, when the thong of his sandal broke, and he took it and placed it on the mouth of the jar, and It fell into the hollow of the jar, which was thus rendered unclean. At that time they enjoined: He that carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] terumah, but not hallowed things. — If so, [it should be forbidden to carry] terumah too! — This is according to R. Hananiah b. Akabia who said: They Prohibited it only on the Jordan and in a ship and according to [the circumstances of] the occurrence. What is this? — It is taught: A man shall not take water of purification or ashes of purification, and convey them over the Jordan in a ship, nor stand on one side [of a river] and throw them to the other side, nor float them over the water, nor ride upon all animal or his fellow, unless his feet touch the ground; but one may unhesitatingly convey them over a bridge, be it across the Jordan or any other river. R. Hananiah b. Akabia says: They prohibited it only on the Jordan and in a ship and according to [the circumstances of] the occurrence. What was the occurrence? — Rab Judah said that Rab said: Once someone was conveying water of purification on the Jordan in a ship, and a [piece of a] corpse the size of an olive was found stuck in the bottom of the ship. At that time they enjoined: A man shall not take water of purification and ashes of purification and convey them over the Jordan in a ship. A question was raised: [It happened with] all unclean sandal; what of a clean sandal? [It happened with] all open jar, what of a closed jar? How is it if a man transgressed and carried [them thus]? — R. Ela said: If he transgressed and carried [them thus], they are unclean. R. Zera said: If he transgressed and carried [them thus] they are clean. VESSELS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISHED IN PURITY etc. Who finished them? Should one say that an Associate finished them, then why do they require immersion? If, on the other hand, an ‘am ha-arez, finished them, can they be called ‘finished in purity’? — Rabbah b. Shilah said that R. Mattenah said that Samuel said: Actually, [one can say] that an Associate finished them, yet [the vessel requires immersion] lest the spittle of an ‘am ha-arez [fell upon it]. — When could it have fallen [upon it]? Should one say, before he finished it, then it is not yet a vessel! If, on the other hand, after he had finished it, then he would surely take good care of them! — Actually, [one can say that it fell upon it] before he finished it, but perhaps at the time when he finished it, it was still moist. [It states:] It requires [only] immersion, but not sunset; our Mishnah, therefore, is not according to R. Eliezer. For we have learnt: If a [reed] pipe was cut for [putting therein ashes of] purification, R. Eliezer says: It must be immersed forthwith; R. Joshua says: It must [first] be rendered unclean, and then immersed. Now we raised the point: Who could have cut it? Should one say that an Associate cut it, then why is im mersion required? If, on the other hand, an ‘am ha-arez cut it, how can R. Joshua, in such a case, say: It must [first] be rendered unclean, and then immersed? Behold,it is already unclean! Now Rabbah b. Shila said that R. Mattenah said that Samuel said: Actually, [you can say] that an Associate cut it, yet [immersion is required] lest the spittle of an ‘am ha-arez [fell upon it]. — [Again] when could it have fallen [upon it]? Should one say before he cut it, then it is not yet a vessel! If, on the other hand, after he had cut it, he would surely take good care of it! Actually, [you can say that it fell on the vessel] before he cut it, but perhaps at the time that he cut it, it was still moist. Granted [then] according to R. Joshua, a distinction is thus made, [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees. For we have learnt: They used to render the priest that was to burn the [red] heifer unclean, as a demonstration against the view of the Sadducees, who used to say: It must be performed [only] by those on whom the sun had set. But according to R. Eliezer, granted if you say that in an other cases we do require sunset, a distinction is thus made [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees, but if you say that in other cases [too] we do not require sunset, what distinction is there, [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees? — Rab answered:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣ