Commento su Kelim 27:13

הבגד מיטמא משום חמשה שמות – as it is explained further on: because of receptacle, because of sitting, because of overshadowing [of a tent], because of a web [and] because of three fingerbreadths square. And each one of them, its measurement is different one from the other. How so? A cloth [of wool or linen] that has a receptacle, such as the piece of leather in which jewels are bound up, that is taught In the Mishnah above (Tractate Kelim, Chapter 26, Mishnah 2), or a receptacle of [olive] oil or a receptacle of wax, its measure is with a little bit., [and because of defilement by sitting, if it was defiled] though the treading of a person with gonorrhea, its measure is not less than three handbreadths by three handbreadths square. But if it became a tent of overshadowing for a corpse, as it is written (Numbers 19:18): “[A person who is pure shall take hyssop, dip it in the water,] and sprinkle on the tent [and on all the vessels and people who were there],” there is no defiling with less than a handbreadth by a handbreadth square. But if it is a belt/אבנט or a girdle/חגור, it becomes defiled because of the web, even though it does not have the measurement to be fit to be called a cloth, for it does not have the width of three fingers, even so, it is impure because it is a web. And we derive it from a sack. Just as a sack is spun and woven, even all that is spun and woven. And all of the rest of the defilements, the cloth is not defiled nor does it defile with less than three fingers square, for it is not important neither to the poor nor the rich and is not called a cloth.

Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness;
Sack-cloth is susceptible to four;
Leather to three;
Wood to two;
And an earthenware vessel to one.
An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part.
Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one.
Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent.
Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work.
Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.
Section one: There are five different ways in which cloth can become impure, and each way differs from the other in respect to how large a piece of cloth there needs to be for it to be susceptible. The first is a piece of cloth that has a receptacle. In such a case even the smallest piece of cloth is susceptible. The second is cloth that is either sat or laid upon. Such cloth is susceptible if it is three handbreadths. The third is a piece of cloth that functions as a "tent," meaning an overhanging. In such a case, the smallest piece of cloth is sufficient. The fourth is a woven piece of cloth; again, the smallest piece is susceptible. The fifth is that a piece of cloth that is three by three handbreadths is susceptible.
Sections two-five: Below, the mishnah will explain these categories.
Section six: If an earthenware vessel does not have a receptacle, meaning an "inside," then even its outside is not susceptible to impurity.
Section seven: Wood can become impure by having a receptacle, like earthenware. Even without a receptacle, it is impure if it is made for sitting.
If one makes a wood tablet without a frame it is susceptible to impurity, whereas an earthenware tablet without a frame is pure because it does not have a receptacle.
Section eight: Leather that hangs over a dead body is impure, but if a wood or earthenware vessel hangs over a dead body, the vessel remains pure.
Section nine: If sack-cloth is woven, even the smallest piece is susceptible to impurity.
Section ten: As explained in section one, a piece of cloth is susceptible to impurity if it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths.

משום ארבעה שמות – that it lacks the measurement of three fingerbreadths square.

העור משום שלשה – for it lacks [the measurement] because of three fingerbreadths square and because of a web.

העץ משום שנים – that it lacks the defilement of tents, as it is taught I the Mishnah in [Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 2, Mishnah 3] the Chapter במה מדליקין/With what do we kindle [Shabbat candles]? “No product from a tree can contract “tent” uncleanness [except for flax].” And it also doesn’t have because of a web, and also because of three fingerbreadths square.

החרס משום אחד – because it is a receptacle alone But it doesn’t have all of these that we have mentioned (of the rest of the five). And it also does not have [defilement through] treading, as it is written concerning the treading of a person with gonorrhea (Leviticus 15:5): “Anyone who touches his bedding [shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain impure until evening].” He makes an analogy between “his bedding” to him, just as he who has ritual purity in the ritual bath/Mikveh, even all who have purity in the ritual bath, excluding earthenware that does not have purity in a ritual bath that does not become lying for a person with gonorrhea/a flux.

איל לו אחרויים – that an earthenware vessel is not susceptible to receive ritual impurity from its outside, as it is written (Leviticus 11:33): “And if any of hose fall into an earthen vessel, everything inside shall be impure [and -the vessel – itself you shall break].” If it came in contact with defilement from its outside, it was not defiled at all.

שהוא מיטמא משום אריג – which is not the case with a hide, for even if he cut it into thin straps and wove them, it is not considered a web/weaving.

הבגד מימטמא – for becoming defiled through contact with a corpse and for all the rest of the defilements except for that of treading, because of three fingerbreadth square, because it is appropriate for poor people, and it is derived by implication from as is it written (Leviticus 13:47): “[When an eruptive affection occurs in] a cloth, [of wool or linen fabric].” But for uncleanness by treading, we require something that is appropriate for sitting, and with less than three handbreadths by three handbreadths, it is not appropriate for seating.

Cloth is susceptible to midras uncleanness when it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths, and to corpse uncleanness when it is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. Sack-cloth when it is four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Leather, five handbreadths by five handbreadths. And matting, six handbreadths by six handbreadths. [All of these] are equally susceptible to both midras and corpse uncleanness. This section provides minimum sizes for various materials to be susceptible to impurity. When it comes to cloth, there is a distinction between the minimum size susceptible to midras impurity and corpse impurity. For a piece of cloth to be susceptible to midras, it must be a piece of cloth that someone might use for sitting on or laying upon. Thus it must be at least three by three handbreadths. But for it to be susceptible to corpse impurity it need be only three by three fingerbreadths, which is quite a small piece of cloth. We can learn from here of the value of cloth during the mishnaic period people would save pieces as small as one's fist. When it comes to the other materials, there is no distinction between the minimum size to be susceptible to midras or corpse impurity. We should also note that the mishnah demonstrates the relative value of materials. Cloth was most valuable, then the coarser sack-cloth, then leather and finally matting, which was made from reeds.

השק – that is woven from hair or feathers of goats, its measure whether for someone who had been defiled through contact with a corpse or for treading is not less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths.

Rabbi Meir says: what remains of sack-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness if it is four handbreadths, but when in its first condition [it becomes susceptible only after its manufacture] is completed. Rabbi Meir partially modifies the halakhah found in section one. Sack-cloth that remains from a larger piece of sack-cloth is impure as long as four handbreadths by four handbreadths remain. This accords with the previous opinion. However, when one first manufactures a piece of sack-cloth, it is not susceptible to impurity until it is finished. If it is unfinished, it is not susceptible, even if it is larger than four by four handbreadths.

ושוין – to defile through defilement of treading/Midras and through defilement by contact with a corpse. A sack, or a hide or a mat.

שייריו ארבעה – regarding this matter, it is stated [by Rabbi Meir] that its remnants are four [handbreadths]. When it became worn out and torn and there remained from it a measurement of four handbreadths, but at the beginning of its weaving, it doesn’t become susceptible to receive ritual defilement until it is completely woven. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

היה ושה שנים מן הבגד – two handbreadths.

If one made up a piece of material from two handbreadths of cloth and one of sack-cloth, or of three of sack-cloth and one of leather or four of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. In this section, the piece added is subject to lesser restrictions, and therefore the entire piece is not susceptible to impurity. For instance, cloth needs to be three handbreadths to be susceptible (greater restrictions) and sack-cloth must be four (lesser restrictions). If he takes two pieces of cloth and adds one piece of sack-cloth, it is not susceptible, even though there are three handbreadths altogether.

ואחד מן השק – one handbreadth.

If the piece of material was made up of five handbreadths of matting and one of leather or four of leather and one of sack-cloth, or three of sack-cloth and one of cloth it is susceptible to uncleanness. In contrast, matting must be six handbreadths (lesser restrictions) but leather only five (greater restrictions). So if he takes one handbreadth of leather and adds it to five handbreadths of matting, it is susceptible.

טהור – for that which is inferior does not complete the measurement of that which is important, that the inferior’s measurement is greater. But the more highly regarded completes the measurement of the inferior, for even a little bit of that which is highly regarded is susceptible to receive ritual impurity.

This is the general rule: if the material added is subject to greater restrictions it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the material added was subject to lesser restrictions it is not susceptible. This is the general rule that explains the halakhot in sections one and two.

מן החמור (more stringent) – that it is sufficient for it in a small measurement.

מן הקל (from a category more lenient) – that requires a greater measurement. And especially like this arrangement that is written in the Mishnah, they combine to the [more] lenient of them: the cloth and the sack, the sack and the hide, the hide and the matting. But the cloth and the hide or the cloth and the matting, or the sack and matting do not combine, for one who attaches them, has annulled his thinking with regard to every person. But however, to make of them a patch on the pack-saddle/cushion – consisting of patches – of a donkey, all of them combine, that from whichever of them will trim a handbreadth and make it a path on the pack-saddle/cushion of a donkey, they combine, for he is not strict for there, if it is from two species.

מכולם – from any of them that he will trim (from the list provided in the first two Mishnayot of this chapter) one handbreadth by one handbreadth, it is appropriate to become defiled through sitting, For those measurements that are taught in the Mishnah above, the cloth is three [handbreadths] by three [handbreadths] square for uncleanness through treading and the sack is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] square, etc., it would not other than with a piece of cloth or sack or hide or matting that was not cut or repaired for sitting. But trimming, that is cutting and repair from one of all of them one-handbreadth by one-handbreadth square in order to sit upon it, is impure through sitting, for occasionally one trims and makes patches from one of them for the pack-saddle/cushion of a donkey and sits upon it, but it will not be other than a handbreadth by a handbreadth.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with a person who takes a piece of one of the materials mentioned in mishnah two and cuts off a swatch one handbreadth by one handbreadth in order to sit on it.

מכל מקום – and even from the sides. But Rabbi Shimon holds that from the sides is not appropriate for sitting. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon [but according to the Sages – anyone who trims anywhere one-handbreadth by one-handbreadth, it is impure.].

If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one takes a piece of cloth, leather, sack-cloth or matting and makes a one square handbreadth swatch in order to sit upon it, it is susceptible to midras impurity. The sages provided minimum measures which a piece of cloth needs to be to be susceptible, but only in cases where the cloth was not meant for a seat.

[If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. The same rule applies if one cuts off a piece of material from the bottom of a basket.

If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness. There is a debate over whether a one square piece cut from the sides of the basket is susceptible. Rabbi Shimon holds that it is not. Albeck proposes that the sides of the basket are curved and not good for sitting, unless he reshapes the material. Therefore, simply cutting a piece from the sides to sit upon does not make it susceptible to uncleanness. The other sages disagree and say that even a piece cut from the side is susceptible.

נפה וכברה (sifter or a sieve) – they are [made] of [leather] hides. And sometimes we make a sifter from hair, and its law is like the law for a sack. And similarly, sometimes they make a sieve from ropes of parings/shavings used for basket work and of bulrushes/reed-grass, and its law is like that of matting.

Worn-out pieces of a sifter or a sieve that were adapted for use as a seat: Rabbi Akiva rules that they are susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages rule that they are not susceptible unless their rough ends were cut off. If one takes a worn-out sifter or sieve and cuts a piece out of it to use as a seat (not really sure how comfy this must have been, but what do I know?), Rabbi Akiva says that it is immediately susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that before it can be considered a seat he must cut off the rough edges (see 20:4 for a similar dispute).

עד שיקצע (until one trims it/cuts off rough ends) – that he will cut and repair for sitting (see Tractate Kelim, Chapter 20, Mishnah 4). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness. A child's stool (meaning chair, not the other kind ☺) need not be one handbreadth high to be susceptible to impurity.

אע"פ שאין בו גבוה טפח – and even though it is [the seat] of an adult, it does not become susceptible to receive ritual purity until it is less than a handbreadth, as is taught in the Mishnah above in the Chapter “The Table and the Delphica” [Chapter 22, Mishnah 3], a seat for a child is appropriate for sitting even with less than a handbreadth. [Without legs, the seat is unsusceptible.]

A child's shirt: Rabbi Eliezer rules it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size. But the sages rule: it is susceptible only if it is of the prescribed size, and it is measured when doubled over. According to Rabbi Eliezer, a child's shirt can be of the smallest size and still be susceptible because it is considered a vessel. The other sages say that even a child's shirt must fulfill the minimum sizes mentioned in mishnah two. If it is made of cloth, it must be three handbreadths square and it is measured on each side, i.e. the front must be three by three and the back must be three by three as well.

עד שיהיו בו כעשיר – if it is from cloth – until it will be three-handbreadths by three-handbreadths square, according to the measurement of the defilement of a cloth for uncleanness through treading.

ונמדד כפול – three [handbreadths] in front of him, and three [handbreadths] in back of him, I is found that when he stretches it out, it is six [handbreadths] in length by three [handbreadths] in width square, and its length is double its width.

אלו נמדדים כפולים – that it needs the measurement to be from two sides. Since it is their manner to use them from two sides, if the measurement is from one side, it is not effective. Another explanation, that it is measured double, that a cloth in the place of cut, it is the manner that the threads go out from it and it becomes ruined and is easily torn, and it is the manner of sewers to double a bit around the cut and sew. And this is measured double as it has been taught, for after it is doubled, there needs to be enough in order to its measurement, but if there isn’t enough for its measurement, even though that if one would loosen the stitch and stretch it out, there would be enough for its measurement. It is not effective.

Introduction In yesterday's mishnah we learned that a child's shirt is measured when doubled, meaning that it needs to be three handbreadths square on both sides. Today's mishnah teaches that there are other pieces of clothing that are measured doubled.

אנפליא (socks) – socks that reach until the knee. Whether they are of cloth or of hide/leather.

The following are measured when doubled: Felt socks, long stockings, pants, a cap and a money-belt. All of these articles of clothing are measured "doubled," meaning they must have three square handbreadths in the front and back for them to be susceptible to impurity.

פמוליניא (knee breeches/long stockings) – like a kind of large undergarments/trousers that go from the loins until the thighs, and they have straps.

As regards a patch sewn on the hem, if it was simple it is measured simple, but if it was doubled it is measured when doubled. If he sewed the patch on one side of the hem, then it is measured "singly" but if he sewed it on two sides, then it is measured doubled.

כובע – that is on the head.

וכיס של פונדא (money belt) – a region that is hollow, and it is similar to a pocket that is made for receiving.

מטלית – patch.

שטלייה על השפה – that one sewed on the hem around the neck.

אם פשוטה (if it is flat) – that it is not sewn from both sides but rather either from in front or from behind. And for the second explanation, that it is not doubled from the thread surrounding the seam.

הבגד שארג בו שלשה טפחים על שלשה טפחים (the cloth on which one wove three by three square handbreadths) – in close confinement, which is the measurement to be susceptible to uncleanness through treading. But after they were defiled through treading when they are closely confined, he competed upon it the weaving of all of the cloth, and now all of the cloth is impure through treading which is an attachment of three [handbreadths] by three [handbreadths] square that were defiled prior to the weaving of all the cloth.

If a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three by three handbreadths, and then it contracted midras uncleanness, and then he completed the rest of the piece, and then one removed a single thread from the original part, it is free from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. When he makes a piece of cloth that is three by three, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. It then is defiled so that it has midras. When he makes the rest of the cloth, the whole piece of cloth has midras uncleanness. But then when he removes one string from the original three by three, the whole cloth loses midras uncleanness because only the original piece actually had midras, and it is no longer there. However, the cloth still has uncleanness by virtue of its contact with something that had midras. For a similar type of mishnah see 19:5.

נטל חוט אחד מתחלתו – from the first three [handbreadths] by three [handbreadths] square that were defiled by treading.

If he removed a thread from the original part and then he finished the whole cloth, it is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. In this case, first he made the three by three and it became impure and then he reduced it by a single thread, and then completed the rest of the cloth. Even though the cloth was reduced in size before he completed it, thereby losing its midras impurity, the whole cloth is impure by virtue of contact with midras. This is because the three by three piece of cloth is considered as having contact with itself before it was reduced. After it was reduced, although it can no longer have midras impurity, it still has impurity by contact with midras, and when he completes the cloth, the whole thing has impurity by contact with midras.

טהור – the entire cloth [is pure] from uncleanness of treading.

אבל טמא מגע מדרס – because it came in contact with the first three [handbreadths] by three [handbreadths] square prior to its measure being reduced/diminished.

נטל חוט אחד מתחילתו ואח"כ השלים עליו את כל הבגד טמא מגע מדרס – and even though it reduced/diminished its measure prior to completing the entire cloth, nevertheless, the entire cloth is impure through contact with Midrash/treading uncleanness. For this Tanna/teacher holds that a cloth of three [handbreadths] by three [handbreadths] square that was divided after it was defiled through treading, is impure through contact with treading, as is found later on in our chapter (see Mishnah 10 of this chapter). Therefore, when it reduced/diminished its measurement of three [handbreadths] by three [handbreadths] square, it remained impure through contact with treading uncleanness, and when he completed the entire cloth, the cloth is attached to impurity through contact of treading, and all that is attached/connected to something impure, is impure like it.

וכן בגד שארג בו שלש אצבעות – in close confinement, that this is its measure to be defilement in all of the defilements together except for that of leaning, but with this, it is not defiled in any defilement that is in the world.

Similarly, if a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three [fingerbreadths] square, and it contracted corpse uncleanness, and afterwards he finished the entire piece, and then he removed a single thread from its original part, it is free from corpse uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. This is virtually the same halakhah as was found in section one of yesterday's mishnah, except that today's mishnah deals with a smaller piece of cloth, three fingerbreadths square. A piece this size cannot contract midras, but it can contract corpse impurity.

שלש על שלש שנתמעט טהור – it is completely [pure], and is not appropriate for anything, neither for the poor nor the rich, therefore, it is pure from all defilements.

If a thread was removed from the original part and then all the cloth was finished it remains clean, for the sages have ruled: if a piece of three [fingerbreadths] square is lessened it becomes clean. If a three fingerbreadths piece of cloth contracts corpse uncleanness and then is reduced, it is completely pure. Even if he then enlarges the cloth, there is no impurity left, so the whole cloth is pure.

But if one of three handbreadths square is lessened, even though it is released from midras, it is still susceptible to all other forms of uncleanness. This is the difference between the type of impurity contracted by a three fingerbreadths piece of cloth, and one that is three handbreadths. A three handbreadths piece of cloth is still susceptible to other forms of impurity, such as corpse impurity. In contrast, something smaller than three fingerbreadths square is completely pure.

ועשאו וילון – a curtain that is front of the opening, as for example, that he made something that by means of it is pure from uncleanness through treading, according to the School of Shammai from when it is sewn, but according to the School of Hillel, from when it is tied up. But according to Rabbi Akiba, from when one fixed it, as is taught in the Mishnah above in [Tractate Kelim] the Chapter, “The Mattresses and the Pillows”/"הכרים והכסתות" (Chapter 20) [Mishnah 6[.

If a sheet that had contracted midras uncleanness was made into a curtain, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. Once he turns the sheet into a curtain it loses its midras impurity because it is no longer something that is sat or lain upon. However, the curtain is considered to have had "contact with itself," and therefore it is still unclean by virtue of contact with midras uncleanness.

טהור מן המדרס – that it is annulled from the law of lying and sitting, but it is appropriate to the defilement of contact, because the attendant warms himself in it and wraps himself in his rims.

Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had touched it is it unclean from contact with a zav. Rabbi Yose holds that having "contact with itself" does not cause something to be impure. In other words, if the sheet/curtain is no longer impure with midras, then it is not impure by virtue of contact with midras. However, this does not necessarily mean that the curtain (former sheet) is pure. If a zav (the one who conveys midras impurity) touched it when it was a sheet, he gave it both midras impurity because he sat on it and contact impurity by touching it. When it becomes a curtain, it loses its midras impurity because it is no longer sat or lain upon, but it retains its impurity by virtue of contact with the zav. Note that if the zav had sat or lain upon the sheet without touching it, it would have only had midras impurity and when it was turned into a sheet it would be completely pure.

וכי באיזה מדרס נגע זה – meaning to say, since it is ritually pure from the defilement of treading when he made it into a curtain, it is completely pure and there doesn’t remain in it any defilement. For anything that were shards of vessels are pure from their defilement completely.

אלא אם כן נגע בו הזב – if the person with gonorrhea/flux came in contact with this curtain, he defiles it with the defilement of the contact of a person with gonorrhea. But from the power of defilement of treading that was in it initially, there is no defilement here at all. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

שלשה על שלשה שנחלק – a cloth which has in it three handbreadths by three handbreadths which had been defiled by treading uncleanness of a person with gonorrhea, and afterwards, it was divided, and there isn’t in any one of them by the way of the measurement of defilement by treading, in this, there is a dispute between the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi Yossi, that the first Tanna/teacher holds that he is impure through contact with treading, but Rabbi Yossi holds that he is pure completely. But the cloth of three [handbreadths] by three [handbreadths] that that was separated from a large cloth that was [defiled] through treading, everyone admits that at the time of their separation from their “father”, it received the defilement from their “father.” And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square was divided, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. In order for the piece of cloth to be susceptible to midras uncleanness, it must be three handbreadths square, as we learned in mishnah two. If it is divided in half, each piece can no longer be unclean with midras, but each piece had "contact with itself." Therefore, both pieces retain uncleanness by virtue of contact with midras.

Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had touched it is it unclean from contact with a zav. Rabbi Yose's words here are exactly the same as in yesterday's mishnah. Again he holds that impurity is not conveyed by "contact with itself." Therefore, if the two halves of the piece of cloth do not have midras uncleanness, they also do not have uncleanness by contact with midras. Nevertheless, if a zav had actually touched the cloth, it retains the uncleanness contracted through contact with a zav. Such uncleanness is not lost when the cloth becomes less than three handbreadths square, as long as it is at least three fingerbreadths square.

בריא וצורר מלח (sound and capable of wrapping up salt) – this is our reading. A cloth that is placed in the trash is voided from the designation/nature of a cloth, unless it has two things: that it is sound and strong and appropriate to wrap in it a quarter Kab of salt. But if it is found in the house, since it wasn’t thrown in the garbage, it is still valuable/regarded but one qualification is enough, either it is sound/firm even though it is not capable of wrapping up salt or it wraps up salt even though it is not sound/firm.

Introduction Today's mishnah discusses how strong a small piece of cloth needs to be to be susceptible to impurity.

ר' יהודה אומר בדקה – always it does not become defiled until it wraps up a quarter [of a Kab] of fine salt.

If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. For the piece of cloth found in a garbage heap to be susceptible to impurity it must fulfill two conditions, besides the usual stipulation that it be three handbreadths square. First of all, it must be sound, meaning of strong quality so that it doesn't easily tear. Second, it must not have holes in it, so that it could be used to bundle up salt without the salt passing through. In contrast, a piece of cloth found in a house is more easily susceptible to impurity, because no one has discarded it. Thus it only needs to fulfill one of the criteria either strong quality or no holes (can carry salt).

וחכמים אומרים – it does not become susceptible to impurity until it wraps up coarse salt.

How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. The rabbis disagree as to what type of salt the cloth must be able to carry. According to Rabbi Judah it must be able to hold fine salt, whereas the sages say it needs to hold coarse salt. It would seem that Rabbi Judah is lenient, because he holds that the cloth is pure unless it can hold even fine salt, and that the sages are more stringent. However, the mishnah says that both the sages and Rabbi Judah intended to be lenient. Rabbi Judah was lenient as we explained above. But even the sages are lenient because they hold that the cloth is not susceptible unless it is strong enough to hold a quarter of a kav of coarse salt without the salt melting. Since coarse salt will last longer, the cloth will have to last longer to protect the salt.

אלו ואלו מתכוונים להקל – Rabbi Yehuda holds that fine [salt] must be wrapped in a sound and very strong cloth, because of its heaviness, that it is heavier than the coarse salt. Therefore, he estimates until it holds the fine salt, to be lenient regarding it so that it does not become defiled. But the Rabbis hold that coarse salt requires a cloth that is even more sound, because of its pointed projections and horns that protrude. Therefore, they estimate with the coarse salt to be susceptible to be defiled, in order to be lenient on the cloth that holds the thin salt that it should not become defiled.

Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house. Rabbi Shimon holds that just as a three fingerbreadths square piece of cloth that is found in a house is not susceptible to midras, but is susceptible to other types of impurity, so too a three handbreadths square piece of cloth found in a garbage heap is not susceptible to midras, but is susceptible to other forms of impurity.

שוין שלשה על שלשה באשפה לשלש על שלש בבית – just the three [handbreadth] by three [handbreadth cloth] in the house is defiled through corpse uncleanness and are not defiled through treading/Midras uncleanness, so the three [handbreadth] by three [handbreadth cloth] that is in the garbage become defiled through corpse uncleanness and are not defiled through treading. For their importance has been invalidated after he threw it into the trash. And the Halakha is according to the Sages alone.

שלשה על שלשה שנקרע – and the tears were not divided from each other (i.e., they were attached).

[A piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was torn: if he put it on a chair, and his skin touches the chair, it is pure; And if not, it remains impure. The piece of cloth described here is torn, but has not yet been completely torn into two pieces. Therefore, we need a test to determine whether or not it is still considered one piece of cloth such that it should be susceptible to midras impurity. If when one puts the cloth on a chair and then sits on the chair, one's skin touches the chair, the cloth is considered as if it had been torn completely, and it is not susceptible. If the cloth does block his contact with the chair, then it is considered to be whole and is still susceptible to impurity.

ובשרו נוגע בכסא – if the tear is so large under that when they place the cloth upon the chair and he sat upon it, his flesh would come in contact/touch the chair.

[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square one thread of which was worn away, or in which a knot was found, or in which two threads ran alongside each other, is pure. The piece of cloth here is exactly large enough to be susceptible to impurity, but in some way something is awry with one of the strings. Either one of the strings was worn out, or a knot was found in one of the strings, or two of the strings ran parallel and not opposed to each other, as is supposed to be the case in woven garments. In all of these cases the cloth is considered to be smaller than three fingerbreadths and therefore it is pure.

טהור – that he nullified it from the category of a piece of cloth.

[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was thrown on the rubbish heap becomes pure. If he brought it back, it it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Throwing away a small piece of cloth renders it pure because it is no longer considered of use. Taking it back renders it again susceptible.

ואם לאו – that the tear is not so great that his skin would come in contact with/touch the chair, it did not void it from the category of a piece of cloth, and he is ritually impure.

Throwing it away always renders it pure and taking it back renders it susceptible to uncleanness, except when it is of purple or fine crimson. There are two exceptions to the rule in section three purple and fine crimson cloth. Since these are such expensive materials, even throwing them away does not render them free from uncleanness.

שנמהה ממנו (to be tattered/to fall to pieces from it) – that [one thread] wore out from it, and its example of something tattered that was hanging over a healthy piece, as is taught in the Mishnah above at the end of chapter twenty-four (Mishnah 17) "שלשה תריסין הן"/There are three kinds of shields”: “A worn out basket in which one patched to a sound one – they follow the status of the sound one.” And when one thread wore out from a piece of cloth of three [handbreadths] by three-handbreadths squeezed in, the measurement was lessened and it is ritually pure.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a patch of new cloth is also subject to the same law. Rabbi Eliezer says that the same exception applies to a new piece of cloth. Since it is new, it is more important and even throwing it away does not render it free from impurity.

או שני חוטין מתאימין (or two threads running alongside) – My teachers/Rabbis explained, that [the word] מתאימין/running alongside/adjoining refers to the knot. And such it is taught, that if there found in it two knots that are adjoining each other or two threads adjoining each other. Because if two threads that are tied one to the other in the cloth, there is no way to leave them, and this what we said in the Gemara in [Tractate Shabbat 74b) in the chapter, “The Great Principle”/כלל גדול, if it happens that there are two knots next to one another, one is loosened and the other is knotted. Two threads that run along one another, for it is the manner of the weaving that the woof enters into the warp, two threads do not enter at the same time, but rather in a place where this one enters and that one leaves, and when both of them are equivalent, the one is thought to be like the one that doesn’t exist.

Rabbi Shimon says: all these materials become pure; they were mentioned only in connection with the return of lost property. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the anonymous opinion in section four. All material is free from impurity when it is thrown into the garbage heap. However, there is a difference between purple and crimson cloth and regular cloth in that if one finds the former in the trash heap he must announce that he has found them in an attempt to find the owners. The assumption is that no one would throw away such fine cloth. But if one finds a piece of regular cloth in the trash heap, one can assume that it was intentionally thrown away and he may keep it.

החזירה – to the house.

טמאה – for he retracted in his intention/thought.

לעולם השלכתה מטהרתה וחזרתה מטמאתה (always does throwing it out purify it and recovering it renders it unclean) – meaning to say in that manner/way, it becomes susceptible for being defiled and becomes purified ten times a day.

ארגמן וזהורית טובה (purple and fine crimson silk) – it is considered but it is not nullified [from the category of cloth]. And the good crimson is colored silk CRAMIZI in the foreign language.

אף מטלית חדשה כיוצא בהן (even a new patch of that stuff) – its law is like the law of purple and fine crimson [silk], and the trash does not invalidate it from the category of a cloth.

כולן טהורין – if it was thrown into the trash, even the purple and the fine crimson [silk].

לא הוזכרו – purple and good crimson [silk] to be separated/divided from the rest of the clothing.

אלא מפני השבת אבידה – that if he found them in the trash, we don’t say that he threw them there knowingly, and they require public announcement for because of their importance, the owner do not despair [of recovering it]. But the rest of the clothing is not important, that if he found them in the garbage/trash, they don’t require public announcement. And the Halakah is according to the first Tanna/teacher.