Parah Adumah - Chapter 1

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 113) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 397) include this commandment in the reckoning of the 613 mitzvot, defining it as “to offer a red heifer so that its ashes will be accessible.”

As will be explained, a person who contracted the impurity associated with a human corpse can regain purity only when the ashes of the red heifer are sprinkled upon him.

Until that age, an animal is considered as a calf or “a calf growing into a cow” [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 1:1)].

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning the rationale for this requirement, stating that a calf should not be purchased because an animal should not be designated as a sacrifice until it reaches an age when it is fit to be offered. The Kessef Mishnek defends the Rambam’s position, stating that, according to the Ra’avad, the calf could be purchased and not designated as a sacrifice until later. Moreover, he states, the Rambam’s ruling is taken from the Sifri Zuta.

Money which is collected for the purchase of communal offerings, but which is also used for other communal purposes, as explained in Hilchot Shekalim, ch. 4.

In the prooftext cited above.

Although a dwarf is disqualified as a priest, being dwarflike is not unacceptable for a sacrificial animal (Bechorot 45b). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 2:2), the Rambam explains that since Numbers, loc. cit., states that the heifer must be “perfect,” one might think that it must be perfect in all its qualities. Hence, it is necessary to explain that the intent is that it must be perfectly red.

A round portion in the body from which several hairs grow [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 2:5)].
The Kessef Mishneh states that there are commentaries to the mishnah who understand the terms kos and gumah as synonymous. That does not appear to be the Rambam’s understanding. As such, there is a difficulty with his interpretation because he appears to follow two Mishnaic opinions that appear to be contradictory in their source.

Or any color other than red.

If the roots are red, the animal is acceptable. If they are black, it is not.

So that it will be perfectly red. Indeed, if it is not cut off, the animal is unacceptable [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

See Hilchot Me’ilah 1:7,12.

After the black portion of the hair has been cut. The Ra’avad questions why it is necessary for a portion of the hair to remain. Seemingly, even if it is removed entirely, the cow would be acceptable.
From the Rambam LeAm, it appears that the explanation is that since the person does not pull the unacceptable hairs out, but cuts them off, the hair that remains must be red and must be of a significant size.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that Nidah 52b mentions several opinions regarding the minimum length of a hair and concludes that one must follow the more stringent opinion in each instance. The shortest length mentioned there is the measure cited here “large enough to be pulled out by tweezers” and the longest is “in order to bend it over so that its top can touch its base.” Hence, with regard to the disqualification of an animal due to a colored hair and, similarly, when a hair is a sign of ritual impurity with regard to a tzara’at affiiction (Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at 2:1, 8:5), even when a hair is merely “large enough to be pulled out by tweezers” we rule stringently. When, however, the existence of a hair leads to a leniency (e.g., ibid. 8:7), the hair must be large enough to be bent over so that its top touches its base. Since here the existence of the red hairs are making the cow acceptable as a red heifer, seemingly, the larger measure should be required as well.
The Kessef Mishneh offers two resolutions: a) the conclusion in Nidah 52b that the more stringent opinion must always be followed applies only with regard to questions involving humans; b) that here, since the hairs are large enough to be considered hairs in a certain context, they are large enough to be considered as an interruption between the black portion of the hair and the cow’s body.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Negayim 4:4). Others (including the standard published text of that source) translate zug as “scissors.”

This refers to cutting off the horny outer shell of the hoof. If, however, one cuts off the hoof entirely, the animal is considered as blemished and is unacceptable as a red heifer. See Bechorot 44a.

More particularly, an abnormal growth with a bone (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:10).

The Ra’avad explains that the rationale is that the hair that grows in its place will never be fully red.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash ch. 7; Hilchot Issurei Mizbei’ach, ch. 2.

The reasons for the disqualification of such animals — and the others mentioned in this halachah — as sacrifices are discussed in Hilchot Issurei Mizbei’ach, ch. 3. Although a red heifer is not considered as a sacrifice per se, it is bound by many of the same laws.

I.e., it possessed an infirmity which would cause it to die within twelve months, even if it did not have a visible physical blemish.

And thus does not actually have the status of a sacrificial animal. As stated in Hilchot Me’ilah 1:12, generally, a person who performs work with an animal consecrated for the improvement of the Temple does not violate a Scriptural command (although there is a Rabbinic prohibition). See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah where he states that there is an opinion which considers the red heifer as included in the category of animals consecrated to the altar.
After an animal has been designited as a red heifer, if a person performs work with it, not only does he disqualify it, he violates the prohibition against misappropriating consecrated property (Hilchot Me’ilah 2:5).

Numbers 19:9, 17.

Although the term chata’at is generally translated as “sin-offering,” the root chait, also has the implication “purifying.” That is why it is used in this context.

Indeed, as related in Kiddushin 31a, a red heifer was indeed purchased from a gentile, Doma ben Netinah, in Ashkelon.

Thus disqualifying it, as stated above.

This is a general principle applicable in other contexts; see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:15. In particular, it applies in this context, because the gentiles knew the value of a red heifer and would not risk losing that sum.

As Hilchot Me’ilah 1:7 states the prohibition (Deuteronomy 15:19): “Do not perform work with the firstborn of your oxen” applies to all sacrificial animals. Nevertheless, the sacrificial animals are not disqualified.

To atone for an unsolved murder; see Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzei’ach, ch. 10. See Halachot 3-4 which restate the same principles mentioned here.

Or any other portion of its body.

Our additions are made based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 2:3).

One must, however, have had the intent that the animal carry the article as a burden.

It is thus considered as a yoke and disqualifies the animal.

Even if it is significantly heavy.

In Deuteronomy 21:3 which states “With which no work was performed,” the term ubad is used. The term is pronounced in that manner, using a passive form, implying that the animal can be disqualified even if the owner does not cause the animal to perform the tasks. Nevertheless, the term is written as ovad, the active form, meaning to cause it to perform work. Resolving the contradiction, Bava Metzia 30b states: Ubad must be like ovad, i.e., animal can be disqualified even though it performs labor when the owner does not cause it to do so when the labor resembles that caused by the owner, i.e., the owner derives satisfaction from it being performed.

Even without the owner’s knowledge.

Even though the bird could be considered comparable to a yoke. Since there is no benefit to the owner in this, it does not disqualify it.

For the purpose of mating.

For the owner would desire to have his cow impregnated and produce offspring. Now it’s true, in this case, the profit he receives from the offspring will be far less than the amount he would receive for the red heifer and thus in actual fact, he did not desire the cow to be impregnated. Nevertheless, the activity in and of itself is one that he would desire. Hence the animal is disqualified.

Note the gloss of the Ra’avad which provides a rationale why a pregnant cow is acceptable. The Rambam does not accept this concept.

Without the owner intending that he do so.

In contrast to an animal consecrated as a sacrifice (see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 2:10). Once the animal is redeemed, it is permitted to perform labor with it.

Since it was consecrated (even if it is not considered as a sacrificial animal), it is considered as degrading to feed its meat to dogs.

I.e., its ashes do not bring about purification as the ashes of the red heifer. Moed Kattan 28a uses the expression “atonement” with regard to the Red Heifer.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

For once it was slaughtered in the place where it should be burned, it is unfitting to use it for another purpose. Rambam LeAm states that this restriction applies provided the slaughter is acceptable and performed with the proper intent. If, however, the animal or the slaughter was disqualified for any given reason or one slaughtered it with the intent of using it for ordinary purposes, it may be redeemed even if it was slaughtered on the arrangement of wood.

Although there is an opinion in Parah 4:2 that requires the red heifer to be offered by the High Priest, the Rambam follows the dissenting view based on the gloss of the Sifri to the verse cited above. Although theoretically, it was possible for an ordinary priest to offer the red heifer, in practice, it was always the High Priests who performed this service, as alluded to in Parah 3:7 and other sources (Chasdei David).

Thus Elazar was not a High Priest at that time. Although his status was that of the segan, the High Priest’s deputy (see Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:16), there is no fundamental difference between such a priest and an ordinary priest.

Four garments: a tunic, leggings, a hat, and a sash (Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 8:1). If the red heifer is offered when one is not wearing these garments, it is unacceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 3). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 4:1), the Rambam explains that this requirement is derived from an equation established between the offering of the red heifer and the service within the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur.
Although the sash of a High Priest is different from the sash of an ordinary priest, when offering the red heifer, the High Priest wears the sash of an ordinary priest (Mishneh LeMelech).

When a person incurs most types of impurity, he can regain purity by immersing himself in a mikveh and waiting until nightfall on the day of his immersion. For others, he must wait a given time before immersing himself. In both instances, after immersing himself, his status changes to a certain degree, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. Such a person is referred to as a t’vul yom, “one who has immersed that day.”

Burning it and gathering its ashes.

Placing the ashes in the water.

Numbers 19:9, 18-19

Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 7:11.

Hilchot Terumah 7:2.

The term Sadducee refers to the followers of Tzadok, one of the leading students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after he heard Antigonus teach: “Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward,” Tzadok and his colleagues forsook Jewish practice, saying: “Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?”
They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to influence them to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complasints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah. See Hilchot Mamrim 3:3.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah, ch. 4, for a description of this impurity.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which describes how they would make the priest impure and how he would immerse. See also the beginning of the next chapter which explains the extra stringencies enacted because of this leniency.

I.e., impure and then immersed on that day to purify them.

See Hilchot Keilim 2:4 with regard to how the reed must be cut for this law to apply.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:4), Our Sages (Chagigah 3:2) ruled that, with regard to sacrificial offerings and certainly, with regard to anything involving the red heifer and its ashes, even an implement that was completed in a state of ritual purity is considered as impure and requires ritual immersions before use. It need not, however, be left until after nightfall on that day. In that aspect, it is like an implement that was purified from the ritual impurity connected with a corpse.

Following the rationale explained in the previous halachah.

On that same day.