hatat

If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.

If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: if the second animal was offered before the first was killed, it is left to die, since the owners have [already] obtained atonement.

[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand. If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.

[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand. If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.

[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand. If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.

All dedicated animals which were slaughtered [with the intention of being eaten] after their set time or outside of their set place must be burned. An asham offered by one in doubt [as to whether he has transgressed] is to be burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is to be buried. A hatat of a bird that is brought for a doubt is burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is cast into the sewer. All things which must be buried must not be burned, and all things which must be burned must not be buried. Rabbi Judah says: if one wishes to be stringent with himself, to burn things which are buried, he is permitted to do so. They said to him: he is not allowed to change.

For these [transgressions] one is liable to karet if committed intentionally, and if committed unwittingly to a hatat. If there is a doubt whether he had committed the transgression to an asham talui, except in the case of one who defiled the Temple or its consecrated things, for in that case one is liable in this case to a sliding-scale sacrifice, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: also the blasphemer [is an exception], as it says: “You shall have one law for one that acts in error” (Numbers 15:29), this excludes the blasphemer who performs no action.

There are five persons who bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions, and five who bring a sacrifice of higher or lesser value. The following bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions: One who has intercourse with a female slave several times, A nazirite who became unclean several times. One who warns his wife in regard to several men, And a metzora who has contracted skin disease several times. If he has offered the birds and then contracted the disease again, they do not count for him until he has offered his hatat. Rabbi Judah says: until he has offered his asham.

A woman who has had several births. If she miscarried a female within eighty days of the birth of a girl, and then she again miscarried a female within eighty days of the previous [miscarriage]; or if she miscarried twins. Rabbi Judah says: she brings an offering for the first and not for the second, for the third again but not for the fourth. The following persons bring an offering of higher or lesser value: One who hears the voice (see Leviticus 5:1); One who has broken the word of his lips (Leviticus 5:4); One who while unclean has entered the sanctuary or [has partaken] of holy things, A woman after childbirth And a metzora. What is the difference between [intercourse] with a female slave and the other forbidden sexual relations? For they are not equivalent in regard to the punishment nor the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations a hatat is brought, in that of a female slave an asham; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations a female animal is brought, in that of the female slave a male; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations man and woman are alike with respect to lashes and the sacrifice; in that of the female slave the man is unlike the woman regarding the lashes, and the woman is unlike the man regarding the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations sexual contact is punishable as well as consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse separately. For in this the case of the female slave is more stringent in that intentional transgression is of the same status as unwitting transgression.

In the case of all forbidden relations, if one partner was an adult and the other a minor, the minor is exempt; If one is awake and the other asleep, the one asleep is exempt; If one is an inadvertent and the other intentional, the former is liable to a hatat, the latter to karet.

If they said to him: you ate forbidden fat, he is liable to a hatat; If one witness says: he ate, and another says: he did not eat, or if one woman says, he ate, and another says, he did not eat, he is liable to an asham talui. If one witness says, he ate, and he himself says, I did not eat, he is exempt. If two [witnesses] say, he ate, and he himself says, I did not eat: Rabbi Meir says he is liable. Rabbi Meir said: if two witnesses are capable of bringing upon him severe penalty of death, can they not impose the less severe punishment of a sacrifice? They replied: suppose he said, I did it intentionally, would he not be exempted?

If one twice ate forbidden fat in one spell of unawareness, he is liable to but one hatat. If one ate forbidden fat, blood, piggul and notar in one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each kind. This is an instance where different kinds [of food] are more stringent than one kind. In the following instance, however, one kind [of food] is more stringent than several kinds: if one ate half an olive-size and then again half an olive-size, both in one spell of unawareness, if of one kind he is liable, if of two kinds, he is exempted.

It is possible that by one act of eating a person could become liable to four hatats and one asham: If an unclean person eats forbidden fat, which was at the same time notar of an offering, and [it was on] Yom Kippur. Rabbi Meir says: if it was on Shabbat and he carried it out, he is liable [to yet another hatat]. But they said to him: this is a different name.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

Rabbi Akiba: Your words seem plausible in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege; but if it was a case of doubtful sacrilege of a hundred manehs, would it not be more advantageous for him to bring an asham for two sela's rather than restore out of doubt the sum of a hundred manehs? Rabbi Akiba agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege. If a woman brought a bird hatat for a case of a doubtful miscarriage, and prior to the pinching of its neck she learned that the birth was a certainty, she can offer it as a certain hatat, for that which she offers in the case of certainty is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of doubt.

Rabbi Akiba: Your words seem plausible in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege; but if it was a case of doubtful sacrilege of a hundred manehs, would it not be more advantageous for him to bring an asham for two sela's rather than restore out of doubt the sum of a hundred manehs? Rabbi Akiba agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege. If a woman brought a bird hatat for a case of a doubtful miscarriage, and prior to the pinching of its neck she learned that the birth was a certainty, she can offer it as a certain hatat, for that which she offers in the case of certainty is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of doubt.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of hullin [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is brings a hatat. If he ate the one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one hatat. Rabbi Yose says: two people cannot bring one hatat.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of hullin [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is brings a hatat. If he ate the one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one hatat. Rabbi Yose says: two people cannot bring one hatat.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of hullin [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is brings a hatat. If he ate the one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one hatat. Rabbi Yose says: two people cannot bring one hatat.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui; If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to a hatat and a certain asham. If he ate the one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: they together bring a hatat and an asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot together bring one hatat and one asham.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui; If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to a hatat and a certain asham. If he ate the one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: they together bring a hatat and an asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot together bring one hatat and one asham.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui; If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to a hatat and a certain asham. If he ate the one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: they together bring a hatat and an asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot together bring one hatat and one asham.

If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham.

If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham.

If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people.

Rabbi Eliezer says: one may freely offer an asham talui every day and at any time he pleases and such a sacrifice is called the asham of the pious. They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to freely offer an asham talui every day, except on the day after Yom Kippur. He declared: By this temple! Had they allowed me, I would have offered one even then, but they said to me, wait until you have come to a state of doubt.” But the sages say one may not bring an asham talui except for a sin that [is punished by] karet [when done intentionally and for which one brings a hatat [when done unwittingly.

If a woman is liable to a bird hatat brought in a case of doubt and Yom Kippur intervenes, she is still bound to offer it after Yom Kippur, because it renders her fit to eat sacrifices. If a hatat of a bird was brought for a matter of doubt and, after the pinching of its neck it became known [that there was no need for it], it must be buried.

If a woman is liable to a bird hatat brought in a case of doubt and Yom Kippur intervenes, she is still bound to offer it after Yom Kippur, because it renders her fit to eat sacrifices. If a hatat of a bird was brought for a matter of doubt and, after the pinching of its neck it became known [that there was no need for it], it must be buried.

If a man set aside his hatat and then died, his son should not offer it after him. A man may not offer [what was set apart] for one sin for another sin. Even if he had set apart [the hatat] for forbidden fat that he had eaten yesterday, he may not offer it for forbidden fat that he has eaten today, for it is said, “His offering ... for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28) the offering must be for that particular sin.

If a man set aside his hatat and then died, his son should not offer it after him. A man may not offer [what was set apart] for one sin for another sin. Even if he had set apart [the hatat] for forbidden fat that he had eaten yesterday, he may not offer it for forbidden fat that he has eaten today, for it is said, “His offering ... for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28) the offering must be for that particular sin.

One may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a hatat] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah. How so? If a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat [for a hatat] and he became poor, he may bring a bird-offering; If he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became richer, he must bring a bird-offering; If he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they became blemished, he may bring with their price a bird-offering; But if he set apart a bird-offering and it became blemished, he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed.

One may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a hatat] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah. How so? If a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat [for a hatat] and he became poor, he may bring a bird-offering; If he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became richer, he must bring a bird-offering; If he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they became blemished, he may bring with their price a bird-offering; But if he set apart a bird-offering and it became blemished, he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat of a bird from the moment of its dedication. With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, but the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, and asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.

If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it. How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration. If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it.

One does not commit sacrilege after sacrilege has already been committed by another person, except with domesticated animals and vessels of ministry. How so? If one rode on a beast and then another came and rode on it and yet another came and rode on it; Or if one drank from a golden cup, then another came and drank and yet another came and drank; Or if one plucked [of the wool] of a hatat, then another came and plucked and yet another came and plucked, all of them are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi said: anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to the law of sacrilege even after sacrilege has been already committed with it.

A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified. The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot. What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.

A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified. The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot. What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.

A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified. The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot. What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.

If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die. If a hatat becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings. Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings [This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number.

If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die. If a hatat becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings. Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings [This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number.

If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die. If a hatat becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings. Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings [This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number.

What is meant by one "name"? For a birth and a birth, or for zivah and zivah, that is one name. And "two names"? For a birth, [and the other] for a zivah. What is meant by "two women"? [When] one [woman] brings [her offering] for a birth and the other for a birth, or [when one brings] for a zivah and the other for a zivah this is "of one name". And a case "of two names"? When one brings for a birth and the other for a zivah. Rabbi Yose says: when two women purchased their kinnim in partnership, or gave the price of their kinnim to the priest [for him to purchase them], then the priest can offer whichever one he wants as a hatat or as an olah, whether they are of one name or of two names.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

If a hatat, an olah, an unassigned pair of birds and an assigned pair [became mixed up], and he offered them all above, then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly] if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If he offered half of them above and half below, none is valid except the unassigned pair, and that must be divided between them.

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."

The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.

The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.

How does one harvest the grapes of a bet peras? They sprinkle [hatat water] on the harvesters and the vessels [once] and then a second time. Then they harvest the grapes and take them out of the bet peras. Others then receive [the grapes] and take them to the winepress. If the latter set [of persons] came into contact with the former, they become unclean, This is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: [the gatherer] holds the sickle with sinew-rope, or harvests the grapes with a sharp flint, lets [the grapes fall] into a basket, and then he takes [them] to the winepress. Rabbi Yose said: When do these rules apply? [Only] in the case of a vineyard which subsequently became a bet peras; but a person who plants [vines] in a bet peras must sell [the grapes] in the market.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a [red] cow for the hatat that is pregnant is valid, But the sages say: it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says: it may not be bought from non-Jews, But the sages 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 a hatat 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 Judah 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.

He who brings the earthen vessel for the hatat must immerse, and spend the night by the furnace. Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring it from the house and it is valid, for all are deemed trustworthy in regard to the hatat. 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.

He who brings the earthen vessel for the hatat must immerse, and spend the night by the furnace. Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring it from the house and it is valid, for all are deemed trustworthy in regard to the hatat. 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 hatat 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.

A reed pipe that was cut [for use as a container] for the hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be immersed immediately. Rabbi Joshua 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 Judah 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 hatat 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.

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 hatat water. Because it was not drawn into a vessel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two men who were drawing water for the hatat 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 prepares the mixture of the hatat 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."

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 Judah 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 hatat waters.

If one intended to drink the hatat water: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid. Rabbi Joshua 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 Joshua says: [only] when one drinks. And if it was poured directly into one's throat, it remains valid.

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

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

Hatat waters and hatat ashes one may not carry them across a river on a ship, nor may one float them upon the water, nor may one stand on the bank on one side and throw them across to the other side. One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck. He that is clean for the hatat may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat or water that has not yet been prepared.

Hatat waters and hatat ashes one may not carry them across a river on a ship, nor may one float them upon the water, nor may one stand on the bank on one side and throw them across to the other side. One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck. He that is clean for the hatat may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat or water that has not yet been prepared.

Hatat waters and hatat ashes one may not carry them across a river on a ship, nor may one float them upon the water, nor may one stand on the bank on one side and throw them across to the other side. One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck. He that is clean for the hatat may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat or water that has not yet been prepared.

Hatat waters and hatat ashes one may not carry them across a river on a ship, nor may one float them upon the water, nor may one stand on the bank on one side and throw them across to the other side. One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck. He that is clean for the hatat may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat or water that has not yet been prepared.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.

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 hatat it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body.

Any object that is susceptible to midras uncleanness is for the purpose of the hatat 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 Joshua says: it has madaf uncleanness; And the sages say: that which was unclean has madaf uncleanness, and that which was clean does not have madaf uncleanness.

One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched something that has madaf uncleanness, he becomes unclean. A flask that was designated for the hatat waters that touched something that has madaf uncleanness, it becomes unclean. One who was clean for the hatat 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 Joshua says that he becomes unclean, And the sages say that he remains clean.