פירוש על פרה 9:17

צלוחית – a vessel that they place in it the waters mixed with ashes (i.e., waters of lustration) after he had cast the ashes into them, is called צלוחית/a flask [with a wide body and a narrow neck- containing the sprinkling water], and the vessel that they place in it the water in order to mix them prior to placing in the ashes is called שוקת/trough.

Introduction Water that has not been drawn from a source of living water cannot be used for the red cow ritual. Our mishnah discusses what happens if invalid water falls into the flask that has the valid water.

מים כל שהן – which are not fit for sprinkling.

If the smallest amount of water fell into a flask: Rabbi Eliezer says: the sprinkling must be done twice; But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. A drop of invalid water falls into the flask. According to Rabbi Eliezer this can be remedied by sprinkling twice onto the person who requires sprinkling. If only one drop was invalid, then with two sprinklings he has definitely been sprinkled once with valid water. The sages disagree and say that even the smallest amount of water disqualifies the mixture.

יזה שתים – for if he sprinkles once, perhaps there isn’t here from the fit/appropriate [waters], but when he sprinkles twice, it is impossible that there isn’t in one of hem from the fit/appropriate [waters]. But the sprinkling does not need a [set] measure.

If dew dropped into it: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it be put out in the sun and the dew will rise. But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. Dew also disqualifies the mixture because it has not been drawn from a source of living waters. Rabbi Eliezer again offers a simple remedy. Leave the water out in the hot sun for a while and the dew will steam up and rise out. It seems that Rabbi Eliezer assumes that the dew doesn't mix up the rest of the water and stays on top so that it will evaporate first. The other sages again say that there is nothing that can be done and the entire flask is invalid.

וחכמים פוסלים – that they hold that sprinkling requires a [fixed] measure, and we don’t combine sprinklings. And the Halakha is according to the Sages. But Maimonides explained that he should make two sprinklings and cast them outside of the vessel, the rest should remain the waters of lustration which are fit/appropriate. And this is a hidden thing in my eyes, for in the Gemara in the chapter, "כל הזבחים"/All of the offerings (Chapter 8 of Tractate Zevakhim) [folio 80a], it is implied as I explained it.

If a liquid or fruit juice fell into it, all the contents must be poured away and it is also necessary to dry the flask. If any of these materials fall into the flask, the entire contents must be thrown away. In addition, he must dry out the flask to make sure nothing remains (see also 5:2).

יניחנו בחמה והטל עולה – that it is the manner of the dew to evaporate/to go up towards the sun. And similarly, it (i.e., Scripture) states (Exodus 16:13-14): “In the morning…when the fall of dew lifted, [there, over the surface of the wilderness lay a fine and flaky substance, as fine as frost on the ground].” But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

If ink, gum or sulphate of copper, or anything that leaves a mark, fell into it, the contents must be poured away but it is not necessary to dry the flask. In contrast, these materials leave their mark. Therefore, while they do invalidate the contents of the flask, if they were left over inside, they could be seen (the flask seems to have been made of glass). Therefore, he need not dry out the flask.

יערה וכו' – he empties out what is within the vessel, and it is not fit to leave in it the waters of purification until it dries from the liquids and fruit juice.

יערה ואינו צריך לנגב – and if there is that remains from it in the vessel, its mark is recognized.

ונתבקעו (burst forth) – that they (i.e., the insects and creeping things) within the water a long time until they burst, or even if they didn’t burst, but that the appearance of the water changed.

Introduction Our mishnah addresses what the rule is if insects fall into the mixture.

חפושים (scorpion, beetle/scarabee) – a black worm.

If insects or creeping things fell into it, and they burst apart or the color [of the water] changed, the contents become invalid. If the insects or creepy crawly things burst apart or somehow make the color of the water change, then the water is invalid (and yucky). However, if they just fall in, they can be fished out and the water remains valid.

בין כך ובין כך – whether it burst or whether it didn’t burst.

A beetle causes invalidity in any case, because it is like a tube. According to rabbinic entomology, a beetle is shaped like a tube. Therefore the water in the flask will enter it, mix with the beetle's own emissions and be reemitted back into the water, thereby disqualifying the mixture. This does not occur, evidently, with other types of insects.

מפני שהיא כשפופרת – [like the tube] of a hollow reed and the water enters from this side and exists from that side, and the moisture that is within it combines with them.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob ruled: a maggot or a weevil of the grain causes no invalidity, because they contain no moisture. These two sages hold that if a grain maggot or weevil falls into the water, it does not disqualify the water even if it bursts. These insects are dry and therefore will not discharge anything into the water.

דירה (name of a grain worm) – a worm that is in wheat.

כנה (vermin/louse) – a species of worm that also grows in grain.

כשרים – even if they burst. But this is not the Halakha.

שתתה מהן בהמה או חיה פסולים – because of the liquid that is their mouths that returns, and the water and spittle that are in their mouths combine/mix.

Introduction If a living creature drinks from the red cow waters we must be concerned lest the creature backwashed into the water, thereby disqualifying it. Our mishnah deals with which animals backwash and which sip without doing so.

מוצצת (sucks) – but the liquid that is its mouth does not return to the water.

If a domesticated beast or a wild animal drank from it, it becomes invalid. Domesticated beasts (cows, goats and sheep) and wild animals are all considered to be backwashers. So if they drink from the red cow waters, the waters can't be used because they are now mixed with the animal's spittle.

מלקת (laps it up) – it laps/licks up (and lets the water drip back out of its mouth) on its tongue and it combines the spittle that is on its tongue with the water.

All birds cause invalidity, except the dove since it only sucks up the water. Birds are also backwashers, except for the dove, whose spit doesn't go into the water. Remind me next time I want to share a drink, to only do so with doves!

אף הנחש מפני שהיא מקיאה (and even the snake because it vomits) – And such is the Halakha, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer [who adds the mouse].

All creeping things do not cause invalidity, except the weasel since it laps up the water. Rabban Gamaliel ruled: the snake also because it vomits. Rabbi Eliezer ruled: the mouse also. Creeping things don't generally backwash when drinking. The weasel, however, laps up the water and therefore if it drinks from the red cow waters, they are invalidated. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer add the mouse and snake to the list.

החושב על מי חטאת לשתות ר' אליעזר פוסל – for he invalidates it through intention/thought.

Introduction If one intends to drink the red cow waters, he invalidates them. Our mishnah discusses at what point they become invalid.

כשיטה – [that he turns up] the barrel to drink, or to take from it water to drink, but mere intention/thought does not invalidate it.

If one intended to drink the hatat water: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid. Rabbi Joshua says: only when one tips the flask. According to Rabbi Eliezer, intent alone disqualifies the water. So if one intends to drink it, it is already invalid. Rabbi Joshua says that while one does not have to actually drink the water to disqualify it, one must at least perform some action. Tipping the flask to take a drink is sufficient of an action to disqualify the water.

במים שאינן מקודשין – that he filled them in order to place in them the ashes, but he did not yet place them.

Rabbi Yose said: To what does this apply? To water that had not yet been prepared, But in the case of water that had been prepared: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid [only] when one tips the flask; And Rabbi Joshua says: [only] when one drinks. Rabbi Yose limits this to water that has not yet been prepared, meaning the ashes have not yet been mixed in. If the ashes have been mixed in, then each sage rules slightly more leniently. Rabbi Eliezer says he must tip the water to disqualify it, whereas Rabbi Joshua says that intent alone does not disqualify waters that have already been prepared. They are disqualified only if he actually drinks them.

רבי אליעזר אומר כשיטה – but here he does not invalidate them with intention, for since they are mixed waters, he was persuaded/reconsidered to change his mind from his intention. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer does not invalidate until he turns it up [to drink from it].

And if it was poured directly into one's throat, it remains valid. If someone else pours the water directly into a another person's mouth then the waters remain valid (those that have not been drunk, of course). This is because no one had any intent to drink the water and no spit went in, because the water was poured down his throat. Therefore, there is no reason to invalidate the water.

רבי יהושע אומר כשישתה – because of the liquid that is in his mouth when he returns and combines/mixes with the water, and he invalidates them.

ואם גרגר (if he poured it down his throat – as opposed to setting his lips to the vessel) – it is the language of a gullet/throat. That is to say, that he didn’t drink it in the manner of those who drink but rather, poured the water in his throat.

כשר – for there is no liquid from his mouth in the barrel. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua in both of them.

שלא יעשם תקלה לאחרים – that they reach the plaster/mud and they will be defiled in the waters of purification that are in it.

Hatat water that became invalid, it may not be mixed into the mud since it might become a snare for others. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized. Hatat water causes someone who comes into contact with it to become impure, even after the water has been disqualified from use. So if one takes disqualified hatat waters and mixes them in mud (to use them, I assume) anyone who touches the mud will be impure but he won't know that he is. Then he might go eat terumah while impure, which is forbidden. Rabbi Judah says that the hatat waters are neutralized by being in the mud. They no longer convey impurity, so he may mix them up.

ר' יהודה אומר בטלו – in the plaster/mud. But further, he does not defile after they have been trampled/stamped [in the mud].

A cow that drank of the hatat water, its flesh becomes unclean for twenty-four hours. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized in its bowels. The assumption is that the water remains in the cow for 24 hours. So if the cow is slaughtered within that time period, its flesh is impure. If he slaughters it afterwards, the flesh is pure. Again, Rabbi Judah says that the waters are neutralized when they are absorbed into something larger. The flesh does not convey impurity, even if the animal is slaughtered immediately.

מעת לעת – if it was slaughtered within twenty-four hours of its drinking. But it delayed more than this, they became consumed in its intestines.

רבי יהודה אומר באלו במעיה – and even if he slaughtered it within twenty-four hours, its flesh is pure. But the Halakah is not according to Rabbi Yehuda in both of these.

מי חטאת – we are speaking of mixed purification waters. But waters that are not mixed are permitted, as it is taught in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah].

Hatat waters and hatat ashes one may not carry them across a river on a ship, nor may one float them upon the water, nor may one stand on the bank on one side and throw them across to the other side. According to traditional explanations of the prohibition in this section (which are based on the Bavli) it occurred one time that a person was transporting hatat waters and hatat ashes on a boat to cross the Jordan River. A piece of corpse was found on the bottom of the boat, and that caused the waters and ashes to be defiled and thereby disqualified. At that time the sages decreed that one should not carry hatat waters or ashes over water in a boat, nor transport them over a river in other similar ways. I must admit that I find these types of explanations somewhat intellectually dissatisfying. Just because an accident happens once doesn't mean it is any more likely to occur again. In my opinion, when the Talmud explains laws in this ways, it is in essence admitting that the law is irrational. It is as if they are saying, we have no real explanation for this, so it must be that the law was simply created when such a case actually occurred.

ואפר חטאת – even the ash itself without water.

One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck. However, it is permitted to carry the water across by hand, even if he is up to his neck in water. This was not considered similar enough to sailing on a ship for the rabbis to have prohibited it due to the incident described above.

לא יעבירם בנהר ובספינה – that a decree was made because of an incident of one person who was taking the waters of purification and the ashes of purification in a boat on the Jordan [River] and it was found that an olive’s bulk of a corpse was inserted in the bottom of the boat.

He that is clean for the hatat may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat or water that has not yet been prepared. A person who is ritually clean enough to prepare the hatat waters can travel on a ship while holding a vessel that will be used for the mixture and with water into which the ashes have not yet been mixed. The incident that triggered the prohibition occurred with waters that had already been mixed and with hatat ashes therefore that is the only case that they prohibited.

ולא ישיטם על פני המים (he should not float them on the water) – for it is similar to a boat, and similarly, he should not stand on this side of the river and cast them to the other side, and also that this is similar a bit to a boat.

אבל עובר הוא – on his feet.

במים – with the waters of purification that are in his hand.

עובר הוא הטהור לחטאת – whether in a boat, whether he floats over the water a vessel which is pure/clean to place in it the waters of purification when they are empty, or that he has water in it water that had not yet been mixed with the ashes of the [Red] Heifer. For they did not decree other than on the mixed waters and on the ashes alone, not on the man or the pure vessels (and the waters that are not mixed).

אפר כשר – the ashes of a [Red] Heifer that are suitable/appropriate for sprinkling.

If valid ashes were mixed up with wood ashes, we follow the majority with regard to uncleanness, but [the mixture] may not be prepared with it. The wood ashes are regular wood ashes that were not burned with the red cow. If the valid red cow ashes are mixed up with them, then when it comes to the ability of these ashes to convey impurity, we follow a majority principle. If a majority is red cow ash, it conveys impurity. However, the first opinion of the mishnah holds that this mixture cannot be used for the red cow ritual.

שנתערב באפר מקלה (that were mixed with wood-ashes) the ashes of a portable stove on feet with caves for two pots.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the mixture may be prepared with all of them. Rabbi Eliezer is lenient, as he was in mishnah one. Since we know that there is some red cow ash in the entire mixture, it can be used in the ritual.

הולכים אחר הרוב לטמא – if the majority are the ashes of the [Red] Heifer, it defiles, [but] if the majority is the ashes of a portable stove on feet with caves for two pots, it does not defile.

ואין מקדשין בו- even if the majority are the ashes of lustration/expiation, but they don’t mix with it, since it was combined with the ashes of a portable stove on feet with caves for two pots and even a little bit.

ר' אליעזר אומר מקדשין בכולן – for Rabbi Eliezer holds that we don’t require a measurement for sprinkling, and it is impossible that there isn’t a little bit from the ashes of lustration/expiation. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

מי חטאת שנפסלו – as for example, that their appearance changed not on account of themselves, and in a similar manner , from the things that invalidate the waters of purification/expiation.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. Hatat waters that have been invalidated (for instance, because the person did some sort of work after preparing them) still convey some degree of impurity. They defile a person who has immersed in a mikveh with the intent of eating terumah, either by contact with his hands or by contact with his body. However, they don't defile someone with regards to non-sacred produce; meaning one who wants to eat non-sacred produce and has had contact with disqualified hatat waters does not defile the produce. Note that regular hatat waters do convey impurity. If someone is ritually clean enough to perform the red cow ritual, then disqualified hatat waters don't defile him at all. He can still perform the ritual even after contact with him.

מטמאין את – the person (see also Tractate Kelim, Chapter 1, Mishnayot 1-2).

If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body. Hatat waters that have been defiled convey impurity to one who is pure enough to eat terumah in the same way as do disqualified hatat waters. The one difference between disqualified and impure hatat waters is that the latter do defile a person clean enough to perform the red cow ritual by virtue of contact with his hands. However, if they have contact with his body, he remains pure.

הטהור לתרומה – whether he touched them with his hands or whether he touched them with his body, they are considered like suitable/appropriate like waters of expiation/purification, and this defilement is from the Rabbis, for from the Torah, since they were made unfit/invalid, their greater defilement spread all over/blossomed, and because of this, it (i.e., the Mishnah text) teaches that “it renders unclean the person who is clean for heave-offering,” which implies especially for heave-offering but not for non-holy offerings.

ואת הטהור לחטאת לא בידיו – that is to say, it does not defile the pure person for a sin/purification offering whether he touched them with his hands or whether he touched them with his body, for the they are considered appropriate/suitable like the waters of purification/expiation, and these that one carries the waters of expiation that have in them [enough] in order for sprinkling or he touches them, he is impure for all things, but for a sin-offering/expiation, however, he is pure.

נטמאו מטמאין את הטהור לתורמה – like the waters of suitable/acceptable sin-offerings/expiation offerings, but a person who is clean for the purification offering, it defiles him if he touched it with his hands, for since they were defiled, they are not worse than the rest of the impure foods and liquids that defile the hands, for we hold that the purification of the waters of purification/sin-offering, when his hands were defiled/made unclean, his body was made unclean.

אפר כשר שנתנו על גבי מים שאינם ראוים לקדש – their law is like the law of the waters of purification/sin-offering that were invalidated.

If valid ashes were put on water that was unfit for the preparation, [the latter] defiles one that is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body, Since the water was unfit for use in the red cow ritual (assumedly because it is not living waters) it cannot be used for the sprinkling. Nevertheless the water does defile one who has purified himself in order to eat terumah. This is the same rule as we saw in yesterday's mishnah with regard to disqualified hatat waters.

מטמאין את הטהור לתרומה בידיו ובגופו – like the law of all the rest of the suitable/appropriate waters of expiation/sin-offering, but they do not defile the clean person for a sin-offering, for the waters of expiation/sin-offering do not defile the person who carries them, and the person who touches them, other than the rest of the defilements, not for the purification of the waters of expiation/sin-offering.

But to one who is clean for the hatat it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body. This is also the same as the rule we saw in yesterday's mishnah.