Rambam - 1 Chapter 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.