23. 1. If a ball, a shoe-last, an amulet, or a phylactery’4 [contracted corpse- uncleanness and] were torn, he that touches them becomes unclean;s but if he touched what was within them he remains clean.6 If a saddle was torn open, he that touches what is within it becomes unclean, since the stitching joins together [the cover and the stuffing].
2. These are susceptible to [mtdras-]uncleanness as things used for riding upon: an Ashkelon girth, a Median ‘mortar’,7 a camel’s pack-saddle, and a horse-cloth. R. Jose says: A horse-cloth is also susceptible to [; midras -] uncleanness as a thing used for sitting ppon, since they rest thereon in the arena; but the saddle of a female camel is susceptible to uncleanness [only as a thing used for riding upon].
3. Wherein does [the uncleanness of] what is ridden upon differ from [the uncleanness of] what is sat upon? The effect of contact with [the uncleanness of] what is ridden upon is different from the effect of carrying [such uncleanness];8 but there is no difference between the effect of contact with [the uncleanness of] what is sat upon and that of carrying [such un¬ cleanness]. An ass’s pack-frame, whereon [in time of need] a man may sit, is not susceptible to uncleanness; but if he changed the width between its spaces or broke them one into another,9 it becomes susceptible to unclean¬ ness.
4. The bier, mattress, and pillow of a corpse are susceptible to midras- uncleanness. A bride’s stool, a midwife’s travailing-stool, and a washer¬ man’s stool on which he piles the clothes — R. Jose said: They do not come within the class of what is sat upon.10 I Which usually has a marble seat.
7 Too dirty to sit on.
3 Without a bottom or a receptacle and open at both ends.
4 Cf. above, t8*. * They are still serviceable as receptacles.
6 The contents do not count as connectives.
7 A wooden saddle hollowed out like a mortar.
II See App. IV. 3 a (iii); cf. Kel. i3. He who carries what has been ridden upon by one who has a flux becomes a ‘father of uncleanness’, and, while still carrying it, can convey unclean¬ ness to garments and vessels; but he who touches it suffers only ‘first-grade uncleanness’, and does not convey the uncleanness to anything except foodstuffs. Both he who touches and he who carries what has been sat upon by one who has a flux becomes a ‘father of un¬ cleanness’. * Making it more suitable for riding upon.
10 But are set apart for their own specialized use.
5. A fishing-net is susceptible to uncleanness because of its net-work bag.1 Nets, snares, bird-traps, slings, and fishermen’s snares are suscep¬ tible to uncleanness.2 A fish-trap, a bird-basket, and a bird-cage are not susceptible.3 24. 1. There are three kinds of shield: the bent shield which is susceptible to ff«V/ras-uncleanness; the shield with which they play in tire arena, which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and the toy shield of the Arabs, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
2. There are three kinds of wagon: that made like a throne, which is susceptible to mzi/ras-uncleanness; that made like a bed, which is suscep¬ tible to corpse-uncleanness; and that made for carrying stones, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
3. There are three kinds of baking-trough: that holding from two logs 4 to nine kabs,4 which, when split, is susceptible to tfs-un clean ness; and the same, when whole, which is susceptible [only] to corpse-uncleanness; and that holding the prescribed measure,5 which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
4. There are three kinds of box: that with its opening at the side, which is susceptible to mfi/rar-uncleanness; that with its opening on top, which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that holding the prescribed measure, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
5. There are three kinds of leathern cover: that of barbers, which is susceptible to m'tfras-uncleanness; that off which men eat, which is sus¬ ceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that for spreading out olives, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
6. There are three kinds of dais:6 that which lies before a bed or before scriveners, which is susceptible to mzifras-uncleanness; that of a side-table,7 which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that of a cupboard, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
7. There are three kinds of writing-tablet: that of papyrus, which is susceptible to mztfras-uncleanness; that which has a receptacle for wax, which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that which is polished, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
8. There are three kinds of bed: that used for lying upon, wThich is susceptible to wzz/rar-uncleanness; that of the glass-makers, which is sus¬ ceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that of harness-makers, which is not susceptable to any uncleanness.
9. There are three kinds of refuse-basket: that for dung,8 which is susceptible to mzVray-uncleanness; that for straw, which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and a camel’s rope-bag, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
10. There are three kinds of mat: that used for lying upon, which is susceptible to mzrfras-uncleanness; that of dyers, which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that used in winepresses, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
11. There are three kinds of water-skin9 and three kinds of shepherd’s wallet: those holding the prescribed quantity, which are susceptible to 1 As woven work. See 271. Cf. 28s. 2 As having containers.
3 They do not count as vessels with receptacles.
♦ App. II, D. 5 See 15*. 6 Heb. basisiyah.
7 22*. Its dais is also used for setting out vessels of food. 8 Shebi. 3-. « Cf. 20’.
640 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH ?ra‘</ra$-uncleanness; those that do not hold the prescribed quantity, which are susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and those made of fish-skin, which are not susceptible to any uncleanness.
12. There are three kinds of hide:1 that used as a rug, which is suscep¬ tible to mf^rai-uncleanness; that used as a wrapper for utensils, which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that used for straps and sandals, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
13. There are three kinds of sheet: that used for lying upon, which is susceptible to zmcfrus-uncleanness; that used as a curtain, which is sus¬ ceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that whereon images are portrayed, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
14. There are three kinds of napkin: that for the hands, which is susceptible to znztfrzw-uncleanness; that for covering books, which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that used as a wrapper and that used for the harps of the sons of Levi,2 which are not susceptible to any uncleanness.
15. There are three kinds of leathern glove:3 that of them that hunt wild animals and birds, which is susceptible to wzz'tfras-uncleanness; that of the locust-catcher, which is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness; and that of fruit-pickers, which is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
16. There are three kinds of head-net: that of a girl, which is susceptible to?razfraj-uncleanness; that of an old woman, which is susceptible to corpse- uncleanness; and that of a harlot, which is not susceptible to any un¬ cleanness.
17. There are three kinds of store-basket: if a worn-out basket is patched on to one that is sound, all is decided [in what concerns cleanness and un¬ cleanness] by the sound one; if a small one is patched on to a large one, all is decided by the large one; if they are equal, all is decided by the inner one. R. Simeon says: If the cup of a balance [that was unclean] is patched on to the bottom of a cauldron on the inside, the cauldron becomes unclean; but if on the outside it remains clean. But if it is patched on to the side, whether inside or outside, it remains clean.
25. x. In all utensils an outer and an inner part are distinguished,4 as in mattresses, pillows, sacks, and packing-bags. So R. Judah. R. Meir says: In such as have hangers an outer and an inner part are distinguished, but in such as have not hangers an outer and an inner part are not distinguished. In a table or side-table an outer and an inner part are distinguished. So R. Judah. R. Meir says: An outer and an inner part are not distinguished. So, too, in a rimless tray.
2. In an ox-goad an outer and an inner part are distinguished; [to the outer part belongs that part of the shaft that lies between] seven hand- breadths from the broad blade and four handbreadths from the point. So R. Judah. R. Meir says: [An outer and an inner part] are not distinguished: they have spoken of four and seven handbreadths only in what concerns the remnants [of an ox-goad].5 4 If the inner part is rendered unclean by an unclean liquid the outside becomes unclean also; but if the outer part is rendered unclean by an unclean liquid the inner part remains dean.
5 That if an ox-goad was broken and four handbreadths of shaft were still joined to the pointed end, or seven to the broad blade, such is still susceptible to uncleanness as a usable implement. Cf. below, 29’’ “.
3. In a wine-measure, an oil-measure, a soup-ladle, a mustard-strainer, and a wine-filter an outer and an inner part are distinguished. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: They are not distinguished. R. Simeon says: They are distinguished, because if the outer part contracts uncleanness the inner part remains clean; howbeit the whole vessel must be immersed.
4. If in the Quarter and Half-quarter measure1 the Quarter contracted uncleanness, the Half-quarter does not also become unclean; if the Half¬ quarter contracted uncleanness the Quarter does not also become unclean. They said before R. Akiba, Since the Half-quarter counts as the outer part of the Quarter, then if the inner part of the vessel contracts uncleanness does not the outer part become unclean too? He said to them, Is this among the class of them that have precedence? Or perchance [may we not likewise say], the Quarter counts as the outer part of the Half-quarter, and if the outer part of the vessel contracts uncleanness its inner part does not also become unclean!
5. If the Quarter contracted uncleanness, the Quarter and its outer part are unclean; but the Half-quarter and its outer part remain clean. If the Half-quarter contracted uncleanness, the Half-quarter and its outer part are unclean, but the Quarter and its outer part remain clean. If the outer part of the Quarter contracted uncleanness, the outer part of the Half¬ quarter remains clean. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: The hinder part [of a vessel] is not divisible; and he that immerses it must immerse the whole of it.
6. If [unclean] liquid fell on to the bases, rims, hangers, or handles of vessels that have a receptacle, they need but to be dried and they are clean. But if [unclean] liquid fell on part of any other vessel (which cannot con¬ tain pomegranates)2 in which an outer part and an inner part are not dis¬ tinguished, the whole becomes unclean. If a vessel’s outer part was rendered unclean by [unclean] liquid, its inner part, rims, hangers and handies remain clean. But if its inner part becomes unclean the wdiole is unclean.
7. In all utensils an outer part and an inner part are distinguished, and also a part by which they are held.3 R. Tarfon says: [This applies only] to a large wooden baking-trough. R. Akiba says: To cups. R. Meir says: To unclean and clean hands.4 R. Jose said: What they have said applies only to clean hands.
8. Thus if a man’s hands were clean and the outer part of the cup was unclean, and he held it by its holding-place, he need not scruple lest his hands be made unclean by the outer part of the cup. If a man was drinking from a cup whose outer part was unclean, he need not scruple lest the liquid in his mouth be made unclean by the outer part of the cup and that so he will render the cup unclean [within]. If a kettle5 boils none need scruple lest liquid should come out and touch the outer part and return again within.
9. In the holy vessels an outer part and an inner part are not dis- 1 A single utensil, the concave bottom measuring a half quarter-fog of liquid, and the main receptacle a quarter-fog. The double measure is also explained as having the two receptacles side by side, like a double ink-pot. 2 Cf. 17k 3 And this part does not become unclean if the outer part becomes unclean.
+ If a man touched the outer part with unclean hands he does not render the ‘holding part’ unclean, and vice versa; or if clean hands touched one of the parts, and the other part was unclean, the hands do not become unclean. According to R. Jose it is only for this latter case that provision is made in distinguishing an outer part and a holding part.
s Whose outer part is unclean.
642 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH tinguished,1 nor a part by which they are held. Vessels that are used for the Hallowed Things may not be immersed while the one is within the other.2 All articles can be rendered susceptible to uncleanness through intention;3 and they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by an act4 which changes their use. For an act of use can disannul both an [earlier] act of use and also an [earlier] intention; but an intention cannot disannul either a [present] act of use or a [former] intention.
26. 1. An Amki5 sandal or a laced-up bag (R. Judah says: Also an Egyptian basket; and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: The same applies also to a Laodicean sandal) can be made susceptible to uncleanness and again be made insusceptible without the aid of the craftsman.6 R. Jose said: But cannot all articles be made susceptible to uncleanness and again be made insusceptible without the aid of the craftsman? — but these, even when they are unlaced, are susceptible to uncleanness since a common person can restore them to what they were. What they have said applies only to an Egyptian basket7 which even the craftsman cannot restore to what it was.8 2. If a laced-up bag has lost its laces it is still susceptible to uncleanness; but if it is made flat, it becomes insusceptible. If it had been patched below it remains susceptible. If a bag is contained within another bag and one is made unclean by an [unclean] liquid, the other does not become unclean. A pearl-pouch is susceptible to uncleanness. A money-pouch R. Eliezer declares susceptible, but the Sages declare it insusceptible.
3. The glove of a thorn-picker is not susceptible to uncleanness. The leathern girdle and leg-guards are susceptible. Leathern sleeves are sus¬ ceptible, but leathern gloves are not susceptible. All finger-stalls are in¬ susceptible excepting those of fruit-pickers, since such are used to hold sumach-berries; but if they are torn and cannot hold the greater part of a sumach -berry they become insusceptible to uncleanness.
4. If one of the straps of a sandal [that had contracted mitfim-uncleanness] was torn off and mended again, it retains its mzVftm-uncleanness. If the second strap was torn off and mended again it becomes free from midras- uncleanness, but it remains unclean from contact with wzz'rfrar-uncleanness. If the second was torn off before the first strap could be mended, it becomes clean. If the heel was torn off or if the toe-piece was taken away, or if it was torn in two, the sandal becomes clean. Heelless slippers that are torn anywhere become clean. If a shoe was so damaged that it could not contain the greater part of the foot, it becomes clean. A shoe that is still on the last R. Eliezer declares insusceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declare it susceptible. Water-skins [that have been pierced because of their unclean¬ ness and] that have been tied up again with a knot, are not susceptible to uncleanness, excepting those tied up with an Arab knot. R. Meir says: If [they are tied up] with a knot that will not endure, they are insusceptible to 1 i.e. if the outer part is unclean the inner side becomes unclean also. Cf. Par. 12s.
2 See Hag. 31. One of the vessels may thus hinder access of water to part of the other vessel.
a Cf. Kel. 1715; 26?i 8. If, e.g., a man took the ring round the neck of a beast (cf. 121) intending to use it for a man.
4 The intention is not enough. s North-east of Acre. Cf. Josh. 1927.
6 They are in themselves flat objects, and so insusceptible; but they can be laced or sewn up to form a receptacle, so becoming susceptible, and again unlaced or unsewn, becoming again insusceptible.
7 Or, ‘basket of palm-twigs’ or rushes. Cf. Shab. 202; Sot. 21; 31.
8 Once the binding strips have been unloosed.
uticleanness; but if with a knot that will endure they remain susceptible.1 R. Jose says: All water-skins that have been tied up with a knot are in¬ susceptible to uncleanness.
5. These hides2 are susceptible to mzt/ras-uncleanness: a hide that it is intended to use as a rug, a tanner’s apron, the hide used as the lower covering of a bed,3 a hide used by an ass-driver or flax-worker or porter or physician,4 a hide used for a cot, or a hide put over a child’s heart,5 and the hide of a mattress or cushion; [all these are susceptible to] midras- uncleanness. A hide used to wrap up combed wool and a hide worn by the wool-comber R. Eliezer declares susceptible to zm^rcs-uncleanness, but the Sages declare them susceptible [only] to corpse-uncleanness.
6. A leathern bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras- uncleanness. A leathern bag or wrapper for purple wool the School of Shammai declare susceptible to wzftfra^-uncleanness, and the School of Hillel declare it susceptible [only] to corpse-uncleanness. A hide used as a covering for utensils is not susceptible to uncleanness; but if it is used for weights6 it is susceptible; but R. Jose, in the name of his father, declares it insusceptible.
7. What sufFers no lack in its readiness for use, intention to use it makes it susceptible to uncleanness; but what suffers any lack in its readiness for use, intention to use it does not make it susceptible to uncleanness, except¬ ing only fur skins.7 8. Intention to use them makes- hides belonging to a householder sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness, but intention does not make hides belonging to a tanner susceptible; intention makes those taken by a thief susceptible, but intention does not make those taken by a robber susceptible.8 R. Simeon says: The rule is to the contrary:9 intention makes those taken by a robber susceptible, but intention does not make those taken by a thief susceptible, since the owner still cherishes hope of regaining them.
9. If a hide had contracted mzz/raj-uncleanness, and a man had the inten¬ tion to use it for straps and sandals, so soon as he puts the knife into it it becomes clean. So R. Judah. But the Sages say: Not until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok says: Even if a man made a napkin from [such] a hide, it remains unclean;10 but if from a pillow, it becomes clean.
27. x. Cloth is susceptible to uncleanness by virtue cf five things,11 sacking by virtue of four, leather by virtue of three, wood by virtue of two, and an earthenware vessel by virtue of one. An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness in that it is a vessel having a receptacle. In all earthenware vessels that have no inner part, no regard is paid to their outer part.12 [What is made from] wood is, moreover, susceptible to uncleanness in that it may be sat upon; thus a plate that has no rim is susceptible to unclean¬ ness if it is of wood but insusceptible if it is of earthenware. [What is made > Cf. Eduy. 51. 1 Cf. above, 2412. 3 Cf. above, 164.
4 A protection against blood. 3 A protection against cats.
6 To prevent them rubbing. Such a hide forms cavities by use.
7 It can be used without any trimming or treatment.
8 The difference is that the thief steals secretly and the robber openly; recovery from the former is impossible since he is not known.
9 There is less hope of recovery from the robber since he is the stronger of the two.
10 Since the change in use is but slight.
11 Lit. ‘names’ or categories.
644 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH from] leather is, moreover, susceptible to uncleanness by overshadowing.' FWhat is made from] sacking2 is, moreover, susceptible to r icleanness in that it is woven work. [What is made from] cloth is, moreovt r, susceptible to uncleanness when it is but three fingerbreadths square.
2. Cloth that is three handbreadths square is susceptible to midras- uncleanness, and to corpse-uncleanness when it is three fingerbreadths square. Sacking four handbreadths square, leather five handbreadths square, and matting six handbreadths square are susceptible both to midras- uncleanness and to corpse-uncleanness alike. R. Meir says: Sacking [is susceptible to uncleanness] when there still remains of it four handbreadths, and in its first condition [it becomes susceptible] so soon as its manufacture is complete.
3. If a man used together two handbreadths of cloth and one of sacking; or three handbreadths of sacking and one of leather; or four handbreadths of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. But if he used five handbreadths of matting and one of leather; or four handbreadths of leather and one of sacking; or three handbreadths of sacking and one of cloth, it is susceptible to uncleanness. This is the general rule: If to one stuff another stuff is joined to which greater stringency applies, it3 becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if to one stuff another stuff is joined to J which lesser stringency applies, it does not become susceptible.
4. If from any of these [four stuffs] a piece one square handbreadth was I cut, it is susceptible4 to uncleanness. If from the bottom of a basket a piece one square handbreadth was cut, it is susceptible to uncleanness; but if [it was cut off] from the sides of a basket, R. Simeon declares it not sus¬ ceptible, but the Sages say: No matter where the square handbreadth is cut off it is susceptible to uncleanness.
5. If worn-out pieces of a sifter or sieve were fashioned for use as a seat, R. Akiba declares them susceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declare them insusceptible unless their rough ends are cut off. A child’s stool that has legs, even if it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to un¬ cleanness. A child’s shirt, however small, R. Eliezer declares susceptible; but the Sages say: Only if it is of the prescribed size; and it should be measured double.
6. These are measured double: socks, long stockings, drawers, caps, and money-belts. If a patch is sewn on the hem,5 if it is undoubled it isi measured undoubled; if it is doubled it is measured double.
7. If a man wove cloth three handbreadths square and it contracted mu/ras-uncleanness, and he finished the piece of cloth,6 if he then took away one thread from the first part it becomes free7 of midras-uncltun- ness but unclean from contact with midrar-uncleanness. If he [first] took away one thread from the first part and afterward finished the whole piece of cloth, it is [still] unclean from contact with mi'Jrtw-uncleanness.
3. So, too, if a man wove cloth three fingerbreadths square and it Con¬ or being itself overshadowed. App. IV. 6: p. 649, n. 3; Lev. 1 iia; Num. it)'4.
- Made of goat-hair or hair of other animals.
1 The total area, when it equals that prescribed as susceptible in the case of the stuff to which the lesser stringency applies. Cf. Meil. 4*.
4 As something to be sat on. If it was cut off to be lain on it is not susceptible unless it is the sire prescribed in par. 2 for the several stuffs. 5 The neck-band.
6 Some texts add: ’the whole piece of cloth contracts midraj-uncleanness’.
1 Since the first portion is now less than the measure prescribed as susceptible to midtat - uncleanness.
traded corpse-uncleanness, and he finished the whole piece of cloth,1 if he then took away one thread from the first part, it becomes free2 from corpse- uncleanness, but unclean from contact with corpse-uncleanness. If he [first] took away one thread from the first part and afterward finished the whole piece of cloth, it becomes clean, for they have said, ‘If a piece three fingerbreadths square is lessened, it becomes clean’. But if a piece three handbreadths square is lessened, though it is not susceptible to midras- uncleanness it is susceptible to any other uncleanness.
9. If a sheet that had contracted mtdrtw-uncleanness was used as a curtain,3 it becomes free of mfi/rar-uncleanness but remains unclean from contact with wm/ttw-uncleanness. R. Jose said: What mu/r&s-uncleanness has it touched!4 but if so be that one with a flux had touched it,s then it will be unclean from contad with one with a flux.
10. If a piece of cloth three handbreadths square [that had contraded midras- uncleanness] was divided, it is free of muiras-uncleanness, but un¬ clean from contad with mafrar-uncleanness. R. Jose said: What midras- uncleanness has it touched! — but if so be that one with a flux had touched it, then it will be unclean from contact with one with a flux.
11. If a piece of cloth three handbreadths square was found on a dung- heap [it is susceptible to mfifnw-uncleanness] if it was both sound and able to wrap up salt; but if it was found in the house [it is susceptible to midras- uncleanness] if it is either sound or able to wrap up salt. How much salt should it be able to wrap up? A quarter-fcaZ>.6 R. Judah says: Fine salt.7 But the Sages say: Coarse salt. Both were minded to give the more lenient ruling.8 R. Simeon says: A piece three handbreadths square found on a dungheap is [in effect] equal to a piece three fingerbreadths square found in the house.’
12. If a piece of cloth three handbreadths square was torn10 and put on a stool, and the flesh [of him that sits on it] touches the stool, it is not susceptible to uncleanness; but if it does not touch the stool it is suscep¬ tible. If from a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square one thread was worn away, or if a knot was found in it, or if two threads ran alongside each other, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. If a piece of stuff three finger¬ breadths square was thrown on the dungheap, it is not susceptible to un¬ cleanness. If it was brought back again it becomes susceptible. Throwing it away always renders it insusceptible to uncleanness, and bringing it back renders it again susceptible, save only purple or fine crimson stuff.” R. Eliezer says: The same applies also to a patch of new cloth. R. Simeon says: They all,2become insusceptible: these were spoken of only concerning the obligation to return lost property.13 ■ Some texts add: ‘the whole piece of cloth contracts corpse-uncleanness’.
1 Since it is less than the measure prescribed as susceptible.
3 See above, 204.
♦ He holds that in its present form, in which it is not susceptible to nwrfraj-uncleanness, it is in no way unclean from mufror-uncleanness.
s With his naked flesh, and had not merely exerted pressure ( midras ) on it.
1 It is the heavier, but coai se salt is more likely to tear the stuff.
* That only the stronger material was susceptible.
• And is only susceptible to corpse-uncleanness.
10 Less than half way across. See 28*.
11 Which, even thrown away on the dungheap, remain susceptible.
11 Even purple and fine crimson.
13 See B.M. 2*. If any one finds them he may not keep them until he has discovered whether they have any claimant.
646 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH 28. 1. If a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square1 was used to stuff a ball or was itself made into a ball, it becomes clean; but if a piece three handbreadths square2 was used to stuff a ball it remains unclean;3 if it was itself made into a ball it becomes clean, since the sewing diminishes it.
2. If a piece of cloth less than three handbreadths square was used to block up [a hole in] the bath-house or [to hold and] empty out a cooking- pot, or to wipe the mill-stones, whether it was kept in readiness [for such use] or whether it was not kept in readiness, it is susceptible to unclean¬ ness.4 So R. Eliezer. R. Joshua says: Whether it was kept in readiness or whether it was not kept in readiness, it is not susceptible. R. Akiba says: If it was kept in readiness it is susceptible to uncleanness; if it was not kept in readiness it is not susceptible.
3. If a man made a plaster of cloth or leather, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. s If he made a poultice of cloth it is not susceptible to unclean¬ ness; but if of leather it is susceptible. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Even if of cloth it is susceptible, since [the contents, when they are dried] can be shaken off [and it can be used again].
4. Scroll-wrappers, whether figures are portrayed on them or not, are susceptible to uncleanness. So the School of Shammai. And the School of Hillel say: If figures are portrayed on them they are not susceptible to un¬ cleanness;6 if figures are not portrayed on them they are susceptible. Rabban Gamaliel says: In either case they are not susceptible to un¬ cleanness.
5. If a head-wrap that had contracted mirfras-uncleanness was used to wrap around a scroll it becomes free of miVfras-uncleanness but it remains susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. If a water-skin was used as a rug, or if a leathern rug was used as a water-skin, it becomes clean. If a water-skin was used as a shepherd’s wallet or a shepherd’s wallet as a water-skin; or if a mattress was used as a sheet, or a sheet as a mattress; or if a cushion [-cover] was used as a napkin or a napkin as a cushion[-cover], they remain unclean. This is the general rule: If an article’s use is changed into a use of like category, it remains unclean; but if into a use of different category, it becomes clean.