[Regarding] someone who had one zov emission, Beis Shammai say: [He is] like a woman who observes a day [free of uterine discharges] corresponding to the day [on which she experienced a uterine discharge]. But Beis Hillel say: [He is] like someone who had a seminal emission.  [If] he had one [zov emission], and on the second [day] he stopped, and on the third [day] he had two [emissions] or one [emission] that is as lengthy as two, Beis Shammai say: [He is] a full zav. But Beis Hillel say: He conveys tumah to couches and seats, and requires immersion in a spring, but he is exempt from an offering.  R’ Elazar ben Yehudah said: Beis Shammai agree in this [case] that he is not a full zav. And regarding what do they disagree? Regarding someone who has two [zov emissions], or one [emission] that is as lengthy as two, and on the second [day] he stopped, and on the third, he had one [emission], [in which case] Beis Shammai say: [He is] a full zav. But Beis Hillel say: He conveys tumah to couches and seats, and requires immersion in a spring, but he is exempt from an offering.

[If] someone brought bundles [of vegetables], dried figs, or garlic up to the roof so that they should [remain] moist, they are not included in [the law of] “if [water] is placed.” All bundles of [vegetables] in the marketplaces are considered tamei. R’ Yehudah declares the fresh ones tahor. Said R’ Meir: Why did they rule them tamei? Only because of spittle. All flour and fine flour of the marketplaces are tamei.  Chilkah, targis, and tasgi are tamei in all places.

All eggs are presumed to be tahor except for [those] of merchants of liquids. But if they sold together with them dried fruit, they are considered tahor. All fish are presumed to be tamei. R’ Yehudah says: [Concerning] a slice of Iltis fish, an Egyptian fish that is brought in a box, and a kulyas fish of Spain, these are all presumed to be tahor. Every [fish] brine is presumed to be tamei. And regarding all of them, an am haaretz is trusted to say ”they are tahor,” except for fish, because they deposit it with an am haaretz. R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov says: [Concerning] tahor [fish] brine into which a minute amount of water fell, it is tamei.

There are seven beverages: dew, water, wine, [olive] oil, blood, milk, and bee honey. Wasp honey is tahor and permitted for consumption.

[These are the] subcategories of water: that which issues from the eye, from the ear, from the nose, from the mouth, liquid excrement, whether a loose stool or urine, intentionally or unintentionally. [These are the] subcategories of blood: blood of slaughter of a kosher domesticated animal, of a non-domesticated animal, and of fowl, and blood of bloodletting for drinking. Whey is [considered] like milk, and olive-water is [considered] like oil, since the olive-water cannot emerge without oil. [These are] the words of R’ Shimon. R’ Meir says: Even though there is no oil with it. The blood of a sheretz is like its meat; [it] conveys tumah but does not render foods susceptible to tumah, and we have nothing else similar to it.

The following convey tumah and effect hechsher: the zivah discharge of a zav, his saliva, his semen, and his urine, and a quarter(-log of blood) from a corpse, and blood of a niddah. R’ Eliezer says: Semen does not effect hechsher. R’ Elazar ben Azaryah says: Blood of a niddah does not effect hechsher. R’ Shimon says: Blood of a corpse does not effect hechsher. And if it falls on a gourd, he should scrape it off, and [the gourd] is tahor.

The following do not convey tumah nor do they effect hechsher: sweat, pus, and excrement, and the blood that emerges with them, and the fluids of a child [born] in the eighth month. R’ Yose says: Except for his blood. And someone who drinks the water of Tiberias, even though [the excretion] that emerges is clear. Blood of slaughter of a domesticated animal, of a non-domesticated animal, and of fowl that are non-kosher; and blood of bloodletting for therapeutic purposes. R’ Elazar considers these to be tamei. R’ Shimon ben Elazar says: Milk of a male is tahor.

The milk of a woman will cause [susceptibility to] tumah [whether its emergence is] to [one’s] satisfaction or is not to [one’s] satisfaction. But the milk of an animal will only cause [susceptibility to] tumah [if its emergence is] to [one’s] satisfaction. R’ Akiva said: The matter [can be proven through] a kal vachomer: For if the milk of a woman, which is intended only for chil-dren, will cause [susceptibility to] tumah [whether its emergence was] to [one’s] satisfaction or [was] not to [one’s] satisfac-tion, [then] animal milk, which is intended for both children and adults, is it not logical that it should cause [susceptibility to] tumah [regardless of] whether [its emergence was] to [one’s] satisfaction or [was] not to [one’s] satisfaction? [The Sages] said to him: Not so. For if the milk of a woman that [did] not [emerge] to [one’s] satisfaction generates [susceptibility to] tu-mah, [it is] because the blood of her wound causes [susceptibility to] tumah; will the milk of an animal that did not [emerge] to [one’s] satisfaction [likewise] generate [susceptibility to] tumah, when the blood of its wound does not cause [susceptibil-ity to] tumah? [R’ Akiva] said to them: I am more stringent regarding milk than [I am] regarding blood! For if one expresses milk for therapeutic reasons, [the milk] will cause [susceptibility to] tumah; but if one lets blood for therapeutic reasons, [the blood] will not cause [susceptibility to] tumah! [The Sages] said to [R’ Akiva]: [The law concerning] baskets of olives or grapes will serve as proof: For if liquids ooze from [the baskets] to [the owner’s] satisfaction, they will cause [susceptibility to] tu-mah; but if [liquids ooze] not to his satisfaction, they will not cause [susceptibility to] tumah. He said to them: Not so. If you say thus concerning baskets of olives and grapes, [it is] because in the beginning [the fruits] were a food and in the end [the liquid that oozes] is a beverage; will you say [the same] concerning milk, the beginning and the end of which was a beverage? Until this point was the response. R’ Shimon said: From here on, we would answer in his presence [as follows]: Rainwater will serve as proof, since in the beginning and in the end [it is a] beverage, and yet it does not cause [susceptibility to] tumah unless it emerged to [one’s] satisfaction. He said to us: Not so. If you say thus concerning rainwater, [it is] because the ma-jority [of rainwater] is not for [the benefit of] people, but for [the benefit of] land and trees; but the majority of milk is for [the benefit of] people.