meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Parah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Parah
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה פרה
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Parah
  
  Introduction
  
  Get ready to learn a tractate that is literally called "Cow"!  The cow referred to here is the red cow (often called the red heifer) whose ashes were used to purify a person that had contracted corpse impurity. The cow is often called "hatat" or "sin-offering" by the rabbis and the water into which the cow's ashes were put is called "hatat waters." So too the ashes are called "hatat ash." The putting of the ash into the water is called "kiddush" or sanctification and sometimes the waters are called "holy waters."  The ritual of the red cow is described in chapter 19 of Numbers, which I have brought from the JPS translation below. It would probably be helpful to read through these verses before you begin to study the Tractate. We shall make reference to them quite frequently, much as we did throughout our study of Negaim. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah discusses how old a "heifer" can be before it becomes a cow. This is relevant to two laws. In Deuteronomy 21 we read that in order to expiate for an unsolved murder a ritual with a "heifer" must be performed. In order to perform the ritual correctly, we must determine how old a heifer is. And determining how old a "cow" is relevant to the issue of our tractate the red cow.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: the heifer is no more than one year old and the cow no more than two years old. But the sages ruled: the heifer may be even two years old and the red cow even three or four years old. Rabbi Meir says: even five years old, though she is old. But they did not wait with it so long since it might in the meantime grow some black hairs and [thus] become invalid.  According to Rabbi Eliezer the heifer whose neck is broken according to Deuteronomy 21 must be less than one year old. The cow must be less than 2 years old. The other sages add a year to both of these numbers. Rabbi Meir rules that a cow can even be 5 years old and still be valid to be used in the red cow ritual. However, if a red cow was born (a highly unusual event) they wouldn't wait five years to use it because if any of its hairs turn black, it becomes invalid.
  Rabbi Joshua said: I only heard of [a cow] that was three years old [shelashit]. They said to him: What does "shelashit" mean? He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: if you say "shelishit" the meaning is ‘the third’ in number to others, but when you say "shelashit" the meaning is one that is three years old.  The mishnah now begins a series of discussion in which Rabbi Joshua and Ben Azzai participate and which hinge on the precise pronunciation of various words. The first of these discussions is pertinent to the issue of the red cow. Rabbi Joshua asserts that he heard that the cow must be "shelashit." This seems to be an unusual spelling of the Hebrew word for the ordinal number of three third. The other sages ask him why did you say "shelashit." Rabbi Joshua, interestingly, does not know why he pronounced the word in this unusual manner. He just heard "shelashit" and repeated what he was taught. Ben Azzai, the younger student, however, has an explanation. Had Rabbi Joshua said "shelishit," the typical pronunciation of the ordinal number, we would have thought that the cow would have to be the third born to its mother. Now that he pronounced the word "shelashit" we learn that the cow must be three years old.
  Similarly they said a vineyard that is "revai." They said to him: what does "revai" mean? He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: if you say "revii" the meaning is the fourth in number to others, but when you say "revai" the meaning is one that is four years old.  The same argument now occurs with regard to a vineyard in its fourth year. This topic is covered in Maaser Sheni 5:1-5. The produce of such a vineyard must be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. The word for fourth year as pronounced by Rabbi Joshua is "revai" instead of the more typical "revii." Again, the other sages ask Rabbi Joshua why he pronounces it this way and he doesn't know how to respond. Ben Azzai explains that had he pronounced it "revii" we might have thought that it was fourth in number. This could mean that it is the fourth vineyard owned by the owners or that it is the fourth vineyard planted in this field. Now that it is pronounced "revai" we learn that the these laws refer to a vineyard planted in its fourth year.
  Similarly it was ruled: if a man ate in an afflicted house half a loaf, three of which can be made from a kav, he becomes unclean. They said to him: say rather "eighteen of which are made of a se'ah." He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: when you say, three of which are made of a kav it would not contain hallah, but if you say, eighteen of which are made of a se'ah, it has been reduced by its hallah.  The final issue has to deal with a halakhah that came up in the last tractate we learned Negaim. If a person goes into a house afflicted with some sort of scaly plague and stays there long enough to eat half of a loaf of bread, when three loaves are made of a kav of flour, becomes impure. The rabbis ask why he expresses the amount as "three loaves in a kav" instead of "eighteen loaves in a seah." A seah is 6 kavs, so the ratio stays the same. Ben Azzai explains that had one made 18 loaves he would actually have to give some as "hallah," dough offering, to the priest. This would reduce (by a small amount) the size of each loaf. But three loaves of bread is too small of an amount to be liable for hallah. Therefore, the amount of the loaf is precise.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  There are many occasions when the Torah mandates sacrificing a "par" or a bull. In today's mishnah there are three opinions as to how old the bull must be.
  Rabbi Yose the Galilean said: bulls must be no more than two years old, for it is said, "And the second bull you shall take for a sin-offering" (Numbers 8:8).  Rabbi Yose the Galilean bases his halakhah on a midrash on Numbers 8:8. The verse says that one should take the "second bull." Since the Torah states elsewhere said to take two bulls and one has already been sacrificed why does it need to say "second." From this "extraneous" word Rabbi Yose the Galilean concludes that the word "second" refers to how old the bull must be two years.
  But the sages say: they may be even three years old.  The sages say that the bull can even be three years old. There are some versions that don't include the word "even." According to this, the rabbis hold that it must be three years old.
  Rabbi Meir says: even those that are four or five years old are valid, but old animals are not brought out of respect.  Rabbi Meir again provides a much higher limit for the age of the animal being discussed (as he did in yesterday's mishnah). However, despite the fact that one can bring a relatively old animal, it is not respectful to do so because it looks as if he is offering this animal only because it will die soon anyway.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Lambs no more than one year old, And rams no more than two years old.  When the Torah mandates bringing a lamb-offering, it must be within its first year. This is explicit in the Torah, see for instance Numbers 7:17. Rams adult sheep must be at least within their second year.
  And all these years are reckoned from day to day.  When counting the age of any of the animals listed in the first three mishnayot of this tractate, we count from the day the animal was born. We don't count from the beginning of the year, as we do for other matters. So a lamb born in the beginning of Elul is not considered to be one year old until the following Elul.
  One that is thirteen months old is not valid, neither as a ram nor as a lamb. Rabbi Tarfon called it palges. Ben Azzai called it noked. Rabbi Ishmael called it parakhrigma.  A 13 month old sheep cannot be considered a lamb or a ram. It is too old to be a lamb and a sheep is not a ram until it is 30 days past its first birthday. The 30 days is likely to be a vestige of the notion that the life of anything born is considered precarious until it has reached thirty days old. It's almost as if we count the animal's days only from one month and on (although this is only in cases in which the rule is stringent when it comes to the limit of a lamb, it is one year, and not 13 months). The sages all have a special name for this 13 month old sheep. Palges is a Greek word which refers to something that is no longer a child but has not reached maturity (kind of like a teenager). Noked is a type of inferior sheep. And parakhrigma is a Greek word used to refer to a coin with a king's image that has been invalidated by the new king. The 13 month old has been disqualified from being a "lamb" but has not yet been validated as a "ram."
  If a man offered it he must bring for it the libation of a ram, but it is not counted as his offering.  If a person sacrifices a 13 month old sheep he must bring the libations that are brought for a ram. This means 2 tenths of an ephah of flour, a third of a hin of oil and a third of a hin of wine (see Numbers 15:6-7). However, offering this animal doesn't count as fulfilling his obligation. So if he vowed to bring a ram or a lamb, the thirteen month old doesn't count and he still has to bring another one.
  One that is thirteen months old behold it is a ram.  Once it reaches 13 months and one day it is a ram.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with how old various animals must be before they can sacrificed.
  The sin-offerings of the congregation and their burnt-offerings, the sin-offering of an individual, the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a metzora are valid from the thirtieth day onwards, and also on the thirtieth day. If they were offered on the eighth day they are valid.  The sin-offerings of the congregation are the goats that are brought on Rosh Hodesh and other holidays. These must be within their first year. The burnt-offerings are lambs (see Numbers 28). The sin-offering of an individual can be a lamb or goat (Leviticus 4:28ff). The guilt offering of a nazirite (Numbers 6:12) and the guilt offering of a metzora (Leviticus 14:12) are both lambs. Since all of these are mandatory offerings, it is mandated that one let them grow a little bit before they are brought. Although they are valid from the 8th day and onwards, they should not be brought until they are at least 30 days old. No animal can be slaughtered or sacrificed before the 8th day, as is stated explicitly in Leviticus 22:27.
  Vow-offerings and freewill-offerings, firstlings and the tithe of cattle and the pesach are valid from the eighth day onwards, and also on the eighth day.  Vow offerings and freewill offerings are voluntary, therefore they can be offered on the eighth day and onwards. Since people are not mandated to bring them, we don't make them wait until the 30th day to do so. As far as the firstling (the first-born animal to its mother) goes, the Torah specifically says that that on the 8th day you should give it to the Lord (Exodus 22:29). The cattle tithe and the pesah are both compared to the firstling (see Zevahim 5:8). Therefore they too can be offered from the 8th day and onwards.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Rabbi Eliezer says: a [red] cow for the hatat that is pregnant is valid, But the sages say: it is invalid.  Rabbi Eliezer says that a pregnant red cow is still valid for the red cow ritual (the hatat is the sin offering, which is how the rabbis refer to the red cow). In mishnah four of this chapter we shall see a dispute as to whether a cow that has mated with a bull is valid. In contrast, the sages say that a pregnant cow is akin to two cows, which means it is not valid for the red cow hatat.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: it may not be bought from non-Jews, But the sages say: it is valid.  Rabbi Eliezer says that a cow bought from non-Jews cannot be used lest they used it for work, which would render it invalid. The other sages say that unless we know that it has been used for work, it is valid.
  And not only this, but all sacrifices of the congregation or the individual may be brought from the land of Israel and from outside the land, from new produce and from the old; Except the omer and the two loaves, which may be brought only from new produce and from within the land.  This expands the sages' view found in section two. All sacrifices, both public and private may be brought from animals raised outside the land of Israel, even if they are bought from non-Jews. The remainder of this mishnah is brought here from Menahot 8:1. My commentary here is the same as there. All menahot (grain offerings) can come from grain grown either in or outside the land of Israel. They can also come from new produce or aged produce. There are two exceptions: the omer barley offering brought on the second day of Pesah and the two loaves brought on Shavuot. With regard to the omer it is stated in Leviticus 23:10, “When you come into the land…you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest.” With regard to the two loaves it states there in verses 16-17, “And you shall offer a new minhah to the Lord, from your dwelling places you shall bring it.” Both of these verses teach that the omer and the two loaves must come from the new harvest and from grain grown in the land of Israel.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with various bodily issues that could potentially disqualify the red cow.
  If the horns or the hoofs of the [red] cow are black they are chopped off.  The red cow must have only red hairs. If it has black hairs, they cannot be removed to make it valid. However, if it has black non-hair parts, parts that can be removed without killing or maiming the animal, they may be removed. These include the horns and hoofs.
  The eye ball, the teeth and the tongue cause do not invalidate the [red] cow.  Some parts need not even be removed if they are black. These include the eye ball, the teeth and the tongue. Removing these "live" parts of the cow would severely damage the cow and therefore this is not done.
  One that is dwarf-like is valid.  In Bekhorot 7:6 we learned that dwarf-like animals are not disqualified from sacrifices. Here we learn that this includes the red hatat cow.
  If there was on it an extra digit and it was cut off: Rabbi Judah says that it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever, if removed, no red hair grows in its place is it invalid.  Bekhorot 7:6 teaches that if a priest had an extra finger and he cut it off, he can't serve on the altar. Rabbi Judah applies this to the red hatat cow as well. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon says that the cow is invalid only if no red hair grows in its place. If red hair takes its place, it is valid.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Most of today's mishnah deals with Numbers 19:2 which states, "Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid."
  One that is born from the side, the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid, as it says, "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God," (Deuteronomy 23:19) and this was not brought into the house.  Deuteronomy 23:19 forbids one from bringing as a sacrifice an animal that was used to pay a harlot or an animal that was sold to buy a dog. The first opinion in the mishnah states that if a red cow was used for either of these purposes, it too is invalid as a hatat cow. However, Rabbi Eliezer says that the verse only prohibits actually sacrifices to be brought from such animals. The red cow is not brought into the Temple and thus if used for either of these purposes, it is valid. In addition, there is a debate concerning a red cow that is born through a caesarean section literally in Hebrew one that is born from the side of its mother. In Bekhorot 7:7 we learned that an animal born through caesarean section cannot be sacrificed. Here we learn that it can also not be used as a red cow hatat, according to the sages. Again, Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid.
  All blemishes that cause consecrated animals to be invalid cause also the [red] cow to be invalid.  The Torah explicitly states that the red cow must have no blemish. The list of what constitutes a blemish can be found in Bekhorot chapter 6.
  If one had ridden on it, leaned on it, hung on its tail, crossed a river by its help, doubled up its leading rope, or put one's cloak on it, it is invalid.  These are all considered making use of the animal and therefore disqualify it from being used as a red cow. "Doubled up its leading rope" seems to mean that one doubled up the rope and laid it on the cow as a place to put it. This too is considered making use of the animal.
  But if one had only tied it up by its leading rope or made for it a sandal to prevent it from slipping or spread one's cloak on it because of flies, it is valid.  In contrast, in these cases the person doesn't make use of the animal, rather does something for the animal's sake. These do not fall under the category of "on which no yoke has been laid" and therefore the animal is still valid.
  This is the general rule: wherever anything is done for its own sake, it remains valid; but if for the sake of another, it becomes invalid.  This is the general rule that summarizes the distinction drawn between the cases in section three and those in section four.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah teaches that if something rests upon the red cow it only disqualifies it from use as a hatat if it is done according to the owners wishes.
  If a bird rested on it, it remains valid.  A bird sitting on the red cow does not disqualify it from use as a hatat. This does not count as the bird having performed work for it was not something that the owners wanted to happen.
  If a male beast mounted it, it becomes invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if the male was made to mount, it becomes invalid; but if it did so of itself, it remains valid.  According to the first opinion, if a male animal mounts the red cow to mate with it the red cow has been invalidated because this is something that the owners would want to happen. And although they would not want it to happen to that particular cow, for this would invalidate it for use as a red cow hatat (worth lots of cash), since they would want it to happen to their other cows, this counts as something that was done with the consent of the owners. Rabbi Judah distinguishes between a case where the owners caused the male to mount the red cow and cases where the bull mounted on its own. For this act to be considered something done according to the owners' wishes, they must take an active part in the act. If they do not, then we cannot consider it an act that disqualifies the red cow.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with how many non-red hairs, and the placement of such hairs, will disqualify a red cow from being used as a hatat.
  If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosot that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid.  According to the first opinion, if two black or white hairs grow within one follicle they disqualify the cow from use as a hatat. Rabbi Judah says "within one kos." According to Albeck, kos is another word for follicle, in which case, Rabbi Judah does not disagree with the first opinion, he just uses different language (the word used for follicle was "guma.") In addition, Rabbi Judah says that if two white or black hairs grow in two adjacent follicles (kosot) and the hairs are directed to one another, then they disqualify the cow.
  Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty.  Rabbi Akiva is more lenient. As long as the hairs are not adjacent, they don't disqualify the cow. However, he must remove the white or black hairs before the cow can be used. Rabbi Eliezer has a similar opinion, except it is not clear if he requires the hairs to be removed. If he does require removal, then he has virtually the same opinion as Rabbi Akiva, he just words it slightly differently.
  Rabbi Joshua ben Batera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid.  Rabbi Joshua ben Batera rules strictly even two white or black hairs on opposite sides of the body will disqualify the cow.
  If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: by the root.  According to Rabbi Meir, we judge the color according to the tip the more visible part. But the sages say we judge by the root if the roots are white or black, the cow is not considered red. [This sort of reminds me of someone who has colored their hair and has let it grow out a bit.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter three describes the ritual of how the red cow was burned into ash. This is covered in Numbers 19:3-6:
  3 You shall give it to Eleazar the priest. It shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4 Eleazar the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. 5 The cow shall be burned in his sight its hide, flesh, and blood shall be burned, its dung included 6 and the priest shall take cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson stuff, and throw them into the fire consuming the cow.
  Seven days before the burning of the [red] cow they would separate the priest who was to burn the cow from his house to a chamber that was facing the north-eastern corner of the birah, and which was called the Stone Chamber.  The idea of setting aside the priest who would burn the red cow seems to be derived from the setting aside of the high priest before the Yom Kippur worship (see Yoma 1:1). And both ideas are learned from the setting aside of Aaron and his sons for seven days before the original sanctification of the altar in Leviticus 8:33-34. Part of the reason that the priest had to leave his house was to prevent him from being with his wife and thereby becoming ritually defiled. There are two opinions as to what "Birah" is. One holds that this is another name for the Temple, while another holds that this is a tower that was on the Temple Mount. See also Pesahim 7:5.
  They would sprinkle upon him throughout the seven days with [a mixture of] all the sin-offerings that were there. Rabbi Yose said: they sprinkled upon him only on the third and the seventh days. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests said: on the priest that was to burn the cow they sprinkled all the seven days, but on the one that was to perform the service on Yom Kippur they sprinkled on the third and the seventh days only.  During the seven days that he was separated, they would sprinkle him with the hatat purificatory waters. These waters were made using the combined ashes of all of the red cows that had been burned since the time of Moses (we shall return to this in mishnah five). Sprinkling the ashes on him for all seven days seems to be some sort of extra stringency lest the priest had become defiled before the seven day waiting period by contact with a dead body. Rabbi Yose says that they sprinkled the purificatory waters on him only on the third and seventh days. These are the days in which a person who had contact with the dead requires purification. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests distinguishes between the priest who was to burn the red cow, who does require sprinkling every day, and the priest who performed the Yom Kippur service, who requires sprinkling only on the third and seventh day. It seems to me that this opinion may be a way of highlighting just how significant the burning of the red cow was in their eyes. The rules governing it are even stricter than those governing the most central act of worship in the Temple during the year the entrance into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses how they would preserve the purity of the children of priests so that they could perform the red cow ritual without ever having become impure. This was an extra stringency due to the high degree of gravity with which they took the red cow ceremony.
  Courtyards were built in Jerusalem over rock, and beneath them there was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths.  They would not build the courtyards directly over the ground just in case there was a grave deep in the ground, and the dead body's impurity would rise and defile the priests above. The hollow between the rock and the building platform would serve to capture the impurity and prevent it from rising. This was a concept we learned much about in Tractate Ohalot a space the size of one handbreadth by one handbreadth prevents impurity from rising up above the space.
  And they used to bring there pregnant women, and there they gave birth to their children and there they raised them.  They would bring pregnant women there to give birth and raise their children there so that the children would never become impure. Again, this is not strictly necessary but it demonstrates the extra degree of severity with which they treated this purity ritual.
  And they brought oxen, upon whose backs were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands.  The following two sections describe how they would draw water from the Shiloah spring without possibly coming into contact with a source of impurity. The children would ride oxen down to the spring. The doors on the oxen's backs would prevent the children from overshadowing (making an ohel over) any source of impurity. They used stone cups because stone cannot become impure.
  When they reached the Shiloah spring they got down and filled the cups with water and then they ascended and sat again on the doors. Rabbi Yose said: each child used to let down his cup and fill it from his place.  They filled their cups from the Shiloah spring which is on the southern side of Jerusalem (also called the Silwan). Rabbi Yose says that they didn't even get off the backs of their oxen to do so. Again, this was an extra stringency to make sure they did not become impure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down.  The children now proceed back up to the Temple Mount and then get off their oxen.
  Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths.  As was the case with the courtyards in which these children were raised, there was a space below the Temple Mount and the courtyards that would protect them from the impurity of a potential grave.
  And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings.  At the eastern entrance of the women's courtyard there was a stone jar in which the ashes of the burned red cow could be found.
  They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards.  They didn't simply have one of the kids take the ashes out of the jar and put them in the water drawn from the Shiloah for fear that somehow the child had become impure and he would defile the ashes. Rather, they would tie some sort of stick or twig to a sheep and put the stick or twig into the ashes and then hit the sheep so that he would get moving. Thus they could remove the ashes without ever touching the jar or even directly causing the jar to move. Again, this is another stringency done in the red cow ceremony.
  And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water.  Once the ashes had been removed, a child could come and take them and put them into the stone jar of water that he had collected. He would put enough ashes in so that they would be noticeable in the water.
  Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it.  Rabbi Yose seems to fear that the Sadducees would ridicule a priest who would perform the ritual in this manner, that is by removing the ashes by using a sheep. Such ridicule could help the Sadducees to gain an upper hand over the Pharisees. To prevent such ridicule, he says that a child should just remove it himself. It is interesting to me that Rabbi Yose perceives Pharisaic rule in the Temple to be contingent upon their image in the eyes of others. Someone would see the strange ceremony and then somehow cause the Pharisees to lose control. After having put the ashes into the water, the children would sprinkle it onto the priest who was going to burn the next red cow, as we learned in mishnah one.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  One may not bring a sin-offering by virtue of [the purifications made for] another sin-offering, nor one child by virtue of [the preparations made for] another.  If they begin to make preparations to burn one red cow and somehow that red cow becomes disqualified (for instance, someone performs work with it, or it grows some black hairs) they have to start the preparations all over again. The preparations for the burning of a red cow, in other words, must be done with that red cow in mind. So too, if one child begins to perform the preparations and then for whatever reason doesn't complete them, they can't bring another child to finish the process. They must start anew.
  The children had to be sprinkle on each other, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: they did not need to sprinkle.  According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the children need to sprinkle the water on each other, before they sprinkle it onto the priest who will burn the cow. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not necessary.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  In mishnah one we learned that they sprinkled the priest with the ashes from all of the red cows that had ever been burned. Our mishnah reflects a legend (I think) according to which there had been seven burned red cows in Jewish history.
  If they did not find the residue of the ashes of the seven [red cows] they performed the sprinkling with those of six, of five, of four, of three, of two or of one.  If they didn't have the residue of all seven red cows, then they could use as many as they found.
  And who prepared these? Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five were prepared from the time of Ezra, the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir two of the cows were prepared by two central biblical figures. Moses burned one while in the desert and Ezra burned the second when he founded the Second Temple. The remaining five were burned after the time of Ezra.
  But the sages say: seven from the time of Ezra. And who prepared them? Shimon the Just and Yohanan the high priest prepared two; Elihoenai the son of Ha-Kof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each.  The sages say that all seven were burned from the time of Ezra and onward. They even name all seven high priests that burned them. Shimon the Just is a well-known figure in rabbinic literature. Scholars identify him as being either of two High Priests (grandfather and grandson) that served early in the Second Temple period, before the Hasmonean revolt. Part of the confusion as to which Shimon this is stems from the fact that Onias was the name of the father of both of them. Yohanan the high priest was a member of the Hasmonean family (Judah's nephew). The other three are harder to identify. There is a priest by the name of Elihoenai that appears in Ezra 8:4. Hanamel seems to be called Ananelos by Josephus (Wars of the Jews 15.40). He served during Herod's time. Ishmael son of Piabi seems to have been a high priest after Hanamel. He is described as being close to the Sadduceans. Nevertheless, he is portrayed positively in rabbinic literature.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  They made a ramp from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, being constructed of arches above arches, each arch placed directly above each foundation [of the arch below] as a protection against a grave in the depths, whereby the priest who was to burn the cow, the cow itself and all who aided in its preparation went forth to the Mount of olives. Our mishnah describes a special ramp that was made leading from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives. The ramp was constructed with a series of arches in its walkway with an empty space underneath each archway. Furthermore, the ramp was multi-layered such that each archway was above the foundation of the archway below. This way the priest, the cow and all of the assistants would always be walking over an empty space. This would protect against that all pervasive fear of the "grave in the depths." [This is beginning to sound a bit like some sort of horror film!]
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, "They slaughtered a black cow" nor another red [cow] lest people say, "They slaughtered two." Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said "And he shall bring her out" by herself.  Normally, if a cow refuses to go somewhere, its owners would find a more obedient cow to go with it. However, in the case of the red cow, this is not allowed lest the people seeing the second cow, be it black or red, think that they either slaughtered two red cows or that they are going to slaughter a black cow. Rabbi Yose says that the reason for this prohibition is that the Torah implies that they should bring out the red cow alone.
  The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion.  The elders would go to the Mount of Olives by foot. They would not ride on animals to show how enthusiastic they were to see the performance of this mitzvah.
  The priest that was to burn the cow was ( made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, "It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set."  This section introduces a big debate between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Concerning a person who has had contact with a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) Leviticus 22:7 states, "And the sun will set and he will be pure." This seems to imply that a person is not pure until he has immersed in the mikveh and then the sun has subsequently set. However, the Pharisees/rabbis believed that once a priest immersed in the mikveh he is pure enough to perform the red cow ceremony. To demonstrate that this is true, they would intentionally defile the priest (with a one-day form of impurity) and then have him immerse. He would now be in the category of "tvul yom" a person who has immersed but has not yet had the sun set for him. This was a demonstrative act against the Sadducees who abhorred such a practice. One interpretation of this debate that makes sense to me is that the Pharisees wanted to diminish the power of the sun in matters of ritual purity due to the fact that other Jews of the time used a solar calendar. By making purity depend upon the setting of the sun, it was as if they gave purifying power to the sun itself. In response, the Pharisees limited this notion, and created the category of the tvul yom.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues the description of the ritual of the burning of the cow.
  They laid their hands upon him and said, "My Lord the high priest, perform immersion once."  The elders lay their hands on the high priest, telling him to go immerse to prepare for the burning of the red cow. Two notes are in order. 1) This is again similar to the Yom Kippur ritual (see 1:3). 2) This ceremony need not be performed by the high priest. It seems that by according it to him, the ceremony received greater prominence.
  He went down and immersed himself and came up and dried himself.  He needed to immerse because they had intentionally defiled him.
  Different kinds of wood were set in order there: cedar wood, pine, spruce and the wood of smooth fig trees. They made it in the shape of a tower and opened air holes in it; and its foreside was turned towards the west.  The wood was set to burn the cow. It was made into a tower with air holes so that it would burn more effectively. The wood was set up facing the Temple (which was to the west), meaning it was in rows going from west to east, with the front of the wood towards the west.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west.  The cow is now bound up and placed on the pile of wood. Its head is facing south and its face is to be turned to the west, towards the Temple.
  The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand.  The priest stands on the eastern side of the cow, facing the Temple as well. He slaughters the animal with his right hand and then receives the blood into a vessel held in his left. Rabbi Judah says he receives the blood with his right hand and then puts the vessel into his left. This seems to be a preference for doing the important actions, which include the receiving of the blood, with his right hand.
  He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling.  He sprinkles the blood 7 times towards the Holy of Holies. This is stated explicitly in Numbers 19:4.
  When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees.  He needs to clean off his bloody hand on the cow itself so that the blood can be burned with the fire. Numbers 19:5 specifically states that the blood must be burned.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  It burst and he stood outside its pit and he took the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool.  Once the cow burst due to the heat of the fire, the priest would take the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool into his hand so that he could throw them into the fire (see Numbers 19:6).
  He said to them, "Is this cedarwood? Is this cedarwood?" "Is this hyssop? Is this hyssop?" "Is this scarlet wool? Is this scarlet wool?" Three times he repeated each question and they answered him "Yes, yes"   three times to each question.  The thrice-repeated formula is meant to give great publicity to the ceremony, as is done with the Omer (barley offering) according to Menahot 10:3. In my opinion this is part of the polemic against the Sadducees (see mishnah 7). The Pharisees/rabbis have to prove that they take this ceremony with utmost gravity in order to balance out their leniency that the red cow ritual can be performed by a priest who is a "tvul yom" someone who has been to the mikveh but has not waited till sundown to become pure.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of this chapter concludes the description of the burning of the red cow.
  He then wrapped them together with the remains of the strip of wool and cast them into the fire.  After demonstrably ensuring that the cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were what they were supposed to be (see yesterday's mishnah), the priest would use the extra wool to bind them up and cast them into the fire (see Numbers 19:6).
  When it was burnt up they would beat it with sticks and then sift it with sieves. Rabbi Ishmael says: this was done with stone hammers and stone sieves.  The next steps taken ensured that everything that was in the fire was actually burned. They would beat the fire with sticks and then sift through it to make sure the ashes were fine. Rabbi Ishmael says that this was done with stone instruments which are not susceptible to impurity.
  If there was a black coal on which there were some ashes they would crush it but if there were no [ashes] they would leave it. A bone was crushed in either case.  Coals that had ashes remaining on them were crushed up so that the ashes would be part of the final product. Bones were crushed up even if they didn't have ashes remaining on them.
  It was then divided into three parts: one part was deposited on the hel, one on the Mount of Olives, and one was divided among the priestly watches.  The ashes of the red cow (and the other materials) were then split and divided into three places. The first is the "hel" an area right outside the courtyard where the ashes were placed into the water to purify the priest who was to burn the next cow (see mishnah three). The second part was placed on the Mount of Olives. This part was not used (at least not on a regular basis). The third part was given out to the priestly watches who would use it to purify any Israelite who needed this type of purification.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah describes various conditions that must be fulfilled for the red cow ceremony to be validly performed.
  If a hatat cow was slaughtered not for its own name, or if its blood was received or sprinkled not for its own name, or if this was done for its own name and for some other name, or for some other name and for its name, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules it valid.  The hatat cow must be slaughtered and its blood must be received and sprinkled with the intent of this being for a hatat cow (the one used for the red cow ritual). If any part of these three actions are done for the sake of another type of sacrifice then it is invalid. This is true of all sacrifices, as we learned in the first chapter of Zevahim. Rabbi Eliezer says that the hatat cow is not treated like a regular sacrifice because its ritual is performed outside of the Temple.
  If [the service] was performed by one whose hands or feet were unwashed, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid.  All sacrifices must be performed by those who have washed their hands and feet (see Zevahim 2:1). Again, the sages say that the red cow is like other sacrifices and if the ritual is performed by someone who has not washed their hands and feet, it is invalid. And again, Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid.
  If it was performed by one who was not the high priest, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah rules that it is valid.  The sages say that the red cow must be performed by the high priest himself, whereas Rabbi Judah disagrees.
  If it was performed by one who was not wearing all the prescribed garments, it is invalid. And in white garments it was to be prepared.  There are four pieces of clothing that all priests must wear when performing a sacrificial service: a cloak, pants, a headdress, and sash. Even if the high priest performs the ceremony, he performs it with the white garments worn by a regular priest and not with the eight garments worn by the high priest (see Yoma 7:5).
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to list things that can disqualify the validity of the burning of the red cow.
  If it was burnt outside its pit, or in two pits, or if two cows were burnt in the same pit, it is invalid.  In 3:10 we learned that they would make a pit in which to burn the red cow. If it was burned outside of this pit, or if they made two pits, it is invalid. Similarly, they can't make two red cows in one pit. This is similar to the prohibition of not using one cow to prod out another in 3:7.
  If [the blood] was sprinkled but not in the direction of the entrance of the Holy of Holies, it is invalid.  The blood must be sprinkled in the correct direction for it to be valid (see 3:9).
  If he made the seventh sprinkling out of the sixth and then sprinkled again a seventh time, it is invalid.  If the priest dips his finger into the blood and sprinkles a sixth time, and then with the remaining blood sprinkles a seventh time, it is invalid, even if he goes back and sprinkles another "seventh" time. The problem is that he sprinkled once without dipping and we learned in 3:9 that for every sprinkle he needs to redip his finger.
  If he sprinkled an eighth time out of the seventh and then sprinkled again an eighth time, it is valid.  In this case he sprinkled correctly seven times and then with the remains of the seventh sprinkle he performed an eighth sprinkling and then again dippied his finger and did another eighth sprinkling. Since he did seven proper sprinklings, the fact that he added more does not invalidate the act.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If he burned it without wood, or with any kind of wood, and even if only with straw or stubble, it is valid.  Although the type of wood that should be used to burn the red cow is listed in 3:8, if he uses other wood, or even no wood at all, the act is still valid. It seems that the wood is not part of the mitzvah, but just something that enables the mitzvah and therefore using different material does not invalidate the mitzvah.
  If he flayed it and cut up, it is valid.  The act is valid even if the cow is flayed and cut up before being burned. Of course, all of the cow must be burned.
  If he slaughtered it with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer rules: no intention can invalidate the red cow.  The printed version reads "valid" but this seems to be an erroneous reading. Manuscripts and testimony from medieval commentaries read "invalid" which makes more sense. If he slaughters the red cow with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, he has invalidated it. Rabbi Eliezer is consistent with his position in mishnah one wrong intentions do not invalidate the red cow ritual since it is not considered to be a sacrifice.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Numbers 19:7-10 states, "The priest shall wash his garments and bathe his body in water; after that the priest may reenter the camp, but he shall be unclean until evening. 8 He who performed the burning shall also wash his garments in water, bathe his body in water, and be unclean until evening. 9 A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, to be kept for water of lustration for the Israelite community. It is for cleansing. 10 He who gathers up the ashes of the cow shall also wash his clothes and be unclean until evening."
  Most of our mishnah deals with who must wash their clothing.
  All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work.  The mishnah rules that anyone who performs any aspect of the red cow service has defiled their clothing. They also render the red cow invalid if they do some other type of work while occupying themselves with the red cow. No multi-tasking while burning the red cow (so put away your cellphones ☺).
  If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing.  If the cow turns out to be invalid while it is being slaughtered (for instance the slaughtering is not done correctly) then it doesn't count as a red cow ritual and the person's clothes will not be made impure.
  If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency.  The basic principle here is that if the person is occupied with the red cow ritual after it is already invalid, his clothes are not defiled. But if he was occupied with it after it was slaughtered but before it was invalidated, his clothes are defiled because the cow did count, at least for a time, as a red cow because it had been slaughtered properly. The result is that the stringency (the red cow has been invalidated) turns into a leniency (the clothes are not defiled).
  It is always subject to the rules of trespassing.  "Trespassing" is the illicit use of a sacred property. Any use of the red cow is considered trespassing, no matter when it is done.
  Wood may be added to the fire.  It is permitted to add wood to the fire to help it burn. However, this is true only before it has become ash. If one adds wood after the cow has been turned to ash, he invalidates the ash.
  The service must be performed by day and by a priest.  The entire service must be performed during the day and by a priest.
  Work renders it invalid.  Work renders it invalid as we learned above in section one.
  [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes  These words relate to everything that was taught in sections four through seven. Those rules apply only until it has been turned into ash. After it has been turned into ash, the rules of trespassing do not apply: one cannot add wood and the service does not need to be performed during the day or by a priest.
  And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.  Doing work with the water set aside for the sprinkling ritual renders it invalid, but only until the ash has been added.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah talks about measures taken to ensure the purity of the vessel into which the ashes and water were mixed.
  He who brings the earthen vessel for the hatat must immerse, and spend the night by the furnace. Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring it from the house and it is valid, for all are deemed trustworthy in regard to the hatat.  The person who is going to bring the earthenware vessel to be used for the hatat (the red cow) must first immerse himself in a mikveh. When doing so, he must have the specific intent that he will be occupied with the hatat (see Hagigah 2:6). He must sleep next to the furnace in which the vessel is being made to make sure that it is not touched by someone impure. Rabbi Judah rules much more leniently for he believes that people can be trusted to preserve the purity of anything to do with the hatat. People recognize the sanctity of the red cow and would not claim that a vessel was pure if it was not.  Therefore, he can even bring it directly from the house in which it was made, without sleeping next to the furnace (might not be so comfortable in the summer).
  In the case of terumah one may open the furnace and take out [the vessel]. Rabbi Shimon says: from the second row. Rabbi Yose says: from the third row.  When it comes to a vessel made for holding terumah, one need not sleep next to the furnace. However, he should go to the furnace, open it up and take it out himself. He should be able to tell by looking at the vessel whether it had yet been touched. He should not trust the potter's purity. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yose rule more strictly saying that he should take from either the second row of vessels in the furnace or the third row, for it is more likely that these rows have not been touched and therefore have not been defiled.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If one immersed a vessel for the hatat in water that is not fit for the mixing he must dry it; If in water that is fit for the mixing he need not dry it.  The water used to mix in the ashes must be fresh water (see 19:17), water that has not been previously collected. If he takes a vessel that can be purified in a mikveh to use it for mixing in the hatat ash and he immerses it in a mikveh, he must make sure that it is completely dry before he puts in the water for the ritual. But if he immersed it in fresh water, he doesn't need to dry it because that water is fit in any case.
  But if [he intended] to collect in it water that was already mixed with the ashes, he must dry it in either case.  If he immersed the vessel to gather water in which the ashes had already been mixed, then he needs to dry it no matter where he immersed it. This is because he needs to prevent water that has not been sanctified with the hatat (the water in which he immerses) with the water that has already been mixed.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a pumpkin shell was immersed in water that was not fit for the mixing, it is permissible to mix in it the ashes with the water, as long as it had not been defiled.  If one designs a dried out pumpkin shell to be a vessel for holding water, then he can immerse it even in a regular mikveh (water not fit for mixing) and he doesn't need to dry it off before mixing in the water to be used with the ashes. This is because the water that remains after the immersion will be absorbed into the pumpkin shell. We are not concerned lest it expel some of this water (which cannot be used with the ashes) into water that will be used for the ashes.
  If it has been defiled, one cannot mix in it the ashes with the water.  However, if the pumpkin shell had previously been defiled then it can't be used ever to hold the water and ashes because we are concerned that it will expel some impure water that had been held in its absorbent walls, thereby invalidating the hatat waters.
  Rabbi Joshua says: if one is allowed to mix in it the ashes and water at the beginning, one should also be allowed to do so at the end; and if one is not allowed to do this at the end one should not be allowed to do it at the beginning. In either case it is not permissible to collect in it water that has already had ashes mixed in.  Rabbi Joshua points out the obvious inconsistency with the previous opinion. In section one (at the beginning, before it had been defiled) we were not concerned lest it expel any water that it had absorbed. But in section two (at the end, after it had been defiled) we are concerned that it will do so. The inconsistency does not make sense. It seems that this leads Rabbi Joshua to rule strictly. Even if the pumpkin has never been defiled, he still can't use it for fear that it will expel unusable water into the living waters needed for the hatat ritual.
  Whether or not the pumpkin has ever been defiled, it cannot be used to collect water that has already had ashes mixed in. This is because we fear that it will expel water that had not had the ashes in it, into the water that did (see the end of yesterday's mishnah). We should note that there is some disagreement among the commentators whether this last line belongs to Rabbi Joshua or to the sages.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A reed pipe that was cut [for use as a container] for the hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be immersed immediately. Rabbi Joshua ruled: he defiles it and then immerses it.  A reed pipe was cut and made into a vessel usable for holding water (on reed pipes as vessels see Kelim 17, the end of the chapter). Rabbi Eliezer says that it is to be immersed immediately for the sake of a hatat. Rabbi Joshua says that it should first be intentionally defiled and then it can be immersed and used immediately. This way the reed pipe will have the status of "tvul yom" something that is clean but has not yet waited for the sun set. As we saw in 3:7, the rabbis wanted the red cow ritual to be performed by a tvul yom as part of their polemic against the Sadducees who believed that a person was not pure until after the sun had set.
  All are eligible to prepare the mixture, except a deaf mute, an imbecile and a minor. Rabbi Judah says a minor is eligible, but disqualifies a woman and a hermaphrodite.  Anyone, even a non-priest and even a woman, can take the ashes and put them in the water. Numbers 19:9 says that a pure person must collect the ash. The rabbis take this to mean that the person needs to be pure, but that it can be done by anyone. However, he must have "awareness" meaning the ability to comprehend what he is doing. As we have seen many times throughout the Mishnah, the rabbis considered the deaf mute, the imbecile and the minor to be incapable of such awareness. Rabbi Judah says that a minor is capable of putting the ash into the water, but a woman is not allowed to do so. Similarly, a hermaphrodite who is part man/part woman, cannot perform the mixing of the ash and water.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with what vessels can used for making the hatat waters.
  They can make the mixture in all kinds of vessels, even in vessels made of cattle dung, of stone or of earth.  All vessels can be used for mixing in the water and ashes, even vessels that cannot become impure, such as those made of dung, stone or earth. We might have thought that something that cannot become impure wouldn't count as a "vessel" and the Torah states that the water must be put into a vessel. Our mishnah counters that notion.[Hard to imagine them actually using vessels made of dung for this ritual, but theoretically, it's possible].
  The mixture may also be prepared in a boat.  So too a boat cannot become impure. Nevertheless, one can, at least theoretically, put the ashes and water in there.
  It may not be prepared in the walls of vessels, or in the sides of a large jug, or in the stopper of a jar, or in one's cupped hands, for one does not fill up, or mix in, or sprinkle the hatat with anything but a vessel.  However, there are things that can hold water that don't count as vessels. The first is the wall of a broken vessel, or the side of a large broken jug. Even though these pieces of earthenware can hold water, they cannot be used because they are not considered vessels. The stopper of a jar cannot be used even if it has a receptacle (see 9:1) because it is not considered a vessel. Finally, one's hands do not count as a vessel.
  Only on a vessel does tightly fitting cover afford protection, for only in vessels is protection afforded against uncleanness within an earthen vessel.  Earthenware vessels that have a tightly fitting lid protect their contents from impurity. For instance, if a vessel with food in it is in an oven with an impure thing such as a sheretz, the food remains pure (see Kelim 8:3). However, this only applies if the food is in a vessel. Non-vessels do not protect their contents in the same way.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A potters’ egg is fit [as a vessel]. Rabbi Yose rules that it is unfit.  A "potters' egg" is an egg shaped piece of plaster made by the potter and from which he will form a vessel. It has a receptacle. The first opinion holds that this egg is usable for mixing the ashes and water and to sprinkle from it for it is already considered a vessel. Rabbi Yose says that it is not yet a vessel and therefore cannot be used.
  A hen's egg: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah rule it is fit [as a vessel]; But the sages rule that it is unfit.  Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah hold that even a hen's egg is considered a vessel and therefore can be used. However, the other sages (understandably, in my opinion) disagree.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a receptacle carved into a rock into which water from a spring would flow. Can this water be used for the red cow ritual?
  It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid.  The reason that this receptacle cannot be used is that it is not considered a vessel, and as we have seen, only vessels can be used for to mix the water and for the sprinkling. Similarly, if it is found in a tent (or tent-like structure) with a dead body (or part thereof) it does not need a tightly fitting lid to protect its contents from impurity. It is sufficient for it to be merely covered. If water from it flows into a mikveh, it doesn't render the mikveh invalid, as it would if the water came from a vessel. Water that flows into a mikveh from a vessel does render the mikveh invalid. The bottom-line it doesn't count as a vessel.
  If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid.  If one made a vessel out of stone and then attached it with lime to the ground next to the spring, it does count as a vessel. In such a case, he can use it for the hatat ritual, it needs a tightly fitting cover to protect its contents when in a tent with a corpse and if water flows from there into a mikveh it renders the mikveh's contents invalid.
  If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel.  This relates to the situation in section two. If there is a hole in that vessel and then he stops it up with a rag, the water cannot be used for the red cow ritual. The reason is not entirely clear and my translation hides the difficulty in the Hebrew. It seems that when the hole is at the bottom the water is drawn toward the hole and the rabbis don't consider the water as being contained by the vessel. To put it another way, the hole below nullifies it from being a vessel. But if the hole was on the upper side of the vessel and there are full walls surrounding it, then the water is considered to be surrounded by the vessel and it can be used for the red cow ritual.
  If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.  This again relates to the situation in which there is a vessel put into the rock. If he made a rim of clay around the top of the vessel and the water rose to that level, the water cannot be used because the clay around the top is not considered to be a vessel. However, if he attaches the clay in such a manner that it would be moved with the vessel, then it is part of the vessel and the water is valid.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If there were two troughs in one stone and the mixture was prepared in one of them, the water in the other is not prepared.  In this situation there are two troughs set into the stone, neither of which are attached to the ground and therefore both can count as vessels (see yesterday's mishnah). If the mixture of red cow ashes and water is prepared in one, the water in the other is not considered to have been prepared because the two troughs are not connected.
  If a hole of the size of the spout of a water skin passed from one to the other, or if the water overflowed both, even if only [to a depth of] the thickness of garlic peel, and the mixture was prepared in one of them, the water in the other is also prepared.  However, if there is a connection between the two, either through a hole or by causing the water to overflow from one into the other, then as soon as one is prepared, the other is prepared as well.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If one placed two stones close to one another and made them into a trough, and so also in the case of two kneading troughs, and so also in the case of a trough that was split, the water between them is not deemed to be prepared.  Someone takes two stones and sets them up next to each other such that there is a receptacle in between. Or he does the same thing with two kneading troughs or he takes one trough set into a stone and divides it in two. In all three of these cases the water between the two vessels, or in the crack between the split trough, is not considered to be in a vessel and therefore cannot be used for the red cow ritual. In other words, if one takes two vessels and puts them next to each other such that a container is formed in between them, the container is not considered to be a vessel.
  If they were joined together with lime or gypsum and they can be moved together, the water between them is deemed to have been prepared.  However, if he joins the two troughs together such that they can be moved together, then the container formed in between them counts as a vessel and water in it can be used for the red cow ritual.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with various situations in which some of the ashes fall out of the hand of the person who is about to mix them in with the water.
  If one was about to mix the ashes with the water and the ashes fell upon his hand or upon the side of the trough and then fell into the trough, the mixture is invalid.  In all of these cases the mixture is invalid because the ashes must be put by a person directly into the water. The fact that there is something intervening (his hand or the side of the trough) renders the mixture invalid.
  If they fell from the tube into the trough, the mixture is invalid.  The ashes were put into a tube for storage (see 5:4). If they fall directly from the tube into the water, the mixture is invalid.
  If he took the ashes from the tube and then covered it, or shut a door, the ashes remain valid but the water becomes invalid.  Here he takes some ashes from the tube. He then covers up the tube or closes a door before he puts the ashes into the water. The ashes remain valid and can be put into some other water. But the fact that he did "work" while occupied with the red cow ritual renders the water invalid, as we learned in 4:4. He will now have to get new water to put the ashes in.
  If he put it up erect on the ground, the water becomes invalid. If in his hand, the water is valid, since it is impossible [otherwise]  Similarly, if he stands the tube up on the ground, this counts as work and the water is invalid. However, if he simply stands the tube up in his hand so that the ashes don't fall out, the water is still valid because he has no choice but to do this, or something like this. This is considered "work necessary for the mixing" and such work does not render the water invalid.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If the ashes floated on the water: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may take some of them and use them in another preparation; But the sages say: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared from them.  According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon if there are some ashes that are floating on the water after he has mixed them in, one can take those ashes and reuse them with other water to make more hatat waters. Think of it as red cow recycling. The other sages say that after the process has been performed once with some ashes, it cannot be performed again with the same ashes.
  If he emptied out the water and some ashes were found at the bottom: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may dry them and then use them for another preparation; But the sages rule: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared.  This is basically the same dispute as in section one, except here ashes have settled to the bottom of the vessel into which they were mixed.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  One who mixes the water in a trough while a bucket was in it, even though its neck was narrow as can be, the waters in it are prepared.  If there is a bucket in the trough when he adds in the hatat ashes, the water in the bucket is also prepared for the sake of sprinkling. The bucket is a vessel and the water in it is considered to be connected to the rest of the water in the trough.
  If there was a sponge in the trough, the water in it is invalid.  However, if there is a sponge in the trough, the water in the sponge is not valid for use because the sponge is not a vessel. Furthermore, the water in it is not considered to be connected to the water in the trough. This prevents the rest of the water in the trough from being immediately invalidated.
  What should he do? He should empty out the water until he gets to the sponge.  This section explains how he should avoid the problem of invalid water from the sponge spilling into the valid water that remains in the trough. What he should do is pour all of the water into another container, thereby preserving its validity. He can then remove the sponge.
  If one touched the sponge, however much the water that washes over it, the water becomes invalid.  However, if he touches the sponge at all, we must be concerned lest some got squeezed out into the other water and therefore all of the water would be invalid.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah teaches that if one causes water to pass from a spring into a jar by using a conduit that is receptive to impurity, the water is invalid. The water must either be filled straight into the jar, or at least go through or over something that does not receive impurity.
  If he placed his hand or his foot or leaves of vegetables in such a manner as to enable the water to run into a jar, the water is invalid.  Hands, feet and leaves of vegetables are susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the water that has passed over them has been invalidated.
  If he used leaves of reeds or leaves of nuts the water is valid.  However, leaves of reeds or nuts are not susceptible to impurity, therefore, the water remains valid for use.
  This is the general rule: [water passing over] that which is susceptible to uncleanness is invalid, but [water passing over] that which is not susceptible to uncleanness is valid.  This is the general rule that explains the distinction between section one and two.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  One who diverts a spring into a wine vat or into pools, the water is invalid for zavim and metzoraim.  In this situation, a person diverts water from a spring into a wine vat or into some pools and after the vat or pools are full, he stops the connection with the spring such that the water is no longer connected to its source. Zavim people with abnormal genital discharge, cannot use this water because they need living water. For metzoraim, people with skin afflictions, they slaughter a bird above living water and sprinkle him with the water. This also requires living water.
  And also for the preparation of the hatat water.  It is also not valid for the preparation of hatat water.
  Because it was not drawn into a vessel.  This is the reason why this water cannot be used for any of these three rituals. The water in the vat or pools is no longer live water as it was when it was in the spring. And, the water is also not considered to be in a vessel for vats and pools are not vessels. Therefore, this water is invalid for any ritual requiring "living waters."
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who draws water multiple times from a live source of water and either wants to use all five jars for one mixture or for five different mixtures. The potential problem that he could encounter is the prohibition of doing "work" while preparing the hatat water.
  If five men filled five jars to prepare with them five mixtures, and then they changed their minds to prepare one mixture from all of them, or if they filled the jars to prepare with them one mixture and then they changed their minds to prepare with them five mixtures, all the water remains valid.  There are two scenarios here. In the first, five different people draw five different jars of water with which to make five different mixtures of hatat water and then they change their mind and decide to make one mixture. Alternatively, five different men want to make one mixture and then they change their mind and decide to make five different mixtures. In both cases, all of the water is valid. As stated in the introduction, the potential problem is that one person would be preparing hatat water and at the same time doing something else, even preparing a separate mixture of hatat water. In these cases, that did not happen, because there were five different men, and each was occupied with preparing his own jar of hatat water.
  If one man filled five jars intending to prepare five [separate] mixtures, [even though] he changed his mind to prepare one mixture from all of them, only the last is valid.  Here, one man wanted to make five different jars but then changed his mind and decided to prepare one jar of hatat water. The problem is that after he filled each jar, he then went and filled another jar and this is considered "work" which disqualifies the validity of the hatat water. Only the last jar's water is valid because he didn't occupy himself with anything else after filling that jar.
  If he intended to prepare one mixture from all of them and then he changed his mind to prepare five separate mixtures, only the water in the one that was mixed first is valid.  At the outset, he intended to make one large mixture of hatat water and then he changed his mind and decided to make the water that he had drawn into five separate mixtures. The first drawing remains valid. But the latter four drawings of water are all invalid because the first mixing was considered work done in between their drawing and their mixing.
  If he said to another man, "Prepare mixtures from these for yourself," only the first is valid;  In this case a person fills up five jars and then says to another, "Prepare them for yourself." The preparer now takes possession of the water, thereby taking the place of the drawer. And just as only the first was valid in section three, so too here, only the first is valid because work was done in between their drawing their mixing.
  But if he said, "Prepare a mixture from these for me," all are valid.  In this case, the drawer says to the one who will mix the water and ashes, "Prepare them for me." Here, the preparer does not take the place of the drawer, for he hasn't given possession of the water over to him. It turns out that the owner of the water (the one who drew it) didn't do any labor in between the drawing and the mixing. Therefore, all of the mixtures are valid.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  One who filled the water with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, or filled the water for himself and for another man, or filled two jars at the same time, the water of both is invalid, for work causes invalidity whether one acts for oneself or for another person. In all of these cases a person is engaged in some sort of work while he is occupied with filling water for the red cow ritual. Either he works with one hand while filling with the other, or fills for himself and another person at the same time, or fills two at the same time. In all cases, all of the water is invalid for as we have learned, one can't perform work and fill the water at the same time. The general rule is that when one is filling the water and he at the same time does work, the water is invalid not just for him, but even if he is doing it on behalf of another person. This is not true when it comes to mixing, as we saw in mishnah one.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah describes situations where a person prepares the mixture of hatat ash and water and at the same time performs another act, and yet the mixture is still valid.
  One who prepared the mixture with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, the mixture is invalid if he prepared it for himself, but if he prepared it for another man, it is valid.  Performing work while mixing the ash and water doesn't disqualify the mixture if the preparation is being made for another person, as we saw in mishnah one. However, if he makes it for himself, it is invalid.
  If he prepared a mixture both for himself and for another man, his is invalid and that of the other man is valid.  The same principle is operative here he invalidates his own mixture because he is engaged in some other work, but he doesn't invalidate that of the other person.
  If he prepares mixtures for two men simultaneously, both are valid.  Since none of the preparations were being made for himself, both are valid.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Beware! This mishnah might be a bit confusing, but it should all work out in the end. A classic example of rabbinic conundrums!
  [If one said to another] "Prepare the mixture for me and I will prepare the one for you," the first is valid.  Two people drew water to use it for that hatat. Then one said to the other, "You mix the ashes for me and I will mix for you." The first mixture is valid but the second mixture is not because the second person was occupied with mixing the first person's ash and water between his filling his water and its being mixed with ash.
  [If he said,] "Fill the water for me and I will fill the water for you," that of the latter is valid.  The second filling is valid, but the first filling is invalid for the owner of the water was occupied with filling the other person's water between his own water being filled and their mixing.
  [If he said,] "Prepare the mixture for me and I will draw the water for you," both mixtures are valid.  The first mixture is valid for the owner didn't draw the water for the second person until his mixture was already prepared. And the drawing of water for the second guy only began after the first mixture was already prepared, so it too is valid.
  [If he said,] "Fill the water for me and I will prepare the mixture for you’, both mixtures are invalid.  In this case both are invalid. The first mixture is invalid for the owner of the first water prepared the second person's mixture between the filling of his own water and their mixture. The second mixture is invalid for the second person was occupied with drawing water for the first person between the drawing of his own water and their mixture.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who wants to draw water for a hatat mixture and at the same time draw some water for himself. How can he do it without invalidating the hatat water?
  One who is drawing water for his own use and for the mixture of the hatat, he must draw for himself first and fasten [the bucket] to the carrying pole and then he can draw the water for the hatat. If he drew first the water for the hatat and then he drew the water for himself, it is invalid.  First he must draw his own water and then attach it to the pole that he uses to carry the water, and then he can draw the water for the hatat. If he drew water first for the hatat and then drew for himself, the hatat water will be invalid because he performed work in between drawing the hatat water and mixing it with the ashes.
  He must put his own behind him and that for the hatat before him, and if he put that for the hatat behind him it is invalid.  The hatat waters have to go in front of him where they can be better watched. This is derived from the word, "for a watch" found in Numbers 19:9.
  If both were for the hatat, he may put one before him and one behind him and both are valid, since it is impossible to do otherwise.  If he has two jars of hatat water that he needs to carry then he has no choice but to carry one behind him. Both remain valid.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  One who carries the rope in his hand, If in his usual manner, the mixture is valid; But if not in his usual manner, it is invalid.  If after filling the water into a jar that was hanging from a rope he returned in his usual way and didn't go out of the way to return the rope somewhere else, the mixture remains valid. But if he went out of his way to carry the rope somewhere else, the mixture is invalid because this is considered work.
  The question was sent on to Yavneh on three festivals and on the third festival, it was ruled that the mixture was valid, as a temporary measure.  The question about walking the rope out of its way and was asked (according to the Tosefta by pilgrims from Asia Minor) for three consecutive festivals in the yeshiva in Yavneh and finally on the third festival they gave an answer. The answer was that as a temporary measure they will validate cases in which this was done in the past, but in the future if one carries the rope out of its way, it will invalidate the water. As an aside, this mishnah is, according to some scholars (notably Gedaliah Alon), evidence that there was a center of rabbinic learning in Yavneh before the destruction of the Temple. Yavneh's ascent as a famous and legendary rabbinic academy seems to have largely occurred after the destruction (this was where R. Yohanan ben Zakkai went after the destruction) but it seems that there were some sages there even before the destruction and that some Jews turned to those sages with questions on their way to the Temple in Jerusalem. However, beyond these scant details, there is little we really know.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If a man coils the rope around his hand little by little, [the mixture] is valid;  If when the person draws the full bucket out of the water he wraps the rope around his hand one coil at a time as he is lifting up, the mixture is still valid. This is not considered to be work.
  But if he coiled it afterwards, it is invalid.  However, if he coils it up completely after he has already raised up the basket, then it counts as work and the mixture is invalid.
  Rabbi Yose said: this also had been ruled to be valid as a temporary measure.  Rabbi Yose says that as a temporary measure, they validated the water in a case where someone coiled the rope up after the water had been drawn. It is interesting that the term "as a temporary measure" appears in today's mishnah and yesterday's mishnah and nowhere else in the Mishnah (it does appear one additional time in the Tosefta). Perhaps the rabbis are setting up a system here where actions are on the one hand considered to be work and therefore should invalidate the mixture and yet on the other hand they don't want to actually claim that the mixture is invalid. So they set up a situation where the stringency is the rule but as a "temporary measure" validity is bequeathed. However we interpret the appearance of this phrase here, it is curious that it appears basically only in Parah.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  One who puts the jar away in order that it shall not be broken, or if he inverted it in order to dry it, [If he did one of these things] so that he might draw more water with it, [the water he had already drawn] is valid; But if he intended to carry in it the ashes, it is invalid.  There are two actions described here, each that can invalidate the water if they were done with a certain intention, but won't invalidate the water if done with another intention. The actions are both done for the sake of the jar either to protect it or to dry it and they are both done between the emptying of the water into a trough and the mixing of the water with the ashes. If he did one of these things with the intention to draw more water for the same mixture, then this is not "work" done in between filling and mixing and the water remains valid for use. However, if he is protecting or drying the jar to use it for any other purpose, even a purpose connected to the mixing of the ashes, such as carrying in it the ashes, the water is invalid.
  One who cleared potsherds from a trough: If in order that it may hold more water, the water is valid; But if he intended that they should not hinder him when he pours out the water, it is invalid.  The idea of this section is similar to that above. Someone clears potsherds from the trough into which he has put the water to use it for mixing the ashes. If he clears them in order to make more room in the trough, the water is valid. However, if he is removing them because he doesn't want them to bother him when he pours the mixture from the trough into a flask (from which he will sprinkle) then this action counts as work and it invalidates the mixture. Again, although this is done for the sake of the mixture, it still invalidates it.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  One was carrying his water on his shoulder and he ruled in a matter of law, or showed others the way, or killed a snake or a scorpion, or picked up food in order to store it, it [the water] is invalid; But [if he picked up] food to eat, it is valid. [And if he killed] a snake or a scorpion that hindered him, it remains valid.Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: If the act was is in the nature of work, the mixture is invalid whether the man stopped or not, If it was not in the nature of work: If he stopped, it is invalid;But if he did not stop it remains valid.Section one: In all of these cases, the action is considered work and it invalidates the water that he is carrying from being used for the red cow ritual. However, the mishnah goes on to list circumstances in which said action doesn't invalidate the water.When it comes to picking up food, it depends what his purpose is. If he picked it up to store it away, it counts as work and the water is invalid. However, if he picked it up in order to eat it, it doesn't count as work. Eating, in other words, is not work.If he killed the snake or scorpion because it was hindering his progress, the water remains valid. Actions he needs to do in order to simply progress on his way do not invalidate the water.Section two: Rabbi Judah sets up a general principle that relates to these types of situation, and show that issuing a ruling or giving someone directions also do not always disqualify the water. If an action was done in the nature of work, meaning it is something that is generally considered to be work, then it doesn't matter whether he stopped on the path or not, it disqualifies the water he is carrying. In other words, the mere action itself is disqualifying.However, if it is not a matter of work, such as issuing a ruling or showing someone the way, then it depends on whether he stopped or not. If he stopped, then this stoppage to perform another action can invalidate the water. But if he did not stop, then the water remains valid.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  If one gave over his water to someone who was unclean, it is invalid. But if to a clean one it is valid.  If a person gives over the water he is watching to an unclean person to watch, the water is invalid because we can't trust that it remained pure. However, if he gives it to a clean person the water remains valid. In addition, the clean person can perform work while watching the water since it is not his water.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: even if it was entrusted to an unclean man it is valid, provided the owner did no other work in the meantime.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, if he gives the water to an unclean person, the water remains valid, for we consider the water to have stayed in the possession of the owner. However, this leniency is accompanied by a stringency. Since the water is still in the possession of the owner, if he does work before the mixing, he renders it invalid. In contrast, if he gave it to a clean person, the clean person assumes possession and if the owner does work, it does not render it invalid.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Two men who were drawing water for the hatat and one assisted the other to raise it or one pulled out a thorn for the other: For one mixture, it is valid; For two mixtures, it is invalid.  Two men help each other in drawing the water for the hatat red cow ritual. They help each either in raising the buckets or in pulling thorns out of each other's hands while the other raises the bucket. If they are making one mixture, then the water is valid because these "labors" are both for the mixture being prepared. Neither man does any work to draw water that will not be used in the mixture he is preparing. However, if they are making two separate mixtures then each man's helping the other is considered an interruption and the water is invalid.
  Rabbi Yose says: even if there are to be two mixtures it is valid if they had made a mutual agreement between them.  Rabbi Yose says that if they made a prior arrangement to help each other then both drawings are valid. This is because when A helps B he is really helping to get help in return. It turns out that his help of A was really for his own drawing, and in such a case the water remains valid.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  One who broke down a fence [even] with the intention of putting it up again, the water remains valid; But if he put a fence up, the water becomes invalid.  The person broke down a fence to get to where he needed to go after filling up the water. Breaking down the fence obviously does not invalidate the water for it was done in order to put up the fence. The mishnah goes a bit further. Even if he intends to put up the fence again, the water is still valid. Although we might have thought that tearing something down in order to rebuild it does count as work, since he needed to tear down the fence, the water is still valid. However, if he went even a step further and actually built the fence, this certainly counts as work and the water is invalid.
  If he ate figs intending to store some of them, the water is valid; But if he stored figs it is invalid.  If someone eats someone else's figs in between filling and mixing the water, and he intends to repay that person by preparing the other figs for storage (this involves cutting them in order to dry them or press them into a cake) the water is still valid, for eating is considered something done for the mixture itself. The quid pro quo arrangement eating figs in return for drying them, does not count as work. However, if he actually went ahead and stored some figs in between drawing and mixing, the water is invalid.
  If he was eating figs and, leaving some over, threw what was in his hand under the fig tree or among drying figs in order that it shall not be wasted, the water is invalid.  In this case he is eating and storing them away for later at the same time. Although eating doesn't invalidate the figs, the storing does.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Two men were guarding a trough: If one of them became unclean, the water remains valid, since it is in the domain of the other. If the first became clean and the other became unclean the water is still valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both became unclean simultaneously the water becomes invalid.If one of them did some work, the water remains valid since it is in the domain of the second. If the first stopped doing work and the other did some work, the water still remains valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both did some work at the same time the water becomes invalid.This quite simple mishnah teaches that if two men are guarding a trough with water to be used for the red cow ritual, and one of them becomes impure or does work we can consider the water to be under the protection of the other guard, and the water remains valid. It is invalidated only if both of them are impure or do work at the same time.The mishnah is very straightforward so there is no commentary below.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Both halves of this mishnah teach that the hatat waters defile garments and shoes but they do not directly defile the person who is preparing the mixture of water and cow ash.
  One who prepares the mixture of the hatat should not wear his sandals, for were some of the liquid to fall on his sandal it would become unclean and [the sandal] would defile him. Behold he would say [to the sandal], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."  When filling the trough with water to get ready to make the mixture water will spill to the ground. The one preparing the mixture will therefore be standing in water while mixing. This water is pure but it is considered impure vis a vis the preparation of the hatat mixture. Impure water defiles vessels on contact, so it will defile the sandal. The sandal will then defile him because vessels that have become impure due to contact with liquids defile a person with regard to preparing the hatat waters. However, the water does not directly defile him. We should note that there are two stringencies here that are related only to the hatat. 1) Even though the water is pure, it defiles the sandal. 2) The sandal defiles the person. Both of these measures are not true with regard to general matters of purity. We shall return to stringencies in purity for the hatat when we learn chapter ten. The section ends with a cute discussion between the man and his sandal. He points accusingly at the sandal, noting with some iron that that which defiled you (the water) didn't defile me, but you, sneaky little sandal, did defile me.
  If some of the liquid fell on his skin he remains clean.  This was noted above.
  If it fell on his garment it becomes unclean and defiles him. Behold he would say [to the garment], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."  This is the same scenario as above, only with a garment instead of clothing. The only difference is that it is obviously not prohibited to wear a garment when mixing the water!
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday's mishnah the person spoke to his sandal/garment saying, "That which defiled you, did not defile me, but you did defile me."Today the garment provides his comeback.
  The one who burns the red cow or bulls and he that leads away the scapegoat, defile garments.  The Torah specifically states that the clothes of the one who burns the red cow are defiled (Numbers 19:8). The same is true with regard to a person who burns the bulls or goats on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:28) or other cases of animals that are burned and of the one who leads the scapegoat to Azazel (the wilderness) on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:26). All of these must wash their garments because they themselves defile their own garments.
  The red cow and the bulls and the scapegoat do not themselves defile garments.  Despite the fact that the person who performs these rituals is defiled, the animals themselves to do not defile garments.
  Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.  This leads again to the personification of the garment it says to the person, that the cow, bull or goat that defiled you, didn't defile me. But you, Mr., did defile me!
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  The next four mishnayot have nothing to do with the red cow. They are all here because they contain the line, "Behold, that which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."
  One that eats of the carrion of a clean bird, while it is yet in his throat, causes garments to be unclean;  One who eats carrion (an animal that wasn't slaughtered properly) of a clean bird (like a chicken) is impure. This is stated in Leviticus 17:15. The impurity occurs as soon as the bite he took reaches his throat. We will learn more of the details concerning this law in Tractate Toharot.
  But the carrion itself does not cause garments to be unclean.  The carrion itself does not cause impurity.
  Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.  This is the same personification we have seen in the other mishnayot.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Any derived uncleanness does not defile vessels, but [it does defile] a liquid.  A derived uncleanness is one that is of either first or second degree uncleanness, meaning it had contact with something that was either a father of uncleanness or had first degree uncleanness. This level of uncleanness defiles liquids but not vessels.
  If a liquid became unclean it defiles them.  The liquid will then defile the vessel, because liquids convey uncleanness to vessels.
  Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.  This again creates the paradox. The derived uncleanness was not strong enough to defile the vessel, but that which it defiled (the liquid) was strong enough to do so. The vessel is not happy with that liquid, and it lets it know!
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  An earthenware vessel does not defile another such vessel, but [it does defile] a liquid.  This mishnah is nearly the same as yesterday's mishnah, but with a slightly different subject. An impure earthenware vessel does not convey impurity to another earthenware vessel.
  And when the liquid becomes unclean it defile the vessel.  However, it does convey impurity to a liquid, which will in turn defile the other vessel.
  Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."  This time the vessel is talking. Kind of like Beauty and the Beast!
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom.  Something that has second degree impurity, meaning it came into contact with something that had first degree impurity, invalidates terumah such that the terumah cannot be consumed. If such a substance comes into contact with liquid, it conveys to the liquid first degree impurity. As we have seen before, liquid amplifies the power of impurity. If such liquid comes into contact with food it gives second degree impurity to the food. This is "one remove." And if the food comes into contact with terumah it renders the terumah unfit, although it does not render it impure. The one exception is the "tevul yom" a person who has immersed in the mikveh to cleanse his impurity but hasn't waited for the sun to set. Such a person disqualifies terumah, but does not convey first degree impurity to liquids.
  Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."  The food now says to the liquid. That which defiled you (that which had second degree impurity) could not defile me (things with second degree impurity only defile liquids). But you (liquid) did defile me (because liquid can defile food).
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah returns to the topic of the preparation of the red cow. It discusses whether the seas can be used as the "living water" required for this and other purification rituals.
  All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (, for it is said, "And the gathering ( of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir the seas are considered to be like a mikveh and not like a flowing spring, which can be used for the red cow, for zavim (those with unusual genital discharge) and for metzoraim (those with scale disease), all of whom require "living waters." In contrast to the rules governing a spring, for a mikveh to purify the water must be gathered into one place and it cannot be running. The seas are treated like a mikveh and therefore its waters purify only when they are gathered in one place. Rabbi Meir learns this from a midrash on the word "gathering" which is in Hebrew, mikveh. Genesis calls the seas a mikveh and therefore they are subject to the same rules as a mikveh and not to the rules of a live spring.
  Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas.  In contrast, Rabbi Judah limits this to the ocean, which in his case is the Mediterranean. Other seas are treated like springs and purify even when they are running. He explains that Genesis states "seas" not because it refers to all seas as a mikveh. Rather the Mediterranean is "seas" because it contains many different seas. One interpretation of this is that a fish that is caught in Akko does not have the same taste as a fish that is caught in Sidon!
  Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.  Rabbi Yose says that all seas can purify when they are running none have the same restrictions as do a mikveh. However, the seas are not considered to be "living waters" as would be a spring. Therefore, none of the seas can be used for any of the rituals that requires "living waters" the red cow, zavim and metzoraim.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to discuss what water does not count as "living waters" and therefore cannot be used for the red cow ritual, or the other rituals that require living waters.
  Spoiled waters are unfit. The following are spoiled waters: those that are salty or lukewarm.  Salty water or water that comes from warm ponds or such type of places does not count as "living water" because it is not drinkable.
  Waters that disappoint are unfit. The following are waters that disappoint: those that disappoint even once in a seven year cycle. Those that disappoint only in times of war or in years of drought are fit. Rabbi Judah says: they are unfit.  Waters that "disappoint" are waters from springs or rivers that dry up periodically. If the river dries up even once every seven years, it still counts as "disappointing" and cannot be used. If the waters fail only in times of war, due to overdrawing by soldiers, or only in times of drought, they do not, according to the first opinion, count as "waters that disappoint" and they can be counted as "living waters." Rabbi Judah dissents and says that these too cannot be used.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters.  According to Albeck, who bases his interpretation on a medieval Talmudic dictionary (the Arukh), the Karmiyon and the Pugah are the same rivers as the Amanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, mentioned in II Kings 5:12. The mishnah rules that these rivers are too marshy to be considered "living waters."
  The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together.  The Jordan and the Yarmuk are mixtures of valid living waters and marshy waters, therefore they cannot be used in the red cow or other rituals.
  If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Judah says that they are unfit.  If two rivers both of which contain "living waters" mix together their water can be used. Rabbi Judah disagrees because he holds that "mixed waters" are always invalid. It seems that Rabbi Judah here sticks to some received tradition. He received the tradition that mixed waters are invalid, and he says that this tradition is true even if the mixture was made by two rivers of living waters. In other words, he remains true to the received tradition even if it doesn't really make any rational sense.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  This is the final mishnah that clarifies what counts as "living waters."
  Ahab's well and the pool in Banias cave are fit.  The Ahab is the name of a river. The Banias is one of the rivers that feed into the Jordan. This well and pool are considered "living waters" and therefore can be used for the red cow ritual.
  Water that has changed its color and the change arose from itself, remains fit.  If the color of the water changes not because another river fed into it, but due to some cause that came from the river itself, its waters remain valid.
  A water channel that comes from a distance is fit, as long as it is watched so that no one cuts it off. Rabbi Judah says: the presumption is that it is permitted.  A water channel whose source is far removed counts as "living waters." However, according to the first opinion, he must watch it to make sure that someone doesn't cut it off to water his fields. If it is cut off from its source, it no longer counts as "living waters." Rabbi Judah says that we can always presume that the water channel is attached to its source. It need not be watched, for unless we know that it has been cut off, it remains valid.
  If some clay or earth fell into a well, one must wait until it becomes clear, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: he need not wait.  If the water of a living well becomes temporarily murky because some clay or earth fell into it, Rabbi Ishmael says that he must wait until the normal color returns to use it for the red cow ritual. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not necessary.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Water that has not been drawn from a source of living water cannot be used for the red cow ritual. Our mishnah discusses what happens if invalid water falls into the flask that has the valid water.
  If the smallest amount of water fell into a flask: Rabbi Eliezer says: the sprinkling must be done twice; But the sages say that the mixture is invalid.  A drop of invalid water falls into the flask. According to Rabbi Eliezer this can be remedied by sprinkling twice onto the person who requires sprinkling. If only one drop was invalid, then with two sprinklings he has definitely been sprinkled once with valid water. The sages disagree and say that even the smallest amount of water disqualifies the mixture.
  If dew dropped into it: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it be put out in the sun and the dew will rise. But the sages say that the mixture is invalid.  Dew also disqualifies the mixture because it has not been drawn from a source of living waters. Rabbi Eliezer again offers a simple remedy. Leave the water out in the hot sun for a while and the dew will steam up and rise out. It seems that Rabbi Eliezer assumes that the dew doesn't mix up the rest of the water and stays on top so that it will evaporate first. The other sages again say that there is nothing that can be done and the entire flask is invalid.
  If a liquid or fruit juice fell into it, all the contents must be poured away and it is also necessary to dry the flask.  If any of these materials fall into the flask, the entire contents must be thrown away. In addition, he must dry out the flask to make sure nothing remains (see also 5:2).
  If ink, gum or sulphate of copper, or anything that leaves a mark, fell into it, the contents must be poured away but it is not necessary to dry the flask.  In contrast, these materials leave their mark. Therefore, while they do invalidate the contents of the flask, if they were left over inside, they could be seen (the flask seems to have been made of glass). Therefore, he need not dry out the flask.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah addresses what the rule is if insects fall into the mixture.
  If insects or creeping things fell into it, and they burst apart or the color [of the water] changed, the contents become invalid.  If the insects or creepy crawly things burst apart or somehow make the color of the water change, then the water is invalid (and yucky). However, if they just fall in, they can be fished out and the water remains valid.
  A beetle causes invalidity in any case, because it is like a tube.  According to rabbinic entomology, a beetle is shaped like a tube. Therefore the water in the flask will enter it, mix with the beetle's own emissions and be reemitted back into the water, thereby disqualifying the mixture. This does not occur, evidently, with other types of insects.
  Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob ruled: a maggot or a weevil of the grain causes no invalidity, because they contain no moisture.  These two sages hold that if a grain maggot or weevil falls into the water, it does not disqualify the water even if it bursts. These insects are dry and therefore will not discharge anything into the water.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  If a living creature drinks from the red cow waters we must be concerned lest the creature backwashed into the water, thereby disqualifying it. Our mishnah deals with which animals backwash and which sip without doing so.
  If a domesticated beast or a wild animal drank from it, it becomes invalid.  Domesticated beasts (cows, goats and sheep) and wild animals are all considered to be backwashers. So if they drink from the red cow waters, the waters can't be used because they are now mixed with the animal's spittle.
  All birds cause invalidity, except the dove since it only sucks up the water.  Birds are also backwashers, except for the dove, whose spit doesn't go into the water. Remind me next time I want to share a drink, to only do so with doves!
  All creeping things do not cause invalidity, except the weasel since it laps up the water. Rabban Gamaliel ruled: the snake also because it vomits. Rabbi Eliezer ruled: the mouse also.  Creeping things don't generally backwash when drinking. The weasel, however, laps up the water and therefore if it drinks from the red cow waters, they are invalidated. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer add the mouse and snake to the list.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  If one intends to drink the red cow waters, he invalidates them. Our mishnah discusses at what point they become invalid.
  If one intended to drink the hatat water: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid. Rabbi Joshua says: only when one tips the flask.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, intent alone disqualifies the water. So if one intends to drink it, it is already invalid. Rabbi Joshua says that while one does not have to actually drink the water to disqualify it, one must at least perform some action. Tipping the flask to take a drink is sufficient of an action to disqualify the water.
  Rabbi Yose said: To what does this apply? To water that had not yet been prepared, But in the case of water that had been prepared: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid [only] when one tips the flask; And Rabbi Joshua says: [only] when one drinks.  Rabbi Yose limits this to water that has not yet been prepared, meaning the ashes have not yet been mixed in. If the ashes have been mixed in, then each sage rules slightly more leniently. Rabbi Eliezer says he must tip the water to disqualify it, whereas Rabbi Joshua says that intent alone does not disqualify waters that have already been prepared. They are disqualified only if he actually drinks them.
  And if it was poured directly into one's throat, it remains valid.  If someone else pours the water directly into a another person's mouth then the waters remain valid (those that have not been drunk, of course). This is because no one had any intent to drink the water and no spit went in, because the water was poured down his throat. Therefore, there is no reason to invalidate the water.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Hatat water that became invalid, it may not be mixed into the mud since it might become a snare for others. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized.  Hatat water causes someone who comes into contact with it to become impure, even after the water has been disqualified from use. So if one takes disqualified hatat waters and mixes them in mud (to use them, I assume) anyone who touches the mud will be impure but he won't know that he is. Then he might go eat terumah while impure, which is forbidden. Rabbi Judah says that the hatat waters are neutralized by being in the mud. They no longer convey impurity, so he may mix them up.
  A cow that drank of the hatat water, its flesh becomes unclean for twenty-four hours. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized in its bowels.  The assumption is that the water remains in the cow for 24 hours. So if the cow is slaughtered within that time period, its flesh is impure. If he slaughters it afterwards, the flesh is pure. Again, Rabbi Judah says that the waters are neutralized when they are absorbed into something larger. The flesh does not convey impurity, even if the animal is slaughtered immediately.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Hatat waters and hatat ashes one may not carry them across a river on a ship, nor may one float them upon the water, nor may one stand on the bank on one side and throw them across to the other side.  According to traditional explanations of the prohibition in this section (which are based on the Bavli) it occurred one time that a person was transporting hatat waters and hatat ashes on a boat to cross the Jordan River. A piece of corpse was found on the bottom of the boat, and that caused the waters and ashes to be defiled and thereby disqualified. At that time the sages decreed that one should not carry hatat waters or ashes over water in a boat, nor transport them over a river in other similar ways. I must admit that I find these types of explanations somewhat intellectually dissatisfying. Just because an accident happens once doesn't mean it is any more likely to occur again. In my opinion, when the Talmud explains laws in this ways, it is in essence admitting that the law is irrational. It is as if they are saying, we have no real explanation for this, so it must be that the law was simply created when such a case actually occurred.
  One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck.  However, it is permitted to carry the water across by hand, even if he is up to his neck in water. This was not considered similar enough to sailing on a ship for the rabbis to have prohibited it due to the incident described above.
  He that is clean for the hatat may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat or water that has not yet been prepared.  A person who is ritually clean enough to prepare the hatat waters can travel on a ship while holding a vessel that will be used for the mixture and with water into which the ashes have not yet been mixed. The incident that triggered the prohibition occurred with waters that had already been mixed and with hatat ashes therefore that is the only case that they prohibited.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If valid ashes were mixed up with wood ashes, we follow the majority with regard to uncleanness, but [the mixture] may not be prepared with it.  The wood ashes are regular wood ashes that were not burned with the red cow. If the valid red cow ashes are mixed up with them, then when it comes to the ability of these ashes to convey impurity, we follow a majority principle. If a majority is red cow ash, it conveys impurity. However, the first opinion of the mishnah holds that this mixture cannot be used for the red cow ritual.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: the mixture may be prepared with all of them.  Rabbi Eliezer is lenient, as he was in mishnah one. Since we know that there is some red cow ash in the entire mixture, it can be used in the ritual.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body.  Hatat waters that have been invalidated (for instance, because the person did some sort of work after preparing them) still convey some degree of impurity. They defile a person who has immersed in a mikveh with the intent of eating terumah, either by contact with his hands or by contact with his body. However, they don't defile someone with regards to non-sacred produce; meaning one who wants to eat non-sacred produce and has had contact with disqualified hatat waters does not defile the produce. Note that regular hatat waters do convey impurity. If someone is ritually clean enough to perform the red cow ritual, then disqualified hatat waters don't defile him at all. He can still perform the ritual even after contact with him.
  If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body.  Hatat waters that have been defiled convey impurity to one who is pure enough to eat terumah in the same way as do disqualified hatat waters. The one difference between disqualified and impure hatat waters is that the latter do defile a person clean enough to perform the red cow ritual by virtue of contact with his hands. However, if they have contact with his body, he remains pure.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If valid ashes were put on water that was unfit for the preparation, [the latter] defiles one that is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body,  Since the water was unfit for use in the red cow ritual (assumedly because it is not living waters) it cannot be used for the sprinkling. Nevertheless the water does defile one who has purified himself in order to eat terumah. This is the same rule as we saw in yesterday's mishnah with regard to disqualified hatat waters.
  But to one who is clean for the hatat it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body.  This is also the same as the rule we saw in yesterday's mishnah.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with some stringencies that apply to the ritual purity of vessels and people involved in the hatat water ritual. The mishnah refers to a type of impurity called "madaf impurity." This is a light form of impurity that only has relevance in the preparation of the hatat.
  The mishnah also refers to "midras impurity." Midras impurity is impurity conveyed by leaning upon or moving an object.
  Mishnah Hagigah 2:7 taught: "The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification." What this means is that all garments, even those which have been cleansed enough so that they could be used with holy things, still convey midras impurity to anyone who wishes to perform an action in connection with the red cow ritual. This is an extra stringency taken with regard to the hatat ashes and waters. Our mishnah teaches that the same is true with regard to other objects and with regard to people. If they have not been immersed for the sake of the red cow ritual, they are impure.
  Any object that is susceptible to midras uncleanness is for the purpose of the hatat waters deemed to have madaf uncleanness, whether it was otherwise unclean or clean.  Any object that is susceptible to midras uncleanness, for instance an object that is made to sit upon or to lie upon, has "madaf uncleanness" vis a vis the hatat waters. This is true even if the object is pure with regards to terumah and other holy things. Thus if a person has contact with any object that is subject to midras uncleanness, he will have to immerse himself again before performing any part of the red cow ritual.
  A person too is subject to the same rule.  The same is true with regard to a person. This means that a person who has not immersed himself in order to be occupied with the red cow ritual will defile another person who wishes to perform the ritual. This is true even if the first person is pure enough to eat terumah or other holy things.
  Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, whether it is otherwise unclean or clean: Rabbi Eliezer says: it does not have madaf uncleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: it has madaf uncleanness; And the sages say: that which was unclean has madaf uncleanness, and that which was clean does not have madaf uncleanness.  This section deals with a more general classification of objects those that are subject to corpse uncleanness but are not subject to midras uncleanness. (See chapter twenty-four of Kelim for a list of such objects). There are three opinions as to whether such an object defiles people who wish to prepare the hatat waters. Rabbi Eliezer says that they do not. Rabbi Joshua says that they always do. If such an object is lifted or moved by the person he will not be able to perform the ritual. The sages take an in-between position. If the object actually became impure through contact with a corpse, then it will defile a person who wishes to occupy himself with the red cow rituals if the person carries it or moves it. But if the object is clean, it does not defile through midras. Nevertheless, it still defiles through contact.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched something that has madaf uncleannes, he becomes unclean.  This section is a consequence of what we learned in mishnah one. Something that has madaf uncleanness (see there for an explanation of this type of uncleanness) conveys uncleanness to a person who wants to perform the red cow ritual. The mishnah states that this is true if the person touches the object, but it is also true if he moves or carries the object.
  A flask that was designated for the hatat waters that touched something that has madaf uncleanness, it becomes unclean.  If the flask which was meant to be used for the red cow ritual touches something that has madaf uncleanness, it is impure vis a vis the red cow (it is still pure for other things). In this case the flask must actually touch the other object. Putting the object with madaf on top of the flask (without touching) will not defile it.
  One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched food or liquids with his hand, he becomes unclean, but if he did it with his foot he remains clean.  Food and liquids defile one's hands, and once one's hands are defiled, the rest of one's body is also considered to be defiled. When it comes to the preparation of the hatat, all food and liquid defile (as we saw in yesterday's mishnah). So if one's hands touch food or liquid, he is impure vis a vis the hatat ritual. But if one's foot touches the food or liquid, the body and even the foot remain pure.
  If he moved them with his hand: Rabbi Joshua says that he becomes unclean, And the sages say that he remains clean.  Rabbi Joshua holds that if he moves the food, even without touching it, it is as if he touched it with his hand and he is impure (vis a vis the hatat). The other sages disagree and hold that he is impure only if he touches the food or liquid with his hand. Moving it is not sufficient to convey impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A jar of hatat waters that touched a [dead] sheretz, remains clean.  The jar referred to here is made of a material that is not susceptible to impurity, such as stone (see 3:3). The hatat waters are protected from the impurity of the sheretz (a creeping thing) by the stone and therefore they remain pure.
  If the jar was put on it: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it remains clean, And the sages rule that it becomes unclean.  Rabbi Eliezer says that even if the jar is put on top of a sheretz the hatat waters remain pure, since the jar is pure. The other sages say that the jar has not been put in a "clean place" and therefore it is impure. Numbers 19:9 states, "A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place." Putting the jar on top of a sheretz does not count as putting it in a clean place.
  If the jar touched foods or liquids or the Holy Scriptures, it remains clean.  As we have seen in the previous two mishnayot, food and liquids convey madaf uncleanness. The Holy Scriptures disqualify terumah if they come into contact with it. Nevertheless, since the jar is made of stone, the contents are protected.
  If it was put on them: Rabbi Yose rules that it remains clean; And the sages say that it becomes unclean.  Rabbi Yose holds that even if the jar is put on top of food, liquids or the Holy Scriptures it remains pure. He also holds that the sages that ruled in section two that the jar was impure, would agree in this case because the impurity conveyed by food, liquids and the Holy Scriptures is only of rabbinic origin. In contrast, the impurity conveyed by a sheretz is of toraitic origin. The other sages disagree with Rabbi Yose and hold that putting it on top of one of these things still doesn't count as putting it in a pure place.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  One who was clean for the hatat waters and then touched an oven: With his hand becomes unclean, With his foot he remains clean.  An oven is susceptible to midras impurity. However, it is not susceptible to corpse impurity and does not become a "father of impurity"which would cause it to defile people and vessels (see Kelim 8:6). Since the purity rules regarding an oven are different from other vessels, it does not have "madaf impurity" as do other vessels (see mishnah one). It is treated like food and liquids. If a person touches it with his hand, he is disqualified from performing the hatat ritual, but if with his foot, he is still qualified.
  If he stood on an oven and put out his hand beyond the oven with the flask in his hand, And so also in the case of a carrying-yoke which was placed over the oven and from which two jars were suspended one at either end: Rabbi Akiva says that they remain clean; But the sages say that they are unclean.  In both of these cases, the person is standing on the oven but the flasks that contain the hatat waters are not directly over the oven. Rabbi Akiva holds that since they are not over the oven, they remain pure. The other sages treat the flasks as if they were directly over the oven. This puts them in an "impure place" and as we have seen elsewhere, if the ashes are in an impure place, they are defiled, even if technically the defilement should not have reached them.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If he was standing outside an oven and he stretched out his hand to a window and he took a flask and passed it over the oven: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, And the sages say that it is clean.  Rabbi Akiva says that since the flask passed over the oven, it is unclean. This is a corollary to his opinion in yesterday's mishnah. There the flask was not directly over the oven, so it remained clean. Here it is directly over the oven, so it becomes unclean. The sages' opinion is also a corollary of their opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Since he is not standing on the oven, the flask remains pure.
  But he who was clean for the hatat waters may stand over an oven while holding in his hand an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat waters or one filled with water that has not yet been mixed [with the ashes of the red cow].  As long as the flask/vessel is not one which contains the mixture of ashes and water, it remains pure when placed over the oven.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  The principle that underlies the following mishnah is that the purity required for a vessel holding the hatat waters is greater than the purity required for that holding consecrated foods or terumah. Therefore, if something that is pure enough to hold terumah or other consecrated foods touches something that holds or is meant to hold the hatat waters, the latter vessel becomes impure.
  A flask containing hatat waters that touched [a vessel] containing consecrated food or terumah: that containing the hatat waters becomes unclean, but the one containing the consecrated food or the terumah remains clean.  The flask containing the hatat waters is impure because it touched the vessel that has a lower degree of impurity. But the vessel containing terumah or other consecrated foods remains pure because it touched something that has a higher degree of impurity.
  If he held the two vessels one in each of his two hands, both become unclean.  When the person who is pure enough to perform the hatat ritual touches the vessel that is only pure enough for terumah, he becomes impure. Then when he touches the flask of hatat waters, he defiles them. The impure hatat waters defile a person who is impure vis a vis the hatat waters (see 9:8) and then he defiles the vessel with terumah because he is holding it. This concept can also be found in Kelim 1:2.
  If they were both wrapped in separate papers, they remain clean.  If the flask and vessel are covered with paper, then he is not defiled by contact with the terumah vessel. Therefore both the flask and vessel remain pure.
  If the vessel of the hatat waters was wrapped in a paper while that of the terumah was held in his hand, both become unclean.  The person is defiled through contact with the terumah vessel. He then defiles the hatat vessel because he is carrying it, even though he does not have contact with it. Once he is defiled, he now defiles the uncovered terumah vessel, as was the case in section three.
  If the one containing the terumah was wrapped up in paper while that containing the hatat waters was held in his hand, both remain clean. Rabbi Joshua says: that containing the hatat waters becomes unclean.  According to the first opinion, since the terumah vessel was wrapped in paper, it doesn't defile him. He remains pure and doesn't defile the hatat vessel so both remain pure. According to Rabbi Joshua (in mishnah one of this chapter) a vessel that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness conveys madaf uncleanness and therefore defiles even without contact, through being carried or shifted. Therefore, the terumah vessel defiles the person who is carrying it, even though he didn't touch it. He now defiles the hatat vessel, even if it was covered in paper. However, he doesn't defile the terumah vessel since it is covered with paper. In other words the terumah vessel defiles him with madaf uncleanness, but it itself is not defiled because he doesn’t actually touch it.
  If both were placed on the ground and he touched them, that of the hatat waters becomes unclean but that of the consecrated food or terumah remains clean.  Both vessels are on the ground and he simultaneously touches both, one hand on each. He is defiled by contact with the terumah vessel and he now defiles the hatat vessel. However, because he is not carrying the terumah vessel, he doesn't go back and defile it.
  If he shifted it [without touching it]: Rabbi Joshua says that it is unclean, And the sages rule that it is clean.  In this case he shifts the vessels without touching them. Rabbi Joshua says that because he shifted the terumah vessel, he becomes impure, even without contact. He now defiles the hatat vessel. The terumah vessel remains pure because he didn't actually touch it. The other sages say that contact is necessary and therefore both vessels remain pure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A flask that one has left uncovered and on returning found it to be covered, is invalid.  If he left the flask uncovered and he came back and found it covered, the water is invalid, lest the person who covered it was not pure in order to perform the hatat ritual.
  If one left it covered and on returning found it to be uncovered, it is invalid if a weasel could have drunk from it or, according to the words of Rabban Gamaliel, a snake, or if it was possible for dew to fall into it in the night.  If he left it covered and then found it uncovered, it is invalid if there is any possibility that a weasel or snake (according to Rabban Gamaliel) drank from it. As we saw in 9:3, these animals backwash into the water, thereby invalidating them. The water is also invalid if there is a chance that dew fell in (see 9:1).
  The hatat waters are not protected by a tightly fitting cover; But water that had not yet been mixed with the ashes is protected by a tightly fitting cover.  This section refers to an earthenware jar of hatat waters left in a tent with a corpse in it. Generally speaking if the jar has a tightly fitting lid, it protects its contents from impurity. However, we have seen a special law with regard to the hatat waters they must be in a place of purity. Since he put them in a place of "impurity" the waters are invalid, even if they are pure. However, if the jar contains water that has not yet been mixed with the ashes, it is protected from impurity (see also 10:5).  The prohibition against leaving in an impure place refers only to the mixed waters.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Anything that is doubtfully pure in the case of terumah is regarded as clean in the case of the hatat waters.  There are cases in which terumah is doubtfully pure/impure (we shall learn of these in Toharot (next tractate) 4:2. In these cases the terumah must be burned. If the same type of doubt occurs with regard to hatat waters, they remain pure.
  Anything that is "suspended" where terumah is concerned, the hatat waters are poured out. If clean things were handled on account of it, they must be "suspended."  There are cases in which the terumah is "suspended" meaning it is neither burned nor eaten. If the same type of issue occurs with hatat waters, the waters must be poured out. If these hatat waters that were supposed to be poured out were used to purify a person, and then he touched clean food, this too must be "suspended." The food cannot be eaten or burned, as if it was terumah.
  Wooden lattice work is clean in respect of holy food, terumah, and the hatat waters.  Wooden lattice work is not considered to be a vessel, nor is it made for sitting or lying upon. Therefore, it is not considered impure with regard to matters of holy food, terumah or hatat waters.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: Loosely connected wood is unclean in respect of hatat waters.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, occasionally a person will sit on a configuration of loosely connected wood. Since people sit on this wood work, one who does is impure with regard to the preparation of hatat waters. That is to say, a person who touches this wood will be invalid, even if the wood has not been defiled. There are other interpretations of what "loosely connected wood" is. Albeck explains that it is the same thing referred to in section three, and that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with that opinion
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with terumah figs that fall into hatat waters. There are two issues here: 1) is the water unclean by virtue of having contact with terumah figs? 2) What happens to one who eats the figs? Does he incur the normal penalty for eating impure figs death by the hands of heaven (meaning that a court does not carry out this death penalty)?
  Pressed figs of terumah which fell into hatat waters and were taken out and eaten: If the amount is the size of an egg, whether [the figs] were clean or unclean the water becomes unclean, and he who eats the figs is liable for death; If their size is less than the size of an egg, the water remains clean but he who eats them is liable for death. Rabbi Yose says: if they were clean the water remains clean.  If the size of the pressed figs is greater than an egg, they defile the hatat waters, for terumah is not pure vis a vis hatat waters. The hatat waters then defile the figs. When the person takes the figs out, he becomes impure by virtue of contact with the hatat waters (because he was not pure enough before to have had contact with hatat waters). Finally, an impure person who eats terumah is liable for the death penalty. If there is less than the amount of an egg, then the figs do not defile the water. Nevertheless, when he has contact with the hatat waters, he becomes impure and an impure person who eats terumah is liable for the death penalty. The first opinion in the mishnah holds that all of the above is true whether the figs were pure or impure before they fell into the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose holds that pure terumah does not defile hatat waters. Therefore, if the figs are pure, they do not defile the waters.
  If one who was clean for the hatat waters puts his head and the greater part of his body into the hatat waters, he becomes unclean.  Hatat waters are waters that have been drawn from their source. The rabbis decreed that a person who puts drawn water on himself is impure (we shall discuss why when we learn Tractate Zavim 5:12). Our mishnah teaches that since hatat waters are also drawn waters, they too defile the person who puts his head and most of his body into them.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  All that require immersion in water according to the rulings of the Torah defile consecrated things, terumah, unconsecrated food, and [second] tithe; And he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary.  A person who has been defiled by a "father of impurity" requires immersion in a mikveh. See for instance Leviticus 11:32 with regard to one who has had contact with a sheretz. Such a person defiles any food with which he has had contact, be it consecrated food (kodesh), terumah, unconsecrated food (hullin) or second tithe. He is also forbidden from entering the sanctuary (the Temple.)
  After immersion [but before the sun sets] he defiles holy things and invalidates terumah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages ruled: he invalidates consecrated things and terumah. But he is permitted to unconsecrated food and [second] tithe. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs guilt.  According to Rabbi Meir, after he has immersed in the mikveh, the person has the status of "second degree defilement." He causes terumah to have third decree impurity, which causes it to be invalid but not impure. And he causes holy things to have fourth degree impurity. The other sages say that since he has immersed in the mikveh he does not defile even holy things. He merely invalidates both holy things and terumah. After having immersed in the mikveh, he causes no defilement or invalidation to common food or to second tithe. However, when it comes to entering the sanctuary, he is prohibited even after going to the mikveh. He can't enter the sanctuary until he has immersed in the mikveh and the sun has set.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday's mishnah we learned some purity rules concerning a person whom the Torah mandated to immerse in mikveh. Today's mishnah contrasts this with a person whom the sages required to immerse in a mikveh. This would include a person who ate impure foods or drank impure liquids [we will learn more about this category in Tractate Zavim].
  All that require immersion in water according to the words of the scribes defile consecrated things and invalidate terumah to be unfit, but they are permitted to unconsecrated food and second tithe, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages forbid second tithe.  As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, he still defiles holy food and invalidates terumah, even though he was required only by rabbinic law to immerse in the mikveh. But there are no restrictions with regard to hullin (unconsecrated food) and second tithe. The other sages slightly disagree. They hold that he is still forbidden to eat second tithe, although he doesn't cause it to become impure.
  After immersion [but before the sun sets] he is permitted to all these. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs no guilt.  There are no restrictions after he has immersed. Since he was only required by rabbinic law ("the words of the scribes") to enter a mikveh, he need not wait for the sun to set to become completely pure and permitted to eat and touch anything. In addition, he is not liable at all if he enters the sanctuary.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  All that require immersion in water, whether according to the words of the Torah or according to the words of the scribes, defile hatat waters, hatat ashes, and the one who sprinkled the hatat waters, either through contact or through carrying.  As we have seen throughout this tractate, the purity regulations for anything that concerns the red cow ritual are more stringent. Therefore, the mishnah teaches that a person who is required to immerse defiles the hatat waters, the hatat ashes or another person who is prepared to sprinkle the waters. This is true whether the person is required by biblical law to immerse or whether he is only required by rabbinic law. Furthermore, he conveys impurity both by contact and by carrying (without contact).
  And [they defile] hyssop that has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness, and water that had not yet been prepared, and an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat through contact and carrying, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: only by contact but not by carrying.  This section deals with material used in the hatat ritual but that is not the ashes. This includes three items. The first is the hyssop that is used for sprinkling. The hyssop needs to have been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by coming into contact with water (vegetation is never susceptible to impurity until it becomes wet). In this case the water must have been pure for the hatat ritual, otherwise the hyssop would have already been impure. The other two items referred to are water that was drawn to be used for the hatat ritual but has not yet been mixed and the empty vessel. If a person who has to immerse (whether because of biblical or rabbinic law) has contact or even carries one of these things, Rabbi Meir says it is defiled. The other sages rule slightly more leniently. One defiles these things (the hyssop, the unmixed waters and the empty vessel) only if he has direct contact with them. He doesn't defile them through carrying.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction After discussing the purity of hyssop in yesterday's mishnah, today's mishnah continues to discuss laws with regard to the type of hyssop used to sprinkle the hatat waters.
  Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. "This" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon ( hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid.  The hyssop must be plain old hyssop (zatar in Arabic and by extension, modern Hebrew). Any hyssop that has an accompanying or modifying name should not be used (see Mishnah Negaim 14:6). "This" hyssop refers to any hyssop that a person points to and says "this is hyssop."
  That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid.  Obviously, unclean terumah cannot be used since anything that is unclean cannot be used because it will defile the hatat waters. The mishnah only mentions unclean terumah because it wants to discuss clean terumah. Clean terumah, meaning terumah whose purity was preserved in order to use it for the hatat ritual, should also not be used because it is prohibited to invalidate pure terumah and the hatat ritual carries a risk that the terumah will be invalidated. However, if he uses clean terumah hyssop for the sprinkling, the person who has been sprinkled upon is pure. In other words, this is a case where one shouldn't use something, but if he does, it is valid.
  The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries.  The sprinkling should be done with the leafy parts of the hyssop, not with the berries or with young shoots. However, if the sprinkling was done with the shoots and then he entered the sanctuary, he is not liable for being impure and entering the sanctuary. Usually someone who does this (unintentionally) must bring a sin-offering as atonement. Our mishnah teaches that while the sprinkling shouldn't be done with young shoots, if it is done, it is still valid. Rabbi Eliezer says that the same is true with regard to the berries.
  The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened.  The mishnah defines the meaning of young shoots.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  The hyssop that was used for sprinkling [the hatat waters] is also fit for cleansing the metzora.  As we stated in yesterday's mishnah, hyssop was used in other purification rituals, including the purification of the metzora. If it had already been used for the hatat ritual, it may be used later for the purification of the metzora.
  If it was gathered for firewood, and liquid fell upon it, it may be dried and it becomes fit.  Hyssop was gathered for firewood and it got wet. Because he gathered it for firewood, the liquid that came into contact with it does not cause it to be receptive to impurity. If one wants to use it for sprinkling he still can. He must first dry it off so that invalid waters don't mix with the valid waters drawn for the sprinkling.
  If it was gathered for food, and liquid fell upon it, even though it was dried, it is invalid.  On the other hand, if he gathers it for food, it is susceptible to impurity when it becomes wet. This is a general rule with regard to food when food becomes wet, it becomes susceptible to impurity. Even if he dries it off, he will not be able to use it for sprinkling.
  If it was gathered for [the sprinkling of the waters of] the hatat, it is subject to the same law as if it were gathered for food, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon ruled: as if it were gathered for firewood.  The sages disagree with regard to the case where the hyssop was gathered specifically to be used with the hatat waters. Rabbi Meir says that in this case any liquid will cause it to be receptive to impurity and thereby invalidate it. The other rabbis (three of them note this is unusual) say that as long as he dries it off, he can still use it.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Our chapter concludes with a mishnah as to how much hyssop was needed to sprinkle the water.
  The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Judah says: each stalk should have three buds.  Each stalk of hyssop should have at least one budding flower. I would suggest googling "hyssop" to see what this looks like. Rabbi Judah says that each of the three stalks should have three budding flowers.
  Hyssop that consists of a growth of three stalks should be cut apart and then bound together. If the stalks were cut apart but were not bound together, or if they were bound together but were not cut apart, or if they were neither cut apart nor bound together, they are nevertheless valid.  The hyssop stalks are separated at their base and then bound together. We should note that Numbers 19:18, the verse that prescribes hyssop for sprinkling the hatat waters, does not mention that the hyssop should be bound. However, Exodus 12:22, the verse that describes applying the blood to the doorposts in Egypt, does refer to bound hyssop. It seems that our mishnah applies the notion of binding in that context to our context. In order to bind something, it would first have to be separated. Thus the hyssop should first be separated and then bound.  However, if either or even neither of these steps is taken, the sprinkling is still valid.
  Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.  Rabbi Yose agrees with the opinion in section one. He adds that if one of the stalks fell away, even two are valid. Finally, if all that is left of the stalks or buds is even the smallest measure, it is still valid.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the use of hyssop that is too short to dip into the flask with the hatat waters.
  Hyssop that is too short may be lengthened with a thread and a spindle-reed.  It is permitted to lengthen the hyssop by attaching or a spindle-reed onto the end of the hyssop.
  He then dips it and brings it up again.  He can then dip it by holding onto the string and dipping it into the waters.
  He grasps the hyssop itself and sprinkles with it.  However, when he sprinkles onto the impure person, he must grasp the hyssop and not the string.
  Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: just as the sprinkling must be done with the hyssop itself so to must the dipping be done with the hyssop itself.  Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon disagree with the notion that one can extend the length of the hyssop. He must hold the hyssop itself when dipping it into the flask, just as he must hold it when sprinkling.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid.  If the sprinkling was done from the hyssop buds, it is valid; but if it came from the thread or spindle, it is invalid (see yesterday's mishnah). Since there is a doubt whether it was performed correctly, the sprinkling is invalid.
  If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid.  Both vessels look wet, but it is unclear whether he sprinkled on both or whether he sprinkled directly onto one and from there it dripped onto the other. Again, since there is a doubt, the sprinkling is invalid.
  If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid.  Similar to the situation in section two, here we again have a doubt whether he sprinkled directly onto the needle which would purify it, or onto the earthenware and from there onto the needle, which would not purify the needle. Since we don't know what happened, the needle is still impure.
  A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling.  This section refers to a flask with a narrow opening. When the hyssop is pulled out, we might have thought that some of its liquids would be squeezed out and fall back into the water. This would cause the water to be a mixture of hyssop juice and hatat waters, which would make it invalid. The first opinion in the mishnah is not concerned with this possibility and therefore lets one use this flask in a normal manner. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that such a flask can be used only one time. The second dipping might contain some hyssop resin and therefore is invalid.
  Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask].  If there is not a lot of water left in the flask, it is still allowed to dip the hyssop back in to absorb whatever water is left. However, he shouldn't scrape the sides of the flask with the hyssop to pick up any extra moisture.
  If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid.  For the sprinkling to be valid, he must sprinkle in the direction in which he intended. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him, and it landed to the sides but still in front of him, the sprinkling is still valid, because this still counts as "in front."
  It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge.  One does not require the person's consent to sprinkle on him and purify him.
  It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.  It is possible to sprinkle on multiple vessels and people at the same time, as long as water reaches each of them directly.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If he intended to sprinkle upon a thing that is susceptible to uncleanness and he sprinkled upon something that is not susceptible to uncleanness, if any of the water still remained on the hyssop he should not sprinkle with it again.[If he intended to sprinkle] upon a thing that is not susceptible to uncleanness and he sprinkled on that which is susceptible to uncleanness, even though there was still some water on the hyssop, he can sprinkle with it again.[If he intended to sprinkle] upon a man and he sprinkled upon a beast, if any of the water remained on the hyssop he should not sprinkle with it again;But [if he intended to sprinkle] upon a beast and he sprinkled upon a man, even though there was still some water on the hyssop, he can sprinkle with it again.The water that drips off is valid, and therefore it conveys uncleanness as the usual hatat waters.Section one: He intended to sprinkle upon something that is susceptible to impurity, such as a person (as in section three). Unintentionally, he sprinkled upon an animal (which is not susceptible to impurity). If there is still water left on the hyssop he shouldn't sprinkle with it again. Since the water that was sprinkled upon the animal has been made invalid for sprinkling, the water that remains on the hyssop is also invalid for sprinkling.Section two: This is the opposite case. Since he sprinkled on something that is susceptible to uncleanness (such as an animal), meaning something that does require sprinkling, the water has not been disqualified. Therefore he can use the remaining water to sprinkle and cleanse something else.Sections three and four: These two sections explain sections one and two.Section five: Water that simply drips off the hyssop is still valid for sprinkling. Therefore, it continues to convey uncleanness as do hatat waters in general, which defile one who carries them or touches them. This water is not treated as hatat waters that have already been sprinkled which do not defile (see below in mishnah four).
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah refers to a window from which they would sprinkle the hatat waters on impure people.
  If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt;  A person was sprinkled upon (with hatat waters, of course) from a window in the public domain. He then entered the Temple, assuming that he was pure. It later turns out that the water used to sprinkle upon him was impure. Nevertheless, the person is exempt from bringing a sacrifice to atone for entering the sanctuary while impure. The reason is that since this water was used to purify the public, there would be no reason he should have suspected that it was invalid. This is not an accidental sin (in Hebrew, shogeg). Rather it is something even less, called in Hebrew "anoos" which means he wasn't even negligent. Something totally anticipated happened. We can see from here that if something is being done by many people, one can assume that it is being done correctly.
  But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable.  However, if the sprinkling was done from a private window, he should have checked to make sure that the water was valid. Since he did not, he is liable for having gone into the sanctuary while impure. He will have to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin.
  A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary.  A high priest is never liable for entering the Temple while impure (see Horayot 3:7).
  [The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile.  The mishnah describes a puddle that formed underneath the window from which they would sprinkle upon people who wanted to enter the Temple. The floor got so wet that people would slip on it (Jerusalem can be slippery!). Nevertheless, people didn't refrain from stepping in this water, because they knew that once hatat waters have been used to perform their mitzvah, the purification, they no longer convey impurity. As an aside, this is one of the few places, perhaps the only place, in Parah that describes some realistic scene concerning the sprinkling of the hatat waters.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  A clean person may hold in the corner of his garment an unclean axe and sprinkle upon it; And even though there is on it enough water for a sprinkling he remains clean.  It is possible for a person to hold an axe in his garment, for the axe to be sprinkled upon and for him not to become impure by contact or by carrying the hatat waters. Even though there is enough water to perform the sprinkling, he remains pure because once these waters have purified the axe, their mitzvah has been performed and they no longer defile.
  How much water is necessary for sprinkling? Sufficient for the tops of the buds to be dipped and for the sprinkling to be performed. Rabbi Judah ruled: they are regarded as though they were on a hyssop of brass.  The question is: how much water is necessary to defile one who carries it? According to the first opinion, as long as there is enough water to dip the top buds of the hyssop into the water and to sprinkle some of the water off of them onto the person or thing being sprinkled upon. This quantity of water will defile one who carries it. In other words, there must be enough so that besides that which is absorbed by the hyssop, other water will be sprinkled off. Rabbi Judah rules more stringently. We look at the buds as if they were on hyssop made of brass which doesn't absorb water. As long as there is enough to sprinkle some off of the brass, it is of a sufficient amount to defile. This will be a lower amount than the first opinion.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  One who sprinkles with unclean hyssop: if [the hyssop] was the amount of an egg the water becomes invalid, and the sprinkling is invalid. If it was less than the amount of an egg, the water remains valid but the sprinkling is invalid.  The hyssop needs to be the volume of an egg in order to convey impurity (see 11:3). If one dips the unclean hyssop into the water it defiles the remaining water and the sprinkling is invalid. However, if there is less than an egg in volume, the water remains valid because less than an egg is insufficient to convey impurity. However, the sprinkling is still invalid because the hyssop was not pure.
  It also defiles other hyssop, and that other hyssop to other, even if they be a hundred.  If there is an egg's worth of hyssop it defiles other hyssop by contact such that the other hyssop also cannot be used for the hatat ritual. Similarly, the newly defiled hyssop will defile any hyssop with which it has contact and it too will not be valid for the hatat ritual. The reason is that when it comes to the hatat ritual, there is no such thing as "first degree impurity" "second degree impurity" etc, as there is with other matters of purity. Rather, the level of impurity is never reduced.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If the hands of a man who was clean for the hatat waters became unclean, his body also becomes unclean, and he conveys uncleanness to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, even if they be a hundred. If the hands of a person who is pure enough to perform the hatat ritual become unclean, the uncleanness spreads to his whole body. This is not true with other levels of purity restrictions. In other cases, a person's hands can become impure without the rest of his body also becoming impure. Furthermore, as we saw in yesterday's mishnah, the chain of impurity vis a vis the hatat continues down the line. So if he touches a person and that person touches another person, etc., the impurity is continually transmitted and anyone who is in the chain will not be allowed to perform the hatat ritual. This too is not true in other cases, where eventually the impurity is lessened sufficiently such that it no longer defiles at all. Again, we can see that the rules regarding the hatat are stricter than the normal rules with regard to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Except for section one of our mishnah (which teaches another stringency with regard to the purity laws of the hatat waters), the rest of the mishnah discusses what parts of various vessels are considered "connected" to other parts. With regard to Parah, the implication of parts being "connected" is that if the water is sprinkled on one part, the other part is pure.
  A flask for hatat waters whose outer part has become unclean, its inner part also becomes unclean, and it conveys uncleanness to another flask, and the other to another, even if they are a hundred.  If the outside of a vessel becomes impure, the inside remains pure such that it can be used with pure food or liquid items (see Kelim 25: 1, 6). This is not true when it comes to using the flask to hold hatat waters. If the outside is unclean, the inside is unclean as well.
  A bell and a clapper are regarded as connected.  If one sprinkles the hatat waters on the bell or on its clapper, the other is pure because they are regarded as connected.
  In the case of a spindle stick used for coarse material, one should not sprinkle on its stick or ring, but if he sprinkled on one, both are regarded as having been sprinkled upon. A spindle stick used for flax they are regarded as connected.  The spindle stick referred to here is used to weave the coarse material for the production of reed mats. The mishnah says that he should sprinkle on the spindle itself. But if he does sprinkle upon one of the other parts, they are all clean. When it comes to a spindle used to weave flax, all the parts are considered connected and therefore he can sprinkle on one and thereby purify the other.
  If a leather cover of a crib is fastened to its knobs, both are regarded as connected. The base is not regarded as connected either in respect of uncleanness or cleanness.  The leather is attached to knobs on the edges of a crib. The leather is considered connected to the crib and therefore if one sprinkles on one, the other is clean. The base of the crib (or other type of bed) is put in the frame and upon it one places the sheets and blankets.
  All drilled handles of utensils are regarded as connected. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: also those that are wedged into holes in the utensils.  Drilled handles of utensils are handles that are drilled out so that the metal part can be inserted. An example would be a knife. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri adds that the same is true for handles that are inserted into holes made into the vessels themselves such that the handles cannot be easily removed. These too are considered to be attached.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  The baskets of a pack-saddle, the bed of a barrow, the iron corner of a bier, the [drinking] horns of travelers, a key chain, the loose stitches of washermen, and a garment stitched together with kilayim are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in that of sprinkling. There are many items mentioned in this mishnah. I shall attempt to explain them one at a time, based on Albeck's interpretation. The baskets of a pack-saddle:  A saddle made of wood placed on a donkey. There are baskets attached to both sides. The bed of a barrow: a vessel used for threshing produce. The corner of a bier: The head of a long bier for carrying a body or some sort of seat. The [drinking] horns of travelers: A vessel used by travelers to draw and store water. A key chain: Same thing you and I still use to this day! The loose stitches of laundry men: Washers loosely stitch clothing together while washing so that it doesn't get lost. And a garment stitched together with kilayim: Kilayim are mixed kinds. Someone stitched together a garment of flax using wool or vice versa. These stitches will have to be removed. All of these vessels are regarded as connected when it comes to the regular laws of purity. If one part is defiled, the other part is defiled as well. However, the laws of sprinkling are more stringent. These things are not considered to be connected. Therefore, if one sprinkles on one, the other part is not yet clean.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  The lid of a kettle which is joined to a chain: Bet Shammai say: these are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Bet Hillel say: if he sprinkled on the kettle, it is the same as if the lid also was sprinkled upon; but if he sprinkled on the lid only it is not the same as if the kettle also was sprinkled upon. The chain is attached to the lid of the kettle. According to Bet Shammai we rule stringently in this case. If either the chain or the lid becomes impure, the other is impure as well. However, to purify them he must sprinkle on both.
  Bet Hillel rules that the lid is primary to the chain. Therefore, if he sprinkles on the lid, the chain is made clean. However, if he sprinkles only on the chain, the lid remains unclean.
  All are eligible to sprinkle, except a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, a woman, and a child that is without understanding. Numbers 19:18 says, “18A person (איש) who is clean shall take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle on the tent and on all the vessels and people who were there.” The rabbis take the word for person “ish” to mean that anyone who is an “ish” can perform this ritual. It is not limited to priests. However it does limit the following people who do not fall under the rabbinic classification of “ish.” A tumtum is a person who lacks the signs of either gender. A hermaphrodite has both male and female organs. A woman is excluded, according to the rabbis, from the category of “ish.” A child who is too young to intend to perform the sprinkling is also not considered an “ish.”
  A woman may assist [a man] while he sprinkles, and hold the water for him while he dips and sprinkles. If she held his hand, even if only at the time of sprinkling, it is invalid. A woman can aid the man while he sprinkles, but she can’t actually hold his hand, neither while dipping the hyssop nor while sprinkling.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of Parah teaches that the dipping of the hyssop and the sprinkling of the waters must be done during the day. This is derived from the word "day" which is repeated in Numbers 19:19, "The clean person shall sprinkle it upon the unclean person on the third day and on the seventh day, thus cleansing him by the seventh day."
  If he dipped the hyssop during the day and he sprinkled during the day, it is valid.  This is the proper way for the mitzvah to be performed both actions done during the day.
  If he dipped it during the day and sprinkled at night, or dipped at night and sprinkled on the following day, it is invalid.  If even one of the actions is performed during the night, the sprinkling is invalid.
  But he himself may immerse at night and then sprinkle on the following day, for sprinkling is not allowed until the sun is risen.  While the dipping of the hyssop into the waters and the sprinkling cannot be done at night, the person who is going to perform these rituals can immerse himself at night. This immersion is done in preparation for the hatat ritual.
  And if any of these was done as early as the rise of dawn it is valid.  The dipping and sprinkling should be done during the day, meaning once the sun has risen. But if one did it at first light, at the rise of dawn, it is still valid. This is common to many mitzvoth they should be done after the sun has risen, but if they are done right after dawn, they are valid. See Megillah 2:4. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Parah! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Parah is all about one of the strangest rituals in the Torah. Indeed the rabbis categorize this as the quintessential "hok" a law that cannot be interpreted rationally. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we may not really be able to understand the rationale behind this cleansing ritual, I hope that by learning the Mishnah, we are at least able to understand how the rabbis imagined it being performed. Interestingly, qualitatively this tractate doesn't seem to be all that different from many other tractates. The rabbis take some passages in the Torah, interpret their details while using certain principles and explain mostly when something has been performed in a valid manner and when it has been performed in an invalid manner. Perhaps we could say in summary that Tractate Parah takes the admittedly irrational and makes it rational. Tomorrow our learning continues with Tractate Toharot. Good luck to everyone and congratulations on your amazing commitment to learning.