Talmud sur Parah 11:8
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
There72Mishnah Parah 11:8. The hyssop was used to sprinkle water mixed with ashes of the red cow to cleanse a person defiled by the impurity of the dead. From the biblical expression (Num. 19:9) מֵי נִדָּה חַטָּאת הִיא “sprinkling water, it is purifying”, the water is called in Talmudic terminology מֵי חַטָּאת or simply חַטָּאת “purifying (water)”. Cf. also Note 36., we have stated: “A hyssop which was used to sprinkle is acceptable [to be used] to purify the sufferer from skin disease73Hyssop alone is required for purifying (from the impurity of the dead) (Num. 19:18); for the cleansing from skin disease it is used among other things (Lev. 14:6)..” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar74The Amora, ben Pedat.: That [was stated] to exclude the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer75Tosephta Nega‘im 8:2: “A hyssop acceptable for purifying is acceptable for the sufferer from skin disease. If he used it for sprinkling to purify it is still acceptable for the sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Eliezer says, the cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson strip mentioned in the Torah (Lev. 14:6) cannot have been previously used for any purpose.”
The prohibition of prior use is spelled out in the Torah for the red cow only (Num. 19:2). By rabbinic tradition, the prohibition is extended to the water used for purifying as explained at length in Mishnah Parah. R. Eliezer extends the prohibition to anything used in any ritual of purification by hyssop and water., as it was stated76This baraita is not quoted in any other source; the Tosephta quoted in the preceding Note shows that the source of the baraita is the school of R. Eliezer.: If he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease. If he sprinkled with it for the sufferer from skin disease, it is disqualified for purifying. 77The argument presented here is intended to show an error in the position of R. Eliezer. The argument of R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) is not found in any other source.
The argument goes as follows: Everybody agrees that the rules of purification from skin disease are not as stringent as those from the impurity of the dead. If using hyssop for purifying from the impurity of the dead would disqualify it as instrument for purifying from skin disease, one must require that one hyssop cannot be used for several people defiled by contact with a corpse. But is was general practice that the Temple provided a purification service where a person was standing in a window and was sprinkling continuously on the people walking by below, always using the same hyssop (Mishnah Parah11:4); no dissent by R. Eliezer is recorded. Therefore, practice must follow the Mishnah, not R. Eliezer. Rebbi Yose said, would that not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since for the sufferer from skin disease, for whose ceremony use does not disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease; purifying, for whose ceremony use does disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, is it not logical that it should be disqualified for purifying?
The prohibition of prior use is spelled out in the Torah for the red cow only (Num. 19:2). By rabbinic tradition, the prohibition is extended to the water used for purifying as explained at length in Mishnah Parah. R. Eliezer extends the prohibition to anything used in any ritual of purification by hyssop and water., as it was stated76This baraita is not quoted in any other source; the Tosephta quoted in the preceding Note shows that the source of the baraita is the school of R. Eliezer.: If he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease. If he sprinkled with it for the sufferer from skin disease, it is disqualified for purifying. 77The argument presented here is intended to show an error in the position of R. Eliezer. The argument of R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) is not found in any other source.
The argument goes as follows: Everybody agrees that the rules of purification from skin disease are not as stringent as those from the impurity of the dead. If using hyssop for purifying from the impurity of the dead would disqualify it as instrument for purifying from skin disease, one must require that one hyssop cannot be used for several people defiled by contact with a corpse. But is was general practice that the Temple provided a purification service where a person was standing in a window and was sprinkling continuously on the people walking by below, always using the same hyssop (Mishnah Parah11:4); no dissent by R. Eliezer is recorded. Therefore, practice must follow the Mishnah, not R. Eliezer. Rebbi Yose said, would that not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since for the sufferer from skin disease, for whose ceremony use does not disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease; purifying, for whose ceremony use does disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, is it not logical that it should be disqualified for purifying?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy