Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The following rules apply when one divided a house by making a barrier of pure earthenware jugs from the ground until the roof and there is impurity in one side of the house. If the opening of the jugs was facing the pure side of the house, they protect the house from the spread of impurity. If the openings were facing the impurity, they do not protect it. If, when they were facing the impurity, he applied mud to them, whether from the inside, or the outside, we see whether the mud is able to stand on its own or not. If it can, it protects the house from impurity. If not, it does not and the entire house is considered as one ohel.

The following rules apply when a house was divided in two with boards or with curtains, whether it was divided lengthwise or widthwise or facing the ceiling. If there was impurity in the remainder of the house, keilim between the partition and the wall or between the partition and the ceiling are pure. If there is impurity between the partition and the wall or between the partition and the ceiling, the keilim in the house are impure, because the partition does not prevent the impurity from departing and imparting impurity, as we explained with regard to a tent inside a house.

The following laws apply when there are keilim in the midst of the thickness of the partition itself, whether the impurity was within the area set off by the partition or within the house. If the place where the keilim were located was a handbreadth by a handbreadth or more, the keilim are impure. If it is smaller than that, they are pure. We have already explained the laws pertaining to a house that was divided horizontally.

The following rules apply when there is a house that is filled with straw and there is not a cubic handbreadth of space between the straw and the ceiling. If there is impurity in the inner portion of the house, whether within the straw or in the space between the straw and the ceiling, all of the keilim that are opposite the space through which the impurity will depart in the entire open space of the entranceway are impure.

The following laws apply if the impurity was outside the straw, anywhere in the open space of the entranceway. If there are keilim within the straw and there is a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth of open space, they are pure. If not, they are impure. If there is a cubic handbreadth of space between the straw and the ceiling, the keilim are impure regardless, for the straw does not intervene, because we can assume that the person's intention is to remove the straw.

When there is a wall between two houses and there is impurity in the midst of the wall, the house that is closest to the impurity is impure, while that which is closest to purity is pure. If the impurity was equidistant from them, they are both impure.

The following rules apply when the impurity was in one of the houses and the keilim were in the midst of the wall. If the keilim were located from the center towards the impurity, they are impure; from the center towards the pure side, they are pure. If they are equidistant, they are impure.

Similar principles apply when there is a ceiling between a house and a loft and there is impurity in the ceiling. If it was located from the center downward, the house is impure and the loft is pure; from the center, upward, the loft is impure and the house is pure. If it is equidistant from them, they are both impure.

When there is impurity in either the house or the loft and there were keilim in the ceiling, if the keilim were located from the center towards the impurity, they are impure; from the center towards the pure side, they are pure. If they are equidistant, they are impure.

The following rules apply if the ceiling had nothing but open space above it and there was impurity in it. If the impurity was located from the center downward, the house is impure and a person standing on the roof - even if he is directly above the impurity - is pure, because the impurity spreads throughout the house. If the impurity was located from the center upward, the house is pure and a person standing on the roof directly above the impurity is impure. If the impurity was in the center of the ceiling, the house is impure and a person standing on the roof directly above the impurity is impure, because it is impossible to make an exact calculation.

Similarly, if there is a wall that serves a house, it is considered as half and half.

What is implied? There is a wall that has open space on one side. The roof of the house is supported by the wall, but does not rest on the wall and there is impurity flush inside the wall. If the impurity is from the halfway point of the wall inward, the house is impure. A person standing on top of the wall is pure like someone standing on the roof of the house.

If the impurity is from the halfway point outward, the house is pure. A person standing on top of the wall, above the impurity is impure, because the impurity did not spread out in the house. If the impurity was in the center of the wall, the house is impure, but a person standing above it is pure, because the impurity spread within the house.

If one removed part of the wall from the inside or added to the outer portion of the wall until the impurity was in the inner half of the wall, the house is impure. If he removed part of the wall from the outside or added to the thickness of the inner portion of the wall until the impurity was in the outer half of the wall, the house is pure. If the impurity was placed on the top of the wall, even if it is on the inside, the house is pure.

When there is a structure that serves a wall, as long as there is part of the wall as thin as a garlic peel, the structure is considered as separate from the wall.

What is implied? A person dug two burial vaults or two burial caves one next to the other and thus there were two structures dug into the ground with a wall dividing between them. If there is impurity in the structures and keilim in the wall, as long as there is a portion of the wall as thin as a garlic peel covering them, they are pure. If there is impurity in the wall and keilim in the structures, if it is covered by a portion of the wall as thin as a garlic peel, they are pure.

Thus we can learn the following general principles: When there is a wall that was built from building materials, the status of the house depends on the half of the wall in which the impurity is located. When the wall was made of stone or of the thickness of the earth when one dug from either side, as long as there is part of the wall as thin as a garlic peel, the structure is considered as separate from the wall.

When half of the thickness of a wall was constructed and half was a rock, the status of the house depends on the half of the wall in which the impurity is located.

If there was impurity between the beams of the roof of a house, even if there is only a portion of a board as thin as as a garlic peel under it, the house is pure. We consider the impurity as if it were flush in the earth and only the area directly below it or directly above it is impure. If there is a handbreadth by a handbreadth of empty space in its place, everything is impure. Similarly, if the impurity could be seen from the house, the house is impure regardless.

If there are two entrances, one on top of the other, and there is impurity in the wall between them, if it can be seen from one of them, that entrance is impure and the other is pure. If not, their status depends on the half of the wall in which the impurity is located.

If there is a pillar standing in a house and impurity is flush under it, the impurity pierces through and ascends and pierces through and descends. It imparts impurity only to entities that are directly above or below the impurity. If there is a flower, projecting from the pillar and there are keilim under the flower, the keilim are pure. Impurity is imparted only to the entities under or above the impurity.

If there is open space a handbreadth by a handbreadth and a handbreadth high in the pillar where the impurity is located, it is considered as a closed grave and it imparts impurity to all its surroundings. The entire house is impure because it is standing over a grave.

When there is impurity in a wall and it is an open space a handbreadth by a handbreadth and a handbreadth high, all of the stories built on this wall - even ten - are impure. The rationale is that the wall is considered a closed grave until its highest point. It is the wall for these upper stories and every upper story is considered to be an ohel over the grave.

If he built a structure next to that wall on one side and another structure next to the wall on the other side and a second storey that spans both those structures and thus the top of the impure wall is in the middle of the floor of the second storey, the second storey is impure because it serves as an ohel over a grave. A third storey built over it is pure, because they are one on top of the other and the impure wall is not one of the walls of this storey.

The following rules apply when there is a large hole in the thickness of a wall which people would employ for functional purposes which was called a pardisek. If there was impurity within it and it had closed doors, the house is pure. If there is impurity flush in its floor, its wall, or its roof, we consider the entire hole as if it is a solid mass and see where the impurity is located. If it is located in the inner portion of the thickness of the wall, the house is impure. If it is in the outer portion, the house is pure. If it is in the exact center, the house is impure.

If there are two pardiskin - one next to the other or one on top of the other - and there is impurity located in one of them and it is opened, it and the house are impure, but the other one is pure. If there was impurity flush in the walls of the building, we consider the pardiskin as if they were a solid mass and the status of the house depends on the half of the wall in which the impurity is located.

If there is an olive-sized portion of a corpse attached to the doorstep of the house from the outside, the house is pure. If it was flush below the doorstep, the status of the house depends on the half of the doorstep in which the impurity is located. If it is attached to the lintel, the house is impure.

When a dog ate the flesh of a corpse, died within three days of doing so, and was lying on the doorstep of a house, we consider the place where the impurity is located in his body. If it is under the lintel and inward, the house is impure. If it is beyond the lintel and outward, the house is pure.

The following laws apply when the fetus being carried by a woman dies in her womb. If its head has reached the size of a weaving needle, when her womb opens and the head becomes visible, the house becomes impure because of the fetus even if it has not emerged yet.

If a woman was in the midst of labor and went from one house to another and miscarried in the second house, the first house is still impure because of a doubt: perhaps the head of the fetus had emerged while she was there.

When does the above apply? When its head did not reach the size of a weaving needle. If, however, its head reached the size of a weaving needle, the first house is pure. For if her womb had opened to that degree, she would not be able to walk unsupported. Therefore if she was being supported by her shoulders and taken from one house to the other, the first is impure because of a doubt, even though its head reached the size of a weaving needle.

When a woman discharged a placenta, the house in which she was located is certainly impure. It can be presumed that there is no placenta without a fetus.

The following laws apply when a woman gave birth to two children, one a viable birth and the other, stillborn. If the stillborn child emerged first, the living child is pure, because he did not touch the stillborn child after he emerged into the world. If the living child emerged first, he is impure, because it is impossible that the stillborn child did not touch him, for the stillborn tumbles out after the living child like a stone that does not have any vitality and cannot hold itself back.

When a woman discharges a stillborn infant - even, as we explained, a tiny fetus - she contracts the impurity that lasts seven days. If the fetus dies within her womb and the midwife extended her hand inside the womb and touched it, the midwife contracts the impurity that lasts seven days, but the woman is pure until the fetus emerges.

The impurity of the midwife is a Rabbinical decree, instituted since she may have touched the fetus after it emerged into the vaginal channel. According to Scriptural Law, touching a hidden portion of the body is not considered as touching. Since the fetus is in the mother's inner organs, anyone who touches it is pure. Similar laws apply to one who swallowed an impure ring and then swallowed a pure ring. Although the two certainly touched each other in his digestive system, this is not considered as touch. The impure one is considered as impure and the pure one, as pure.

Blessed be God who grants assistance.

Introduction to Hilchos Parah Adummah

Included in this text are two positive commandments. They comprise the following:
1) the laws of the red heifer;
2) the laws of the impurity and purity brought about by the water used for the sprinkling of its ashes.

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

The commandment involving the red heifer is to offer such an animal in its third or fourth year of life. If it is older, it is acceptable, but we do not wait for it to age longer, lest its hairs become black.

The Jewish community does not purchase a calf and raise it, for Numbers 19:2 states: "And you shall take unto yourselves a heifer," i.e., a heifer, not a calf. If only a calf was found, a price is established for it and it should remain in its owner's possession until it matures and becomes a cow. It should be purchased with money from the Temple treasury.

The Torah's description of this heifer as "perfect" means "perfectly red," not perfect in stature. Even if it is dwarfsize, it is acceptable, as is the law regarding other sacrifices. If it had two white hairs or black hairs growing from one follicle or from two cavities and they are lying on top of each other, it is unacceptable.

If there were two hairs, their roots reddish and their heads blackish, or their roots blackish and their heads reddish, their status follows the roots entirely. One should cut off the blackish head with scissors. He need not be concerned about the prohibition against shearing consecrated animals, because his intention is not to shear.

Enough of the red hair must remain so that it can be pulled out by tweezers. For if a hair is not large enough to be pulled out by tweezers, it is considered as if it does not exist. Therefore if there were two white or black hairs that are so small that they cannot be pulled out by tweezers, it is acceptable.

If its horns or hooves are black, they may be cut off and it is acceptable. The color of the eyeballs, the teeth, and the tongue do not disqualify a heifer.

If it had an abnormal growth of another color and one cut it off, even though red hair grew in its place, it is unacceptable.

All of the physical blemishes that disqualify sacrificial animals, also disqualify a red heifer, for the prooftext cited above states: "Which does not possess a blemish." If the heifer was born by Caesarian section, was exchanged for a dog, was a present given a prostitute, was treifah, or had been sodomized, it is unacceptable. For any factor that invalidates a sacrificial animal for the altar invalidates the red heifer even though it is considered only as consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple, for Scripture has called it a sin-offering. It is permitted to purchase a red heifer from a gentile. We do not suspect that the gentile sodomized it, for he would not destroy the value of his animal.

There is a more severe element to the red heifer than to animals consecrated as sacrifices: work disqualifies it, for Numbers 19:2 states: "upon which a yoke was never placed." Now concerning a calf whose neck is broken, Deuteronomy 21:3 states: "With which no work was performed and which was not led with a yoke." Just as with regard to the yoke mentioned in connection with this calf, the Torah equated other labor with a yoke, so too, with regard to the red heifer, other forms of labor also disqualify it like a yoke does. There is, however, a greater stringency that applies with regard to a yoke. A yoke disqualifies the heifer whether it was placed upon it during work or not during work and other forms of labor disqualify it only when work was actually performed.

What is implied? If one tied a yoke upon it, it is disqualified even if one did not plow with it. If one placed it in a threshing team, it is not disqualified unless it actually threshed. Similar principles apply in analogous situations.

If one rode upon it, leaned upon it, hung on to its tail, crossed a river using it for support while swimming, folded its lead rope on top of it, placed his garment on it, placed a covering of sacks on it, it is disqualified. If one tied it with a rope because it was rebellious and required to be safeguarded, it is acceptable. If not, it is disqualified, for any safeguarding that is unnecessary is a burden.

If one shod its hooves so that it would not slip or spread his garment over it to protect it from flies, it is acceptable. This is the general principle: If anything is done for its own needs, it remains acceptable. If it is performed for another purpose, it is disqualified.

When work was performed with it as a matter of course or a yoke was placed over it as a matter of course, if the owner is pleased, it is disqualified. The rationale is that the verse above states: "With which no work was performed." The implication is that if work was performed with it and the owner would be satisfied, it is as if he performed work with it. Therefore, if a bird rested upon it, it is acceptable. If a male mounted it, it is unacceptable. Needless to say, a pregnant heifer is unacceptable.

If one placed it among a team of animals and it threshed grain on its own accord, it remains acceptable. If he placed it among the team so that it would nurse and thresh, it is disqualified, for he is satisfied that the work is performed. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

When a disqualifying factor invalidates a red heifer, it should be redeemed. Similarly, if it dies, it should be redeemed so that its hide can be used. This, however, should not be done in order to feed its meat to the dogs.

If it was slaughtered to be used as an ordinary animal, it should be redeemed and it does not bring about atonement. If it was slaughtered on top of the arrangement of wood set up for burning it, it can never be redeemed.

If a red heifer was purchased and then one found a more attractive one, the first may be redeemed even if it does not have a blemish.

Even an ordinary priest is acceptable to perform the burning of the red heifer, as Numbers 19:3 states: "And you shall give it to Elazar, the priest." At that time, Aaron was still alive. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: That red heifer was offered by Elazar. The remainder of the red heifers could be offered either by a High Priest or an ordinary priest.

The person offering the red heifer should wear the four garments of an ordinary priest. This applies whether it was offered by an ordinary priest or a High Priest.

All of those who were involved in the offering of the red heifer from the beginning to the end who had immersed that day are acceptable for the services associated with the red heifer, to consecrate the water used for sprinkling, and for sprinkling its ashes even though they did not wait until the nightfall after their immersion. The rationale is that the term "a pure man" used throughout that passage refers to one who is pure with regard to partaking of the second tithe, even though he is not pure with regard to partaking of terumah until nightfall. Such a person is pure with regard to the red heifer.

The Sadducees would say that the offering of the red heifer was acceptable only when those bringing it had waited until nightfall after immersion. Therefore in the Second Temple, the court would cause the priest who burned the red heifer to become ritually impure through contact with the carcass of a crawling animal or the like. He would immerse and then offer the red heifer to nullify the words of these brazen ones who issue rulings according to their whims without basis in the received tradition. Similarly, all of the containers into which the ashes of the red heifer were placed were all immersed that day.

For the same reason, a person who cuts the stalk of a reed to place the ashes of a red heifer upon it so they can be placed in water to consecrate it for sprinkling, should make it impure, immerse it, and then place the ashes in it. The one who cuts it and the one who immerses it must immerse themselves, because that reed was considered as an entity that came in contact with a corpse on the seventh day of its purification process. Therefore it does not need to have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled on it. Instead, it is made impure to show the Sadducees that the Oral Tradition should be upheld. It is then immersed and the ashes of the red heifer are placed in it.