Parah Adumah - Chapter 6

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.