The Sifri derives this from an association drawn from Numbers 19:9 between the slaughtering of the heifer and the water for its ashes. Just as the performance of labor disqualifies the heifer itself (see Chapter 1, Halachah 7), so too, it disqualifies its water until it is sanctified.
And not spring water.
And not the ashes of a red heifer.
The person who is traveling is employed and would earn so-and-so much per hour at his profession. He can be reimbursed at that fee for the time he travels to sanctify or sprinkle the water. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this is not considered as a wage for those activities, but as reimbursement for the loss he suffers.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 4:6, the source for this halachah), the Rambam makes two further qualifications: a) from the term “a worker,” the Rambam infers that even if the person is particularly skilled in his craft, he is not paid the wage he himself would be paid, but the standard wage for that profession. b) from the phrase “unemployed,” the Rambam infers that the worker should not receive a full wage, because he is not actually working. Moreover, if the person’s profession is particularly strenuous, e.g., he is a blacksmith, he should take a substantial deduction, because a smith would be willing to receive a lesser wage if he were not required to work that hard.
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).
I.e., while making this journey the priest would be forced to contract impurity that he would not contract otherwise. This would prevent him from partaking of and making use of terumah. We assume that the priest would have been given terumah and thus the person causing him to make the journey must reimburse him for the expenses he incurs.
For terumah can be used for all these purposes.
See the following halachah which discusses the laws that apply when one draws water for several people one after the other.
In his gloss to this halachah, the Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam regarding the rationale for this ruling. He explains that, aside for a situation when one performs work with the water or the ashes themselves, the performance of work per se is not what disqualifies water from being used for the ashes of the red heifer. Instead, it is the fact that while performing work, a person diverts his attention from the water and that disqualifies it. Similarly, the Ra’avad interprets the subsequent halachot according to the same motivating principle.
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Ra’avad’s interpretation in this and the subsequent halachot and maintains that the Rambam does not follow it. There are, however, many other authorities (see Meiri to Gittin 53a, b) who accept the Ra’avad’s view and some who maintain that the Rambam also follows this perspective.
Halachah 1.
The implication is that he filled one barrel for each person. If he filled several barrels for each person, seemingly, the same laws that apply when one fills several barrels for himself would apply then as well.
For after drawing the water, he gave it to the other person who takes responsibility for it. Needless to say, once that person takes it, he may not perform work until he sanctifies it.
It is considered as if the drawing of water has not been completed until he poured all the barrels into the large container.
Because no other barrels were filled and no other work was performed after filling it.
Originally, when the person drew the water, he intended to sanctify each one individually. Thus all but the last one became disqualified. Even though he changed his mind, the change in his intent does not change the status of the water retroactively.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 7:1), the Rambam emphasizes that this law applies whether the bucket that he sanctifies first is the one he drew first or the one he drew last. Drawing the other buckets does not disqualify the first one, because he intended to sanctify them all together. In this instance as well, the fact that he changed his mind does not change the status of the water retroactively.
The other buckets are disqualified because sanctifying the first bucket is considered as the performance of work, which—when interposed between the drawing of the later buckets and their sanctification—disqualifies them.
Buckets of water.
Because this is like the instance when he filled them all to be sanctified in the same container and the other person is considered in the place of the person himself (ibid).
Thus at the time the buckets were filled, filling the later ones did not disqualify the first.
Another person can sanctify many buckets of water for a colleague one after the other, because he was not the person who filled them (ibid.).
Thus before he begins dealing with the water he intends to sanctify, he will have completed dealing with the water he needs for his own purposes.
So that he will be able to focus his attention on it, as required by Chapter 10, Halachah 4.
The bracketed addition is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.
Even though the person who helped his colleague or removed a thorn from his body performed another activity, that activity was necessary to enable his colleague to draw the water. Since they are both drawing the water for the same sanctification, he is not considered to have been involved in another activity.
Because he performed another activity between drawing the water and sanctifying it.
See the following halachah with regard to the manner in which he must take the rope.
Because he did not perform any extra activity to return the rope to them.
Because going out of his way to return the rope is considered as an extra activity whose performance disqualifies the water.
I.e., he was drawing a bucket from the well and as he drew the bucket higher, he cast the portion of the rope he had been holding previously to the ground.
Because gathering the rope is considered as an extra activity whose performance disqualifies the water.
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 7:7). There the Rambam explains that this is considered an ordinary way of drawing water. (Implied is that were it a departure from the norm, it would have been considered an extra activity that disqualifies the water.)
Since he gathered the rope while he was drawing the water, it is not considered as if he performed an extra activity.
I.e., after pouring water into the barrel once, he set it aside so that it would not be in the way of any passerby.
I.e., to dry it from the remnants of the water that it contained previously. Were any of that water to remain, it would disqualify the new water.
I.e., a stone was hollowed out to serve as a trough. It is permissible to sanctify water with the ashes of the red heifer in such a trough provided it was separated from its natural setting. See Chapter 6, Halachah 3, and notes.
Because the task he performed is not for the sake of filling the trough.
Since the bucket was cast to the water for another intent, the water is not acceptable to be used for the ashes of the red heifer.
Since he reconsidered before the bucket reached the water, his change of mind was effective to a certain degree (Kessef Mishneh).
For unless the bucket is dry, the water drawn with it may not be used for the ashes of the red heifer.
And thought of using the water for the ashes of the red heifer.
The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the text to read: “he must dry [the buckets],” i.e., changing the text so that this clause will parallel the previous one. Nevertheless, the present version is found in all the early printings and in authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The Merkevat HaMishneh substantiates the present version, explaining that there is a difference between this clause and the previous one. In the previous clause, the person lowered the bucket into the water with an undesirable intent. Therefore, the water is entirely unacceptable. In this clause, the person lost control of the bucket before it reached the water. Hence he is not required to suffer the full consequences of it being submerged within it.
But before sanctifying it. The laws governing sanctified water are stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 15.
The thought alone does not disqualify the water; a deed must be performed to indicate that it is no longer set aside for the mitzvah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:4)].
Thus if he changes his mind again before drinking and decides to use the water for its original purpose, it is no longer acceptable.
