Keilim, Chapter 28, Mishnah 2. Our mishnah deals with a scrap of cloth that its owner set aside for a job of almost no consequence. The question the mishnah raises is whether such a scrap can still receive tumah, and the answer turns on something that at first seems unrelated: where the owner keeps it.
The logic is this. If a person stores the cloth in a safe place, in a chest or a closet, he has revealed by his own conduct that the piece matters to him and that he expects to put it to some real use down the road. Its present job may be lowly, but his manner of keeping it shows that in his eyes it is a genuine article, and therefore it retains the capacity to become tamei.
The dispute in our mishnah concerns the middle case: a person designates the cloth for an insignificant use and does not put it away in a chest or closet. Instead he hangs it on a peg, or he simply drops it behind a door. Do these forms of keeping still express that the item is of value to him? Note that the two are not equal. A cloth hanging on a peg is being kept far more securely than a cloth tossed behind a door. In the language of the mishnah, the cloth on the peg is called muchan, prepared, while the cloth behind the door is eino muchan, unprepared.
The Three Lowly Uses
Start with the case as the mishnah frames it. "Pachot mishlosha al shlosha", a remnant measuring under three tefachim by three, "shehiskino", which its owner readied, "lispoch bo", to seal with it, "et hamerchatz", the bathhouse: the rag is stuffed into the openings there. A second use: "lena'er bo", to shake with it, "et hakedera", the cooking pot. The pot is scalding, and its owner has no wish to sear his fingers, so the scrap does duty as a grip. A third: "lekaneyach bo", to wipe with it, "et harechayim", the millstones. As the grain is being ground, bits shaken loose from the stone would otherwise find their way into the flour, and this rag is what he uses to keep the stone clean.
These are the three examples the mishnah offers of thoroughly unimportant service. And now the Tannaim divide.
Rebbi Eliezer
"Bein muchan", whether it is prepared, meaning hung up on its peg, "bein she'eino muchan", or unprepared, meaning left lying behind the door, in either situation it is "tamei", capable of contracting tumah. So the mishnah reports: "divrei Rebbi Eliezer." To his mind, the fact that a person put the scrap somewhere and did not throw it out is itself proof that he still intends to draw further use from it. Assigning it to a menial chore does not cancel that, and the cloth keeps its susceptibility.
Rebbi Yehoshua
"Rebbi Yehoshua omer", and he takes both situations in the opposite direction. "Bein min hamuchan", whether the scrap belongs to the prepared category, on the peg, "bein she'eino min hamuchan", or to the unprepared one, behind the door, in both instances it is "tahor." His reasoning: the man assigned this piece to a task of no consequence, and beyond that he refused to store it anywhere truly protected, such as a chest or a shut cupboard. A peg is no such place, and the floor behind a door certainly is not. Nothing here testifies to any regard for the scrap, and an object its owner does not care about loses the ability to take on tumah.
Rebbi Akiva
"Rebbi Akiva omer", and he splits the two situations. "Min hamuchan", when the scrap belongs to the prepared category and hangs on a peg, it is "tamei", for hanging something up is a genuinely better mode of storage than stuffing it out of sight at the entrance. "She'eino min hamuchan", but when it belongs to the unprepared category, having been shoved into the space by the door, it is "tahor." That location offers no protection at all and ranks a level beneath the peg, so it testifies that the owner assigns the scrap no worth. In his own estimation it is not a vessel, and what is not a vessel cannot contract tumah.