Sotah 32
כדלעת מני ר"ע היא דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו ריבה את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו מיעט ואת כל שערו יגלח חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל
According to whom [is the teaching that he must be shaved the second time] as smooth as a gourd? It is R. Akiba who expounds [the Torah] by the rule of amplification and limitation; for it has been taught: 'And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all his hair' — that is an amplification; 'off his head and his beard and his eyebrows' — that is a limitation; 'even all his hair he shall shave off — that is again an amplification. Now [the rule of exegesis is]: Where there is an amplification, followed by a limitation, and this is followed by an amplification, the amplification applies to the whole. In which respect is there an amplification? It includes all the body [to be shaved]. In which respect is there a limitation? It excludes the hair which grows inside the nostril. How is it, then, with our original question [whether ashes may be used when there is no dust]? — Come and hear: For R. Huna b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: If there is no dust there, he brings decayed herbage and hallows it! — But this is no proof. Decayed herbage may indeed be [called] dust but not ashes.
מאי ריבה ריבה דכוליה גופיה ומאי מיעט מיעט שיער שבתוך החוטם
JUST SUFFICIENT TO BE VISIBLE ABOVE THE WATER. Our Rabbis have taught: Three things must be visible, viz., the dust in the ceremony of the suspected woman, the ashes in the ceremony of the red heifer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
כדי שיראה על המים תנו רבנן שלשה צריכין שיראו עפר סוטה ואפר פרה ורוק יבמה משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף דם צפור
What is R. Ishmael's reason? — Because it is written: And shall dip them in the blood of the bird etc.;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 6. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל דכתיב (ויקרא יד, נא) וטבל אותם בדם הצפור וגו' ותניא בדם יכול בדם ולא במים ת"ל במים אי מים יכול במים ולא בדם ת"ל בדם הא כיצד מביא מים שדם ציפור ניכר בהן וכמה רביעית
and it has been taught: 'in the blood' — it is possible [to think that they must be dipped] in blood and not in water; therefore the text declares '[over the running] water'. If Scripture [had only mentioned] 'water', it would be possible [to think that they must be dipped] in water and not in blood; therefore the text declares 'in the blood'. What, then, was the procedure? He brings water in which the blood of the bird is recognisable. What is the quantity? A quarter [of a <i>log</i>]. And [why is this instance not included in their enumeration by] the Rabbis? — That is part of the subject-matter; for thus said the All-Merciful, Dip in blood and water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as there is some blood in the water, even if it cannot be distinguished. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ורבנן ההוא לגופיה דהכי קאמר רחמנא אטביל בדם ובמים
[How is this argument met by] R. Ishmael? — In that case, the All-Merciful should have written: 'And he shall dip in them'; so why [is it stated] in blood and in water? That [the blood] must be recognisable. And [how is this argument met by] the Rabbis? — If the All-Merciful had written: 'And he shall dip in them', I might have imagined [that he was to dip] in each separately; therefore He wrote 'in blood and in water' to indicate that they must be mixed. [How does] R. Ishmael [answer this point]? That they are to be mixed [is learnt from] another verse; it is written: And kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 5. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ורבי ישמעאל אם כן לכתוב רחמנא וטבל בהם בדם ובמים למה לי לניכר
[How do] the Rabbis [answer this point]? — If [we had to learn it] from that passage, we might have thought that he is to kill it near a vessel, press the jugular veins,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that no blood escapes while carrying it to the other vessel. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ור' ישמעאל לערבן קרא אחרינא כתיב (ויקרא יד, ה) ושחט את הצפור האחת וגו'
R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera, How is it if [the bird] was so big that [its blood] effaced [all trace of] the water, or if it was so small that [all trace of its blood] was effaced by the water? He answered: Have I not told thee not to take thyself beyond the legal decision?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to raise questions about exaggerated points in connection with the decisions. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ורבנן אי מההוא הוה אמינא לישחטיה סמוך למנא ונינקטינהו לוורידין ולקבליה לדם במנא אחרינא קמ"ל
The Rabbis estimated [the quantity of a quarter of a <i>log</i>] by a free bird;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as flies in and out of a house. [A swallow; v. Lewysohn Zoologic, p. 206ff]. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
א"ל לאו אמינא לך לא תפיק נפשך לבר מהילכתא בצפור דרור שיערו רבנן אין לך גדולה שמדחת את המים ואין לך קטנה שנדחית מפני המים
Our Rabbis have taught: If he put the dust [in the bowl] before the water, it is invalid; but R. Simeon allows it. What is the reason of R. Simeon? — Because it is written: And for the unclean they shall take of the dust of the burning of the sin-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 17. The text has the word for dust, not 'ashes'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ת"ר הקדים עפר למים פסול ור' שמעון מכשיר מ"ט דרבי שמעון
and it has been taught: R. Simeon said: Was it dust and not ashes? The text changes the expression to indicate that a conclusion was to be drawn from it by the rule of analogy: it is mentioned here 'dust', and there [in the ceremony of the suspected woman] it is also mentioned 'dust'; as in the second instance the dust had to be placed over the water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in Num. V, 17. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
דכתיב (במדבר יט, יז) ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת ותניא אמר ר"ש וכי עפר הוא והלא אפר הוא שינה הכתוב במשמעו לדון הימנו גזירה שוה נאמר כאן עפר ונאמר להלן עפר מה להלן עפר על גבי מים אף כאן עפר על גבי מים
so also here the dust had to be placed over the water; and further, as it is valid here if he put the dust on before the water, so also there [in the ceremony of the suspected woman] it is valid if he put the dust on before the water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained anon. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ומה כאן הקדים עפר למים כשר אף להלן הקדים עפר למים כשר
Whence is this derived there [in the rite of the red heifer]? — There are two texts: It is written thereto,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., running water shall be put thereto. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
והתם מנלן תרי קראי כתיבי כתיב עליו אלמא אפר ברישא וכתיב מים חיים אל כלי אלמא מים ברישא הא כיצד רצה זה נותן רצה זה נותן
consequently the ashes are first; and it is written running water in a vessel, consequently the water is first. So what was the procedure? He can put either in first. [How is this interpretation answered by] the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who declare that the rite is invalid if the dust is placed in the bowl before the water. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מה מצינו בכל מקום מכשיר למעלה אף כאן מכשיר למעלה
and 'in a vessel' means that the water must be poured directly into the vessel from the spring!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be running water, and not poured from another vessel. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> — As we find that everywhere it is the qualifying element which is on top,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In the case of a suspected woman, and of a leper, the qualifying elements — i.e., the dust which gives the water of bitterness its efficacy and the blood of the bird — must be placed on top as indicated by the plain meaning of the Scriptural texts: Num. V, 17, and Lev. XIV, 6.] ');"><sup>18</sup></span> so also here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the ashes of the red heifer. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> the qualifying element must be on top.