Yoma 43B

ולא פליג רבי יהודה!

And R' Yehuda does not disagree. The Mishnah implies that even he agrees with the Mishnah’s ruling.

אמר אביי: כיון דאמר מר ״משמע מוציא מיד משמע ומשמע ממילא״⁠ — פליג.

Abaye said: Since the Master, i.e., Ulla, said: In some stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse precludes the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse describing a previous stage, whereas in other stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and also apply in subsequent stages. Since it is clear from the opinion of the Rabbis that the verse describing the taking and dipping of hyssop is to be understood as indicating a change of conditions, perforce R' Yehuda must also assume that there is a change in conditions, as explained above. Therefore, he certainly disagrees with the Mishnah’s ruling, even though his dissenting opinion is not recorded in the Mishnah.

״והזה הטהור על הטמא״. ״טהור״ מכלל שהוא טמא, לימד על טבול יום שכשר בפרה.

The Talmud expounds the next verse: “And the pure one should sprinkle upon the impure” (Numbers 19:19). The previous verse already states that the one who sprinkles must be ritually pure. This requirement is repeated here to make the following inference: He is pure, which by inference suggests that initially he was ritually impure and has now removed that impurity. This fact is significant only if the reference is to a person who has still not completed his purification process. As such, the repetition of the requirement that the one who sprinkles be pure teaches about one who immersed that day, that he is qualified to sprinkle the waters in the rite of the red heifer. This is one who was rendered ritually impure with a type of ritual impurity from which he will become fully ritually pure only upon nightfall.