Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See also Chapter 13.

I.e., as explained in Chapter 1, Halachot 13-14, this refers to a person who immersed himself to regain ritual impurity, but has not waited until nightfall of the day of the immersion.

The Rambam says, “a priest,” because, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, this offering need not be brought by the High Priest. He is quoting the wording of Parah 3:1. Indeed, in his Commentary to that Mishnah, he uses that phrase as proof that it does not have to be a High Priest who offers the red heifer.

See the following halachah.

Significantly, in his description of the chambers of the Temple Courtyard in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, ch. 5, the Rambam does not mention this chamber.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:2; Hilchot Keilim 1:6.

See Hilchot Avodat Yom Kippurim 1:3. Yoma 2a explains that just as Aaron and his sons were isolated for seven days before the dedication of the Sanctuary, as stated in Leviticus 8:33-34, so too, a High Priest should be isolated for seven days before Yom Kippur and the priest offering the red heifer should be isolated for seven days before performing that service.

Because he was intimate with her while she was in that state and thus contracted impurity (see Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:1).

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:3.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 1. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the red heifer is sacrificed outside the Temple Courtyard, one might not show that much care regarding its sacrifice. Hence, an endeavor is made to emphasize that it shares the status of a sinoffering.

The Rambam uses the expression mei chata’at, literally, “the water of the sin-offering,” because, as mentioned, the red heifer shares the status of a sin-offering and is referred to in this manner in the Torah and in Talmudic literature.

For he was isolated in the chamber for these three days.

In fact, it could have been the seventh day after he unknowingly contracted impurity, but not the seventh day after his purification began.

Which were instituted, as stated in Halachah 1, to emphasize the sacred nature of the red heifer.

As stated in Hilchot Shabbat 23:8, sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer on a person is forbidden by Rabbinic Law, for by doing so, he is being endowed with the status of purity. Thus it is comparable to completing the fashioning of a utensil.

As stated in the previous halachah. Thus nothing is lost by the omission of the sprinkling on this day.

A certain portion of the ashes of all the red heifers that had been offered previously was preserved, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 4. Some of the ashes from each of these red heifers were taken to sprinkle on the priest who would offer the red heifer.

If, however, there are ashes of two or more heifers-even if there are not ashes from all the heifers - the ashes of all those which they possess are used (Parah 3:4).

As Numbers 19:19 states: “And a pure person shall sprinkle on the impure person.”

For this reason, this precaution is necessary. Such a precaution is taken only with regard to the priest who offers the red heifer and not in other instances for the reason the Rambam explained above.

Ordinarily, no matter how deep in the ground a corpse is buried, the impurity pierces through and ascends, making anyone who stands over it impure, as stated in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 7:5. Thus usually, there is a possibility that one has stepped over impurity. If, however, there is empty space of at least a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth over the grave, as in the present instance, it intervenes and prevents the impurity from spreading upward.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 3:2), the Rambam associates the suspicion of the existence of such a grave with the concept of “impurity likened to the depths,” which he defines (Hilchot Nizirut 6:18) as: “[A human corpse which] no one, not even one at the end of the world knows about.”

Until the age of eight (Tosefta, Parah 3:2). Afterwards, we fear that they might become impure due to a seminal emission.

So that even if the children would ride upon them, the belly of the ox would be broad enough to prevent the child’s legs from hanging over the earth. Even so, they would use the boards, as the Rambam proceeds to explain [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

As mentioned in Halachah 1.

A small stream slightly south of the Temple Mount.

They could walk on the Temple Mount, because "the earth beneath it was hollowed out to prevent contracting ritual impurity due to tum'at ohel. Arches above arches were built underneath [for support]" (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:1).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), when defining this term, the Rambam cites Onkelos’ translation of Genesis 24:20.

In that source, one opinion maintains that the children would not pick up the ashes with their hands from the pitcher, but instead, would go through an elaborate process lest they be impure and thus cause the ashes that remain to become impure. Another opinion — which is accepted as halachah — explains that this process is not necessary.

In Chapter 6, Halachah 2, the Rambam writes that a minor is not acceptable to fill the water for the ashes of the red heifer or to consecrate it. How then are they permitted to perform these activities in this instance? Tosafot Yom Tov (Parah 3:2) explains that since the priest burning the heifer is not known to be impure because of contact with a corpse, sprinkling the water on him is merely a stringency. As such, leniency is shown and a minor is allowed to perform these activities.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:2 which relates that, when immersing, one must have the intent that he is immersing himself for the sake of offering the red heifer.

For, according to law, the utensils and the people are fit to be involved in the second offering without another immersion.

This expression implies that the red heifer should be burnt outside, not only of the Temple Mount (which is equivalent to the Camp of the Levites), but outside the city of Jerusalem (which is equivalent to the Camp of the Israelites). And indeed, the Mount of Olives was outside the entire city. In contrast, there were sacrifices that were disqualified which were — as stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:4 — burnt on the Temple Mount (Rambam LeAm).

The Mount of Olives is positioned directly behind the Temple Mount, but the Kidron Valley is interposed between them. The ramp would run from one mountain to the other.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 3:5), the Rambam explains that if there is impurity under the sides of one arch, there will be hollow space above it, covered by a second arch. Thus a person standing above will not contract impurity.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 6. With regard to the Mount of Olives, such a ramp was a necessity for it was — according to tradition, even in the era of the First Temple - used for burial.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 14.

I.e., this is the way they imparted impurity to him when they did not have the carcass of a crawling animal or an object that imparts ritual impurity. Since the elders had not immersed with the intent of offering the red heifer, they are considered impure with regard to it. And by touching the priest, they make him impure as well.

As, in fact, all the red heifers brought during the Second Temple were.

This stipulation is made only with regard to the fig wood, because other species of wood are naturally smooth [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. 3:7)]. Diagram

In the above source, the Rambam emphasizes that the intent is that its base is wider than its upper surface.

I.e., open places to allow air to enter and enable the fire to catch quickly. (ibid.).

Our translation quotes Rav Kappach’s translation of the Arabic term used by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:8). The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that such a rope is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

I.e., facing the Holy of Holies.

In the palm of his hand; he would not use a container (Sifri). Although the blood of sacrificial animals had to be received in a container held in one’s right hand, there were no such requirements for receiving the blood of the red heifer.
The Ra’avad states that although the priest would receive the blood in his hand, the heifer is not disqualified if he receives it in a container.

The finger that is next to the thumb.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:8), the Rambam. states that this is derived from the wording of the prooftext “And he shall dip his finger... and sprinkle.” Implied is that there should be a dipping for each sprinkling.

Plural, i.e., the right hand which he had used for sprinkling and the left hand in which the blood was held.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. 3:9), the Rambam. writes that he could not find a figure for the minimum required length for the branch of cedar wood.

A sela was a coin used in the Talmudic era. Shiurei Torah states that five selaim are equivalent to 101 or 96 grams.

In addition to this rationale, some have pointed out that — just as was done with regard to the harvesting of the Omer (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:11) — the process of questions and answers drew attention to the offering and thus reinforced the Rabbinic tradition with regard to a matter concerning which the Sadducees had raised issues.

A herbaceous climbing plant.

Rav Kappach identifies this dye with the color argaman, usually translated as “purple.”

The type of dye required by the Torah, Numbers 19:6.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:3). The term refers to a shrub of the rhus genus that has clusters of green flowers, red hairy berries, and feathery leaves.

For in neither instance would the term “conflagration of the heifer” be appropriate (Sifri).

I.e., the procedure outlined by the Rambam above in which the three are bound together and cast into the belly of the heifer is the optimum way of performing the mitzvah, but it is not an absolute requirement.

To reduce them to small pieces.

As the Rambam emphasizes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 3:10), the fundamental concept gleaned from this halachah is that “the ashes of the red heifer” that are preserved included, not only the ashes of the red heifer itself, but also the ashes of all the wood used to burn it. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

Here the term “camp” refers to the camp of the Divine presence.

A rampart that surrounded the wall of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:3).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 3:10), the Rambam states that this refers to the 24 guard posts at which the priests and Levites would stand watch over the Temple. See Hilchot Beit HaBechira 8:4-5.

Seemingly, this refers to the ashes mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

And its ashes were used throughout the forty years in the desert, the 440 years before the First Temple was built, and the 410 years that the First Temple stood.

After the return to Zion following the Babylonian exile, when the Second Temple was built.

Parah 3:4 relates that two were offered by both Shimon the Just and Yochanan the High Priest, and one each were offered by Eliyahu Eini ben Hakaf, Chanamael the Egyptian, and Yishmael ben Piabi.

Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 28, questions the rationale for the inclusion of this halachah. After all, the Mishneh Torah is not a book of history, but a text of halachah, Jewish Law. It mentions points of history only inasmuch as they affect Jewish Law. Why then are the different red heifers brought previously recounted? And why is a prayer for Mashiach’s coming mentioned?
Likkutei Sichot answers by pointing to a difference between the Rambam’s treatment of the subject here and its treatment in his source, the Mishnah, Parah, loc. cit. The Mishnah mentions the heifers brought in previous generations as part of its description of the process of preparing the priest to offer the red heifer (as mentioned inch. 2 above). The Rambam, by contrast, mentions it as part of the commandment to set aside a certain portion of the ashes for safekeeping without any consideration of the function that they would play.
For this reason, as an illustration of the latter point, the Rambam emphasizes that our people always had a portion of the ashes of the red heifer put away for safekeeping. After the destruction of the Temple, that ceased, but with the coming of Mashiach, that will change and the mitzvah will be fulfilled as before.
Immediately after mentioning Mashiach, the Rambam then adds a prayer for his immediate coming. That is also a halachah: that a person should always be anticipating Mashiach’s coming, hoping and yearning for it at all times, as implied by the Rambam’s words in Hilchot Melachim 11:1, it is not sufficient to believe in Mashiach, one must “await his coming.” For this reason, the Rambam mentions this prayer here, in the laws of the red heifer, and not when speaking about subject matter that concerns Mashiach directly. For, at all times, even when we are not focused immediately on Mashiach, one must anticipate his coming.

The singular form implies that only one can be slaughtered at a time.

Seeing the other heifer depart might cause the red heifer to be willing to follow its example.

Which should not be done, as stated in the first halachah.

I.e., it was slaughtered or the blood was received or sprinkled for the sake of another sacrifice (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1). When these services are performed with such an intent — and even when the inappropriate intent was coupled with the correct one — it is unacceptable, because Numbers 19:19 refers to the red heifer as “a sin-offering.” Just as a sin-offering is unacceptable when these service are performed with such intents (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1), so too, the red heifer is unacceptable [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 4:1).

I.e., instead of wearing the four priestly garments, he wore three or less. As stated in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 10:4, when a priest performs sacrificial service without wearing the proper garments, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven and the sacrifices he offered are invalidated.

I.e., in addition to the four garments mentioned, the priest wore the four garments of the High Priest that contained threads of gold. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, even if the red heifer is offered by the High Priest, he should wear only the four garments of an ordinary priest.

In his gloss to Parah 4:3, Rav Kappach states that he does not know a source for the Rambam’s statements. He cites a related ruling in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:11:
At the time of the slaughter of [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering, [the person offering it] must have six things in mind, [that the animal be slaughtered]: for the sake of the [desired] sacrifice, for the sake of the person bringing it, that it be sacrificed unto God, blessed be He, that it be consumed by fire, that its consumption by fire be for the sake of generating a [pleasing] fragrance, and that the fragrance be pleasing before God.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and the comments of the Ra’avad there.

As indicated by the following clause, there is no difficulty in having the sprinklings performed by different priests. They must, however, be performed in sequence, one after the other.

More specifically, he should direct it to the Holy of Holies, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

The Temple was built on a mountain. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:5:
The Eastern Gate was twenty cubits high. Accordingly, a person standing opposite the Eastern Gate could not see the Temple building. For this reason, the wall above this gate was low. Thus, the priest [who offered the Parah Adwnah] could see the opening of the Temple when he sprinkled its blood, while standing on the Mount of Olives.

The Ra’avad is willing to accept this ruling for the slaughter and burning of the heifer. With regard to the sprinkling of its blood, by contrast, he maintains that the Mishnah (Parah 4:2 and Middot 2:4) implies that it must be directed to the entrance of the Sanctuary exactly, for the verse mentions “the front of the Tent of Meeting.” The Kessef Mishneh maintains that as long as one is facing the fa? ade of the Temple, he has satisfied that Scriptural requirement.

Once a sprinkling has been performed in an invalid manner, not only that sprinkling, but the entire offering of the heifer is invalidated and is no longer acceptable [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 4:2)].
The Kessef Mishneh understands that the gloss of the Ra’avad which most texts attach to the following halachah should be applied here. According to that understanding, the Ra’avad differs with this principle and maintains that although the sprinkling is unacceptable, the heifer is not invalidated. If one performs a valid sprinkling afterwards, the heifer is acceptable. (It must be noted that not all authorities agree with the Kessef Mishneh concerning this point.)

See Halachah 17.

The simple meaning of the Rambam’s words is that he sprinkled the blood while it was outside the arrangement. If, however, he brought the blood back to the arrangement, as an initial preference, it should not be used for the sprinkling. If, however, it was used for sprinkling, it is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).

According to the Rambam, not only the sprinkling, but the entire heifer is invalidated. According to the Ra'avad, only the sprinkling is invalidated.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes the Tosefta (Parah 4:1), which states that this is derived from the fact that the Torah refers to the red heifer as a sin-offering. Just as the sin-offering must be brought during the day, so too, all of the services associated with the red heifer must be performed during the day.

Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam’s usage of the term “even.” He explains that since the city of Jerusalem is holier, one might think that it was acceptable to burn it there.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh, however, claims that he does not understand the Ra’avad’s objection. Seemingly, he and the Rambam are making the same point.

Just as each red heifer must be slaughtered independently, as stated in Halachah 1, so too, it must be burnt independently (Rabbenu Asher to Parah 4:2).

As long as they were burned at different times, they are considered to have been burnt independently. The fact that their ashes are collected together is of no consequence.

Rather than burning it as a single entity directly after slaughter, as is the initial preference (Chulin 11a).

For Numbers 19:5 states: “Its hide, its flesh, its blood, with its dung, shall he burn.”

Rambam LeAm explains that a place is designated for the burning of the red heifer on the Mount of Olives. In that general place, an arrangement of wood (a pyre) is made. If the piece of the red heifer flies off the pyre, but falls within the general place, wood should be placed around it and it should be burned there. If it falls outside the general place, it should be returned to the pyre.

In contrast to the meat of sacrificial animals which is disqualified if it is not eaten on the day the sacrifices were slaughtered (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:10).

I.e., his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or sister died on that day (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:9).

This term refers to a person who has become pure from the condition that caused his impurity, he has immersed in a mikveh, and the day of his immersion has passed. He is still considered as lacking atonement until he brings the sacrifice required of him (Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1).

Sacrificial service performed by a priest in these states is disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:6-9; 4:4-5.

Before performing any element of sacrificial service, it was necessary for a priest to sanctify his hands and feet by pouring water over them, as related in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:1-2, 16. Even though the red heifer is not a sacrificial animal, offering it is considered as equivalent to offering a sacrifice.

See ibid.:10.

Chapter 1, Halachah 14; Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

In contrast, a priest serving in the Temple would have to sanctify his hands after immersing (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:6).

Using other species instead of those recommended in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

For any wood burned together with it is considered to have contributed to burning it.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:7).

The implication is that the slaughter must be performed by a male priest. Note, however, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:2 which states that it is acceptable for a red heifer to be slaughtered by a non-priest.

These three individuals are not considered as responsible for their conduct. Hence any action of halachic significance may not be performed by them. Zevachim 43a derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 19:9 which states: “And he shall place [the ashes],” which implies that one must intentionally place down the ashes, thus excluding these individuals who are not capable of doing so.

For the term “man” does not allude to the necessity for a priest to perform this task. Note, however, the Targum Yerushalmi which translates this phrase as “a pure priest.”

Although the verse states “man,” the intent is not to exclude a woman.

I.e., performing any other task, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

The commentaries question the Rambam’s statements, noting that Yoma 42a cites a difference of opinion between the Sages regarding the intent of that phrase: one maintains, as the Rambam states here, that this verse comes to require that the priest not perform any other task, but another maintains that the phrase comes to teach that the slaughter may be performed by a non-priest. Since the Rambam accepts the latter concept, as mentioned in note 36, seemingly, he cannot use the phrase “And he shall slaughter it,” to teach that the priest cannot perform other work.
Rambam LeAm explains that the Rambam does not see the derivation of the two concepts as contradictory, because they can be interpreted as being based on different words in the phrase.

I.e., without performing a separate act to slaughter the second animal or cut the gourd, e.g., he slaughtered the red heifer with a very long knife.

The prohibition against performing other work while slaughtering the heifer includes only purposeful activity. An activity that is performed without intent is not included.

See Hilchot Shechitah 2:11.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s ruling appears to run contrary to Chulin 32a which quotes a difference of opinion among the Sages. That passage does not mention a Sage who would rule that the slaughter of both the heifer and the other animal is acceptable. For lack of a better explanation, the Kessef Mishneh concludes that the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.