Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

These activities are not considered as work. Therefore, they disqualify the water only when the person stands still to perform them.

With regard to questions concerning what is permitted or forbidden [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 7:9)].

With regard to financial matters (ibid.).

The rite granting a childless widow the right to remarry. See Deuteronomy, ch. 25; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah, ch. 1.

The rite allowing a girl whose hand was granted to a man in marriage by her family when she was underage to nullify that marriage arrangement (see Hilchot Gerushin, ch. 11).

The latter two examples seemingly apply even if he performed these activities while walking, for they can be considered as work (Kessef Mishneh).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that taking the food and eating it is not considered as work, because it is a necessary activity. Were he not to eat, he would not have the strength to continue his journey.

All agree that in this instance, the water is acceptable even though the person stood still to kill the predators, for he could not proceed without doing so.

Kiryat Sefer maintains that the water is disqualified because the person carrying it is considered to have diverted his attention from it.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the gloss of the Shabsie Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:12).

Without an intent to save or destroy it (ibid.).

And the watchman takes his place with regard to all matters.

Otherwise, there is someone who has not diverted his attention from watching the water.

I.e., we are speaking about an instance where in fact the person began the work before the ashes reached the water. If, however, the ashes reached the water before he began the work, the sanctification is completed and the water is acceptable.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, since the person who performed the work is not the owner of the water or a watchman, the fact that he performed work does not disqualify the water. And the activity of sanctifying the water is not disqualified by the performance of work.

His colleague’s water is, however, sanctified and acceptable, because the activity he performed in attempting to sanctify his own water does not disqualify it.

The Rambam’s ruling is based on the Tosefta (Parah 6:3-4). There are questions regarding the proper version of both the Tosefta and the text here. We have followed the version found in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. According to that version, this clause is a restatement of Chapter 7, Halachah 4. The Kessef Mishneh, however, suggests reversing the rulings both here and in the source.

I.e., he cast the ashes of the red heifer into one bucket of water with both his hands (Rabbenu Shimshon, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

For sanctifying each bucket is considered as an activity that disqualifies the other.

We suspect that he filled the bucket before he sanctified the existing bucket. Hence, filling this bucket is considered as an activity that disqualifies the existing bucket. Then sanctifying the existing bucket is considered an activity that disqualifies the bucket that was now filled. If, however, he sanctified the existing bucket first and then filled the new bucket, both are acceptable.

By sanctifying them at the same time, he demonstrated that his intent in drawing them was to draw them as a single quantity (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The fact that he sanctified them separately indicates that at the outset, he considered them as separate entities and drawing each one disqualifies the other (ibid.). See also the notes to Chapter 7, Halachah 4.

I.e., cast ashes on one bucket with one hand and on the other bucket with the other hand. He does not disqualify either bucket belonging to a colleague by performing work while sanctifying it, as stated in Halachah 3 (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For he was performing work while drawing that bucket of water and any time one performs work while drawing water, it is disqualified, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

Because the performance of work does not disqualify water sanctified for another person.

Even though there are other watchmen, since he is holding the water, it is his actions that are significant (Rav Yosef Corcus).

That is not acceptable, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2. The first bucket that was sanctified is not disqualified, because at the time it was sanctified, the one sanctifying it had not received payment. Nor will he receive payment later, because the sanctification of the second bucket is disqualified (Kessel Mishneh). The second bucket, by contrast, is disqualified, because the person who sanctified it—the owner of the first bucket—did receive payment, the sanctification of his bucket.

This applies only with regard to water that will be drawn in the future, but not to water that was already drawn, as in the following clause (Kessel Mishneh).

As stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 3.

As stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

Thus even though the person sanctifying the water is considered as having the drawing of his water in mind, the sanctification is not disqualified as a result. Although it is considered as equivalent to performing work, there is no difficulty in performing work while sanctifying water [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 7:4)].

Hence, the fact that his water was sanctified first does not disqualify the drawing of the water.

I.e., he was sanctifying the water as payment for the other person drawing water for him.

This is speaking about a situation in which a person is preparing to sanctify his own water. Although any extraneous activity will disqualify the water, in these instances, the water is not disqualified, because these activities are necessary for the sanctification of the water.

Because he performed an activity that was not necessary for the sanctification of this water.

For the ashes are not disqualified by the performance of work.

I.e., he continued holding the container in his hand, because as the Rambam proceeds to explain, doing anything else would disqualify the water [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 6:1)].

The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Shimshon as explaining that returning the ashes to the container is not considered work.

Because once the ashes are cast upon it, it is not disqualified because of work.

We are speaking about a situation in which some ashes reached the water and others were floating on other ashes above its surface. The water is not disqualified, because some ashes reached it and from that time onward, work does not disqualify it. The ashes are not disqualified for future use until they actually touch the water, as stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 3.

To use it as a conduit at the opening of the container.

And thus less ashes would be used when sanctifying the water.

Because the activity was not performed for the sake of sanctifying this water, but for the sake of saving the ashes for the future.
The version of the Rambam’s source, the Tosefta (Parah 6:1), which the Ra’avad possessed (and which is the standard published text) differs from that cited by the Rambam. The Ra’avad does, however, admit that the rationale is easier to understand according to the Rambam’s version.

Because the activity is being performed for the sake of the sanctification of this water.

I.e., there is no need to use an amount of ashes proportionate to the amount of water.

I.e., the Torah appears to imply that the opposite order should be followed, first ash and then water.

Sotah 16b notes that above verse concludes: “living water into a utensil,” indicating that first the water should be placed in the utensil.

I.e., his act must be performed for this specific intent, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

And not with a utensil, as the Rambam proceeds to state. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 6:1).

He himself and not via a utensil.

And thus were not cast on the water by the person, but via a utensil.

And thus the ashes were not cast on the water with concentrated intent.

And thus the ashes were not placed on the water directly.

The measure of this amount of water is specified in Chapter 15, Halachah 1.

Without actually touching the water, as indicated by the continuation of the Rambam’s words.

And not placed there by a person, in which instance, the water is not sanctified.

And there is nothing separating the water from each other [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 6:3)]. See a parallel ruling in Hilchot Mikveot 3:26.

Without disqualifying it because of the water absorbed in the sponge.

This is speaking about a sponge that was dry when it fell into the water. Hence the water absorbed by the sponge is sanctified. For that reason, when the sponge is taken out by hand, the water falling from it does not disqualify the water in the container. Nevertheless, the water inside of it may not be squeezed out into the original container. This is a Rabbinic safeguard, lest one do the same when a sponge fell into water that was not sanctified (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:8), the Rambam notes that the term for stone used in that mishnah - and used by the Rambam here - is even, not sela. Even refers to a stone that has already been hewed out and can be carried, while sela refers to a rock in its natural setting.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). When there is a hole of this size — a circle with a diameter of two fingerbreadths — connecting two bodies of water, they are considered as a single entity. See Hilchot Mikveot, ch. 8.

In such an instance, the two are considered as a single body of water. See ibid. 8:5.

The Rambam (based on Parah 5:9) is speaking about an instance where the two separate entities are held together by mud or the like so that water could be placed in them. Nevertheless, they are not fused in a permanent way. Hence the water inside of them is not considered as being in a container and therefore cannot be sanctified. The Rambam highlights this by speaking of the water as being between them, i.e., between the two halves and not in a single container.
This represents the Ra’avad’s understanding of the subject. The Kessef Mishneh, however, considers each part as a separate container since the water does not flow out of it. It is the water “between them,” i.e., above the mud which connects them that is not considered as in a container and is therefore unacceptable.

Since the two are fused together permanently, they are considered as a single container. Hence, when the ashes are placed on the water, it is sanctified [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

But the ashes have not been sprinkled on it yet.

Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes intermingled with a permitted substance of its own type and there is no way to separate them, we follow the principle of bittul berov, i.e., since the majority of the mixture is permitted, the forbiden entity is considered insignificant and it is as if it were not present. According to Scriptural Law, this principle should be applied. In this instance, however, our Sages ruled stringently (Tosafot, Zevachim 79b). Since the laws pertaining to this water are so strict, the Sages considered it as if it were a separate substance.
Another question arises: Since even the slightest amount of sanctified water is sufficient to purify a person, what difference does it make if some other water is mixed in? Ultimately, at least a drop of sanctified water will reach the person. In resolution, it can be explained that every time the hyssop is dipped in the water, it must have a full measure of sanctified water upon it. In this instance, since some of the water on the hyssop might not have been sanctified, the dipping would be unacceptable (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

There is an opinion in Parah 9:1 that the water can be left in the sun and the dew will evaporate. The Rambam, however, follows the more stringent view.

Our translation of these terms in taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:4).

All of the utensils used in the preparation of water for sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer must be immersed in a mikveh or a spring beforehand to make sure that they are ritually pure. Although immersion in a mikveh purifies the utensils, a mikveh is not acceptable for the ashes of the red heifer. Hence the utensil must be dried to make sure no other water mixes with the wellspring water.

Because the water that remains is fit to be used for the ashes of the red heifer. When immersing the utensil, the person must have the intent that any water that remains in the utensil be sanctified.

For, as stated above, once water has already been sanctified, it can never be mixed with other water.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:3). The gourd is hollowed out and used as a utensil to draw water. The commentaries emphasized that the gourd must be fashioned as a utensil and designated for that purpose. Otherwise, it would not be acceptable to be used to draw water for the red heifer.

This is the version of Parah 5:3 that the Rambam possessed. The standard published text of the Mishnah speaks of “water that is not fit to be sanctified.”

I.e., there is the possibility that the gourd will have absorbed water when it was immersed and then will release that water when the water to be sanctified was placed in it. We are not concerned, however, because the water it absorbed was also fit to be sanctified. If, however, it was immersed in water that was not fit to be sanctified, it cannot be used to hold water ready to be sanctified.

The Kessef Mishneh mentions that we are stringent with regard to holding sanctified water in the gourd for it is likely to be kept there for an extended period in which time the water that was absorbed will certainly be released.

If they remain in the water for a significant time afterwards, the water is disqualified even if its color does not change [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:2). The rationale is that their body fluids become mixed with the sanctified water.

Since the color of the water changed, we assume that some of their body fluids were discharged into it.

The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.) states that such insects “come into being from grain.” These insects are very dry and do not have obvious body moisture. Even so, in such situations, they disqualify the water.

Because water that has already become mixed with their saliva flows into the water when they drink [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3)].

For the same reason.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 3:3).

Because smoke is considered as of the same type as ash.

All of these substances are foreign substances, not of the same type as ashes of the red heifer. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

Once water has been sanctified, the thought to drink from it does not disqualify it, as it would had it not be sanctified (Chapter 7, Halachah 11). Nevertheless, when a person actually drinks from the water, he disqualifies it, as if an animal had drank from it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:4)]; because some of his saliva will flow back into the container (Halachah 12).

Because saliva did not flow back to it.

As will be explained in Chapter 13, the Sages enforced many stringencies regarding ritual purity with regard to such water. Even if a person would be considered pure with regard to the sacrificial service in the Temple, he is considered impure with regard to the water of the red heifer. Hence, there is a high probability that someone who was impure with regard to this water touched it.

For only a human would close a container.

Or any other animal that would disqualify the water by drinking from it. See Halachah 12.

A person could cause it to become impure.

For animals also desire water and are deft enough to uncover a container. The water would not become impure if the container was uncovered by an animal. The Rambam’s wording is, however, somewhat difficult to reconcile, because as he states in Halachah 12, most animals will disqualify water by drinking from it.

Thus we follow the principle that a sefek s’feikah, a compounded doubt, is permitted.

As mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 2, a person is permitted to entrust water drawn to be sanctified to a watchman.

Because anything in the possession of a person who is impure is presumed to be impure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 7:10)].

That was sanctified or that was drawn with the intent that it be sanctified.

And it is sufficient that there be only one acceptable watchman.

Because there is no pure watchman.

Yoma 43a notes that when speaking of the purification process associated with the water of the red heifer, Numbers 19:17-18 uses different conjugations for the verbs implying that the individuals who performed one set of actions would not necessarily perform the others.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

While the water is not disqualified by the passage of time, there is somewhat of a difficulty, because at all times, there must be a watchman who does not perform work, nor divert his attention, and who is pure guarding the water (Ra’avad).

Chagigah 23a cites a difference of opinion among the Sages if the decree enacted involved only the Jordan, as was the original situation, or whether it involved all rivers. The Rambam’s ruling is based on Parah 9:6 that does not mention the opinion that confines the decree to the Jordan exclusively.

For the decree enacted by our Sages did not encompass them.

I.e., although the Sages extended the decree beyond the limits of the situation and had it encompass all rivers, even according to their perspective, it encompassed only rivers and not seas (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the implication is that the water set aside for sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer must be watched. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the obligation to watch the water applies only until the time that it is sanctified. Once it is sanctified, that requirement ceases. The commentaries point to the law cited in Chapter 15, Halachah 7, as evidence that even after the ashes have been placed on the water, it must be watched.

In his notes to Parah 7:5, Rav Kappach states that the Rambam sees this as an option to be undertaken as an initial preference.

Although the obligation to watch the water is Scriptural in origin, the requirement to carry the water in front of oneself is a Rabbinic safeguard. And the Sages did not require a person to make two trips to carry water when he had been planning to make only one.

I.e., one desired to see how much the water weighed.

I.e., one knew the weight of the water for the ashes of the red heifer and used it to measure the weight of another entity. Our interpretation follows the gloss of Meiri to Bava Kama 56a. Ra’avad, Rashi, and many other commentaries follow their understanding of a passage in Gittin 53b that deals with this subject differently.

When a person incurs most types of impurity, he can regain purity by immersing himself in a mikveh and waiting until nightfall on the day of his immersion. After immersing himself, his status changes to a certain degree. Such a person is referred to as a t’vul yom, “one who has immersed that day.” This level of purity is sufficient for the preparing and sprinkling the ashes and the water of the red heifer, as explained in the sources cited in the following note.

Chapter 1, Halachot 13-15.

I.e., to publicize that their interpretation runs contrary to the Torah Law, as explained there.

The procedure for sprinkling this water is described in the following chapter.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:11), the Rambam explains that these exclusions are derived from Numbers 19:18: “And a pure man will dip [the hyssop] in the water,” i.e., a man and not a woman, and a man, and not one who is intellectually or emotionally compromised.

A person whose genital area is covered by a piece of flesh and it is impossible to detect his gender.

A person with both male and female sexual organs (Hilchot ishut 2:24-25). Both these individuals are unacceptable in this instance, because it is possible that they are—or are considered—female.

Such a person is not considered as intellectually capable. Indeed, for this reason, he is absolved from responsibility with regard to the entire Torah and its mitzvot. This is particularly significant in this instance, because as stated in the following halachah, for a sprinkling to be valid, it must be performed with concentrated intent. Such a person is not — nor are the following two types mentioned — capable of performing such an act.

For such a person is also absolved of responsibility for all the mitzvot.

Yoma 43a explains that since the verse adds the term “pure,” it is coming to make a further inclusion, not only a man, but another person who is pure, an intellectually mature child. Indeed, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachot 7-8, children would sprinkle the ashes on the priest who would burn the red heifer.

The commentaries have pointed to somewhat of a contradiction in the Rambam’s words, for in Hilchot Chagigah 2:1, the Rambam writes: “One who is uncircumcised is loathsome like one who is impure.” Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that Rashi (Arichin 3a) interprets this as referring to a person who has license not to be circumcised, e.g., his brothers died due to circumcision. The Rambam, however, does not make such a stipulation and seemingly accepts even an uncircumcised person who transgresses intentionally by not circumcising himself.

She holds the water from which the minor sprinkles.

The Sifri Zuta notes that Numbers 19:19 states: “And the pure person shall sprinkle on the impure” and infers that the sprinkling must be performed with the intent of purifying him from his impurity.

I.e., whether or not a person knew that a person intended to sprinkle water with the ashes of the red heifer over him, if that water was sprinkled with the proper intent, he is purified. Kiryat Sefer derives this concept from the fact that utensils may be purified through sprinkling even though utensils obviously have no intent.

I.e., in order to cast the water far in front of him, he thrust the hyssop behind him and while doing so, sprinkled water on someone else.

Even though he had the intent to purify a person through sprinkling, since he did not intend to purify anyone while thrusting the hyssop in that particular direction, the sprinkling is invalid.

And the person is pure. Since he had the intent to sprinkle in that general direction, his action is considered as willful. With regard to the sides being considered as in front of oneself, see Hilchot Tefllah 15:8.

Note the contrast to the sprinklings mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

As stated in the previous halachah.

From the wording the Rambam uses here, it is not clear whether one must have the intent of sprinkling the water on a person or utensil that is actually impure or it is sufficient to have the intent to sprinkle on someone or something susceptible to ritual impurity. In the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, certain phrases allow for ambiguity in this regard. Nevertheless, his opening statement: “The Lord said: ‘And the pure person shall sprinkle on the impure’; this teaches that the one sprinkling should have the intent to sprinkle on one who is impure,” implies that the intent must be to purify a person or an object that is actually impure.

Which is also not susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that if the person intentionally sprinkled the water on an entity that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the water on the hyssop is disqualified until the hyssop is dipped into the water with the ashes again.

Because of his improper intent.

In which instance, the remainder of the water is not acceptable until it is dipped into the water again, as stated in the previous halachah.

For it has not been used for its mitzvah as of yet [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:4). The Ra’avad differs with regard to this halachah as well.

As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 2, the hyssop must be dipped in the water while it is in a container,

Even though a large amount of water will not be collected, one may continue to sprinkle small amounts of water at a time.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:2), the Rambam interprets this as meaning “he may wipe the container with the hyssop like one wipes wet ground with a cloth.” This is unacceptable, because the hyssop must be dipped in the water (Kessef Mishneh).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam clarifies the point he seeks to explain. Since the opening of the container is narrow, when the person removes the hyssop, it is likely that it will touch the edge of opening and that some water will remain there. Hence when taking the hyssop out a second time, it will likely touch that water. Thus some of the water on it will have been collected through a means other than dipping. The Mishnah rules — as the Rambam quotes — that this is not sufficient reason to disqualify the water.