Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

One who is impure — even if he is impure because of another type of impurity and not because of contact with a corpse- cannot perform this sprinkling, because Numbers 19:19 specifically mentions that it must be performed by one who is pure. See the notes to Chapter 15, Halachah 1, which state that this purification process is considered an element of one of the 613 mitzvot.

A semi-woody plant, native from the Mediterranean east to central Asia. It is aromatic, with erect, branched stems up to 60 cm long covered with fine hairs at the tips. It is also employed in the purification process of a person afflicted with a tzara’at blemish (Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at 11:1).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 11 :9), the Rambam explains that this concept is derived from the fact that with regard to the offering of the Paschal sacrifice in Egypt, Exodus 12:22 speaks of taking a bundle of hyssop. The Kessef Mishneh states that binding the hyssop is the optimum way of fulfilling the mitzvah, but, after the fact, the sprinkling is acceptable even if the hyssop was not bound.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 7.

As stated in Numbers 19:19. See the following halachah which explains that sprinkling the water with the ashes on the third and seventh days is the earliest possible options, but that one may delay the sprinkling if he so desires or has no opportunity to do it earlier.

Numbers, op. cit. mentions sprinkling on the third and seventh days. From this, Megilah 20a derives the ruling that one may sprinkle the water only during the day.

The appearance of the first glimmerings of the light of the sun on the horizon more than an hour before sunrise.

Here as well, as stated in the following halachah, one may immerse afterwards. This, however, represents the earliest opportunity one has to purify himself.

As indicated by Chapter 15, Halachah 1, the water from an invalid sprinkling imparts impurity.

A common person is not aware of the details of the laws of ritual purity and may contract impurity without knowing it.

One who is both knowledgeable of the laws of ritual impurity and meticulous in their observance. See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 11, for a detailed definition of this term.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:12), the Rambam emphasizes that although the Torah mentions sprinkling the water on the third and seventh days, that is not an absolute requirement. Moreover, even though there are more than four days between one sprinkling and the next, the second sprinkling is acceptable.

This applies only when the sprinkling is delayed. When one sprinkles on the seventh day, the sprinkling must precede the immersion.

I.e., the night between the eighth day and the ninth day.

He need not immerse himself again after the sprinkling.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam on both these points, requiring a four day interval between the first and the second sprinkling (see Kiddushin 62a) and requiring that the sprinkling precede the immersion. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam’s ruling is based on the Sifri and other Midrashic sources. He also suggests that the Rambam had a slightly different version on Kiddushin, for, otherwise, it is not logical to assume that he would favor a ruling of the Midrash over one from the Talmud.
The Kessel Mishneh also cites the view of Rabbenu Tam who requires two immersions on the seventh day: one in preparation for the sprinkling and one, afterwards. The Rambam, however, does not follow this approach.

The term refers to men who have three successive emissions from their sexual organs similar to those resulting from a gonorrheal infection. Such individuals are ritually impure as stated in Leviticus, ch. 15; Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 2:1; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

Women who experience vaginal bleeding for three consecutive days outside their menstrual cycle. Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, op. cit.; Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 1:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, op. cit.; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 4; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch.1.

Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, ch. 12; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 10; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

Which has certain aspects that are more severe than other forms of impurity.

Yevamot 71b cites the historical precedent of our ancestors in Egypt who circumcised themselves and then partook of the Paschal sacrifice.

It appears, however, that one hyssop stalk is not acceptable (Kessel Mishneh).

Each on a small stalk of its own.

Thus producing three stalks.

I.e., so short that when one holds it in his hand, it will be impossible to dip it into the water.

For one must sprinkle with the hyssop itself. It is not sufficient to sprinkle with it while holding another object to which it is attached.

The rationale is that it is certain that the person was impure and there is a doubt whether a proper sprinkling was performed to bring him to a state of purity. His status does not change until a sprinkling is performed that is known to be valid.

A hyssop carries its seeds in small pouches that grow at the top of the stalks [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 11:7)].

An impure person is liable for entering the Temple. Although having the water sprinkled on oneself with an underdeveloped hyssop is not desirable or permitted, since the water was sprinkled on him, it cannot be said that he defiled the Temple (ibid.).

The fact that it was used for one mitzvah does not prevent it from being used for another.

As the Rambam provides examples at the conclusion of the halachah.

I.e., a person who sees it will call it a hyssop and not add any other descriptive term (ibid.:7).

A plant that is worshiped. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3.

A city in which the majority of the inhabitants were led astray to serve idols. In such an instance, all of the city's inhabitants must be killed and all of its property destroyed (ibid. 4:6).

When a hyssop was sown to be eaten, terumah and the tithes must be separated from it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 11:7)]. If a hyssop was designated as terumah and then became impure, it should not be used for sprinkling. The rationale is that since Numbers 19:19 states: “The pure person shall sprinkle on the impure,” our Sages understood that everything used in the purification process must be pure.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam asks: If the hyssop was designated as food, it will impart its impurity to the water and disqualify it. Why then is a special teaching required for us to derive that it is unacceptable? In resolution, he explains that here we are speaking about hyssop that is lesser than an egg-sized portion in size. In such an instance, it would never impart ritual impurity.

The rationale is that the hyssop must be a minimum length and since these hyssops are consigned to be destroyed by fire, they are not considered to be of that length.
The commentaries note that although an object connected with idolatry must be burnt, that requirement does not apply if a gentile nullifies its connection with idolatry before it comes into a Jew’s possession. For that reason, the Rambam rules (Hilchot Lulav 8:1) that a lulav belonging to a false deity is acceptable after the fact. Among the resolutions offered is that here we are speaking about a false deity belonging to a Jew, in which instance, the above leniency does not apply.

Because one should endeavor to prevent terumah from becoming susceptible to ritual impurity, and, by immersing it in the water, one makes it susceptible (see ibid.:2).

Because there is no difficulty with the hyssop, only with the terumah.

If liquids fell on a hyssop that was reaped for use as food, it becomes susceptible to ritual impurity. Now, because of the stringencies applied with regard to the water for the ashes of the red heifer, once it is even susceptible to impurity, it is considered as if it is actually impure and disqualified for use, as stated in the following halachah. In this instance, however, the hyssop was not reaped with the intent that it be eaten and it is a species that is not always used as a food. Therefore, the fact that it came in contact with liquid does not make it susceptible to ritual impurity (see Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 1:1).

So the water on it will not become mixed with the water of the ashes of the red heifer.

Even if it did not actually contract impurity, the fact that it became susceptible to impurity is enough to disqualify it, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

For it is not being used as food.

Compare to Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at 6:1.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:3.

As stated in that source, contact with a person’s inner organs is of no consequence with regard to the laws of purity and/or impurity.

One must, however, have the intent to purify, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 7.

This is acceptable. Indeed, one can sprinkle on 100 people at the same time, as stated in Parah 12:3.

As mentioned above (in the notes to Chapter 11, Halachah 4), since the k’li is known to be impure, its status is not changed until it is certain that the water has been sprinkled on it in a valid manner.
The Rambam is speaking about an instance in which it is not known whether water was sprinkled on either of the keilim in the proper manner. Needless to say, if it is known that the water was certainly sprinkled on one and the status of the second is in doubt, the first is pure.

For the same reason mentioned above.

And thus as a single utensil.

Even though the impurity — or in the following instance, the water — does not touch it, since it is joined to the other entity, it contracts impurity (or regains purity).

See, for example, the following halachot and the conclusion of Hilchot Keilim, ch. 13.

It was common for launderers to sew garments together to make it easier to lift them in and out of the wash [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:10)].

I.e., wool and linen.

I.e., one joined together reed baskets with extra reeds, so that they can all be carried at once (ibid.).

A utensil resembling a goat made from several removable parts (ibid.).

Which are removable (ibid.). Many interpret the “bed” as referring to a bier for a corpse.

That are assembled from several pieces (ibid.).

Creating one large entity from several smaller ones.

Thus when impurity or the sprinkling water touches any part of the new, larger entity, it contracts impurity or regains purity.

It is not common to join this many of these articles together. Hence if this is done, we assume that it was only done temporarily and that ultimately, the articles will be separated.

For the samovar is the primary element of the entire entity and everything else is considered as secondary to it.

For they function as a single entity and are not usually separated from each other.

For it is the primary element of this k’li [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:9)].

Since they are usually kept together, they are considered as a single entity.

And are rarely if ever separated.

So that the child’s wastes will not spoil the cradle’s mattress [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:6)].

These two are rarely separated.

Our translation is based on ibid. 18:3.

Because it is fundamentally a separate piece of furniture.

For since the shaft is inserted into the handle, it is very difficult to remove. Instead, they are considered as a single entity.

Since these are removed easily and, hence, more frequently, the Sages did not consider them a single entity in all instances.

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).