Komentarz do Kelim 27:10

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.