[a size] as large as a hole of a yoke! — He was silent. Said R. Hisda to him: perhaps what we have learnt refers to the borer and [the removal of] what stopped up [the hole]. Thereupon R. Tahlifa said to him: You should not say ‘perhaps’, it certainly refers to the borer and [the removal of] what stopped up [the hole], and you can confidently accept this explanation as we accept the evidence of Hezekiah the father of Ikkesh. For it has been taught: This which follows is the evidence given by Hezekiah the father of Ikkesh before Rabban Gamaliel in Jabneh which he reported in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: Wherever an earthen vessel has no inside, it is not regarded as having an independent back. If then the inside becomes unclean, the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside becomes unclean. But did not the Divine Law teach that the uncleanness of an earthen vessel depends on the inside? If it has an inside [receiving uncleanness] then the vessel becomes unclean, but if it has no inside, then it does not become unclean? — Said R. Isaac b. Abin: This is what is meant: Wherever an earthen vessel has no inside in a corresponding case with a rinsing vessel it has no back which is treated independently. If then its inside becomes unclean, its back [outside] becomes unclean, and if its back becomes unclean, then its inside is unclean. What need however is there to make it depend on an earthen vessel? Let him say as follows: Wherever in the case of a rinsing vessel there is no inside, there is no back which is treated independently? — He informs us of this very thing, that if it has an inside, then it is like an earthen vessel, as much as [to say]: As in the case of an earthen vessel, if the inside becomes unclean, then the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean, so it is in the case of a rinsing vessel, if the inside becomes unclean then the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean. Now we may readily grant this in the case of an earthen vessel, the Divine Law having revealed explicitly in that connection that uncleanness depends on the inside [receiving uncleanness]; but as regards a rinsing vessel, did the Divine Law reveal explicitly that uncleanness depends on the inside [receiving uncleanness]? — If we were referring to a case of biblical uncleanness, it would indeed be so. We are dealing here however with unclean liquids [which have come in contact with a rinsing vessel], the resulting uncleanness being due to a rabbinic enactment. For we have learnt: If the back [outside] of a vessel has been defiled by unclean liquids, its back becomes unclean, but its inside, its edge, its handle and its projectors remain clean. If its inside however becomes unclean, the whole vessel becomes unclean; for according to the biblical law, food cannot make a vessel unclean nor can unclean liquid make a vessel unclean, and only the Rabbis have declared uncleanness on account of the liquid of a zab and a zabah. The Rabbis consequently declared it to have uncleanness of an earthen vessel but they did not declare it [in this particular instance] to be biblically unclean on its own account, the Rabbis differentiating in order that terumah and holy objects might not be burnt on its account. But if this be so, where there is no inside, let there also be a distinction made? Since where there is an inside, the Rabbis differentiated, it will indeed be known that where there is no inside the uncleanness is a rabbinic enactment [and that therefore terumah must not be burnt in consequence of it]. But with regard to a rinsing vessel, where there is no inside, is it susceptible of becoming unclean according to the biblical law? For we do not require [in order that a vessel may become unclean] that it should resemble a sack that is [to say], As a sack is handled either fully or empty, so anything [in order to receive uncleanness] must be in a condition to be handled either full or empty? — It refers to those [articles] which are fit to be used as seats. If this be so, then why not also declare an earthen vessel unclean [rabbinically]? — Midras is not employed with an earthen vessel, [for fear of breaking it]. R. Papa says: The Mishnah above states distinctly a ‘large borer’, from which we can deduce that an ordinary borer is smaller than a sela’. This would indeed hold good according to the view of R. Meir but according to the view of the Rabbis, what answer would you give? For we have learnt: To what kind of borer did Beth Shammai refer? To a small one, belonging to doctors. The Sages said however: They refer to the large [carpenter's] borer kept in the Temple cell. But is it satisfactory even according to the view of R. Meir? Would this not then be a case where the ruling of Beth Shammai would be easier and the ruling of Beth Hillel severer; and [as regards examples of this kind of ruling] what we have learnt we accept and what we have not learnt in the Mishnah we do not accept! — Said R. Nahman: A Neronian sela’ is distinctly mentioned above. A Neronian sela’ is as large as a large borer, but an ordinary sela’ is even smaller than an ordinary borer. MISHNAH. ONE WHOSE RIS [EYELID] IS PERFORATED, NIPPED OR SLIT, OR IF IT HAS A CATARACT OR A TEBALLUL, HALAZON [SNAIL-SHAPED], NAHASH [SNAKE-SHAPED] AND A [BERRY-SHAPED] GROWTH ON THE EYE, [IS DISQUALIFIED]. WHAT DOES TEBALLUL MEAN? THE WHITE OF THE EYE BREAKING THROUGH THE RING AND ENCROACHING ON THE BLACK, BUT IF THE BLACK BREAKS THROUGH THE RING AND INVADES THE WHITE, IT IS NOT A [DISQUALIFYING] BLEMISH, [BECAUSE THERE ARE NO DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES AS REGARDS THE WHITE OF THE EYE].39ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐ