Parah Adumah - Chapter 4

The singular form implies that only one can be slaughtered at a time.

Seeing the other heifer depart might cause the red heifer to be willing to follow its example.

Which should not be done, as stated in the first halachah.

I.e., it was slaughtered or the blood was received or sprinkled for the sake of another sacrifice (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1). When these services are performed with such an intent — and even when the inappropriate intent was coupled with the correct one — it is unacceptable, because Numbers 19:19 refers to the red heifer as “a sin-offering.” Just as a sin-offering is unacceptable when these service are performed with such intents (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1), so too, the red heifer is unacceptable [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 4:1).

I.e., instead of wearing the four priestly garments, he wore three or less. As stated in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 10:4, when a priest performs sacrificial service without wearing the proper garments, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven and the sacrifices he offered are invalidated.

I.e., in addition to the four garments mentioned, the priest wore the four garments of the High Priest that contained threads of gold. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, even if the red heifer is offered by the High Priest, he should wear only the four garments of an ordinary priest.

In his gloss to Parah 4:3, Rav Kappach states that he does not know a source for the Rambam’s statements. He cites a related ruling in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:11:
At the time of the slaughter of [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering, [the person offering it] must have six things in mind, [that the animal be slaughtered]: for the sake of the [desired] sacrifice, for the sake of the person bringing it, that it be sacrificed unto God, blessed be He, that it be consumed by fire, that its consumption by fire be for the sake of generating a [pleasing] fragrance, and that the fragrance be pleasing before God.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and the comments of the Ra’avad there.

As indicated by the following clause, there is no difficulty in having the sprinklings performed by different priests. They must, however, be performed in sequence, one after the other.

More specifically, he should direct it to the Holy of Holies, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

The Temple was built on a mountain. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:5:
The Eastern Gate was twenty cubits high. Accordingly, a person standing opposite the Eastern Gate could not see the Temple building. For this reason, the wall above this gate was low. Thus, the priest [who offered the Parah Adwnah] could see the opening of the Temple when he sprinkled its blood, while standing on the Mount of Olives.

The Ra’avad is willing to accept this ruling for the slaughter and burning of the heifer. With regard to the sprinkling of its blood, by contrast, he maintains that the Mishnah (Parah 4:2 and Middot 2:4) implies that it must be directed to the entrance of the Sanctuary exactly, for the verse mentions “the front of the Tent of Meeting.” The Kessef Mishneh maintains that as long as one is facing the fa? ade of the Temple, he has satisfied that Scriptural requirement.

Once a sprinkling has been performed in an invalid manner, not only that sprinkling, but the entire offering of the heifer is invalidated and is no longer acceptable [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 4:2)].
The Kessef Mishneh understands that the gloss of the Ra’avad which most texts attach to the following halachah should be applied here. According to that understanding, the Ra’avad differs with this principle and maintains that although the sprinkling is unacceptable, the heifer is not invalidated. If one performs a valid sprinkling afterwards, the heifer is acceptable. (It must be noted that not all authorities agree with the Kessef Mishneh concerning this point.)

See Halachah 17.

The simple meaning of the Rambam’s words is that he sprinkled the blood while it was outside the arrangement. If, however, he brought the blood back to the arrangement, as an initial preference, it should not be used for the sprinkling. If, however, it was used for sprinkling, it is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).

According to the Rambam, not only the sprinkling, but the entire heifer is invalidated. According to the Ra'avad, only the sprinkling is invalidated.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes the Tosefta (Parah 4:1), which states that this is derived from the fact that the Torah refers to the red heifer as a sin-offering. Just as the sin-offering must be brought during the day, so too, all of the services associated with the red heifer must be performed during the day.

Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam’s usage of the term “even.” He explains that since the city of Jerusalem is holier, one might think that it was acceptable to burn it there.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh, however, claims that he does not understand the Ra’avad’s objection. Seemingly, he and the Rambam are making the same point.

Just as each red heifer must be slaughtered independently, as stated in Halachah 1, so too, it must be burnt independently (Rabbenu Asher to Parah 4:2).

As long as they were burned at different times, they are considered to have been burnt independently. The fact that their ashes are collected together is of no consequence.

Rather than burning it as a single entity directly after slaughter, as is the initial preference (Chulin 11a).

For Numbers 19:5 states: “Its hide, its flesh, its blood, with its dung, shall he burn.”

Rambam LeAm explains that a place is designated for the burning of the red heifer on the Mount of Olives. In that general place, an arrangement of wood (a pyre) is made. If the piece of the red heifer flies off the pyre, but falls within the general place, wood should be placed around it and it should be burned there. If it falls outside the general place, it should be returned to the pyre.

In contrast to the meat of sacrificial animals which is disqualified if it is not eaten on the day the sacrifices were slaughtered (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:10).

I.e., his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or sister died on that day (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:9).

This term refers to a person who has become pure from the condition that caused his impurity, he has immersed in a mikveh, and the day of his immersion has passed. He is still considered as lacking atonement until he brings the sacrifice required of him (Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1).

Sacrificial service performed by a priest in these states is disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:6-9; 4:4-5.

Before performing any element of sacrificial service, it was necessary for a priest to sanctify his hands and feet by pouring water over them, as related in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:1-2, 16. Even though the red heifer is not a sacrificial animal, offering it is considered as equivalent to offering a sacrifice.

See ibid.:10.

Chapter 1, Halachah 14; Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

In contrast, a priest serving in the Temple would have to sanctify his hands after immersing (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:6).

Using other species instead of those recommended in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

For any wood burned together with it is considered to have contributed to burning it.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:7).

The implication is that the slaughter must be performed by a male priest. Note, however, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:2 which states that it is acceptable for a red heifer to be slaughtered by a non-priest.

These three individuals are not considered as responsible for their conduct. Hence any action of halachic significance may not be performed by them. Zevachim 43a derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 19:9 which states: “And he shall place [the ashes],” which implies that one must intentionally place down the ashes, thus excluding these individuals who are not capable of doing so.

For the term “man” does not allude to the necessity for a priest to perform this task. Note, however, the Targum Yerushalmi which translates this phrase as “a pure priest.”

Although the verse states “man,” the intent is not to exclude a woman.

I.e., performing any other task, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

The commentaries question the Rambam’s statements, noting that Yoma 42a cites a difference of opinion between the Sages regarding the intent of that phrase: one maintains, as the Rambam states here, that this verse comes to require that the priest not perform any other task, but another maintains that the phrase comes to teach that the slaughter may be performed by a non-priest. Since the Rambam accepts the latter concept, as mentioned in note 36, seemingly, he cannot use the phrase “And he shall slaughter it,” to teach that the priest cannot perform other work.
Rambam LeAm explains that the Rambam does not see the derivation of the two concepts as contradictory, because they can be interpreted as being based on different words in the phrase.

I.e., without performing a separate act to slaughter the second animal or cut the gourd, e.g., he slaughtered the red heifer with a very long knife.

The prohibition against performing other work while slaughtering the heifer includes only purposeful activity. An activity that is performed without intent is not included.

See Hilchot Shechitah 2:11.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s ruling appears to run contrary to Chulin 32a which quotes a difference of opinion among the Sages. That passage does not mention a Sage who would rule that the slaughter of both the heifer and the other animal is acceptable. For lack of a better explanation, the Kessef Mishneh concludes that the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.