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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. [If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. 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.

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. A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness. 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.

The following are measured when doubled: Felt socks, long stockings, pants, a cap and a money-belt. 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 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

[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. [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. [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 it away always renders it pure and taking it back renders it susceptible to uncleanness, except when it is of purple or fine crimson. Rabbi Eliezer says: a patch of new cloth is also subject to the same law. Rabbi Shimon says: all these materials become pure; they were mentioned only in connection with the return of lost property.