immersed

There we have stated: “A flask which had been immersed on the same day and [they filled it] from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said that this shall be heave of the tithe after nightfall then it is heave of the tithe. If he said this is eruv, he did not say anything.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥama bar (Aqiba) [Uqba] asked, is this Mishnah not following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, one does not make an eruv for a person after nightfall? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: There it is everybody’s opinion. But here he acquires a place for Sabbath rest for two days while it still is a working day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it was Thursday and he said, this should acquire for me a place for Sabbath rest, in Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion he acquired, in (Rav’s) [the rabbis’] opinion did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose said, why can a person not make an eruv from holiday to Sabbath? Because a person makes an eruv from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath. But here, since he can make an eruv from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath, he may make an eruv even from Thursday to the Sabbath. “Rebbi Eliezer said to them, do you not agree with me that if he used a loaf to make an eruv for the first day, that he may use a loaf to make an eruv for the second day, that if he ate it on the first day it is an eruv for the first day but is not an eruv for the second? Therefore these are two sanctities. They answered him, do you not agree with us that a person does not make a new eruv on a holiday? Therefore it is one sanctity.”

Rebbi Ḥuna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: if a proselyte immersed himself after sunrise. “Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain,” what does Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri say in this case? Let us hear from the following. For Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. If he selected while it still was daytime, he may change his mind while it still is daytime; after nightfall he may change his mind after nightfall. If he selected while it still was daytime, and the day became holy for him? Let us hear from the following: “he may not enter, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may enter” Not on this was it said, but on the start of the Chapter; on “if somebody was taken out by Gentiles or an evil spirit,” it was said . Rebbi Abun said, “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he selected one he cannot retract it.”

Hollowed squash as we have stated: “A hollowed squash which one immersed is water suitable for sanctification, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end.

HALAKHAH: He only said “basted”. Therefore, if he immersed it, it is forbidden. A person cooked a chicken using oil to be burned. He came and asked Rebbi Bisna, who told him, go and cook it in water for an extended period.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew, for we find that our forefathers in the desert received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abun said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen sprinkled and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated so: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Pesaḥ in the evening.

“One makes him stand at the Eastern Gates.” Where does one let him stand, inside or outside? If you are saying inside, what we stated there, “five immersions were there on that day, one because nobody entered the Temple courtyard for service, even if he was pure, unless he immersed himself, and four because of the Day of Atonement.” If you are saying outside, all of them were because of the Day of Atonement.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said, would it not be understandable if on the day of Atonement it were after the first watch and on holidays from midnight, that they should not become thirsty? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next say and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next day and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water. Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Joseph said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , after he lifted it he put it back down. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph. “If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services. But to start services it is necessary.”

MISHNAH: They spread a byssus sheet between him and the people; he undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, and he dressed, and sanctified hands and legs. They brought him the daily sacrifice; he cut it, and another completed the slaughter for him. He received the blood and poured it. He entered to burn the incense, to clean the lights, to sacrifice the head, the limbs, the pan-baked breads, and the wine.

MISHNAH: They brought him to the Parwa house, which was in the sacred domain. They spread a byssus sheet between him and the people; he sanctified hands and legs and undressed; Rebbi Meïr says, he undressed and sanctified hands and legs. He stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. In the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth twelve mina, and in the evening Indian of 800 denar, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth eighteen mina and in the evening of twelve mina, all together thirty mina. This he takes from Temple property; if he wants to add, he adds from his own.

MISHNAH: If he read in his byssus garments, he sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up, and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He went out and sacrificed his ram, and the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba says, they had been brought with the daily morning offering; the bull of elevation offering and the he-goat offered outside were brought with the daily afternoon sacrifice. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered to remove the cup and the pan. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered, burned the incense, and prepared the lights. He sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him his own garments in which he dressed. One accompanies him to his house. He made a festivity for his friends when he exited in peace.

MISHNAH: If he read in his byssus garments, he sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up, and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He went out and sacrificed his ram, and the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba says, they had been brought with the daily morning offering; the bull of elevation offering and the he-goat offered outside were brought with the daily afternoon sacrifice. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered to remove the cup and the pan. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered, burned the incense, and prepared the lights. He sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him his own garments in which he dressed. One accompanies him to his house. He made a festivity for his friends when he exited in peace.

MISHNAH: If he read in his byssus garments, he sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up, and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He went out and sacrificed his ram, and the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba says, they had been brought with the daily morning offering; the bull of elevation offering and the he-goat offered outside were brought with the daily afternoon sacrifice. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered to remove the cup and the pan. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered, burned the incense, and prepared the lights. He sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him his own garments in which he dressed. One accompanies him to his house. He made a festivity for his friends when he exited in peace.

MISHNAH: If he read in his byssus garments, he sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up, and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He went out and sacrificed his ram, and the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba says, they had been brought with the daily morning offering; the bull of elevation offering and the he-goat offered outside were brought with the daily afternoon sacrifice. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered to remove the cup and the pan. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered, burned the incense, and prepared the lights. He sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him his own garments in which he dressed. One accompanies him to his house. He made a festivity for his friends when he exited in peace.

HALAKHAH: “All spittle,” etc. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification was there. Rebbi Ḥanina said, they were stabbing wild donkeys in Jerusalem and the feet of the pilgrims were immersed in blood up to their knee joints. [They came before the Sages who did not tell them anything.] Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A Gentile fortification was there.

MISHNAH: If a gobelin became impure by derivative impurity, one immersed it inside and brought it back immediately. But if by original impurity, one immersed it outside and spread it out in the ante-court because it requires sundown. If it was new, one spreads it out on the roof of the stoa so the people could see its workmanship, which was beautiful. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the Executive Officer of the Temple: The thickness of a gobelin was a hand-width. It was woven on 72 strings and each string was composed of 24 threads. Its length 40 cubits and its width 20 cubits; it was made for 820’000 {denar}. Two were made every year and 300 Cohanim were immersing it.

MISHNAH: If a gobelin became impure by derivative impurity, one immersed it inside and brought it back immediately. But if by original impurity, one immersed it outside and spread it out in the ante-court because it requires sundown. If it was new, one spreads it out on the roof of the stoa so the people could see its workmanship, which was beautiful. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the Executive Officer of the Temple: The thickness of a gobelin was a hand-width. It was woven on 72 strings and each string was composed of 24 threads. Its length 40 cubits and its width 20 cubits; it was made for 820’000 {denar}. Two were made every year and 300 Cohanim were immersing it.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: On his entrance to the Ark Noe was forbidden sexual relations. What is the reason? You shall come into the Ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives. On his exit sexual relations were permitted to him. What is the reason? Leave the Ark, you, your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives with you. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, by their families they left the Ark; since they refrained from their relations they merited to be saved from the Deluge. You may know that it is so since we stated, Ham, the dog, and the raven misbehaved. Ham exited charcoal colored. The dog exited public in his relations. The raven exited different from the creatures. Rebbi Abun said, it is written, in want and hunger infertile. If you see that want comes into the world make your wife infertile. Rebbi Levi said, to Joseph were born two sons, when? Before the start of the year of famine. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: those who desire to have children do have sexual relations. Rebbi Yose said, only on the day she immersed herself.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai stated: Aqiba my teacher used to preach, there appeared a star out of Jacob there appeared Koziba out of Jacob. When Rebbi Aqiba saw Bar Koziba he said, this is King Messias. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Torta said to him, Aqiba! Grass will grow from your jaws and still David’s son (still has to) [will not have] come. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the voice of Emperor Hadrian killing eighty thousand myriads at Bettar. Rebbi Joḥanan said, eighty [thousand] couples of horn-blowers were encircling Bettar, each of which was commanding several army units. There was Ben Koziba who had 200’000 with him missing a finger. The Sages sent, how long will you turn Israel into defective persons? He told them, how would it be possible to test them? They said to him, anyone who riding on his horse cannot uproot a cedar of Lebanon should not be enrolled in your army. He had 200’000 of either kind. When he went into battle he said, Master of the World: Do not support and do not hinder, did not you, God, neglect us, and do not go out with our armies. Three and a half years did Hadrian encircle Bettar. Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin was sitting in sackcloth and ashes, praying every day and saying, Master of the World, do not sit in judgment today, do not sit in judgment today. Hadrian wanted to go away. A Samaritan said to him, do not go away, for I am seeing what to do that the city will submit to you. He went to the city gate, entered, and found Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin standing in prayer. He showed himself as if he would whisper into his ear. The people of the city saw him and brought him to Ben Koziba. They said to him, we saw this old man turning to your uncle. He asked him, what did you say to him and what did he say to you? He answered, if I shall tell you, the king will kill me; but if I do not tell you, you will kill me. It is better that the king should kill me but not you. He told him, he said to me, I will make the town submit to the king. He came to Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin. He asked him, what did this Samaritan say to you. He answered, nothing. What did you say to him? He answered, nothing. He kicked him and killed him. Immediately there came an unembodied voice and said, woe, criminal shepherds, who abandon the flock, a sword on his arm and on his right eye. His arm shall dry up and his right eye darken. You killed Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the arm of Israel, and their right eye. Therefore this man’s arm shall dry up and his right eye darken. Immediately Bettar was taken and Ben Koziba killed. They came carrying his head to Hadrain. He asked them, who killed him? A Samaritan said to him, I killed him. He said to him, show me his body. He showed him his body; he found a poisonous snake wrapped around him. He said, if God had not killed him, who could kill him? He recited over him, if not that their Rock had sold them, and the Eternal handed them over. They killed them continuously until the horse was immersed in blood up to his nose. The blood was moving rocks of 40 seah loads, until the blood colored the sea for four mil. If you would say that it was close to the sea, in fact it is 40 mil distant from the sea. They said, 300 children’s brains were found on one stone, and they found three boxes of tefillin capsules of nine seah each, but some say nine of three each. It was stated, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, 500 schools were in Bettar, the smallest one for not less than 500 children. They were saying, if the haters come against us we shall go out against them with these stylos and blind them. When the sins caused, they were binding each single one into his book and burning him; and of them only I remained. He recited referring to himself, my eye hurts my soul more than all daughters of my city. The evil Hadrian had a large vineyard, eighteen mil by eighteen mil, as from Tiberias to Sepphoris. He fenced it in with the slain of Bettar standing up with outstretched arms, and did not decide that they should be buried, until another king arose who decided that they should be buried.

A woman after her period who was immersed by accident, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rav: she is pure for her house but impure for purities. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, she is impure both for her house and purities. What is the reason? It should be washed a second time and will be pure. Since the first time it was intentionally, also the second time it must be intentionally. And from where that the first time it was intentionally? The Cohen has to order that they should wash. Intentionally. And we see that rabbis are early for intercalations. Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is an obligation to be early, to hasten in commandments.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

HALAKHAH: But needs profane food intention? He is informing you of more: even if he immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food he is prohibited tithe. Did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the count for profane food is the count for tithe? Here it is for eating, there for touching. He who immerses himself without specification is pure for all of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had relationship with all of them. As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.

Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, only heave prepared in the purity of sancta. Therefore not in its own. Rebbi Yose said, even if prepared in its own. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “He has to watch them until they immersed themselves.” Explain it: not in the time of the olive harvest. Could you say not in the time of the grape harvest? Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, if food prepared in purity touched it before three people used it, at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure, not at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it before the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is impure and then pure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was full the food prepared in purity remains pure. If he cleared it, the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was empty the food prepared in purity becomes impure. If he filled it, the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind?

Hollowed squash as we have stated: “A hollowed squash which one immersed in water is suitable for sanctification, and one uses it to sanctify until it becomes impure. Once it is impure one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Joshua says, if one uses it to sanctify at the start then also at the end. If one does not use at the end then also not at the start.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end.

It was stated: “If the table became impure one immerses it at its time, even on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, immediately.” You find to say, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it makes two breads impure; in the rabbis’ opinion it only makes one bread impure. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose, even according to Rebbi Meïr it makes only one bread impure. Explain it if it became impure by fluids of questionable status. “Once they immersed the candelabrum. The Sadducees said, look the Pharisees immerse the ball of the sun.”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

We find that Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose disagrees with his father since Rebbi Simon said in the name of Hilfai: Rebbi, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and Ben Qappara voted on the airspace of Ascalon and declared it pure from the testimony of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr who said, we were descending to the Saracen [market] at Ascalon where we bought wheat, returned to our town, immersed ourselves and ate our heave. The next day they wanted to vote to free it from tithes but Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose removed his hand. He was leaning on Ben Qappara. He said to him, my son, why did you not say to me: did you not remove your hand? I would have told you that yesterday I was he who declared it impure, I am he who declared it pure. But now I am saying, maybe it was conquered within the meaning of the Torah, how can I free it from the meaning of the Torah? When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? But we found that he stated in the name of his father that they accepted tithes voluntarily! And he said, it is correct that if tithes are from their words and the food of the daughters is of their words that their words may uproot their words.

It is written: “Any slave who is a man bought by money.” You circumcise by force a slave who is a man, you do not circumcise by force a son who is a man. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, does this imply that you may circumcise a minor by force? Even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is so. “If he found there a foundling. If he immersed him as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; [if he immersed him] as a free person, he circumcises him as a free person.” Rebbi Joḥanan asked, as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Abbahu and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia did not say so, but “any slave who is a man bought by money.” If your slave is a man, you circumcise him by force. If your son is a man, you do not circumcise him by force. This refers to what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: If somebody buys uncircumcised slaves from Gentiles on condition that he will circumcise them, in any case if they are slaves who are men, you circumcise them by force. On condition that he will not circumcise them, he is like a son who is a man, you do not circumcise him by force.

It is written: “Any slave who is a man bought by money.” You circumcise by force a slave who is a man, you do not circumcise by force a son who is a man. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, does this imply that you may circumcise a minor by force? Even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is so. “If he found there a foundling. If he immersed him as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; [if he immersed him] as a free person, he circumcises him as a free person.” Rebbi Joḥanan asked, as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Abbahu and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia did not say so, but “any slave who is a man bought by money.” If your slave is a man, you circumcise him by force. If your son is a man, you do not circumcise him by force. This refers to what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: If somebody buys uncircumcised slaves from Gentiles on condition that he will circumcise them, in any case if they are slaves who are men, you circumcise them by force. On condition that he will not circumcise them, he is like a son who is a man, you do not circumcise him by force.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥisda said, they had great difficulty; elsewhere you say that one goes to the Torah, and here you say, one brings the Torah to him? But because they are important personalities, the Torah is honored by them. Does one not bring the Torah to the Head of the Diaspora over there? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the seed of David is immersed there one treats him in the ancestral way.

Rav said, when he has left, he counts his nezirut in purity. If he entered again on his seventh day, he brings a sacrifice of impurity for that day; Rebbi Eliezer said, not for that day. Cahana asked before Rav: Does he not need the sprinkling of the third and seventh? He answered him, the Torah called “pure” the one who leaves the grave: “After his purity, seven days shall be counted for him.87” Samuel said, after he left, sprinkled, and repeated, immersed himself, and entered again on that day, he brings a sacrifice of impurity for that day; Rebbi Eliezer said, not for that day.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,” from the day he brings his sacrifices, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, from the time of his shaving. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hoshaia, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? If he shaved on the seventh and brought his sacrifices on the eighth. But if he shaved on the eighth and brought his sacrifices on the same day, everybody agrees on the day he brings his sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if he immersed himself on the seventh. But if he immersed himself on the eighth, the eighth takes the place of the seventh and the seventh of the eighth; he counts only from that “seventh”. If he became impure and impure again, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity. “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut and bring.” Rebbi said, until he actually brought. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, even if he was enabled to bring the sacrifice for impurity. Everybody agrees that he brings a sacrifice for impurity. It was stated thus: If he became impure on the seventh, and again impure on the eighth, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. In Rebbi Ze‘ira’s opinion, following Rebbi the first sacrifice is superseded and he brings the second; following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah it was not superseded. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,” from the day he brings his sacrifices, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, from the time of his shaving. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hoshaia, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? If he shaved on the seventh and brought his sacrifices on the eighth. But if he shaved on the eighth and brought his sacrifices on the same day, everybody agrees on the day he brings his sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if he immersed himself on the seventh. But if he immersed himself on the eighth, the eighth takes the place of the seventh and the seventh of the eighth; he counts only from that “seventh”. If he became impure and impure again, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity. “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut and bring.” Rebbi said, until he actually brought. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, even if he was enabled to bring the sacrifice for impurity. Everybody agrees that he brings a sacrifice for impurity. It was stated thus: If he became impure on the seventh, and again impure on the eighth, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. In Rebbi Ze‘ira’s opinion, following Rebbi the first sacrifice is superseded and he brings the second; following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah it was not superseded. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua,” etc. There, we have stated: “Two are impure from the dead, one is impure for seven days and one is impure by the impurity of evening. Three are impure from the dead, two are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall. Four are impure from the dead, three are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall. How is it for two? Any person who touches a corpse is impure for seven days; a person who touches him is impure until nightfall,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All are biblically [impure] for heave, but for entering the Sanctuary only the second impure who touched the first impure. What is the reason? “A person who would be impure and did not purify himself;” anybody needing purification is guilty for entering the Sanctuary; anybody not needing purification is not guilty for entering the Sanctuary. They objected: But a person who touches objects which touched a corpse needs purification, but is he the second? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects. The statement of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya [implies that] only the first is guilty. Since [for impurity of] a person from a person only the first is guilty, so here the first is guilty. Rebbi Yose said, only if he immersed himself. That is a statement of Rebbi, since Rebbi said, all impure persons remain impure until the are immersed in water.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua,” etc. There, we have stated: “Two are impure from the dead, one is impure for seven days and one is impure by the impurity of evening. Three are impure from the dead, two are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall. Four are impure from the dead, three are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall. How is it for two? Any person who touches a corpse is impure for seven days; a person who touches him is impure until nightfall,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All are biblically [impure] for heave, but for entering the Sanctuary only the second impure who touched the first impure. What is the reason? “A person who would be impure and did not purify himself;” anybody needing purification is guilty for entering the Sanctuary; anybody not needing purification is not guilty for entering the Sanctuary. They objected: But a person who touches objects which touched a corpse needs purification, but is he the second? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects. The statement of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya [implies that] only the first is guilty. Since [for impurity of] a person from a person only the first is guilty, so here the first is guilty. Rebbi Yose said, only if he immersed himself. That is a statement of Rebbi, since Rebbi said, all impure persons remain impure until the are immersed in water.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew, for we find that our forefathers in the desert received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abin said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen was sprinkled and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Passover sacrifices in the evening.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre. When he came before Rebbi Joḥanan, he asked him, what case did you handle? He said to him, a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not immersed himself. He asked him, why did you not injure him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told him, leave him alone, he acted correctly not to injure him. The argument of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. And here, he says so? Did we not state: If a proselyte was circumcised but not immersed, immersed but not circumcised, everything depends on circumcision, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, immersion also is necessary. But Rebbi Joshua ben Levi follows what Bar Qappara stated, as Bar Qappara stated: A proselyte who was circumcised but not immersed is qualified since there is no proselyte who did not immerse himself for his emission of semen. Is that not difficult? The cleansing from a minor impurity is counted for him for a major impurity? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, since either one is for the holiness of Israel, it is counted for him.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre. When he came before Rebbi Joḥanan, he asked him, what case did you handle? He said to him, a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not immersed himself. He asked him, why did you not injure him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told him, leave him alone, he acted correctly not to injure him. The argument of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. And here, he says so? Did we not state: If a proselyte was circumcised but not immersed, immersed but not circumcised, everything depends on circumcision, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, immersion also is necessary. But Rebbi Joshua ben Levi follows what Bar Qappara stated, as Bar Qappara stated: A proselyte who was circumcised but not immersed is qualified since there is no proselyte who did not immerse himself for his emission of semen. Is that not difficult? The cleansing from a minor impurity is counted for him for a major impurity? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, since either one is for the holiness of Israel, it is counted for him.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre. When he came before Rebbi Joḥanan, he asked him, what case did you handle? He said to him, a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not immersed himself. He asked him, why did you not injure him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told him, leave him alone, he acted correctly not to injure him. The argument of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. And here, he says so? Did we not state: If a proselyte was circumcised but not immersed, immersed but not circumcised, everything depends on circumcision, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, immersion also is necessary. But Rebbi Joshua ben Levi follows what Bar Qappara stated, as Bar Qappara stated: A proselyte who was circumcised but not immersed is qualified since there is no proselyte who did not immerse himself for his emission of semen. Is that not difficult? The cleansing from a minor impurity is counted for him for a major impurity? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, since either one is for the holiness of Israel, it is counted for him.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre. When he came before Rebbi Joḥanan, he asked him, what case did you handle? He said to him, a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not immersed himself. He asked him, why did you not injure him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told him, leave him alone, he acted correctly not to injure him. The argument of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. And here, he says so? Did we not state: If a proselyte was circumcised but not immersed, immersed but not circumcised, everything depends on circumcision, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, immersion also is necessary. But Rebbi Joshua ben Levi follows what Bar Qappara stated, as Bar Qappara stated: A proselyte who was circumcised but not immersed is qualified since there is no proselyte who did not immerse himself for his emission of semen. Is that not difficult? The cleansing from a minor impurity is counted for him for a major impurity? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, since either one is for the holiness of Israel, it is counted for him.

Did those daughters of Barzilai’s convert in the name of Heaven or not in the name of Heaven? If you say that they converted in the name of Heaven should not [their descendants] eat most holy sacrifices? But if you say that they converted not in the name of Heaven, then [their descendants] should not eat even outside sancta. Even if you say that they converted in the name of Heaven, is a female proselyte not like a prostitute for the priesthood? Explain it that they were not daughters but daughters of daughters. But if they were daughters of daughters, they are like Israel! But following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, a proselyte who converted at less that three years and one day of age. She had no intent to immerse herself but [her mother] immersed her, if then later she immerses herself for the holiness of Israel, each of them then becomes a proselyte and a proselyte is like a prostitute for the priesthood.

HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Is the same true for the first awareness? Let us hear from the following: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness.

Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. The minor impurity is not mentioned with the severe impurity. Somebody became impure through a corpse and did not know it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. Then it became known to him about the crawling animal, and after that it became known to him about the corpse. Since it first became known to him about the crawling animal, is there minor impurity together with the severe one, or since the impurity of the corpse preceded, should the impurity of the crawling animal and the knowledge about it be pushed aside so that the minor impurity not be mentioned with the severe impurity? Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it, and entered the Sanctuary. When he was oblivious of the corpse he is liable; when he was oblivious of the crawling animal he is not liable. If he went to immerse himself for the severe impurity and the minor impurity was additional, it is counted also for the minor impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is not liable.

If he went to immerse himself for a minor impurity and a severe impurity was additional, it does not count for him for the severe impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is liable. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah, or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them?

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

What means “contaminated with wine”? If it is dirty, as one says, immersed in blood.

MISHNAH: If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, what usually is immersed one immerses, cleansed in boiling water one cleanses in boiling water, making glowing white in fire one makes glowing white. The spit and the grill one makes glowing white in fire but a knife one rubs clean and it is pure.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile,” etc. “ If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, something of which he knows that it is used for human food, he washes them clean and they are pure. But pots and boiling kettles one cleanses in boiling water. All of these, if he used them even if he did not immerse them, or cleansed them in boiling water, or rubbed them clean, or made them glowing white in fire, they are pure.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, one has to immerse them, as by the following. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince went down to the hot springs of Gadara and borrowed silverware from the family Osinos. They asked Rebbi Jeremiah who said, one must immerse them because they left the impurity of Gentiles and entered the holiness of Israel. He went out and we want to learn. They left and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they said only “who buys”, but the borrower is permitted. Then even vessels. Rebbi Hoshaia bought vessels and immersed them.

Our Rabbis have taught : With clear water, he must sit immersed up to his neck and read [the Shema'], while others declare he should stir up the water with his foot. But according to the first Tanna his heart sees his nakedness!

8. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: The Israelites never had such joyous days as the fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement, for on those days the sons of Jerusalem used to go out dressed in white garments, which they borrowed from one another in order not to cause shame to him who had none of his own. All these garments had to be immersed (before they were used). The daughters of Jerusalem too used to go out on these days and dance in the vineyards, saying, "Young man, lift up thine eyes, and consider what thou wilt select for thyself (as a wife); do not fix thine eyes upon beauty, but consider the family." And the young man replied (Cant. 3.11): "Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and gaze upon King Solomon, even upon the crown wherewith his mother hath crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart."

All these garments had to be immersed. Said R. Zeriḳa in the name of R. Eleazar, this had to be done even though the garments had been folded up and lying in a chest.

"But he [i.e. you, Rava] needs this [verse] for [a case like] this baraita?!: 'He will be impure' (Numbers 19:13)—to include a day immerser (one who is impure and has immersed but needs to wait until nightfall to be pure). 'His impurity is in him' (Numbers 19:13)—to include one waiting for atonement." He said to him: "I say [that I derive my position] from 'more (od)' (Numbers 19:13)."