diff --git "a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Taharah/Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/English/merged.json" "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Taharah/Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/English/merged.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Taharah/Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/English/merged.json" @@ -0,0 +1,220 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Red_Heifer", + "text": [ + [ + "The commandment involving the red heifer is to offer such an animal in its third or fourth year of life. If it is older, it is acceptable, but we do not wait for it to age longer, lest its hairs become black.
The Jewish community does not purchase a calf and raise it, for Numbers 19:2 states: \"And you shall take unto yourselves a heifer,\" i.e., a heifer, not a calf. If only a calf was found, a price is established for it and it should remain in its owner's possession until it matures and becomes a cow. It should be purchased with money from the Temple treasury.", + "The Torah's description of this heifer as \"perfect\" means \"perfectly red,\" not perfect in stature. Even if it is dwarfsize, it is acceptable, as is the law regarding other sacrifices. If it had two white hairs or black hairs growing from one follicle or from two cavities and they are lying on top of each other, it is unacceptable.", + "If there were two hairs, their roots reddish and their heads blackish, or their roots blackish and their heads reddish, their status follows the roots entirely. One should cut off the blackish head with scissors. He need not be concerned about the prohibition against shearing consecrated animals, because his intention is not to shear.", + "Enough of the red hair must remain so that it can be pulled out by tweezers. For if a hair is not large enough to be pulled out by tweezers, it is considered as if it does not exist. Therefore if there were two white or black hairs that are so small that they cannot be pulled out by tweezers, it is acceptable.", + "If its horns or hooves are black, they may be cut off and it is acceptable. The color of the eyeballs, the teeth, and the tongue do not disqualify a heifer.", + "If it had an abnormal growth of another color and one cut it off, even though red hair grew in its place, it is unacceptable.", + "All of the physical blemishes that disqualify sacrificial animals, also disqualify a red heifer, for the prooftext cited above states: \"Which does not possess a blemish.\" If the heifer was born by Caesarian section, was exchanged for a dog, was a present given a prostitute, was treifah, or had been sodomized, it is unacceptable. For any factor that invalidates a sacrificial animal for the altar invalidates the red heifer even though it is considered only as consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple, for Scripture has called it a sin-offering. It is permitted to purchase a red heifer from a gentile. We do not suspect that the gentile sodomized it, for he would not destroy the value of his animal.
There is a more severe element to the red heifer than to animals consecrated as sacrifices: work disqualifies it, for Numbers 19:2 states: \"upon which a yoke was never placed.\" Now concerning a calf whose neck is broken, Deuteronomy 21:3 states: \"With which no work was performed and which was not led with a yoke.\" Just as with regard to the yoke mentioned in connection with this calf, the Torah equated other labor with a yoke, so too, with regard to the red heifer, other forms of labor also disqualify it like a yoke does. There is, however, a greater stringency that applies with regard to a yoke. A yoke disqualifies the heifer whether it was placed upon it during work or not during work and other forms of labor disqualify it only when work was actually performed.
What is implied? If one tied a yoke upon it, it is disqualified even if one did not plow with it. If one placed it in a threshing team, it is not disqualified unless it actually threshed. Similar principles apply in analogous situations.
If one rode upon it, leaned upon it, hung on to its tail, crossed a river using it for support while swimming, folded its lead rope on top of it, placed his garment on it, placed a covering of sacks on it, it is disqualified. If one tied it with a rope because it was rebellious and required to be safeguarded, it is acceptable. If not, it is disqualified, for any safeguarding that is unnecessary is a burden.
If one shod its hooves so that it would not slip or spread his garment over it to protect it from flies, it is acceptable. This is the general principle: If anything is done for its own needs, it remains acceptable. If it is performed for another purpose, it is disqualified.
When work was performed with it as a matter of course or a yoke was placed over it as a matter of course, if the owner is pleased, it is disqualified. The rationale is that the verse above states: \"With which no work was performed.\" The implication is that if work was performed with it and the owner would be satisfied, it is as if he performed work with it. Therefore, if a bird rested upon it, it is acceptable. If a male mounted it, it is unacceptable. Needless to say, a pregnant heifer is unacceptable.
If one placed it among a team of animals and it threshed grain on its own accord, it remains acceptable. If he placed it among the team so that it would nurse and thresh, it is disqualified, for he is satisfied that the work is performed. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a disqualifying factor invalidates a red heifer, it should be redeemed. Similarly, if it dies, it should be redeemed so that its hide can be used. This, however, should not be done in order to feed its meat to the dogs.", + "If it was slaughtered to be used as an ordinary animal, it should be redeemed and it does not bring about atonement. If it was slaughtered on top of the arrangement of wood set up for burning it, it can never be redeemed.", + "If a red heifer was purchased and then one found a more attractive one, the first may be redeemed even if it does not have a blemish.", + "Even an ordinary priest is acceptable to perform the burning of the red heifer, as Numbers 9:3 states: \"And you shall give it to Elazar, the priest.\" At that time, Aaron was still alive. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: That red heifer was offered by Elazar. The remainder of the red heifers could be offered either by a High Priest or an ordinary priest.", + "The person offering the red heifer should wear the four garments of an ordinary priest. This applies whether it was offered by an ordinary priest or a High Priest.", + "All of those who were involved in the offering of the red heifer from the beginning to the end who had immersed that day are acceptable for the services associated with the red heifer, to consecrate the water used for sprinkling, and for sprinkling its ashes even though they did not wait until the nightfall after their immersion. The rationale is that the term \"a pure man\" used throughout that passage refers to one who is pure with regard to partaking of the second tithe, even though he is not pure with regard to partaking of terumah until nightfall. Such a person is pure with regard to the red heifer.", + "The Sadducees would say that the offering of the red heifer was acceptable only when those bringing it had waited until nightfall after immersion. Therefore in the Second Temple, the court would cause the priest who burned the red heifer to become ritually impure through contact with the carcass of a crawling animal or the like. He would immerse and then offer the red heifer to nullify the words of these brazen ones who issue rulings according to their whims without basis in the received tradition. Similarly, all of the containers into which the ashes of the red heifer were placed were all immersed that day.", + "For the same reason, a person who cuts the stalk of a reed to place the ashes of a red heifer upon it so they can be placed in water to consecrate it for sprinkling, should make it impure, immerse it, and then place the ashes in it. The one who cuts it and the one who immerses it must immerse themselves, because that reed was considered as an entity that came in contact with a corpse on the seventh day of its purification process. Therefore it does not need to have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled on it. Instead, it is made impure to show the Sadducees that the Oral Tradition should be upheld. It is then immersed and the ashes of the red heifer are placed in it." + ], + [ + "Extra stringencies were employed with regard to the purity observed in preparation for offering the red heifer and great extremes were taken to keep a distance from the ritual impurity associated with a human corpse in all the activities associated with its offering. The rationale is that since it is acceptable for a person who immersed that day to bring it, our Sages were concerned that people would treat this offering with disdain.
For this reason, when the priest who burns it is isolated, he is isolated to a prepared chamber in the Temple Courtyard. It was called the House of Stone, because all of the utensils in it were stone utensils that do not contract impurity. He would use the stone utensils throughout the seven days that he is isolated. His priestly brethren would not touch him in order to increase his purity.", + "For seven days before the burning of the red heifer, the priest who would burn it is isolated from his home, just like the High Priest is isolated for the sake of the service of Yom Kippur. This was received as part of the Oral Tradition from Moses. Similarly, he is isolated from his wife, lest it be discovered that she was a nidah and he be impure for seven days.", + "The chamber in which this priest would abide for all these seven days was in the northeast portion of the Temple Courtyard. It was positioned there to remind the priest that the red heifer is like a sin-offering that is slaughtered in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard, even though the red heifer is slaughtered outside the Temple.", + "On every one of the seven days of his isolation, water with the ashes of the red heifer should be sprinkled upon him lest he unknowingly have contracted impurity due to contact with a corpse with the exception of the fourth day of his isolation. That day does not require sprinkling. The rationale is that it is impossible for it to be the third day of his impurity or the seventh day of his impurity. For the sprinkling of the ashes on the seventh day is not considered as the sprinkling of the seventh day unless the ashes were sprinkled on the third day before it. According to law, there is no need to sprinkle the ashes upon him on any days other than the third and the seventh days of isolation. The sprinkling day after day is an extra stringency enacted with regard to the red heifer.", + "He would be isolated on Wednesday, so that the fourth day of his isolation would fall on the Sabbath, for the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, and the fourth day does not require the sprinkling of the ashes.", + "On all the days of his isolation when the ashes of the red heifer are sprinkled upon him, the ashes of all the red heifers that were burnt previously were sprinkled on him. If, however, there were only ashes from one red heifer, those ashes are used for all six days.", + "When the ashes of the red heifer are sprinkled upon him during the days of his isolation, the sprinkling should be performed by a man who never contracted the ritual impurity stemming from a human corpse. The rationale is that the person sprinkling the ashes must be pure. If one would say: \"Let so-and-so, a person who had contracted impurity, but then had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him, sprinkle the ashes on the priest who will burn the red heifer,\" that suggestion is not followed. The rationale is that it is possible that the person who sprinkled the ashes upon so-and-so was not pure from the impurity associated with a corpse. Similarly, the utensils that are used to be filled and consecrated to sprinkle on the priest who burns the red heifer were all stone utensils that are not susceptible to ritual impurity. All of these practices are extra stringencies enacted with regard to the red heifer.
How is it possible to find a person who has never contracted the impurity associated with a human corpse? There were courtyards in Jerusalem built on slabs of stone and the space under them was hollow lest there be a grave in the depths of the earth. Pregnant women were brought there; they would give birth there, and raise their sons there. When they wanted to sprinkle ashes on the priest who would burn the red heifer, they would bring oxen - because they have ample bellies - and place doors on their backs and have the children sit on the boards so that there would be an ohel intervening between them and the earth lest they contract impurity from a grave in the depths of the earth. They would have cups of stone in their hands and would go to the Shiloach spring. When they reached the Shiloach, the children would descend and fill the cups. We do not suspect that they will contract impurity from a grave in the depths of the earth at the spring, because it is not ordinary practice to bury the dead in streams.
They would ascend and sit on the doors and proceed upward until they reach the Temple Mount. When they reached the Temple Mount, they would descend and proceed on their feet, because the entire area of the Temple Mount and its courtyards was built over a hollow cavity, lest there be a grave in the depths of the earth.
They would proceed to the entrance to the Temple Courtyard. At the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, there was a pitcher of ashes. They would take the ashes and place them on the water in the cups and sprinkle them on the priest who burns the heifer.
The children who would fill the water, would consecrate it with the ashes and sprinkle it on the priest who burns the heifer must immerse in a mikveh. Even though they are pure with regard to the impurity associated with a human corpse, it is possible that they contracted other forms of impurity.", + "When a child immersed himself in a mikveh in order to fill pitchers with water and sprinkle it, another child should not fill those containers with water even though he immersed himself.
When a child immersed himself to sprinkle the water of the ashes on one priest, he may not sprinkle the water on another priest until he immerses again for the sake of purifying that priest. Similarly, when utensils or people were purified for the sake of offering one red heifer, they should not become involved in the offering of another red heifer until they immerse themselves for its sake. All of these are extra stringencies required for the offering of the red heifer." + ], + [ + "The red heifer should be burnt only outside the Temple Mount, as Numbers 19:3 states: \"And you shall take it outside the camp.\" They would burn it on the Mount of Olives. A ramp was built from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives. Below it were arches upon arches, i.e., an arch on two arches, so that there would be empty space under it, lest there be a grave in the depths of the earth. Similarly, the place where the heifer was burnt and the place of immersion on the Mount of Olives had the space under them hollowed, lest there be a grave in the depths of the earth.
The red heifer, the one who would burn it, and all those who assist in its burning go from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives on this ramp.", + "How was the red heifer burnt? The elders of Israel would walk to the Mount of Olives first. There was a mikveh there. The priest, those assisting in burning it, and the heifer would go out on the ramp and come to the Mount of Olives.
There they would make the priest impure. The elders would rest their hands on the priest and tell him: \"Immerse yourself.\" If he was a High Priest, they would tell him: \"My sir, the High Priest, immerse yourself.\" He would descend, immerse himself, ascend, and dry himself.
There was wood arranged there: cedar wood, oak wood, pine wood, and smooth fig wood. An arrangement like a tower was made and windows were made in the midst of it, so that the fire would flame in them. The front of the arrangement was in the west.
The heifer would be tied with a rope of love grass and it would be brought onto the arrangement with its head to the south and its face to the west. The priest would stand to the east with his head facing west. He would slaughter the heifer with his right hand and receive its blood in his left hand. With his right finger, he would sprinkle from the blood in his left palm seven times toward the Holy of Holies. He would dip his finger in the blood for every sprinkling. The remainder of the blood on his finger was disqualified for sprinkling, Therefore, after every sprinkling, he would clean his finger on the body of the heifer.
When he completed sprinkling, he would clean his hands on the body of the heifer and descend from the arrangement. He would light the fire with small kindling twigs and place them below the wood of the arrangement. The fire would begin to catch in it. The priest would stand at a distance and watch it until the fire catches in its larger portion and its belly becomes ripped open.
Afterwards, he takes a branch of a cedar tree and hyssop that is at least a handbreadth long, and wool dyed crimson weighing five selaim. He asks the people standing there: \"Is this a piece of cedar?\" \"Is this a piece of cedar?\" \"Is this a piece of cedar?\" \"Is this hyssop?\" \"Is this hyssop?\" \"Is this hyssop?\" \"Is this a crimson thread?\" \"Is this a crimson thread?\" \"Is this a crimson thread?\", asking each question three times. They answer: \"Yes!\" \"Yes!\" \"Yes!\", three times for each set of questions.
Why is all this necessary? Because there are seven species of cedar, four species of hyssop, and several options to produce red dye. Some dye with madder and some dye with lacca sap, and some dye with tola'at. Tola'at refers to very red berries that resemble carob seeds. They are like sumach berries. There is a bug, like a gnat, in every berry. Since there are different types of species for each of the entities involved, the priest notifies everyone and informs them that these are the species mentioned in the Torah.
The hyssop mentioned in the Torah is the type of hyssop eaten by home-owners and used as a condiment in certain dishes. The hyssop, cedar, and wool dyed crimson are all absolute requirements, without one of which, the others are not acceptable. The priest should bind the hyssop together with the cedar branch with the crimson thread and then throw them into the belly of the heifer, as Numbers 19:6 states: \"He shall cast them into the midst of the conflagration of the heifer.\"
He should not cast them into the heifer until the fire has caught hold of the larger portion of it and not after it has been reduced to ashes. If he casts them at those times, it is unacceptable, as indicated by the phrase: \"into the midst of the conflagration,\" i.e., not before the fire has caught onto its larger portion and not after it was reduced to ashes. Whether one cast all three of them together or one after the other, whether one cast them into the heifer's body or into the fire, whether its belly burst open on its own accord or the priest ripped it open by hand or with a utensil, it is acceptable.", + "When the process of burning it has been completed, its remnants and all of the pieces of wood in its arrangement that were burnt with it are beaten with clubs and everything is raked out with rakes. Anything - whether from its flesh or from the wood - that has been blackened and is possible to be crushed and reduced to ashes, should be crushed and reduced to ashes. If something has no trace of ash on it, it is left. Any piece of bone that remains from the heifer's bones that was not burnt should be crushed regardless.", + "None of its ashes are brought into the Temple Courtyard for storage, as ibid.:9 states: \"And he shall place it outside the camp.\" The ashes were divided into three portions: one was placed in the chayl, one on the Mount of Olives, and one was divided among all the priestly guardposts.
The one that was divided among all the priestly watches was used by the priests to sanctify themselves. The one that was placed on the Mount of Olives was used by the entire Jewish people for sprinkling. And the one that was placed in the chayl was prepared and hidden away, as implied by ibid. which states: \"It will be a security for the congregation of Israel.\" This teaches that it was put away for safekeeping.
Indeed, in the chayl, they would put away for safekeeping a portion of the ashes from every red heifer that was burnt. Nine red heifers were offered from the time that they were commanded to fulfill this mitzvah until the time when the Temple was destroyed a second time. The first was brought by Moses our teacher. The second was brought by Ezra. Seven others were offered until the destruction of the Second Temple. And the tenth will be brought by the king Mashiach; may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be G‑d's will." + ], + [ + "Two red heifers should not be slaughtered at the same time, as Numbers 19:3 states: \"And you shall slaughter it.\"", + "If the red heifer did not desire to go out, a black one should not be taken out with it, so that it would not be said: \"They slaughtered a black one.\" Nor is another red one taken out, so that it would not be said: \"They slaughtered two at once.\"", + "When a red heifer was slaughtered with another intent in mind or its blood was received or sprinkled with another intent in mind, with the proper intent and another intent in mind, or with another intent and the proper intent in mind, it was offered by someone other than a priest, or it was offered by a priest lacking one or more of the priestly garments, while wearing the golden garments, or while wearing ordinary garments, it is unacceptable.
If it was slaughtered with the intent of partaking of its flesh or drinking its blood, it is acceptable. The rationale is that the expression \"a pleasant fragrance\" was not stated with regard to it.", + "If its blood was received in a container, it is unacceptable, as Numbers 19:4 states: \"And Elazar the priest will take the blood with his finger.\" The mitzvah is performed with the finger and not with a utensil.", + "If he sprinkled the blood, even one sprinkling with a utensil, the sprinkling is unacceptable. If he performed one sprinkling with his left hand, it is unacceptable. If seven priests sprinkled the blood at the same time, their sprinkling is unacceptable. If they did so one after the other, it is acceptable.
If he sprinkled the blood, but did not direct it to the Sanctuary, it is unacceptable, as ibid. states: \"opposite the front of the Tent of Meeting.\" Implied is that he should direct it toward the Sanctuary and see the Sanctuary. Similarly, if he slaughtered it or burnt it not opposite the Sanctuary, it is unacceptable, as implied by Numbers 19:3: \"He shall slaughter it before him.\"", + "When does the above apply? When he sprinkled the blood or burnt or slaughtered the heifer southward or northward, or with his back to the Sanctuary. If, however, he stood between the east and the west and faced the Sanctuary, even if he did not direct himself toward the Sanctuary exactly, it is acceptable.", + "If one of the sprinklings is lacking, it is unacceptable. If one dipped his finger in the blood twice and sprinkled once, the sprinkling is unacceptable. If he dipped his finger once and sprinkled twice, even if he did not count the second sprinkling and instead, dipped his finger and sprinkled a second time, it is unacceptable.
What is implied? He dipped his finger in the blood for the sixth time and performed the sixth and seventh sprinklings, it is unacceptable, even if he dipped his finger in the blood again and sprinkled it a seventh time. If, after dipping his finger into the blood for the seventh time, he performed a seventh and eighth sprinkling - even if he dipped his finger into the blood an eighth time and then sprinkled it an eighth time, it is acceptable, for any addition over the seven is of no consequence, provided it is another priest making the addition. If, however, the priest burning it made the additional sprinkling, it is unacceptable, because he involved himself in an unnecessary activity while burning it.", + "If one removed the blood from its arrangement and then sprinkled it, it is invalid.", + "If one sprinkled its blood at night - even if one performed seven sprinklings during the day and one at night - it is unacceptable.", + "If one slaughtered it outside the place where it is burnt, even if one slaughtered it within the walls of Jerusalem, it is unacceptable.", + "If one burnt it outside the arrangement on which it was slaughtered, it was divided in two and burnt in two arrangements, or two heifers were burned on one arrangement, it is disqualified. If it was already reduced to ashes, one may bring another one and slaughter it over the ashes of the first without any qualms.", + "If one skinned it and cut it into pieces and then burnt it in its entirety, it is acceptable. If any slight part of its substance, even its dung, is lacking, it is unacceptable. If an olive-sized portion of its skin, meat, or even its hair flew off its pyre, it should be returned. If he did not return it, it is unacceptable.
If it flew outside its arrangement, one should place much wood over it and burn it in its place. If its horns, its hooves, or its dung flew off, they need not be returned to the pyre.", + "The red heifer is not disqualified if it is left overnight without being burnt. Therefore if it was slaughtered on one day and its blood sprinkled as required and then it was burned on the following day, it is acceptable.", + "If the priest who burns it is in the acute state of onein mourning or is lacking atonement, it is acceptable.", + "If one burnt it without sanctifying his hands and feet, it is invalid, because the process of offering the red heifer is comparable to sacrificial worship.
Where does he sanctify his hands and feet? From a consecrated vessel in the Temple Courtyard. If one consecrated them outside the Temple Courtyard with an ordinary vessel, even with a tiny earthenware cup, it is acceptable, because the entire process of offering the heifer is performed outside.
When the priest who burns the red heifer immerses himself after he is made impure, as we explained, he need not sanctify his hands and feet again, since the entire process of offering it is performed by those who immersed that day.", + "If one burnt it without wood or with all types of wood, even with straw and stubble, it is acceptable, The optimum way of performing the mitzvah is not to reduce the wood less than is appropriate. On the contrary, one should add to it bundles of hyssop and Greek hyssop while it is burning to increase the amount of ashes. One may add to its conflagration until the heifer itself is reduced to ashes. Once it is reduced to ashes, if one added even one piece of wood to it, it is like one who mixed ashes from a range with the ashes of the red heifer.", + "All of the activities performed with the red heifer from the beginning to the end must be performed only during the day and by male priests and the performance of work disqualifies it until it is reduced to ashes. Once it is reduced to ashes, it is acceptable even if its ashes were collected at night, by a woman, or one performed another task while collecting them.
What is the source that teaches that the collection of the ashes is acceptable if performed by any person with the exception of a deafmute, an intellectually or emotionally incapable person, or a minor? It is written Numbers 19:9: \"And a pure man shall gather the ashes of the heifer.\" It can be derived that a priest is not required. Moreover, it is as if it said \"a pure person,\" i.e., either a man or a woman.
What source teaches that the performance of work disqualifies it? Ibid.:3 states: \"And he shall slaughter it.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this phrase comes solely to teach that if the priest becomes involved in another task at the time of slaughter, it is unacceptable. And ibid.:5 states: \"And the heifer shall be burnt before his eyes,\" i.e., his eyes should be concentrated on it. This teaches that the performance of work causes it to be disqualified from the time of its slaughter until it is reduced to ashes. Anyone involved in burning it who performs another task disqualifies it until it is reduced to ashes.", + "If one slaughtered the heifer and another animal was slaughtered with it or a gourd was cut with it, it is acceptable because he did not intend to perform work. This applies even though the animal that was slaughtered with it is acceptable to be eaten, for the slaughter of ordinary animals does not require concentrated intent. If, however, one had the intent of cutting the gourd and it was cut while he was slaughtering the red heifer, the heifer is disqualified, because work was performed during its slaughter." + ], + [ + "All of those involved in offering the red heifer from the beginning to the end become impure and impart impurity to their garments as long as they are involved in its being offered. This concept is derived as follows: With regard to the one who slaughters the heifer and one who casts the cedar wood into its belly, Numbers 19:7 states: \"The priest shall launder his clothes and wash his flesh.\" And with regard to the one who burns it, ibid.:8 states: \"The one who burns it shall launder his clothes,\" and ibid.:10 states: \"The one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall launder....\"
These verses teach that all those involved in offering it from the beginning until the end impart impurity to their clothes, must immerse themselves, and wait for nightfall to regain purity according to Scriptural Law. One who guards the heifer at the time it is being offered imparts impurity to his garments according to Rabbinic Law. This is a decree lest he move one of its limbs.", + "Whenever the Torah states with regard to impurity: \"One shall launder his clothes,\" it does not come merely to teach that the clothes on a person are impure. Instead, it teaches that every garment or implement that this impure person will touch while he is still in contact with the object that imparted impurity to him becomes impure. After he separates himself from the object that imparted impurity to him, he does not impart impurity to his garments or to other objects.
What is implied? A person who carries an animal carcass imparts impurity to the clothes he is wearing and to any implement he touches as long as he is carrying it. They are considered as a first degree derivative of impurity. Similarly, the one who carries the animal carcass is considered as impure to the first degree. If he ceased contact with the object that imparted ritual impurity, casting away the animal carcass, he remains impure to the first degree as before. If, however, he touches an implement or a garment, he does not impart impurity to it, for a derivative of ritual impurity does not impart impurity to implements, as we explained in the beginning of this text. Similar laws apply to all types of impurity analogous to that imparted by an animal carcass.
Similarly, with regard to all those involved in offering the red heifer: If they touch a garment or an implement at the time they are slaughtering or burning the heifer, it becomes impure. After such an individual ceased the tasks involved with it, however, even though he has not yet immersed, he does not impart impurity to an implement that he touches, because he is merely a derivative of impurity.
The red heifer itself does not impart impurity to a person or to implements that touch it. It is only those involved in its offering who become impure, must immerse themselves, and impart impurity to their garments, as long as they are involved in its offering.", + "When does the above apply? When the red heifer was burnt as prescribed. If, however, it was disqualified, those involved in offering it are pure. If a disqualifying factor occurred during its slaughter, it does not cause a person's garments to become impure. If a disqualifying factor occurs during the sprinkling of its blood, those who were involved with its offering before it was disqualified impart impurity to their garments. Those involved after its disqualification do not impart impurity to their garments.", + "When the collection of its ashes was completed, anyone who is involved with it - i.e., with the division of its ashes or with setting them aside for safekeeping - or who touches it, is pure.
These principles do not apply to the red heifer alone, but also to all the sin-offerings of bulls and goats that are burnt. One who burns them imparts impurity to his garments while he is burning them until they are reduced to ashes. For behold, with regard to the bull and the goat burned on Yom Kippur, Leviticus 16:25 states: \"The one who burns them shall launder his garments.\" According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that this is a general rule applying to all those who burn sacrificial offerings, teaching that they impart impurity to their garments until the offerings are reduced to ashes.
When does the above apply? When no disqualifying factor occurred and they were burned in the ashheap as prescribed. If, however, they were disqualified in the Temple Courtyard, they are burned there like disqualified offerings and the one who burns them is ritually pure. Similarly, one who is involved with these offerings after they have been reduced to ashes does not impart impurity to his garments.
Who is considered as \"one who burns\" it? Anyone who helps in burning it, for example, one who turns over the meat, one who places wood upon it, one who fans the fire, one who stirs the coals so that the fire will burn, and the like. In contrast, one who kindles the flame and one who builds the arrangement are pure.
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that one who carries the bulls and the goats that are burnt to transport them to the ashheap to burn them is ritually impure and imparts impurity to his garments according to Scriptural Law as long as he is involved in transporting them. To regain purity, he is required to immerse himself in a mikveh and wait until nightfall like the one who sends the goat to Azazel. The latter imparts impurity to all the garments and all the implements that he touches that are on him throughout the time he is involved in sending the goat to its destination, as ibid.:26 states: \"The one who sends the goat to Azazel shall launder his garments.\"", + "From when do those who carry the bulls and goats that are burnt impart impurity to their garments? When they take them out of the Temple Courtyard. If they carried them with poles and some of those carrying them left the walls of the Temple Courtyard and others did not depart, those that departed impart impurity to their garments. Those who did not yet depart do not impart impurity to their garments until they depart.
If they depart and then return to the Temple Courtyard and transfer the carcasses to others, the others who carry them in the Temple Courtyard are pure until they take them out.
If a person was standing outside the Courtyard and was pulling the poles on which the carcasses were hanging from the Courtyard after they were returned there, he is considered as being impure of doubtful status, since the sacrificial animals had already been taken outside and the one pulling them was standing outside.", + "When does the person who sends the goat to Azazel impart impurity to his garments? From the time he departs Jerusalem until he pushes the goat off the cliff to Azazel. After he pushes it off the cliff, if he touches implements or garments, they are pure.", + "When an entity - whether a person, an implement, food, or liquid - touches the bodies of the bulls and the goats that are burnt, even after they have been taken out of the Temple Courtyard, everything is pure. Similarly, if they would touch the goat sent to Azazel itself while it is being carried there, they would be pure. For these sacrificial animals impart impurity only to one who is involved with carrying them, as indicated by Leviticus 16:28: \"The one who burns them shall launder his garments.\" One who touches, by contrast, is pure." + ], + [ + "The water upon which the ashes of the red heifer are placed must be drawn only with a container and only from a spring or flowing river, as Numbers 19:17 states: \"And he shall place upon it living water in a vessel.\"
Placing the ashes of the heifer on the water that was drawn is called sanctification. The water on which the ashes were placed is called mei chatat and sanctified water. Scripture Numbers 19:9 refers to them as mei nidah, \"sprinkling water.\"", + "Everyone is acceptable to draw the water for the ashes of the red heifer, except a deafmute, an intellectually or emotionally compromised person, and a minor. Similarly, everyone is acceptable to sanctify the water except a deafmute, an intellectually or emotionally compromised person, and a minor.
One must draw such water and sanctify it only with a vessel and one may sprinkle the ashes only from a vessel. Drawing this water and sanctifying it is acceptable at night, but the sprinkling and the immersion of the hyssop in the water is acceptable only during the day. The entire day is fit for the sprinkling and this immersion.", + "One may draw this water, sprinkle it when mixed with the ashes, and sanctify it with all vessels, even vessels made of animal turds, stone, or earth, or a ship. This applies to earthenware utensils and all other utensils. One may not, however, draw this water, sprinkle the water, or sanctify it with the walls of a vessel, the base of an earthenware distributor of water, the sealing of a jug, one's hands, an egg-shell, or a trough within a natural rock. One may, however, used an egg made by a potter, because it is considered as a vessel made from earth.", + "We may not sanctify with the base of a wooden vessel, that of a glass vessel, or that of a bone vessel unless they were smoothed down, repaired, and made into vessels in their own right. Similarly, if the sealing of a jug was fixed to serve as a vessel, one may sanctify the water with it. An ostrich egg is acceptable for sanctification. Needless to say, it is acceptable to be used to draw this water and sprinkle from it.", + "When a utensil was attached to the earth or to rock, even if it was attached with lime, one may sanctify in it or sprinkle from it. The following laws apply if one made a border of clay around such a container and the water in the container was filled beyond its limits until it is held within the border. If the border remains intact when the container is moved, the water in it is acceptable. It is as if it is in a container made from earth. If not, it is as if one formed a border of clay on a rock or on the earth and filled it with water. This would be unacceptable, because the water is not in a container.", + "When an earthenware container has been perforated to the extent that water would enter it, one may not draw this water or sanctify it with it. If, however, its hole is smaller and water will leak out, but will not enter, one may sanctify with it.", + "When a container has been perforated from below and plugged close with rags, it is invalid. The rationale is that the water in it is not resting on the base of the utensil, but on the plug. If it was perforated from the side and plugged, it is acceptable to draw this water, sanctify it, and sprinkle it using such a container.", + "When someone splashes water from a spring with his hands or his feet or with shards, causing them to enter a barrel, the water is unacceptable to be used for a red heifer, because it was not drawn with a utensil. Even if one placed the barrel in the water and pushed the water with his hands or feet or with vegetable leaves so that it flows into the barrel, it is unacceptable. Similarly, if one submerged articles into water so that the water would rise and flow into the barrel, it is unacceptable. If one did the above with the leaves of reeds or nut shells, the water is acceptable.
This is the general principle: If one uses something that is fit to contract ritual impurity to help move the water so that the container will become full, the water is unacceptable. If one used something that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, it is acceptable.", + "If one causes a spring to flow into a vat or into a pool and then drew water with a container from that pool or vat, it is unacceptable. For at the outset, one must draw water from the spring with a container.", + "The Great Sea is considered like a mikveh and not like a spring. Therefore water to be sanctified may not be drawn from it. Water from all of the rivers is unacceptable to be sanctified to serve as the water for the ashes of the red heifer. Other seas or lakes are like springs.", + "Water that flows out from other seas is called running water and is unacceptable. Water flowing from a stream is considered as the stream itself and is acceptable.", + "Spoiled springs and \"lying\" waters are unacceptable. The following types of springs are termed spoiled: salty springs or hot springs. \"Lying\" waters refer to springs that sometimes flow and sometimes, run dry and are arid. Even if they run dry only once in seven years, they are unacceptable. If, however, they run dry only in years of drought or less frequently than once in seven years, or their waters were, at times, abundant and, at times, sparse, but they do not run entirely dry, they are acceptable. When a stream is first discovered, it is deemed acceptable. There is no need to see whether it will run dry in certain years.", + "Swamps and waters like those of the Jordan and the Yarmuch are unacceptable, because they are mixed waters. This is what is meant by the term \"mixed waters\": water that is fit to be sanctified that is mixed with water that is unfit. Water should not be drawn from such a mixture. When, by contrast, water that is acceptable becomes mixed with other water that is acceptable, e.g., the water of two streams become mixed and flow together, water for the ashes of a red heifer may be drawn from them.", + "If the appearance or flavor of water changes because of itself, it is acceptable.", + "If a shard or earth fell into a well and caused its water to become murky, one may still draw water for the ashes of a red heifer from it. It is not necessary to wait until the water clears. If a flow of rainwater falls into it, one should wait until the water becomes clear.", + "It is acceptable to draw water for the ashes of the red heifer from an irrigation canal that brings water from a distance, since it originates in a wellspring, provided one is careful that a person does not interrupt the flow. Were that to happen, one would be drawing water that originated in a wellspring, but was interrupted; this is not acceptable." + ], + [ + "The performance of work disqualifies water that was drawn for the ashes of the red heifer before it is sanctified, but it does not disqualify the sprinkling of the ashes. These rulings are stated in the Oral Tradition.
What is implied? If one draws water for sanctification with the ashes and was involved with another activity while drawing it, carrying the water that was drawn, or pouring it from one container to another, he disqualifies it.
The performance of an activity disqualifies the water until the ashes are placed on it. If one placed the ashes on the water and sanctified it, causing it to be fit for sprinkling, the performance of another activity does not disqualify it. If one carries sanctified water from place to place or pours it from one container to another while being occupied with another activity, it is of no consequence. This also applies if one sprinkles it with one hand and performs an activity with the other hand.", + "The payment of a wage disqualifies the sanctification of the water and the sprinkling of it, but it does not disqualify the drawing of it.
What is implied? When one takes a wage for sanctifying the water for the ashes of the red heifer or sprinkling it, the water is considered as the water of a cavern and the ashes, as ashes from a range, which are of no halachic significance. One may, however, take a wage for drawing the water or transporting it. One should sanctify it without charge and the one who sprinkles it, should sprinkle it without charge.
If the one sanctifying or sprinkling the water was old and unable to walk and an impure person came and asked him to go with him to a distant place to sanctify such water or sprinkle it, he may have him ride on a donkey and pay him a wage as befits an unemployed worker who had previously worked at that profession. Similarly, if he was a priest and because he would accompany him, he would contract an impurity that prevents him from partaking of terumah, he should feed him, give him beverages, and oil to anoint himself during the time he travels with him to sanctify or sprinkle the water. If he causes him to cease working, he should pay him a wage as befits an unemployed worker who had previously worked at that profession.
The rationale is that all of these considerations are not wages he is being paid for sanctifying or sprinkling the water, for he did not profit at all. He only took compensation for what he lost.", + "When a person draws water with one hand and performs work with his other hand, the water is unacceptable. Similarly, if he drew water for himself and for another person or he drew water for two people at the same time, both are unacceptable. For drawing water is considered as work. Thus during each of the drawings of water, it is as if he performed another task at that time. And we have already stated that the performance of an activity disqualifies the drawing of water, whether one draws for himself or for others.", + "When a person draws water for the ashes of the red heifer for others - even if he filled one thousand barrels one after the other for one thousand different people - they are all acceptable. Each person should take his water and sanctify it.
The following rules apply if one drew water for himself, one barrel after another. If he intended to collect all the water in one container, cast the ashes upon it, and sanctify all at once, it is all acceptable, for it is all considered as one drawing of water. If, however, he intended to sanctify every barrel individually, they are all unacceptable except for the last one. The rationale is that the first becomes disqualified due to the work - i.e., the drawing of the second barrel - that was performed before it was sanctified. Similarly, the second is disqualified by the drawing of the third. Thus it is only the last which is acceptable.", + "When five people fill five barrels with spring water to sanctify them for five different sanctifications, e.g., they intended to cast the ashes on each one individually and then changed their minds and decided to mix them all together and sanctify them at once; alternatively, they filled the barrels to sanctify them all in one container and then changed their minds and decided to sanctify each of the five independently, they are all acceptable, because the person drawing the water did not become involved in drawing other water afterwards. When, by contrast, an individual fills five barrels to sanctify each of the five independently, only the last one is acceptable,
If he filled the barrels to sanctify all the water in one container and he changed his mind and sanctified each of the five individually, only the one that he sanctified first is acceptable. Similarly, if a person told a colleague: \"Sanctify these for yourself,\" only the bucket that is sanctified first is acceptable. If, however, he told him: \"Sanctify these for me,\" they are all acceptable, because they were all filled to be sanctified in one container. Even though he changed his mind and decided to sanctify each of the five individually, he himself did not perform the sanctification, someone else did.", + "When a person seeks to draw water to sanctify it and other water for his own purposes, he should draw the water he desires for his own purposes first and tie the barrels and load them behind him. Afterwards, he fills the buckets he intended to use for the water for the ashes of the red heifer so that he will not be involved in any work after drawing it. He places it in front of him, and proceeds.", + "The following laws apply when two people were drawing water individually and one helped the other lift his water to load it on his back or one removed a thorn from the other's hand or body when he was drawing the water. If they both drew the water to sanctify it in a single container, all of the water is acceptable. If each of them drew the water to sanctify it independently, the one who helped his colleague lift his water or removed the thorn, disqualified his own water.", + "When a person borrows a rope to draw water for the ashes of the red heifer, draws the water, takes the rope in his hand, and the water on his shoulders, and meets the owner of the rope while he is on his way, the water remains acceptable even though he give him the rope while he is walking. If he went out of his way to bring the rope to its owner, he disqualified the water.", + "If someone who was drawing water for the ashes of the red heifer cast the rope he used to draw the water on the ground and after he drew the water gathered the rope in his hand, he disqualified the water. If, while drawing the water, he gathered the rope, winding it around his hand, the water is acceptable.", + "When one was drawing water with a small jug and pouring the water into a larger barrel and he put aside the larger barrel so that it would not break while he was drawing the water or he turned it upside down to dry it so he could fill it, the water is acceptable, for these activities were performed for the sake of drawing the water. If, however, before sanctifying the water he had drawn, he set the barrel aside or dried it to transport the water he would sanctify, he disqualified the water, because he performed a task that was not for the purpose of drawing the water. Similar laws apply when one who was drawing water and pouring the water into a trough within a stone removed shards from the trough while filling it. If his intent was so that the trough would hold more water, the water is acceptable, for this is considered as for the purpose of drawing water. If his intent is that the shards should prevent the water from flowing out when he seeks to draw off the water with which he filled the trough, the water is unacceptable.", + "The following rules apply when a person thinks of filling a bucket of water to drink and changes his mind and decides to use the water for the ashes of the red heifer]. If he changed his mind before the bucket reached the water, he must pour the water out, but he does not have to dry out the bucket. If he changed his mind after the bucket reached the water, he must pour it out and he must dry it. Only afterwards, may he fill it with water for the ashes of the red heifer.
If he lowered the bucket towards the water with the intent of using the water to drink and the rope broke away from his hand, if he changed his mind before the bucket reached the water, he must pour the water out, but he does not have to dry out the bucket. If he changed his mind while the bucket was still in the water and intended to use the water for the ashes of the red heifer, he must pour it out, but does not have to dry the bucket.
When a person drew water to use for the ashes of the red heifer and, after drawing it, thought to drink it, the water is disqualified from the time he inclined the container to drink from it, even though he did not drink from it at all." + ], + [ + "When a person was carrying water for the ashes of the red heifer on his shoulders and he stood and delivered a halachic ruling for others, rendered a judgment, a woman performed chalitzah in his presence, a girl performed mi'un in his presence, he gave directions to others, killed a snake or scorpion that did not present a threat to him, or took food from the market to set aside, the water is disqualified. The rationale is that he occupied himself with another activity before placing the ashes on the water.
If, however, he took food in order to eat and ate while he was proceeding on his way or killed a snake or scorpion that was preventing his progress, the water is acceptable, for these activities are necessary to carry the water. This is the general principle: Any activity that is considered as work which was performed before placing the ashes on the water, whether he stood still or not, disqualifies the water. When he performs an activity that is not considered as work, if he does not stand still, the water is acceptable. If he stands still, it is disqualified.
If he was walking while carrying such water and, while he was walking, he made an opening to walk through, the water he is carrying is acceptable, even though he made the opening with the intent of closing it afterwards. If he closes it before placing the ashes on the water, the water is disqualified. Similarly, if he dries fruit to eat, even if later he intends to dry the remainder, the water is acceptable. If he dries the remaining fruit before placing the ashes on the water, it is disqualified.", + "The following laws apply if one was eating while carrying such water; he left over some food and cast the leftovers under a fig tree or under a net used to dry figs. If his intent was to prevent the food from perishing, the water is disqualified, because he performed work. If he cast it away because he no longer needs it, the water is acceptable.
When a person drew water to sanctify it and entrusted it to a watchman to oversee, the water is not disqualified if the owner performed work, because he entrusted it to a watchman. If the watchman performs work, he disqualifies it, because the water is in his domain and he takes the place of the owner.
If two people are watching such water and one performs work, the water is acceptable, because the other is watching. If the first returned to his watch and the second stood up and performed work, the water is acceptable. The water's status is maintained unless all of the watchmen perform work at the same time.", + "The following rules apply when a person sanctifies water with one hand and performs work with another. If he sanctifies the water for himself, he disqualifies it, because he performed work before casting the ashes on the water. If he sanctified water for his colleague, the water is acceptable, because a person does not disqualify a colleague's water with the performance of such work. For the performance of work does not disqualify the act of sanctification; it disqualifies only the water, and that, only when the one performing the work is a watchman or the owner.", + "When a person sanctifies water for himself and a colleague at the same time, his water is disqualified because of the activity he performed in sanctifying his colleague's water. If, however, he sanctifies water belonging to two other people at the same time, they are both acceptable, because the performance of work does not disqualify water belonging to others.", + "When a person fills two buckets with his two hands for himself and sanctifies them at once, they are disqualified. If he sanctifies them individually, they are acceptable. If he sanctifies water for himself with both hands at the same time in one sanctification, it is acceptable. If he sanctified two buckets at the same time, they are both disqualified. If, with his two hands, he filled one bucket of water and sanctified another existing bucket for himself, they are both disqualified.
If he filled two buckets with his two hands for another person at the same time, when they are sanctified at once, they are both acceptable. If they were sanctified individually, they are disqualified. If he sanctifies water for another person with both hands at the same time as one sanctification it is acceptable. If, with his two hands, he filled one bucket of water and sanctified another existing bucket for another person, the bucket he filled is disqualified, but the bucket he sanctified is acceptable.
This is the general principle: Whenever work was performed when water was drawn, whether one drew the water for himself or for another person, it is disqualified, Whenever water was drawn according to law and then one performed work before placing the ashes upon it, if the water belonged to him, it is disqualified. If it belongs to someone else, it is acceptable.
In any situation when the water is in his hand and he performs work, whether there is a watchman who does not perform work or whether there is no watchman, the water is disqualified. When the water is not in his hand and he performed work, if there is a watchman, it is not disqualified. If there is no watchman, it is disqualified.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"Sanctify water for me and I will sanctify water for you,\" and they sanctified water for each other, the first is acceptable and the second is disqualified, because he received a wage for sanctifying.
If one tells the other: \"Draw water for me and I will draw water for you,\" and they drew water for each other, the first is unacceptable. The rationale is that since his intent was that his colleague should draw water for him in exchange, it is considered as if he drew water for himself and another person at the same time, in which instance, the water is disqualified. The second bucket is acceptable, because it is permitted to receive payment for drawing water and he did not perform work after drawing the water, nor did have an intent regarding another drawing of water.", + "When a person tells a friend: \"Sanctify water for me and I will draw water for you,\" they are both acceptable. The rationale is that work does not disqualify sanctification and it permitted to receive a wage for drawing water.
If one tells the other: \"Draw water for me and I will sanctify water for you,\" they are both disqualified. The water drawn originally is disqualified, because it is considered as if he drew water and sanctified it at the same time and thus caused the water he drew to be disqualified because of the performance of work. And the water sanctified afterwards is disqualified, because it is as if he sanctified water for a wage, because it is as if he was repaying a debt for which he was liable.", + "When a person goes to sanctify water for the ashes of the red heifer, he may take the key to the closet where the ashes are kept and open it to take out the ashes. If it is necessary to dig out the ashes, he may take a hatchet. He may take a ladder and carry it from place to place to bring the ashes. In all these circumstances, the water and the ashes remain acceptable. If after taking the ashes for the sanctification, he covered the container in which the ashes were held, locked the door of the closet, or stood the container where the ashes were held upright on the ground before casting the ashes on the water, the water is disqualified, but the ashes are acceptable to sanctify other water.
If, by contrast, he stood the container in which the ashes were held upright in his hand so that the remaining ashes would not be scattered, it is acceptable, because it is impossible to do otherwise. If he places it down on the ground, the water is disqualified and if he covers it, the water is disqualified.
If he took ashes and saw that the amount was excessive and returned some, it is acceptable. If he cast the ashes on the water and then returned some, the water is acceptable. If he cast the ashes on the water and saw that the amount was excessive and took some to sanctify other water, it is acceptable.
If he trimmed an olive leaf to use to cast the ashes, the ruling depends on his intent. If his intent was so that the leaf would not hold much ashes, the water is disqualified. If his intent was to direct the flow of the ashes so that they would enter the container holding the water, the water is acceptable." + ], + [ + "How is the water sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer? One should place the water that was drawn for this purpose in a container and then place ashes on the water so that they will be seen on the surface of the water. This is sufficient even though it is a large barrel filled with water. He should then mix the entire contents. If he placed the ashes in the container first and then placed the water upon them, it is disqualified.
What then is meant by the Torah's statement Numbers 19:17: \"And he shall place living water upon it\"? That the ash should be mixed with the water.", + "A person sanctifying must focus his concentration. He must cast the ashes on the water by hand. These concepts are implied by the phrase ibid.: \"And he shall take for the impure person....\" The latter words indicate that he must have a specific intent while sanctifying, drawing, and sprinkling.
Thus if the ashes of the red heifer fell from the container holding them into the water, he took the ashes with his hand, but then a friend or the wind thrust him and the ashes fell from his hand onto the water, or the ashes fell from his hand onto the side of the container or onto his hand and then onto the water, the water is disqualified,", + "If one sanctified an amount of water insufficient for sprinkling in one container and sanctified another amount of water insufficient for sprinkling in another container, they are not sanctified. If the ashes were floating on the surface of the water and one gathered some from above and sanctified other water with it, it is sanctified. By contrast, any ashes that touched the water may not be used to sanctify water again even if they were dried. Indeed, even if ashes were blown onto water by the wind they may not be dried and used to sanctify other water.", + "The following rules apply when there was a small container placed inside a large container, they were both filled with water drawn for the ashes of the red heifer, and their waters were intermingled. When one placed ashes on the water in the large container, all of the water in the small container became sanctified even though its opening is very narrow and no ashes entered there. The rationale is that the waters were intermingled.", + "When there was a sponge in the water at the time one placed the ashes upon it, the water in the sponge is disqualified because it is not in a container.
What should the person do to remove the water? He should pour off all the water until he reaches the sponge, but should not touch the sponge. If he touches the sponge, no matter how much water is above it, all of the water is disqualified, because the water in the sponge is released and mixes with the acceptable water.
If a sponge falls into sanctified water, one should take it and squeeze it outside the container and the water in the container remains acceptable.", + "When there are two adjacent troughs in one stone and ashes were placed into one of them, the water in the other is not sanctified. When there was a hole the size of a mouthpiece of a leather drinking pouch connecting the two or there was a layer of water even as thin as a garlic peel connecting them from above, if one placed the ashes into one, the water in the second is sanctified.", + "When two stones are placed together to form a trough, two kneading troughs are placed together, or a stone trough was divided and then the two portions held together, were the ashes of the red heifer to be placed in one, the water between them is not sanctified. If the two entities were connected with lime or with plaster and they could be carried as one, the water between them is sanctified.", + "When even the smallest amount of other water - even water that was drawn for the sake of the ashes of the red heifer - becomes mixed with sanctified water, it is disqualified. Similarly, if dew descends into such water, it is disqualified. If other liquids or fruit juices fall into it, the entire quantity should be poured out. The container must be dried; only afterwards can other sanctified water be placed in it.
If ink, black earth, or dark earth, or any entity that leaves a mark falls into such water, it must be poured out, but there is no need to dry the container. The rationale is that if any portion of the entity that leaves a mark will remain, it will be apparent.", + "When a person immerses a container for water for the ashes of the red heifer in water that is not fit to be sanctified, he must dry it before he sanctifies other water in it. If he immersed it in water that is fit to be sanctified, he does not have to dry out the container. If, however, he immersed it with the intent of using it to hold sanctified water, he must dry it in any case.", + "When a gourd was immersed in water that was fit to be sanctified, one may sanctify water in it. But one may not collect water that has already been sanctified with the ashes in it. The rationale is that the water in which it was immersed becomes absorbed in its substance; afterwards, it emerges, becomes mixed with the sanctified water, and disqualifies it.
If it became impure, even if it was immersed, we do not sanctify water in it. The rationale is that impure water is absorbed in its substance. It will flow out and become mixed with the water that is being sanctified in it.", + "When crawling animals or teeming animals fell into water that was sanctified and broke open or caused its color to change, the water is disqualified. This applies even if they were very dry like an ant, moth, or louse that is found in grain. If he placed beetles in such water, it is disqualified even if they did not break open or cause the color of the water to change. The rationale is that they are like tubes and the water enters their body and departs from it, mixed with their body fluids.", + "When a domesticated or wild animal drinks from sanctified water, the water is disqualified. Similarly, all birds disqualify it with the exception of a dove, because it sucks water and saliva does not flow from its mouth and become mixed in the water. Similarly, if any of the crawling animals drink from sanctified water, they do not disqualify it with the exception of the mole. It licks the water with its tongue and thus moisture will be released from its mouth into the water.", + "When the appearance of water sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer changes without any external cause, it is acceptable. If it changes color because of smoke, it is disqualified. If it froze and then melted, it is acceptable, even if it melted in the sun. If, however, it was melted by fire, it is disqualified.", + "When the appearance of the ashes of the red heifer changed without any external cause or because of smoke, they are acceptable. If their appearance changed because of dust, because lime or gypsum fell into them, or because even the slightest amount of oven ash fell into them, they are disqualified.", + "When a person thinks about drinking water sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer, he does not disqualify it until he actually drinks from it. If he poured from the container directly to his throat without his lips touching the water in the container, he does not disqualify it.", + "When a container in which the water for the ashes of the red heifer had been placed was left open and then one discovered it closed, the water is disqualified. We suspect that maybe a person who had not purified himself for dealing with the water for the ashes of the red heifer touched it, for it is certain that a person covered it.
The following rules apply if one left it covered and found it open. If a mole could have drunk from it or dew could have descended upon it at night, it is disqualified. If not, it is acceptable. The rationale is that two undeterminable factors are involved. It is unknown whether it was uncovered by a person or a domesticated animal, wild animal, or crawling animal. And if you would say that it was uncovered by a person, it is unknown whether he was pure with regard to the water of the ashes of the red heifer.", + "When a person transfers sanctified water or water that was drawn to be sanctified to an impure person to watch, the water is disqualified.", + "When two people are watching water and one becomes impure, the water is still acceptable, because it is in the domain of the other watchman. If the first purified himself and the other watchman became impure, it is acceptable because the water is in the domain of the first. If they both became impure at once, the water is disqualified." + ], + [ + "When a person draws water to be sanctified, he does not have to be the person who sanctified and sprinkles the water on an impure person. Instead, another person may sanctify it and another may sprinkle it. Similarly, a person may draw water with one container and pour it from container to container. And he may sanctify it in a different container, pour the sanctified water from one container to another, and sprinkle it from a different container.", + "A person may draw water for the ashes of the red heifer and keep it in his possession without sanctifying it for as long as he desires. There is no difficulty in this. He may transport it from place to place and from city to city and then place ashes upon it and sanctify it whenever he desires.
Similarly, a person may keep sanctified water in his possession for many days or years and sprinkle from it on any day that he needs to until it is used up. He may transport it from place to place and from city to city. Similarly, a person may keep the ashes of the red heifer in his possession and transport it from place to place and from city to city. Once a container in which the ashes of the red heifer were held was transported in a ship on the Jordan River and an olive-sized portion of a corpse was discovered on the bottom of the ship, making the water impure. At that time, the High Court decreed that the water for the ashes of the red heifer and the ashes themselves should not be transported on a river, nor on a ship. Similarly, one should not float them on water, nor should a person stand on one side of a river and throw them to the other. A person may, however, pass through water until it reaches his neck while holding the ashes of the red heifer or sanctified water.
Similarly, a person and empty containers that were purified for the ashes of the red heifer and water that was drawn for the sake of the ashes of the red heifer that was not sanctified may be transported on a river and on a ship.", + "Sanctified water may be transported on the Mediterranean Sea and it may be floated on such water. The decree encompassed only sanctified water and ashes on a river.", + "When a person is transporting water to be sanctified - and, needless to say, water that has been sanctified - he should not sling the container over his back, but instead, should carry it in front of him, as implied by Numbers 19:9: \"as safekeeping, as water for sprinkling.\" One can infer when it is watched, it may be used as water for sprinkling. If not, it is disqualified. If one filled two jugs, he should carry one in front of him and one behind him, because it is impossible to do otherwise.", + "When water for the ashes of the red heifer was weighed on a scale, it is disqualified if one diverted his attention from it. If not, it is acceptable. If, however, one weighed other entities with water for the ashes of the red heifer, it is disqualified. The rationale is that since one used it as a weight, it is not considered as having been \"watched.\"
All of the pure individuals who draw water, sanctify it, and sprinkle it and, similarly, all of the utensils used for drawing water, sanctifying it, and sprinkling it are acceptable if they were immersed on that day even though night has not fallen upon them. For all of the activities involving the red heifer, drawing the water, and sprinkling it are acceptable when performed by individuals who had immersed that day, as we explained.
Because of the Sadducees, all of the utensils that can be purified are made impure, immersed, and then used for the water for the ashes of the red heifer.", + "Everyone is acceptable to sprinkle the water with the ashes of the red heifer with the exception of a woman, a tumtum, an androgynus, a deafmute, an intellectually and/or emotionally compromised person, and a minor who is not intellectually mature. [Similarly,] an uncircumcised person is acceptable, for an uncircumcised person is not impure.
When an intellectually mature minor sprinkles such water and a woman helps him, she holds the water in her hand, his sprinkling is acceptable provided she does not hold his hand while he is sprinkling. If she held his hand while he is sprinkling, the sprinkling is unacceptable.", + "The person sprinkling the water must have the intent to sprinkle on the impure person to purify him. If he sprinkled without such an intent, the sprinkling is invalid. The person upon whom the water is sprinkled, by contrast, does not need to have any intent. Instead, water may be sprinkled on a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge.
When a person has the intent to sprinkle such water in front of himself and he sprinkles behind himself, or he had the intent of sprinkling water behind himself and he sprinkled in front of himself, his sprinkling is invalid. If he had the intent to sprinkle such water in front of himself and he sprinkled in front, but to the sides, his sprinkling is acceptable.", + "The person sprinkling the water need not dip the hyssop in the water for every sprinkling. Instead, he may dip the hyssop and sprinkle once and again until the water was completed. He may sprinkle on many people or many utensils - even 100 - at a time. Anyone who was touched by even the slightest amount of the water is pure, provided the one sprinkling had the intent of sprinkling on him.
If one dipped the hyssop with the intent of sprinkling on an entity that is susceptible to ritual impurity or on a person and, instead, sprinkled the water on an entity that was not susceptible to ritually impurity or on an animal, he need not dip the hyssop again if water remained on it. Instead, he may sprinkle the remainder on an impure person or utensil. The rationale is that, at the outset, he dipped it in the water in an acceptable manner. If, by contrast, he dipped the hyssop in the water in order to sprinkle it on an entity that is not susceptible to ritual impurity or on an animal, and sprinkled it on an impure man or utensil, the sprinkling is invalid until he dips the hyssop in the water a second time, while having the intent to sprinkle on a person or on an entity that is susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "If he dipped the hyssop in the water with the intent of sprinkling on an entity that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the water that drips from the hyssop are still acceptable. Therefore if it drips into a container and one dips the hyssop in it with the intent of sprinkling it on an entity that is susceptible to ritual impurity, the sprinkling is acceptable.", + "Although the volume of the water of the ashes of the red heifer has been reduced, one may dip even the tips of the hyssop stalks and sprinkle, provided one does not use it like a sponge. When a flask has a thin opening, he may dip and withdraw the hyssop in the ordinary manner and then sprinkle with it. He need not be careful that it does not touch the sides of the container a second time." + ], + [ + "How is a person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse purified by the water of sprinkling? A person who is pure takes three stalks of hyssop and binds them with one bond. Each stalk should have at least one bud. He should dip the top of the buds in the sprinkling water while it is in a container, focus his intent, and sprinkle it on the impure person or utensil on the third and seventh days after sunrise. If one sprinkled after dawn, it is acceptable. After the water has been sprinkled on a person on the seventh day, he should immerse in a mikveh during the day, wait until nightfall, and then, in the evening, he is pure.
If one dipped the hyssop [in the water] at night and sprinkled it during the day or dipped it [into the water] during the day and sprinkled it at night, the sprinkling is invalid. Moreover, the water imparts impurity just as the water of the ashes of the red heifer does, as will be explained.1As indicated by Chapter 15, Halachah 1, the water from an invalid sprinkling imparts impurity. [The sprinkling is not valid] unless the hyssop is dipped in the water and it is sprinkled from it on the third and seventh days after sunrise. If one transgressed and performed [these activities] after dawn, it is acceptable, as explained [above].", + "When a person became impure due to a corpse and remained several days without having the water sprinkled upon him, when he comes to have the water sprinkled upon him, he should count three days in our presence. The water is sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days. He immerses in a mikveh on the seventh day and waits until nightfall.
To whom does the above apply? To a common person who comes to have the water sprinkled upon him. Even if he says that this is the third day after he contracted impurity, his word is not accepted, for perhaps he became impure on this day. Therefore, he must count the days in our presence. If, by contrast, a chaver comes to have the water sprinkled upon him, it may be sprinkled on him and his implements immediately.
When such water was sprinkled on a person on the third day, but it was not sprinkled upon him on the seventh day, he may immerse in a mikveh whenever he desires after the seventh day, whether during the night or during the day and the water should be sprinkled on him during the day, whether before immersion or after immersion. Even if he immersed on the night of the ninth day or the night of the tenth day, the water may be sprinkled on him on the following day after sunrise.", + "It is acceptable for all of those who are impure to have this water sprinkled upon them. What is implied? The water may be sprinkled on zavim, zavot, women in the niddah state, women impure because of childbirth, on the third and seventh days after they contract the ritual impurity connected with a human corpse. After the sprinkling, they are purified from that impurity although they are still impure because of another type of impurity, as implied by Numbers 19:19: \"And the pure person shall sprinkle on the impure,\" i.e., one may derive that the sprinkling is effective for him even though he is impure.
Similarly, a person who is uncircumcised may have this water sprinkled upon him. What is implied? If an uncircumcised person contracted the impurity connected with a corpse and had the water sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days, he is pure from this impurity. When he is circumcised, he must immerse himself and may eat sacrificial foods in the evening.", + "The optimum way of fulfilling the mitzvah of the hyssop is to use three stalks and for each stalk to have one bud. If at first there were three buds and then only two remained or if one took two at first and bound them together, it is acceptable. Should the buds open and the leaves fall off, even if only the slightest portion of each remain, it is acceptable, because as long as the smallest amount remains from a hyssop, it is acceptable.
When a stalk has three buds, one should separate one from the other and afterwards, bind them together, for the mitzvah is for them to be bound, even though this is not explicitly stated in the Torah. If one separated them, but did not bind them, or bound them without separating them, or used them for sprinkling without separating them or binding them, the sprinkling is valid.
When a hyssop is short, one should bind it with a string on a weaving needle or the like, dip it into the water, lift it up, and then hold the hyssop in one's hand and sprinkle with it. If he did not do so, but instead, sprinkled with it while bound to the needle and he was uncertain whether he sprinkled from the string, from the needle, or from the bud, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "One should not sprinkle with underdeveloped stalks of hyssop, nor with the seed pods, but with stalks. This is what is meant by underdeveloped stalks: stalks which have not reached maturity. Nevertheless, if the water of the ashes of the red heifer was sprinkled on a person with an underdeveloped hyssop and that person entered the Temple, he is not liable.
From which point should a hyssop be used for sprinkling? From the time it buds. When a hyssop has been used for the sprinkling of this water, it may be used to purify a person afflicted by tzara'at.
Whenever a hyssop is described by an additional term, it is not acceptable. The hyssop that is called a hyssop alone is the one which is acceptable. It is the hyssop that is eaten domestically. The species which are called Greek hyssop, red hyssop, desert hyssop, or Roman hyssop are invalid.", + "A hyssop that was worshiped as an asherah, came from a city that was led astray, belonged to a false deity, or came from impure terumah, is invalid. If it comes from pure terumah, as an initial preference, one should not sprinkle with it. If one did, the sprinkling is acceptable.", + "When a hyssop was gathered to be used for kindling and liquids fell upon it, one may dry it, and it will remain acceptable for sprinkling. If it was reaped for use as food, even if the water was dried, it is unacceptable, because it is considered as impure for sprinkling. For all liquids, foods, and implements are considered as impure with regard to the purification process using the water of the ashes of the red heifer, as will be explained. If a hyssop was reaped to use for the purification process, it is as if it was reaped for kindling. Thus if a liquid fell on it, it may be dried and used for sprinkling." + ], + [ + "When the water of the ashes of the red heifer was sprinkled on a person who became impure due to contact with a human corpse, if even the slightest amount of the water touches any portion of the body of the impure person, the sprinkling is effective. This applies even if the sprinkling fell on the tips of his fingers or on the tip of his lips. If, however, the water touched his tongue, it is of no consequence. Even though the tongue is considered as a revealed organ with regard to contracting ritual impurity, as we explained, it is not considered as one of the revealed organs with regard to sprinkling and immersion.
Similarly, when a k'li contracted impurity from a corpse and the water was sprinkled on it, if even the slightest amount of the sprinkling water touches the body of the k'li, the sprinkling is effective.", + "When one intended to sprinkle on two keilim or two people at the same time and one sprinkled water on one of them and then it dripped from the first to the second, the second remains impure until water falls upon him from the sprinkling and not from the concentration of water in another place.
If one sprinkled on two keilim and one was in doubt whether he sprinkled on both at once or the water dripped from one to the other, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "When a needle was placed on a shard and one intended to sprinkle water on it, but a doubt arose whether he sprinkled on the needle or the water dripped on it from the shard, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "The following laws apply when there are keilim that have several parts which are connected to each other with nails, e.g., a scissors that comes apart, the blade of a plane, or the like. At the time of work, they are considered as joined, with regard to both impurity and sprinkling. When work is not being performed with them, neither is considered as joined to the other.
What is meant by saying that they are considered as joined, with regard to both impurity and sprinkling? That if one of the parts contracts impurity at the time work is being performed, the second also contracts impurity. Conversely, if water was sprinkled on one while work was being performed with them, the sprinkling is also effective with regard to the other and it is as if they are a single entity.
What is meant by saying that they are not considered as joined, with regard to both impurity and sprinkling? That if one contracts impurity while work is not being performed with it, the other does not contract impurity. And if both had contracted impurity and one sprinkled the water on one at a time when work was not being performed, the other does not become pure, even though they were joined together at that time.
This is the Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, however, it was decreed that they should be considered as joined with regard to impurity even at a time when work was not being performed. This decree was instituted as a safeguard for the law applying when work was being performed. Whenever impurity touches one of them, the other also becomes impure.
They also decreed that they should not be considered as joined with regard to sprinkling, even at a time when work was being performed. This decree was instituted as a safeguard for the law applying when work was not being performed. Whenever one sprinkles the water on one of them, the other does not regain purity until the water is also sprinkled on the other. From this, it can be inferred that whenever it is mentioned that two entities are considered as joined with regard to impurity, but not with regard to sprinkling, this is merely a Rabbinic decree, following the pattern explained above.", + "When two articles are joined together to the extent that they are considered as a single entity, e.g., one sewed together two garments or two parchments, they are considered as joined for both impurity and sprinkling, because they are a single entity.", + "A launderer's sewing and a garment that is sewn with a forbidden mixture of fabrics that are about to be separated are not considered as joined with regard to sprinkling, but are considered as joined with regard to impurity.
Baskets joined as a carrier, a threshing utensil, the feet of a bed, drinking horns of travelers, and a chain of keys, are considered as joined with regard to impurity, but are not considered as joined with regard to sprinkling. Instead, the water that is sprinkled must reach each individual basket, each individual key, each individual horn, and every beam of the bed that is assembled.", + "When a person joins three blankets of wool or six of linen or three sheets or twelve kerchiefs, they are considered as joined with regard both to impurity and sprinkling. Any more than the above quantities are considered as joined with regard to impurity, but are not considered as joined with regard to sprinkling. One cloak, one garment, and one klubkerin, are considered as joined with regard to impurity and sprinkling, even if they are very long or very wide, no matter how large they are.
What is a klubkerin? Two garments are taken. Cotton is placed between them as a lining and then they are sewn together as one and worn as an outer garment for the winter.", + "When the covering of a samovar is connected by chains, when one sprinkles on the samovar, everything is purified. If one sprinkled on the cover, one did not purify the samovar. It is necessary to sprinkle on it directly.", + "A bell and its clanger are considered as joined with regard both to impurity and sprinkling. If one sprinkled on one of them, they both regain their purity.", + "A spindle on which flax is spun or ropes are made is composed of three parts: a) the rod around which the thread is wound; it is called a kush;
b) the copper or iron hook at the top of the rod with which one spins and makes threads; it is called a tzinorah;
c) the ball that is in the center of the rod; it is called the pika.
When the spindle on which ropes are wound becomes impure, one should not sprinkle on the pika or the kush, only on the tzinora. After the fact, if one sprinkled on one of the three, everything is purified. If a spindle is used for flax, one may sprinkle on any of the three as an initial preference, for the three are joined together.", + "A piece of leather used to cover a cradle that is connected by buttons is considered as joined with regard both to impurity and sprinkling. The wooden frame placed on top of a bed is not considered as joined, neither with regard to impurity, nor with regard to sprinkling.", + "All of the hollow handles of keilim - e.g., a knife handle and the like, i.e., the handle has an opening and the iron shaft enters it - are considered as joined with regard both to impurity and sprinkling. All protruding handles - e.g., the handle of a javelin in which a portion of the wood is inserted into the iron shaft - are not considered as joined with regard to sprinkling." + ], + [ + "Extra stringencies were instituted with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer. A person who was pure - even if he immersed himself in a mikveh for the sake of sacrificial service and stood and served on the altar - is not pure with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer, nor with regard to the burning of the red heifer, drawing its water, sanctifying it, or sprinkling it unless he immerses himself for the sake of the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer. Afterwards, he is considered pure for that purpose.
Similarly, keilim - even a receptacle taken from the Temple Courtyard - are not considered as pure with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer unless they were immersed for that purpose. Similarly, all foods and liquids - even if they are pure - are considered as impure in this context.", + "Any entity that is fit to lie on or sit on, even though it is pure with regard to sacrificial foods is considered like an entity to which a zav imparted impurity with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer until it was immersed with that intent in mind. Yochanan ben Gudgada would always eat according to the strictures of ritual purity required for sacrificial foods. Yet his head cloth was like an entity to which a zav imparted impurity with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer.", + "A derivative of impurity does not impart impurity to a person or to a k'li, even with regard to sacrificial articles, as we explained. Nevertheless, it imparts impurity to persons and keilim with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer. Therefore it was said that a person who sanctifies the water used for the purification process should not wear a sandal, lest liquids fall on the sandal and the sandal contract impurity. The rationale is that all liquids are considered as impure with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer. Then the person sanctifying the water will contract impurity by touching the sandal and thus the purifying water will become impure.", + "When only a person's hands become impure due to causes that render hands impure, e.g., he touched foods or liquids or the like, although he is considered as pure with regard to sacrificial food, and all that is necessary is that he wash his hands as will be explained, with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer, his entire body is considered to have contracted impurity and he must immerse in a mikveh. Even if only one hand contracted impurity, it is as if his entire body contracted impurity. He is considered as impure to the first degree.", + "Any person who is required to be immersed in a mikveh, whether according to Scriptural Law or Rabbinic Law, imparts impurity to the water sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer, the ashes themselves, and the one who sprinkles them, through touching or carrying them. Similarly, he imparts impurity to a hyssop that has been made fit to contract impurity, water that has been drawn for this process but has not yet been sanctified, and an empty container that has been purified for this purification process. The latter three entities contract impurity only through touch, but not through being carried.
When an impure person touches a small portion of ashes of the red heifer, it is considered as if he touched all of them.", + "Primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of impurity are not counted with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer as are counted with regard to terumah and sacrificial foods.
What is implied? If there were ten persons who immersed themselves for the sake of this purification process and one became impure, even if he became impure only with regard to this purification process, e.g., his hands became impure, should he touch a colleague and that colleague touch another, and that one another, even if there are 100, they all become impure with regard to this purification process.
Similarly, when there are keilim that were purified for this purification process and one of them contracted impurity - even if only its outside contracted impurity for this purification process, e.g., liquids touched its outside - and this k'li touched a second k'li and the second touched a third, all of the keilim, even if there are 100, become impure with regard to this purification process.", + "Whenever an article that is fit to contract impurity if it would support a zav - even though it is pure with regard to sacrificial foods - was moved by a person who purified himself for the sake of this purification process, he contracts impurity, even though he did not touch it.
Similarly, when a person who purified himself for the sake of this purification process moves a person who is not pure in this context or he moves the spittle or the urine of the latter person, he becomes impure, even though he did not touch him. A k'li that is not fit to contract impurity if it would support a zav, by contrast, does not impart impurity to a person who has purified himself for the sake of this purification process unless he touches it.", + "If a k'li that is impure because of contact with a human corpse is moved by a person who has purified himself for the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer, he becomes impure even though he did not touch it and even though generally an article that is impure because of contact with a corpse does not impart impurity when carried, as we explained.
What is implied? There was a key that was impure due to contact with a corpse that was hanging from a door. A person who purified himself for this purification process closed the door. Since he moved the key which was impure, he himself contracts impurity. Similarly, if he moves the carcass of a crawling animal or semen, he becomes impure with regard to this purification process even though generally these do not impart impurity when carried, as will be explained.", + "When a person who purified himself for this purification process touches articles that were above a zav or the like, these are called madaf, he is considered impure with regard to this purification process, even though he is pure with regard to sacrificial foods. Similarly, when a k'li that was purified for this purification process touches a madaf, it contracts impurity with regard to this purification process.", + "The following laws apply when a person who purified himself for this purification process touches foods or liquids, whether impure or pure. No distinction is made between them, because there are no foods or liquids that are considered as pure with regard to this purification process.
If a person touches foods or liquids with his hands, his entire body becomes impure, as we explained. If he touches them with his foot or other portions of his body, or moves them with his hands without touching them, he remains pure. Similarly, if, with his hands, he touched an oven or the like, i.e., other articles that were not purified for the sake of this purification process, his entire body contracts impurity. If, however, he touches such articles with his feet, his status of purity remains unchanged, even with regard to this purification process.", + "When a person who purified himself for this purification process inserted his head and the majority of his body into water that was drawn for the sake of this purification process, he contracts impurity, because the water has been drawn. For it is a Rabbinical decree that anyone who inserts his head and the majority of his body into water that was drawn contracts impurity, as will be explained.", + "Everyone's word is accepted with regard to the ritual purity of articles and persons involved in this purification process, even that of the common people. The rationale is that because of all the stringencies and extra measures applied to it, everyone is careful with regard to it. This is alluded to in the Torah which states Numbers 19:9: \"And it will be for the congregation of Israel for safekeeping.\" Implied is that all of Israel are fit for its safekeeping.
Therefore if a common person brings an earthenware container from his home and says: \"This container is pure for the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer,\" it is considered as pure. Water may be sanctified in it and sprinkled from it even though this container would be considered as impure for sacrificial foods and for terumah. Similarly, if a common person says: \"I have purified myself for the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer\" or the water for this process was in his possession and he says that it is pure, his word is accepted. For no Jewish person treats this purification process lightly." + ], + [ + "When an earthenware container that held the ashes of a red heifer was touched by the carcass of a crawling animal on its side, it is pure, for an earthenware container does not contract impurity from its outside, even with regard to this purification process. If, however, one placed the container on top of the carcass of the crawling animal, the ashes contract impurity, even though the container remains pure, as indicated by Numbers 19:9: states: \"And he shall place them down outside the camp in a pure place,\" and this is not a pure place.
Not only does placing the ashes on the carcass of a crawling animal render them impure, they contract impurity even if they are placed on food which is a secondary derivative of impurity or the like which are less substantial types of impurity originating in Rabbinic decrees. For it is written: \"A pure place,\" i.e., that they should not be placed on any impurity whatsoever.
Similar rulings apply if an earthenware container holding the ashes of the red heifer was placed on an aperture in an impure house. If the container was hanging within the inner space of the house, the ashes contract impurity even if the aperture was not a handbreadth by a handbreadth in size. If it was not hanging into the inner space of the house, it is impure if the aperture is a handbreadth by a handbreadth in size.", + "If the container was made of stone, the ashes are pure, whether the aperture is a handbreadth by a handbreadth or not.", + "Similarly, when a container that has the ashes of the red heifer or sanctified water was sealed closed and placed under the same shelter as a corpse, the ashes and/or the water are impure. The rationale is that articles associated with the purification process of the red heifer are not protected by a closed seal, for with regard to them, it is written: \"a pure place,\" and this is not a pure place.", + "Similarly, sacrificial foods and liquids are not protected from impurity by being in a sealed container. Nevertheless, water that had not been sanctified and an empty container that was purified for use in this purification process are protected by a sealed container.
When does the above apply? When the owner was pure. If, however, the owner contracted impurity, the water is disqualified, no matter where it is located.
What is implied? If a person's water was in a sealed container and he and it were both under the same shelter as a corpse, they are both impure. If he is outside and water that is not sanctified is inside, they are both pure. If he is inside and the water is outside, just as he becomes impure, his water is also disqualified.", + "The following laws apply when a person who had purified himself for the sake of this purification process was standing on an oven or a similar implement that had not been purified for this process and he extended his hands outside the space of the oven while holding a receptacle containing the water for this purification process. Similar laws apply if a bar was placed over an oven and receptacles holding water for this purification process were hanging from either side. The receptacles are impure, because they are not in a place that is pure for this purification process. Since they are supported by the oven, it is as if they are placed on top of it.
If, however, one was standing on an oven while holding an empty receptacle that was purified for this purification process or water that was not yet sanctified, their prior state of purity remains unchanged. If one was standing away from an oven and stretched out his hand and took a container that had water sanctified for this purification process and carried it over the oven, it remains pure. Similarly, if when one sprinkled this water, it passed over an impure place, e.g., a place where one sits or lies that became impure or the like, it is pure.", + "When a receptacle containing water for the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer touches a receptacle containing consecrated food, the receptacle that contains the sanctified water and everything inside of it is considered as impure. The receptacle containing sacrificial food, by contrast, remains pure. Similarly, if a person who purified himself for this purification process touched both of these receptacles, each one with one of his hands while they are placed on the ground, the receptacle containing the sanctified water, becomes impure. The rationale is that the person who had purified himself for this process contracted impurity when touching a container that had not been purified for this purpose, as we explained, and then, he imparts impurity to the sanctified water.", + "If he lifted up both receptacles, each with a different hand, they are both impure. The receptacle containing the sanctified water becomes impure because it was touched by a person who touched a container that was not purified for the sake of this purification process. And the one containing the sacrificial food became impure because it was lifted up by a person who became impure by carrying sanctified water. For the water conveys impurity when carried, because it contracted impurity from the receptacle containing sacrificial food.
For this reason, if the receptacle containing the sacrificial food was wrapped in paper and he lifted it up in the paper without touching the receptacle itself, and he lifted up the receptacle containing the sanctified water in his other hand, they are both pure. He did not contract impurity with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer since he did not touch the other receptacle. If, however, he touched the receptacle containing the sacrificial food with his hand, they both contract impurity even though the receptacle containing the sanctified water was wrapped in paper.", + "If he moved the two receptacles with his hands simultaneously without touching them, they are both pure. For a receptacle that was not purified for this purification process does not impart impurity to a person who purified himself for that purpose unless he touches it with his hands unless it is fit to contract impurity when a zav lies or sits upon it, as we explained.", + "In all of the situations where there is a question with regard to impurity and the ruling is that one is pure with regard to terumah, as will be explained, he is also considered pure with regard to this purification process. With regard to all of the situations where terumah is left for its status to be determined, were such a situation to occur with regard to the water or the ashes designated for this process, they should be disposed of.
If pure entities were used on the above utensils or if a person became involved in such a situation where the doubt causes the ashes and/or the water to be disposed of, the status of the pure entities is left in the balance. Rafters are not considered as utensils. Hence, they are pure with regard to terumah, sacrificial foods, and the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer.", + "The following laws apply when a dried fig that is terumah fell into water sanctified for this purification process and then it was taken out and eaten. If it is the size of an egg, the water becomes impure whether the fig was impure or pure. The rationale is that all foods, even sanctified foods, are not pure with regard to this purification process. One who partakes of it is liable for death, because he partook of terumah after contracting impurity from the sanctified water. If the fig is not the size of an egg, the water remains pure, because food does not impart impurity to other entities unless it is the size of an egg. This applies with regard to terumah, to sacrificial foods, and to this purification process." + ], + [ + "Any person or article which touches sanctified water for a purpose other than sprinkling contracts impurity. The person does not impart impurity to his clothes, however, even when touching the water, as Numbers 19:21 states: \"One who touches the sprinkling water will become impure until the evening.\" Thus it is derived that the sprinkling water is a primary source of impurity according to Scriptural Law and even the slightest amount of it imparts ritual impurity.
If there is enough water to sprinkle, it imparts impurity when touched and when carried and one who touches it or carries it for a purpose other than sprinkling imparts impurity to his clothes when touching it or carrying it until he separates himself from the source of his impurity, as implied by ibid. which states: \"One who sprinkles the water shall launder his garments.\" Now this is not speaking about someone who sprinkles water on an impure person, for if he purifies an impure person, one can certainly infer that he himself remains pure. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the Torah's statement \"One who sprinkles the water shall launder his garments\" was stated only to teach the measure that imparts impurity; i.e., that if one touches or carries a measure of sanctified water that could be sprinkled for an intent other than sprinkling, he is impure and he imparts impurity to his garments according to Scriptural Law.
How much is a measure of sprinkling? Enough to immerse the tops of the stalks of hyssop in the water.
When does the statement that the water for this purification imparts impurity apply? When one touched it or carried it for an intent other than sprinkling before they were used for their mitzvah. After they were used for their mitzvah, by contrast, they do not impart impurity at all.
What is implied? One immersed the hyssop in the sanctified water and sprinkled it on an impure person or keilim and the water was dripping and descending from the impure person to the ground or when he sprinkled the water, water was sprinkled on the ground or on a pure person, that water is pure and one who touches or carries it is pure.
If one immersed the hyssop to sprinkle water on an object that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the water which drips from it is fit to be sprinkled again, as we explained. Therefore they impart the impurity of sanctified water to one who touches or carries them because they were not used for their mitzvah, for the immersion of the hyssop was for the intent of sprinkling on something that is not susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "The water for the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer does not impart impurity to anything before its mitzvah is performed unless it is pure and acceptable to be used for sprinkling. Different rules apply, however, if this water was disqualified - e.g., other water was mixed with it, an animal drank from it, or other factors that disqualify it arose. If a person who is pure with regard to terumah touches it, he contracts impurity whether he touches it with his hand or with other parts of his body. If a person who is pure with regard to this purification process touches it, even with his hand, he remains pure, as he was originally.", + "If sanctified water contracted impurity and a person who was pure with regard to terumah touched it, whether with his hands or with his body, after it contracted impurity, he contracts impurity. If a person who had purified himself for this purification process touches it with his hands, he contracts impurity. If he touches it with the remainder of his body, he remains pure, as he was originally.", + "The following rules apply if water from a spring, a mikveh, or fruit juice falls into sanctified water. If the majority is sanctified water, the mixture imparts impurity when carried. If the majority is fruit juice, it does not impart impurity. If it is half and half, it imparts impurity.
The following laws apply if the ashes of the red heifer become mixed with ashes from an oven and a person sanctified water with the entire mixture. If the majority of the mixture are the ashes of the red heifer, the water imparts impurity like sanctified water. If the majority are oven ashes, the water does not impart impurity when touched, but does impart impurity when carried.", + "When acceptable ashes were sprinkled on water that was not fit to be sanctified and then a person who was pure with regard to terumah touched the water with his hands or with his body, he contracts impurity. If a person who purified himself for this purification process touched such water, even with his hands, he remains pure, as he was originally.", + "When sanctified water is disqualified, it should not be mixed with mud, so as not to create a stumbling block for others, lest they touch the mud and become impure. For the sanctified water does not become nullified in the mud, as implied by Numbers 19:9: \"It is a sin-offering.\"", + "When a cow drinks from sanctified water, its meat is pure even if it was slaughtered within 24 hours of drinking, as can be inferred from ibid.: \"as safekeeping, as water for sprinkling.\" Implied is that when the water is kept safe, it is not nullified. If, however, a cow drank from it, it is nullified, because it was not kept safe.", + "When water is sprinkled on a person from a window from which water is sprinkled on many individuals, he entered the Temple, and then it is discovered that the water was disqualified, he is exempt. The rationale is that one can assume that the water that is sprinkled on many people is acceptable. Hence, he is considered as one who transgressed because of factors beyond his control.
If, however, water was sprinkled on a person from the window of a private individual and he entered the Temple and afterwards, it was discovered that the water was disqualified, he is obligated to bring an adjustable guilt-offering. The rationale is that he should have investigated the status of the water and only afterwards, entered the Temple.
Even if people would slip on water that had been sprinkled from a window from which water is sprinkled on many individuals and was flowing on the ground and they would tread on it, they would enter the Temple without being concerned that they had been disqualified.", + "When a person sprinkles such water, using a hyssop that is impure with regard to this sacrificial process, if it is the size of an egg, the water is impure and the sprinkling is unacceptable. If it is less than the size of an egg, the water is pure, but the sprinkling is unacceptable. This hyssop can impart impurity to another, and that other, to still another, even when the chain reaches 100, because levels of impurity are not counted with regard to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer.", + "When a person lifts up a k'li upon which this water has been sprinkled and enough water to be sprinkled remains upon it, he is pure. Once the water has performed its mitzvah, it does not impart impurity, as we explained." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות פרה אדומה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file