This is a measure that was used in the past, but no longer in the present. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is our measure today and it is not so old. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita call this measure old when it was still being used in his day? The Gemara answers: Some say that this measure was originally small and it was made larger, and some say that after it was enlarged it was again made smaller, but not as small as it had been originally. Since this measure was not of the same size at all times, the tanna of the baraita was precise when he said that a quarter-log is equal to the old measure of one-eighth. So too, Rabbi Yoḥanan was precise when he said that this was the measure used in his day. The Gemara asks: In terms of the measures currently in use, what is the measure of a cup that holds a quarter-log? Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Pazi and Rabbi Yosei bar Beivai in the name of Rabbi Shmuel said: Two fingers long by two fingers wide by the height of one and a half fingers and one-third of a finger. The Gemara previously discussed the measure of wine that determines liability if one carries it from one domain to another on Shabbat. There, the Gemara discussed wine in liquid form; here, the Gemara adds a parallel ruling with regard to congealed wine. It was taught in a baraita: The measure that determines liability for carrying from one domain to another congealed wine is an olive-bulk; this is the statement of Rabbi Natan. The Rabbis of Caesarea and Rabbi Yosei bar Beivai said in the name of Shmuel: These words of Rabbi Natan follow the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in a mishna (Shabbat 76b). Just as Rabbi Shimon said there: The measure that determines liability for all liquids, including wine, is a quarter-log, so Rabbi Natan said: When wine is in liquid form, the measure that determines liability for carrying it from one domain to another is a quarter-log; after it has congealed one is liable only if he carries out an olive-bulk, which is equivalent to a quarter-log of wine after it has congealed.

§ On a similar matter, Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: An incident is related with regard to the mule of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that died of a wound, and the Sages deemed its blood ritually pure, i.e., free of the impurity of an unslaughtered animal carcass. They said that the blood of a carcass does not impart ritual impurity as does the carcass itself. And Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Simon, who had reported this ruling: Up to how much blood from an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure? Did they deem it pure because it was less than a quarter-log, but had it been more than a quarter-log they would have deemed it impure? Rabbi Simon paid Rabbi Eliezer no attention and did not answer him, so Rabbi Eliezer went and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said to him as follows: Up to a quarter-log of blood is pure; more than a quarter-log of blood is impure. Rabbi Elazar was displeased that Rabbi Simon had not fully reported the teaching to him, so that he had to go to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to ask about it. Rav Beivai was sitting and teaching this case of the mule from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's household, in which the Sages ruled that the blood of a carcass does not render one impure. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Kahana wished to clarify the issue and said to him: Up to a quarter-log of blood is pure, but more than that is impure? Or did the Sages rule that the blood of a carcass is never ritually impure, whatever the measure may be? The Gemara relates: In response to Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Kahana's question, Rav Beivai kicked him. Rabbi Zerika said to him, i.e., to Rav Beivai: You kicked him because he asked you a question? He said to him: I kicked him because my mind was unsettled, and not because he did anything wrong. Rav Beivai tries to explain his conduct: As Rabbi Ḥanan said: "And your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and shall have no assurance of your life" (Deuteronomy 28:66). This verse in the passage of rebuke refers to three increasingly harsh levels of poverty: "And your life shall hang in doubt before you"; this is one who buys wheat for a year, who has no financial security with regard to the following year. "And you shall fear night and day"; this is one who buys small amounts of wheat from a vendor, with the attendant concern that he might not have enough for the morrow. "And you shall have no assurance of your life"; this is one who buys bread from the baker [paltor] and cannot afford to buy wheat in advance to assure even one future meal. Rabbi Beivai concluded: And I am in the harshest state, as I rely on the baker. For this reason I did not have the presence of mind to respond appropriately to Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Kahana's question. The Gemara asks: What then is the halakhic ruling regarding the ritual impurity of the blood of an animal carcass? In response, the Gemara quotes a mishna (Eduyyot 8:1): Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora testified that the blood of an unslaughtered animal carcass is ritually pure, which implies that it is ritually pure regardless of the amount, even more than a quarter-log. The Gemara rejects this answer: What does the mishna mean by ritually pure? That such blood is ritually pure in that it does not render an item susceptible to impurity. Even though blood is one of the seven liquids that render an item susceptible to ritual impurity, the blood of an animal carcass is not deemed blood for this purpose. But as for imparting ritual impurity by itself, the blood imparts ritual impurity, as does the carcass itself. The Gemara asks: How can the words of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora be understood in this way? Didn't we learn elsewhere in a mishna (Makhshirin 6:5): The blood of a creeping animal is like its flesh; it imparts ritual impurity to items with which it comes into contact, but it does not render an item susceptible to impurity? And we have nothing else like it, i.e., there is no other liquid that imparts ritual impurity but does not render food susceptible to impurity. The implication is that the blood of an animal carcass would either both impart impurity and render an item susceptible to impurity or neither. The Gemara answers: When the mishna said that we have nothing else like a creeping animal, it meant that we have nothing else like it with regard to the measure required for its blood to confer impurity; the measure of a creeping animal's blood is the same for both: The measure required for its imparting ritual impurity is such that its blood imparts ritual impurity like its flesh, i.e., in the measure of a lentil. This is not the case with an unslaughtered animal carcass, the flesh of which imparts ritual impurity in the measure of an olive-bulk, while its blood imparts impurity in the measure of a quarter-log. Consequently, there is no contradiction between the mishna in tractate Makhshirin and the testimony of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora. Rabbi Yosei said: Two amora'im disagree about this matter. One said a quarter-log of this blood renders one ritually impure, and one said that even after contact with this blood, one remains ritually pure. The one who said it is impure follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in a mishna in Eduyyot 5:1. Rabbi Yehuda maintains there that this issue is the subject of a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The halakha would follow the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is that carcass blood does confer impurity. And the one who said ritually pure holds like the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora, who testified (Eduyyot 8:1) that the blood of an animal carcass is ritually pure. Rav Avduma of the descenders, i.e., travelers from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bringing with them the Torah taught in Eretz Yisrael, said to him: And it is right. That which you explained is correct, as Rabbi Yehuda was the halakhic authority for the house of the Nasi. Rabbi Yehuda ruled then that the blood of the dead mule was pure only because there was less than a quarter-log of it.

§ The Mishna taught that the one who collects the funds from the Temple treasury chamber must not enter the chamber wearing clothes that could arouse suspicion, as perhaps one day he will become poor and people will say that he was reduced to poverty because he had stolen shekels from the chamber. Rabbi Yishmael taught a similar halakha in a baraita: One who is curly haired must not collect funds from the Temple treasury chamber because of the suspicion that he will hide shekels from the chamber in his curls. It was taught in another baraita: The Temple treasurers would untangle [mefaspesin] the matted locks of the one who collected the funds from the chamber after he exited the chamber, to ascertain that no coins were hidden in his hair. It was taught in yet another baraita that deals with a similar suspicion: They would converse with the one collecting the funds from the chamber from the time he entered the chamber until the time he exited it, so that he should not be able to hide money from the chamber in his mouth. The Gemara asks: Why not let him fill his mouth with water, so that it would be impossible for him to insert money into his mouth, and then he would not have to speak? Rabbi Tanḥuma said: He cannot fill his mouth with water because of the blessing that he must recite before collecting the funds from the chamber.

§ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: We find in the Torah, in the Prophets, and in the Writings that a person must appear justified before people as he must appear justified before the Omnipresent. From where in the Torah is this derived? As it is written: "And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel" (Numbers 32:22). From where in the Prophets is this derived? As it is written: "The mighty One, God, the Lord, He knows, and Israel shall know" (Joshua 22:22). From where in the Writings is this derived? As it is written: "So shall you find grace and good understanding in the sight of God and man (Proverbs 3:4). Gamliel Zuga asked Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun: Which of these verses is the clearest of all the sources that one must be blameless even in the eyes of man? The three proof texts say more or less the same thing; which is the most unambiguous of the three? Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun said to him: The verse "And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel" is the most unequivocal of all.

Halakha 3 · MISHNA In order to indicate the importance that was attached to the ceremony of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, the mishna relates that the members of the house of Rabban Gamliel desired that their shekels be the ones collected from the chamber and used for the purchase of the communal offerings. Each of them would therefore come to the Temple specifically on the day of the ceremony of the collection of the chamber, enter the chamber with his shekel between his fingers, and toss it in front of the one collecting the money so that he would see it and place it in the basket containing the money to be taken out of the chamber. Understanding what was happening, the one collecting the money from the chamber would purposely push this shekel into the basket, so that it would later be used to buy communal offerings. The one collecting the funds from the chamber may not begin to collect the money until he asks the Temple treasurers three times: Shall I collect the funds, and they say to him: Collect them, collect them, collect them, three times. The coins were stored in the Temple treasury in three large baskets, each measuring nine se'a. In the collection of the chamber ceremony, coins were removed from these baskets and placed in smaller baskets of three se'a each that were marked with letters (see the previous mishna on daf 8a). After he collected the funds from the first large basket and put them into one of the smaller baskets labeled with the letter alef, he immediately covered with a leather cover the large basket from which he had removed the money. After collecting funds from the second large basket, he covered it with a leather cover as well. But after collecting funds from the third large basket, he did not cover it. The mishna asks: Why did he cover the first two baskets? In order to mark them as already having had funds collected from them. In this way, there was no concern that perhaps he would forget and once again collect funds from a basket from which funds had already been collected. The mishna specifies the intent of the one collecting the funds from the baskets as he does so: He collected funds from the first basket on behalf of the people living in Eretz Yisrael; from the second basket on behalf of the people living in the cities near Eretz Yisrael; and from the third basket on behalf of the people living in Babylonia, and on behalf of the people living in Media, and on behalf of