Parah Adumah - Chapter 9

I.e., there is no need to use an amount of ashes proportionate to the amount of water.

I.e., the Torah appears to imply that the opposite order should be followed, first ash and then water.

Sotah 16b notes that above verse concludes: “living water into a utensil,” indicating that first the water should be placed in the utensil.

I.e., his act must be performed for this specific intent, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

And not with a utensil, as the Rambam proceeds to state. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 6:1).

He himself and not via a utensil.

And thus were not cast on the water by the person, but via a utensil.

And thus the ashes were not cast on the water with concentrated intent.

And thus the ashes were not placed on the water directly.

The measure of this amount of water is specified in Chapter 15, Halachah 1.

Without actually touching the water, as indicated by the continuation of the Rambam’s words.

And not placed there by a person, in which instance, the water is not sanctified.

And there is nothing separating the water from each other [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 6:3)]. See a parallel ruling in Hilchot Mikveot 3:26.

Without disqualifying it because of the water absorbed in the sponge.

This is speaking about a sponge that was dry when it fell into the water. Hence the water absorbed by the sponge is sanctified. For that reason, when the sponge is taken out by hand, the water falling from it does not disqualify the water in the container. Nevertheless, the water inside of it may not be squeezed out into the original container. This is a Rabbinic safeguard, lest one do the same when a sponge fell into water that was not sanctified (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:8), the Rambam notes that the term for stone used in that mishnah - and used by the Rambam here - is even, not sela. Even refers to a stone that has already been hewed out and can be carried, while sela refers to a rock in its natural setting.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). When there is a hole of this size — a circle with a diameter of two fingerbreadths — connecting two bodies of water, they are considered as a single entity. See Hilchot Mikveot, ch. 8.

In such an instance, the two are considered as a single body of water. See ibid. 8:5.

The Rambam (based on Parah 5:9) is speaking about an instance where the two separate entities are held together by mud or the like so that water could be placed in them. Nevertheless, they are not fused in a permanent way. Hence the water inside of them is not considered as being in a container and therefore cannot be sanctified. The Rambam highlights this by speaking of the water as being between them, i.e., between the two halves and not in a single container.
This represents the Ra’avad’s understanding of the subject. The Kessef Mishneh, however, considers each part as a separate container since the water does not flow out of it. It is the water “between them,” i.e., above the mud which connects them that is not considered as in a container and is therefore unacceptable.

Since the two are fused together permanently, they are considered as a single container. Hence, when the ashes are placed on the water, it is sanctified [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

But the ashes have not been sprinkled on it yet.

Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes intermingled with a permitted substance of its own type and there is no way to separate them, we follow the principle of bittul berov, i.e., since the majority of the mixture is permitted, the forbiden entity is considered insignificant and it is as if it were not present. According to Scriptural Law, this principle should be applied. In this instance, however, our Sages ruled stringently (Tosafot, Zevachim 79b). Since the laws pertaining to this water are so strict, the Sages considered it as if it were a separate substance.
Another question arises: Since even the slightest amount of sanctified water is sufficient to purify a person, what difference does it make if some other water is mixed in? Ultimately, at least a drop of sanctified water will reach the person. In resolution, it can be explained that every time the hyssop is dipped in the water, it must have a full measure of sanctified water upon it. In this instance, since some of the water on the hyssop might not have been sanctified, the dipping would be unacceptable (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

There is an opinion in Parah 9:1 that the water can be left in the sun and the dew will evaporate. The Rambam, however, follows the more stringent view.

Our translation of these terms in taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:4).

All of the utensils used in the preparation of water for sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer must be immersed in a mikveh or a spring beforehand to make sure that they are ritually pure. Although immersion in a mikveh purifies the utensils, a mikveh is not acceptable for the ashes of the red heifer. Hence the utensil must be dried to make sure no other water mixes with the wellspring water.

Because the water that remains is fit to be used for the ashes of the red heifer. When immersing the utensil, the person must have the intent that any water that remains in the utensil be sanctified.

For, as stated above, once water has already been sanctified, it can never be mixed with other water.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:3). The gourd is hollowed out and used as a utensil to draw water. The commentaries emphasized that the gourd must be fashioned as a utensil and designated for that purpose. Otherwise, it would not be acceptable to be used to draw water for the red heifer.

This is the version of Parah 5:3 that the Rambam possessed. The standard published text of the Mishnah speaks of “water that is not fit to be sanctified.”

I.e., there is the possibility that the gourd will have absorbed water when it was immersed and then will release that water when the water to be sanctified was placed in it. We are not concerned, however, because the water it absorbed was also fit to be sanctified. If, however, it was immersed in water that was not fit to be sanctified, it cannot be used to hold water ready to be sanctified.

The Kessef Mishneh mentions that we are stringent with regard to holding sanctified water in the gourd for it is likely to be kept there for an extended period in which time the water that was absorbed will certainly be released.

If they remain in the water for a significant time afterwards, the water is disqualified even if its color does not change [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:2). The rationale is that their body fluids become mixed with the sanctified water.

Since the color of the water changed, we assume that some of their body fluids were discharged into it.

The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.) states that such insects “come into being from grain.” These insects are very dry and do not have obvious body moisture. Even so, in such situations, they disqualify the water.

Because water that has already become mixed with their saliva flows into the water when they drink [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3)].

For the same reason.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 3:3).

Because smoke is considered as of the same type as ash.

All of these substances are foreign substances, not of the same type as ashes of the red heifer. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

Once water has been sanctified, the thought to drink from it does not disqualify it, as it would had it not be sanctified (Chapter 7, Halachah 11). Nevertheless, when a person actually drinks from the water, he disqualifies it, as if an animal had drank from it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:4)]; because some of his saliva will flow back into the container (Halachah 12).

Because saliva did not flow back to it.

As will be explained in Chapter 13, the Sages enforced many stringencies regarding ritual purity with regard to such water. Even if a person would be considered pure with regard to the sacrificial service in the Temple, he is considered impure with regard to the water of the red heifer. Hence, there is a high probability that someone who was impure with regard to this water touched it.

For only a human would close a container.

Or any other animal that would disqualify the water by drinking from it. See Halachah 12.

A person could cause it to become impure.

For animals also desire water and are deft enough to uncover a container. The water would not become impure if the container was uncovered by an animal. The Rambam’s wording is, however, somewhat difficult to reconcile, because as he states in Halachah 12, most animals will disqualify water by drinking from it.

Thus we follow the principle that a sefek s’feikah, a compounded doubt, is permitted.

As mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 2, a person is permitted to entrust water drawn to be sanctified to a watchman.

Because anything in the possession of a person who is impure is presumed to be impure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 7:10)].

That was sanctified or that was drawn with the intent that it be sanctified.

And it is sufficient that there be only one acceptable watchman.

Because there is no pure watchman.