Commento su Parah 11:11

צלוחית – [a flask with a wide belly and a narrow neck] of water of purification.

A flask that one has left uncovered and on returning found it to be covered, is invalid. If he left the flask uncovered and he came back and found it covered, the water is invalid, lest the person who covered it was not pure in order to perform the hatat ritual.

ובא ומצאה מכוסה פסולה – that I say that a person entered to there and covered it, most people are not ritually pure for the purification offering.

If one left it covered and on returning found it to be uncovered, it is invalid if a weasel could have drunk from it or, according to the words of Rabban Gamaliel, a snake, or if it was possible for dew to fall into it in the night. If he left it covered and then found it uncovered, it is invalid if there is any possibility that a weasel or snake (according to Rabban Gamaliel) drank from it. As we saw in 9:3, these animals backwash into the water, thereby invalidating them. The water is also invalid if there is a chance that dew fell in (see 9:1).

אם יכולה חולדה לשתות ממנה פסולה – but if it (i.e., the weasel) is not able to drink we do not invalidate it for the reason that perhaps an unclean/impure man entered and uncovered it, for it is not the manner of people to uncover but rather to cover because of the insects, but insects/moving creature, it is their manner to uncover/reveal but it is not their manner to cover. But specifically, something covered and he found it uncovered, we are concerned for a weasel, but something that is uncovered and he found it uncovered like he left it, we are not concerned, even though they were suspect to supply revealed/uncovered water, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition.

The hatat waters are not protected by a tightly fitting cover; But water that had not yet been mixed with the ashes is protected by a tightly fitting cover. This section refers to an earthenware jar of hatat waters left in a tent with a corpse in it. Generally speaking if the jar has a tightly fitting lid, it protects its contents from impurity. However, we have seen a special law with regard to the hatat waters they must be in a place of purity. Since he put them in a place of "impurity" the waters are invalid, even if they are pure. However, if the jar contains water that has not yet been mixed with the ashes, it is protected from impurity (see also 10:5). The prohibition against leaving in an impure place refers only to the mixed waters.

או נחש לדברי רבן גמליאל – who said above (in Tractate Parah, Chapter 9, Mishnah 3) that even the snake invalidates it because it vomits.

החטאת – the ashes of the purification rite or the mixed waters [with ashes] that were in the tent of a corpse within a vessel that has upon it a tight-fitting lid.

אינן נצולין – and are defiled. From what is written (Numbers 19:9): “[A man who is pure shall gather up the ashes of the cow] and deposit them outside the camp in a pure place,” but this is not a pure/clean place. But vessels that stand to place in them the waters of purification or the ashes of purification/sin-offering, and similarly the hyssop that is prepared to sprinkle on it, are protected by a tight-fitting lid.

כל הספק טהור לתרומה – any matter of doubt that if it that same doubt appeared in the heave-offering, the heave offering is pure, if it appeared in a similar manner in the purification offering, it is pure (see also Tractate Taharot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2).

Anything that is doubtfully pure in the case of terumah is regarded as clean in the case of the hatat waters. There are cases in which terumah is doubtfully pure/impure (we shall learn of these in Toharot (next tractate) 4:2. In these cases the terumah must be burned. If the same type of doubt occurs with regard to hatat waters, they remain pure.

וכל התלוי לתרומה – and an doubt that if it appeared in heave-offering where we suspend it we don’t eat neither do we burn it, if it appeared in a similar manner in the purification offering, the ashes should poured out or the mixed mater. And in the Tractate Taharot, in the Chapter “He Who Threw Something Unclean”/הזורק תרומה (Chapter Four), we taught to them regarding a doubt of something pure and on a doubt that is upon his hands, we suspend it regarding heave-offering (see Tractate Taharot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5).

Anything that is "suspended" where terumah is concerned, the hatat waters are poured out. If clean things were handled on account of it, they must be "suspended." There are cases in which the terumah is "suspended" meaning it is neither burned nor eaten. If the same type of issue occurs with hatat waters, the waters must be poured out. If these hatat waters that were supposed to be poured out were used to purify a person, and then he touched clean food, this too must be "suspended." The food cannot be eaten or burned, as if it was terumah.

ואם עשו על גביו טהרות (and if they prepared clean things on account of it) – if e sprinkled with these ashes that were defined in doubt that was suspended for heave-offering, and made clean things on account of it through that sprinkling, they suspend those pure things, and they don’t eat nor burn them.

Wooden lattice work is clean in respect of holy food, terumah, and the hatat waters. Wooden lattice work is not considered to be a vessel, nor is it made for sitting or lying upon. Therefore, it is not considered impure with regard to matters of holy food, terumah or hatat waters.

הרפפות (cases of Levitical uncleanness arising from vibrations caused by unclean persons) – like a kind of net-work/mat of wood.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Loosely connected wood is unclean in respect of hatat waters. According to Rabbi Eliezer, occasionally a person will sit on a configuration of loosely connected wood. Since people sit on this wood work, one who does is impure with regard to the preparation of hatat waters. That is to say, a person who touches this wood will be invalid, even if the wood has not been defiled. There are other interpretations of what "loosely connected wood" is. Albeck explains that it is the same thing referred to in section three, and that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with that opinion

טהורת לקודש לתרומה ולחטאת – because they are not vessels and they are not suitable/appropriate for treading [by someone with a flux or a woman after childbirth].

והרעדות (indirect contact through vibrations) – pieces of wood/boards that are not attached well to each other, and when a person leans upon them, they vibrate/tremble and shaking.

טמאות לחטאת – sometimes when a person sis upon them and they are appropriate to become defiled though sitting. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

אם יש בה כביצה – for a person who eats less than an egg’s bulk does not defile.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with terumah figs that fall into hatat waters. There are two issues here: 1) is the water unclean by virtue of having contact with terumah figs? 2) What happens to one who eats the figs? Does he incur the normal penalty for eating impure figs death by the hands of heaven (meaning that a court does not carry out this death penalty)?

בין הרה בין טמאה המים טמאים – for the purification of impure heave-offering next to the purification offering.

Pressed figs of terumah which fell into hatat waters and were taken out and eaten: If the amount is the size of an egg, whether [the figs] were clean or unclean the water becomes unclean, and he who eats the figs is liable for death; If their size is less than the size of an egg, the water remains clean but he who eats them is liable for death. Rabbi Yose says: if they were clean the water remains clean. If the size of the pressed figs is greater than an egg, they defile the hatat waters, for terumah is not pure vis a vis hatat waters. The hatat waters then defile the figs. When the person takes the figs out, he becomes impure by virtue of contact with the hatat waters (because he was not pure enough before to have had contact with hatat waters). Finally, an impure person who eats terumah is liable for the death penalty. If there is less than the amount of an egg, then the figs do not defile the water. Nevertheless, when he has contact with the hatat waters, he becomes impure and an impure person who eats terumah is liable for the death penalty. The first opinion in the mishnah holds that all of the above is true whether the figs were pure or impure before they fell into the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose holds that pure terumah does not defile hatat waters. Therefore, if the figs are pure, they do not defile the waters.

והאוכלה חייב מיתה – that was defiled in the waters of lustration at the time of his consuming it, and the heave-offering in the defilement of the body is [punishable] by death.

If one who was clean for the hatat waters puts his head and the greater part of his body into the hatat waters, he becomes unclean. Hatat waters are waters that have been drawn from their source. The rabbis decreed that a person who puts drawn water on himself is impure (we shall discuss why when we learn Tractate Zavim 5:12). Our mishnah teaches that since hatat waters are also drawn waters, they too defile the person who puts his head and most of his body into them.

ר' יוסי אומר בטהורה המים טהורים – for Rabbi Yossi holds that the person who is pure for heave-offering does not defile the waters of lustration/purification water. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

שהכניס ראשו ורובו בתוך מי חטאת – the Rabbis decreed on all who come with their head and the majority of their body in drawn water, as is explained in the first chapter of Tractate Shabbat (see Mishnah 4), and it is one of the eighteen matters that they decreed on that day (i.e., the day when Rabban Gamaliel was removed as the President of the Academy – see Tractate Berakhot 28a) and these are the drawn waters of the waters of purification, therefore, when he placed his head and the majority of his body in them, he was defiled, and from when he was defiled, and he is not pure for the waters of purification, the waters of purification return and -defile him and he becomes first degree of ritual defilement, for the waters of purification defile the pure person to them, but he who is not ritual pure to them, they defile him.

כל הטעון ביאת מים מדברי תורה – as for example, a person who comes in contact with all primary sources of ritual uncleanness (see the first chapter of Tractate Kelim)

All that require immersion in water according to the rulings of the Torah defile consecrated things, terumah, unconsecrated food, and [second] tithe; And he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary. A person who has been defiled by a "father of impurity" requires immersion in a mikveh. See for instance Leviticus 11:32 with regard to one who has had contact with a sheretz. Such a person defiles any food with which he has had contact, be it consecrated food (kodesh), terumah, unconsecrated food (hullin) or second tithe. He is also forbidden from entering the sanctuary (the Temple.)

מטמא את הקודש ואת התרומה – because it is first-degree of ritual uncleanness, it makes it second-degree of ritual uncleanness and with tithes, and third-degree of ritual uncleanness with heave-offerings and fourth degree of ritual uncleanness with Holy Things.

After immersion [but before the sun sets] he defiles holy things and invalidates terumah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages ruled: he invalidates consecrated things and terumah. But he is permitted to unconsecrated food and [second] tithe. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs guilt. According to Rabbi Meir, after he has immersed in the mikveh, the person has the status of "second degree defilement." He causes terumah to have third decree impurity, which causes it to be invalid but not impure. And he causes holy things to have fourth degree impurity. The other sages say that since he has immersed in the mikveh he does not defile even holy things. He merely invalidates both holy things and terumah. After having immersed in the mikveh, he causes no defilement or invalidation to common food or to second tithe. However, when it comes to entering the sanctuary, he is prohibited even after going to the mikveh. He can't enter the sanctuary until he has immersed in the mikveh and the sun has set.

לאחר ביאתו – that he ritually immersed and did not have a sunset pass, he has the law of second degree of ritual uncleanness, and makes heave-offering third-degree of ritual uncleanness and Holy Things fourth-degree of ritual uncleanness.

וחכמים אומרים פוסל בקודש – in the same way that a person who immersed himself that day invalidates heave-offering, so he invalidates Holy Things, but he does not defile Holy Things, for since he immersed his defilement is weakened, and he is made equivalent to something invalid, [but] he is not made equivalent to being impure.

ואם בא אל המקדש – all who are required to ritually immerse from the [Written] Torah, who comes to the Sanctuary, that is to the Israelite Courtyard, even after he had immersed prior to his sunset, is liable [for extirpation]. And even to the Women’s Courtyard, a person who immersed himself that day is forbidden to enter, but he is not liable [for extirpation] other than in the Israelite courtyard.

כל הטעון ביאת מים מדברי סופרים – as for example, that he ate impure foods and drank impure liquids, and the hands and vessels that were defiled by liquids and similar things (see also Tractate Zavim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 12).

Introduction In yesterday's mishnah we learned some purity rules concerning a person whom the Torah mandated to immerse in mikveh. Today's mishnah contrasts this with a person whom the sages required to immerse in a mikveh. This would include a person who ate impure foods or drank impure liquids [we will learn more about this category in Tractate Zavim].

וחכמים אוסרים במעשר – and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

All that require immersion in water according to the words of the scribes defile consecrated things and invalidate terumah to be unfit, but they are permitted to unconsecrated food and second tithe, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages forbid second tithe. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, he still defiles holy food and invalidates terumah, even though he was required only by rabbinic law to immerse in the mikveh. But there are no restrictions with regard to hullin (unconsecrated food) and second tithe. The other sages slightly disagree. They hold that he is still forbidden to eat second tithe, although he doesn't cause it to become impure.

לאחר ביאתו – after he ritually immersed, immediately he is permitted to all of them and does not need [the arrival] of sunset.

After immersion [but before the sun sets] he is permitted to all these. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs no guilt. There are no restrictions after he has immersed. Since he was only required by rabbinic law ("the words of the scribes") to enter a mikveh, he need not wait for the sun to set to become completely pure and permitted to eat and touch anything. In addition, he is not liable at all if he enters the sanctuary.

ואם בא אל המקדש פטור – for the Torah did not forbid his coming into the Sanctuary other than on someone who was defiled by a primary source of ritual uncleanness according to the [Written] Torah, as it is written (Leviticus 5:2-3): “[Or when a person touches any impure thing – be it the carcass of impure beast] or the carcass of impure cattle or the carcass of an impure creeping thing [- and the fact has escaped him, and then being impure, he realizes his guilt;] Or when he touches human impurity [-any such impure whereby one becomes impure – and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt].”

מטמא את מי חטאת – and even after he ritually immersed, [but] if he didn’t ritually immerse for the purpose of the purification rite it is as if he did not ritually immerse, as is taught in the [second] chapter [of Tractate Hagigah folio 18b/Chapter 2, Mishnah 6]: "אין דורשין"/They do not expound [upon the laws of prohibited relationships]: “[If] he immersed for eating food in the status of Holy Things and is thereby confirmed as suitable for eating food in the status of Holy Things, he is prohibited from engaging in the preparation of purification water.” But once he ritually immersed for the sake of the purification water, even a person who ritually immersed himself that day, according to the Torah, who is invalid for heave-offering and for Holy Things, is fit/appropriate for the purification water, for a person who ritually immersed himself that day/טבול יום is fit for the [ritual of the Red] Heifer.

All that require immersion in water, whether according to the words of the Torah or according to the words of the scribes, defile hatat waters, hatat ashes, and the one who sprinkled the hatat waters, either through contact or through carrying. As we have seen throughout this tractate, the purity regulations for anything that concerns the red cow ritual are more stringent. Therefore, the mishnah teaches that a person who is required to immerse defiles the hatat waters, the hatat ashes or another person who is prepared to sprinkle the waters. This is true whether the person is required by biblical law to immerse or whether he is only required by rabbinic law. Furthermore, he conveys impurity both by contact and by carrying (without contact).

ומזה מי חטאת במגע ובמשא (the one who sprinkles the purification water in contact and carrying) – and in this, everyone does not disagree. But regarding hyssop that is pronounced fit to receive ritual defilement, and because the person who eats them he requires being made fit that [purification] water can come upon him, and similarly, with water that is not mixed [with ashes] and stands for Holy Things, and an empty vessel that is clean and stands in order to place in it the purification ashes, but in this, Rabbi Meir (i.e., contact and carrying) and the Sages (i.e., in contact, but not in carrying) dispute (i.e., if he carried them but did come in contact with them, they are not defiled). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

And [they defile] hyssop that has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness, and water that had not yet been prepared, and an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat through contact and carrying, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: only by contact but not by carrying. This section deals with material used in the hatat ritual but that is not the ashes. This includes three items. The first is the hyssop that is used for sprinkling. The hyssop needs to have been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by coming into contact with water (vegetation is never susceptible to impurity until it becomes wet). In this case the water must have been pure for the hatat ritual, otherwise the hyssop would have already been impure. The other two items referred to are water that was drawn to be used for the hatat ritual but has not yet been mixed and the empty vessel. If a person who has to immerse (whether because of biblical or rabbinic law) has contact or even carries one of these things, Rabbi Meir says it is defiled. The other sages rule slightly more leniently. One defiles these things (the hyssop, the unmixed waters and the empty vessel) only if he has direct contact with them. He doesn't defile them through carrying.

כל אזוב שיש לו שם לווי (all hyssop that has an epithet/surname) – that it is customary to accompany with it another name, such as those that are explained further on (see also Tractate Negaim, Chapter 14, Mishnah 6).

Introduction After discussing the purity of hyssop in yesterday's mishnah, today's mishnah continues to discuss laws with regard to the type of hyssop used to sprinkle the hatat waters.

אזוב זה – that is to say, undefined hyssop that a person who sees it says, “this is hyssop” undefined (i.e., without a modifier).

Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. "This" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon ( hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. The hyssop must be plain old hyssop (zatar in Arabic and by extension, modern Hebrew). Any hyssop that has an accompanying or modifying name should not be used (see Mishnah Negaim 14:6). "This" hyssop refers to any hyssop that a person points to and says "this is hyssop."

ושל תרומה טמאה – that the hyssop of the garden is liable for heave-offering when they harvested/picked it for eating. But surely it comes to tell us that even though it is less than an egg’s bulk that doesn’t defile the waters of purification, nevertheless, its sprinkling is invalid, since the hyssop itself is unclean.

That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. Obviously, unclean terumah cannot be used since anything that is unclean cannot be used because it will defile the hatat waters. The mishnah only mentions unclean terumah because it wants to discuss clean terumah. Clean terumah, meaning terumah whose purity was preserved in order to use it for the hatat ritual, should also not be used because it is prohibited to invalidate pure terumah and the hatat ritual carries a risk that the terumah will be invalidated. However, if he uses clean terumah hyssop for the sprinkling, the person who has been sprinkled upon is pure. In other words, this is a case where one shouldn't use something, but if he does, it is valid.

ושל טהורה לא יזה – because he causes loss to the heave-offering.

The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The sprinkling should be done with the leafy parts of the hyssop, not with the berries or with young shoots. However, if the sprinkling was done with the shoots and then he entered the sanctuary, he is not liable for being impure and entering the sanctuary. Usually someone who does this (unintentionally) must bring a sin-offering as atonement. Our mishnah teaches that while the sprinkling shouldn't be done with young shoots, if it is done, it is still valid. Rabbi Eliezer says that the same is true with regard to the berries.

תמרות (berries) – like a kind of berries that are on the heads of the hyssop.

The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened. The mishnah defines the meaning of young shoots.

אין חייבין על היונקות (they are not liable for young shoots) – that are impure that were sprinkled upon with young shoots and this sprinkling came into the Sanctuary, he is not liable.

רבי אליעזר אומר וכו' – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

גבעולים שלא גמלו (calyx or capsule of plants/stalks [of hyssop] before the buds have ripened) – all the while that the flower is placed within its pouch/pocket before it opens up.

מנגבו – in order that the fit/suitable water does not combine/mix with invalid water.

The hyssop that was used for sprinkling [the hatat waters] is also fit for cleansing the metzora. As we stated in yesterday's mishnah, hyssop was used in other purification rituals, including the purification of the metzora. If it had already been used for the hatat ritual, it may be used later for the purification of the metzora.

אע"פ שנגבו פסול – and even though it was not defiled, from when it became susceptible to receive ritual defilement.

If it was gathered for firewood, and liquid fell upon it, it may be dried and it becomes fit. Hyssop was gathered for firewood and it got wet. Because he gathered it for firewood, the liquid that came into contact with it does not cause it to be receptive to impurity. If one wants to use it for sprinkling he still can. He must first dry it off so that invalid waters don't mix with the valid waters drawn for the sprinkling.

לקטו לחטאת – to sprinkle upon it the waters of purification.

If it was gathered for food, and liquid fell upon it, even though it was dried, it is invalid. On the other hand, if he gathers it for food, it is susceptible to impurity when it becomes wet. This is a general rule with regard to food when food becomes wet, it becomes susceptible to impurity. Even if he dries it off, he will not be able to use it for sprinkling.

כמלקט לעצים – and he dries it, and it is fit/suitable. And such is the Halakha (according to Rabbis Yossi and Shimon).

If it was gathered for [the sprinkling of the waters of] the hatat, it is subject to the same law as if it were gathered for food, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon ruled: as if it were gathered for firewood. The sages disagree with regard to the case where the hyssop was gathered specifically to be used with the hatat waters. Rabbi Meir says that in this case any liquid will cause it to be receptive to impurity and thereby invalidate it. The other rabbis (three of them note this is unusual) say that as long as he dries it off, he can still use it.

שלשה קלחים ובהן שלשה גבעולים (three stalks and on them are three buds) – one bud on each stalk (see Rashi’s commentary on Talmud Sukkah 13a). But we require three stalks, we derive [by analogy/Gezerah Shavah] "לקיחה לקיחה"/taking, taking from the bunch of hyssop (see Exodus 12:22: "ולקחתם אגדת אזוב וטבלתם בדם אשר-בסף"/Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin) from the Egyptian Passover/פסח מצרים, just as there [it requires] three, and in this it is called an אגודה/bunch, even here, it is called a bunch/אגודה, even here it is three (and see 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, or on him who touched the bones or the person who was killed or died naturally or the grave.” – and just as it is a Mitzvah to take them as a bunch for the Exodus from Egypt, so here as well).

Introduction Our chapter concludes with a mishnah as to how much hyssop was needed to sprinkle the water.

מפסגו ואוגדו (he severs the stalks of hyssop and ties them) – he separates it and divides it so that there will the three stalks that are separated one from the other.

The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Judah says: each stalk should have three buds. Each stalk of hyssop should have at least one budding flower. I would suggest googling "hyssop" to see what this looks like. Rabbi Judah says that each of the three stalks should have three budding flowers.

ר' יוסי אומר מצות אזוב שלשה – Rabbi Yossi is more stringent that the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] (see Talmud Sukkah 13a), for according to Rabbi Yossi, at the beginning, two stalks [and two buds] are invalid, but according to the first Tanna/teacher two are fit/appropriate, and it is not invalid until there would be at the outset that its remnants are one. But when the first Tanna/teacher says that the Precept of the hyssop is three stalks, it is for the mere commandment, and it is not to be indispensable. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

Hyssop that consists of a growth of three stalks should be cut apart and then bound together. If the stalks were cut apart but were not bound together, or if they were bound together but were not cut apart, or if they were neither cut apart nor bound together, they are nevertheless valid. The hyssop stalks are separated at their base and then bound together. We should note that Numbers 19:18, the verse that prescribes hyssop for sprinkling the hatat waters, does not mention that the hyssop should be bound. However, Exodus 12:22, the verse that describes applying the blood to the doorposts in Egypt, does refer to bound hyssop. It seems that our mishnah applies the notion of binding in that context to our context. In order to bind something, it would first have to be separated. Thus the hyssop should first be separated and then bound. However, if either or even neither of these steps is taken, the sprinkling is still valid.

וגרדומיו כל שהוא (but its stump is any size at all) – the stumps of the buds is any size at all. But its remnants and stumps are two words, for its remnants are the remnants of the three stalks, which are two stalks, and its stumps is the bud itself, that I comb and is broken and there remains from it just a little bit.

Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size. Rabbi Yose agrees with the opinion in section one. He adds that if one of the stalks fell away, even two are valid. Finally, if all that is left of the stalks or buds is even the smallest measure, it is still valid.