Parah Adumah - Chapter 15

If, however, he touches it for the purpose of sprinkling the water, his status does not change (Tosefta, Parah 8:6).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:2), the Rambam. explains that the expression: “he shall launder his garments” to mean that he conveys impurity to any garment he touches, whether he is wearing it or not.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 108) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 399) include the concept that the sanctified water imparts impurity and restores purity as one commandment in the reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. In his gloss to the reckoning of the mitzvot at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah, the Ra’avad questions this conclusion, asking why they are not considered as two mitzvot. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since. it is the same entity, the sanctified water, that conveys both purity and impurity, it is proper to consider the two as one mitzvah, since it is the same entity that brings about both purity and impurity. Significantly, the Ram. ban does not include this in his reckoning of the 613 mitzvot.

Since a human being contracts ritual impurity only from a primary source of impurity, the fact that the sanctified water imparts impurity to humans indicates that it is given that status.

I.e., even if it is carried indirectly and the person carrying it does not touch it.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Keilim 1:2 (particularly as interpreted by the Rambam) appears to imply that a person who merely touches sanctified water does not contract impurity, only one who carries it. He cites Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 6:13 which states: “[A measure of] sanctified water sufficient to sprinkle resembles an animal corpse... which imparts impurity to garments only when one carries it [and not when one touches it]. Nevertheless, one who touches [this water] imparts impurity to his garments... because it is as if he carries it. For it is impossible to touch water without moving it and we have already explained that moving is equivalent to carrying.”

Once he separates himself from the source of impurity, however, he does not impart impurity to garments he touches afterwards, for garments and other keilim contract impurity only from a primary source of impurity.

I.e., immerse them in a mikveh, because they contracted impurity.

I.e., the purification of a person who contracted impurity due to contact with a human corpse.

I.e., the person or k’li that was impure and now is in the process of being purified.

E. g., on an animal or on a stone k’li.

Chapter 10, Halachah 9.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 8.

See ibid.:12.

See the above mentioned chapter for other examples.

According to Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, since the water was disqualified and is no longer considered as sanctified water, the person remains pure. For that reason, this stringency was imposed only with regard to terumah. Ha person who was considered pure with regard to ordinary food touches such water, his status does not change (Kessef Mishneh).

The rationale for the leniency is that since the sanctified water does not impart impurity to such a person when it is acceptable, our Sages did not impose any stringency on it when disqualified [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:8)].

His entire body contracts impurity. This is a stringency that applies because of the severity with which this sanctified water is treated.

Generally, when a person touches impure water, only his hands become impure. In this instance, because of the severity of the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer, the impurity spreads throughout his entire body. See Chapter 13, Halachah 10.

This does not contradict the conclusion of the Kessel Mishneh in his gloss to that halachah. He maintains that when a person who purified himself for this purification process touches impure water, his entire body contracts impurity. In this instance, however, the sanctified water did not actually become impure. Instead, our Sages considered them impure as a stringency. They did not enforce that stringency to the extent that they considered the entire body of a person who touched that water as having contracted impurity.

The addition of the other liquids disqualifies the water for use in the purification process (Chapter 9, Halachah 8). Nevertheless, since the basis is water that has been sanctified, it still can impart ritual impurity.

As sanctified water does. There are commentaries who maintain that only a person who is pure for terumah contracts impurity from such a mixture. By contrast, such a mixture does not impart impurity to a person who has purified himself for this purification process, as may be inferred from Halachah 2.

As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, since it is impossible to touch water without moving it, it can be assumed that touching the mixture also imparts impurity.
Rav Yosef Corcus questions why this water is different from the situation described in Halachah 2 which speaks of impurity imparted when ordinary water is mixed with sanctified water. He explains that it is possible to make a distinction between touching, as mentioned there, and carrying, as mentioned here. Here one is definitely carrying sanctified water, even though it is mixed with other water. He concludes, however, that he is not satisfied with this resolution.

Because it is impossible to determine that there is not a majority of acceptable water.

The Rambam mentions sanctifying water, because in and of itself, the ashes do not impart ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 4.

As stated in Parah 9:7, such a mixture should not be used to sanctify water.

I.e., both when touched and when carried, as stated in Halachah 1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:9), the Rambam writes that such water conveys ritual impurity only to one who is pure to terumah, for were the water acceptable, it would impart impurity to him according to Scriptural Law. Therefore, the Rabbis established such a safeguard.

These are the same laws that apply to sanctified water that was disqualified (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., it is no longer considered a significant entity and therefore it does not impart impurity.

Here the term chataat, translated as “sin-offering,” refers to the red-heifer. The implication of the verse is that everything connected with the red heifer retains its distinction at all times.

And thus it has not necessarily been digested and/or excreted (see Hilchot Tum’at Meit 20:4).

On this verse, the Sifri comments: “This question was raised before 39 elders in the vineyard in Yavneh and they ruled that its meat was pure.”

Which is forbidden to a person who is impure.

I.e., he is not required to bring an adjustable guilt-offering for inadvertently entering the Temple while impure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:5), the Rambam explains that since the window is used by the public, the situation resembles a doubt concerning impurity that arises in the public domain concerning which we rule leniently, as stated in Taharot 4:5.

An offering that varies depending on the financial capacity of the person seeking atonement. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4, 10:1, 5.

Since the water is being sprinkled from a private source, there is no accepted assumption regarding its status and the person should have investigated the matter more thoroughly. This situation resembles a doubt concerning impurity that arises in a private domain concerning which we rule stringently [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

I.e., it was taken for the sake of eating (see Chapter 1 1, Halachah 7). Such a hyssop is pure with regard to other contexts. Were the impurity of the hyssop to be more than a Rabbinic stringency, the water would be impure, not merely disqualified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:7)].

Since the hyssop is of the size sufficient to impart impurity (see Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 4:1), dipping it into the water imparts impurity to it.

For the hyssop is not of the size sufficient to impart impurity.

For the hyssop was not fit to be used for this process. This is derived from Numbers 19:19 which states: “And one who is pure shall sprinkle.” Implied is that this refers not only to the person who performs the sprinkling, but also to the hyssop with which he sprinkles.

I.e., as explained in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, with regard to other contexts, e.g., partaking of terumah and/or sacrificial foods, there is a difference regarding whether a person or an object is a primary, secondary, and tertiary derivative of impurity. With regard to this purification process, no such gradation exists and even the 100th person or article touched contracts impurity.

Since he is lifting up the k’li that is being purified upon which there is sanctified water, one might think that he contracted ritual impurity, because he carried the water. Nevertheless, since the water had already been used for its mitzvah, the person remains pure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:6)].

In Halachah 1.