Temurah 12b — the Talmud in English

That is to say, we have only learned up to here that drawn water disqualifies the mikveh, even three log [which are a small amount of drawn water in relation to slightly less than forty seah. The seah is six kav; the kav is four log. Thus, forty seah are 960 log, so three log are one three-hundred-twentieth of forty seah], when they were poured from the bucket into the mikveh. But when they were poured by means of hamshakha—flowing along the ground—they are valid even in a large quantity, provided that the majority of the water is rainwater.

And our Mishna comes to state the law of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. Therefore it said: Drawn water does not disqualify by way of hamshakha except “according to calculation”; that is to say, only if there were twenty seah of drawn water there. But if there were only nineteen, and they were made to flow into twenty-one seah of rainwater, they do not disqualify, and the mikveh is valid.

The Gemara discusses the words of Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin: “Our Mishna is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.” Who are those Sages who disagree with him, and regarding what did they disagree with him? That is to say, if our Mishna stated its matter anonymously in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov—

it follows that the Rabbis

who disagree with him

hold that, through increase and hamshakha,

it does not

purify drawn water, until all of it is rainwater; and whenever there are not forty seah of rainwater in the mikveh, it is disqualified even by three log.

And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov responds to these words of theirs and says: “Drawn water [which was made to flow] does not disqualify the mikveh”—by three log, as you say—“except according to calculation”—at twenty seah, as explained. And from the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov it is heard that the Sages who disagree with him hold that drawn water is not purified through increase and hamshakha.

Therefore we raise an objection:

But, that which, when

he arrived from the Land of Israel,

Ravin said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Drawn water whose entirety was made to flow,

all forty seah,

is pure—

In accordance with whom

did Rabbi Yohanan say this?

Not the Rabbis,

who hold that even part of it is not purified through hamshakha,

and not Rabbi Eliezer

ben Yaakov, who holds that at the very least the majority must be rainwater. And how did Rabbi Yohanan say: that whose entirety was made to flow is pure?

And because of this difficulty the Gemara retracts, and holds that it is impossible to establish the Mishna as referring to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. For if this is the intention of the Mishna, it is proven that the Rabbis hold that through increase and hamshakha it does not purify at all, and this is impossible.

And the truth is that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov never said: Drawn water does not disqualify “except according to calculation,” and our Mishna is not speaking at all about the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbis.

And the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbis is that the Rabbis hold: Drawn water whose entirety was made to flow is purified [and Rabbi Yohanan holds like them], whereas Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: through increase and hamshakha.

Rather, Rav Pappa said

the explanation of our Mishna is:

Drawn water does not disqualify the mikveh when it fell from the vessel into the mikveh without hamshakha, but

according to the calculation of the vessels, and

our Mishna is that of

Yosei ben Honi—

as it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

Three log of drawn water that fell into a mikveh

in two or three vessels, and even in four or five vessels,

and a full log did not fall from any one vessel—

disqualify the mikveh, since between all of them three log fell. These are the words of the Sages.

поскольку всего из всех сосудов упало три лога. Таково мнение мудрецов.

Yosei ben Honi says: In two or three vessels—

they disqualify

the mikveh, because a full log fell from each vessel. But

поскольку из каждого сосуда упал полный лог; однако

in four or five vessels—

they do not disqualify the mikveh,

since a full log did not fall [from any one vessel] .

And this is the explanation of “according to calculation”: it is disqualified only according to the calculation of the vessels .

We learned in our Mishna:

And mei hatat do not become mei hatat except with the placing of the ash.

And the Gemara discusses:

Who is the tanna,

who is the tanna of the Mishna who disqualifies even after the fact when the ash preceded the water?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon—

As it was taught—

The Gemara brings a beraita in tractate Para, where Rabbi Shimon and the Sages disagreed regarding the “waters of the sota,” which are the bitter, cursing waters into which dust from the ground of the Tabernacle courtyard is placed, and with which the sota is given to drink. And it will be explained subsequently that just as Rabbi Shimon validates the case where the dust preceded the water with regard to the “waters of the sota”—

so too he validates it with regard to the mei hatat. And we learned:

If he placed the dust before the water,

with which the sota is given to drink—

it is invalid;

these are the words of the Sages.

And Rabbi Shimon validates it.

And we considered it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

For the Torah said in the passage concerning the sota [Numbers 5]: “And from the dust that shall be on the ground of the Tabernacle the priest shall take and place it into the water”?

As it is written

in the passage concerning the para [there, chapter 19]:

“And they shall take for the impure person from the dust of the burning of the sin-offering.” And it was taught,

we learned in another beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says: Is it “dust”? It is surely “ash”,

from the burning of the cow! Rather,

the Scripture changed from its plain meaning,

and wrote “dust” instead of “ash”—

to derive from it a gzera shava: It is said here,

with regard to the mei hatat,

“dust,” and it is said elsewhere,

with regard to the waters of the sota,

“dust,”

to teach us:

Just as there,

the mitzva initially is:

dust above the water,

as it is said, “And from the dust... and place it into the water,”

so here,

with regard to the mei hatat, the mitzva initially is:

dust above the water.

And

we shall further learn from the gzera shava:

Just as here,

with regard to the mei hatat, if

he placed the dust before the water—

it is valid,

as will be explained,

so elsewhere ,

with regard to the waters of the sota, if

he placed the dust before the water—

it is valid.

And the Gemara discusses:

And here,

with regard to the mei hatat—

from where do we know

that it is valid even if he placed the dust before the water?

And we expound:

Two verses are written,

two verses are written in the passage concerning the para. One is: “And they shall take for the impure person from the dust of the burning of the sin-offering

and place upon it living water.”

Evidently,

the order is

ash first,

and “upon it” he shall place the water.

And afterward it is written,

and afterward it says:

“Living water into a vessel”,

which implies that the water is placed into the vessel and not onto the ash.

How so?

How shall we reconcile the two verses? Rabbi Shimon learns from this: If

he wishes—

he shall place

dust [—

ash]

below,

and if

he wishes—he shall place

dust above.

Thus, our Mishna, which disqualifies one who placed the ash below, is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And the Gemara discusses:

And the tanna of our Mishna,

and the tanna of ours,

the tanna of our Mishna who disqualifies one who placed the ash first—

what is the reason,

for the Torah said, “And place upon it living water”?

He could say to you: The end of the verse

which says, “Living water into the vessel”—is

specifically,

and the Torah was particular that the water be placed into the vessel before the placing of the ash.

And that which the Torah said

“and place upon it”—

does not come to teach us to validate the case where the ash preceded the water, but to teach us:

to mix them,

to take care that after placing the ash upon the water, he mix the ash thoroughly with the water with his finger, and the water return over the ash.

And we raise an objection:

And what have you seen,

and why does it appear to you

that you say: The end of the verse is specific; perhaps

it is possible to say:

The beginning is specific,

and the Torah was particular that the ash be placed first?

And

according to this difficulty, that which the Torah said

“into a vessel”—

comes to teach us:

“that their vitality shall be in the vessel” ,

that is, that he draw living water from the spring in a vessel, and place the ash into it, and not draw it with another vessel and pour it into this vessel.

And we answer:

You cannot say

so! For

what do we find

everywhere,

for example, with regard to the sota —

it validates,

and it is the dust that validates the water, and the dust is placed

above,

for with regard to the sota everyone agrees that its mitzva initially is to place the water first, as explained, because it is said, “And place it into the water.”

So here too,

with regard to the mei hatat,

it validates when above,

and concerning this the Torah was particular when it said at the end of the verse, “Living water into a vessel.” And that which the Torah said, “And place upon it living water,” comes to teach that one must mix them, as explained.

We learned in our Mishna:

And a beit ha-peras does not make a beit ha-peras.

And the Gemara explains:

The Mishna

is our Mishna

not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

As we learned

in tractate Ohalot [chapter 17, Mishna 2]:

Rabbi Eliezer says: A beit ha-peras makes a beit ha-peras,

if a beit ha-peras was plowed, all four fields surrounding it became a beit ha-peras, and the earth of a beit ha-peras renders them impure .

And the Gemara clarifies:

And the Rabbis ,

the tanna of our Mishna, who holds that a beit ha-peras does not make a beit ha-peras—to what extent does it make a beit ha-peras when it was plowed?

When he arrived,

when

Rav Dimi

arrived from the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

Resh Lakish,

who

said

in the name of

Rabbi Shaman bar Abba: