Commentary for Eduyot 2:14

רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים העיד. מלשרוף את הבשר שנטמא בולד הטומאה – the offspring of the offspring is stated. The meat which is third [level of impurity] which was defiled with something of the offspring of an offspring,, that is to say, it came in contact with something of second-level impurity, and it became third-level of impurity, they did not prevent from burning with meat that that was defiled with something of a direct cause of Levitical uncleanness, which is the first level of impurity. And when this meat that was at first third-level of impurity comes in contact with that which was defiled with a direct cause of impurity, it returns to be second-degree of impurity, for it came in contact with first-level of impurity and became second, and it is found they added one level of ritual impurity upon its impurity, for initially it was third-level and now is second, and even though that they didn’t prevent from burning with something more severe than it, for since even that which is the lesser for burning stands, they did not suspect if they would make it more impure than it already was. And even though, according to the Torah, no food can make another food impure, as it states regarding something the defiling of food (Deuteronomy 14:8, 14): “It is impure [for you.” It is ritually impure but it does defile food or something similar. Nevertheless, the Rabbis decreed that foods can make other foods impure.

Introduction The first three mishnayoth contain four things upon which Rabbi Hanina, the chief of the priests testified. The first mishnah discusses burning impure things.

השמן – of Priest’s due/Terumah that was defiled by someone who had bathed [in a Mikveh] but must wait for sunset to be perfectly clean, which is third-level of impurity, for a person who had bathed [in a Mikveh] but is waiting for sunset to be perfectly clean defiles Terumah from the Torah and makes it third-level of impurity.

Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, testified concerning four matters:
Through all their days the priests never refrained from burning meat which had been defiled by an “offspring” of impurity with meat which had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity. Rabbi Akiba added: “Through all their days the priests never shrank from lighting oil which had been rendered unfit by a tevul yom in a lamp made impure by one who was made impure by a corpse, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity.” In order to understand the first “testimony” of Rabbi Hanina we must explain some rules concerning impurity. There are a number of things which are considered to be “fathers” of impurity, including a human corpse. If a “father” of impurity touches something it becomes an “offspring” of impurity. There are several levels of “offspring” of impurity. The “first offspring”, when it touches food or liquids (but not people and things) causes them to be a “second offspring”. “Second offspring” makes only terumah food but not normal food into “third offspring”. “Third offspring” can make holy things such as sacrifices into “fourth offspring”. Rabbi Hanina testifies that the priests did not refrain from burning meat which had been made impure by an “offspring” with meat that had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, even though the latter meat, which is a “first offspring” increases the impurity of the former meat, which according to the Talmud had been a “third offspring”, to the status of “second offspring”. The reason is that all of this meat was going to be burned anyway, since impure sacrifices are forbidden to eat. Although it is generally forbidden to intentionall make sacrifices impure, that refers to already pure sacrifices. It is not a problem to increase the impurity of already impure sacrifices. Rabbi Akiva adds another example. The priests did not refrain from burning oil which had contracted a light form of impurity with oil that had contracted a serious form of impurity, even though this will increase the impurity of the oil. The light form of impurity is contracted by coming into contact with a “tevul yom”, one who had already been immersed in a ritual bath and was merely waiting for the sunset to become fully pure. The serious form of impurity is that which is contracted from a corpse.

בנר שנטמא בטמא מת – this is a metallic candle and not of earthenware, for all utensils outside of earthenware utensils that came in contact with the defilement of the dead person become like it, it is principal level of impurity, it is a principle level of impurity, if it is a first level of impurity, it is a first level of impurity, as it is written (Numbers 19:16): “[And in the open, anyone who touches a person] who was killed [or died naturally, or human bone, or a grave, shall be impure seven days].” And they (i.e., the Rabbis) expound upon “who was killed” he is like someone who was slain, for the sword that had come in contact with the dead became like one of the original causes of Levitical uncleanness like the dead person himself. And when it had come in contact with something defiled by contact with the dead, which is a primary [cause of Levitical uncleanness], the sword also became a primary [cause of Levitical uncleanness], and all utensils are like a sword in the law, except for earthenware vessels. It is found that the metallic candle when it came in contact with something defiled by a dead person, it too became a primary [cause of Levitical] uncleanness. And now Rabbi Akiva adds on to the words of Rabbi Hanina the Assistant Priest, for Rabbi Hanina did not permit other than to restore something that had been third-level uncleanness to something second-level uncleanness. But Rabbi Akiva permitted restoring something that was third-level uncleanness to first level, for the oil that had been defiled by contact with a person who has ritually bathed but must wait for sunset to be perfectly clean, who is third-degree level of impurity, when they kindle it with a candle that had been defiled by contact with the dead, the candle itself becomes a primary form of Levitical uncleanness as we have stated and third-level [of impurity] returns to be first-level of impurity. And even though they did not prevent it, for since the title of impurity is upon it, we do not suspect him and it is permitted to add with his hands.

לא ראיתי עור יוצא לבית השריפה – After its hide was flayed, if it was found torn. Even though that this disqualification was upon it prior to its hide being removed, since it was not recognized other than after the hide’s removal.

Introduction Mishnah two discusses burning the hides of sacrificially unfit animals.

שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה – but Rabbi Akiva comes to teach us (a new point), that even a firstling which has defect when it is slaughtered outside of Jerusalem on its defect, and the Biblical verse did not permit it other than for eating, as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:22): “Eat it in your settlements [the unclean among you no less than the clean, just like the gazelle and the deer],” but if it died, its hide is forbidden and it requires burial, and Rabbi Akiva teaches us that where it is “terefah”/torn status is not known until after the hide is flayed, the permitted it to be slaughtered and the flaying of its hide is like its blood was cast in the Temple.

Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, said: “All my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning.” Rabbi Akiba said: “From his words we infer that whoever flays the hide of the firstborn beast and it is found to be trefah, the priests may enjoy the use of the hide.” But the Sages say: “[A testimony which consists of] ‘we didn’t see’ is not a proof; rather the hide must be taken out to the place of burning. In Tractate Zevahim 12:4 the Mishnah teaches that if a sacrificial animal is found to be unfit as a sacrifice before it’s hide is flayed, the entire animal must be burnt. If it is found to be unfit after it’s hide is flayed, the priests may keep the hide. Rabbi Hanina testifies that he never saw a hide being burnt. In other words, according to Rabbi Hanina if they already removed the hide, the priests may make use of it, even though the animal was deemed unfit to be a sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva learns from this that if one flays the hide of a firstborn animal, which belongs to the priests, and then discovers that it was a trefah, an animal with an internal flaw that would have caused its death, the priests may keep the hide. Since the flaw was not known before the hide was removed, the hide becomes the property of the priests. The Sages respond to Rabbi Akiva that the type of testimony that Rabbi Hanina transmitted is not reliable enough to base upon it halakhic solutions. Not seeing something does not mean that it did not happen. Since they exclude Rabbi Hanina’s testimony the law is that the hide must be burnt with the rest of the animal, and the priests are forbidden to receive benefit from it.

יאותו הכהנים בעורו – and it is not burned.

אין לא ראיתי ראיה – lest it did not happen in his days that it would be found “terefah”/torn after the hide had been flayed, and if it happened and they burned it, he did not see it.

אלא יצא לבית השריפה – since prior to the flaying it had come. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva regarding a firstling with a defect when a specialist permitted it, but if a specialist did not permit it, no. And the Halakha is according to the Sages in regard to a pure firstling, that the flesh is buried and hide is burned.

וכותב בכתב ידו – a document of liability on the borrower.

Introduction Mishnah three contains the final two testimonies of Rabbi Hananyah, chief of priests.

ואחרים חותמים – valid witnesses would sign on the document.

He also testified concerning a small village in the vicinity of Jerusalem in which there was an old man who used to lend to all the people of the village and write out [the bond] in his own handwriting and others signed it. And when the fact was brought before the Sages they pronounced it legal. Hence, incidentally, you may infer that a wife may write her own bill of divorcement, and a husband may write his own receipt; for the legality of a document depends only on those who sign it. The third thing about which Rabbi Hananyah testified is about the manner in which documents may be written. He testified that he saw an elder in a town near Jerusalem who used to write out his own loan documents and have others sign them and the Sages pronounced it legal, even though the witnesses did not write out the entire document themselves. Without Rabbi Hananyah’s testimony we might have thought that the lender is not allowed to write out the document himself, for fear that he would forget a document and thereby falsely claim that someone owed him money. From Rabbi Hananyah’s testimony we learn that a woman is allowed to write out her own divorce document and a man might right out his own receipt for having paid the woman’s ketubah (marriage payment). Even though the divorce document is given by the man to the woman and the receipt is given by the woman to the man, since the legality of a document depends solely upon the witnesses, it does not matter who writes it out. As long as these documents are witnessed properly, they are valid.

והתירו – and even though the person who writes the document is the lender, and he is an interested witness.

And [he testified] concerning a needle which was found in flesh of a [sacrifice], that the knife and the hands [which had been employed on the flesh] are clean, but the flesh itself is defiled; and if it was found in the excrement, all are clean. The final issue upon which Rabbi Hananyah testified is with regards to a needle which was found in the body of a sacrifice after it had been slaughtered. The needle was known to have been made impure by a dead body and the question is being asked, are the knife that had been used to slaughter the animal and the person who slaughtered the animal impure from having had contact with the impure needle. Rabbi Hananyah testifies that the knife and slaughterer are not impure but the flesh of the sacrifice is impure, for the needle surely came into contact with it. The reason that the knife and slaughterer are still pure is that doubtful cases of impurity in the public domain are considered pure. The flesh does not make the knife impure because food does not impart impurity to vessels. If, however, the needle was found in the feces of the animal, the knife, slaughterer and even the flesh are pure, because we cannot be sure that the animal’s flesh touched the needle. Although we could assume that the animal swallowed the needle and therefore it touched the flesh, this is not certain and therefore, since this happened in the public domain, the rules are lenient.

שהאשה כותבת את גיטה – and valid witnesses are signed to it.

את שוברו – the document of renunciation that his wife has renounced to him on her Jewish marriage contract.

שאין קיום הגט אלא בחותמיו (see Tractate Gittin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) – the witnesses whose signatures are affixed on the Jewish bill of divorce is the essence of the reason for the validation of the Jewish bill of divorce. Therefore, when valid witnesses have affixed their signatures on it, it is valid, and event though it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce) is in the handwriting of the woman [to be divorced].

ועל מחט – and it is known concerning it that it was defiled [through contact] with the dead, and it is found that with Holy meat, when they cut it in the Temple courtyard, and there was a doubt if it the knife or a person touched it or not. The knife and the person are ritually pure, for it is doubtful impurity in the public domain, for the Temple courtyard has the law of the public domain regarding the matter of ritual impurity, and a doubtful impurity in the public domain, its doubt is deemed pure.

והבשר טמא (see Talmud Pesahim 20a and Talmud Hullin 36b) -for it certainly came in contact with ritual impurity, and our Mishnah is speaking about Holy animals that passed through a river close to its slaughter and still liquid is dripping on it, as the meat has become susceptible to receive defilement with those waters. For if this was not the case, the meat would not be impure. And even though we wash it in the slaughtering place in the Temple courtyard, for all liquid of the slaughtering house is restored to Levitical cleanness. And the meat does not become susceptible to receive defilement. And if it is difficult how the meat is ritually defiled and the hands are pure, for don’t impure food-stuffs defile the hands, according to the Rabbis. But it is not difficult at all, for we hold that one’s hands do not become defiled in the Temple, when they decreed on the defilement of the hands, they didn’t decree about it in the Temple.

בכרם – that the Sages would sit row by row in this vineyard that that was planted with row after row of vines.

Introduction Mishnah four contains three testimonies of Rabbi Yishmael, which he gave in front of the other Sages in Yavneh. As I stated in the introduction to Eduyoth, this is where the Sages gathered after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

על ביצה טרופה – that the white of the egg was mixed with the yolk of the egg together and placed on top of the vegetable and the one who has bathed but must wait for sunset to be perfectly clean had come in contact with egg, and even though it is non-sacred, for the Terumah does not belong with the egg. But a person who has bathed but must wait for sunset to be perfectly clean does not defile something non-sacred; even so, there is a combination and the vegetable is defiled as it through contact with it.

Rabbi Yishmael declared three things before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: Concerning an egg which was beaten together, and placed on vegetables of terumah that it acts as a connection; but if it was in the form of a helmet it does not act as a connection. In the situation in this section a mixed egg is on top of a vegetable which is terumah (only eaten by priests). If a tevul yom, one who was been in the mikveh (bath of ritual purity), and who is considered to carry second degree impurity (see above mishnah one) touches the mixed egg it is as if he also touched the vegetable, and he conveys third degree impurity to the vegetable. In other words, the egg is part of the vegetable and touching the egg counts as touching the vegetable. Since third degree impurity makes terumah impure, the vegetable is impure. If however the egg has been cooked and rose to form a type of covering over the vegetable, it does not connect the tevul yom with the vegetable and the vegetable remains pure. In other words the central question asked is: does touching the egg make the vegetable impure.

אם היה כמין כובע – the egg was blown up and became like a cap over the vegetable and there is its empty space underneath it.

And concerning an ear of corn in the harvesting, the top of which reached the standing corn that if it can be reaped together with the standing corn, it belongs to the owner; and if not, it belongs to the poor. When a farmer is harvesting his wheat, if he forgets a stalk he may not go back and reap it. Rather he must leave it for the poor (see Deuteronomy 24:19). Rabbi Yishmael defines what is a forgotten stalk. If a person leaves a stalk and it is close enough to another stalk at which he has not yet arrived, that if he were to bend the first stalk it could touch the other stalk, then it is not considered to have been forgotten and he may reap it. If it is not close enough to bend it and touch the other stalk, it is considered forgotten and he must leave it for the poor.

שבולת שבקציר – one ear of grain was left over in its harvest that had not been harvest, and the top of that ear of grain touches the standing corn.

And concerning a small garden which was surrounded by a row of vines that if it has space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on one side, and space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on the other side, it may be sown with seed; but if not, it may not be sown with seed. According to Deuteronomy 22:9, it is forbidden to plant seeds in a vineyard. Rabbi Yishmael testifies that if a small garden surrounded by one row of grape vines is big enough on each of its sides for a grape-gatherer to stand there with his basket then he may plant the garden with seeds. In such a case the garden is large enough to be considered separate from the vineyard. If, however, the garden is smaller, then it is merely a bald patch inside a vineyard, and it is forbidden to plant there seeds.

אם נקצרה – if that ear of grain was cut with the standing corn, it belongs to the house owner, for the standing corn rescues it, and we do not call it, “you shall not go back to take it.”

ואם לאו – it is considered “forgotten,” and it is for the poor.

עריס – five vines that are planted and suspended and lying on top of poles or on the fence called an espalier (of grape vines),from the language of (Psalms 132:3): “my bed.”

אם יש בה כמלוא בוצר וסלו – if the garden is as large as the measure that when a grape gatherer stands with his basket when he brings the grapes into it when he is gathering the grapes from all the sides of the espalier.

תזרע – the garden, the seed should be distanced from the vines in order to work the vineyard which are six hand-breadths in all directions.

ואם לאו – the garden is not so large.

לא תזרע – and even though he distances in order to work the vineyard, because the seed appears with the vineyard as if they are mixed seeds.

ופירשן רבי יהושע – when he is liable and when he is exempt.

Introduction Mishnah four, which we learned yesterday, contained three things that Rabbi Yishmael had said in front of the Sages in Yavneh. Mishnah five contains three things which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to explain, and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them for him.

אם לעשות לה פה חייב – because of [the Sabbath prohibition] of “building.”

They stated three things before Rabbi Yishmael, and he pronounced none of them either unlawful or lawful; and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them.
One who lances an abscess on the Sabbath: if it was to make an opening he is liable; if it was to bring out the pus, he is exempt. The first issue about which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to answer is one who lances an abscess on the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained that if he did it in order to make a permanent opening in the abscess, then he is obligated for breaking the Sabbath. This type of work is considered to be like “constructing” which is forbidden. If, however, he intended to let out the pus, he is exempt, for his intention was not to “construct” an opening. The fact that an opening was constructed is an unintended by-product, for which one is not generally liable on the Sabbath.

ואם להוציא ממנה ליחה פטור – for it is labor that is not necessary for its own sake, for the opening is the labor, and this is not necessary for there to be an opening for it from now, and there isn’t here other than a Rabbinic prohibition and because pain is not decreed, it is exempt and permitted.

And concerning one who hunts a snake on the Sabbath: that if he was occupied with it in order that it should not bite him, he is innocent; but if that he might use it as a remedy, he is guilty. Hunting is forbidden on the Sabbath. If a person should kill a snake in order to prevent it from biting him, he is exempt since the death of the snake is an unintended by-product. His true intent was to protect himself. If, however, he kills the snake to use it for medicine, he is liable since his intention was to kill the snake.

אם מתעסק שלא ישכנו פטור – and that it is not necessary for its own sake of the thing being hunted, and if he would known that he could stand and it (i.e., the snake) would not bite him, he would not hunt it. And in this also, the Rabbis did not decree, and it is exempt and permitted.

And concerning Ironian stewpots: that they do not contract impurity when under the same tent as a corpse; but become impure if they are carried by a zav. Rabbi Eliezer ben Zadok says: “Even if they are carried by a zav they remain pure, because they are unfinished.” Ironian stewpots are clay pots that were made by villagers. They were at first made into hollow balls and then split in half to create two pots. The issue here is what type of impurity can these pots receive. Rabbi Joshua ben Mattiah explains, that as long as they have not been opened, they are considered to be covered clay pots which do not receive impurity by being in the same roofed structure as a corpse (see chapter one, mishnah fourteen). If a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital discharge, should carry one of these jars it is impure, since clay jars can receive impurity by being carried by zavim. However, Rabbi Elazar ben Zadok, a later Sage, points out that they are not even made impure by contact with zavim. There is a general rule that a vessel which has not been completely finished does not receive impurity. Since Ironian pots are not completed until they are split in half, it can’t receive any impurity.

לפסין אירוניות – a closed/stopped-up earthenware vessel made like an hollow ball from the inside, and after they glaze it in a kiln/furnace, they sever it in its middle and it is made into two utensils.

טהורות באוהל המת – as long as they have not severed it, for an earthenware vessel is not susceptible to receive defilement from its exterior, other than from its airspace, as it is written (Numbers 19:15): “And every open vessel, [with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean],” through its opening, it defiles, but it - does not defile from the exterior, and this has no open air space.

וטמאות במשא הזב – through defilement by movement (even by indirect movement by means of a lever), for if they were carried or moved from the contact with someone with a flux, they are impure, and even though they have no open air space.

מפני שלא נגמרה מלאכתן – for the cutting that is made in their middle, this is the completion of their work [of creation]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok, but glazing in a furnace is the completion of their work, therefore they become defiled through contact with the person who has a flux even before they are divided.

מלילות – ears of corn that did not ripen completely, and they load them with stones and the liquid flows from them and he immerses in it.

Introduction Mishnah six contains three examples of one law, about which Rabbi Akiva disagreed with Rabbi Yishmael.

יגמור – for after they have been pressed and crushed from Friday, he completes and may eat [them] on Shabbat. And it is not similar to liquids that flowed that are forbidden, as a decree lest he wring out [the liquid], for here, even if he should wring out [the liquids], there is no prohibition from the Torah, because the liquids come of their own accord.

Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiba disagreed with him.
Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day: Rabbi Yishmael says: “He may finish crushing after it grows dark.” But Rabbi Akiba says: “He may not finish.” According to Rabbi Yishmael, if a person began crushing garlic, unripe grapes or green ears of grain before the Sabbath, he may continue to do so on the Sabbath. It would be forbidden to begin to crush these things on the Sabbath, since crushing and squeezing to get the juice out of produce is forbidden. However, since he began crushing them before the Sabbath, and the liquid is already starting to come out, he may continue to do so. The liquid from these things would be used for certain types of dips. Rabbi Akiva forbids this. According to him, just as it is forbidden to begin to crush, so too it is forbidden to continue crushing.

לא יגמור – in order to eat after he has sanctified the [Sabbath] day, for it is prohibited like other liquids that flowed. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yishmael.

עיר של זהב – golden crown that is made like the form of the city of Jerusalem, and we don’t suspect that perhaps she will take it off and show it and will bring it four cubits in the public domain (versus Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 6, Mishnah 1, which teaches in an anonymous Mishnah that a woman should not go out on Shabbat with a golden crown that is made like the form of the city of Jerusalem).

Introduction Mishnah seven contains three things that other Sages said in front of Rabbi Akiva: two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Joshua.

ומפריחי יונים – one of the kinds of sport/jest [that one plays with one’s pigeons]: if your pigeon will come before my pigeon, I will give you such-and-such, for one who raises a pigeon who is knowledgeable to bring [other] pigeons to the house in the upper story. And there is through them theft because of the ways of peace, but not complete theft.

Two things were said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer in front of Rabbi Akiva.

ספק נגע ספק לא נגע ספיקו טהור – because it is a passing defilement and does not rest in a place, therefore, its doubt is ritually pure and even in the private domain.

They said three things before Rabbi Akiva, two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Joshua. Two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:
A woman may go out [on the Sabbath adorned] with a “golden-city”; A woman may go out of her house on the Sabbath wearing a tiara of gold, stamped with the imprint of Jerusalem. This is called a “golden city”. The general reason why women are not allowed to wear jewelry in the public domain on the Sabbath is that she might take off the piece to show it to others and will thereby transgress the prohibition of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath. However, Rabbi Eliezer holds that since a woman who has such a tiara must be wealthy, and wealthy women do not take off their jewelry to show it off, we need not be concerned that they will do so. By the way, this phrase is reminiscent of the “Jerusalem of Gold”, the “Yerushalayim shel Zahav” given by Rabbi Akiva to his wife, and made famous by the modern song. Evidently it was a well known piece of jewelry in ancient times.

And they that fly pigeons are unfit to bear evidence. And one in the name of Rabbi Joshua: Those that race pigeons are unfit to testify, since this is a form of gambling. We learned this law in Sanhedrin 3:3.

If there was a creeping thing in the mouth of a weasel when it walked over loaves of terumah, and it is doubtful whether it touched them or whether it did not touch them, that about which there is doubt remains pure. There was one law stated in the name of Rabbi Joshua. If a weasel has a dead creepy crawly thing (which is a source of impurity) in its mouth, and the weasel walks on loaves of terumah, and we are unsure whether the creepy crawly thing touched the terumah, the terumah remains pure. This is due to a general rule that if a source of impurity is moving, and it is doubtful whether it touched anything, the thing it might have touched remains pure. Since the weasel was moving and it is doubtful whether what was in its mouth touched the terumah, the terumah remains pure.

סנדל של סיידין – the wooden shoe that they wear on their feat when they are engaged with lime/plaster to protect their feet that they don’t burn in the lime, and if a person with a flux wore it, it would be impure through Levitical uncleanness arising from a someone with a flux’s immediate contact by treading [or leaning against].

Introduction Mishnah eight contains three statements of Rabbi Akiva. The Sages agreed with two of these statements and disagreed with the other.

ועל שיירי תנור ארבעה – if it was large enough and it became defiled and afterwards broke, he would not be pure until there would not be in its shards a height of four [handbreadths], for shards are susceptible to receiving defilement as if it was whole, until the shard would be less than the height of three [handbreadths]. But a mere oven that is in the Mishnah is made like a large pot which has no rim and when they fasten it with plaster on the ground and the floor of the ground is the bottom of the oven.

Rabbi Akiba declared three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him.
About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract midras impurity; A lime-burners sandal is a special sandal that he wears over his feet in order to protect them for the burning lime. The question being raised is are these sandals normal footwear, such that they receive midras impurity. Midras impurity is a kind of impurity imparted by a zav (someone who had an abnormal genital discharge) to things which are normally walked upon. For instance if a zav steps upon a carpet it is impure, for carpets are made to be walked upon. However, if he steps upon a book it does not receive midras impurity, since people don’t normally walk on books. Rabbi Akiva teaches that although lime-burners are not made to be walked in, since they are put on a person’s feet, they can receive midras impurity.

שנים מחיפוייו – from the boards that are made for sitting.

And about the remains of a [broken] oven, that they must be four handbreadths high [in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say three and [when he said four] they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him If an object that has contracted impurity breaks and is therefore no longer useful, it is no longer impure. The question is into how small pieces must an oven break for it to become pure. According to Rabbi Akiva pieces which are smaller than 4 handbreaths (about a foot) retain impurity. Before the Sages heard Rabbi Akiva’s opinion they had held that a piece 3 handbreadths retains impurity. When they heard Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, they agreed with him.

שרבי עקיבא מטמא – as he {i.e., Rabbi Akiva) holds that even though it is not appropriate for sitting, it is appropriate to receive pomegranates, and it is impure because it is a receptacle.

About a stool, from which two of its covering-boards had been removed, the one beside the other, which Rabbi Akiba pronounces able to contract impurity, but the Sages declare unable to contract impurity. The disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Akiva is over a chair which had two adjoining cover-boards removed. We discussed this issue in chapter one, mishnah eleven, when we discussed the special bridal chair. Here we learn that according to The Sages, once two adjoining cover-boards are removed, it is no longer useful as a chair, and therefore it is not receptive to impurity. Rabbi Akiva hold that since the chair could still be used if there was great need for it, it can still receive impurity. In other words, it is still a chair.

וחכמים מטהרין – as they hold because its essential purpose is that it was made for sitting and not as a receptacle, since the purpose for which it had been made was annulled. And it does not defile even because of being a receptacle. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

האב זוכה לבן וכו' – since it is close that the nature of the son is to be similar to the nature of the father, and beauty, and strength and wisdom and years, a man endows [his son] with them from the beginning of his creation according to his nature, and wealth a person bequeaths to his son. And wisdom that we speak of here, is the straight ingenuity of mind/brightness of mind, which is in a person according to his nature. And years, length of days. And to me it appears that if a person endows them, he will have sons who are pleasant, strong, wise, rich and who live long lives.

Introduction Mishnayoth nine (and ten) contain further statements of Rabbi Akiva. These statements are not about halakhah, but rather about aggadah, or Jewish legend.

ובמספר הדורות לפניו – Sometimes that the Holy One, blessed be He promises that his father will do good for his seed to the third generation or to the fourth generation, and the father endowed to that generation that this particular goodness will come to them.

He used to say: the father transmits to the son beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom and years. This mishnah contains a popular saying by Rabbi Akiva, that a son inherits from his father, beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom and years, which is length of life.

הוא הקץ – that the Holy One, blessed be He, determined for this matter that it will be for a specific time and for a certain generation, such as (Genesis 15:14,16): “…and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years…and they shall return here in the fourth generation…,” that the number of generations which is the fourth generation will be end of the four hundred years.

And the number of generations before Him, that shall be their appointed end: For it is said, “calling the generations from the beginning” (Isaiah 51:4) Although it is said, “And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13), it is also said, “And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again” (Genesis 15:16). This section has been explained in many different ways and is very difficult to understand. I will explain it the way that Albeck explains. Rabbi Akiva is dealing with the issue of fate: if a father controls the number of years that his son will live, how is that God has already determined how long the world will last. The answer that Rabbi Akiva gives is that the number of generations is fixed, as the verse in Isaiah says, but the number of years in each generation is not fixed. Although one verse from Exodus seems to say that God counts years, a few verses later generations are mentioned. According to Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation of these verses and his theology, a person’s years are determined by his actions and by his father’s actions, and not predetermined by God. It is only the number of generations until redemption that is known by God. Of course, human beings do not know this number. It is important to note that when we deal with issues such as fate and the end of the world, we are dealing with issues about which many different Jewish answers have been given. This is not an issue that human beings can fully understand.

שנאמר והיה מדי חודש בחדשו – when the month comes in the same month that he died in it, he would leave from Gehinnom and come to worship before God.

Introduction Mishnayoth ten contains another statement of Rabbi Akiva.

שנאמר ומדי שבת בשבתו – that is to say, after he would be in Gehinnom so many days like there are from the first day of Passover, which is called “Shabbat,” as it is written (Leviticus 23:15): “[And from the day on which you bring the sheaf of elevation offering]– the day after the Sabbath – you shall count off seven weeks. [They must be complete],” until Atzeret/Shavuot which is the from the morrow of the seventh Sabbath, he left from Gehinnom and comes to worship.

There are five heavenly judgements which according to Rabbi Akiva were meted out for one year.

Also he used to say that there are five things that last twelve months:
The judgment of the generation of the flood [continued] twelve months; The judgement of the generation of the flood lasted one year. According to Genesis 7:11 the flood began on the seventeenth of the second month of the 600th year of Noah’s life. According to 8:14, the earth was dry one year and ten days later. The extra ten days are the adjustment for the difference between a lunar and solar calendar.

The judgment of Job [continued] twelve months; Job’s trial lasted a year. This is learned from Job 7:3 which states, “So have I been allotted months of futility; nights of misery have been apportioned to me.” According to a midrash the months of futility are the days of the summer which are long and the nights of misery which are also long. Together, it can be concluded that Job suffered for one whole year.

The judgment of the Egyptians [continued] twelve months; The ten plagues lasted a year, according to Rabbi Akiva. This is learned through a midrash on Exodus 5:12. According to this verse the plagues began only after the Egyptians forced the Israelite slaves to search for their own straw. Since straw is found in the month of Iyyar, May, and the Israelites left Egypt in Nissan, April, the conclusion can be drawn that the plagues lasted one year.

The judgment of Gog and Magog in the time to come [will continue] twelve months; Gog is a King and Magog is his country. According to Ezekiel 38-39, at the end of time Gog will fight a battle with Israel, at which point God will bring judgement upon Gog and his people. According to Rabbi Akiva, this judgement will last one year. This is learned in the midrash from Isaiah 18:6, “The kites shall summer on them and all the beasts of the earth shall winter on them”. This verse is understood as referring to the war of Gog at the end of days. The verse states that they will be punished for a summer and a winter, meaning for an entire year.

The judgment of the wicked in gehinom [continues] twelve months, for it is said, and “It will be from one month until its [same] month” (Isaiah 66:23). Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: “[As long as] from Passover to Shavuoth, for it is said, “And from one Sabbath until its [next] Sabbath” (ibid.). The wicked are judged in Gehinom, which is a Jewish word for hell, for one year. This is learned from Isaiah 66:24 which states, “They shall go out and gaze on the corpses of the men who rebelled against Me.” The previous verse states that “Month after month and Sabbath after Sabbath all flesh shall come and worship me.” How can all flesh come and praise God if the corpses of the rebellious are being punished. To solve this problem, the Rabbis reverse the order of the verses, understanding that the wicked are first punished and then allowed to return to praising God. From the words “month after month” Rabbi Akiva concludes that the wicked shall be judged from one month until the next appearance of the same month, meaning twelve months. As an aside, this is where the Jewish custom of saying Kaddish over a parent for 11 months originates. If one were to say Kaddish for a full twelve months, it would be assuming that the parent was wicked. Since no one would want to make such a statement, we say Kaddish for eleven months. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri learns from the words “Sabbath after Sabbath” in the above verse that the wicked are judged for a time period equal to the time between one holiday and the next. (Sabbath can sometimes mean holiday, as opposed to its usual meaning, the seventh day of the week). The shortest such period is the time between Passover and Shavuoth, which is seven weeks.