gear.
628 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH Mesuzah-cast,1 the viol-case and lyre-case, the turban-maker’s block, the singer’s markof,2 the clappers of the wailing women, the poor man’s parasol, the bed-struts, the phylactery-mould,3 and the cloak-maker’s block — these are not susceptible to uncleanness. This, said R. Jose, is the general rule: Such as are accessory to what a man uses both during his work and not during his work are susceptible to uncleanness; but if only during his work they are not susceptible.
8. The sheath of a sword or knife or dagger, the case for scissors or shears or razors, the case for kohl-4sticks, the kohl-box, the stylus-box, the box with many partitions, the tablet-case, the leathern apron, the quiver, and the javelin-case — these are susceptible to uncleanness. The case for the double flute, if this is put in from above, is susceptible to uncleanness; if from the side it is not susceptible. The case for pipes R. Judah declares not susceptible, since they are put in from the side. The covering for a club, bow, or spear is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the general rule: What is made as a case is susceptible to uncleanness; what is made only as a covering is not susceptible.
17. i. [Wooden] vessels that belong to householders [and that are broken because of their uncleanness become clean if the breaches therein are] such a size that pomegranates will drop through them; but R. Eliezer says: If aught soever will drop through. Gardeners’ baskets [become clean] if [the rents are such] that bundles of vegetables will drop through; and the baskets of householders, if bundles of straw will drop through; and the baskets of bath-keepers, if bundles of shavings will drop through. R. Joshua says: In every case [they become clean if the breaches therein are] such that pomegranates will drop through.
2. A goatskin [becomes clean if it has holes] such that anything the size of warp-clews will pass through; if it will not hold [aught small as] warp- clews but will at least hold [what is the size of] woof-clews, it is still sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness. A dish-holder that will not hold dishes but will at least hold trays is susceptible to uncleanness. A chamber-pot that will not hold liquids but will at least hold excrement is susceptible to un¬ cleanness. Rabban Gamaliel declares it not susceptible, since men do not suffer it to remain so.
3. Bread-baskets [become clean if they have breaches] such that loaves will fall through. A [wide-meshed] basket made of papyrus, although reeds have been tied below it and above it to strengthen it, remains insus¬ ceptible to uncleanness; but if any manner of handles were made for it it becomes susceptible. R. Simeon says: If it cannot be taken away by the handles it remains insusceptible.
4. The pomegranates of which they have spoken are three fastened together. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: In a sifter or sieve [the hole must be] such that they will fall through when it is taken and shaken; and in a hamper, such [that they will fall through] when a man hangs it behind him. All other vessels which cannot hold pomegranates, such as the quarter¬ ed!/?5 [measure] and the half quarter -kab, and small baskets, [become clean] when the greater part of them [is defective]. So R. Meir. R. Simeon says: [If] olives [will fall through]. If [their sides] are broken through [they 4 The black eye-paint applied to the lids.
s App. II, D.
become clean] if olives will fall through. If they are worn away [so that little remains of the sides], [they are still susceptible to uncleanness] if they can hold aught soever.
5. The [measure of the] pomegranate of w hich they have spoken applies to one that is neither big nor little, but of middle size. And why were the pomegranates of Baddan spoken of?1 Because [when they are Orlah-( ruit- or are otherwise forbidden] in any quantity soever they render forbidden [other pomegranates with w'hich they are confused]. So R. Meir. R. Johanan b. Nuri says: To measure therewith [the breaches in] vessels. R. Akiba says: They are spoken of for both reasons — to measure there¬ with [the breaches in] vessels and because in any quantity soever they render other fruit forbidden. R. Jose3 said: Pomegranates of Baddan and leeks of Geba4 were spoken of only because Tithes must everywhere be given from them as being certainly untithed.5 6. The [measure of the] egg of which they have spoken6 applies to one that is neither big nor little, but of middle size. R. Judah says: They should bring the largest and the smallest and put them in water and divide the [volume of] water [that is displaced]. R. Jose said: But who can teli me which is the largest and which the smallest? — but, rather, it is all in accordance with the impression of the eye.
7. The [measure of the] dried fig of which they have spoken7 applies to one that is neither big nor little, but of middle size. R. Judah says: What is big in the Land of Israel is but of middle size in other lands.
8. The [measure of the] olive of which they have spoken8 * applies to one that is neither big not little, but of middle size, such as an olive fit for storing. The [measure of the] barleycorn of which they have spoken0 applies to one that is neither big nor little, but of middle size, such as barley that grows in the wilderness. The [measure of the] lentil of which they have spoken10 applies to one that is neither big nor little, but of middle size, such as an Egyptian lentil. Any1 1 * movable object conveys the uncleanness1 z if it is as thick as an ox-goad — this applies to one that is neither big nor little, but of middle size. Which is accounted of middle size? One that is a handbreadth round.
9. The [measure of the] cubit of which they have spoken13 applies to the cubit of middle size.14 There were two cubits15 by the Palace of Shushan [Gate],16 one at the north-eastern corner and another at the south-eastern comer. That at the north-east was longer than the cubit of Moses17 by half a fingerbreadth; that at the south-east was longer than the other by half a fingerbreadth; thus it was one fingerbreadth longer than the cubit of Moses. And why was there ordained a larger cubit and a smaller cubit? So that the craftsmen might undertake their tasks according to the measure of the s And if offered for aale by an Am-haaretz must, by an ‘Associate’, be deemed not merely demai- produce (see p. 20, n. 9) from which First Tithe and Poorman’s Tithe need not be set apart, but as produce from which these two Tithes also must be set apart.
4 Cf. Ber. 7*: Ter. 51; Orl. Pes. 3*; Sukk. 3’; Meil. 4‘; Ohol. 13s; Toh. i5.
* Cf. Ber. 71; Kil. 8‘; Hall, i*; Pes. 3*. and frequently.
• Cf. Naz. 7*; Eduy. 61; Kel. i‘; Ohol. 2*.
10 Cf. Kil. 8*; Ohol. iJ; 13*; Neg. 4*; Mikw. 6?. 11 Quoting from Ohol. i6‘.
is By overshadowing both a man and something that conveys corpse-uncleanness.
Cf. Kil. 3*; Erub. i‘; Shek. 8‘; Yom. Sl; Sukk. i»; R.Sh. 2»; Ohol. 165.
14 Six hand breadths. is As deposited standards. 14 Midd. 1’.
1? Used in building the Tabernacle. This, according to Maim., was six handbreadth*.
630 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH smaller cubit and fulfil them according to the measure of the larger cubit, and thereby escape the guilt of Sacrilege.1 10. R. Meir says: All [the measurements in the Temple] were according to the cubit of middle size excepting those of the Golden Altar2 and the horns and the Circuit and the Base [of the Altar].3 R. Judah says: The [standard of the] cubit used for the [Temple] building was six handbreadths and that for the utensils five handbreadths.