Les Nombres 19:9 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim, Jerusalem Talmud Sotah & Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah

It is written⁶⁰Sach. 14:8., on that day, fresh water will flow out from Jerusalem, etc. It was stated: From the Holiest of Holies to the gobelins like the feelers of silai and bilai⁶¹These seem to be tiny insects, not further identified.. From the gobelins to the golden altar like the horns of locusts. From the golden altar to the courtyards like a shut-thread, from the courtyards to the threshold of the Temple like woof-thread, from there onwards like the pouring from a jug: behold, water drizzled from the right hand side⁶²Ez. 47:2. (Yoma77b–78a).. It is written⁶³Ez. 47:3–5. Tosephta Sukkah3:3–7., when the man left towards the East, with a measuring rod in his hand, he measured a thousand cubits and made me cross the water, ankle water. Up to his ankles. Then he measured another thousand cubits and made me cross the water, knee water. Up to his knees. Then he measured another thousand cubits and made me cross the water, hip water. Up to his hips. From there on, then he measured another thousand, a river which cannot be crossed. Even a large Liburnian⁶⁴Latin liburna(sc. navis), the standard fast commercial sail ship. could not cross it. What is the reason? No mighty ship may cross it⁶⁵Is.33:21.; why? The water was high, swimming water⁶⁶Ez. 47:5. The word has to be explained since in common usage שיט, not שחה, was used for “to swim”.. What is “swimming water”? Where one swims. Rebbi Ḥuna said, in our place one calls the swimmer seḥuna. He moves his hands in himself, as a swimmer would move to swim⁶⁷Is. 25:11.. What means “to swim”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in unruly water⁶⁸Explanation of the verse; the movements referred to are those of a desperate person.. It is written⁶⁹Sach. 13:1. It is presumed that the prophesies of Ezechiel and Sachariah refer to the same matter and one may be used to explain to other.: On this day, a water-source will be opened for the House of David and the dwellers in Jerusalem, for purification and impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: From the House of David⁷⁰The Temple. to the dwellers in Jerusalem it is qualified for impurity and purification⁷¹“Purification” here means water with ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify from the impurity of the dead, which in Num. 19:9 is called “purification”.. Farther away it is mixed water, qualified for impurity but disqualified for purification⁷²Only spring water is qualified as “purification,” Num. 19:17. All other impurities are removed by immersion in a miqweh, which may contain any kind of water, including rain water.. Rebbi Eleazar said, from the House of David to the dwellers in Jerusalem it is qualified for impurity and purification. Farther away it is water running down⁷³Greek καταφερής, -ές adj. “inclines downwards”, used in the sense of “rapidly flowing water”., disqualified for impurity⁷⁴Since a miqweh is a “collection” of water, it cannot be a waterfall (or any shower). The same holds for rapidly flowing water; Mishnah Ṭahorot8:9. and purification.

There⁷²Mishnah Parah 11:8. The hyssop was used to sprinkle water mixed with ashes of the red cow to cleanse a person defiled by the impurity of the dead. From the biblical expression (Num. 19:9) מֵי נִדָּה חַטָּאת הִיא “sprinkling water, it is purifying”, the water is called in Talmudic terminology מֵי חַטָּאת or simply חַטָּאת “purifying (water)”. Cf. also Note 36., we have stated: “A hyssop which was used to sprinkle is acceptable [to be used] to purify the sufferer from skin disease⁷³Hyssop alone is required for purifying (from the impurity of the dead) (Num. 19:18); for the cleansing from skin disease it is used among other things (Lev. 14:6)..” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar⁷⁴The Amora, ben Pedat.: That [was stated] to exclude the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer⁷⁵Tosephta Nega‘im 8:2: “A hyssop acceptable for purifying is acceptable for the sufferer from skin disease. If he used it for sprinkling to purify it is still acceptable for the sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Eliezer says, the cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson strip mentioned in the Torah (Lev. 14:6) cannot have been previously used for any purpose.”
The prohibition of prior use is spelled out in the Torah for the red cow only (Num. 19:2). By rabbinic tradition, the prohibition is extended to the water used for purifying as explained at length in Mishnah Parah. R. Eliezer extends the prohibition to anything used in any ritual of purification by hyssop and water., as it was stated⁷⁶This baraita is not quoted in any other source; the Tosephta quoted in the preceding Note shows that the source of the baraita is the school of R. Eliezer.: If he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease. If he sprinkled with it for the sufferer from skin disease, it is disqualified for purifying. ⁷⁷The argument presented here is intended to show an error in the position of R. Eliezer. The argument of R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) is not found in any other source.
The argument goes as follows: Everybody agrees that the rules of purification from skin disease are not as stringent as those from the impurity of the dead. If using hyssop for purifying from the impurity of the dead would disqualify it as instrument for purifying from skin disease, one must require that one hyssop cannot be used for several people defiled by contact with a corpse. But is was general practice that the Temple provided a purification service where a person was standing in a window and was sprinkling continuously on the people walking by below, always using the same hyssop (Mishnah Parah11:4); no dissent by R. Eliezer is recorded. Therefore, practice must follow the Mishnah, not R. Eliezer. Rebbi Yose said, would that not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since for the sufferer from skin disease, for whose ceremony use does not disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease; purifying, for whose ceremony use does disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, is it not logical that it should be disqualified for purifying?

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical¹⁰⁵Since the Cow is treated as a sanctum, it is clear that until its ashes are collected as required in Num. 19:9, any action not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in vv. 2–9 will invalidate the procedure and usufruct of correct procedure will be larceny of sacra. According to the general principle that once the required procedures are executed, there can be no longer larceny of sacra, the problem is to decide whether the correct preparation of the ashes is the final step in this regard, or the sprinkling on a person impure in the impurity of the dead, as described in the verses following. To say that it would be logical is tantamount to a statement that one could argue the second position but, since the answer is not clear from the biblical text, it is up to the Court overseeing the Temple to decide which opinion to follow. that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state¹⁰⁶Babli Menaḥot51b/52a.: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,]¹⁰⁷Corrector’s addition following B and M, correct but not absolutely necessary. with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant¹⁰⁸Reading as Arabic שקשק “to rinse”. and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it¹⁰⁹But biblically the ashes never could lead to larceny of sacra.. When they were fenced in¹¹⁰It was certain that no illegitimate use would be tolerated., they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.