Rabbi Yehuda says that the method for determining whether an earthenware vessel contains a hole that allows liquid to enter is as follows: One takes the handles of the pot and turns it over,placing it upside down in an empty tub, and he then covers the pot with water. If water enters the pot, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter, and if the water does not enter the pot, it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids.

Or one can determine the size of the hole by the following method: One places the pot, with liquid in it, on the fire. If the fire holds the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids. And if the fire does not hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, then it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter.

Rabbi Yosei says: One should not place the pot with liquid in it on the fire. This is not a reliable test for determining the size of the hole, as it is possible that the hole is actually large enough to enable liquid to enter, but nevertheless the fire prevents the liquid from exiting. Rather, one places the pot with liquid in it on hot ash. If the hot ash holds the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids. But if the hot ash does not hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter. Another manner of testing is to fill the vessel with liquid. If it drips one drop after another drop, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the method of testing stated by the first tanna, placing the vessel in a tub of water, and that of Rabbi Yehuda, placing the vessel upside down into the tub and then covering it with water? Ulla said: The difference between their opinions is whether liquid that enters through a hole with difficulty, i.e., as the result of force, is considered entering. According to Rabbi Yehuda, placing the vessel directly into a tub of water constitutes the use of force to a certain degree, and he maintains that if water enters the vessel in such a case, this does not count as liquid entering the vessel. Therefore, he rejects the testing method of the first tanna.

§ The mishna teaches: In any limb of the body where there is a nail, there is certainly a bone in it as well. But it is possible for there to be limbs that contain a bone without a nail. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A limb in which there is a nail and which therefore certainly contains a bone has the status of a full-fledged limb. Therefore, it transmits impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. By contrast, if there is a bone in the limb but there is no nail, it transmits impurity through contact and movement even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, but it does not transmit impurity in a tent unless its size is that of an olive-bulk.

Rav Ḥisda says: The following matter was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. An extra finger on one’s hand in which there is a bone but there is no nail transmits impurity through contact and movement even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, but it does not transmit impurity in a tent.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this is the halakha, that it must contain both bone and a nail for it to be considered a limb, only in a case where this finger cannot be counted along the back of the hand, i.e., the extra finger is not aligned with the others. But if it is aligned with the other fingers then it is considered like any other limb and imparts impurity in a tent, whether or not it contains a nail.

§ The mishna further teaches: Similarly, any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara explains that this means that any item that is fit to become impure with the impurity of a zav imparted by treading is fit to become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

The mishna continues: And there are vessels that become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading. The Gemara asks: What is added by this statement? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a measuring vessel, e.g., the measure of a se’a or a half-se’a [vetarkav].

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the impurity of the treading of a zav: “And he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6). One might have thought that if a zav turned over a vessel used to measure a se’a and sat on it, or if he turned over a vessel used to measure a half-se’a and sat on it, that vessel should be rendered impure as a seat upon which a zav sat.

Therefore, the verse states: “And he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits” (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object that is designated for sitting, i.e., upon which people generally sit, excluding such a vessel, with regard to which we say to someone sitting on it: Stand up and allow us to use it to do our work, i.e., to measure. This is not defined as a vessel used for sitting, as it serves another function.

MISHNA: Any person who is fit to adjudicate cases of capital law is fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law, and there are those who are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law.

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said: The statement of the mishna that some are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law serves to add the case of a mamzer. Although he may not adjudicate cases of capital law, nevertheless he may adjudicate cases of monetary law.

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to teach this here? We already learned this on another occasion, in a mishna (Sanhedrin 32a): All are fit to judge cases of monetary law, but not all are fit to judge cases of capital law. And we discussed it, and asked what is added by the phrase: All are fit to judge. And Rav Yehuda said in response that this serves to add the case of a mamzer. The Gemara answers: One mishna serves to add the case of a convert, and one other mishna serves to add the case of a mamzer.

The Gemara explains: And both additions are necessary. As, if the mishnayot had taught us only that a convert is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the halakha is lenient in the case of a convert because he is fit to enter into the congregation, i.e., marry a Jewish woman. But with regard to a mamzer, who is unfit to enter into the congregation, one might say that he is not fit to judge cases of monetary law.

And if the mishnayot had taught us only that a mamzer is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the halakha is lenient in the case of a mamzer because he comes from a fit drop of semen, i.e., his father is Jewish. But with regard to a convert, who comes from an unfit drop, as he was born a gentile, one might say that he is not fit to judge cases of monetary law. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the halakhot of both a convert and a mamzer.

MISHNA: Any person who is fit to adjudicate a case and serve as a judge is fit to testify as a witness, and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by this statement, that some people are fit to testify but not to adjudicate? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This serves to add one who is blind in one of his eyes. And in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?