sprinkling

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: “He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer.” Therefore we ought to be deeply grateful to the Lord, because He has both made known to us things that are past, and hath given us wisdom concerning things present, and hath not left us without understanding in regard to things which are to come. Now, the Scripture saith, “Not unjustly are nets spread out for birds.” This means that the man perishes justly, who, having a knowledge of the way of righteousness, rushes off into the way of darkness. And further, my brethren: if the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, He being Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,” understand how it was that He endured to suffer at the hand of men. The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it behoved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfil the promise made unto the fathers, and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him. But when He chose His own apostles who were to preach His gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came “not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him? Since looking upon the sun which is to cease to exist, and is the work of His hands, their eyes are not able to bear his rays. The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view, that He might bring to a head the sum of their sins who had persecuted His prophets to the death. For this purpose, then, He endured. For God saith, “The stroke of his flesh is from them;” and “when I shall smite the Shepherd, then the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.” He himself willed thus to suffer, for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree. For says he who prophesies regarding Him, “Spare my soul from the sword, fasten my flesh with nails; for the assemblies of the wicked have risen up against me.” And again he says, “Behold, I have given my back to scourges, and my cheeks to strokes, and I have set my countenance as a firm rock.”

THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIDASCALIA OF THE FATHERS, THE HOLY AND PURE LIGHTS OF THE WORLD, THE APOSTLES. IN THE NAME OF GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY AND OF HIS ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON JESUS CHRIST, AND OF THE PARACLETE, THE HOLY SPIRIT, We, the Twelve Apostles, ministers of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, being gathered together in one place in Jerusalem, the city of the great King, and with us our good and holy brother Paul, the Apostle of all the Gentiles, and James, the brother of our Lord, who is the bishop of this city of Jerusalem, have ordained this right doctrine, and have appointed degrees of offices for the Church, according to the pattern of that which is in heaven; and we charge each one of you severally, with thanksgiving for that our Lord Jesus hath called us to His glory. The bishop is in the likeness of the shepherd of the sheep, and the presbyter in the likeness of a teacher, and the deacon as a minister, and the sub-deacon, behold, he is as the same; and the reader also, and the skilful singers... and the rest of the people as those who hearken to the word of the Gospel, and, moreover, understand the word of admonition. For thus have we ordained the law for the Church, (even) this book of admonition, which we have written, and have sent with Clement, our ministering brother, into the world, that men may walk according to the commandment of the Churches which are under heaven, and may have perfect understanding, that, when they have heard these commandments which are written therein, they may find life eternal, honour and glory from our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath bestowed on us this mystery which is from Himself. But those who keep not His law shall be cast into the fire which is not quenched, and their abode also shall be in the fire of Gehenna for ever, as it is written. (AC. i.] But apostles and presbyters and all.the people, who have believed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and work righteousness and peace, shall find compassion and mercy from God the Father, the Ruler of the whole world, and His Son Jesus Christ, and shall come to knowledge of Him in the Holy Church of God. And those who serve Him shall be a pure and elect vineyard, and shall find life eternal by this faith, and victory by the Holy Spirit; and shall be strong by the power of Jesus Christ and the faith of Him who hath redeemed them by the sprinkling of His holy and precious blood, and hath bestowed on them the privilege that they should call on the Almighty, that He should be their Father and their God and their Friend, and that they should be fellow-heirs and joint-partakers of His Holy Son. Hearken to the holy admonition, ye who receive at the commandment of our Saviour the words of the Gospel and His glad tidings." which is full of glory. [i., 1.] O ye children of God, keep His commandments and do!’ His will; but if there be anyone that seeketh to follow after sin and that doeth all things that are not pleasing to God, he shall be numbered with those who transgress His law and His commandment. And now I say unto you, keep far from injustice and oppression, and desire not to take for yourselves the portion which is greater and (to leave) to your neighbour the less. For it is written in the law, saying, “Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour’s wife, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything; none of the possessions of thy brother,” nor anything like thereto; it is adultery. But if there be anyone who desireth to do thus in the lust of his heart, he shall be far from God, (even) our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory with His Father and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen. For He teacheth us and giveth us understanding and strengtheneth us by the Holy Spirit, that He may fulfil the law, in which it is written, saying, “Thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you, everyone who hath looked upon a woman and lusted after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’’? And he also who desireth to do thus shall be condemned with the adulterers. And, behold, he that thinketh in his heart, and desireth to take unjustly his (neighbour’s) ox, or his ass, or his field, and continueth so to do, shall be numbered with the adulterers. For the prophet saith, “Woe unto them that join house with house and unite field with field, and hedge with hedge, that they may take what is not theirs.” And again it is said, “ Know ye who dwell on the earth that this word was heard in the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.”’ And in another place also it is said, ‘Cursed be everyone that stealeth his neighbour’s landmark, and the people shall say, So be it.’"? Wherefore Moses saith, Desire not thy neighbour’s landmark and take not away the law which thy fathers ordained.” Because of these things come fear, and death, and trouble; and judgment from God shall find those who do thus. But such as hearken to the word of God, and keep His glorious law in faith, shall find compassion and mercy. For it is said, “What thou hatest for thyself, do not to thy neighbour.” And as thou dost not desire that any other should look upon thy wife to lead her astray in sin, so likewise do not thou look upon the wife of another with evil thoughts. And as thou dost not desire that another should take thy garment, so likewise do not thou take the garment of another. And as thou dost not desire for thyself cursing, and reproach, and beating, so likewise do not thou thus unto thy neighbour. [i., 2.] But if there be anyone who hath cursed thee, do thou bless him; for it is written in the Book of Numbers, “ Blessed be those that bless thee, and cursed be those that curse thee. And, moreover, it is written in the Gospel, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that oppress you; and do good to them that hate you, and render not evil to them that oppress you, but bear with them patiently.’"" For the Scripture saith, “Take not vengeance on thine enemy for the evil which he hath done against thee; and for this cause the Lord will help thee, and bring judgment upon thine enemy.” For it is said in the Gospel, “Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in heaven, for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust.” — Beloved, let us understand these commandments, that we may be sons of light. [i., 3-] Bear patiently with one another, O ye sons of God. And let the husband also bear patiently with his wife, and not be haughty or false; but let him be merciful and upright, and cherish her alone in love and humility. And let him not take pleasure in, nor desire, another woman, lest she lead him astray unto evil. But if thou committest adultery, and doest thus, thou shalt surely die, and the wrath of God shall come upon thee; and thou shalt be condemned with a bitter condemnation. But if thou thinkest evil in thy heart, and committest not adultery with her, it shall be sin unto thee. And if thou hast prepared and adorned thyself, that the wife of thy neighbour may love thee, thou hast erred and hast become a stumbling-block unto her, and made her to commit adultery. And for this cause condemnation shall come upon thee, for God saith, ‘‘Thou shalt not desire,” and ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.” ‘? For thou hast led her astray to love thee by the beauty of thy youth, and by the charm of thy face, and for this cause thou hast become a partaker with her in the work of sin and thy curse. Wherefore it is meet that thou shouldest pray to the Lord thy God, that all this sin find thee not out. But thou oughtest in purity to please God, that thou mayest find rest and life eternal before God. For it is said, Let not the hair of thy head grow long, but cut (it) and purify thyself, that thou mayest serve God and not be separated from Him. But do not thou anoint thyself with perfumed ointment, nor clothe thyself with gorgeous apparel to lead women astray, nor vaunt thyself, nor become an occasion of sin, but seek purity and well-doing. And thou, O man of God, let not the hair of thy head grow long; plait (it) not, nor curl (it), for all this is a sign of impurity and adultery. For it is written in Deuteronomy, “And thou shalt not put on a garment which is woven with wool and flax: thou shalt make for thyself a twisted fringe for thy garment.”.. But we ought not to shave our beards, nor to change the nature of man into another fashion. And if thou doest thus, thou art a transgressor of the law and far from God, who created thee in His image and His likeness. But if thou desirest to please God, do no evil, and put far from thee all that thy God hateth i., 4.) And be not a drunkard, and walk not in the streets with the adulterers without wisdom and knowledge, but labour and live by the work of thy hands; and seek to do all that is pleasing to God; and remember the word of our Lord Jesus, and follow Him at all times. For the Scripture saith, “And who readeth his law day and night; whether in the way, or in the house or while thou sleepest, love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength,” that thou mayest find from Him compassion and mercy.

The Catholic Church is the plantation of God and His beloved vineyard; containing those who have believed in His unerring divine religion; who are the heirs by faith of His everlasting kingdom; who are partakers of His divine influence, and of the communication of the Holy Spirit; who are armed through Jesus, and have received His fear into their hearts; who enjoy the benefit of the sprinkling of the precious and innocent blood of Christ; who have free liberty to call Almighty God, Father; being fellow-heirs and joint-partakers of His beloved Son: hearken to this holy doctrine, you who enjoy His promises, as being delivered by the command of your Saviour, and agreeable to His glorious words. Take care, you children of God, to do all things in obedience to God; and in all things please Christ our Lord. For if any man follows unrighteousness, and does those things that are contrary to the will of God, such a one will be esteemed by God as the disobedient heathen.

But if any one returns, and shows forth the fruit of repentance, then do you receive him to prayer, as the lost son, the prodigal, who had consumed his father's substance with harlots, who fed swine, and desired to be fed with husks, and could not obtain it. This son, when he repented, and returned to his father, and said, I have sinned against Heaven, and before you, and am no more worthy to be called your son; the father, full of affection to his child, received him with music, and restored him his old robe, and ring, and shoes, and slew the fatted calf, and made merry with his friends. Therefore, O bishop, act in the same manner. And as you receive an heathen after you have instructed and baptized him, so do you let all join in prayers for this man, and restore him by imposition of hands to his ancient place among the flock, as one purified by repentance; and that imposition of hands shall be to him instead of baptism: for by the laying on of our hands the Holy Ghost was given to believers. And in case some one of those brethren who had stood immoveable accuse you, because you are reconciled to him, say to him: You are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was meet to make merry and be glad: for this your brother was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. For that God does not only receive the penitent, but restores them to their former dignity, holy David is a sufficient witness, who, after his sin in the matter of Uriah, prayed to God, and said: Restore unto me the joy of Your salvation, and uphold me with Your free Spirit. And again: Turn Your face from my sins, and blot out all mine offenses. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit in my inward parts. Cast me not away from Your presence, and take not Your Holy Spirit from me. Therefore, as a compassionate physician, heal all that have sinned, making use of saving methods of cure; not only cutting and searing, or using corrosives, but binding up, and putting in tents, and using gentle healing medicines, and sprinkling comfortable words. If it be an hollow wound, or great gash, nourish it with a suitable plaister, that it may be filled up, and become even with the rest of the whole flesh. If it be foul, cleanse it with corrosive powder, that is, with the words of reproof. If it have proud flesh, eat it down with a sharp plaister — the threats of judgment. If it spreads further, sear it, and cut off the putrid flesh, mortifying him with fastings. But if, after all that you have done, you perceive that from the feet to the head there is no room for a fomentation, or oil, or bandage, but that the malady spreads and prevents all cure, as a gangrene which corrupts the entire member; then, with a great deal of consideration, and the advice of other skilful physicians, cut off the putrefied member, that the whole body of the Church be not corrupted. Be not therefore ready and hasty to cut off, nor do you easily have recourse to the saw, with its many teeth; but first use a lancet to lay open the wound, that the inward cause whence the pain is derived being drawn out, may keep the body free from pain. But if you see any one past repentance, and he has become insensible, then cut off the incurable from the Church with sorrow and lamentation. For: Take out from among yourselves that wicked person. And: You shall make the children of Israel to fear. And again: You shall not accept the persons of the rich in judgment. And: You shall not pity a poor man in his cause: for the judgment is the Lord's.

Celsus, in the next place, as one who has heard the subject of humility greatly talked about, but who has not been at the pains to understand it, would wish to speak evil of that humility which is practised among us, and imagines that it is borrowed from some words of Plato imperfectly understood, where he expresses himself in the Laws as follows: “Now God, according to the ancient account, having in Himself both the beginning and end and middle of all existing things, proceeds according to nature, and marches straight on. He is constantly followed by justice, which is the avenger of all breaches of the divine law: he who is about to become happy follows her closely in humility, and becomingly adorned.” He did not observe, however, that in writers much older than Plato the following words occur in a prayer: “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty, neither do I walk in great matters, nor in things too wonderful for me; if I had not been humble,” etc. Now these words show that he who is of humble mind does not by any means humble himself in an unseemly or inauspicious manner, falling down upon his knees, or casting himself headlong on the ground, putting on the dress of the miserable, or sprinkling himself with dust. But he who is of humble mind in the sense of the prophet, while “walking in great and wonderful things,” which are above his capacity—viz. those doctrines that are truly great, and those thoughts that are wonderful—“humbles himself under the mighty hand of God.” If there are some, however, who through their stupidity have not clearly understood the doctrine of humiliation, and act as they do, it is not our doctrine which is to be blamed; but we must extend our forgiveness to the stupidity of those who aim at higher things, and owing to their fatuity of mind fail to attain them. He who is “humble and becomingly adorned,” is so in a greater degree than Plato’s “humble and becomingly adorned” individual: for he is becomingly adorned, on the one hand, because “he walks in things great and wonderful,” which are beyond his capacity; and humble, on the other hand, because, while being in the midst of such, he yet voluntarily humbles himself, not under any one at random, but under “the mighty hand of God,” through Jesus Christ, the teacher of such instruction, “who did not deem equality with God a thing to be eagerly clung to, but made Himself of no reputation, and took on Him the form of a servant, and being found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” And so great is this doctrine of humiliation, that it has no ordinary individual as its teacher; but our great Saviour Himself says: “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”

These words being said, thou shalt perfume the pentacles with the same sweet scents and perfumes, and afterwards having wrapped them in a piece of prepared silk cloth, thou shalt put them in a place fit and clean, which thou mayest open whenever it shall please thee, and close it again, at thy pleasure and according unto thy will. We will hereafter show thee the method and manner of preparing the aforesaid place, of perfuming it with scents and sweet odours, and of sprinkling it with the water and water-sprinkler of magical art; for all these things contain many good properties, and innumerable virtues, as experience will easily teach thee.

This being done, thou shalt perform the experiment, observing its hour, [and then you may say the following song: ASNORIDA, DICTILORIDA, TRESAY, BESSAY, HISTAN, APASSAN, IRUSOLATOS, ENITORITOS, TERUFIEL, ACUSIEL, TANGADIAT, RIZONAT, FACULTASIM, ASTRABAIM, DARANI, ARBEI, ARFUSA, ASTARA, and all you spirits named, come from whichever part of the universe you be, to aid and assist us in this experiment so that through you it may be consecrated, and strengthened, and confirmed, though words be omitted. Through the most sacred name ADONAY, who lives and reigns without end, through the all the ages of the ages.] and thou shalt perfume and incense as is laid down in the proper chapter; sprinkling with exorcised water, and performing all the ceremonies and solemnities as we shall instruct thee in the second book of our Key. [And if the time is not specified, let it be in the day and hour of Mercury.]

These things in [connection with] the pesah override Shabbat: its slaughtering and the sprinkling of its blood and the cleansing of its innards and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and the washing of its innards do not override Shabbat. Carrying it and bringing it from outside the Shabbat border and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. R. Eliezer says they do override [Shabbat].

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

What is the difference between the pesah [which was offered] in Egypt and the pesah of [subsequent] generations? The pesah in Egypt was taken on the tenth [of Nisan], And it required sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and on the two door-posts, And it was eaten in haste on one night, whereas the pesah of [subsequent] generations is kept the whole seven [days].

“And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:18): that is the golden altar. He then began to purify [the altar by sprinkling] in downward motion. From where does he begin? From the northeast horn [of the altar], then the northwest, then the southwest, then the southeast. From the place where he begins [sprinkling when offering] a sin-offering on the outer altar, there he completes [sprinkling] on the inner altar. Rabbi Eliezer says: he remained in his place and sprinkled. And on every horn he would sprinkle from below upwards, with the exception of the horn at which he was standing, which he would sprinkle from above downwards.

“And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:18): that is the golden altar. He then began to purify [the altar by sprinkling] in downward motion. From where does he begin? From the northeast horn [of the altar], then the northwest, then the southwest, then the southeast. From the place where he begins [sprinkling when offering] a sin-offering on the outer altar, there he completes [sprinkling] on the inner altar. Rabbi Eliezer says: he remained in his place and sprinkled. And on every horn he would sprinkle from below upwards, with the exception of the horn at which he was standing, which he would sprinkle from above downwards.

“And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:18): that is the golden altar. He then began to purify [the altar by sprinkling] in downward motion. From where does he begin? From the northeast horn [of the altar], then the northwest, then the southwest, then the southeast. From the place where he begins [sprinkling when offering] a sin-offering on the outer altar, there he completes [sprinkling] on the inner altar. Rabbi Eliezer says: he remained in his place and sprinkled. And on every horn he would sprinkle from below upwards, with the exception of the horn at which he was standing, which he would sprinkle from above downwards.

All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor. They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.

The whole day is a valid time for reading the Megillah; reciting Hallel; for the blowing of the shofar; for taking up the lulav; for the Musaf prayer; for Musaf sacrifices; for confession over the oxen; for the confession over the tithe; for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim; for laying on of hands; for slaughtering [the sacrifices]; for waving [them]; for bringing near [the vessel with the minhah-offering to the altar]; for taking a handful; for placing it on the fire; for pinching off [the head of a bird-offering]; for receiving the blood [in a vessel]; for sprinkling [the blood on the altar]; for making the sotah drink [the bitter waters]; for breaking the neck of the heifer; and for purifying the metzora.

The [rites of] laying hands, waving, presenting [the meal-offering], taking the handful, burning [the fat], cutting [the neck of bird sacrifices], sprinkling and receiving [the blood] are performed by men but not by women, except the meal-offering of a sotah and a female nazirite, where they [themselves] wave the offering.

A pesah and a hatat which were slaughtered not in their own name, or he received [the blood], and carried it [to the altar] and sprinkled [it] not in their own name, Or in their own name and not in their own name, or not in their own name and in their own name, they are disqualified. What is the case of ‘in their own name and not in their own name’? In the name of it being a pesah [first] and [then] in the name of it being a shelamim. ‘Not in their own name and in their own name:’ in the name of a shelamim [first] and [then] in the name of a pesah. For a sacrifice can be disqualified in [any one of] the four elements: slaughtering, receiving, carrying and sprinkling. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid if carried [with the wrong intent], for Rabbi Shimon said: it is impossible [to have a valid sacrifice] without slaughtering, without receiving and without sprinkling, but it is possible without carrying. [How so]? One slaughters it at the side of the altar and sprinkles. Rabbi Eliezer says: if one goes where he needs to go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies [it]; where he doesn’t need to go, an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [it].

A pesah and a hatat which were slaughtered not in their own name, or he received [the blood], and carried it [to the altar] and sprinkled [it] not in their own name, Or in their own name and not in their own name, or not in their own name and in their own name, they are disqualified. What is the case of ‘in their own name and not in their own name’? In the name of it being a pesah [first] and [then] in the name of it being a shelamim. ‘Not in their own name and in their own name:’ in the name of a shelamim [first] and [then] in the name of a pesah. For a sacrifice can be disqualified in [any one of] the four elements: slaughtering, receiving, carrying and sprinkling. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid if carried [with the wrong intent], for Rabbi Shimon said: it is impossible [to have a valid sacrifice] without slaughtering, without receiving and without sprinkling, but it is possible without carrying. [How so]? One slaughters it at the side of the altar and sprinkles. Rabbi Eliezer says: if one goes where he needs to go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies [it]; where he doesn’t need to go, an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [it].

If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.

Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet.

Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

Which is the place [for the offering] of the sacrifices? Most holy sacrifices are slaughtered on the north [side of the altar]. The bullock and the goat of Yom Kippur are [done] at the north, and the receiving of their blood is [performed] with ministering vessels at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the poles [of the ark], on the curtain, and on the golden altar. [The omission of] a single application of [the blood] invalidates [them]. He [the priest] would pour out the remainders of the blood on the western base of the outer altar, but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice].

As for the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, their slaughtering is [done] at the north, and the reception of their blood is [done] at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling on the veil, and on the golden altar; [The omission of] a single one of these applications invalidates [the sacrifice]. He [the priest] pours the remainder of the blood on the western base of the altar; but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice]. Both of these were burnt at the ash pit.

The first-born animal, tithe and the pesah are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and their blood requires one sprinkling, provided that he applies it against the base [of the altar]. They differ in the [rules governing] their eating: The first-born animal is eaten by priests [only], the tithe is eaten by anyone and they can be eaten in any part of the city, prepared in any manner, during two days and one night. The pesah can be eaten only at night, only until midnight, and it can be eaten only by those registered for it, and it can be eaten only when roasted.

If [blood] spurted [direct] from the [animal's] throat onto a garment, it does not require washing. From the horn or from the base [of the altar], it does not require washing. If it spilled out on to the floor [of the Temple] and [the priest] collected it, [and then it splattered onto a garment] it does not require washing. Only blood which was received in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling requires washing. If [the blood] spurted on to the hide, before it was flayed, it does not require washing. [If it spurted] after it was flayed, it requires washing, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Eliezer says: even [if it spurted on the skin] after it was flayed [it does not require washing]. Only the place of the blood requires washing. And whatever is eligible to contract uncleanness, And whatever is fit for washing.

The following sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle sacrifices consecrated for the Tabernacle: Public sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle, and private sacrifices were offered at a bamah. If private sacrifices were consecrated for the Tabernacle, they must be offered in the Tabernacle; yet if one offered them at a bamah, he is not liable. What is the difference between the bamah of an individual and the bamah of the congregation? Laying [of hands], slaughtering in the north, sprinkling around [the altar], waving and presenting, (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the bamah); priesthood, sacrificial vestments, ministering vessels, a sweet fragrance, a line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood, and the washing of hands and feet. But [the prohibitions of] time, remnant and defilement were the same in both.

The following sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle sacrifices consecrated for the Tabernacle: Public sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle, and private sacrifices were offered at a bamah. If private sacrifices were consecrated for the Tabernacle, they must be offered in the Tabernacle; yet if one offered them at a bamah, he is not liable. What is the difference between the bamah of an individual and the bamah of the congregation? Laying [of hands], slaughtering in the north, sprinkling around [the altar], waving and presenting, (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the bamah); priesthood, sacrificial vestments, ministering vessels, a sweet fragrance, a line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood, and the washing of hands and feet. But [the prohibitions of] time, remnant and defilement were the same in both.

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.

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 act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

All the walls that were there [in the Temple] were high except the eastern wall, for the priest who burned the red heifer would stand on the top of the Mount of Olives and direct his gaze carefully to see the opening of the Sanctuary at the time of the sprinkling of the blood.

The fathers of impurity are a: sheretz, semen, [an Israelite] who has contracted corpse impurity, a metzora during the days of his counting, and the waters of purification whose quantity is less than the minimum needed for sprinkling. Behold, these convey impurity to people and vessels by contact and to earthenware by presence within their airspace, But they do not convey impurity by being carried.

Metal vessels remain unclean and become clean even when broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: they can be made clean only when they are whole. How so? If they were sprinkled upon and on the same day they were broken and then they were recast and sprinkled upon on the same day, they are clean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: there can be no effective sprinkling earlier than on the third and the seventh day.

Three woolen pillow-covers, six linen ones, three sheets, twelve handkerchiefs, two pant-sleeves, one shirt, one cloak, or one winter-cloak, can be regarded as connected in respect of both uncleanness and sprinkling. If they exceed this number they are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Rabbi Yose says: not even in respect of uncleanness.

Three woolen pillow-covers, six linen ones, three sheets, twelve handkerchiefs, two pant-sleeves, one shirt, one cloak, or one winter-cloak, can be regarded as connected in respect of both uncleanness and sprinkling. If they exceed this number they are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Rabbi Yose says: not even in respect of uncleanness.

How would they purify a metzora? A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. Two undomesticated birds are also brought. One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

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

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

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

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

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

If the smallest amount of water fell into a flask: Rabbi Eliezer says: the sprinkling must be done twice; But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. If dew dropped into it: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it be put out in the sun and the dew will rise. But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. If a liquid or fruit juice fell into it, all the contents must be poured away and it is also necessary to dry the flask. If ink, gum or sulphate of copper, or anything that leaves a mark, fell into it, the contents must be poured away but it is not necessary to dry the flask.

Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. "This" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon (lavendula) hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened.

Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. "This" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon (lavendula) hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened.

Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. "This" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon (lavendula) hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened.

Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. "This" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon (lavendula) hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened.

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

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

Hyssop that is too short may be lengthened with a thread and a spindle-reed. He then dips it and brings it up again. He grasps the hyssop itself and sprinkles with it. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: just as the sprinkling must be done with the hyssop itself so to must the dipping be done with the hyssop itself.

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. [The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile.

If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. [The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile.

If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. [The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile.

A clean person may hold in the corner of his garment an unclean axe and sprinkle upon it; And even though there is on it enough water for a sprinkling he remains clean. How much water is necessary for sprinkling? Sufficient for the tops of the buds to be dipped and for the sprinkling to be performed. Rabbi Judah ruled: they are regarded as though they were on a hyssop of brass.

A clean person may hold in the corner of his garment an unclean axe and sprinkle upon it; And even though there is on it enough water for a sprinkling he remains clean. How much water is necessary for sprinkling? Sufficient for the tops of the buds to be dipped and for the sprinkling to be performed. Rabbi Judah ruled: they are regarded as though they were on a hyssop of brass.

A clean person may hold in the corner of his garment an unclean axe and sprinkle upon it; And even though there is on it enough water for a sprinkling he remains clean. How much water is necessary for sprinkling? Sufficient for the tops of the buds to be dipped and for the sprinkling to be performed. Rabbi Judah ruled: they are regarded as though they were on a hyssop of brass.

One who sprinkles with unclean hyssop: if [the hyssop] was the amount of an egg the water becomes invalid, and the sprinkling is invalid. If it was less than the amount of an egg, the water remains valid but the sprinkling is invalid. It also defiles other hyssop, and that other hyssop to other, even if they be a hundred.

One who sprinkles with unclean hyssop: if [the hyssop] was the amount of an egg the water becomes invalid, and the sprinkling is invalid. If it was less than the amount of an egg, the water remains valid but the sprinkling is invalid. It also defiles other hyssop, and that other hyssop to other, even if they be a hundred.

The baskets of a pack-saddle, the bed of a barrow, the iron corner of a bier, the [drinking] horns of travelers, a key chain, the loose stitches of washermen, and a garment stitched together with kilayim are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in that of sprinkling.

The lid of a kettle which is joined to a chain: Bet Shammai say: these are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Bet Hillel say: if he sprinkled on the kettle, it is the same as if the lid also was sprinkled upon; but if he sprinkled on the lid only it is not the same as if the kettle also was sprinkled upon. All are eligible to sprinkle, except a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, a woman, and a child that is without understanding. A woman may assist [a man] while he sprinkles, and hold the water for him while he dips and sprinkles. If she held his hand, even if only at the time of sprinkling, it is invalid.

The lid of a kettle which is joined to a chain: Bet Shammai say: these are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Bet Hillel say: if he sprinkled on the kettle, it is the same as if the lid also was sprinkled upon; but if he sprinkled on the lid only it is not the same as if the kettle also was sprinkled upon. All are eligible to sprinkle, except a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, a woman, and a child that is without understanding. A woman may assist [a man] while he sprinkles, and hold the water for him while he dips and sprinkles. If she held his hand, even if only at the time of sprinkling, it is invalid.

If he dipped the hyssop during the day and he sprinkled during the day, it is valid. If he dipped it during the day and sprinkled at night, or dipped at night and sprinkled on the following day, it is invalid. But he himself may immerse at night and then sprinkle on the following day, for sprinkling is not allowed until the sun is risen. And if any of these was done as early as the rise of dawn it is valid.

Superior to them are "smitten waters" which can purify even when flowing [on the ground]. Superior to them are "living waters" for in them there is immersion for zavim and sprinkling for metzoraim, and they are valid for the preparation of the hatat waters.

If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he carried nevelah (carrion), or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].

He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a "father of uncleanness" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].

Abbaye ben Rebbi Benjamin stated: Those who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in their blessing. Those who stand before the Cohanim; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said the blessing even cuts through an iron wall. About those who stand on the side, we may understand from the following: If he wanted to sprinkle before him and he sprinkled behind him, behind him and he sprinkled before him, his sprinkling is invalid. Before him and he sprinkled on his sides, his sprinkling is valid. This implies that those who stand on the side are included in the blessing.

Abbaye ben Rebbi Benjamin stated: Those who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in their blessing. Those who stand before the Cohanim; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said the blessing even cuts through an iron wall. About those who stand on the side, we may understand from the following: If he wanted to sprinkle before him and he sprinkled behind him, behind him and he sprinkled before him, his sprinkling is invalid. Before him and he sprinkled on his sides, his sprinkling is valid. This implies that those who stand on the side are included in the blessing.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody marries giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts’, water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer, she is married, even if the groom is Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was in Bostra. He saw them sprinkling at that Aphrodite. He said to them, is that not forbidden? He went to ask Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan told him in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: Nothing public is forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. As we have stated there: “In a narrow-mouthed flask he dips and takes it out normally. Rebbi Jehudah says, for the first sprinkling.” Just as Rebbi Jehudah said the first pushes out the last, so here Rebbi Eliezer said the first pushes out the last.

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the breaking of the neck; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.