## Temurah Daf 12b

###### Temurah 12b:1
[Temurah 12b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:1)

וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין, שֶׁהַשְּׁאִיבָה מְטַהֶרֶת בִּרְבִיָּיה וּבְהַמְשָׁכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** in this manner all forty *se’a* **are ritually pure.** The reason is **that drawn** water **is purified by a majority** of fit water that was already present in the ritual bath **and by** the drawn water **flowing** into the ritual bath. This is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation: One calculates the amount of drawn water that flowed into the ritual bath, as the ritual bath is invalid only if most of the forty *se’a* is of that drawn water.


###### Temurah 12b:2
[Temurah 12b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:2)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי דְּבִרְבִיָּיה וּבְהַמְשָׁכָה לָא? אֶלָּא דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁאוּבָה שֶׁהִמְשִׁיכוּהָ כּוּלָּהּ — טְהוֹרָה. מַנִּי? לָא רַבָּנַן וְלָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov alone, one must conclude **by inference that the Rabbis hold that** the ritual bath is **not** fit even **by** a **majority** of fit water **and by** the **flowing** of the drawn water. **But** if so, consider **that** which **Ravin** said **when** he **came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, namely, that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** A ritual bath that consists **in its entirety** of **drawn** water **that one made flow** into it **is pure.** In accordance with **whose** opinion is this? It is **not** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who maintain that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath even if it flowed into it, **and** it is **not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer** ben Ya’akov, who holds that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath if it constitutes a majority of the forty *se’a*.


###### Temurah 12b:3
[Temurah 12b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן כֵּלִים, וְיוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabba says:** The mishna’s ruling, that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, is not referring to drawn water that flowed. Instead, it means **according to** the **calculation of** the number of **vessels** from which the drawn water was directly poured into the ritual bath, **and** this **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Yosef ben Ḥoni.**


###### Temurah 12b:4
[Temurah 12b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:4)

דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לַמַּיִם, בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כֵּלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה כֵּלִים — פּוֹסְלִים אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כֵּלִים (פוסל) [פּוֹסְלִין] אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, בְּאַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה — אֵין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **three *log* of drawn water fell into the water** of a ritual bath that lacked the requisite measure, **from two or three vessels,** with each containing at least one *log* of drawn water, **or even from four or five vessels,** where no whole *log* fell in at once, it **invalidates the ritual bath. Yosef ben Ḥoni says:** It is only if the drawn water was **in two or three vessels** that the water **invalidates the ritual bath.** But if the drawn water was **in four or five** vessels, the water **does not invalidate the ritual bath.** This is what the mishna means.


###### Temurah 12b:5
[Temurah 12b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:5)

וְאֵין מֵי חַטָּאת (נַעֲשֶׂה) [נַעֲשִׂין] מֵי חַטָּאת כּוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the water of purification** of the red heifer **becomes water of purification only** with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by the placement of water onto the ashes. The Gemara asks: **Who is the *tanna*** whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said that** it is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Temurah 12b:6
[Temurah 12b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:6)

דְּתַנְיָא: הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: A *sota*, a woman suspected of unfaithfulness by her husband, must drink bitter waters prepared in the Temple. The verse states: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17). This verse teaches that the water must be placed in the vessel first, and the dust is placed on top of it. If one places the **dust** in the vessel **before the water,** the mixture is **unfit, but Rabbi Shimon deems** it **fit.**


###### Temurah 12b:7
[Temurah 12b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב ״וְלָקְחוּ לַטָּמֵא מֵעֲפַר שְׂרֵפַת הַחַטָּאת וְנָתַן עָלָיו מַיִם חַיִּים״, וְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: וְכִי עָפָר הוּא? וַהֲלֹא אֵפֶר הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written** with regard to the red heifer: **“And for the impure they shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin, and place on it flowing water** in a vessel” (Numbers 19:17). **And it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon said: But is it dust [*afar*]** that is taken? **Isn’t it** really **ashes [*efer*]?**


###### Temurah 12b:8
[Temurah 12b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:8)

שִׁינָּה הַכָּתוּב מִמַּשְׁמָעוֹ, לָדוּן הֵימֶנּוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עָפָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עָפָר״. מָה לְהַלָּן — עָפָר עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם, אַף כָּאן — עָפָר עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם. וּמָה כָּאן הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — כָּשֵׁר, אַף כָּאן הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Evidently **the verse altered its** standard **usage** and referred to ashes as dust in order **to derive a verbal analogy from it: “Dust” is stated** in the verse **here, and “dust” is stated there,** with regard to the *sota*. **Just as there,** in the case of the *sota*, the verse teaches that the **dust** must be placed **on top of the water, so too here,** with regard to the red heifer, the **dust,** i.e., ashes, must be placed **on top of the water. And** likewise, **just as here,** with regard to the red heifer, if one places the **dust** in the vessel **before the water,** it is **fit** after the fact, **so too there,** in the case of the *sota*, if one places the **dust** in the vessel **before the water,** it is **fit** after the fact.


###### Temurah 12b:9
[Temurah 12b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:9)

וְהָכָא מְנָלַן? תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״וְנָתַן עָלָיו״, אַלְמָא אֵפֶר בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר כְּתִיב ״מַיִם חַיִּים אֶל כֶּלִי״. הָא כֵּיצַד? רָצָה עָפָר לְמַטָּה, רָצָה עָפָר לְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And here,** with regard to the red heifer, **from where do we** derive that the mixture is fit even if the dust is placed first? **Two phrases are written.** First it is written: “They shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin **and place on it.” Apparently,** the **ashes** should be placed in the vessel **first** and the water afterward. **And then it is written: “Running water in a vessel,”** indicating that the water should be placed in the vessel first, while it is still empty. **How** can **these** texts be reconciled? They can be reconciled by concluding that if **he desires** to place the **dust,** i.e., the ashes of the red heifer, **below,** and put water on top, he may do so; and if **he desires** he may place the water first and then place the **dust above** the water.


###### Temurah 12b:10
[Temurah 12b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:10)

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר לָךְ: סֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא דַּוְקָא, ״וְנָתַן עָלָיו״ — לְעָרְבָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the *tanna* of our** mishna, who deems the mixture unfit if the ashes are placed first, **what is** his **reasoning?** He could **say to you** that **the last clause of the verse:** “Running water in a vessel,” is meant **specifically,** i.e., the water must be placed first. And when the verse states beforehand: “They shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin **and place on it,”** this teaches only that after placing the ashes upon the water one is required **to mix** the ashes with the water, so that the water covers the ashes.


###### Temurah 12b:11
[Temurah 12b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:11)

מַאי חָזֵית דְּאָמְרַתְּ סֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא דַּוְקָא, דִּלְמָא רֵישָׁא דַּוְקָא? לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, מָה מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם מַכְשִׁיר לְמַעְלָה, אַף כָּאן מַכְשִׁיר לְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But one could just as easily say the opposite. **What did you see that** led **you** to **say** that **the last clause of the verse** is meant **specifically? Perhaps the first clause** of the verse is meant **specifically.** The Gemara answers: **You cannot say** so, as **just as we find in every instance** that the **facilitating item** goes **above,** e.g., in the case of a *sota* the dust, which enables the water to be used, goes on top of the water, **so too here,** in the case of the red heifer, the **facilitating item** must go **above.** The water must be placed first, and only then the ashes.


###### Temurah 12b:12
[Temurah 12b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:12)

וְאֵין בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further teaches: **And** one ***beit haperas* does not create** another ***beit haperas*.** The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned** in a mishna (*Oholot* 17:2) that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** One ***beit haperas* creates** another ***beit haperas*.** If one plowed from a *beit haperas* into another field, that field is also ritually impure.


###### Temurah 12b:13
[Temurah 12b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/12b:13)

וְרַבָּנַן, עַד כַּמָּה? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, **how far** does a *beit haperas* extend? **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Reish Lakish said** that **Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said:**