Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Extra stringencies were employed with regard to the purity observed in preparation for offering the red heifer and great extremes were taken to keep a distance from the ritual impurity associated with a human corpse in all the activities associated with its offering. The rationale is that since it is acceptable for a person who immersed that day to bring it, our Sages were concerned that people would treat this offering with disdain.

For this reason, when the priest who burns it is isolated, he is isolated to a prepared chamber in the Temple Courtyard. It was called the House of Stone, because all of the utensils in it were stone utensils that do not contract impurity. He would use the stone utensils throughout the seven days that he is isolated. His priestly brethren would not touch him in order to increase his purity.

For seven days before the burning of the red heifer, the priest who would burn it is isolated from his home, just like the High Priest is isolated for the sake of the service of Yom Kippur. This was received as part of the Oral Tradition from Moses. Similarly, he is isolated from his wife, lest it be discovered that she was a nidah and he be impure for seven days.

The chamber in which this priest would abide for all these seven days was in the northeast portion of the Temple Courtyard. It was positioned there to remind the priest that the red heifer is like a sin-offering that is slaughtered in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard, even though the red heifer is slaughtered outside the Temple.

On every one of the seven days of his isolation, water with the ashes of the red heifer should be sprinkled upon him lest he unknowingly have contracted impurity due to contact with a corpse with the exception of the fourth day of his isolation. That day does not require sprinkling. The rationale is that it is impossible for it to be the third day of his impurity or the seventh day of his impurity. For the sprinkling of the ashes on the seventh day is not considered as the sprinkling of the seventh day unless the ashes were sprinkled on the third day before it. According to law, there is no need to sprinkle the ashes upon him on any days other than the third and the seventh days of isolation. The sprinkling day after day is an extra stringency enacted with regard to the red heifer.

He would be isolated on Wednesday, so that the fourth day of his isolation would fall on the Sabbath, for the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, and the fourth day does not require the sprinkling of the ashes.

On all the days of his isolation when the ashes of the red heifer are sprinkled upon him, the ashes of all the red heifers that were burnt previously were sprinkled on him. If, however, there were only ashes from one red heifer, those ashes are used for all six days.

When the ashes of the red heifer are sprinkled upon him during the days of his isolation, the sprinkling should be performed by a man who never contracted the ritual impurity stemming from a human corpse. The rationale is that the person sprinkling the ashes must be pure. If one would say: "Let so-and-so, a person who had contracted impurity, but then had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him, sprinkle the ashes on the priest who will burn the red heifer," that suggestion is not followed. The rationale is that it is possible that the person who sprinkled the ashes upon so-and-so was not pure from the impurity associated with a corpse. Similarly, the utensils that are used to be filled and consecrated to sprinkle on the priest who burns the red heifer were all stone utensils that are not susceptible to ritual impurity. All of these practices are extra stringencies enacted with regard to the red heifer.

How is it possible to find a person who has never contracted the impurity associated with a human corpse? There were courtyards in Jerusalem built on slabs of stone and the space under them was hollow lest there be a grave in the depths of the earth. Pregnant women were brought there; they would give birth there, and raise their sons there. When they wanted to sprinkle ashes on the priest who would burn the red heifer, they would bring oxen - because they have ample bellies - and place doors on their backs and have the children sit on the boards so that there would be an ohel intervening between them and the earth lest they contract impurity from a grave in the depths of the earth. They would have cups of stone in their hands and would go to the Shiloach spring. When they reached the Shiloach, the children would descend and fill the cups. We do not suspect that they will contract impurity from a grave in the depths of the earth at the spring, because it is not ordinary practice to bury the dead in streams.

They would ascend and sit on the doors and proceed upward until they reach the Temple Mount. When they reached the Temple Mount, they would descend and proceed on their feet, because the entire area of the Temple Mount and its courtyards was built over a hollow cavity, lest there be a grave in the depths of the earth.

They would proceed to the entrance to the Temple Courtyard. At the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, there was a pitcher of ashes. They would take the ashes and place them on the water in the cups and sprinkle them on the priest who burns the heifer.

The children who would fill the water, consecrate it with the ashes, and sprinkle it on the priest who burns the heifer, must immerse in a mikveh. Even though they are pure with regard to the impurity associated with a human corpse, it is possible that they contracted other forms of impurity.

When a child immersed himself in a mikveh in order to fill pitchers with water and sprinkle it, another child should not fill those containers with water even though he immersed himself.

When a child immersed himself to sprinkle the water of the ashes on one priest, he may not sprinkle the water on another priest until he immerses again for the sake of purifying that priest. Similarly, when utensils or people were purified for the sake of offering one red heifer, they should not become involved in the offering of another red heifer until they immerse themselves for its sake. All of these are extra stringencies required for the offering of the red heifer.

The red heifer should be burnt only outside the Temple Mount, as Numbers 19:3 states: "And you shall take it outside the camp." They would burn it on the Mount of Olives. A ramp was built from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives. Below it were arches upon arches, i.e., an arch on two arches, so that there would be empty space under it, lest there be a grave in the depths of the earth. Similarly, the place where the heifer was burnt and the place of immersion on the Mount of Olives had the space under them hollowed, lest there be a grave in the depths of the earth.

The red heifer, the one who would burn it, and all those who assist in its burning go from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives on this ramp.

How was the red heifer burnt? The elders of Israel would walk to the Mount of Olives first. There was a mikveh there. The priest, those assisting in burning it, and the heifer would go out on the ramp and come to the Mount of Olives.

There they would make the priest impure. The elders would rest their hands on the priest and tell him: "Immerse yourself." If he was a High Priest, they would tell him: "My sir, the High Priest, immerse yourself." He would descend, immerse himself, ascend, and dry himself.

There was wood arranged there: cedar wood, oak wood, pine wood, and smooth fig wood. An arrangement like a tower was made and windows were made in the midst of it, so that the fire would flame in them. The front of the arrangement was in the west.

The heifer would be tied with a rope of love grass and it would be brought onto the arrangement with its head to the south and its face to the west. The priest would stand to the east with his head facing west. He would slaughter the heifer with his right hand and receive its blood in his left hand. With his right finger, he would sprinkle from the blood in his left palm seven times toward the Holy of Holies. He would dip his finger in the blood for every sprinkling. The remainder of the blood on his finger was disqualified for sprinkling, Therefore, after every sprinkling, he would clean his finger on the body of the heifer.

When he completed sprinkling, he would clean his hands on the body of the heifer and descend from the arrangement. He would light the fire with small kindling twigs and place them below the wood of the arrangement. The fire would begin to catch in it. The priest would stand at a distance and watch it until the fire catches in its larger portion and its belly becomes ripped open.

Afterwards, he takes a branch of a cedar tree and hyssop that is at least a handbreadth long, and wool dyed crimson weighing five selaim. He asks the people standing there: "Is this a piece of cedar?" "Is this a piece of cedar?" "Is this a piece of cedar?" "Is this hyssop?" "Is this hyssop?" "Is this hyssop?" "Is this a crimson thread?" "Is this a crimson thread?" "Is this a crimson thread?", asking each question three times. They answer: "Yes!" "Yes!" "Yes!", three times for each set of questions.

Why is all this necessary? Because there are seven species of cedar, four species of hyssop, and several options to produce red dye. Some dye with madder and some dye with lacca sap, and some dye with tola'at. Tola'at refers to very red berries that resemble carob seeds. They are like sumach berries. There is a bug, like a gnat, in every berry. Since there are different types of species for each of the entities involved, the priest notifies everyone and informs them that these are the species mentioned in the Torah.

The hyssop mentioned in the Torah is the type of hyssop eaten by home-owners and used as a condiment in certain dishes. The hyssop, cedar, and wool dyed crimson are all absolute requirements, without one of which, the others are not acceptable. The priest should bind the hyssop together with the cedar branch with the crimson thread and then throw them into the belly of the heifer, as Numbers 19:6 states: "He shall cast them into the midst of the conflagration of the heifer."

He should not cast them into the heifer until the fire has caught hold of the larger portion of it and not after it has been reduced to ashes. If he casts them at those times, it is unacceptable, as indicated by the phrase: "into the midst of the conflagration," i.e., not before the fire has caught onto its larger portion and not after it was reduced to ashes. Whether one cast all three of them together or one after the other, whether one cast them into the heifer's body or into the fire, whether its belly burst open on its own accord or the priest ripped it open by hand or with a utensil, it is acceptable.

When the process of burning it has been completed, its remnants and all of the pieces of wood in its arrangement that were burnt with it are beaten with clubs and everything is raked out with rakes. Anything - whether from its flesh or from the wood - that has been blackened and is possible to be crushed and reduced to ashes, should be crushed and reduced to ashes. If something has no trace of ash on it, it is left. Any piece of bone that remains from the heifer's bones that was not burnt should be crushed regardless.

None of its ashes are brought into the Temple Courtyard for storage, as ibid.:9 states: "And he shall place it outside the camp." The ashes were divided into three portions: one was placed in the chayl, one on the Mount of Olives, and one was divided among all the priestly watches.

The one that was divided among all the priestly watches was used by the priests to sanctify themselves. The one that was placed on the Mount of Olives was used by the entire Jewish people for sprinkling. And the one that was placed in the chayl was prepared and hidden away, as implied by ibid. which states: "It will be a security for the congregation of Israel." This teaches that it was put away for safekeeping.

Indeed, in the chayl, they would put away for safekeeping a portion of the ashes from every red heifer that was burnt. Nine red heifers were offered from the time that they were commanded to fulfill this mitzvah until the time when the Temple was destroyed a second time. The first was brought by Moses our teacher. The second was brought by Ezra. Seven others were offered until the destruction of the Second Temple. And the tenth will be brought by the king Mashiach; may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be G‑d's will.

Two red heifers should not be slaughtered at the same time, as Numbers 19:3 states: "And you shall slaughter it."

If the red heifer did not desire to go out, a black one should not be taken out with it, so that it would not be said: "They slaughtered a black one." Nor is another red one taken out, so that it would not be said: "They slaughtered two at once."

When a red heifer was slaughtered with another intent in mind or its blood was received or sprinkled with another intent in mind, with the proper intent and another intent in mind, or with another intent and the proper intent in mind, it was offered by someone other than a priest, or it was offered by a priest lacking one or more of the priestly garments, while wearing the golden garments, or while wearing ordinary garments, it is unacceptable.

If it was slaughtered with the intent of partaking of its flesh or drinking its blood, it is acceptable. The rationale is that the expression "a pleasant fragrance" was not stated with regard to it.

If its blood was received in a container, it is unacceptable, as Numbers 19:4 states: "And Elazar the priest will take the blood with his finger." The mitzvah is performed with the finger and not with a utensil.

If he sprinkled the blood, even one sprinkling with a utensil, the sprinkling is unacceptable. If he performed one sprinkling with his left hand, it is unacceptable. If seven priests sprinkled the blood at the same time, their sprinkling is unacceptable. If they did so one after the other, it is acceptable.

If he sprinkled the blood, but did not direct it to the Sanctuary, it is unacceptable, as ibid. states: "opposite the front of the Tent of Meeting." Implied is that he should direct it toward the Sanctuary and see the Sanctuary. Similarly, if he slaughtered it or burnt it not opposite the Sanctuary, it is unacceptable, as implied by Numbers 19:3: "He shall slaughter it before him."

When does the above apply? When he sprinkled the blood or burnt or slaughtered the heifer southward or northward, or with his back to the Sanctuary. If, however, he stood between the east and the west and faced the Sanctuary, even if he did not direct himself toward the Sanctuary exactly, it is acceptable.

If one of the sprinklings is lacking, it is unacceptable. If one dipped his finger in the blood twice and sprinkled once, the sprinkling is unacceptable. If he dipped his finger once and sprinkled twice, even if he did not count the second sprinkling and instead, dipped his finger and sprinkled a second time, it is unacceptable.

What is implied? He dipped his finger in the blood for the sixth time and performed the sixth and seventh sprinklings, it is unacceptable, even if he dipped his finger in the blood again and sprinkled it a seventh time. If, after dipping his finger into the blood for the seventh time, he performed a seventh and eighth sprinkling - even if he dipped his finger into the blood an eighth time and then sprinkled it an eighth time, it is acceptable, for any addition over the seven is of no consequence, provided it is another priest making the addition. If, however, the priest burning it made the additional sprinkling, it is unacceptable, because he involved himself in an unnecessary activity while burning it.

If one removed the blood from its arrangement and then sprinkled it, it is invalid.

If one sprinkled its blood at night - even if one performed seven sprinklings during the day and one at night - it is unacceptable.

If one slaughtered it outside the place where it is burnt, even if one slaughtered it within the walls of Jerusalem, it is unacceptable.

If one burnt it outside the arrangement on which it was slaughtered, it was divided in two and burnt in two arrangements, or two heifers were burned on one arrangement, it is disqualified. If it was already reduced to ashes, one may bring another one and slaughter it over the ashes of the first without any qualms.

If one skinned it and cut it into pieces and then burnt it in its entirety, it is acceptable. If any slight part of its substance, even its dung, is lacking, it is unacceptable. If an olive-sized portion of its skin, meat, or even its hair flew off its pyre, it should be returned. If he did not return it, it is unacceptable.

If it flew outside its arrangement, one should place much wood over it and burn it in its place. If its horns, its hooves, or its dung flew off, they need not be returned to the pyre.

The red heifer is not disqualified if it is left overnight without being burnt. Therefore if it was slaughtered on one day and its blood sprinkled as required and then it was burned on the following day, it is acceptable.

If the priest who burns it is in the acute state of onein mourning or is lacking atonement, it is acceptable.

If one burnt it without sanctifying his hands and feet, it is invalid, because the process of offering the red heifer is comparable to sacrificial worship.

Where does he sanctify his hands and feet? From a consecrated vessel in the Temple Courtyard. If one consecrated them outside the Temple Courtyard with an ordinary vessel, even with a tiny earthenware cup, it is acceptable, because the entire process of offering the heifer is performed outside.

When the priest who burns the red heifer immerses himself after he is made impure, as we explained, he need not sanctify his hands and feet again, since the entire process of offering it is performed by those who immersed that day.

If one burnt it without wood or with all types of wood, even with straw and stubble, it is acceptable. The optimum way of performing the mitzvah is not to reduce the wood less than is appropriate. On the contrary, one should add to it bundles of hyssop and Greek hyssop while it is burning to increase the amount of ashes. One may add to its conflagration until the heifer itself is reduced to ashes. Once it is reduced to ashes, if one added even one piece of wood to it, it is like one who mixed ashes from a range with the ashes of the red heifer.

All of the activities performed with the red heifer from the beginning to the end must be performed only during the day and by male priests and the performance of work disqualifies it until it is reduced to ashes. Once it is reduced to ashes, it is acceptable even if its ashes were collected at night, by a woman, or one performed another task while collecting them.

What is the source that teaches that the collection of the ashes is acceptable if performed by any person with the exception of a deafmute, an intellectually or emotionally incapable person, or a minor? It is written Numbers 19:9: "And a pure man shall gather the ashes of the heifer." It can be derived that a priest is not required. Moreover, it is as if it said "a pure person," i.e., either a man or a woman.

What source teaches that the performance of work disqualifies it? Ibid.:3 states: "And he shall slaughter it." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this phrase comes solely to teach that if the priest becomes involved in another task at the time of slaughter, it is unacceptable. And ibid.:5 states: "And the heifer shall be burnt before his eyes," i.e., his eyes should be concentrated on it. This teaches that the performance of work causes it to be disqualified from the time of its slaughter until it is reduced to ashes. Anyone involved in burning it who performs another task disqualifies it until it is reduced to ashes.

If one slaughtered the heifer and another animal was slaughtered with it or a gourd was cut with it, it is acceptable because he did not intend to perform work. This applies even though the animal that was slaughtered with it is acceptable to be eaten, for the slaughter of ordinary animals does not require concentrated intent. If, however, one had the intent of cutting the gourd and it was cut while he was slaughtering the red heifer, the heifer is disqualified, because work was performed during its slaughter.