Parah Adumah - Chapter 13

See also Chapter 2 above; Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah 13:2.

This includes the slaughter of the heifer, receiving its blood, and sprinkling it.

Even sacrificial foods.

I.e., he followed this stringency even when he was not partaking of sacrificial foods. See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalim 16:12.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:7-8.

Parah 8:2.

In his Commentary to that Mishnah, the Rambam explains that impure liquids can impart impurity to keilim—including garments—but not to people. Hence we are concerned with the possibility of water falling on the sandal and not on the person himself. Although the same law applies to the person’s other garments, since it is only a safeguard, we do not require him to remove his other garments before sanctifying the water. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s understanding of the mishnah and maintains that the mishnah is referring to the water which the person is sanctifiying.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:1, 7.

Ibid.:7.

For with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer, there is never a concept of a person having a secondary or lower level of ritual impurity, as stated in Halachah 6 below.

Even if he does not touch these entities directly.

A hyssop is considered as food. Hence it does not contract impurity unless it has been touched by water first [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 11:6)]. Here, we are speaking about a hyssop that came in contact with water drawn for this purification process. Otherwise, the contact with the liquid itself would render the hyssop impure with regard to this process.

I.e., to use to hold water or ashes (ibid.).

Since they have only been designated for this process, but have not actually been sanctified or used for this purpose, the laws governing them are not as strict.

The ashes are not a single entity. Hence, according to law, those that he did not touch should not contract impurity. Nevertheless, one of the stringencies imposed by our Sages is that they should be considered as a single entity and contract impurity in this fashion.

To explain: A person who touched a source of impurity other than a corpse is considered as a primary derivative of impurity. If he touches another person, the latter is considered as a secondary derivative. And if that person touches another person, the latter is considered as a tertiary derivative.
As stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 11:3-4, primary and secondary derivatives of impurity impart impurity to others with regard to sacrificial foods and terumah and a tertiary derivative imparts impurity with regard to sacrificial foods. No further derivatives impart impurity. With regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer, the laws are much stricter, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

I.e., as a stringency, which would not render him impure in other contexts.

This concept also applies to the hyssop used in the purification process, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 9.

As explained in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:3, with regard to ordinary food—and even with regard to terumah—when impure liquids touch the outside of a container—they do not impart impurity to its inside. With regard to sacrificial foods, by contrast, touching the outside of the container renders the entire container as impure.

I.e., the previous note spoke about impure liquids. Nevertheless, since all liquids other than the water drawn especially for this process or used with consecrated foods (see ibid. 13:1) are considered as impure with regard to this process, even pure liquids can impart impurity to such a container.

I.e., articles which are sat upon or lain upon. See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 7:8, Hilchot Keilim, ch. 25, where the Rambam defines what is meant by the term “fit to contract impurity if it would support a zav.” The very fact that an object is fit to contract this impurity causes it to be considered as impure in this context.

As stated in Halachah 2 above with regard to the head cloth of Yochanan ben Gudgada.

Even very slightly [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:1)].

In that source, the Rambam explains that this impurity- one of the types of tum’at madaf — is a Rabbinic stringency. See also Halachah 9.

Although he moved it indirectly — he moved one article and that article moved the article in question — he nevertheless contracts impurity. The Ra’avad differs with Rambam concerning this point, offering a slightly different interpretation of the impurity refeired to as madaf and the Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s understanding.

Even though he would be considered as pure in other contexts, since he did not purify himself for the sake of this purification process, he is considered impure with regard to it. Based on Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:1, the Or Sameiach states that if the person has purified himself for the sake of sacrificial foods, moving him does not impart impurity to one who purified himself for the sake of this purification process.

I.e., liquids produced by that person. See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:14.

If, however, the k’li contracted the impurity that stems from contact with a human corpse, it can impart impurity, as stated in the following halachah.

If, however, he touches such a k’li, he does contract impurity. The Kessef Mishneh (in his gloss to Halachah 9) states that this applies only when he touches such an article with his hands. If, however, he touches it with another part of his body, he does not become impure. This, however, runs contrary to the Rambam’s own statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:4) where he states that if a person touches an impure object, he becomes impure, regardless of the limb he touches it with.

If, however, it is impure because of other reasons, this stringency does not apply (Tosefta, Parah 10:2).

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:9.

Both of these substances are primary sources of impurity.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 4:2, 5:1.

The Kessef Mishneh cites Rav Yosef Corcus who notes that in Halachah 7, the Rambam ruled that touching any utensil that was not purified for the sake of this purification process renders a person impure in that context. If so, he asks: what is unique about these articles that became classified as madaf? He explains that in Halachah 7, the Rambam’s intent is that the person touched the article with his hands, while here, his intent is that he touched it with another part of his body.

If a zav was covered with ten blankets, even if he did not touch the upper ones, they are considered to have contracted impurity, because of this stringency [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:1); Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:3)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zavim 4:6), the Rambam cites Nidah 4b which states that this term is rooted in the phrase (Leviticus 26:36): aleh nidaf, “a rustling leaf,” i.e., a movement that is not of substance. Similarly, we find the expression (Berachot 51 a): raicho nodaif, “Its fragrance wafted,” which implies having a far-reaching effect.

As stated in Halachah 1.

See Halachah 4.

I.e., he moved them with another article that he was holding in his hands.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this applies with regard to foods and liquids that are pure. If, however, they are impure, he becomes impure, even if he touched them with other parts of his body. Why, he asks, should the rulings concerning them be more lenient than those applying to one who touched an object that was impure only because of madaf? See, however, Chapter 15, Halachah 3, and notes.

The Rambam is referring to earthenware keilim (see note 43).

I.e., an oven that would be considered pure in other contexts.

Some point to this as support for the distinction made by the Kessef Mishneh mentioned in the notes to Halachah 7. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 4:10), the Rambam himself does not make such a distinction. Instead, he differentiates between an oven and other keilim. As he explains there, an oven and other earthenware keilim can never become a primary source of impurity to convey impurity to a person. Hence, even with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer, touching it does not render a person’s entire body impure.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 9:1.

As stated in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 10:1, with regard to other forms of ritual impurity, the word of a common person is not accepted, because he is unfamiliar with all the stringencies that are involved.

Because it belonged to a common person (see Hilchot Tum’at Meit 23:3-4).