Parah Adumah - Chapter 10

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.