Comentario sobre Pará 8:12

שנים שהיו שומרים את השוקת – that was filled for [mixing the ashes with the water] for the lustration/sin-offering.

Two men were guarding a trough: If one of them became unclean, the water remains valid, since it is in the domain of the other. If the first became clean and the other became unclean the water is still valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both became unclean simultaneously the water becomes invalid.
If one of them did some work, the water remains valid since it is in the domain of the second. If the first stopped doing work and the other did some work, the water still remains valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both did some work at the same time the water becomes invalid.
This quite simple mishnah teaches that if two men are guarding a trough with water to be used for the red cow ritual, and one of them becomes impure or does work we can consider the water to be under the protection of the other guard, and the water remains valid. It is invalidated only if both of them are impure or do work at the same time.
The mishnah is very straightforward so there is no commentary below.

טהר – he who had become defiled was purified from his defilement.

ונטמא שני – that is his companion who was ritually pure. -

כשרים – the water that is in the trough.

עמד ושעה שני מלאכה – the first person arose from jis work, and the second did work in his place.

נטמא וטמאהו- the sandal became defiled and it defiled the person for the [waters of] lustration/purification waters. For the vessels that were defiled through liquids defile the person for the purification, that we don’t count the first and second for purification/sin-offering as it is taught in the Mishnah further on in the chapter כל הראוי/whatever is appropriate (Mishnah 6). Even though that if these liquids fell upon his skin, he is ritually pure, for a person who is ritually pure for the rite of the heifer, if impure liquids came in contact with his flesh, he is pure like he was, except if they touched his hands, because impure liquids defile the hands, and regarding the purity of the sin-offering, we hold that if his hands were defiled, his body is defiled.

Introduction Both halves of this mishnah teach that the hatat waters defile garments and shoes but they do not directly defile the person who is preparing the mixture of water and cow ash.

מטמאיך לא טמאוני (those things which made you unclean could not have made me unclean) – liquids that defiled the sandal were not able to defile the pure individual, if they came in contact with his flesh, as we have stated, but the sandal that comes from their power defiles him.

One who prepares the mixture of the hatat should not wear his sandals, for were some of the liquid to fall on his sandal it would become unclean and [the sandal] would defile him. Behold he would say [to the sandal], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me." When filling the trough with water to get ready to make the mixture water will spill to the ground. The one preparing the mixture will therefore be standing in water while mixing. This water is pure but it is considered impure vis a vis the preparation of the hatat mixture. Impure water defiles vessels on contact, so it will defile the sandal. The sandal will then defile him because vessels that have become impure due to contact with liquids defile a person with regard to preparing the hatat waters. However, the water does not directly defile him. We should note that there are two stringencies here that are related only to the hatat. 1) Even though the water is pure, it defiles the sandal. 2) The sandal defiles the person. Both of these measures are not true with regard to general matters of purity. We shall return to stringencies in purity for the hatat when we learn chapter ten. The section ends with a cute discussion between the man and his sandal. He points accusingly at the sandal, noting with some iron that that which defiled you (the water) didn't defile me, but you, sneaky little sandal, did defile me.

If some of the liquid fell on his skin he remains clean. This was noted above.

If it fell on his garment it becomes unclean and defiles him. Behold he would say [to the garment], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me." This is the same scenario as above, only with a garment instead of clothing. The only difference is that it is obviously not prohibited to wear a garment when mixing the water!

השורף פרה – the Red [Heifer].

Introduction In yesterday's mishnah the person spoke to his sandal/garment saying, "That which defiled you, did not defile me, but you did defile me."Today the garment provides his comeback.

ופרים – that are burned, such as a the bullock of Yom Kippur and the bull of the anointed priest [brought as a sin-offering by an anointed High Priest who unwittingly made an erroneous Halakhic decision] (see Tractate Horayot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1) a bull for an unwitting communal sin [of an active transgression committed by the Jewish people, as a result of an erroneous halakhic decision handed down by the Great Sanhedrin] (see Tractate Horayot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5), they defile clothing, for in all of them it is written [in regard to the Red Heifer] (Numbers 19:8): “[He who performed the burning] shall wash his garments [in water],” (see also Tractate Parah, Chapter 4, Mishnah 4 – that all who deal with the Red Heifer from the beginning to the end defile clothing and regarding the sacrifices of Yom Kippur, see Leviticus 16:28 and 16:26), but there is no difference regarding clothing that he touches, and the same law applies to all of the rest of the vessels. That we do not exclude anything other than a person and earthenware vessels alone, that do not defile if they come in contact with them.

The one who burns the red cow or bulls and he that leads away the scapegoat, defile garments. The Torah specifically states that the clothes of the one who burns the red cow are defiled (Numbers 19:8). The same is true with regard to a person who burns the bulls or goats on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:28) or other cases of animals that are burned and of the one who leads the scapegoat to Azazel (the wilderness) on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:26). All of these must wash their garments because they themselves defile their own garments.

The red cow and the bulls and the scapegoat do not themselves defile garments. Despite the fact that the person who performs these rituals is defiled, the animals themselves to do not defile garments.

ופרה ופרים עצמן ושעיר המשתלח – if they came in contact with clothing, they are ritually pure. And this is what the clothing said to the man: “Things that made you unclean could not have made me unclean, but you made me unclean.”

Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This leads again to the personification of the garment it says to the person, that the cow, bull or goat that defiled you, didn't defile me. But you, Mr., did defile me!

האוכל מנבלת העוף טהור – the carrion of a clean bird, has no defilement if it came in contact with a person or with clothing, but in the esophagus it defiles humans to defile clothing, as it is taught in the Mishnah of Tractate Taharot (Chapter 1, Mishnah 1), and that what the clothing says to a person: “The things which made you unclean could not have made me unclean, etc.”

Introduction The next four mishnayot have nothing to do with the red cow. They are all here because they contain the line, "Behold, that which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

One that eats of the carrion of a clean bird, while it is yet in his throat, causes garments to be unclean; One who eats carrion (an animal that wasn't slaughtered properly) of a clean bird (like a chicken) is impure. This is stated in Leviticus 17:15. The impurity occurs as soon as the bite he took reaches his throat. We will learn more of the details concerning this law in Tractate Toharot.

But the carrion itself does not cause garments to be unclean. The carrion itself does not cause impurity.

Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This is the same personification we have seen in the other mishnayot.

כל ולד הטומאה – as for example first-degree and second-degree, do not defile vessels, but the primary source(s) of ritual impurity. But liquid that was defiled in first-degree or second-degree defiles vessels, as a decree because of the liquid of a male with gonorrhea and/or a woman with a flux, such as his spittle, and his flux and his urine which are primary sources of ritual defilement.

Any derived uncleanness does not defile vessels, but [it does defile] a liquid. A derived uncleanness is one that is of either first or second degree uncleanness, meaning it had contact with something that was either a father of uncleanness or had first degree uncleanness. This level of uncleanness defiles liquids but not vessels.

If a liquid became unclean it defiles them. The liquid will then defile the vessel, because liquids convey uncleanness to vessels.

Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This again creates the paradox. The derived uncleanness was not strong enough to defile the vessel, but that which it defiled (the liquid) was strong enough to do so. The vessel is not happy with that liquid, and it lets it know!

אין כלי חרס מטמא חברו – that an earthenware vessel does not ever become a primary source of ritual impurity, and an earthenware vessels is not susceptible to receive ritual impurity other than from a primary source of ritual impurity, so we see, that an earthenware vessel does not defile its fellow earthenware vessel.

An earthenware vessel does not defile another such vessel, but [it does defile] a liquid. This mishnah is nearly the same as yesterday's mishnah, but with a slightly different subject. An impure earthenware vessel does not convey impurity to another earthenware vessel.

אלא משקין – but if does defile liquids and the liquids return and defile its fellow earthenware vessel, as a decree because of the liquid of a male with gonorrhea/flux and a woman with flux as we have stated.

And when the liquid becomes unclean it defile the vessel. However, it does convey impurity to a liquid, which will in turn defile the other vessel.

Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me." This time the vessel is talking. Kind of like Beauty and the Beast!

כל הפוסל את התרומה – as for example hands which are second-degree [of impurity], make liquids first-degree to defile non-holy things, but hands themselves that came in contact with non-holy foodstuffs, are pure, for something that is second-degree [in defilement] does not make non-holy things third-degree [uncleanness].

Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Something that has second degree impurity, meaning it came into contact with something that had first degree impurity, invalidates terumah such that the terumah cannot be consumed. If such a substance comes into contact with liquid, it conveys to the liquid first degree impurity. As we have seen before, liquid amplifies the power of impurity. If such liquid comes into contact with food it gives second degree impurity to the food. This is "one remove." And if the food comes into contact with terumah it renders the terumah unfit, although it does not render it impure. The one exception is the "tevul yom" a person who has immersed in the mikveh to cleanse his impurity but hasn't waited for the sun to set. Such a person disqualifies terumah, but does not convey first degree impurity to liquids.

חוץ מטבול יום - whose sunset had not yet arrived. Even though he defiles the heave offering, he does not defile liquids to become first-degree [uncleanness], and even the liquids of heave-offering if a person who had immersed himself that day had come in contact with them, other than those things which are invalid alone are not ritually impure (see also Tractate Kelim, Chapter 8, Mishnah 4).

Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me." The food now says to the liquid. That which defiled you (that which had second degree impurity) could not defile me (things with second degree impurity only defile liquids). But you (liquid) did defile me (because liquid can defile food).

כל הימים כמקוה – for all of these words as it is taught at the conclusion [of this Mishnah]. (And also) they do not render clean when running like springs, for a Mikveh does not purify in running/moving waters, but rather in collected waters, as is written (Leviticus 11:36): “However, a spring/אך מעין [or cistern in which water is collected shall be pure,]” a spring purifies in moving/running waters but a Mikveh does not purify in moving/running waters.

Introduction Today's mishnah returns to the topic of the preparation of the red cow. It discusses whether the seas can be used as the "living water" required for this and other purification rituals.

ופסולין לזבין – for a man with gonorrhea/flux requires living waters, as it is written (Leviticus 14:9): “and bath his body in water; [then he shall be pure].” (see also Leviticus 16:26 and 16:28), and for the leper [as it is written (Leviticus 14:5): “[The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over] fresh water in an earthen vessel/אל-כלי-חרש על-מים חיים” [and for the waters of the sin offering], as it is written (Numbers 19:1): “and fresh water shall be added to them in a vessel.”

All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (, for it is said, "And the gathering ( of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir the seas are considered to be like a mikveh and not like a flowing spring, which can be used for the red cow, for zavim (those with unusual genital discharge) and for metzoraim (those with scale disease), all of whom require "living waters." In contrast to the rules governing a spring, for a mikveh to purify the water must be gathered into one place and it cannot be running. The seas are treated like a mikveh and therefore its waters purify only when they are gathered in one place. Rabbi Meir learns this from a midrash on the word "gathering" which is in Hebrew, mikveh. Genesis calls the seas a mikveh and therefore they are subject to the same rules as a mikveh and not to the rules of a live spring.

הים הגדול כמקוה – Scripture did not call a Mikveh other than the Great Ocean, for in it Scripture refers in the Creation Story for there all the waters of Creation were gathered, and it doesn’t state “seas”/ימים – in the plural, other than because many seas are mixed in together in it, for all the streams travel to it.

Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. In contrast, Rabbi Judah limits this to the ocean, which in his case is the Mediterranean. Other seas are treated like springs and purify even when they are running. He explains that Genesis states "seas" not because it refers to all seas as a mikveh. Rather the Mediterranean is "seas" because it contains many different seas. One interpretation of this is that a fish that is caught in Akko does not have the same taste as a fish that is caught in Sidon!

ר' יוסי אומר – all the seas and the Great Ocean have the status of a spring upon them regarding the fact that they purify in moving/running waters, because the streams go and flow upon them. But they are invalid regarding the status of living waters, for Scripture calls them Mikveh. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose says that all seas can purify when they are running none have the same restrictions as do a mikveh. However, the seas are not considered to be "living waters" as would be a spring. Therefore, none of the seas can be used for any of the rituals that requires "living waters" the red cow, zavim and metzoraim.

מים המוכין – that damage, as for example, that they are salty and tepid.

Introduction Today's mishnah continues to discuss what water does not count as "living waters" and therefore cannot be used for the red cow ritual, or the other rituals that require living waters.

פסולין – for the waters of the sin-offering/the Red Heifer.

Spoiled waters are unfit. The following are spoiled waters: those that are salty or lukewarm. Salty water or water that comes from warm ponds or such type of places does not count as "living water" because it is not drinkable.

מים המכזבין (waters which fail at certain times) – that stop, like (Isaiah 58:11): “like a spring whose waters do not fail.”

Waters that disappoint are unfit. The following are waters that disappoint: those that disappoint even once in a seven year cycle. Those that disappoint only in times of war or in years of drought are fit. Rabbi Judah says: they are unfit. Waters that "disappoint" are waters from springs or rivers that dry up periodically. If the river dries up even once every seven years, it still counts as "disappointing" and cannot be used. If the waters fail only in times of war, due to overdrawing by soldiers, or only in times of drought, they do not, according to the first opinion, count as "waters that disappoint" and they can be counted as "living waters." Rabbi Judah dissents and says that these too cannot be used.

פסולין – for we require living/fresh waters.

אחד בשבוע (once in seven years) – but once in a jubilee/יובל is well/good as they are called “living waters.”

בפולמסיות – the soldiers of ravaging troops that drink and ruin them.

בשני בצרון – years where rain fall stops.

ור' יהודה פוסל – even those that do not fail other than in wartime or in years of drought. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

מי קרמיון ומי פוגה – they are rivers in the land of Israel:

The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters. According to Albeck, who bases his interpretation on a medieval Talmudic dictionary (the Arukh), the Karmiyon and the Pugah are the same rivers as the Amanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, mentioned in II Kings 5:12. The mishnah rules that these rivers are too marshy to be considered "living waters."

the swamp waters {see also Talmud Bava Batra 74b, listing the four rivers: The Jordan, the Yarmukh, the Karmiyon and Fugah, whereas the Arukh in its entry on Karmiyon mentions a verse from Second Kings, Chapter 5, Verse 12: “Are not the Amanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? I could bathe in them and be clean!”). It is the language of (Job 8:11): “Can papyrus thrive without marsh? [Can rushes grow without water],” meaning to say water in which clay/mortar and plaster/mud is combined/mixed in them. But the All-Merciful stated (Numbers 19:17): “fresh water shall be added to them in a vessel,” but here there is an interposition/an intervening object between the water to the vessel.

The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together. The Jordan and the Yarmuk are mixtures of valid living waters and marshy waters, therefore they cannot be used in the red cow or other rituals.

מי תערובת (mixed waters)- they are unfit waters for they are combined/mixed.

If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Judah says that they are unfit. If two rivers both of which contain "living waters" mix together their water can be used. Rabbi Judah disagrees because he holds that "mixed waters" are always invalid. It seems that Rabbi Judah here sticks to some received tradition. He received the tradition that mixed waters are invalid, and he says that this tradition is true even if the mixture was made by two rivers of living waters. In other words, he remains true to the received tradition even if it doesn't really make any rational sense.

אחד פסול ואחד כשר – and they combined, it is prohibited to mix from the place of combination/mixture and below.

ר' יהודה פוסל – even if both of them are fit/appropriate, Rabbi Yehuda invalidates taking from the place of combination/mixture, as a decree on account of one that is unfit. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

באר אחאב – it is not explained where this is, but it comes to tell us that they are fresh waters.

Introduction This is the final mishnah that clarifies what counts as "living waters."

ומערת פמייס – a cave that is near to the city of Dan from where the Jordan goes out. And in the language of Ishmael (i.e., the Moslems), they call the Dan, Banias.

Ahab's well and the pool in Banias cave are fit. The Ahab is the name of a river. The Banias is one of the rivers that feed into the Jordan. This well and pool are considered "living waters" and therefore can be used for the red cow ritual.

ר' יהודה אומר הרי היא בחזקת מותרת – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Water that has changed its color and the change arose from itself, remains fit. If the color of the water changes not because another river fed into it, but due to some cause that came from the river itself, its waters remain valid.

עד שתצל – until the waters return to become clear/settled as at first. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yishmael.

A water channel that comes from a distance is fit, as long as it is watched so that no one cuts it off. Rabbi Judah says: the presumption is that it is permitted. A water channel whose source is far removed counts as "living waters." However, according to the first opinion, he must watch it to make sure that someone doesn't cut it off to water his fields. If it is cut off from its source, it no longer counts as "living waters." Rabbi Judah says that we can always presume that the water channel is attached to its source. It need not be watched, for unless we know that it has been cut off, it remains valid.

If some clay or earth fell into a well, one must wait until it becomes clear, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: he need not wait. If the water of a living well becomes temporarily murky because some clay or earth fell into it, Rabbi Ishmael says that he must wait until the normal color returns to use it for the red cow ritual. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not necessary.