1 1. Sometimes they have prescribed a smaller measure: [thus] for liquids and dry wares [they sometimes prescribed] Italian measure;4 such is the measure of [the time of] the wilderness. Sometimes they have prescribed a measure that is in accordance with the measure of the man himself, like as when he is bidden to take a ‘handful’ of the Meal-offering,5 or ‘both hands full’ of the incense,6 or [forbidden] to drink a ‘mouthful’7 on the Day of Atonement, or [like as when it is enjoined to prepare] ‘food enough for two meals’8 for the Erub,5 fare such as he would eat on weekdays and not on the Sabbath. So R. Meir. But R. Judah says: Such as he would eat on the Sabbath and not on weekdays. And they were each minded to give the more lenient ruling. R. Simeon says: [It should consist] of two-thirds of a loaf of [a size] three to the kab.10 R. Johanan b. Baroka says: [Not less than] one loaf worth a pondion11 [from wheat costing] one sela for four seahs.
12. Sometimes they have prescribed a large measure: [thus] ‘a ladleful of corpse-mould’12 is according to the big ladle of physicians; the ‘split bean’ spoken of in leprosy-signs13 is the Cilician bean; [and it is enjoined that he is culpable] who eats on the Day of Atonement a large date’s bulk14 the like of it together with its stone; in skins of wine and oil, the measure [of the rent by which they are rendered clean] is according to their large stopper; the prescribed measure of the light-hole’5 not made by man’s hands is that of a large fist, a fist like that of Ben Batiach16 (R. Jose said: That is the size of a large head of a man), [and that of the light-hole] made by man’s hands is that of a hole made by the large drill that lay in a chamber of the Temple,17 which is the size of an Italian pondion or a Neronian sela, or like the hole in a yoke.
13. All [utensils made of the skin of creatures that live] in the sea are insusceptible to uncleanness excepting [what is made from] the sea-dog, since this seeks refuge on dry land. So R. Akiba. If a man made utensils from what grows in the sea and joined to them’8 aught that grows on land, even if it is but a thread or a cord, yet something that is susceptible to uncleanness, it, too, becomes susceptible.
14. Uncleanness can arise in what was created on the First Day;15 no uncleanness can arise in what was created on the Second Day;20 uncleanness can arise in what was created on the Third day;21 no uncleanness can arise in what was created on the Fourth Day22 and on the Fifth day,23 excepting [what is made from] the wing of the vulture and the plated egg of an 1 Profiting from labour or material that belongs to the Temple; cf. Lev. 515; p. 573, n. 2.
2 Within the Sanctuary. 3 See Midd. 31.
16 A giant who lived at the time of the destruction of the Temple; said to have been the nephew of R. Johanan b. Zakkai. 17 Ohol. 23. 18 Cf. Neg. 111.
19 What is made from the sea (Maim.) or (Bert.) from the products of the earth.
20 Anything in heaven. 21 The ground and plants.
22 The sun, moon, and stars. « Birds and beasts of the sea.
ostrich (R. Johanan b. Nuri said: How does the wing of the vulture differ from other wings?); and everything that was created on the Sixth Day1 is susceptible to uncleanness.
15. If a man made an article that could in any wise be a receptacle it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he made an article that could in any wise be lain upon or sat upon it is susceptible to uncleanness.1 If he made a purse of untanned hide or paper it is susceptible to uncleanness. If children hollowed out a pomegranate, acorn, or nut wherewith to measure dust, or fashioned them into a pair of scales, they are susceptible to uncleanness, because with children only the act is of consequence while the intention is of no consequence.3 16. A beam of a balance or a levelling-rod that contains a [secret] receptacle in which to load it with metal, or a carrying-yoke wherein is a [secret] receptacle for [stolen] money, or a beggar’s cane that has a receptacle for water,4 or a stick that has a receptacle for a Mezuzah and for pearls5 — these are susceptible to uncleanness. And of all these Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said: Woe is me if I speak of them and woe is me if I speak not of them.6 17. The base of a goldsmith’s anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of a blacksmith is not susceptible.7 If a whetstone has a receptacle for oil it is susceptible; otherwise it is not susceptible. If a writing- tablet has a receptacle for wax it is susceptible; otherwise it is not susceptible. Mat¬ ting of straw or a tube of straw R. Akiba declares susceptible to unclean¬ ness, but R. Johanan b. Nuri declares them not susceptible. R. Simeon says: The same also applies to the hollow stalk of colocynth. Matting of reed or of rushes is not susceptible to uncleanness. A reed-tube which was cut in order to hold anything remains insusceptible to uncleanness until all the pith has been taken away.
18. 1. The School of Shammai say: A chest8 should be measured on the inside [to determine its capacity].9 And the School of Hillel say: On the outside. But they agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim should not be included in the measurement. R. Jose says: They agree that the thickness of the legs and of the rim should be included, but that the space between them should not be included. R. Simeon of Shezur says: If the legs were a handbreadth high the space between them should not be included in the measurement; but if less than this, the space between them should be included.
2. If the device10 thereof can be slipped off it does not count as a connec¬ tive” nor is it included in its measurement nor does it afford protection together with it12 in the 'Tent’ wherein lies a corpse; and it may not be * Animals living on dry land, and human kind.
* Cf. p. 1 1 5, n. 8. s App. 1. 25. The Mezuzah is used as a device for smuggling pearls.
6 ‘Since if I speak of them 1 teach men how to deceive, and if 1 do not speak of them they will offend against the laws of uncleanness.’
’ The former is made to catch scraps of metal, but not the latter. * Cf. above, 15*.
* Whether it can contain forty teaks (or three cubic cubits) or more; and so be accounted insusceptible to uncleanness.
10 Cf. Ohol. 4*. The Hebrew (also in Yom. 3l>; Tam. 1*; 3') is a transliteration of and probably denotes here a low carriage on rollers.
" So that it shares uncleanness with the chest.
11 If it partly blocked up a hole (one handbreadth square) in the chest (which was other¬ wise tightly scaled up) it does not serve to protect it against the ingress of corpse-unclean- ness.
632 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH drawn along on the Sabbath if there is money therein.1 But if it cannot be slipped off it counts as a connective and it is included in its measurement and it affords protection together with it in the ‘Tent’ wherein lies a corpse; and it may be drawn along on the Sabbath even if there is money therein. If the arched top of the chest is fixed, it counts as a connective and it is included in its measurement; but if it is not fixed it does not count as a connective nor is it included in its measurement. How is it measured? Ox- head fashion.2 R. Judah says: If the chest cannot stand of itself it is not susceptible to uncleanness.
3. A chest, a box, or a cupboard that has lost one of its legs, even if it can still contain aught, is not susceptible to uncleanness, since3 it cannot contain it after its usual fashion; but R. Jose declares it susceptible. The bed-poles, the bed-base, and the wrapper are not susceptible to uncleanness. Only the bed itself and the bed-frame are susceptible; but the bed-frames of the sons of Levi are not susceptible.4 4. If a bed-frame is set up on [movable] props R. Meir and R. Judah declare it susceptible to uncleanness, but R. Jose and R. Simeon declare it insusceptible. R. Jose said: Wherein does this differ from the bed- frames of the sons of Levi? — for the bed-frames of the sons of Levi are not susceptible.
5. If a bed had contracted mtfras-uncleanness5 and one of the short sides and two bed-legs were taken off, it remains unclean;6 but if one of the long sides and two bed-legs were taken off it becomes clean. R. Nehemiah declares it still unclean. If the two stays at opposite corners were cut off, or if a handbreadth was cut off from the two legs at opposite corners, or if [the whole bed] was reduced to [a level of] less than one handbreadth, it becomes clean.
6. If a bed had contracted Twt/ray-uncleanness and one of the long sides was broken and then mended, it retains its mifiw-uncleanness; but if the second side also was broken and then mended it becomes free of tnidras- uncleanness, but it remains unclean from contact with7 wni/ras-uncleanness. But if the second was broken before the first could be mended the bed becomes clean.
7. If a bed-leg had contracted mziirar-uncleanness and was then joined to a bed [that was clean], the whole bed contracts zraz/ras-uncleanness; if it was taken off again the bed-leg retains its zra’rfras-uncleanness, but the bed is unclean from contact with /mz/ras-uncleanness. If the bed-leg had contracted seven-day uncleanness8 and was then joined to a bed [that was clean], the whole bed contracts seven-day uncleanness; if it was taken off again the bed-leg still suffers seven-day uncleanness and the bed suffers only evening-uncleanness. If the bed-leg had contracted evening-un- cleanness9 and it was then joined to a bed [that was clean], the whole bed contracts evening-uncleanness. If it was taken off again the bed-leg still 2 An isosceles triangle is described, the apex being the highest point in the arch; the volume contained within the triangle is added to the bulk of the chest.
3 Variant r And if it cannot hold (the forty seahs) in its usual fashion (but needs to be propped up), R. Jose declares it susceptible.
4 They were easily detachable and not accounted part of the bed.
6 It is not deemed properly broken since it is still usable to lie upon; therefore it is still deemed to be suffering mzaVu.t-uncleanness.
7 It is not a ‘father of uncleanness’ but only a ‘derived uncleanness’ of first grade.
8 See Num. 1911; App. IV. 2. 9 Num. 1922.
suffers evening-uncleanness and the bed becomes clean.1 So, too, with the prong of a mattock.2 8. A phylactery3 counts as four separate objects. If [it had contracted corpse-uncleanness and] the first section was unloosed and then mended,4 the phylactery still retains its corpse-uncleanness; so, too, if the second and the third [sections were then unloosed and then mended]. If the fourth also was unloosed, the phylactery becomes free of corpse-uncleanness but it remains unclean from contact with corpse-uncleanness. If, now, the first section was again unloosed and then mended, it continues unclean from contact; so, too, if the second [was again unloosed and then mended]. If, then, the third was unloosed, the whole becomes clean, since the fourth was only unclean from contact; and what is unclean from contact cannot convey uncleanness by contact.
9. If the half of a bed [that was unclean] was stolen or if the half was lost, or if brothers or jointholders had divided it between them, it becomes clean. If it was brought back again it thereafter becomes susceptible to uncleanness. A bed can contract uncleanness [only] when [all its parts are] bound together and be rendered clean5 again [only] when [all its parts are] bound together. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: It can contract uncleanness in single parts and be rendered clean again in single parts.
19. 1. If a man took a bed6 to pieces to immerse it, he that touches the ropes [of the webbing] remains clean.7 When8 does the rope count as a con¬ nective with the bed? After three [rows of] meshes of it have been knotted; then he that touches the rope from the knot inwards9 becomes unclean; but if from the knot outwards, he remains clean. If he touched the loose ends of a knot that are needed for the knot he becomes unclean. How much [loose end] is needed for the knot? R. Judah says: Three fingerbreadths.
2. If the rope that hangs over from the [webbing of the] bed10 is shorter than five handbreadths it is not susceptible to uncleanness; if it is from five to ten handbreadths long it is susceptible, and what is over the ten handbreadths is not susceptible to uncleanness. With this11 they tie up the Passover-lambs and hang up the beds.
3. Aught soever of the bed-girth12 that hangs over [is susceptible to un¬ cleanness]. So R. Meir. But R. Jose says: Only such as is shorter than ten handbreadths. The remnants of a bed-girth [are susceptible] if they are seven handbreadths long, enough to use as an ass’s girth.
4. If a man with flux was borne on a bed and [he lay] on the bed-girth, this can convey uncleanness at two removes and can render [Heave¬ offering] invalid at the third remove.13 So R. Meir. But R. Jose says: If 1 Since the leg, being only a ‘derived uncleanness’, cannot (after being severed) transmit uncleanness to another utensil (cf. p. 604, n. 2).
2 If one prong suffering evening-uncleanness was secured to a mattock that was clean, the mattock suffers evening-uncleanness; if the prong was removed the prong still suffers evening-uncleanness but the mattock becomes clean again.
5 By immersion or, in case of corpse-uncleanness, by sprinkling with Sin-offering water (Num. 19"'). 6 Suffering midras- or corpse-uncleanness.
7 After the bed is dismantled the ropes are not in themselves susceptible to uncleanness.
8 When a man makes a new bed. 9 Towards the already knotted webbing.
10 Rope ends left over after finishing the necessary webbing, but not yet cut off.
11 The length under ten handbreadths. 12 Too short to bind round a bed.
13 The bed and the girth are (App, IV. 3) ‘fathers of uncleanness’. What touches the girth thereby becomes a ‘derived uncleanness’, and such can render common food invalid by touching it (giving it ‘second-grade uncleanness’), and this again can render Heave- offering invalid (with ‘third-grade uncleanness’). See App. IV. 17 b.
SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH a man with flux was borne on a bed and [he lay] on the bed-girth, less than ten handbreadths [of the bed-girth] can convey uncleanness at two removes and can render [Heave-offering] invalid at the third remove; but what is over the ten handbreadths1 can convey uncleanness only at one remove and render [Heave-offering] invalid only at the second remove. If he was borne on the bed -girth [on the overhanging part] within the ten hand¬ breadths, the bed becomes unclean; but if [on the overhanging part] out¬ side the ten handbreadths, the bed remains clean.
5. If a bed-girth was wrapped around a bed that had contracted tnidras- uncleanness, the whole contracts mitfras-uncleanness;2 if it was removed, the bed retains its mit/ror-uncleanness and the bed-girth is unclean from contact with mitfrar-uncleanness. If a bed-girth was wrapped around a bed that had contracted seven-day uncleanness, the whole contracts seven-day uncleanness; if it was removed, the bed retains its seven-day uncleanness, and the bed-girth suffers evening-uncleanness. If a bed-girth was wrapped around a bed that had contracted evening-uncleanness, the whole contracts evening-uncleanness; if it was removed, the bed retains its evening¬ uncleanness, but the bed-girth becomes clean.
6. If a bed-girth was wrapped around a bed and a corpse touched them, they contract seven-day uncleanness; when they are taken apart they retain seven-day uncleanness. If it was a [dead] creeping thing that touched them, they contract evening-uncleanness; when they are taken apart they retain evening-uncleanness. If from a bed [that was unclean] two longer sides were taken away and two new ones were made for it, yet the sockets re¬ mained unchanged, if the new sides are broken the bed still remains un¬ clean; but if the old sides are broken, the bed becomes clean, since all is determined by the old sides.
7. A box whose opening is at the top is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. If [after contracting corpse-uncleanness] it was damaged above, it still retains its corpse-uncleanness. If it was damaged below it becomes clean, but the partitions within it [if they were not broken] remain unclean, and they do not count as a connective with it.
8. If a shepherd’s bag was damaged [after contracting uncleanness] its inner pocket remains unclean and it does not count as a connective with it. If the testicle-bags of a goatskin also hold water, and they were damaged, they become clean, since they will no longer hold water after their usual fashion.
9. A box whose opening is at the side is susceptible both to midras- uncleanness3 and to corpse-uncleanness. R. Jose said: This applies only if it is less than ten handbreadths high or has not a rim one handbreadth deep. If it was damaged above it is still susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; if it was damaged below,4 R. Meir declares it [still] susceptible [to nridras- uncleanness], but the Sages declare it insusceptible, since if the primary purposes is annulled the secondary purpose6 is annulled also.
10. If a dung-basket was so damaged that it will not hold pomegranates, R. Meir declares it [still] susceptible [to mtt/rai-uncleanness], but the Sages declare it insusceptible, since if the primary purpose is annulled the secondary purpose6 is annulled also.
1 Such counts only as suffering from contact with mtdroj-uncleanness, and itself only suffers ‘first-grade uncleanness’. 2 As in the examples given above. 18'.
5 It can be sat upon and still do its normal work. ♦ Yet its top could still be sat upon.
s As a receptacle. 6 As something that can be sat upon.
20. i. Mattresses, pillows, sacks, and packing-bags, although they have been damaged,1 are still susceptible to rrw/rtw-uncleanness.2 A fodder- bag holding four kabs,3 a shepherd’s wallet holding five kabs, a travelling- bag holding a seah,3 a goatskin holding seven kabs (R. Judah says: Also a spice-bag and a food-wallet, however little they hold) are susceptible to mtdrtw-uncleanness;4 but if any of them are damaged, they are insusceptible to uncleanness, since if the primary purpose is annulled the secondary pur¬ pose is annulled also.
2. Bagpipes are not susceptible to midras- uncleanness; a trough for mixing mortar the School of Shammai declare susceptible to midras- un¬ cleanness, and the School of Hillel declare it susceptible to corpse-un¬ cleanness alone. If a trough that holds from two logs to nine kabs is split, it becomes susceptible to midras -uncleanness; if it was left in the rain so that it swelled, it becomes susceptible to corpse-uncleanness only;5 if it was left out during the east wind so that it split again, it becomes suscep¬ tible to mu/rar-uncleanness. Herein greater stringency applies to the remnants of wooden vessels than applies to them in the beginning; also greater stringency applies to the remnants of wicker vessels than applies to them in the beginning, for they are not susceptible to uncleanness in the beginning until their rim is finished; but once their rim has been finished, even if their edges fall away leaving aught soever, they remain susceptible to uncleanness.
3. If a staff was used as a haft for a hatchet, it counts as a connective for uncleanness at the time of use.6 A yam-winder counts as a connective7 for uncleanness at the time of use. If it was fixed to a post it is susceptible8 to uncleanness, but the post does not count as a connective. If the post itself was used9 to make a yam-winder, only so much of the post is sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness as is needful for use. If a seat was fixed to the post the seat is susceptible to uncleanness but the post does not count as a con¬ nective with it; if the post was used as a seat, only that part that is sat upon is susceptible to uncleanness. If a seat was fixed to the beam in an olive- press, the seat is susceptible to uncleanness, but the beam does not count as a connective with it; if the end of the beam was used as a seat, it is not susceptible to uncleanness, because they say to him [that sits upon it], ‘Get up and let us do our work!’
4. If a large trough was so damaged that it could not contain pome¬ granates and was made into a seat, R. Akiba declares it susceptible to un¬ cleanness, but the Sages declare it insusceptible unless its rough parts have been smoothed. If it was used as a feeding-trough for cattle, even if it was fastened to the wall, it is susceptible to uncleanness.
5. If a wooden block was fixed to a course of a wall, whether it was fixed in but not built upon, or built upon but not fixed in, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If it was both fixed in and built upon, it is not susceptible.10 If 1 So that they can no longer serve as receptacles.
1 So long as they can serve as seats for one that has a flux or a menstruant or a woman after childbirth. 5 App. II, D.
4 If they hold that minimum quantity they are large enough to sit upon.
* It becomes fit for its proper work; it is not susceptible to msdrar-uncleanness since it only counts as a seat if it is unfitted for its proper work (see par. 3, end).
6 Even though, as a fiat wooden utensil, it is not susceptible to uncleanness.
7 With the metal end cross-pieces, temporarily attached.
* Since the metal ends are then left on it permanently.
* The metal pieces were put directly on to the post.
10 It then counts as part of the wall and as fixed to the ground.
SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH matting was spread over the roof-beams, whether it was fixed on but no plasterwork laid over it, or whether plasterwork was laid over it but it was not fixed on, it is susceptible to uncleanness.1 But if it was both fixed on and plasterwork laid over it, it is not susceptible. If a dish was fixed to a chest, a box, or a cupboard so that it can contain aught after its usual fashion, it is still susceptible to uncleanness; but if so that it cannot contain aught after its usual fashion, it is not susceptible.
6. If a sheet that was susceptible to?mdras-uncleanness was used as a curtain it becomes insusceptible to mt'drai-uncleanness, but it is still susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. When does it cease to be susceptible to miVfras-uncleanness r The School of Shammai say: After it has been sewn up. And the School of Hillel say: After it has been tied up. R. Akiba says: After it has been fixed up [in its new place].
7. A piece of matting whereon reeds2 are laid lengthwise is not susceptible to uncleanness; but the Sages say: Only if they are laid crosswise.3 If they were laid along the breadth of the matting and there was less than four handbreadths between each, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. If a piece of matting is divided along its breadth, R. Judah declares it insusceptible. So, too, if the end-knots of a reed mat are untied, it becomes insusceptible. If it was divided along its length, but there were still left three end-knots, six handbreadths in all, it remains susceptible to uncleanness. When does a mat become susceptible to uncleanness? After its rough ends have been trimmed; and that is the completion of its manufacture.
21. 1. If4 a man touched the upper beam5 [of a loom] or the lower beam, or the heddles6 or the sley or the thread that is drawn over fine purple, or a spool which is not to be shot back again [into the web], he remains clean; [but if he touched] the shedded weft or the standing warp or the double thread that is drawn over fine purple, or a spool which is to be shot back again, he becomes unclean. If a man touched the wool that is on the distaff or spool, he remains clean; but if he touched the spinner before it is laid bare, he becomes unclean; but if after it is laid bare he remains clean.7 2. If8 a man touched the yoke [of the wagon], the cross-bar, the collar- piece, or the thick ropes [of the plough], even at the time of use, he remains clean; [but if he touched] the tail-piece, knee, or handle of the plough, he becomes unclean. If he touched the metal rings or the plough-guides or the plough-flanks, he becomes unclean; but R. Judah declares him clean if he touched the plough-guides, since these are used only to increase the soil.’
3. If10 a man touched either end of a saw handle, he becomes unclean; but if he touched the string, cord, cross-piece, or side-pieces, or a carpenter’s press, or the bow-handle of a drill, he remains clean. R. Judah says: Also, if he touched the frame of a large saw he remains clean. If he touched the bow-strings or the bow, even when it was stretched, he remains clean. The 1 It is still possible to take it and use it to lie on.
* Too hard for a man to lie on comfortably.
1 Lit. ‘in the form of (the Greek letter) chi'. Cf. Men. 63.
4 The case is concerned with a piece of stuff partially woven on a loom. The woven Cortion had contracted corpse-uncleanness. Whatever is in contact with this woven portion ecomes unclean. s Neg. u‘. 6 Cf. Shab. 13s.
7 It then no longer counts as a part of the spindle.
8 If the ploughshare was unclean.
* Variant: to break up the soil. The meaning intended in either case is that it is not con¬ cerned in the actual process of ploughing.
10 If the saw-blade was unclean, or the metal parts of the other implements.
mole-trap is not susceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah says: So long as it is set [the iron spring] serves as a connective.
22. 1. If a table or a side-table1 [that had contracted uncleanness] was damaged or was overlaid with marble2 yet room enough was left to set cups thereon, it still remains susceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah says: Even if there is only room to set pieces [of food] thereon.
2. If a [three-legged] table lost one of its legs it becomes insusceptible to uncleanness;3 if it lost a second leg it is still insusceptible; but if it lost the third it again becomes susceptible to uncleanness if a man has the intention4 to use it [in such condition]. R. Jose says: Not even intention is necessary. So, too, in the case of a side-table.
3. If a bench lost one of its [two upright] ends it becomes susceptible to uncleanness;5 if it lost the second it is still insusceptible; but if it was still one handbreadth high it is susceptible. If a footstool lost one of its [two] feet it is still susceptible to uncleanness; so, too, the stool in front of a throne.
4. If6 a bride’s stool lost its seat-boards, the School of Shammai declare it still susceptible to uncleanness, and the School of Hillel declare it not susceptible. Shammai says: Even the frame of the stool remains susceptible to uncleanness. If a stool is fixed to a baking-trough, the School of Sham¬ mai declare it susceptible to uncleanness, and the School of Hillel declare it not susceptible.7 Shammai says: Even one that was made [to be used] inside it [is susceptible], 5. If the seat-boards of a stool do not extend beyond the sides, and they are removed, it is still susceptible to uncleanness since it is usual to turn it on its side and sit on it.
6. If a stool lost its middle seat-board but the outer ones remain, it is still susceptible to uncleanness; if the outer ones were lost but the centre one remains, it is still susceptible to uncleanness. R. Simeon says: Only if it is a handbreadth wide.
7. If8 a stool lost two adjacent seat-boards, R. Akiba declares it still susceptible, but the Sages declare it insusceptible. R. Judah said: Even if a bride’s stool lost its seat-boards though there still remained the under¬ receptacle, it becomes insusceptible, since once the primary purpose is annulled the secondary purpose is annulled also.9 8. If a chest10 lost its top part it remains susceptible to uncleanness because of its bottom part; and if it lost its bottom part it remains sus¬ ceptible because of its top part. If it lost both the top and the bottom part, R. Judah declares it susceptible to uncleanness because of its sides; but the Sages declare it insusceptible. What a stone-cutter sits upon11 is susceptible to mfrfras-uncleanncss.
9. If a wooden block was stained red or saffron, or was polished, R. Akiba declares it susceptible to [ffzft/raj-juncleanness, but the Sages declare 1 Delphica. See A. Zar. 5r>. Although the table is a flat wooden utensil (is1) not susceptible to uncleanness by virtue of containing a receptacle, it is susceptible as being an object leaned against (and so susceptible to wfdrat-uncleanness), and as an object which serves objects which serve a man. 2 Which is not susceptible to uncleanness.
3 It can no longer serve its purpose. 4 Cf. below', 25®.
s It is impossible to sit on it. 6 Eduy iu.
7 It is reckoned only as an adjunct to the trough which is not susceptible to viidras- uncleanness. 8 Eduy. 2s. 9 Cf. 19°.
10 Holding less than forty seahs; cf. 15*. The present chest has an upper and a lower container.
11 Small block of wood.
638 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH it insusceptible unless it was hollowed out. If a small or big basket was filled with straw or flocking and fashioned as a seat, it remains insusceptible to uncleanness; but if it was plaited over with reed -grass or cords it becomes susceptible.
10. A night-stool is susceptible both to mfdras-uncleanness and to corpse-uncleanness. If it is taken apart the leather [seat] is susceptible to mtdras-uncleanness, and the iron base to corpse-uncleanness. A tripod stool that is covered with leather is susceptible both to mir/ras-uncleanness and to corpse -uncleanness; if it is taken apart the leather is susceptible to mfdroj-uncleanness but the tripod itself is not susceptible to any un¬ cleanness. A bath-house bench1 that has two wooden legs is susceptible to uncleanness; if one leg is of wood and the other of stone, the bench is not susceptible. If the boards in a bath-house were joined together, R. Akiba declares them susceptible to uncleanness, and the Sages declare them insusceptible,2 since they are used only for the water to flow away beneath them. A fumigation-cage wherein is a receptacle for garments is susceptible to uncleanness, but if it is made like a bee-hive3 it is not susceptible.