If the cleaver was found on the fifteenth of Nisan, i.e., if it was found on the Festival itself, he may slaughter with it immediately. The owners of the cleaver would have immersed it so that they could use it on the fifteenth to cut up the bones of a Festival peace-offering. If the cleaver was found attached to a knife, it is like a knife, i.e., if it was found on the thirteenth of Nisan it is presumed impure, and if it was found on the fourteenth he may slaughter with it immediately, as it was certainly immersed on the day before.

GEMARA: The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Meir, all spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure, except if it were found in the upper marketplace. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains: A fortress [katzran] of gentiles was there in the upper marketplace. The Sages decreed that gentiles have the ritual impurity of a zav (see Shabbat 17b and Nidda 34a), therefore their spittle is impure. The Roman soldiers were gentiles, so any spittle found in the upper marketplace was presumably theirs. The Gemara recounts an incident about this fortress. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Once they were killing wild donkeys in Jerusalem, to feed the lions in the circus (see Menaḥot 103b), and the pilgrims coming to Jerusalem to celebrate the Festival were wading in blood up to their ankles from the large amount of blood coming from the wild donkeys. And they came before the Sages to find out if they had been rendered ritually impure, and they, the Sages, did not say anything, as the blood of an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure, even though the carcass itself does. Where did this story take place? Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: There was a gentile, i.e., Roman, fortress there, in the upper marketplace of Jerusalem, and that was where they were killing the wild donkeys.

Apropos the ritual impurity of blood from an animal carcass, the Gemara recounts that. Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: There was an incident with regard to a mule from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's household that died, and the Sages ruled its blood to be ritually pure and not subject to the impurity imparted by an animal carcass. On this topic, Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Simon: Up to how much blood from an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure? And he did not answer him. He then went and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said to him: Up to the size of a quarter-log is ritually pure; more than that is ritually impure. And Rabbi Elazar was annoyed that Rabbi Simon did not respond with the halakha that the minimal size for ritual impurity is a quarter-log, as he certainly heard it from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Gemara continues: Rav Beivai was sitting and teaching this story 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 Bisna said to him: Up to how much blood from an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure? Rav Beivai said to him: Up to a quarter-log is ritually pure; more than that is impure. And then he kicked him. Rabbi Zerika said to Rav Beivai: You kicked him because he asked you a question? He said to Rabbi Zerika: Because my mind was unsettled, and not because he did anything wrong. As Rabbi Ḥanin said in expounding the verse: "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). "And your life shall hang in doubt before you"; this is one who buys for himself 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 is so poor that he buys wheat from the storekeeper a bit at a time, with the attendant concern that he might not have enough for the morrow. "And shall have no assurance of your life"; this is one who is so poor he buys from the baker and cannot afford to buy wheat in advance to assure even one future meal. And I rely on the baker, i.e., I am on this lowest level of poverty, and therefore I do not have the presence of mind to answer his questions. 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 animal carcasses 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. Nevertheless, with regard to conferring impurity, such blood does render something ritually impure. The Gemara asks: Didn't we learn in a mishna there (Makhshirin 6:5): The blood of a creeping animal confers ritual impurity, as does its flesh? It confers impurity, but does not render an item susceptible to impurity, and we have nothing else like it that confers impurity but does not render something susceptible to impurity. The implication is that the blood of an animal carcass would either both confer impurity and render an item susceptible to impurity or do neither. The Gemara answers: When the mishna said that we have nothing else like it, it meant that we have nothing else like it with regard to the measure required for this substance to confer impurity. The measure of both the blood and the flesh of a creeping animal required for conferring impurity is a lentil-bulk. Creeping animals are unique in this regard, since the measures of blood and flesh that confer impurity from an animal carcass are different. An olive-bulk of flesh is sufficient to confer impurity, while a quarter-log of blood is required. However, the Gemara concludes, its blood, i.e., that of an animal carcass, nevertheless confers impurity like its flesh. Rabbi Yosei said: Two amora'im disputed this point, whether the blood of an animal carcass confers ritual impurity. 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 ritually impure holds like the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as it appears in a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1). Rabbi Yehuda asserts 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. It appears that this amora interprets Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora's statement literally, implying that even more than a quarter-log of blood does not confer impurity. 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 states that according to Rabbi Meir's opinion, all the spittle found in Jerusalem is pure, except for spittle found in the upper marketplace. The Gemara asks: Didn't Rabbi Abbahu say this in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina: The Sages did not decree the spittle found in Jerusalem to be ritually impure? If so, why is the spittle found in the upper marketplace ritually impure? The Gemara answers: But wasn't it stated with regard to that marketplace that Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: A fortress of gentiles was there, and since the Sages decreed that gentiles have the ritual impurity of a zav, any spittle found there must be from them and therefore is ritually impure. The mishna also states Rabbi Yosei's opinion that for most of the year, all spittle found in the middle of the street was impure and spittle found on the sides was pure; during the pilgrim Festival, the spittle in the middle was pure and that on the sides was impure. The Gemara discusses a baraita that explains this opinion: On the rest of the days of the year, the ritually impure proceed down the middle of the street in a group, and the pure proceed on the side to avoid contact that would render them impure. And the ritually pure proceed ordinarily and don't warn the ritually impure not to touch them, while the impure are the ones who say to those who are ritually pure: Stay away. During the period of the pilgrim Festival the ritually pure proceed in a group in the middle of the street and the impure proceed on the side of the street. The impure proceed ordinarily and do not warn the ritually pure not to touch them, and the ritually pure are the ones who say to those who are impure: Stay away, i.e., be careful not to touch us and render us impure.

§ The mishna further states: And all the vessels that are found in Jerusalem, if they are found on the way down to the bathhouse, where one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, they are ritually impure, and if they are found on the way up, they are ritually pure. The Gemara asks: Didn't Rabbi Abbahu say this in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The Sages did not decree ritual impurity with regard to the vessels found in Jerusalem? The Gemara answers: Since they were found on the way down to the bathhouse, it becomes as if it had been conclusively demonstrated that they are ritually impure, for one does not bring a vessel to be immersed if it is not ritually impure.

The mishna also states that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that all vessels that are found in Jerusalem are ritually pure, except for the basket, the shovel, and the meritza, which are specifically used for graves. The Gemara recounts that Abba Shaul, who was a gravedigger and regularly used such tools, would call them, the tools referred to by the name meritza, fingernails [tzipporin]. The Gemara explains: The one who said to call it tzipporin did so because this tool was similar in appearance to a fingernail, with a sharp point. The one who said to call it a meritza, literally, a runner, did so because it is a tool with which one runs, i.e., moves the stone used to close the entrance to the burial cave to the cemetery.

The mishna also states that if the cleaver is found tied to a knife, it has the same rule as the knife with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara quotes: It was taught in a baraita that disagrees with the halakha in the mishna, and in its view, if the knife were tied to the cleaver, it has the same halakha as the cleaver, and if the cleaver is ritually impure, the knife is also ritually impure.

Halakha 2 · MISHNA With regard to a curtain that became ritually impure from a secondary source of impurity, since its ritual impurity is by rabbinic law and not Torah law, there is no need to remove it from the Temple. Rather, it is immersed inside the Temple. And if it were removed to outside the courtyard in order to immerse it, it can be brought back into the courtyard immediately. Since it is ritually impure only by rabbinic law, there is no need to wait until sunset before returning it. But if it became impure from a primary source of impurity, e.g., it came into contact with the carcass of one of the eight creeping animals that confer impurity by Torah law, it is immersed outside the courtyard and is spread out to dry on the rampart. This is the low wall surrounding the Temple courtyard and the buildings within it, which has a lower level of holiness than the courtyard. The reason for this policy is because the sun needs to set on it. Immersion does not confer ritual purity on an item that became impure by Torah law until after the sun has set. And if this curtain were new, it is spread out to dry on top of the bench [itztabba], a prominent place on the Temple Mount, so that the people will see its craftsmanship and perceive its beauty. The Gemara discusses the aforementioned curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the deputy High Priest: The curtain has the thickness of a handbreadth, and it is woven from seventy-two strands of yarn. And each and every strand from those seventy-two is made from twenty-four threads. The curtain was made from four materials: Sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen, and a strand was made up of six threads of each type of material. And with regard to the dimensions of the curtain, its length was forty cubits, as the height of the ceiling of the Sanctuary; and its width was twenty cubits, to match the width of the entrance; and it was made from eighty-two ten-thousands, i.e., 820,000 golden dinar. And they used to make two new curtains every year. And the curtain was so heavy that they needed three hundred priests to carry it when they would immerse it.

GEMARA: The mishna stated that every one of the strands of yarn used to weave the curtain was made of twenty-four threads. The Gemara explains the biblical source for this: The verse says: "And you shall make a curtain of sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine twined linen" (Exodus 26:31). Had the verse about the curtain said a thread, it would mean one thread. Had it said doubled, it would be expanded to two threads. Twisted would be increased to three threads. Twined, which is what the verse in fact says, must mean double that, i.e., to six threads. Since the curtain was woven from four types of thread, i.e., sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen, from here this count tells us that each strand used in the curtain was made from twenty-four threads. Another opinion was taught in a baraita: Each strand of the curtain was made from thirty-two threads. This is how that tanna expounds the verse: Had the verse about the curtain said a thread, it would mean one thread. Had it said doubled, it would be expanded to two threads. Twisted would be increased to four threads. Twined, which is what the verse in fact says, must mean double that, i.e., to eight threads. Since the curtain was woven from four types of thread, from here this count tells us that each strand used in the curtain was made from thirty-two threads. Another baraita taught: Each strand of the curtain was made from forty-eight threads. That tanna expounds the verse as follows: Had the verse about the curtain said a thread, it would mean one thread. Had it said doubled, it would be expanded to two threads. Wound would be increased to three threads. Twisted would be increased to six threads. Twined, which is what the verse in fact says, must mean double that, i.e., to twelve threads. Since the curtain was woven from four types of thread, from here this count tells us that each thread used in the curtain was made from forty-eight threads.

The Gemara compares the workmanship of the curtain, which separated the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary, with that of the screen, which was hung at the entrance to the Sanctuary: One verse, about the screen, says that it is "the work of the embroiderer" (Exodus 26:36), and one verse, about the curtain, says that it is "the work of the skillful workman" (Exodus 26:31). The Gemara explains: "The work of the embroiderer" means one face was on both sides of the curtain; "the work of the skillful workman" means there were two different faces, one on each side. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagreed about this: One said that "the work of the embroiderer" means that there was an image embroidered that could be seen from both sides, e.g., a lion from here, on one side, and a lion from there, on the other side. "The work of the skillful workman" means that the lion could be seen from here, from one side, and it was smooth with no image from there, on the other side. And the other said: "The work of the embroiderer" means that there was an image like a lion from here, on one side, and smooth without an image from there. "The work of the skillful workman" means that from each side a different image could be seen, e.g., a lion from here and an eagle from there.

The mishna stated that the curtain was made from eighty-two ten-thousands, i.e., 820,000 golden dinar, and that it needed three hundred priests in order to immerse it. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bizna said in the name of Shmuel: Three hundred priests is an exaggeration [guzma], and really a much smaller number of priests were needed. Similarly, we learned in a mishna there (Tamid 28b) with regard to the pile of ash on the altar, that at times there was on it as much as three hundred kor. Regarding this, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said in the name of Shmuel: This is an exaggeration.

Halakha 3 · MISHNA With regard to the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order that became impure, whether it became impure from a primary source of impurity or from a secondary source of impurity, whether it became impure inside the courtyard or outside, it must be burned. There is a dispute among the tanna'im with regard to where it is burned. Beit Shammai say: It all should be burned inside the Temple courtyard, except for that which became impure from a primary source of ritual impurity outside, as under such circumstances, it is not appropriate to bring it inside the Temple. Beit Hillel say: It all should be burned outside the Temple courtyard, except for that which became ritually impure by a secondary source of impurity inside. In such a case the flesh need not be removed from the courtyard and is burned there.