מִי שֶׁטָּבַל בַּנָּהָר, וְהָיָה לְפָנָיו נָהָר אַחֵר וְעָבַר בּוֹ, טִהֲרוּ שְׁנִיִּים אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.
דָּחָהוּ חֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁכְרוֹ, וְכֵן לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ, טִהֲרוּ שְׁנִיִּים אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.
וְאִם כִּמְשַׂחֵק עִמּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה בְכִי יֻתַּן:
One who immersed himself in a river and then there was in front of him another river and he crossed it, the second [water] purifies the first [water].
If his fellow pushed him in while drunk or his beast [pushed him in], the second [water] purifies the first [water].
But if [he did it] out of playfulness, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.
Hannah Harrington, "Makshirin", in The Oxford Annotated Mishnah: A New Translation of the Mishnah with Introductions and Notes, vol. 3, eds. Shaye J.D. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg, & Hayim Lapin (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2022)
"the second [water] purifies the first": The first water is the water that is dripping off the person after coming up from the immersion. This water was desired by the person because it restored his purity and it is now detached from the river so it can cause susceptibility to impurity. Since the person is crossing a second river
and that water was not particularly desired, it mingles with and cancels the power of the detached water to cause susceptibility. Here "purifies" refers to canceling the power to convey susceptibility. (p. 888)
"If his friend pushed him due to his drunkenness": Perhaps with the sense of "to sober him up." The person did not fall into the water intentionally, so the water on him does not render him susceptible to impurity. The alterative reading essentially means the same thing and does not change the point at issue: in either case, the man fell into the river against his will. (p. 889)
"or so too with his animal": If an animal was pushed into the water without the owner's desire, water dripping from the animal would not render susceptible. If the animal pushed a person into the water, the same rule would apply. (p. 889)
"But if his friend was playing with him": The wrestling was in fun and so intentional. (p. 889)
מָזְגוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכּוֹס, וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִמֶּנוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה שִׁכּוֹרָה וּמָזְגוּ לָהּ אֶת הַכּוֹס, וְאָמְרָה הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה מִמֶּנּוּ,
אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, לֹא נִתְכַּוְּנָה אֶלָּא לוֹמַר הֲרֵי הוּא עָלַי קָרְבָּן:
If they poured one a cup of wine and he said: "I am hereby a naziritefrom it", he is anazirite.
An incident occurred with regard to a certain woman who was intoxicated, and they poured a cup for her and she said: "I am hereby a naziritess from it."
The Sages said: "She only intended to say this is upon me as an offering."
חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא יִתְרֹמוּ, וְאִם תָּרְמוּ, תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. הָאִלֵּם, וְהַשִּׁכּוֹר, וְהֶעָרוֹם, וְהַסּוּמָא, וּבַעַל קֶרִי. לֹא יִתְרֹמוּ, וְאִם תָּרְמוּ, תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה:
Five may not give terumah, but if they do, their terumah is terumah.
A mute person; A drunk person; One who is naked; A blind person; Or one who has had a seminal emission.
They may not give terumah, but if they do their terumah is valid.
הַמַּקִּישׁ בְּקַרְסֻלָּיו, וּבְאַרְכּוּבוֹתָיו, וּבַעַל פִּיקָה, וְהָעִקֵּל. אֵיזֶהוּ עִקֵּל, כֹּל שֶׁמַּקִּיף פַּרְסוֹתָיו וְאֵין אַרְכּוּבוֹתָיו נוֹשְׁקוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ. פִּיקָה יוֹצְאָה מִגּוּדָלוֹ, עֲקֵבוֹ יוֹצֵא לַאֲחוֹרָיו, פַּרְסָתוֹ רְחָבָה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּז. אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו מֻרְכָּבוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ, אוֹ קְלוּטוֹת (לְמַעְלָה) עַד הַפֶּרֶק, כָּשֵׁר. לְמַטָּה מִן הַפֶּרֶק וַחֲתָכָהּ, כָּשֵׁר. הָיְתָה בוֹ יְתֶרֶת וַחֲתָכָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם, פָּסוּל. וְאִם לָאו, כָּשֵׁר. יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִים. הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִים. הַכּוּשִׁי, וְהַגִּיחוֹר, וְהַלַּבְקָן, וְהַקִּפֵּחַ, וְהַנַּנָּס, וְהַחֵרֵשׁ, וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה, וְהַשִּׁכּוֹר, וּבַעֲלֵי נְגָעִים טְהוֹרִין, פְּסוּלִין בָּאָדָם, וּכְשֵׁרִין בַּבְּהֵמָה.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שׁוֹטָה בַבְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמֻּבְחָר,
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּעֲלֵי דִלְדּוּלִין, פְּסוּלִין בָּאָדָם, וּכְשֵׁרִין בַּבְּהֵמָה:
The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One whose legs are crooked and bend inward, causing him to knock his ankles or his knees into each other as he walks, and a ba’al happikim, and the ikkel. What is the ikkel? It is anyone who places his feet together and his knees do not knock into each other, i.e., he is bowlegged. A priest with a protuberance emerging alongside the thumb of his hand or the big toe of his foot,or one whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot, or one whose feet are wide like those of a goose are all disqualified from performing the Temple service. A priest whose fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or one whose fingers or toes are attached, is likewise disqualified. But if they were attached from above the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot only until the middle joint, he is fit. If they were attached below the joint, higher up on the finger or toe, and he cut to separate them, he is fit. In a case where there was an extra finger or toe on his hand or foot and he cut it, if that extra appendage contains a bone, the priest is disqualified even after it was cut, and if there is no bone the priest is fit. If there was an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems the priest fit and the Rabbis deem him disqualified. With regard to one who is ambidextrous and has control of both of his hands, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the priest disqualified, as his halakhic status is like that of one who is left-handed, and the Rabbis deem him fit. Concerning the kushi, the giḥor, the lavkan, the kipe’aḥ, the dwarf, the deaf-mute, the imbecile, one who is drunk, and those with ritually pure marks, their conditions disqualify a person from performing the Temple service and are valid, i.e., they do not disqualify with regard to being sacrificed, in the case of an animal.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "An imbecile among animals is not optimal."
Rabbi Elazar says: "Even with regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, that blemish disqualifies in the case of a person and is valid in the case of an animal."
