Бамидбар 19:18 Ссылки в Талмуде: Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim, Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Nazir & Jerusalem Talmud Megillah

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion⁴¹Since for cleansing from impurity the verse requires that one immerse “all his flesh” in water, any dirt on the skin prevents the water to touch the skin and invalidates the immersion. The Mishnah restricts that to unwanted dirt; wanted adhesions separate only in the volume of an olive. Dry dough which acts as glue becomes part of the trough.. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling⁴⁷For the ritual of cleansing from the impurity of the dead, sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19). If the water only is sprinkled on dirt which would invalidate immersion, the implement is purified.. It⁴⁸The dough in the volume of an olive sticking to the trough, as described in the Mishnah. is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really⁴⁹S. Liebermann points to Yoma 6:4 (Note 83), where גּוּפוֹ “its body” is used as opposite of מַמָּשׁ “really it”. like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair⁵⁰Used as glue. is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling⁵¹The two statements are not quite parallel. Immersion requires that the object to be purified be completely immersed; “connection” then means that if the glue is wetted, the wood below also is purified. In sprinkling, only drops are used; if a drop falls on the glue, the object is not purified.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail⁵²Inoperative but still connected to the body., the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow⁵³A hollowed-out pumpkin used as a bottle. Since it is lighter than water, it cannot be immersed and filled with water without a ballast, usually a stone. While it is not part of the pumpkin, it is an intrinsic part of the bottle, as much as its hollow. All these are included in “connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling.”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked⁵⁴Downy facial hair. If a woman insists on removing it it acquires the status of unwanted dirt described in the Mishnah, being an obstacle to immersion and no receptor of sprinkling drops. is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels⁵⁵Num. 19:18.. But here, for you⁵⁶Many occurrences in the rules of impurity in Lev. 11: Babli Ḥulin 118a, a discussion of people having different needs at different times in Šabbat 48b., all you have use for.

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?

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle¹⁵⁰Mishnah 2 spells out for which biblical impurities the nazir has to shave; the implication is that for anything less he does not have to shave. Mishnah 3 has a list of rabbinic impurities for which the nazir does not have to shave; the implication is that for anything more he has to shave. We are left without instructions for cases which fall in between.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently¹⁵¹Anything not covered by Mishnah 2 is not biblical; the nazir is prevented from shaving.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively¹⁵²Anything not exempted by Mishnah 3 requires shaving and a new start. The Babli, 53b, reports the same opinions, limited to the case taken here as illustration.. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently⁶²“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. covered by flesh¹⁵³Mishnah Ahilut 1:8 spells out that such a limb induces impurity by touch or carrying but not in a tent.. Rebbi Yose asked¹⁵⁴He questions R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position.: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone¹⁵⁵Num. 19:16. In v. 18, only “bone” is mentioned but not “human”. This is interpreted in Sifry Num. #127,129 to cover bones coming from both living or dead persons; cf. Babli 54a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 19:16,18.”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain¹⁵⁶For a bare bone, everybody agrees that a barley grain represents the minimum size which induces impurity. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, a bone fragment with some flesh is not subject to a legal minimum.! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person¹⁵⁷Without a minimum; Sifry Num. #127., that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.