Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

In halachic terminology, both the terms “launder” and “wash” refer to immersion in a mikveh.. See also Halachah 2 for further discussion of these terms.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 4:4), the Rambam explains that had the Torah merely stated that one who casts the cedar wood into the belly of the heifer contracts impurity, one could infer that one who burns it does as well. Why then does the Torah mention that the one who burns it contracts impurity? To teach that all involved in offering the heifer contract impurity. ·

A person who arranges the pyre and one who lights it do not contract impurity even according to Rabbinic Law (Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 397).

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 1:1.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:7. As stated there, a derivative of impurity can impart impurity only to foods and liquids, but not to implements. See also the discussion of similar concepts in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 6:15.

And thus their own impurity is in full force.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 8:3), the Rambam states that the heifer itself does impart impurity to foods or liquids that touch it. See the gloss to Halachah 7, where the Kessef Mishneh discusses the Rambam’s ruling with regard to the bulls and goats that are burnt.

For the impurity comes as a result of producing the ashes of a halachically acceptable red heifer and, in this instance, that did not occur.

The individuals involved with its slaughter were deemed impure directly after its slaughter. They do not regain their ritual purity, because the red heifer was later disqualified.

See the conclusion of ch. 3 which describes both of these activities.

In Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:16, the Rambam states:
“The bull that comes because of [the violation of] any mitzvah [by the High Priest]” [see Hilchot Shegagot 15:1-2] and the bull [brought because of] a law forgotten [by the High Court] are called “the bulls that are burnt” [see ibid. 12:1]. The goats brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship [see ibid.] are called “the goats that are burnt.”
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:5), the Rambam also applies this term to the bull offered by the High Priest as a sin-offering for himself and the other priests and the goat that is the pair of the goat sent to Azazel. See also Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 6:15.

The bull offered by the High Priest and the goat that is the pair of the goat sent to Azazel.

An expression which implies that he has contracted ritual impurity and imparts it to his garments.

Sifra to the above verse.

A place outside Jerusalem. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:4.

This applies if they were disqualified after their blood was cast upon the altar. If they were disqualified before that, they are burnt in a designated place on the Temple Mount (ibid.:3).

At this point, the mitzvah involved in burning them is completed. Unlike the red heifer, there is no mitzvah to gather their ashes.

To enable additional surfaces to be exposed to the fire and air and thus cause the meat to burn more thoroughly.

Zevachim 105a.

These sacrificial animals were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard and then carried outside the walls of the city to be burnt. As stated in the following halachah, the animals would be tied to poles and then carried by several priests.

Even though ultimately, they are to be taken out of Jerusalem entirely, carrying them outside the Temple Courtyard conveys impurity, because Leviticus 4:12 states: “And he shall take the entire bull outside the camp.” Here the term “camp” refers to the Temple Courtyard [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:6)].

I.e., they become impure and convey that impurity to their garments.

Even though there is reason to think that since the sacrificial animals were once taken out of the Temple Courtyard, a person who carries them — even in the Temple Courtyard — contracts impurity, our Sages (Zevachim 105a) did not rule in that manner. Instead, they left the matter unresolved. Hence the Rambam rules that they do not impart impurity to their garments.
The Ra’avad states that his teachers understood that Talmudic passage differently. He states, however, that he personally prefers the Rambam’s interpretation.

Nevertheless, since in their immediate situation, the sacrificial animals are now in the Temple Courtyard, the person pulling them is not definitively considered as impure.

See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:7 which describes how the goat was taken to the desert and pushed off a cliff.
The Ra’avad states that if the person carrying the goat leaves go of it for a certain time and touches garments or implements in the interim, he does not impart impurity to them.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam would accept that law, but does not mention it, because it is not an ordinary circumstance.

He personally remains impure until he immerses himself in a mikveh and waits for nightfall, but he does not impart impurity to other implements, as stated in Halachah 2. He does, however, impart impurity to foods and liquids.

Without carrying.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:6; and with regard to the red heifer in Parah 8:3), the Rambam rules that touching the bull does impart impurity to foods and liquids. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the matter is a difference of opinion in the Mishnah (Zevachim, loc. cit.) and the Rambam’s opinion as stated here does not match either of the views of the Sages quoted in the Mishnah.

Since the prooftext cited mentions a k’li (a “vessel” or “container”), it is unacceptable if the water is drawn with one’s hands or with an object that does not satisfy the halachic definition of that term.

I.e. even water from a natural reservoir is unacceptable if it is not flowing. With regard to water from rivers, see Halachah 10 and notes.

See a more specific definition of the term mayim chayim, “living water,” in Hilchot Mikveot 9:8, 13. See also the later halachot of this chapter.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

This term, frequently used in the Mishnah, literally, means “the water of the sin-offering.” It is used to refer to this water because the term chatat is used to refer to the red heifer in Numbers 19:9, 17.

As mentioned above, no action of halachic significance may be performed by these individuals.
The commentaries have noted that water for the ashes that were sprinkled over the priest burning the red heifer were drawn by children (see Chapter 2, Halachah 7, and notes which discuss this issue).

Although there is an opinion in Parah 5:4, that a woman may not perform this activity, the accepted view is that she may.

I.e., the water must be in a vessel when the hyssop is dipped into it to be sprinkled onto an impure person.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of Parah 12:12, as emphasized by the Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh. The intent is that the Rambam is not referring to the immersion of the person in a mikveh that accompanies the last sprinkling. That immersion may, in certain instances, be performed at night as explained in that mishnah and the Rambam’s Commentary.

Parah 5:5 mentions this principle with regard to the sanctification of water. The Rambam extrapolates that the same principles apply with regard to drawing the water and sprinkling the ashes (Kessef Mishneh).

Which are not considered as keilim, “containers,” with regard to the contraction of ritual impurity (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:2). They are, however, considered as implements in this context (Rav Yosef Corcus).

As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:3), the base of this implement appeared like handles and small jugs could be placed there.

I.e., one used the clay top used to seal a jug as a vessel in its own right.

Even though it contains water, since it is part of the natural setting, it is not considered as a stone container [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:7)]. The standard published text of that source speaks even of a receptacle hewn into stone. In that same text (ibid.:8), the Rambam differentiates between a reservoir of rock in its natural setting and a rock that was removed from its natural setting and hollowed out to contain water. The latter, he maintains, can certainly be considered as a stone container and is acceptable. See also Hilchot Mikveot 6:3.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:6), as a preparatory stage to making other utensils, a potter makes balls of clay and sets them aside. Since these balls have a receptacle, they are considered as vessels made from earth.

Before they were repaired, they are considered as pieces of vessels and not vessels.

The Mishnah (Keilim 17:14) and the Rambam’s commentary speak of a “coated ostrich egg,” i.e., cement or the like was placed around the shell to reinforce it.

I.e., the fact that it was attached to a rock does not cause it to lose the categorization of a vessel.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:7), the Rambam explains that this is a continuation to the previous clause. After attaching the container to the stone, one makes a border of clay around it.

I.e., the question is whether the clay addition is considered as part of the utensil or not.

I.e., if the clay border was resting on the rim of the container, and thus when one would lift the container, the border would also be raised, the border is considered as a container of earth and it is acceptable.

If the border was not resting on the container, but on the rock, around the container, when one lifts the container, the border will not be raised. Hence, it is considered as attached to the rock and not as an independent container.

I.e., if the container was placed in a larger container filled with water, water would seep in through the hole.

For once the hole is this large, it is no longer considered as a container in this context. See also Hilchot Keilim 14:9; 19:1-2.

Even though it is not a totally useful container, a hole of this size does not disqualify it from being considered as a k’li, an implement.

Because if the plug was pulled, the water would flow out.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:7), the Rambam explains that in this instance, the water is acceptable because it is resting on the base of the container. There are other commentaries (Rabbenu Asher, et a[) who maintain that only water that is below the hole is acceptable. There is, however, no allusion to that concept in the Rambam’s words. See the conclusion of Turei Zahav 159:1 where this issue is mentioned.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the standard published text of the Rambam’s source, the Tosefta (Parah 6:2) states that such water is acceptable, but maintains that the text is in error and the proper version follows the Rambam’s understanding.

I.e., the water must be removed from the spring with a utensil.

I.e., edible leaves that are therefore fit to contract impurity.

For, as the Rambam proceeds to state, one uses something fit to contract impurity to cause the water to enter the container. Consequently, it is considered as if the water was drawn with something other than a container [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 6:4)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediyot 7:4), the Rambam states that even though nut shells can serve as a container, since this is their natural state, they are not susceptible to ritual impurity.

An implement, food, or a part of the human body.

Since the entity is not susceptible to ritual impurity, it does not change the status of the water (ibid.).

Our translation is based on the Rambarn’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 6:8). There he explains that this is speaking about a situation where a person inserted his hand into a spring and directed the water into an adjacent pool.

Once the water is directed to such a reservoir, it is no longer considered as “living water” and is not acceptable for this mitzvah (ibid.).

Rav Kapach translates the Arabic term the Rambam uses in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 8:8) as the ocean. In other contexts, this term is used to refer to the Mediterranean Sea.

Even though its waters flow naturally, Genesis 1:8 states: “And to the collection (mikveh) of water, He called seas.” Hence the Great Sea, is deemed as a mikveh (Parah, loc. cit.).

This is speaking about rivers that we fear became mixed with an overflow of rain water.

The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam, maintaining that the Rambam has favored the Tosefta (Parah 9:1) over the Mishnah (Parah 8:10). For according to the Mishnah, there are only a few specific rivers that are disqualified. The remainder are acceptable, because the majority of the water in them is from springs and not rainwater. The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Halachah 1, the Rambam. also mentions that water from rivers is acceptable. Hence he explains that here the intent is rivers like those in Eretz Yisrael where it is likely that the majority is rainwater.

Both of these are called yamim in Talmudic Hebrew. Among the examples given are Lake Kinneret.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Hilchot Mikveot 9:12 where he explicitly states that the waters of other seas are unfit to be used to sanctify water for the ashes of the red heifer. In his gloss to that halachah, the Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction in the Rambam’s wording as follows: The Great Sea (the Mediterranean Sea or the ocean) is never considered like a spring. Other seas and lakes are considered as natural springs and may be used for the three purposes mentioned above. Nevertheless, unlike a spring, they be used only when the water in those bodies is standing, not when it is flowing.

See Hilchot Mikveot 9:12-13 and notes where these concepts are restated and explained.

Since their water is not fit to drink, they are not categorized as “living water.” When speaking of similar springs in Hilchot Mikveot, op. cit., the Rambam also mentions “hot springs.”

A similar usage of the Hebrew termed employed by the Rambam as found in Jeremiah 6:7.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 8:9), the Rambam cites Isaiah 58:11 where the term is used in a similar manner.

Since God created the world in seven days and the world will exist for only seven millennia, all time is structured in units of seven.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 8:10), the Rambam cites a similar usage of the term in Ezekiel 47:11. The Kessef Mishneh and others explain that this water is unacceptable for another reason: since it is mixed with mud, it is not fit for drinking and is not categorized as “living water.”

Two rivers in Eretz Yisrael.

I.e., the water flowing from the natural springs becomes mixed with an overflow of rainwater.

As explained in the notes to Halachah 10, this applies only when there is reason to believe that there is no longer a majority of spring water.

I.e., not due to an external cause. If its appearance changes due to an external cause, it is unacceptable.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 8:11), the Rambam writes that the mud and the shard are merely stirring up the earth at the bottom of the well. Soon that earth will settle and the water will clear. Even before the earth settles, the water is not disqualified.

Causing the appearance of the well water to change.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Yosef Corcus as explaining that the laws regarding rainwater are more stringent, because the rainwater will mix thoroughly with the water of the well.

Or an implement or other obstruction that is susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Sifri derives this from an association drawn from Numbers 19:9 between the slaughtering of the heifer and the water for its ashes. Just as the performance of labor disqualifies the heifer itself (see Chapter 1, Halachah 7), so too, it disqualifies its water until it is sanctified.

And not spring water.

And not the ashes of a red heifer.

The person who is traveling is employed and would earn so-and-so much per hour at his profession. He can be reimbursed at that fee for the time he travels to sanctify or sprinkle the water. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this is not considered as a wage for those activities, but as reimbursement for the loss he suffers.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 4:6, the source for this halachah), the Rambam makes two further qualifications: a) from the term “a worker,” the Rambam infers that even if the person is particularly skilled in his craft, he is not paid the wage he himself would be paid, but the standard wage for that profession. b) from the phrase “unemployed,” the Rambam infers that the worker should not receive a full wage, because he is not actually working. Moreover, if the person’s profession is particularly strenuous, e.g., he is a blacksmith, he should take a substantial deduction, because a smith would be willing to receive a lesser wage if he were not required to work that hard.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

I.e., while making this journey the priest would be forced to contract impurity that he would not contract otherwise. This would prevent him from partaking of and making use of terumah. We assume that the priest would have been given terumah and thus the person causing him to make the journey must reimburse him for the expenses he incurs.

For terumah can be used for all these purposes.

See the following halachah which discusses the laws that apply when one draws water for several people one after the other.

In his gloss to this halachah, the Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam regarding the rationale for this ruling. He explains that, aside for a situation when one performs work with the water or the ashes themselves, the performance of work per se is not what disqualifies water from being used for the ashes of the red heifer. Instead, it is the fact that while performing work, a person diverts his attention from the water and that disqualifies it. Similarly, the Ra’avad interprets the subsequent halachot according to the same motivating principle.
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Ra’avad’s interpretation in this and the subsequent halachot and maintains that the Rambam does not follow it. There are, however, many other authorities (see Meiri to Gittin 53a, b) who accept the Ra’avad’s view and some who maintain that the Rambam also follows this perspective.

Halachah 1.

The implication is that he filled one barrel for each person. If he filled several barrels for each person, seemingly, the same laws that apply when one fills several barrels for himself would apply then as well.

For after drawing the water, he gave it to the other person who takes responsibility for it. Needless to say, once that person takes it, he may not perform work until he sanctifies it.

It is considered as if the drawing of water has not been completed until he poured all the barrels into the large container.

Because no other barrels were filled and no other work was performed after filling it.

Originally, when the person drew the water, he intended to sanctify each one individually. Thus all but the last one became disqualified. Even though he changed his mind, the change in his intent does not change the status of the water retroactively.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 7:1), the Rambam emphasizes that this law applies whether the bucket that he sanctifies first is the one he drew first or the one he drew last. Drawing the other buckets does not disqualify the first one, because he intended to sanctify them all together. In this instance as well, the fact that he changed his mind does not change the status of the water retroactively.

The other buckets are disqualified because sanctifying the first bucket is considered as the performance of work, which—when interposed between the drawing of the later buckets and their sanctification—disqualifies them.

Buckets of water.

Because this is like the instance when he filled them all to be sanctified in the same container and the other person is considered in the place of the person himself (ibid).

Thus at the time the buckets were filled, filling the later ones did not disqualify the first.

Another person can sanctify many buckets of water for a colleague one after the other, because he was not the person who filled them (ibid.).

Thus before he begins dealing with the water he intends to sanctify, he will have completed dealing with the water he needs for his own purposes.

So that he will be able to focus his attention on it, as required by Chapter 10, Halachah 4.

The bracketed addition is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.

Even though the person who helped his colleague or removed a thorn from his body performed another activity, that activity was necessary to enable his colleague to draw the water. Since they are both drawing the water for the same sanctification, he is not considered to have been involved in another activity.

Because he performed another activity between drawing the water and sanctifying it.

See the following halachah with regard to the manner in which he must take the rope.

Because he did not perform any extra activity to return the rope to them.

Because going out of his way to return the rope is considered as an extra activity whose performance disqualifies the water.

I.e., he was drawing a bucket from the well and as he drew the bucket higher, he cast the portion of the rope he had been holding previously to the ground.

Because gathering the rope is considered as an extra activity whose performance disqualifies the water.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 7:7). There the Rambam explains that this is considered an ordinary way of drawing water. (Implied is that were it a departure from the norm, it would have been considered an extra activity that disqualifies the water.)

Since he gathered the rope while he was drawing the water, it is not considered as if he performed an extra activity.

I.e., after pouring water into the barrel once, he set it aside so that it would not be in the way of any passerby.

I.e., to dry it from the remnants of the water that it contained previously. Were any of that water to remain, it would disqualify the new water.

I.e., a stone was hollowed out to serve as a trough. It is permissible to sanctify water with the ashes of the red heifer in such a trough provided it was separated from its natural setting. See Chapter 6, Halachah 3, and notes.

Because the task he performed is not for the sake of filling the trough.

Since the bucket was cast to the water for another intent, the water is not acceptable to be used for the ashes of the red heifer.

Since he reconsidered before the bucket reached the water, his change of mind was effective to a certain degree (Kessef Mishneh).

For unless the bucket is dry, the water drawn with it may not be used for the ashes of the red heifer.

And thought of using the water for the ashes of the red heifer.

The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the text to read: “he must dry [the buckets],” i.e., changing the text so that this clause will parallel the previous one. Nevertheless, the present version is found in all the early printings and in authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The Merkevat HaMishneh substantiates the present version, explaining that there is a difference between this clause and the previous one. In the previous clause, the person lowered the bucket into the water with an undesirable intent. Therefore, the water is entirely unacceptable. In this clause, the person lost control of the bucket before it reached the water. Hence he is not required to suffer the full consequences of it being submerged within it.

But before sanctifying it. The laws governing sanctified water are stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 15.

The thought alone does not disqualify the water; a deed must be performed to indicate that it is no longer set aside for the mitzvah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:4)].

Thus if he changes his mind again before drinking and decides to use the water for its original purpose, it is no longer acceptable.