Talmud sobre Pará 11:8
אֵזוֹב שֶׁהִזָּה בוֹ, כָּשֵׁר לְטַהֵר בּוֹ אֶת הַמְּצֹרָע. לִקְּטוֹ לְעֵצִים וְנָפְלוּ עָלָיו מַשְׁקִין, מְנַגְּבוֹ וְהוּא כָשֵׁר. לִקְּטוֹ לְאֳכָלִין וְנָפְלוּ עָלָיו מַשְׁקִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּגְּבוֹ, פָּסוּל. לִקְּטוֹ לְחַטָּאת, כִּמְלֻקָּט לְאֳכָלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, כִּמְלֻקָּט לְעֵצִים:
O hissopo com o qual aspergido [durante o ritual do chatat ] é válido para purificar o metzora [aquele com uma doença de pele que o torna impuro e cujo ritual de purificação envolve o hissopo]. Se alguém o pegou [o hissopo] como madeira e líquidos caíram sobre ele, pode-se secá-lo e é válido [por aspersão]. Se alguém o pega quando os alimentos e líquidos caem, mesmo que seque, é inválido [por aspersão]. Se alguém o escolheu para o ritual do chatat , é como se fosse escolhido como alimento, segundo o rabino Meir. O rabino Yehuda e o rabino Yose e o rabino Shimon dizem: [é] como se tivesse sido colhido como madeira.
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
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?