Let’s Bring a Parah Adumah This Year!

by Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

Technological advances can make enormous changes in life. Medicine, for example, has advanced enormously with ever improving imaging techniques. Communications as well, have improved with the combination of cell towers and advanced video processing algorithms. It is time to bring the Parah Adumah back and here is how we can do it,

IF YOU LIKE YOU MAY PRINT THIS OUT FOR SHABBOS USE

Since 1988, we have had the technology to make the bringing back of the Parah Adumah much easier – at least according to Rav Yeshayahu ben Avraham Ha-Levi Horowitz (c. 1555 – 1630), better known as the Shelah HaKadosh, whose father was a student of the Ramah.

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The Shla HaKadosh passed away 392 years ago – to the day – on March 24th,

In 1602, the Shla was appointed Av Beit Din in Austria, and in 1606 was appointed Rav of Frankfurt. In 1614, after serving as rabbi in prominent cities in Europe, he eventually became the chief rabbi of Prague. In 1621, after the death of his wife, he moved to Eretz Yisroel, and was appointed as the Ashkenazic Rav of Yerushalayim. In 1625, he was kidnapped and imprisoned, together with 15 other Jewish rabbis and scholars, by the Pasha (Ibn Faruh) and held for ransom. After 1626, the Shla moved to Tzfas. His yartzeit is the 11th of Nissan (March 24, 1630).

HOW TO DO IT

The Shla HaKadosh writes (Meseches Yuma, Derech Chaim, Tochachas Mussar 203) that on the Shabbos Parshas Parah, one should learn the entire Mishnayos of Parah so that it will count as if we had brought it, on account of, “uneshalma farim sefaseinu” (Hoshea 14:3). The Midrash in Vayikra Rabba 7:3 quotes Rabbi Acha in the name of Rabbi Chaninah Bar Pappah who says that Klal Yisroel complained to Hashem that they no longer have the Beis HaMikdash they can no longer bring the Korbanos. Hashem answered, if you learn it, I will are misasaik in korbanos, I will count it as if you brought them.

Chapter 1

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The Eglah Arupa is no more than 1 year old and the cow no more than 2 years old.
But the Chachomim ruled: the Eglah Arupa may be even 2 years old and the red cow even 3 or 4 years old.
Rabbi Meir says: even five years old, though she is old. But they did not wait with it so long since it might in the meantime grow some black hairs and thus become invalid.
Rabbi Yehoshua said: I only heard of [a cow] that was three years old [shelashis].
They said to him: What does “shelashis” mean? He replied: That’s how I heard it – without any explanation.
- Ben Azzai said: I will explain: if you say “shelishis” the meaning is ‘the third’ in number to others, but when you say “shelashis” the meaning is one that is three years old. Similarly, they said a vineyard that is “revai.”
They said to him: what does “revai” mean? He replied: That’s how I heard it – without any explanation.
Ben Azzai said: I will explain: if you say “revii” the meaning is the fourth in number to others, but when you say “revai” the meaning is one that is four years old.
Similarly it was ruled: if a man ate in an afflicted house half a loaf, three of which can be made from a kav, he becomes unclean.
They said to him: say rather “eighteen of which are made of a se’ah.” He replied: That’s how I heard it – without any explanation.
- Ben Azzai said: I will explain: when you say, three of which are made of a kav it would not contain hallah, but if you say, eighteen of which are made of a se’ah, it has been reduced by its hallah.

Rabbi Yose HaGlili said:

Bulls may not be more than 2 years old, for it says, “The second bull you shall take for a chatas” (Shmos 8:8).
But the Chachomim say: they may be even 3 years old.
Rabbi Meir says: even those that are 4 or 5 years old are valid, but old animals are not brought out of respect.
Lambs no more than one year old, And rams no more than two years old. And all these years are counted from day to day. One that is thirteen months old is not valid, neither as a ram nor as a lamb.
- Rabbi Tarfon called it palges.
- Ben Azzai called it noked.
- Rabbi Ishmael called it parakhrigma. If a man offered it he must bring for it the libation of a ram, but it is not counted as his offering. One that is thirteen months old behold it is a ram.

The sin-offerings of the congregation
and their burnt-offerings,
the sin-offering of an individual,
the guilt-offering of a nazirite and
the guilt-offering of a metzora

are valid from the thirtieth day onwards, and also on the thirtieth day. If they were offered on the eighth day they are valid. Vow-offerings and freewill-offerings, firstlings and the maasar of cattle and the pesach are valid from the eighth day onwards, and also on the eighth day.

Chapter 2

Rabbi Eliezer says: a [red] cow for the chatas that is pregnant is valid,
But the Chachomim say: it is invalid.
Rabbi Eliezer says: it may not be bought from non-Jews,
But the Chachomim say: it is valid. And not only this, but all sacrifices of the congregation or the individual may be brought from the land of Israel and from outside the land, from new produce and from the old; Except the omer and the two loaves, which may be brought only from new produce and from within the land.

If the horns or the hoofs of the [red] cow are black they are chopped off. The eye ball, the teeth and the tongue cause do not invalidate the [red] cow. One that is dwarf-like is valid. If there was on it an extra digit and it was cut off:

Rabbi Yehudah says that it is invalid.
Rabbi Shimon says: wherever, if removed, no red hair grows in its place is it invalid.

One that is born from the side, the money paid to a zonah or the price of a dog is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid, as it says, “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of Hashem,” (Dvarim 23:19) and this was not brought into the house. All blemishes that cause consecrated animals to be invalid cause also the [red] cow to be invalid. If one had ridden on it, leaned on it, hung on its tail, crossed a river by its help, doubled up its leading rope, or put one’s cloak on it, it is invalid. But if one had only tied it up by its leading rope or made for it a sandal to prevent it from slipping or spread one’s cloak on it because of flies, it is valid. This is the general rule: wherever anything is done for its own sake, it remains valid; but if for the sake of another, it becomes invalid.

If a bird rested on it, it remains valid. If a male beast mounted it, it becomes invalid. Rabbi Yehudah says: if the male was made to mount, it becomes invalid; but if it did so of itself, it remains valid.

If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Yehudah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosos that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Basera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid. If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Chachomim say: by the root.

Chapter 3 – Seven days before the burning of the [red] cow they would separate the kohain who was to burn the cow from his house to a chamber that was facing the north-eastern corner of the birah, and which was called the Stone Chamber. They would sprinkle upon him throughout the seven days with a mixture of all the sin-offerings that were there. Rabbi Yose said: they sprinkled upon him only on the third and the seventh days. Rabbi Chanina the vice-chief of the kohanim said: on the kohain that was to burn the cow they sprinkled all the seven days, but on the one that was to perform the service on Yom Kippur they sprinkled on the third and the seventh days only.

Courtyards were built in Jerusalem over rock, and beneath them there was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And they used to bring pregnant women there. There they gave birth to their children and there they raised them. And they brought oxen, upon whose backs were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands. When they reached the Shiloah spring they got down and filled the cups with water and then they ascended and sat again on the doors. Rabbi Yose said: each child used to let down his cup and fill it from his place.

They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Tzadukim an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it.

One may not bring a sin-offering by virtue of [the purifications made for] another sin-offering, nor one child by virtue of [the preparations made for] another. The children had to be sprinkle on each other, the words of Rabbi Yose HaGlili. Rabbi Akiva says: they did not need to sprinkle.

If they did not find the residue of the ashes of the seven [red cows] they performed the sprinkling with those of six, of five, of four, of three, of two or of one. And who prepared these? Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five were prepared from the time of Ezra, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Chachomim say: seven from the time of Ezra. And who prepared them? Shimon the Just and Yohanan the high kohain prepared two; Elihoenai the son of Ha-Kof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each.

They made a ramp from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, being constructed of arches above arches, each arch placed directly above each foundation [of the arch below] as a protection against a grave in the depths, whereby the kohain who was to burn the cow, the cow itself and all who aided in its preparation went forth to the Mount of olives.

If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, “They slaughtered a black cow” nor another red [cow] lest people say, “They slaughtered two.” Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said “And he shall bring her out” by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The kohain that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, “It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set.”

They laid their hands upon him and said, “My Lord the high priest, perform immersion once.” He went down and immersed himself and came up and dried himself. Different kinds of wood were set in order there: cedar wood, pine, spruce and the wood of smooth fig trees. They made it in the shape of a tower and opened air holes in it; and its foreside was turned towards the west.

They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The kohain stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Yehudah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees.

It burst and he stood outside its pit and he took the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool. He said to them, “Is this cedarwood? Is this cedarwood?” “Is this hyssop? Is this hyssop?” “Is this scarlet wool? Is this scarlet wool?” Three times he repeated each question and they answered him “Yes, yes” three times to each question.

He then wrapped them together with the remains of the strip of wool and cast them into the fire. When it was burnt up they would beat it with sticks and then sift it with sieves. Rabbi Ishmael says: this was done with stone hammers and stone sieves. If there was a black coal on which there were some ashes they would crush it but if there were no [ashes] they would leave it. A bone was crushed in either case. It was then divided into three parts: one part was deposited on the hel, one on the Mount of Olives, and one was divided among the priestly watches.

Chapter 4 – If a chatas cow was slaughtered not for its own name, or if its blood was received or sprinkled not for its own name, or if this was done for its own name and for some other name, or for some other name and for its name, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules it valid. If [the service] was performed by one whose hands or feet were unwashed, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid. If it was performed by one who was not the high priest, it is invalid. Rabbi Yehudah rules that it is valid. If it was performed by one who was not wearing all the prescribed garments, it is invalid. And in white garments it was to be prepared.

If it was burnt outside its pit, or in two pits, or if two cows were burnt in the same pit, it is invalid. If [the blood] was sprinkled but not in the direction of the entrance of the Holy of Holies, it is invalid. If he made the seventh sprinkling out of the sixth and then sprinkled again a seventh time, it is invalid. If he sprinkled an eighth time out of the seventh and then sprinkled again an eighth time, it is valid.

If he burned it without wood, or with any kind of wood, and even if only with straw or stubble, it is valid. If he flayed it and cut up, it is valid. If he slaughtered it with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer rules: no intention can invalidate the red cow.

All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.

Chapter 5 – He who brings the earthen vessel for the chatas must immerse, and spend the night by the furnace. Rabbi Yehudah says: he may also bring it from the house and it is valid, for all are deemed trustworthy in regard to the chatas. In the case of terumah one may open the furnace and take out [the vessel]. Rabbi Shimon says: from the second row. Rabbi Yose says: from the third row.

If one immersed a vessel for the chatas in water that is not fit for the mixing he must dry it; If in water that is fit for the mixing he need not dry it. But if [he intended] to collect in it water that was already mixed with the ashes, he must dry it in either case.

If a pumpkin shell was immersed in water that was not fit for the mixing, it is permissible to mix in it the ashes with the water, as long as it had not been defiled. If it has been defiled, one cannot mix in it the ashes with the water. Rabbi Yehoshua says: if one is allowed to mix in it the ashes and water at the beginning, one should also be allowed to do so at the end; and if one is not allowed to do this at the end one should not be allowed to do it at the beginning. In either case it is not permissible to collect in it water that has already had ashes mixed in.

A reed pipe that was cut [for use as a container] for the chatas: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be immersed immediately. Rabbi Yehoshua ruled: he defiles it and then immerses it. All are eligible to prepare the mixture, except a deaf mute, an imbecile and a minor. Rabbi Yehudah says a minor is eligible, but disqualifies a woman and a hermaphrodite.

They can make the mixture in all kinds of vessels, even in vessels made of cattle dung, of stone or of earth. The mixture may also be prepared in a boat. It may not be prepared in the walls of vessels, or in the sides of a large jug, or in the stopper of a jar, or in one’s cupped hands, for one does not fill up, or mix in, or sprinkle the chatas with anything but a vessel. Only on a vessel does tightly fitting cover afford protection, for only in vessels is protection afforded against uncleanness within an earthen vessel.

A potters’ egg is fit [as a vessel]. Rabbi Yose rules that it is unfit. A hen’s egg: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah rule it is fit [as a vessel]; But the Chachomim rule that it is unfit.

It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.

If there were two troughs in one stone and the mixture was prepared in one of them, the water in the other is not prepared. If a hole of the size of the spout of a water skin passed from one to the other, or if the water overflowed both, even if only [to a depth of] the thickness of garlic peel, and the mixture was prepared in one of them, the water in the other is also prepared.

If one placed two stones close to one another and made them into a trough, and so also in the case of two kneading troughs, and so also in the case of a trough that was split, the water between them is not deemed to be prepared. If they were joined together with lime or gypsum and they can be moved together, the water between them is deemed to have been prepared.

Chapter 6 – If one was about to mix the ashes with the water and the ashes fell upon his hand or upon the side of the trough and then fell into the trough, the mixture is invalid. If they fell from the tube into the trough, the mixture is invalid. If he took the ashes from the tube and then covered it, or shut a door, the ashes remain valid but the water becomes invalid. If he put it up erect on the ground, the water becomes invalid. If in his hand, the water is valid, since it is can’t be otherwise.

If the ashes floated on the water: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may take some of them and use them in another preparation; But the Chachomim say: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared from them. If he emptied out the water and some ashes were found at the bottom: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may dry them and then use them for another preparation; But the Chachomim rule: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared.

One who mixes the water in a trough while a bucket was in it, even though its neck was narrow as can be, the waters in it are prepared. If there was a sponge in the trough, the water in it is invalid. What should he do? He should empty out the water until he gets to the sponge. If one touched the sponge, however much the water that washes over it, the water becomes invalid.

If he placed his hand or his foot or leaves of vegetables in such a manner as to enable the water to run into a jar, the water is invalid. If he used leaves of reeds or leaves of nuts the water is valid. This is the general rule: [water passing over] that which is susceptible to uncleanness is invalid, but [water passing over] that which is not susceptible to uncleanness is valid.

One who diverts a spring into a wine vat or into pools, the water is invalid for zavim and metzoraim. And also for the preparation of the chatas water. Because it was not drawn into a vessel.

Chapter 7 – If five men filled five jars to prepare with them five mixtures, and then they changed their minds to prepare one mixture from all of them, or if they filled the jars to prepare with them one mixture and then they changed their minds to prepare with them five mixtures, all the water remains valid. If one man filled five jars intending to prepare five [separate] mixtures, [even though] he changed his mind to prepare one mixture from all of them, only the last is valid. If he intended to prepare one mixture from all of them and then he changed his mind to prepare five separate mixtures, only the water in the one that was mixed first is valid. If he said to another man, “Prepare mixtures from these for yourself,” only the first is valid; But if he said, “Prepare a mixture from these for me,” all are valid.

One who filled the water with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, or filled the water for himself and for another man, or filled two jars at the same time, the water of both is invalid, for work causes invalidity whether one acts for oneself or for another person.

One who prepared the mixture with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, the mixture is invalid if he prepared it for himself, but if he prepared it for another man, it is valid. If he prepared a mixture both for himself and for another man, his is invalid and that of the other man is valid. If he prepares mixtures for two men simultaneously, both are valid.

[If one said to another] “Prepare the mixture for me and I will prepare the one for you,” the first is valid. [If he said,] “Fill the water for me and I will fill the water for you,” that of the latter is valid. [If he said,] “Prepare the mixture for me and I will draw the water for you,” both mixtures are valid. [If he said,] “Fill the water for me and I will prepare the mixture for you’, both mixtures are invalid.

One who is drawing water for his own use and for the mixture of the chatas, he must draw for himself first and fasten [the bucket] to the carrying pole and then he can draw the water for the chatas. If he drew first the water for the chatas and then he drew the water for himself, it is invalid. He must put his own behind him and that for the chatas before him, and if he put that for the chatas behind him it is invalid. If both were for the chatas, he may put one before him and one behind him and both are valid, since it is impossible to do otherwise.

One who carries the rope in his hand, If in his usual manner, the mixture is valid; But if not in his usual manner, it is invalid. The question was sent on to Yavneh on three festivals and on the third festival, it was ruled that the mixture was valid, as a temporary measure.

If a man coils the rope around his hand little by little, [the mixture] is valid; But if he coiled it afterwards, it is invalid. Rabbi Yose said: this also had been ruled to be valid as a temporary measure.

One who puts the jar away in order that it shall not be broken, or if he inverted it in order to dry it, [If he did one of these things] so that he might draw more water with it, [the water he had already drawn] is valid; But if he intended to carry in it the ashes, it is invalid. One who cleared potsherds from a trough: If in order that it may hold more water, the water is valid; But if he intended that they should not hinder him when he pours out the water, it is invalid.

One was carrying his water on his shoulder and he ruled in a matter of law, or showed others the way, or killed a snake or a scorpion, or picked up food in order to store it, it [the water] is invalid; But [if he picked up] food to eat, it is valid. [And if he killed] a snake or a scorpion that hindered him, it remains valid. Rabbi Yehudah said: this is the general rule: If the act was is in the nature of work, the mixture is invalid whether the man stopped or not, If it was not in the nature of work: If he stopped, it is invalid; But if he did not stop it remains valid.

If one gave over his water to someone who was unclean, it is invalid. But if to a clean one it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer says: even if it was entrusted to an unclean man it is valid, provided the owner did no other work in the meantime.

Two men who were drawing water for the chatas and one assisted the other to raise it or one pulled out a thorn for the other: For one mixture, it is valid; For two mixtures, it is invalid. Rabbi Yose says: even if there are to be two mixtures it is valid if they had made a mutual agreement between them.

One who broke down a fence [even] with the intention of putting it up again, the water remains valid; But if he put a fence up, the water becomes invalid. If he ate figs intending to store some of them, the water is valid; But if he stored figs it is invalid. If he was eating figs and, leaving some over, threw what was in his hand under the fig tree or among drying figs in order that it shall not be wasted, the water is invalid.

Chapter 8 – Two men were guarding a trough: If one of them became unclean, the water remains valid, since it is in the domain of the other. If the first became clean and the other became unclean the water is still valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both became unclean simultaneously the water becomes invalid. If one of them did some work, the water remains valid since it is in the domain of the second. If the first stopped doing work and the other did some work, the water still remains valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both did some work at the same time the water becomes invalid.

One who prepares the mixture of the chatas should not wear his sandals, for were some of the liquid to fall on his sandal it would become unclean and [the sandal] would defile him. Behold he would say [to the sandal], “That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.” If some of the liquid fell on his skin he remains clean. If it fell on his garment it becomes unclean and defiles him. Behold he would say [to the garment], “That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.”

The one who burns the red cow or bulls and he that leads away the scapegoat, defile garments. The red cow and the bulls and the scapegoat do not themselves defile garments. Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], “That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.

One that eats of the carrion of a clean bird, while it is yet in his throat, causes garments to be unclean; But the carrion itself does not cause garments to be unclean. Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], “That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.

Any derived uncleanness does not defile vessels, but [it does defile] a liquid. If a liquid became unclean it defiles them. Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], “That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.

An earthenware vessel does not defile another such vessel, but [it does defile] a liquid. And when the liquid becomes unclean it defile the vessel. Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], “That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.”

Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], “That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.”

All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (mikveh), for it is said, “And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas” (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says “seas” only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the chatas waters.

Spoiled waters are unfit. The following are spoiled waters: those that are salty or lukewarm. Waters that disappoint are unfit. The following are waters that disappoint: those that disappoint even once in a seven year cycle. Those that disappoint only in times of war or in years of drought are fit. Rabbi Yehudah says: they are unfit.

The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters. The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together. If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Yehudah says that they are unfit.

Ahab’s well and the pool in Banias cave are fit. Water that has changed its color and the change arose from itself, remains fit. A water channel that comes from a distance is fit, as long as it is watched so that no one cuts it off. Rabbi Yehudah says: the presumption is that it is permitted. If some clay or earth fell into a well, one must wait until it becomes clear, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: he need not wait.

Chapter 9 – If the smallest amount of water fell into a flask:

Rabbi Eliezer says: the sprinkling must be done twice;
But the Chachomim say that the mixture is invalid.

If dew dropped into it:

Rabbi Eliezer says: let it be put out in the sun and the dew will rise.
But the Chachomim say that the mixture is invalid. 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 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.

If insects or creeping things fell into it, and they burst apart or the color [of the water] changed, the contents become invalid. A beetle causes invalidity in any case, because it is like a tube. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob ruled: a maggot or a weevil of the grain causes no invalidity, because they contain no moisture.

If a domesticated beast or a wild animal drank from it, it becomes invalid. All birds cause invalidity, except the dove since it only sucks up the water. 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.

If one intended to drink the chatas water:

Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid.
Rabbi Yehoshua says: only when one tips the flask.
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 Yehoshua says: [only] when one drinks. And if it was poured directly into one’s throat, it remains valid.

Chatas water that became invalid, it may not be mixed into the mud since it might become a snare for others. Rabbi Yehudah says: it becomes neutralized. A cow that drank of the chatas water, its flesh becomes unclean for twenty-four hours. Rabbi Yehudah says: it becomes neutralized in its bowels.

Chatas waters and chatas 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. One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck. He that is clean for the chatas may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the chatas or water that has not yet been prepared.

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. Rabbi Eliezer says: the mixture may be prepared with all of them.

Chatas 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 chatas they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. 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 chatas they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

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, But to one who is clean for the chatas it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body.

Chapter 10 – Any object that is susceptible to midras uncleanness is for the purpose of the chatas waters deemed to have madaf uncleanness, whether it was otherwise unclean or clean. A person too is subject to the same rule. Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, whether it is otherwise unclean or clean: Rabbi Eliezer says: it does not have madaf uncleanness. Rabbi Yehoshua says: it has madaf uncleanness; And the Chachomim say: that which was unclean has madaf uncleanness, and that which was clean does not have madaf uncleanness.

One who was clean for the chatas waters who touched something that has madaf uncleannes, he becomes unclean. A flask that was designated for the chatas waters that touched something that has madaf uncleanness, it becomes unclean. One who was clean for the chatas waters who touched food or liquids with his hand, he becomes unclean, but if he did it with his foot he remains clean. If he moved them with his hand: Rabbi Yehoshua says that he becomes unclean, And the Chachomim say that he remains clean.

A jar of chatas waters that touched a [dead] sheretz, remains clean. If the jar was put on it:

Rabbi Eliezer rules that it remains clean, And the Chachomim rule that it becomes unclean. If the jar touched foods or liquids or the Holy Scriptures, it remains clean. If it was put on them: Rabbi Yose rules that it remains clean; And the Chachomim say that it becomes unclean.

One who was clean for the chatas waters and then touched an oven: With his hand becomes unclean, With his foot he remains clean. If he stood on an oven and put out his hand beyond the oven with the flask in his hand, And so also in the case of a carrying-yoke which was placed over the oven and from which two jars were suspended one at either end: Rabbi Akiva says that they remain clean; But the Chachomim say that they are unclean.

If he was standing outside an oven and he stretched out his hand to a window and he took a flask and passed it over the oven: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, And the Chachomim say that it is clean. But he who was clean for the chatas waters may stand over an oven while holding in his hand an empty vessel that is clean for the chatas waters or one filled with water that has not yet been mixed [with the ashes of the red cow].

A flask containing chatas waters that touched [a vessel] containing consecrated food or terumah: that containing the chatas waters becomes unclean, but the one containing the consecrated food or the terumah remains clean. If he held the two vessels one in each of his two hands, both become unclean. If they were both wrapped in separate papers, they remain clean. If the vessel of the chatas waters was wrapped in a paper while that of the terumah was held in his hand, both become unclean. If the one containing the terumah was wrapped up in paper while that containing the chatas waters was held in his hand, both remain clean. Rabbi Yehoshua says: that containing the chatas waters becomes unclean. If both were placed on the ground and he touched them, that of the chatas waters becomes unclean but that of the consecrated food or terumah remains clean. If he shifted it [without touching it]: Rabbi Yehoshua says that it is unclean, And the Chachomim rule that it is clean.

Chapter 11 – A flask that one has left uncovered and on returning found it to be covered, is invalid. 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. The chatas 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.

Anything that is doubtfully pure in the case of terumah is regarded as clean in the case of the chatas waters. Anything that is “suspended” where terumah is concerned, the chatas waters are poured out. If clean things were handled on account of it, they must be “suspended.” Wooden lattice work is clean in respect of holy food, terumah, and the chatas waters. Rabbi Eliezer says: Loosely connected wood is unclean in respect of chatas waters.

Pressed figs of terumah which fell into chatas 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 one who was clean for the chatas waters puts his head and the greater part of his body into the chatas waters, he becomes unclean.

All that require immersion in water according to the rulings of the Torah defile consecrated things, terumah, unconsecrated food, and [second] maasar; And he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary. After immersion [but before the sun sets] he defiles holy things and invalidates terumah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Chachomim ruled: he invalidates consecrated things and terumah. But he is permitted to unconsecrated food and [second] maasar. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs guilt.

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 maasar, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Chachomim forbid second maasar. 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.

All that require immersion in water, whether according to the words of the Torah or according to the words of the scribes, defile chatas waters, chatas ashes, and the one who sprinkled the chatas waters, either through contact or through carrying. 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 chatas through contact and carrying, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Chachomim say: only by contact but not by carrying.

Any hyssop – ezov that has an accompanying name is invalid. “This” hyssop is valid. Ezovyon (lavendula) hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. 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. 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 following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened.

The hyssop that was used for sprinkling [the chatas waters] is also fit for cleansing the metzora. If it was gathered for firewood, and liquid fell upon it, it may be dried and it becomes fit. If it was gathered for food, and liquid fell upon it, even though it was dried, it is invalid. If it was gathered for [the sprinkling of the waters of] the chatas, it is subject to the same law as if it were gathered for food, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon ruled: as if it were gathered for firewood.

The mitzvah of the hyssop -ezov: it should have 3 stalks bearing 3 buds. Rabbi Yehudah says: each stalk should have 3 buds. Hyssop that consists of a growth of 3 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. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have 3 stalks, and on them 3 buds, but its remnants need only have 2, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

Chapter 12 – Hyssop that is too short may be lengthened with a thread and a spindle-reed. He then dips it and brings it up again. He grasps the hyssop itself and sprinkles with it. Rabbi Yehudah 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.

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 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. 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. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Yehudah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Chatas 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 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. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

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 chatas waters.

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; 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. A Kohain gadol, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high kohain is never liable for entering the sanctuary. [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 chatas waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile.

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. 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 Yehudah ruled: they are regarded as though they were on a hyssop of brass.

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. It also defiles other hyssop, and that other hyssop to other, even if they be a hundred.

If the hands of a man who was clean for the chatas 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.

A flask for chatas 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. A bell and a clapper are regarded as connected. 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. 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. All drilled handles of utensils are regarded as connected. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: also those that are wedged into holes in the utensils.

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.

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. All are eligible to sprinkle, except a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, a woman, and a child that is without understanding. 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.

If he dipped the hyssop during the day and he sprinkled during the day, it is valid. If he dipped it during the day and sprinkled at night, or dipped at night and sprinkled on the following day, it 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. And if any of these was done as early as the rise of dawn it is valid.

THE TECHNOLOGY

What was the technology that was made available in 1988? Hewlett Packard invented the home based desk-jet printer. Feel free to print this out to be learned over Shabbos to make it easier to learn.

The author can be reached at [email protected]