משנה: הָיָה מֵבִיא פִייָלֵי שֶׁלְּחֶרֶשׂ חֲדָשָׁה וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָהּ חֲצִי לוֹג מַיִם מִן הַכִּיּוֹר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר רְבִיעִית. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מְמָעֵט בַּכְּתָב כָּךְ הוּא מְמָעֵט בַּמַּיִם. נִכְנַס לָהֵיכָל וּפָנָה לִימִינוֹ וּמָקוֹם הָיָה שָׁם אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה וְטַבֶּלָּה שֶׁלְּשַׁיִשׁ וְטַבַּעַת הָֽיְתָה קְבוּעָה בָהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא מִגְבִּיהָהּ נוֹטֵל עָפָר מִתַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנוֹתֵן כְּדֵי שֶׁייֵרָאֶה עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל הַמָּיִם. MISHNAH: He52The officiating priest. brought a new53The text of the Yerushalmi is also the text of most Mishnah mss. The word is missing in the Babli mss. earthenware bowl54Greek φιάλη. and filled it with half a log550.27 1. Cf. Kelim 17:11" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.17.11">Mishnah Kelim 17:11. of water from the laver; Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]56A quarter log is the rabbinic minimum for any liquid used in any ceremony.. (Just as he57Rebbi Jehudah; cf. Sotah 2:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.3.1">Mishnah 3. shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.) He52The officiating priest. entered the Temple building and turned right. There was a place there, one cubit square, where a handle was fastened to a marble plate. He lifted it, took dust from under it, and put it so that it was seen on the water, as it was said58Numbers.5.17">Num. 5:17.: “From the dust which will be on the ground of the Temple the Cohen shall take and put on the water.”
הלכה: הָיָה מֵבִיא פִייָלֵי כול׳. תַּנֵּי חֲדָשָׁה. מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנִינָן תַּמָּן. הָיָה מֵבִיא פִייָלֵי שֶׁלְּחֶרֶשׂ חֲדָשָׁה. מָאן תַּנָּא חֲדָשָׁה. רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. דְּהוּא דָרִישׁ לָהּ. אֶל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ עַל מַיִם חַיִּים. מַה מַיִם שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן מְלָאכָה. אַף כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ מְלָאכָה. נִיחָא תַמָּן דְּהוּא דָרִישׁ אֶל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ עַל מַיִם חַיִּים. הָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דּוּ סָבַר כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי. מֵי כִיּוֹר. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אוֹמֵר מֵי מַעְייָן. וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין בְּכָל הַמֵּימוֹת. וְהָא דְּרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּמַּיִם. וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרִבִּי אֱלִעֶזֶר בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי. [רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ חֲדָשָׁה.] אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ לֹא בְּמַקֵּידָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ בְּמַקֵּידָה. הֲווֹן בָּעֵי מֵימַר. מָּאן דָּמַר. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ לֹא בְּמַקֵּידָה. רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. מָאן דְּאמַר אֲפִילוּ בְּמַקֵּידָה. רַבָּנִן. כּוּלָּהּ רַבָּנִין. מָּאן דָּמַר בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ לֹא בְּמַקֵּידָה. בְשֶׁנִּיטָל רוּבָּהּ וּמִיעוּטָהּ קַייָם. וּמָּאן דָּמַר. בְּמַקֵּידָה. בְשֶׁנִּיטָל מִיעוּטָהּ וּרוּבָּהּ קַייָם. HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.59In the Sotah.15b">Babli, 15b, this is attributed to R. Ismael. The statement is not mentioned in the Midrashim. The quote seems to imply a Mishnah text similar to that of the Babli.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer60The argument is mentioned in his name in Sifra Meṣorah Pereq 1(4)., as we have stated there61Mishnah Nega‘im 14:1, referring to the purification of the person healed from skin disease.: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.62Leviticus.14.5">Lev. 14:5, speaking of the slaughtering of one of the two birds used in the purification rite. “Live” water is running water from a fountain or natural stream.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here63The argument is irrelevant for the ritual of the suspected wife. In the Babli, the connection is made by R. Ismael’s rule of gezerah s̊awah: If the meaning of “earthenware vessel” was determined to include “new”, the same meaning applies everywhere. The Yerushalmi rejects this application to the names of vessels of common use.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he64R. Eliezer. agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin65From which the priests draw the water for their ablutions; cf. Exodus.30.17-21">Ex. 30:17–21. The statement is also anonymous in Sifry Num. 10, Sifry zuṭa Naśo, Num. rabba 9(12); cf. Targumim to Numbers.5.17">Num. 5:17. In the Sotah.15b">Babli, 15b, it is attributed to R. Joḥanan in the editio princeps, impossible in a Tannaïtic text, and to R. Ismael in the Munich ms., contradicting the next statement there. In the Babli text quoted in the 12th Century Sefer Yereïm 460 (ed. S. Z. Halberstam), the statement is missing; this is the only consistent Babli text, defining this baraita as differing from the Mishnah.. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water66The last two statements are also in the Sotah.15b">Babli, 15b. The statement by R. Ismael requires the water to be brought from outside the Temple precinct (the Giḥon source); the rabbis permit the water to be drawn also from the water canal crossing the temple courtyard or from one of the miqwaot in the Temple area.. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah67From the context (here, and in Sifra, loc. cit.) it follows that the word describes a somehow defective or incomplete clay vessel. Ben Jehudah in his Thesaurus (p. 3662) quotes several proposed interpretations without giving his own opinion. As a Semitic word, the root is נקד, “exhibiting spots”, but cf. Greek μαγίς, -ίδος, ἡ, “kneading trough, pan, plate”; Latin magis, -idis, or magida -ae, “dish, platter, kneading trough”.. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They68Some members of the Academy. wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer69Since it may be assumed that “a new vessel” means: not a defective one. but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left70A broken vessel is acceptable if it represents the major part of a complete vessel. This statement is not in the Babli; since the Babli requires a new vessel (or at least one renewed by firing), it will reject a broken one..
אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ. לֹא בִּמְפוּחָם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ בִּמְפוּחָם. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מָאן דָּמַר. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ לֹא בִּמְפוּחָם. רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. מָאן דָּמַר. אֲפִילוּ בִּמְפוּחָם. רַבָּנִן. כּוּלָּהּ דְּרַבָּנִין. מָאן דָּמַר. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ לֹא בִּמְפוּחָם. רַבָּנִין. וּמָאן דָּמַר אֲפִילוּ בִּמְפוּחָם. רַבָּנִין. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis71A clean vessel is prescribed but an infraction of this rule does not invalidate the procedure. The Sotah.15b">Babli disagrees, 15b, and declares a sooty vessel unacceptable under any circumstance as long as the soot has not been removed by firing the vessel. Since the statement in the Babli is attributed to Rava who is described as knowledgeable in the rules of the Yerushalmi, the statement in the Babli is a direct polemic against the Yerushalmi..
תַּמָּן תַּנִינָן. אֵזוֹב שֶׁהִזָּה בוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְטָהֵר בּוֹ אֶת הַמְצוֹרָע. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. זוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. דְּתַנֵּי. הִזָּה בוֹ עַל הַחַטָּאת פָּסוּל לַמְצוֹרָע. הִזָּה בוֹ עַל הַמְצוֹרָע פָּסוּל לַחַטָּאת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וַהֲלֹא קַל וַחוֹמֶר הוּא. מָה אִם הַמְצוֹרָע שֶׁאֵין הַמְלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בּוֹ הִזָּה בוֹ עַל הַחַטָּאת פָּסוּל לַמְצוֹרָע. חַטָּאת שֶׁהַמְלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ הִזָּה בָהּ עַל הַחַטָּאת אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא פָסוּל לַחַטָּאת. There72Parah 11:8" href="/Mishnah_Parah.11.8">Mishnah Parah 11:8. The hyssop was used to sprinkle water mixed with ashes of the red cow to cleanse a person defiled by the impurity of the dead. From the biblical expression (Numbers.19.9">Num. 19:9) מֵי נִדָּה חַטָּאת הִיא “sprinkling water, it is purifying”, the water is called in Talmudic terminology מֵי חַטָּאת or simply חַטָּאת “purifying (water)”. Cf. also Sotah 2:1:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.1.8">Note 36., we have stated: “A hyssop which was used to sprinkle is acceptable [to be used] to purify the sufferer from skin disease73Hyssop alone is required for purifying (from the impurity of the dead) (Numbers.19.18">Num. 19:18); for the cleansing from skin disease it is used among other things (Leviticus.14.6">Lev. 14:6)..” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar74The Amora, ben Pedat.: That [was stated] to exclude the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer75Tosephta Nega‘im 8:2: “A hyssop acceptable for purifying is acceptable for the sufferer from skin disease. If he used it for sprinkling to purify it is still acceptable for the sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Eliezer says, the cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson strip mentioned in the Torah (Leviticus.14.6">Lev. 14:6) cannot have been previously used for any purpose.”
The prohibition of prior use is spelled out in the Torah for the red cow only (Numbers.19.2">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 (Parah 11:4" href="/Mishnah_Parah.11.4">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?
הִזָּה בוֹ עַל הַמְצוֹרָע זֶה. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּכַשֵּׁר לִמְצוֹרָע אַחֵר. מַה דָמַר כָּשֵׁר. הָדָא רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מוֹדֵי בֵיהּ. וּמָאן דָּמַר פָּסוּל. הָדָא לֵית רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מוֹדֵיי בֵהּ. תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. שַׁבָּתִי הָֽיְתָה וְהָלַכְתִּי אַחַר רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְבֵיתוֹ. אָמַר לִי. יְהוּדָה בְנִי. תֵּן לִי סַנְדָּלִי. וְנָתַתִּי לוֹ. וּפָשַׁט יָדוֹ לַחֲלוֹן וְנָתַן לִי מִמֶּנָּהּ מַקֵּל. אָמַר לִי. יְהוּדָה בְנִי. בְּזוֹ טִיהַרְתִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה מְצוֹרָעִין וְלִמַּדְתִּי בָּהּ שֶׁבַע הֲלָכוֹת. שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלַּיַּבְּרוֹת. וְרֹאשָׁהּ טֶרֶף. וְאוֹרְכָהּ אַמָּהּ. וְעוֹבְייָהּ כִּרְבִיעַ כֶּרַע מִיטָּה. אַחַת לִשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַרְבָּעָה. וּמַזִין וְשׁוֹנִין וּמְשַׁלְּשִין וּמְטָהֲרִין. בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וּשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. וּמְטָהֲרִין בִּגְבוּלִין. If he used it to sprinkle on the sufferer from skin disease, is it acceptable to use it for another sufferer from skin disease? If somebody said it is acceptable, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eleazar78No R. Eleazar (one of the Tannaïm, ben Pada or ben Shamua‘) is mentioned in any of our other sources as joining R. Jehudah in this controversy. will agree with him. But with him who said, it is disqualified, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eleazar will disagree. It was stated79Tosephta Nega‘im 8:2, Sifra Meṣora‘ (13).: Rebbi Jehudah said, it was my Sabbath80It seems that in the Academy of R. Tarphon, the students had to serve their teacher on the Sabbath, taking turns. and I followed Rebbi Tarphon to his house. He said to me, Jehudah, my son, give me my sandals. I gave them to him. He reached with his hand to the window and gave me a stick81Hyssop does not grow solid stems. Therefore, this must refer to the cedar branch used in the ceremony. It is to be assumed that cedar and hyssop, mentioned in parallel in the verse (Leviticus.14.6">Lev. 14:6), follow parallel rules. from there. He said to me, Jehudah, my son, with this one I cleansed three sufferers from skin disease and I taught with it seven practices. That it is yabrut82In the Tosephta אברית, in Sifra ברות. The exact kind of cedar mentioned is not known. Since Parah 11:6" href="/Mishnah_Parah.11.6">Mishnah Parah 11:6 states that any kind of hyssop known by a qualifying adjective is invalid (examples given are: blue hyssop, Roman hyssop, desert hyssop), R. Tarphon insists that any tree of the cedar family qualifies even if its trade name does not even contain the word “cedar”., on its head is a leaf83A cedar stick without any green needles is invalid., it is one cubit long, its width is about one fourth that of a bed’s leg (split one into two and two into four)84Even a very thin branch will do., and one sprinkles and repeats and does it a third time85This answers our question., and one purifies when there is a Temple and when there is no Temple, and one purifies in the countryside86Even though the final purification rite which gives access to the Sanctuary presupposes a Sanctuary, the preliminary rite which re-integrates the sufferer from skin disease into society (Leviticus.14.1-9">Lev. 14:1–9), while requiring the services of a Cohen such as R. Tarphon, is independent of the Temple service. While R. Tarphon was old enough to have served in the Temple, R. Jehudah was born after its destruction..
מֵי. יָכוֹל מַרְאֶה מַיִם. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר אַרְדְּ. אוֹ אַרְדְּ. יָכוֹל מַרְאֶה דְּיוֹ. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר מֵי. הָּא כֵיצַד. מַרְאֶה מַיִם וּמַרְאֶה אַרְדְּ. שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים חֲצִי לוֹג מַיִם מִן הַכִּיּוֹר. וְהָא תַנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. רְבִיעִית. רִבִּי יוּדָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּתַנִּינָן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מְמָעֵט בִּכְתָב כָּךְ הוּא מְמָעֵט בַּמַּיִם. “Water87Numbers.5.17">Num. 5:17: מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים.”, I could think it should look like water. The verse says, “dust”88A translation (Arabism) of the word עָפָר “dust”; cf. Arabic ارض.. Or “dust”, I could think it should look like ink. The verse says, “water”. How is that? The looks of water and the looks of dust89The dust should be a powder on the clear water.. The Sages estimated half a log of water from the wash basin. But did we not state90In the Mishnah.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]”. Rebbi Jehudah follows his particular way, as we have stated: “Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.”
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אַף הִיא עָֽשְׂתָה טַבֶּלָּה שֶׁלְּזָהָב שֶׁפָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה כְתוּבָה עָלֶיהָ. שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַחַמָּה זוֹרַחַת הָיוּ הַנִּיצוֹצִים מְנַתְּזִין מִמֶּנָּה וְהָיוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁזָּֽרְחָה הַחַמָּה. מַה הָיָה כָתוּב עָלֶיהָ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אָלֶף בֵּית הָיָה כוֹתֵב עָלֶיהָ. וְהָא תָאנֵי. בִּכְתָב שֶׁכָּן כֵּן כְּתִיב שֶׁכָּן. לֹא מְעוֹבֶּה וְלֹא מֵידַק אֶלָּא בֵינוֹנִי. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּאָלֶף שֶׁבּוֹ מֵאָלֶף שֶׁבּוֹ בְּבֵית שֶׁכָּן מִבֵּית שֶׁכָּן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא. כָּל־פָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה הָֽיְתָה כְתוּבָה עָלֶיהָ. שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה הָיָה קוֹרֵא וּמְתַרְגֵּם כָּל־דִּיקְדּוּקֵי הַפָּרָשָׁה. וְלָמָּה מַיִם וְעָפָר וּכְתָב. מַיִם. מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאת. עָפָר. לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת. כְּתָב. לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁהִיא עֲתִידָה לִיתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. There91Mishnah Yom a 3:10, speaking of Queen Helena of Adiabene., we have stated: “Also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen92The golden tablet was fixed on the Eastern wall of the Temple building.. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish93The short form ריש לקיש is a Babylonism. said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it94Single letters were written on the tablet, each letter being the first of its word. (Cf. P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, pp. 88–95).. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average95The suspected wife’s scroll had to be written in the way the letters were on the queen’s tablet, not ornamental and not in italics. The questioner thought that the entire tablet had to be copied as it was written; then an abbreviated version would be impossible.. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”96For each letter one copies the entire word. The first sentence of the scroll would read on the tablet as אם ל ש א א ו ל ש ט ת א ה מ ה ה ה which would be copied as אם לא שכב איש אתך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך הנקי ממי המרים המאררים האלה where every first letter was copied exactly from the tablet and the rest of the word added in the same style of script.; “the Bet there” by “from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph97While writing, the Cohen explained the text homiletically to the suspected wife, as explained in the next paragraph, so that she would understand the meaning of the ceremony.: Why water, dust, and writing? Water, from the place she came; dust, the place she goes to; writing, before Whom she will have to be accountable in the future.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. עֲקַבְיָה בֶּן מְהַלַּלְאֵל אוֹמֵר. הִסְתַּכֵּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים וְאֵין אַתָּה בָא לִידֵי עֲבֵירָה. רִבִּי אַבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפַּי וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִיכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לֵוִי. שְׁלָשְׁתָּן דָּרַשׁ עֲקַבְיָא מִפָּסוּק אֶחָד. וּזְכוֹר אֶת בּוֹרְאֶךָ. בֵּירְךָ. בּוֹרְךָ. בּוֹרְאֲךָ. בֵּירְךָ. מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָה. בּוֹרְךָ. לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ. בּוֹרְאֲךָ. לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאַתָּה עָתִיד לִיתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. 98Lev. rabba 18(1); cf. Abot dR. Natan, A 19, B 32; Derekh Ereṣ 3 in the name of Ben Azai. There 99Mishnah Abot 3:1: "Aqabiah ben Mehallalel says, consider three things and you will not commit any transgression: Know from where you came, where you are going, and before Whom you will be held accountable in the future. From where you came, from a stinking drop. Where you are going, to a place of dust, worms, and vermin. Before Whom you will be held accountable in the future, before the King over emperors and kings, the Holy One, praise to Him.", we have stated: “Aqabiah ben Mehallalel says, consider three things and you will not commit any transgression.” Rebbi Abba ben Rav Pappaeus and Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: All three Aqabiah derived from the same verse100Ecclesiastes.12.1">Eccl. 12:1.: “Remember your Creator,” your fountain, your cavern, your Creator101Based on three possible vocalizations of the biblical בראך.. The vocalization בוראֲך instead of the masoretic בראֶך is the manuscript’s.. Your fountain, from where you came. Your cave, to where you are going. Your Creator, before Whom you will have to be accountable in the future.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים צְרִיכִין שֶׁיְּהוּ לִשְׁמָהּ. וְכָתַב לָהּ. וְעָשָׂה לָהּ. אוֹ חֻפְשָׁה לֹא נִיתָּן לָהּ. שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים צְרִיכִין שֶׁיְּהוּ נִרְאִין. אֶפֶר פָּרָה. וַעֲפַר סוֹטָה. וְרוֹק יְבָמָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אַף דַּם צִפּוֹר מְצוֹרָע. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. שִׁיעֲרוּ לוֹמָר. אֵין דַּם צִפּוֹר קְטַנָּה בָטֶל בְּרְבִיעִית. וְלֹא דַם צִיפּוֹר גְדוֹלָה מְבַטֵּל אֶת הָרְבִיעִית. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. בְּדָם. יָכוֹל בְדַם װַדַּאי. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר מַיַם חַיִים. אִי מַיַם חַיִים. יָכוֹל שֶׁיְּהוּ כוּלָּן מַיִם חַייִם. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר דָּם. הָא כֵיצַד. מַיִם חַיִים שֶׁדַּם צִיפּוֹר נִיכָר בָּהֶן. שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים. רְבִיעִית. רִבִּי פְּדָת בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵי סוֹטָה נִפְסָלִין בְּלִינָּה. רִבִּי אָחָה בְשָׁם רַב אָבִינָא. כָּל־שֶׁאֵין מִמֶּנּוּ לַמַּזְבֵּחַ אֵין הַלִּינָה פוֹסֶלֶת בּוֹ. Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]102A similar text in Tosephta Giṭṭin 2:7.. “He shall write for her.103Deuteronomy.24.1">Deut. 24:1, speaking of a bill of divorce. The document has to be written for her, otherwise it is invalid (Gittin 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.2.1">MishnahGiṭṭin 3:2, Sifry Deut. 269, quoted many times in both Talmudim).” “He shall execute for her.104Numbers.5.30">Num. 5:30. The Cohen has to conduct the ceremony of the suspected wife for that particular woman, otherwise it is invalid. The Sotah.18a">Babli (18a) refers this only to the scroll which is to be written for the woman, which has to be written and erased with that particular person in mind.” “Or manumission was not given to her.105Leviticus.19.20">Lev. 19:20, speaking of a slave girl. The document of manumission has to be executed for the particular slave girl. This requirement is then extended in the Tosephta to the manumission of male slaves.” 106Sotah.16b">Babli 16b; Tosephta 1:8; Sifry Num. 11, Sifry Zuṭa Naśo; Num.rabba 9(13). Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow107Some ash has to be visible on the water used to purify from the impurity of the dead., the dust of the suspected wife108As described in the Mishnah., and the spittle of the sister-in-law109Deuteronomy.25.9">Deut. 25:9, in the ceremony of ḥalîṣah; cf. Yevamot 12:5:1-6:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.12.5.1-6.8">Mishnah Yebamot 12:6.. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease110Leviticus.14.5">Lev. 14:5; the healed patient has to be purified by being sprinkled with spring water mixed with the blood of a bird.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible111Taking exactly one quarter log (135 dl, cf. Sotah 2:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.2.1">Note 55) will prevent any problems.. As it was stated112Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 1(5); Sotah.16b">Babli 16b.: “In the blood113Leviticus.14.6">Lev. 14:6. The Cohen has to dip the hyssop and a living bird “in the blood of the slaughtered bird on the flowing water”. The “fresh water” is in a vessel but was taken from a spring. The blood of the slaughtered bird is on the fresh water in the vessel. The simple meaning of the verse, that the bird’s blood must form a layer on the fresh water, obviously cannot be meant.”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight114Following the opinion that the water has to be taken from the water basin in the Temple. Any water taken from there and sanctified in a temple vessel belongs to the service of that day; once the day has passed (which in the Temple is counted from dawn to dawn), its service cannot be made up (cf. Sukkah 4:6:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sukkah.4.6.5">Sukkah 4:7). But according to the opinion that the water may come from outside sources, the position of R. Joḥanan could be explained. However, R. Joḥanan holds everywhere that practice follows the anonymous Yevamot 4:11" href="/Mishnah_Yevamot.4.11">Mishnah (Yebamot 4:11, Note 177; Chullin.43a">Babli Ḥulin 43a).. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight115R. Joḥanan will hold that water in the basin is for the altar in the water offering on Tabernacles (Sukkah 4:6:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sukkah.4.6.5">Sukkah 4:7). The problem is not discussed in the Babli; Maimonides (Soṭah 4:12) follows R. Joḥanan as the overriding authority..
וּמִן הֶעָפָר. יָכוֹל מִן הַמּוּנָח לְקוּפָּה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן. אוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן. יָכוֹל עַד שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹר בַּדֶּקֶל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה. הָא כֵיצַד. אִם אֵין שָׁם מֵבִיא וְנוֹתֵן שָׁם. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אָכֵן אִתְאֲמַרְתְּ. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא כָשֵׁר עַד שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹר בַּדֶּקֶל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה. מִכָּל מָקוֹם. הַמִּשְׁכָּן. לְרַבּוֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן וְשִׁילוֹ וּבֵית הָעוֹלָמִים. “And from the dust.117Numbers.5.17">Num. 5:17: “And from the dust which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary, the Cohen has to take and put on the water.” The parallel version in the Sotah.15b">Babli, 15b, [and Num. rabba 9(13)], is formulated differently.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe118This דקל is not Aramaic “date palm” but the equivalent of Mishnaic דקר “pick-axe” by a change of liquids., the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. 119R. Abin reformulates the preceding argument from a slightly different angle. His polemic is directed against a baraita preserved only in the Sotah.15b">Babli (15b, bottom; variant readings in the critical edition p. רלו) which requires the dust to be prepared outside, brought inside, and spread on the floor of the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House120The order given here is also in the Munich ms. of the Babli. The historic order would be: the Tabernacle, Shilo, Nob, Gibeon, and the Eternal House (the Temple which in rabbinic tradition cannot be replaced by a Sanctuary at any other place, Zevachim 14:8" href="/Mishnah_Zevachim.14.8">Mishnah Zebaḥim 14:8.).