R. Akiva dijo tres cosas. Alrededor de dos, ellos (los sabios) coincidieron con él; aproximadamente uno, no estuvieron de acuerdo con él. (Él dijo) sobre el zapato de aquellos que trabajan en cal [(Los trabajadores de la cal usaban zapatos de madera para proteger sus pies de ser quemados por la cal)], que (el zapato) contrae midras ("pisar" -) impureza [ si es usado por un zav]. Y (dijo) sobre lo que quedaba de un horno [que era muy grande y se convirtió en tamei y luego se rompió, que no se convierte en tahor a menos que lo que quedaba fuera menos de] cuatro [(tefachim) de altura. (Un "horno" en la Mishná se hizo como una olla grande sin fondo, conectada con arcilla al suelo, que era su "fondo")]. Porque ellos (los sabios) (originalmente) habían dicho ("menos que) tres "y (ahora) coincidieron con él.
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
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].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction Mishnah eight contains three statements of Rabbi Akiva. The Sages agreed with two of these statements and disagreed with the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שנים מחיפוייו – from the boards that are made for sitting.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
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.
