sprinkling

Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac went bathing with Abba bar Mamal at the Three Graces. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, in this way it is forbidden on the Sabbath since he increases vapor and sweeps the floor. Rebbi Abbahu said, others were sprinkling and it fell on him. He answered, but Rebbi Levontin went bathing with Rebbi Jonah. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, we do not have to be concerned about an isolated opinion.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac went bathing with Abba bar Mamal at the Three Graces. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, in this way it is forbidden on the Sabbath since he increases vapor and sweeps the floor. Rebbi Abbahu said, others were sprinkling and it fell on him. He answered, but Rebbi Levontin went bathing with Rebbi Jonah. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, we do not have to be concerned about an isolated opinion.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac went bathing with Abba bar Mamal at the Three Graces. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, in this way it is forbidden on the Sabbath since he increases vapor and sweeps the floor. Rebbi Abbahu said, others were sprinkling and it fell on him. He answered, but Rebbi Levontin went bathing with Rebbi Jonah. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, we do not have to be concerned about an isolated opinion.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

“Bast to make a hanger for a small or large sieve.” This you are saying about the inner part. But for the outer parts to make two loops for a small or large sieve. It was stated: “Palm fiber to make a handle for an Egyptian basket.” This you are saying for soft ones, but for hard ones to make a border. If one took out a willow container he is liable. Palm leaves two. Vine shoots, for planting two, as animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood. One who brings out two hairs from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail is liable because one uses them to make snares. Bristles from pig, there are Tannaim who state, two, and there are Tannaim who state, one. He who says two, of soft ones, but he who says one, of hard ones. Kernels, for planting, two, as animal feed a pig’s mouthful. What is its mouthful? One. Others say, the number five. If one took out calamint, hyssop, or thyme, if as human food, in the volume of a dried fig, if an animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood, if for sprinkling according to the measure of sprinkling.

“Bast to make a hanger for a small or large sieve.” This you are saying about the inner part. But for the outer parts to make two loops for a small or large sieve. It was stated: “Palm fiber to make a handle for an Egyptian basket.” This you are saying for soft ones, but for hard ones to make a border. If one took out a willow container he is liable. Palm leaves two. Vine shoots, for planting two, as animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood. One who brings out two hairs from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail is liable because one uses them to make snares. Bristles from pig, there are Tannaim who state, two, and there are Tannaim who state, one. He who says two, of soft ones, but he who says one, of hard ones. Kernels, for planting, two, as animal feed a pig’s mouthful. What is its mouthful? One. Others say, the number five. If one took out calamint, hyssop, or thyme, if as human food, in the volume of a dried fig, if an animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood, if for sprinkling according to the measure of sprinkling.

“Ink.” If one carried out ink in a reed pen, sufficient to write two letters. If it was in a vessel it needs more. There, we have stated: “How much water is needed for one sprinkling? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, would it not be reasonable that in a vessel it would need more?

He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars, millstones, or splits mosaic stones, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Jehudah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rebbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed, and the leg of a table, and the handle on the top of a knife one shall not return but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated: “Stuck together they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture.

He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars, millstones, or splits mosaic stones, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Jehudah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rebbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed, and the leg of a table, and the handle on the top of a knife one shall not return but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated: “Stuck together they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture.

He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars, millstones, or splits mosaic stones, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Jehudah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rebbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed, and the leg of a table, and the handle on the top of a knife one shall not return but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated: “Stuck together they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture.

What can you say about a baby? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath! A kind of altar can be built the day before. Think of it, if it developed a wart? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if the fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath! Sprinkling is done on the day before.

What can you say about a baby? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath! A kind of altar can be built the day before. Think of it, if it developed a wart? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if the fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath! Sprinkling is done on the day before.

MISHNAH: One bathes the baby before and after the circumcision by sprinkling on him with one’s hand but not with a vessel. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one bathes the baby on the third day which falls on the Sabbath as it is said, it was on the third day when they were hurting. One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt or for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling. It is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail, the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels. But here, for you, all you have use for.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling. It is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail, the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels. But here, for you, all you have use for.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling. It is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail, the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels. But here, for you, all you have use for.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling. It is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail, the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels. But here, for you, all you have use for.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling. It is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail, the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels. But here, for you, all you have use for.

HALAKHAH: One verse says, but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be, etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?

HALAKHAH: One verse says, but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be, etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?

HALAKHAH: One verse says, but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be, etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

There, we have stated: “What is ‘far away’? From Modiin and farther away, and in the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, from the doorstep of the Temple courtyard and farther away.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only not to make him liable for extirpation. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah implies this: “Rebbi Aqiba answered him, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment.” Is it a commandment to sprinkle? Explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Fourteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he his prevented from fulfilling the commandment. Rav Hoshaia said, explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Thirteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then the next day he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he is prevented from fulfilling the commandment. It was found stated following the first [explanation].

What can you say [about a baby]? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath! Think of it, if it developed a wart? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if his Seventh day falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath! Sprinkling may be done on the day before.

What can you say [about a baby]? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath! Think of it, if it developed a wart? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if his Seventh day falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath! Sprinkling may be done on the day before.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent, since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent, since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted.

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.

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.

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.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth, and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts, and was eaten in a hurry, during one night. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days].

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

On the Eighth {Day}. There are Tannaim who state, it was anointed; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not anointed. There are Tannaim who state, it was dismantled; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not dismantled. Rebbi Ḥanin said, it is obvious for us that for him who said, it was anointed it was dismantled; and for him who said, it was not anointed it was not dismantled. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written he anointed them. But he who said, it was not anointed, how does he uphold he anointed them? I consider it as if it were missing anointment and you anointed it. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written, seven days they shall atone the altar. But he who said, it was not dismantled, how does he uphold seven days they shall atone the altari Atonement by blood, as it was stated: On both of them they were sprinkling from all purifications that were there, so that the water should penetrate under the blood, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, under the blood and under the anointing oil.

HALAKHAH: Does he not become impure because of his sprinklings? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were sprinkling on him after he had brought his offerings.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes. It is unnecessary. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place, that its place shall be pure. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it, he shall burn incense. Since sprinkling is on its body, also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he should not err. Rebbi Zeˋira said, that he should finish his sprinkling with “seven”. But was it not stated, “seven and one”? Rebbi Abun said, it is written, before the cover .. seven. Why does the verse say, he shall sprinkle? That the first sprinkling should be counted with them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he should not err. Rebbi Zeˋira said, that he should finish his sprinkling with “seven”. But was it not stated, “seven and one”? Rebbi Abun said, it is written, before the cover .. seven. Why does the verse say, he shall sprinkle? That the first sprinkling should be counted with them.

It is written, he shall sprinkle it on the cover. I could think on its top, the verse says, in front of the cover. I could think on its front, the verse says, on, in front of. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover. Since “the cover” mentioned there means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull:

It is written, he shall sprinkle it on the cover. I could think on its top, the verse says, in front of the cover. I could think on its front, the verse says, on, in front of. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover. Since “the cover” mentioned there means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull:

It is written, he shall sprinkle it on the cover. I could think on its top, the verse says, in front of the cover. I could think on its front, the verse says, on, in front of. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover. Since “the cover” mentioned there means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull:

It is written, he shall sprinkle it on the cover. I could think on its top, the verse says, in front of the cover. I could think on its front, the verse says, on, in front of. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover. Since “the cover” mentioned there means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull:

The holiness. He has to aim vis-a-vis the holiness. “Rebbi Nehemiah said, since we find about the bull which comes for all commandments that he stands before the altar and sprinkles on the gobelin at the moment of his sprinkling, I could think that here it is the same; the verse says, which is before the Eternal. Where was he? Inside of the altar. Or does he speak only of the outer altar? The verse says, which is before the Eternal. Therefore he only speaks of the inner altar.”

MISHNAH: All actions of the Day of Atonement which have been prescribed in their sequence, if he advanced one action to another he did not do anything. If he advanced he-goat’s blood to the bull’s blood he has to sprinkle he-goat’s blood after the bull’s blood. If the blood was spilled before he finishes all givings required in the interior, he has to bring other blood and starts sprinkling anew in the interior. So it is in the Temple Hall and so it is with the golden altar, since all of these are separate atonements. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, he starts at the place where he interrupted.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The scholars who teach the priests the rules of slaughter, rules of receiving, rules of sprinkling, take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Isaac bar Redifa in the name of Immi: The inspectors of defects of sancta take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simlai: Those who correct the scroll of the Temple courtyard take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Assi: The two judges of robberies take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Samuel said, women who are weaving the gobelins take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge; Rav Ḥuna said, from disbursements for repair of the House. How do they disagree? Samuel makes it a sacrifice, Rav Huna makes it part of the building. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The incense and all public sacrifices come from the disbursement from the lodge. The golden altar and vessels for the Service come from the excess of libations. The altar for elevation sacrifices, the building, and the courtyards come from the leftover in the lodge. The outside of the courtyards come from the lodge for maintenance of the House. But was it not stated: One commits me`ilah with stones of the Temple or the courtyards. How can one commit me`ilah with leftovers? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, one commits me`ilah with leftovers. Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Meïr said this only during its year. But here we are after its year.

“Nor immerses,” for it is written, he sprinkles, he immerses. Since sprinkling is during daytime, also immersion is during daytime. From where that sprinkling is during daytime? For it is written, the pure one sprinkles on the impure one on the third day. All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed not, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of the family of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

“Nor immerses,” for it is written, he sprinkles, he immerses. Since sprinkling is during daytime, also immersion is during daytime. From where that sprinkling is during daytime? For it is written, the pure one sprinkles on the impure one on the third day. All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed not, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of the family of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

MISHNAH: The entire day is qualified for reading the Scroll, and to read the Hallel, and to blow the shofar, and to take the lulav, and for the musaf prayer, and for musaf sacrifices, for confessions with bulls, and for the declaration of tithes and for the confessions of the Day of Atonement. For leaning on, slaughter, weaving and presenting, taking a handful, burning on the altar, breaking the neck, receiving, sprinkling, and to let the suspected adulteress drink, and to break the neck of the calf, and to purify the sufferer from skin disease.

“For leaning on, slaughter, weaving, presenting, taking a handful, burning on the altar, breaking the neck, receiving, sprinkling.” As it is written, on the day on which He commanded the Children of Israel.

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

If he was born on the eightieth day, he eliminates ten. If he was born on the ninetieth day, he eliminates twenty. If he finished his nezirut and came to complete his son’s nezirut and became impure within the first ten days, he eliminates everything. Within the last twenty days? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rab and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, he eliminates thirty. Rebbi Samuel said, he eliminates seven only. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Joḥanan think that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical with substantial eliminating? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if Rebbi Joḥanan thought that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical to substantial eliminating, why would he say that he eliminates thirty? Should he not invalidate everything? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he was born on a day unsuitable to bring a sacrifice. Think of it, if he was born in the night, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the night caused it. Think of it, if he was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave when [the son] was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave before his son was born, he celebrates one shaving for both. If he had dedicated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before his son was born. There, they say that he celebrates one shaving for both. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he shaves and then shaves a second time. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “They asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Assume that he was both a nazir and a sufferer from scale disease, may he shave once and have it counted for his nezirut and his scale disease? He said to them: If he shaved to remove hair, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves to remove hair whereas the sufferer from scale disease shaves to have hair grow. They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave to remove hair. (They said to him. If both of them shaved before the sprinkling of the blood, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before the sprinkling of the blood and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after the sprinkling of the blood! They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave before the sprinkling of the blood!) He said to them, if both shaved before they immerse themselves in water, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before he immerses himself in water and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after he immerses himself in water. They said to him, the matter is settled. It cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, it cannot be counted for the days of his count. It cannot be counted for purification; it cannot be counted for impurity. That is, if he was a nazir and sufferer from scale disease. But if he was a nazir and nazir, he may shave once for both.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains that they disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

If he was born on the eightieth day, he eliminates ten. If he was born on the ninetieth day, he eliminates twenty. If he finished his nezirut and came to complete his son’s nezirut and became impure within the first ten days, he eliminates everything. Within the last twenty days? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rab and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, he eliminates thirty. Rebbi Samuel said, he eliminates seven only. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Joḥanan think that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical with substantial eliminating? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if Rebbi Joḥanan thought that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical to substantial eliminating, why would he say that he eliminates thirty? Should he not invalidate everything? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he was born on a day unsuitable to bring a sacrifice. Think of it, if he was born in the night, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the night caused it. Think of it, if he was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave when [the son] was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave before his son was born, he celebrates one shaving for both. If he had dedicated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before his son was born. There, they say that he celebrates one shaving for both. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he shaves and then shaves a second time. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “They asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Assume that he was both a nazir and a sufferer from scale disease, may he shave once and have it counted for his nezirut and his scale disease? He said to them: If he shaved to remove hair, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves to remove hair whereas the sufferer from scale disease shaves to have hair grow. They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave to remove hair. (They said to him. If both of them shaved before the sprinkling of the blood, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before the sprinkling of the blood and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after the sprinkling of the blood! They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave before the sprinkling of the blood!) He said to them, if both shaved before they immerse themselves in water, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before he immerses himself in water and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after he immerses himself in water. They said to him, the matter is settled. It cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, it cannot be counted for the days of his count. It cannot be counted for purification; it cannot be counted for impurity. That is, if he was a nazir and sufferer from scale disease. But if he was a nazir and nazir, he may shave once for both.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains that they disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

If he was born on the eightieth day, he eliminates ten. If he was born on the ninetieth day, he eliminates twenty. If he finished his nezirut and came to complete his son’s nezirut and became impure within the first ten days, he eliminates everything. Within the last twenty days? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rab and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, he eliminates thirty. Rebbi Samuel said, he eliminates seven only. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Joḥanan think that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical with substantial eliminating? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if Rebbi Joḥanan thought that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical to substantial eliminating, why would he say that he eliminates thirty? Should he not invalidate everything? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he was born on a day unsuitable to bring a sacrifice. Think of it, if he was born in the night, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the night caused it. Think of it, if he was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave when [the son] was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave before his son was born, he celebrates one shaving for both. If he had dedicated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before his son was born. There, they say that he celebrates one shaving for both. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he shaves and then shaves a second time. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “They asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Assume that he was both a nazir and a sufferer from scale disease, may he shave once and have it counted for his nezirut and his scale disease? He said to them: If he shaved to remove hair, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves to remove hair whereas the sufferer from scale disease shaves to have hair grow. They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave to remove hair. (They said to him. If both of them shaved before the sprinkling of the blood, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before the sprinkling of the blood and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after the sprinkling of the blood! They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave before the sprinkling of the blood!) He said to them, if both shaved before they immerse themselves in water, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before he immerses himself in water and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after he immerses himself in water. They said to him, the matter is settled. It cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, it cannot be counted for the days of his count. It cannot be counted for purification; it cannot be counted for impurity. That is, if he was a nazir and sufferer from scale disease. But if he was a nazir and nazir, he may shave once for both.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains that they disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

If he was born on the eightieth day, he eliminates ten. If he was born on the ninetieth day, he eliminates twenty. If he finished his nezirut and came to complete his son’s nezirut and became impure within the first ten days, he eliminates everything. Within the last twenty days? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rab and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, he eliminates thirty. Rebbi Samuel said, he eliminates seven only. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Joḥanan think that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical with substantial eliminating? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if Rebbi Joḥanan thought that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical to substantial eliminating, why would he say that he eliminates thirty? Should he not invalidate everything? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he was born on a day unsuitable to bring a sacrifice. Think of it, if he was born in the night, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the night caused it. Think of it, if he was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave when [the son] was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave before his son was born, he celebrates one shaving for both. If he had dedicated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before his son was born. There, they say that he celebrates one shaving for both. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he shaves and then shaves a second time. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “They asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Assume that he was both a nazir and a sufferer from scale disease, may he shave once and have it counted for his nezirut and his scale disease? He said to them: If he shaved to remove hair, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves to remove hair whereas the sufferer from scale disease shaves to have hair grow. They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave to remove hair. (They said to him. If both of them shaved before the sprinkling of the blood, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before the sprinkling of the blood and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after the sprinkling of the blood! They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave before the sprinkling of the blood!) He said to them, if both shaved before they immerse themselves in water, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before he immerses himself in water and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after he immerses himself in water. They said to him, the matter is settled. It cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, it cannot be counted for the days of his count. It cannot be counted for purification; it cannot be counted for impurity. That is, if he was a nazir and sufferer from scale disease. But if he was a nazir and nazir, he may shave once for both.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains that they disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

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.

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 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 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.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simai: In a city of only Cohanim, all of them lift their hands. For whom do they recite the blessing? For their brothers to the North and South. Who answers after them? Women and children. Abbaie bar Benjamin stated: People who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in the blessing. For those in front of them, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that even an iron wall does not interrupt. Those who stand to their side? Let us hear from the following: “If he intended to sprinkle before himself but sprinkled behind himself, behind himself but sprinkled before himself; his sprinkling is invalid. Before himself but sprinkled sideways, his sprinkling is valid.” This implies that those who stand to their side are included in the blessing. Rav Ḥisda said, it is necessary that the organizer be an Israel. Rav Ḥisda said, if there was one Cohen, he says “Cohen.” For two, he says “Cohanim.” But Rav Huna said, even for one he says “Cohanim” since he only calls the tribe, lest you say, probably person X is an adulterer or a murderer, and he shall bless us? The Holy, praise to Him, said: Who blesses you? Am not I blessing you? As it was said: “They shall put My name over the Children of Israel and I shall bless them.”

Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simai: In a city of only Cohanim, all of them lift their hands. For whom do they recite the blessing? For their brothers to the North and South. Who answers after them? Women and children. Abbaie bar Benjamin stated: People who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in the blessing. For those in front of them, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that even an iron wall does not interrupt. Those who stand to their side? Let us hear from the following: “If he intended to sprinkle before himself but sprinkled behind himself, behind himself but sprinkled before himself; his sprinkling is invalid. Before himself but sprinkled sideways, his sprinkling is valid.” This implies that those who stand to their side are included in the blessing. Rav Ḥisda said, it is necessary that the organizer be an Israel. Rav Ḥisda said, if there was one Cohen, he says “Cohen.” For two, he says “Cohanim.” But Rav Huna said, even for one he says “Cohanim” since he only calls the tribe, lest you say, probably person X is an adulterer or a murderer, and he shall bless us? The Holy, praise to Him, said: Who blesses you? Am not I blessing you? As it was said: “They shall put My name over the Children of Israel and I shall bless them.”

If somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling [the victim’s] blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the intention invalidates, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the intention does not invalidate. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state: “Rebbi Yose said, that is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since in a case where thought makes sanctified food unusable, etc.,” and thought invalidates for piggul and leftover. He said to him, truly thought invalidates for piggul and leftover; but if somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling [the victim’s] blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, the intention does not invalidate. If he slaughtered and then the blood was sprinkled in an idolatrous rite and the fat was burned in an idolatrous rite, there was such a case in Caesarea and they pronounced neither prohibition nor permission. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were not apprehensive. If you say that they were apprehensive, they should have taught a prohibition. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were apprehensive. If you say that they were not apprehensive, they should not have dealt with the case.

If somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling [the victim’s] blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the intention invalidates, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the intention does not invalidate. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state: “Rebbi Yose said, that is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since in a case where thought makes sanctified food unusable, etc.,” and thought invalidates for piggul and leftover. He said to him, truly thought invalidates for piggul and leftover; but if somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling [the victim’s] blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, the intention does not invalidate. If he slaughtered and then the blood was sprinkled in an idolatrous rite and the fat was burned in an idolatrous rite, there was such a case in Caesarea and they pronounced neither prohibition nor permission. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were not apprehensive. If you say that they were apprehensive, they should have taught a prohibition. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were apprehensive. If you say that they were not apprehensive, they should not have dealt with the case.

Rebbi Eleazar said, sisters are not preliminarily married but in the case of purification sacrifices it atoned. How is that? If one slaughtered two purification offerings for one transgression, the altar selects that which is appropriate; both are forbidden to be eaten. If one slaughtered two reparation offerings for one damage, the altar selects that which is appropriate; both are forbidden to be eaten. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the first one was slaughtered not for its purpose but the second for its purpose, it did atone since the first, which was not for its purpose, becomes acceptable only through the purpose stated later. But if the first was slaughtered for its purpose but the second not for its purpose: if the first atoned for what may the second atone? For impurity which occured between the first and the second. But for Passover sacrifices it did not atone since the Passover sacrifice is only for the meat to be eaten. This does not follow Rebbi Nathan since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills one’s duty by sprinkling [the blood] without eating.

A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Be on guard, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Be on guard, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

What means "the time appointed" ? Samuel the Elder, the son-in-law of R. Hannina, said in the name of R. Hannina : From the time of slaying the continual offering until the time of the sprinkling of the blood. R. Johanan said : [It means] precisely until noon.

Rava said: From where do I derive that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking? From what we have learned: If the hyssop is too short, he may provide it with a thread or with a reed and dip it and bring it up, and then hold the hyssop itself when sprinkling. Why? Didn't the Torah say, "And he shall take hyssop and dip?" (Numbers 19:18). Rather learn from there that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’?

Mishnah: 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.

Neither should one immerse [in a mikveh] nor sprinkle. As it is written, “And the clean person shall sprinkle on the unclean . . . And on the seventh day” (Numbers 19:19) and immersing is compared to sprinkling.

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];

And for bringing near, for it is compared to waving, as it is written, “And the priest shall take the minhah offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal-offering . . . And bring it near [to the altar]” (Numbers 5:25). And for pinching and for taking a handful and for burning and for sprinkling, as it is written, “On the day that He commanded the children of Israel [to present their offerings]” (Leviticus 7:35).

That which is unclean by reason of a dead body requires sprinkling on the third and on the seventh day. But men do not borrow a vessel for use at the end of seven days. And with regard to dipping, are we not to take a man's word? And yet there is the Baraitha, The word of a common person is taken with respect to the purification of washing of that which is unclean by reason of a dead body. Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one refers to his body, the other to his vessels. But Raba said, Both the one and the other teaching refer to his vessels. And even so there is no difficulty. The one is the case of a man who says, I have never dipped vessels in the midst of vessels; and the other is the case of a man who says, I have dipped, but I have not dipped in a vessel the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin. And this is borne out by a Baraitha, viz., A common person is believed when he says, Fruits have not been rendered predisposed to defilement. But he is not believed, when he says, The fruits have been rendered predisposed to defilement, but they have not been defiled. And with regard to his body, is he to be believed? Surely not, For lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., In the case of a learned and observant man who comes for sprinkling, he is to be sprinkled at once; in the case of a common person, who comes for sprinkling, he is not to be sprinkled, until he performs before us the things appertaining to the third and seventh days. But Abai says, As the result of thy severity towards him at the beginning, thou dealest gently with him at the end.

That which is unclean by reason of a dead body requires sprinkling on the third and on the seventh day. But men do not borrow a vessel for use at the end of seven days. And with regard to dipping, are we not to take a man's word? And yet there is the Baraitha, The word of a common person is taken with respect to the purification of washing of that which is unclean by reason of a dead body. Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one refers to his body, the other to his vessels. But Raba said, Both the one and the other teaching refer to his vessels. And even so there is no difficulty. The one is the case of a man who says, I have never dipped vessels in the midst of vessels; and the other is the case of a man who says, I have dipped, but I have not dipped in a vessel the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin. And this is borne out by a Baraitha, viz., A common person is believed when he says, Fruits have not been rendered predisposed to defilement. But he is not believed, when he says, The fruits have been rendered predisposed to defilement, but they have not been defiled. And with regard to his body, is he to be believed? Surely not, For lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., In the case of a learned and observant man who comes for sprinkling, he is to be sprinkled at once; in the case of a common person, who comes for sprinkling, he is not to be sprinkled, until he performs before us the things appertaining to the third and seventh days. But Abai says, As the result of thy severity towards him at the beginning, thou dealest gently with him at the end.

That which is unclean by reason of a dead body requires sprinkling on the third and on the seventh day. But men do not borrow a vessel for use at the end of seven days. And with regard to dipping, are we not to take a man's word? And yet there is the Baraitha, The word of a common person is taken with respect to the purification of washing of that which is unclean by reason of a dead body. Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one refers to his body, the other to his vessels. But Raba said, Both the one and the other teaching refer to his vessels. And even so there is no difficulty. The one is the case of a man who says, I have never dipped vessels in the midst of vessels; and the other is the case of a man who says, I have dipped, but I have not dipped in a vessel the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin. And this is borne out by a Baraitha, viz., A common person is believed when he says, Fruits have not been rendered predisposed to defilement. But he is not believed, when he says, The fruits have been rendered predisposed to defilement, but they have not been defiled. And with regard to his body, is he to be believed? Surely not, For lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., In the case of a learned and observant man who comes for sprinkling, he is to be sprinkled at once; in the case of a common person, who comes for sprinkling, he is not to be sprinkled, until he performs before us the things appertaining to the third and seventh days. But Abai says, As the result of thy severity towards him at the beginning, thou dealest gently with him at the end.

(Deutermany 12, 17) "and your voluntary gifts", this refers to the Todah and Sh'lamim offerings. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from the Todah or the Sh'lamim before the z'rika [the sprinkling of the blood] incurs malkus.