פירוש על פרה 12:14

האזוב הקצר מספקו – he lengthens it in order to make It sufficient:

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with the use of hyssop that is too short to dip into the flask with the hatat waters.

And with a reed used as a spindle. It is the spindle/distaff that the women spin on it.

Hyssop that is too short may be lengthened with a thread and a spindle-reed. It is permitted to lengthen the hyssop by attaching or a spindle-reed onto the end of the hyssop.

וטובל ומעלה – and even though it is written (Numbers 19:18): “A person who is pure shall take hyssop, dip it in the water,” and he takes the spindle that the hyssop was placed on its head, it is well that we call it, “[A person who is pure] shall take hyssop,” that taking by means of another thing which is called “taking.”

He then dips it and brings it up again. He can then dip it by holding onto the string and dipping it into the waters.

ואוחז באזוב ומזה – that with sprinkling we require that he holds the hyssop in his hand.

He grasps the hyssop itself and sprinkles with it. However, when he sprinkles onto the impure person, he must grasp the hyssop and not the string.

ר' יהודה ור' שמעון אומרים כו' – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: just as the sprinkling must be done with the hyssop itself so to must the dipping be done with the hyssop itself. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon disagree with the notion that one can extend the length of the hyssop. He must hold the hyssop itself when dipping it into the flask, just as he must hold it when sprinkling.

ספק מן הכוש ספק מן החוט כו' – for we require definitive sprinkling from the hyssop, because they say: “let the impurity stand on the basis of its presumptive condition.”

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If the sprinkling was done from the hyssop buds, it is valid; but if it came from the thread or spindle, it is invalid (see yesterday's mishnah). Since there is a doubt whether it was performed correctly, the sprinkling is invalid.

מחברו מיצה עליו (from its neighbor it dripped/emptied upon it) – perhaps the waters of purification dripped/emptied of one vessel and went on to the other.

If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. Both vessels look wet, but it is unclear whether he sprinkled on both or whether he sprinkled directly onto one and from there it dripped onto the other. Again, since there is a doubt, the sprinkling is invalid.

הזאתו פסולה – for if from its neighbor it dripped/emptied upon it, this is not sprinkling from the hyssop.

If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. Similar to the situation in section two, here we again have a doubt whether he sprinkled directly onto the needle which would purify it, or onto the earthenware and from there onto the needle, which would not purify the needle. Since we don't know what happened, the needle is still impure.

טובל ומעלה כדרכו – but we don’t say that from out of that its mouth was pressed to go out perhaps the waters would return into the vessel and would not remain in the hyssop according to the measure.

A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. This section refers to a flask with a narrow opening. When the hyssop is pulled out, we might have thought that some of its liquids would be squeezed out and fall back into the water. This would cause the water to be a mixture of hyssop juice and hatat waters, which would make it invalid. The first opinion in the mishnah is not concerned with this possibility and therefore lets one use this flask in a normal manner. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that such a flask can be used only one time. The second dipping might contain some hyssop resin and therefore is invalid.

ר' יהודה אומר הזייה ראשונה – we are not concerned/suspect regarding the first sprinkling, but the second sprinkling, because it (i.e., the water) was pressed to come out and also he sprinkled from them, they were all the more lessened and we are concerned with the second sprinkling lest there did not remain in the hyssop according to the measure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If there is not a lot of water left in the flask, it is still allowed to dip the hyssop back in to absorb whatever water is left. However, he shouldn't scrape the sides of the flask with the hyssop to pick up any extra moisture.

לא יספג ([that the hyssop] does not absorb [moisture on the side of the flask as it is pulled out]) – that he will not wipe off/cleanse from the sides of the vessel or from its rim, as it is written (Numbers 19:18):”[A person who is pure shall take hyssop] dip it in the water,” but not absorb.

If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. For the sprinkling to be valid, he must sprinkle in the direction in which he intended. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him, and it landed to the sides but still in front of him, the sprinkling is still valid, because this still counts as "in front."

הזאתו פסולה – for we require the intention of sprinkling and indeed his intention was not performed.

It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. One does not require the person's consent to sprinkle on him and purify him.

ואפילו הן מאה – that we don’t require sprinkling on its own for each and every person or for each and every vessel.

It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them. It is possible to sprinkle on multiple vessels and people at the same time, as long as water reaches each of them directly.

על דבר המקבל טומאה – people and vessels.

If he intended to sprinkle upon a thing that is susceptible to uncleanness and he sprinkled upon something that is not susceptible to uncleanness, if any of the water still remained on the hyssop he should not sprinkle with it again.
[If he intended to sprinkle] upon a thing that is not susceptible to uncleanness and he sprinkled on that which is susceptible to uncleanness, even though there was still some water on the hyssop, he can sprinkle with it again.
[If he intended to sprinkle] upon a man and he sprinkled upon a beast, if any of the water remained on the hyssop he should not sprinkle with it again;
But [if he intended to sprinkle] upon a beast and he sprinkled upon a man, even though there was still some water on the hyssop, he can sprinkle with it again.
The water that drips off is valid, and therefore it conveys uncleanness as the usual hatat waters.
Section one: He intended to sprinkle upon something that is susceptible to impurity, such as a person (as in section three). Unintentionally, he sprinkled upon an animal (which is not susceptible to impurity). If there is still water left on the hyssop he shouldn't sprinkle with it again. Since the water that was sprinkled upon the animal has been made invalid for sprinkling, the water that remains on the hyssop is also invalid for sprinkling.
Section two: This is the opposite case. Since he sprinkled on something that is susceptible to uncleanness (such as an animal), meaning something that does require sprinkling, the water has not been disqualified. Therefore he can use the remaining water to sprinkle and cleanse something else.
Sections three and four: These two sections explain sections one and two.
Section five: Water that simply drips off the hyssop is still valid for sprinkling. Therefore, it continues to convey uncleanness as do hatat waters in general, which defile one who carries them or touches them. This water is not treated as hatat waters that have already been sprinkled which do not defile (see below in mishnah four).

על דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה – animals and vessels of stone.

אם יש באזוב לא ישנה – if there remains in the hyssop in order to do sprinkling, he does not need to return and to ritually immerse [the hyssop in the water] a second time, but rather he sprinkles from that which remains in the hyssop on the impure thing and the sprinkling counted for him. As is it is written (Numbers 19:19): “The pure person shall sprinkle it upon the impure person,” until he intends to sprinkle on the impure person, therefore, when he intends at the time of ritual immersion of the hyssop to sprinkle on the impure person, he should not repeat [the dipping of the hyssop in the water,” but rather he should sprinkle from what remains in the hyssop. But if he dipped the hyssop in order to sprinkle upon a thing that is not susceptible to receive ritual defilement, since that the beginning of his immersion is invalid, so his sprinkling is invalid and he should not sprinkle with what remains on the hyssop until he repeats [the dipping of the hyssop in the water.

המים המנטפין (the water that drips off) – from the hyssop that he had ritually immersed it for the sake of something that does not receive ritual impurity, if he immersed those drops of hyssop and sprinkled from them, they are appropriate/suitable.

לפיכך הן מטמאין -because their precepts were not done, for the first immersion was invalid, and behold, these drops are like the rest of the waters of purification that are kosher that they defile.

המזה מחלון של רבים – that stands in the window in the public domain and sprinkles there on the impure that pass by, and he sprinkled on an impure person thinking that the waters that are in his hands are pure for sprinkling.

Introduction This mishnah refers to a window from which they would sprinkle the hatat waters on impure people.

ונמצאו פסולים – if he entered with this sprinkling to the Sanctuary, the impure person is example from a sacrifice [on his entering into the Sanctuary while impure], for this is a doubtful/uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity in the public domain (i.e., by Torah law, if uncertainty arises concerning the ritual purity of a person or an object, and that person or object is in a public domain, they are ritually pure. If the situation arises in a private domain, they are considered ritually impure) and his doubtful purity is deemed to be pure. And Maimonides explained the reason, that this impure person is under compulsion/unavoidably prevented, for he did not have in mind to check if the waters were fit/suitable for sprinkling or not, since he was standing in the public domain and sprinkling on many people. But if he stands in the window of a single individual and sprinkles, the impure person would have to check on the waters if they are fit/suitable, or not, and since he did not check, it is an inadvertent error but not something unavoidably preventable, and if he entered into the Sanctuary with this sprinkling, he is liable for a sacrifice, for this is like a doubtful impurity in the private domain where this doubt is impure.

If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; A person was sprinkled upon (with hatat waters, of course) from a window in the public domain. He then entered the Temple, assuming that he was pure. It later turns out that the water used to sprinkle upon him was impure. Nevertheless, the person is exempt from bringing a sacrifice to atone for entering the sanctuary while impure. The reason is that since this water was used to purify the public, there would be no reason he should have suspected that it was invalid. This is not an accidental sin (in Hebrew, shogeg). Rather it is something even less, called in Hebrew "anoos" which means he wasn't even negligent. Something totally anticipated happened. We can see from here that if something is being done by many people, one can assume that it is being done correctly.

שאין כהן גדול חייב על ביאת המקדש – as it is written (Numbers 19:20): “[If anyone who has become impure fails to purify himself, [that person shall be cut off from the congregation, [for he has defiled the LORD’s sanctuary],” the waters of purification are equivalent to the congregation, that is to individuals, excluding the High Priest, whose sin is not equivalent to that of individuals.

But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. However, if the sprinkling was done from a private window, he should have checked to make sure that the water was valid. Since he did not, he is liable for having gone into the sanctuary while impure. He will have to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin.

מחליקין היו (they would slip [on water]) – meaning to say, that there were so much waters of purification there until people would slip upon them, and even so they would trample on them, because they would not defile, since their Mitzvah was done.

A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. A high priest is never liable for entering the Temple while impure (see Horayot 3:7).

[The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile. The mishnah describes a puddle that formed underneath the window from which they would sprinkle upon people who wanted to enter the Temple. The floor got so wet that people would slip on it (Jerusalem can be slippery!). Nevertheless, people didn't refrain from stepping in this water, because they knew that once hatat waters have been used to perform their mitzvah, the purification, they no longer convey impurity. As an aside, this is one of the few places, perhaps the only place, in Parah that describes some realistic scene concerning the sprinkling of the hatat waters.

בכנפו – in the corner of his garment. Because the ax that required sprinkling is a primary form of ritual defilement , and when he holds its corner the corner [of the garment] becomes first-degree of ritual impurity, but the person who holds is not impure, for a person and vessels do not receive defilement other than from a primary source of ritual impurity, and even though there is on the ax water sufficient for sprinkling, the person who holds it is not ritually impure because of carrying the waters of lustration, since the Mitzvah had already been fulfilled.

A clean person may hold in the corner of his garment an unclean axe and sprinkle upon it; And even though there is on it enough water for a sprinkling he remains clean. It is possible for a person to hold an axe in his garment, for the axe to be sprinkled upon and for him not to become impure by contact or by carrying the hatat waters. Even though there is enough water to perform the sprinkling, he remains pure because once these waters have purified the axe, their mitzvah has been performed and they no longer defile.

כדי שיטבול ראשי גבעולין ויזה (in order that he may dip the tips of the buds and sprinkle) - outside from what the hyssop absorbs.

How much water is necessary for sprinkling? Sufficient for the tops of the buds to be dipped and for the sprinkling to be performed. Rabbi Judah ruled: they are regarded as though they were on a hyssop of brass. The question is: how much water is necessary to defile one who carries it? According to the first opinion, as long as there is enough water to dip the top buds of the hyssop into the water and to sprinkle some of the water off of them onto the person or thing being sprinkled upon. This quantity of water will defile one who carries it. In other words, there must be enough so that besides that which is absorbed by the hyssop, other water will be sprinkled off. Rabbi Judah rules more stringently. We look at the buds as if they were on hyssop made of brass which doesn't absorb water. As long as there is enough to sprinkle some off of the brass, it is of a sufficient amount to defile. This will be a lower amount than the first opinion.

כאילו הן על האזוב של נחושת – which does not absorb [water]. For we see the waters that are absorbed in the hyssop as if they are discernable/in natural form to complete the measure of sprinkling so that those who carry them are impure. And that which is written (Numbers 19:21): “he who sprinkled the waters of lustration”/"ומזה מי הנדה" [shall wash his clothes and whoever touches the water of lustration shall be impure until evening],” for they (i.e., the Rabbis) expound from this to the person who carries according to the measure of sprinkling, that is as if there were discernable/in natural form that they had the measure of sprinkling. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

המזה אזוב טמא – as for example, the hyssop of a garden that was picked/harvested for eating.

One who sprinkles with unclean hyssop: if [the hyssop] was the amount of an egg the water becomes invalid, and the sprinkling is invalid. If it was less than the amount of an egg, the water remains valid but the sprinkling is invalid. The hyssop needs to be the volume of an egg in order to convey impurity (see 11:3). If one dips the unclean hyssop into the water it defiles the remaining water and the sprinkling is invalid. However, if there is less than an egg in volume, the water remains valid because less than an egg is insufficient to convey impurity. However, the sprinkling is still invalid because the hyssop was not pure.

אם יש בו כביצה – which is the measure of food, whether to susceptible to receive ritual defilement or whether to defile others.

It also defiles other hyssop, and that other hyssop to other, even if they be a hundred. If there is an egg's worth of hyssop it defiles other hyssop by contact such that the other hyssop also cannot be used for the hatat ritual. Similarly, the newly defiled hyssop will defile any hyssop with which it has contact and it too will not be valid for the hatat ritual. The reason is that when it comes to the hatat ritual, there is no such thing as "first degree impurity" "second degree impurity" etc, as there is with other matters of purity. Rather, the level of impurity is never reduced.

והזאתו פסולה – as it is written (Numbers 19:19): “The pure person shall sprinkle it,” that the person who will be sprinkling is pure and the hyssop is pure.

אפילו הן מאה – all of them are ritually impure for purification/sin-offering, for we don’t count first-degree and second-degree for purification but rather all of them are first-degree.

If the hands of a man who was clean for the hatat waters became unclean, his body also becomes unclean, and he conveys uncleanness to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, even if they be a hundred. If the hands of a person who is pure enough to perform the hatat ritual become unclean, the uncleanness spreads to his whole body. This is not true with other levels of purity restrictions. In other cases, a person's hands can become impure without the rest of his body also becoming impure. Furthermore, as we saw in yesterday's mishnah, the chain of impurity vis a vis the hatat continues down the line. So if he touches a person and that person touches another person, etc., the impurity is continually transmitted and anyone who is in the chain will not be allowed to perform the hatat ritual. This too is not true in other cases, where eventually the impurity is lessened sufficiently such that it no longer defiles at all. Again, we can see that the rules regarding the hatat are stricter than the normal rules with regard to impurity.

שנטמאו אחוריו (that the outer side of which was made unclean) – with impure liquids. That for the rest of the pure things its inside was not defiled, but for purification/sin-offering, it is not the case.

Introduction Except for section one of our mishnah (which teaches another stringency with regard to the purity laws of the hatat waters), the rest of the mishnah discusses what parts of various vessels are considered "connected" to other parts. With regard to Parah, the implication of parts being "connected" is that if the water is sprinkled on one part, the other part is pure.

הזוג והענבל (the bell/body of the bell and the clapper) – for if he sprinkled upon one of them, its fellow is pure. And a זוג – is the bell, and the ענבל is the hammer that is inside that strikes the bell that through it strikes/knocks/tingles.

A flask for hatat waters whose outer part has become unclean, its inner part also becomes unclean, and it conveys uncleanness to another flask, and the other to another, even if they are a hundred. If the outside of a vessel becomes impure, the inside remains pure such that it can be used with pure food or liquid items (see Kelim 25: 1, 6). This is not true when it comes to using the flask to hold hatat waters. If the outside is unclean, the inside is unclean as well.

כוש של רובן (a reed used as a spindle of coarse weft/material) – a spindle/distaff that they weave meshes; it is the bulrushes/reed-grass that they make matting.

A bell and a clapper are regarded as connected. If one sprinkles the hatat waters on the bell or on its clapper, the other is pure because they are regarded as connected.

לא על כוש ולא על הפיקה (not on the reed used as a spindle and not on whorl/ring) – meaning to say, he should not sprinkle on this one alone, nor on that one alone, for there is no attachment/connection. But he must sprinkle upon both of them.

In the case of a spindle stick used for coarse material, one should not sprinkle on its stick or ring, but if he sprinkled on one, both are regarded as having been sprinkled upon. A spindle stick used for flax they are regarded as connected. The spindle stick referred to here is used to weave the coarse material for the production of reed mats. The mishnah says that he should sprinkle on the spindle itself. But if he does sprinkle upon one of the other parts, they are all clean. When it comes to a spindle used to weave flax, all the parts are considered connected and therefore he can sprinkle on one and thereby purify the other.

פיקה – what they place at the end of the reed used as a spindle to make it heavy is called a פיקה/whorl/ring. It is called PURSLAV in the foreign language.

If a leather cover of a crib is fastened to its knobs, both are regarded as connected. The base is not regarded as connected either in respect of uncleanness or cleanness. The leather is attached to knobs on the edges of a crib. The leather is considered connected to the crib and therefore if one sprinkles on one, the other is clean. The base of the crib (or other type of bed) is put in the frame and upon it one places the sheets and blankets.

ואם הזה – on one of them alone (and not upon both the reed and the whorl/ring), it is considered sprinkled. And Maimonides explained, not on the reed used as a spindle and not on the whorl/ring, but rather on a copper reed that they would regularly put at the tip of the reed/spindle that is called a צנורא/hook or pivot. And upon it they would sprinkle because it is the essence of the vessel, and the sprinkle would rise up to the reed and the whorl.

All drilled handles of utensils are regarded as connected. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: also those that are wedged into holes in the utensils. Drilled handles of utensils are handles that are drilled out so that the metal part can be inserted. An example would be a knife. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri adds that the same is true for handles that are inserted into holes made into the vessels themselves such that the handles cannot be easily removed. These too are considered to be attached.

של פשתן חיבור – that the spindle that they spin on it flax, it is manner is that the whorl is attached to the reed/spindle.

עור של עריסה (leather sheet in the cradle/cot – which is attached to knobs) – leather that they place in the cradle of a baby, and it is the practice that it is attached in the cot/cradle.

המלבן (the frame/base)- like a kind of bowls of hollowed out wood that they bring into it the legs of the bed so that it would not decay from the moisture of the ground. And something similar to it is found in Tractate Bava Batra in the chapter המוכר את הבית (chapter 4, folio 69a), the sockets for the legs of a bedstead.

אינו חיבור לא לטומאה – that if this one was defiled, the other was not defiled.

ולא לטהרה – that if he sprinkled on this one, he did not sprinkle on that one.

הקדוחות חיבור (vessels that have drilled/bored handles are considered attached/connected) – as for example the handles of knives that the iron enters into the sleeve of the handle of wood or of stone is attached to it, it is a connection, if one of them is defiled, its fellow is defiled, and similarly, if one sprinkled on one of them, the he sprinkled on its fellow. קדוחות is the language of borer.

אף החרוקות (even those that are wedged in/squeezed into holes)- It is the language of (Lamentations 2:16): "[All your enemies leer at you; They hiss] and gnash their teeth, [And cry: ‘We’ve ruined her! Ah, this is the day we hoped for; We have lived to see it!].” Meaning to say, even the handles which are sharp/pointed at their tips and they bring in their sharpness in the hole that they make at the tip of the vessel, such as the handle of a spear, even those are a connection. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

הסלים שבקנתל (the baskets in the pannier on the side of the pack-saddle) – baskets where it was their practice to carry in them produce or manure upon the donkey and they are attached to each other.

The baskets of a pack-saddle, the bed of a barrow, the iron corner of a bier, the [drinking] horns of travelers, a key chain, the loose stitches of washermen, and a garment stitched together with kilayim are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in that of sprinkling. There are many items mentioned in this mishnah. I shall attempt to explain them one at a time, based on Albeck's interpretation. The baskets of a pack-saddle: A saddle made of wood placed on a donkey. There are baskets attached to both sides. The bed of a barrow: a vessel used for threshing produce. The corner of a bier: The head of a long bier for carrying a body or some sort of seat. The [drinking] horns of travelers: A vessel used by travelers to draw and store water. A key chain: Same thing you and I still use to this day! The loose stitches of laundry men: Washers loosely stitch clothing together while washing so that it doesn't get lost. And a garment stitched together with kilayim: Kilayim are mixed kinds. Someone stitched together a garment of flax using wool or vice versa. These stitches will have to be removed. All of these vessels are regarded as connected when it comes to the regular laws of purity. If one part is defiled, the other part is defiled as well. However, the laws of sprinkling are more stringent. These things are not considered to be connected. Therefore, if one sprinkles on one, the other part is not yet clean.

מטה של טרבל (threshing sledge – of a couch - consisting of a wooden platform studded underneath with sharp pieces of flint or with iron teeth) – like a species of wood of bronze with which they thresh the grain.

קרן של כליבה (the movable supports of the bier – or the ring for keeping the corpse in position) – the bier of the corpse that they make it like a kind of beam of bronze/copper and they tie to it the bier of the corpse so that it doesn’t fall. And they call the bier of the corpses a כליבה, which is made like coop/shed of fowl.

וקרנים של יוצאי דרכים (horns of those who travel) – the horns of cattle and wild beasts that they carry with them travelers to fill them with water to drink.

ושלשלת המפתחות – chain that suspend upon it keys.

ושלל של כובסים (washers’ materials loosely stitched together -see also Tractate Uktzin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 6) – it is the practice of washers to make chain-stitches of clothing one with another, the small with the large in order that it not become lost.

והבגד שהוא תפור בכלאים – two pieces of woolen clothing that were sewn with threads of flax that ultimately would be separated because of the prohibition of [use of] mixed seeds/threads. And similarly, the washers’ material loosely stitched together that ultimately would be separated, and even so, it is a connection for defilement.

המיחם (vessel for heating water) – a kettle of copper/brass that they heat in it the water.

The lid of a kettle which is joined to a chain: Bet Shammai say: these are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Bet Hillel say: if he sprinkled on the kettle, it is the same as if the lid also was sprinkled upon; but if he sprinkled on the lid only it is not the same as if the kettle also was sprinkled upon. The chain is attached to the lid of the kettle. According to Bet Shammai we rule stringently in this case. If either the chain or the lid becomes impure, the other is impure as well. However, to purify them he must sprinkle on both.

חוץ מטומטום ואנדרוגינוס – because they are doubtfully female, and a woman is not fit/suitable to sprinkle, as it is written (Numbers 19:18): “A person who is pure [shall take hyssop], dip it in water, [and sprinkle on the tent and on all the vessels and people who were there]; a man, but not a woman, טהור/someone pure, to include the minor. And sprinkling is derived from ritual immersion that is compared to each other.

Bet Hillel rules that the lid is primary to the chain. Therefore, if he sprinkles on the lid, the chain is made clean. However, if he sprinkles only on the chain, the lid remains unclean.

האשה מסעדתו (and a woman assists him – i.e., the child, who sprinkles) – assists him, as it is explained in the last clause of this Mishnah - that "אוחזת לו במים"/that she holds the water for him.

All are eligible to sprinkle, except a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, a woman, and a child that is without understanding. Numbers 19:18 says, “18A person (איש) who is clean shall take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle on the tent and on all the vessels and people who were there.” The rabbis take the word for person “ish” to mean that anyone who is an “ish” can perform this ritual. It is not limited to priests. However it does limit the following people who do not fall under the rabbinic classification of “ish.” A tumtum is a person who lacks the signs of either gender. A hermaphrodite has both male and female organs. A woman is excluded, according to the rabbis, from the category of “ish.” A child who is too young to intend to perform the sprinkling is also not considered an “ish.”

ואם אחזה בידו אפילו בשעת הזאה פסול – it is needless to say “at the time of ritual immersion”, for it is written, “a man” but not a woman, it is written regarding ritual immersion (see Numbers 19:18), but even at the time of sprinkling, for it is not written in Scripture “at sprinkling,” even so, if she held his hand, it is invalid, for we derive sprinkling from ritual immersion.

A woman may assist [a man] while he sprinkles, and hold the water for him while he dips and sprinkles. If she held his hand, even if only at the time of sprinkling, it is invalid. A woman can aid the man while he sprinkles, but she can’t actually hold his hand, neither while dipping the hyssop nor while sprinkling.

ביום והזה בלילה פסול – as it is written (Numbers 19:19): “The pure person shall sprinkle it upon the impure person on the third day and on the seventh day, [thus purifying him by the seventh day],” during the day, but not at night. And there is an analogy made between ritual immersion and sprinkling, as it is written (Numbers 19:18): “[A person who is pure shall take hyssop] dip it in the water, and sprinkle [on the tent and on all the vessels and people who were there,]” just as sprinkling is during the day, even ritually immersion of the hyssop is during the day.

Introduction The final mishnah of Parah teaches that the dipping of the hyssop and the sprinkling of the waters must be done during the day. This is derived from the word "day" which is repeated in Numbers 19:19, "The clean person shall sprinkle it upon the unclean person on the third day and on the seventh day, thus cleansing him by the seventh day."

טובל בלילה ומזה ביום – where he delayed his immersion and did not sprinkle on the seventh day, when he does to sprinkle on the eighth or ninth or tenth [days] he is able to advance ritual immersion to sprinkling. But a person who ritually immerses on the seventh according to his precept, he sprinkles first and afterwards ritually immerses, as it is written (Numbers 19:19): “thus purifying by the seventh day,” and afterwards it is written: “He shall then wash his clothes and bathe in water.” (see also Tractate Megillah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4 – that a person does not ritually immerse in water nor sprinkle other than during the daytime).

If he dipped the hyssop during the day and he sprinkled during the day, it is valid. This is the proper way for the mitzvah to be performed both actions done during the day.

משעלה עמוד השחר כשר – that from then onwards it is day, as it is written (Nehemiah 4:15): “And so we worked on, while half were holding lances, from the break of day until the stars appeared,” and it is written there (Nehemiah 4:16): “[I further said to the people at that time: ‘Let every man with his servant lodge in Jerusalem,] that we may use the night to stand guard and the day to work.’” (see also Tractate Berakhot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 for the usage of the phrase "עד שיעלה עמוד השחר"/until the crack of dawn).

If he dipped it during the day and sprinkled at night, or dipped at night and sprinkled on the following day, it is invalid. If even one of the actions is performed during the night, the sprinkling is invalid.

But he himself may immerse at night and then sprinkle on the following day, for sprinkling is not allowed until the sun is risen. While the dipping of the hyssop into the waters and the sprinkling cannot be done at night, the person who is going to perform these rituals can immerse himself at night. This immersion is done in preparation for the hatat ritual.

And if any of these was done as early as the rise of dawn it is valid. The dipping and sprinkling should be done during the day, meaning once the sun has risen. But if one did it at first light, at the rise of dawn, it is still valid. This is common to many mitzvoth they should be done after the sun has risen, but if they are done right after dawn, they are valid. See Megillah 2:4. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Parah! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Parah is all about one of the strangest rituals in the Torah. Indeed the rabbis categorize this as the quintessential "hok" a law that cannot be interpreted rationally. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we may not really be able to understand the rationale behind this cleansing ritual, I hope that by learning the Mishnah, we are at least able to understand how the rabbis imagined it being performed. Interestingly, qualitatively this tractate doesn't seem to be all that different from many other tractates. The rabbis take some passages in the Torah, interpret their details while using certain principles and explain mostly when something has been performed in a valid manner and when it has been performed in an invalid manner. Perhaps we could say in summary that Tractate Parah takes the admittedly irrational and makes it rational. Tomorrow our learning continues with Tractate Toharot. Good luck to everyone and congratulations on your amazing commitment to learning.