in oil
redpickeledherring
crab food
gotfag
temple died whine
sardonic trout faced
gi joe gotfag
homo colored people did 140 GAHY erotic sins for white people to /b/ in the closet
and prol fapp to died messiah romance for tax reasons
UNgreece'd juwish lightening imports dino farts jooos to libtardia californicator damn
>UNgreece'd juwish lightening imports
caught doing facejobs for dino farts joos says wagecuckhandjob pumps
imported midget tranny child slaver tax resons credit direct deposit face screams bout finger in teh butt opportunitys and heil sauros
milk and eggs attack kitchen
you could touched its donut by now @joshua
canadian super hero mocks merikkkuh's necrophilia economy
the nazi's are mysteriously silent about the cheese
don;t catch unlubed direct deposit face from fake twats
turkey's prime minister goes into hiding
fake milf sends duke harry gasket test failed feels fill for these yogurt dilemmas
1.21 niggwhats of deNILE
inFAUXwars
tard
tards again
retards pattern
retards fruidy
Frudeautard
complete retards spam their cult over and over and expect different results
queer sandwich
blah blah blah cock tendies drive thru holes juw whine
foreign tranny had looooooooooose bowel movement all over glory hole gossip says hired proxy
bock bock bock imaginary red rockets bock bock bockbock bock bocksky is fallingbock bock bockbock bock bock
hubbardites still insecure bout being in the closet homo rage quit of the century hoax with no sauce
hubbardites priest seeking necorphilia humilation extortions to maintian distortion for fleshy colors and tax reasons
exiled foreigner gets lust for sum dumb yung homo in californicator MSM lies while pressure cooking GAHY fowl franchising
after
Rushin
invade
hunter biden's pooped like lesbian toyota
>after
>Rushin
>invade
>hunter biden's pooped like lesbian toyota
anon's suspect link to jfkTRANNY drapes farts like lesbian toyota
rachel madcow tranny hosts personaility disorder disenfranchising spectacle over borderline queer tain t catharisis for earth flat koch lubes homo cult died cheesebugers
>after
>Rushin
>invade
>hunter biden's pooped like lesbian toyota
hunter biden reached out to hunter biden CP laptop hillary was hording under hunter biden 's couch
>>after
>>Rushin
>>invade
>>hunter biden's pooped like lesbian toyota
>hunter biden reached out to hunter biden CP laptop hillary was hording under hunter biden 's couch
hunter biden 's lost his diginity and gasket to tranny homo tendies still seeks hillary hordeing CP laptop hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden crack hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hillary hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden CP hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden hunter biden
elongapes send won't recharge fire feels fill to all automated buttplugging purchasers house fires
pooooo pooooooo juws no sauce drive thru holes tendies
harry gasket failed seizes lesbian toyota fart team leadership from the grips of danielfaggot
>seizes lesbian toyota fart team leadership
harry gasket failed plans to synchronize lesbian toyota fart efforts
are you staring at it right now?
>>seizes lesbian toyota fart team leadership
>harry gasket failed plans to synchronize lesbian toyota fart efforts
church of goathomo donates bandicapable bus to lesbian toyota fart team leadership seized harry gasket failed
muslim giraffe rescues trans catholic parents from locked portashitter with AR-15
better ingredients
better pizza
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1517250/jewish/Parah-Adumah.htm
FACT: Among the various types of tumah (ritual impurities) enumerated in the Torah, the kind acquired from direct contact with a human corpse is unique. One who acquires such tumah is considered a “tamei met,” and in addition to the standard ritual immersion required to remove tumah, the Torah mandates that he be sprinkled with ashes of a parah adumah (“parat chatat”) on the third and seventh day after such contact.1 The cow used must be completely red, 2 older than three years (Parah 1:1), with no physical blemishes.3 Furthermore, the cow must have been purchased by the beit din with Temple funds for the purpose of preparing the requisite ashes, and have never worked (Shekalim 4:2).
The details of the preparation are outlined in Parashat Chukat (Bamidbar 19). Unlike sacrifices, all of which took place within the Temple precinct, the parah adumah ritual took place outside the Temple precinct. When the Temple stood, the ritual of the parah adumah took place outside of the municipal borders of Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives (Middot 2:4).4 Additionally, similar to sacrifices, a non-kohen was qualified to slaughter the parah adumah. The blood of the parah adumah was then collected by a kohen who sprinkled it seven times in the direction of the Holy of Holies. The entire animal— skin, meat, blood and all—was then burnt and pieces of erez (cedar), ezov (hyssop), and sheni tola’at (scarletdyed wool) were added to the conflagration; the ashes were then collected and stored.
Spring water was collected in a vessel and sanctified as ashes were mixed into it. The water was called “mei niddah” by the Torah and “mei chatat”5 by Chazal.
This entire process, replete with myriad technical regulations, had one purpose—to purify tamei individuals. All those involved in the process were required to be tahor. Many stringencies applied to those involved in the ritual of the parah adumah—more than applied even to those performing the avodah in the Temple! Nevertheless, an individual involved in the ritual of the parah adumah was permitted to be a tvul yom, i.e., a tamei person who immersed in the mikvah and is only fully tahor after the sun sets. The Tzeddukim (Sadducees) believed, however, that a tvul yom was not permitted to participate in the preparation of the ritual. (Consequently, to reinforce this halachah, the rabbis insisted that after all the stringencies were observed and there was absolutely no doubt that the individual selected to perform the ritual was tahor, he should be then be intentionally defiled so that he could have the status of a tvul yom!)
All of those involved in the preparation of the ritual become tamei, except for the one who sprinkles the ash water (Parah 4:4; Rambam, Parah Adumah 5:1; Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid, Taharot 60). This includes the shochet as well as those who collect the blood, sprinkle the blood, burn the cow, throw in the ezov, turn over the meat while it is burning, collect the ashes, et cetera. In summary, anyone involved in the preparation becomes tamei and remains so until he immerses in a mikvah and waits until sunset. Furthermore, the clothing he is wearing and any utensil he touches while engaged in the activity become tamei too (Rambam, Parah Adumah 5:2).6 Although touching the cow does not render one tamei, one who touches the sanctified mei chatat does become tamei (Keilim 1:1-2; Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid, Taharot 77).7 Thus, while the sprinkler of the mei chatat does not become tamei, the description of the parah adumah ritual as one that is “metaheir temaim” and “metamei tahorim” is quite accurate.
The fact that the parah adumah is a source of tumah is not unusual. There are three broad categories of tumah sources. The most well-known causes of tumah are those associated with death. The most potent source of tumah is a human corpse (Bamidbar 19:11). Other death-related sources include dead kosher animals (Vayikra 11:39-40), dead non-kosher animals (Vayikra 11:24-28), and dead kosher birds (Vayikra 17:15; see Rashi). A second source is certain bodily emissions.
The third category, called tumot kedushot (Tosefta, Sheviit 1:4) is tumah associated with sacrificial rites, one of which is the parah adumah. In this last category, one finds, for example, that the one who burns the bull and goat sacrifices of the Yom Kippur service becomes tamei, as does the one who leads the Yom Kippur scapegoat to its death in the desert (Parah 8:3).8
If the sprinkler of the mei chatat does not become tamei, why do many people think otherwise? This is probably due to the verse in Bamidbar, stating (9:21): “He also that sprinkled the water shall wash his garments . . . ” which seems to indicate that the sprinkler becomes tamei. However, the Talmud (Yoma 14a) rejects a literal interpretation of the verse.
But is he who sprinkles clean? Surely it is written,“And he that sprinkles the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes?” “Sprinkle” here means “touch.” But the text reads “sprinkle” and also mentions “touch”; furthermore, he who “sprinkles” must wash his clothes, whereas he who “touches” need not wash his clothes? Rather “sprinkle” here means “carry.” Then let the Divine Law write “carry”; why is “sprinkle” written? That [is meant] to let us know that there must be a quantity sufficient for the sprinkling [in order for the one who carries to become tamei].
What the gemara is stating is that the one who sprinkles is not tamei; the verse simply comes to teach that one who carries or touches an amount of mei chatat that is sufficient with which to “sprinkle” a person is tamei.9
Expounding upon the Biblical verse, Rambam states that one cannot explain the verse according to its simple meaning because it is illogical that the act of sprinkling the mei chatat purifies one person and defiles another. Therefore a fortiori, the one who sprinkles is not tamei (Hilchot Parah Adumah 15:1; see Yoma 14a for a similar a fortiori).10 Similarly, Tosafot (Niddah 9a, s.v. mai) justifies a non-literal translation of the verse because another verse refers to the sprinkler as “tahor,” implying he remains tahor from beginning to end. Torah Temimah (to Bamidbar 19:21, note 125) and the Netziv (Ha’emek Davar to Bamidbar 19:21) provide additional reasons for the gemara’s non-literal interpretation of the Biblical verse.
Another reason this misconception is widespread is because the parah adumah ritual is regarded as the classic chok that even the wisest of all men, King Solomon, did not understand. It is generally assumed that it is this aspect— that the sprinkler becomes tamei while the sprinkled becomes tahor— that is the most confounding element of this mitzvah. Indeed, what element of this “chok” did King Solomon find inexplicable.11
The Gemara (Yoma 14a) asks this very question and provides two possible answers:
If sprinkling upon a tamei makes him tahor, how much more should sprinkling upon a tahor person not make him tamei, yet Rabbi Akiva says it makes him tamei! And Rabbi Akiva? It is with reference to this that Solomon said: “I said, I will get wisdom, but it is far from me.” And the Sages? They explain this to refer to the fact that he who sprinkles and he who is sprinkled are clean, whereas he who touches them [mei chatat] is rendered unclean.12
The Sefer HaChinuch, who provides reasons for almost all of the mitvzot, when writing about the parah adumah (397) states “My hands grew weak and I was afraid to open my mouth.”13 The Beit HaLevi on Parashat Ki Tissa (Beit HaLevi al HaTorah, p. 55 in 5747 reprint of 5644 ed.) comments that when King Solomon was stumped by the parah adumah ritual, it made him realize that he also did not fully understand the other mitzvot.
From the inexplicable nature of parah adumah, the Beit HaLevi comments that we learn that the whole Torah is a chok—that is, all the mitzvoth are interrelated and unknowable. Thus, parah adumah serves to teach that we cannot fully understand the reasons behind any of the mitzvot.14
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, 15 quoting Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, explains that a tamei individual is like a person sinking in quicksand. Those who come to pull him out will inevitably become soiled in the process. Thus, those involved in preparing the parah adumah become tamei.
Rabbi Riskin adds that the Lubavitcher Rebbe offered an interesting analysis of the mitzvah of parah adumah as well. All the individuals involved in preparing the mixture—the one who burns the heifer, the one who adds the other ingredients, the one who carries them—become tamei. But not the one who sprinkles the ashes and actually effects the purification; he remains pure. So too, the Lubavitcher Rebbe promised his many emissaries spread out over the far reaches of the globe that because they are involved in purifying their fellow Jews, they and their families will remain pure, no matter how isolated they are. Indeed, the fact that a kohen must be willing to defile himself in order to help remove a form of impurity for the nation conveys an important message about what it means to be a spiritual leader of Klal Yisrael.
A related midrash (Bamidbar Rabba 19:5; cf., Pesikta D’Rav Kahana iv, Buber ed. 38b) states that there are four concepts, referred to by the Torah as “chukah,” that the Satan (yetzer hara) ridicules because of seemingly inherent contradictions. According to the midrash, they are: 1. yibum: the Torah prohibits a man from marrying his brother’s wife except when the brother dies leaving no children; 2. kilayim: the Torah prohibits the mixing of wool and linen together, yet permits one to wear a linen garment with wool tzitzit; 3. The seir hamishtaleach (scapegoat on Yom Kippur): one who leads the goat to its death becomes impure yet the goat serves as an atonement for others; 4. parah adumah: a heifer that defiles the garments of those involved in the process yet purifies a tamei garment (in the language of the midrash).16
Another midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 19:8; Pesikta D’Rav Kahana 4:7) relates that a non-Jew told Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that the ritual of parah adumah seems like witchcraft. In response Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai gave a rational explanation for the mitzvah; he then explained to his students that, “it is not the corpse that makes one impure nor the water that purifies. Rather the Holy One Blessed Be He declared. . . This is the chukah of the Torah.” The rules of parah adumah are indeed not rational but are decrees from God.
Similarly, Yoma 67b lists other mitzvot that the Satan belittles and tries to get the Jews to violate, including the prohibition against eating pork,17 and wearing shatnez, as well as mitzvot such as chalitzah, purifying the metzorah, and sending the seir hamishtaleach down a cliff. Here too God responds: “I have decreed it and you have no right to question it.” The mitzvah of the parah adumah thus elicits mockery from the non-believer for two reasons—its apparent internal contradictions and its superficial resemblance to witchcraft.18
Despite all of the above, many Rishonim have offered reasons to explain the mitzvah of parah adumah. For example, Rashi (end of commentary to Bamidbar 19; see complete quote in Torat Chaim edition) quotes Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan (see Tanchuma, Bamidbar 8) who explains that the parah adumah atones for the Sin of the Golden Calf; he then links many of the specifics of the ritual to aspects of the sin. The piyyut “Ein L’socha’ach” by Rabbi Eliezer HaKalir in the yotzer for Parashat Parah correlates many aspects of the parah adumah and the Sin of the Golden Calf.
In all of Jewish history there have been only nine parah adumot (Parah 3:5)—one parah in the time of Moshe Rabbeinu, one in the time of Ezra, and seven during the Second Temple period. May we be privileged to see the tenth parah adumah brought by Mashiach speedily in our days.
Notes
-
The parah adumah is necessary to remove only one kind of tumah—tumat met. The corpse is called avi avot hatumah (a post-Talmudic term), and anyone who becomes tamei from a corpse is an av hatumah. Others examples of av hatumah do not require the use of a parah adumah.
-
A completely red cow is defined as the following: a cow that does not have two non-red hairs near each other or three nonred hairs anywhere else on its body (Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid, Taharot, 53:12-17).
-
This raises the question as to whether the common term “red heifer” is the best translation of parah adumah. Heifer is defined as a young cow, usually understood to be less than three years old, while the parah adumah must be older. On the other hand, heifer implies that the cow has never given birth to a calf, and that is indeed a requirement of the parah adumah. The word cow may be used for older animals, as well as for one that has calved. It is therefore not clear which term is preferred. Regarding the color of the cow, see Jacob Milgrom et al., JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, ed. Nahum Sarna (Philadelphia, 1990), 158. Relying on A. Brenner (“Color Terms in the Old Testament” Journal Studies of the Old Testament [1982]: 62- 65), Milgrom writes that “Hebrew ‘adom,’ usually rendered ‘red’ probably means ‘brown’ [for which there is no Hebrew word]. Brown cows, of course, are plentiful, but one that is completely uniform in color, without specks of white or black or without even two black or white hairs, is extremely rare.”
-
See Yonatan Adler, “Makom Sereifat Haparah Ha’adumah,” Tchumin 22 (5762):
537-542 for impressive research in determining the precise location.
-
On these names, see Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid, Taharot 76:8.
>5. On these names, see Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid, Taharot 76:8.
-
This tumah is not due to the person touching the clothing. Rather it is due to the fact that the clothing is subsidiary to him and become tamei when he does (Re’em to Rashi 19:21).
-
There is a debate as to whether the ashes themselves, before being placed in the water, cause tumah. The Mishnah (Parah 9:7) can be understood to mean that they do, and this is how Rashi (Bechorot 23a) understands it. Rambam (Parah Adumah 15:4) and others maintain that before being placed in the water, they do not cause tumah. See Kehati to Parah 9:7.
-
Oznayim L’Torah (Bamidbar 19:8 second, s.v. v’hasoref) suggests that tumah from sacrificial rites differs from tumah resulting from a dead corpse, in that the latter occurs immediately while the former sets in after the avodah one is performing is complete. This applies even if the avodah involves multiple actions. Thus, the same kohen can perform several of the activities associated with preparing the parah adumah without becoming tamei (Torah Temimah to Bamidbar 19:21 seems to disagree).
-
As is his style, Rashi (to Bamidbar 9:21) concisely summarizes the rabbinic interpretation of this verse.
-
Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid (Taharot 76:6) asks how Rambam could argue that we cannot understand the verse literally because it’s illogical when the entire mitzvah is illogical. See Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid’s comments.
-
Kohelet 7:23-24. The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 19:6) says that God did reveal the reason for parah adumah to Moshe. This means that it is not a random, meaningless edict, but that it really does have a rationale.
-
The Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid (Taharot 60:11) points out that the fact that touching the parah adumah does not cause tumah while doing the mitzvot associated with it does is not the inexplicable aspect of the ritual because other sacrificial rites cause tumah as well. The Sefer HaChinuch (397) explains that the inexplicable part is that it is performed outside of the Temple precinct, which is highly irregular for sacrificial rites. He further states that it is difficult to understand how the process causes tumah and yet the resultant product confers taharah.
-
He subsequently tries to provide a rationale. Similar to Rabbi Saadia Gaon (Emunot Vedeot 2:10), he states that depending on the circumstances something can be a positive or a negative force, such as a medicine that can cure the sick but harm a healthy individual. He then adds the following poetic statement: “This [the mitzvah of the red heifer] is not clear enough to really attain in this matter anything, but the love of holiness and the desire to acquire knowledge of hidden matters moves the quill to write.”
>13. He subsequently tries to provide a rationale. Similar to Rabbi Saadia Gaon (Emunot Vedeot 2:10), he states that depending on the circumstances something can be a positive or a negative force, such as a medicine that can cure the sick but harm a healthy individual. He then adds the following poetic statement: “This [the mitzvah of the red heifer] is not clear enough to really attain in this matter anything, but the love of holiness and the desire to acquire knowledge of hidden matters moves the quill to write.”
-
One may ask whether it is appropriate to attempt to understand the reason behind a chok, a much-discussed topic. In the Kuzari, Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi writes that one should accept a chok as Divine will without attempting to understand its purpose. Rambam thought it imperative to look for reasons and stated: “Although all the chukim in the Torah are pure decrees, as we have explained at the end of Meilah (8:8), it is proper to contemplate them and for whichever chukim you can assign a reason, do so” (Hilchot Temura 4:13). True to his principles, in Moreh Nevuchim (3:47) Rambam suggests an explanation for parah adumah. Ramban (Devarim 22:6) says that the are two approaches—those who maintain that mitzvot can be simply Divine decrees with no reason and those who believe that all mitzvot have reasons; Rambam asserts that he agrees with the latter approach. Shem Mishmuel (Chukat, 5672, p. 302) writes that although the reason for parah adumah was not revealed, nonetheless, a person should search for and contemplate reasons for it to the best of his ability. Rabbi Yosef Chaim miBaghdad (Od Yosef Chai, Chukat 100a) says that a chok is unintelligible on the literal level, but is worth analyzing for its meaning on other levels (such as remez, derash and sod).
-
Parashah Devar Torah, Chukat, 2004.
-
Cf. Bamidbar Rabbah 19:1
-
Although the Gemara describes the prohibition against eating pork as a “chok,” many reasons for all aspects of the dietary laws have been offered. For a summary of some, see Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Vayikra (Jerusalem, 1985), 76-85.
-
See Shem Mishmuel (Parashat Ki Tissa 5672, p. 227-228), who discusses two different types of chukim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_heifer
All
Images
Videos
News
Maps
Shopping
Settings
All regionsSafe search: offAny time
Search domain chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1517250/jewish/Parah-Adumah.htmhttps://www.chabad.org › library › article_cdo › aid › 1517250 › jewish › Parah-Adumah.htm
Parah Adumah - The Laws of the Red Heifer - Texts & Writings
Parah Adumah The Laws of the Red Heifer By Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon ("Maimonides"); translated by Eliyahu Touger Parah Adumah - Chapter 1 Parah Adumah - Chapter 2 Parah Adumah - Chapter 3 Parah Adumah - Chapter 4 Parah Adumah - Chapter 5 Parah Adumah - Chapter 6 Parah Adumah - Chapter 7 Parah Adumah - Chapter 8 Parah Adumah - Chapter 9
Images for parah adumah
OzTorah » Blog Archive » The Parah AdumahParah Adumah: The Power of Jewish Continuity - Yated.comIs the Parah Adumah Near Lakewood Kosher? | Matzav.comRabbi Eytan Feiner - Parah Adumah: The Bad ( & the Good …How to Bring a Real Parah Adumah - of sorts - The Yeshiva …Secrets of the Parah Adumah Tour - Israel Tour GuideA Legacy of Dust and AshesThe Paradox of the Parah Adumah | Torah LibraryRambam: Parah Adumah, Chapter 2 - Rambam - VideoPossible Parah Adumah On Outskirts of Lakewood | Hamodia …
More Images
Search domain jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats_the_truth_about_---the_parah_adumah/https://jewishaction.com › religion › jewish-law › whats_the_truth_about---_the_parah_adumah
What's the Truth about . . . the Parah Adumah? - Jewish Action
The parah adumah is necessary to remove only one kind of tumah—tumat met. The corpse is called avi avot hatumah (a post-Talmudic term), and anyone who becomes tamei from a corpse is an av hatumah. Others examples of av hatumah do not require the use of a parah adumah. 2.
Search domain torah.org/torah-portion/livinglaw-5767-chukas/https://torah.org › torah-portion › livinglaw-5767-chukas
Parah Adumah: A Matter of Life and Death • Torah.org
The parah adumah, Red Cow is the quintessential mitzvah that defies human reasoning. Its ashes reversed the spiritual status of a Jew who was defiled by the impurity of a corpse (Bamidbar 19). When G-d was teaching Moshe the laws of spiritual purity, the Jewish leader was aggravated as to how a contaminated Jew could ever be purified.
Videos
2:30
Parah Adumah: A… - הרב שמשון נדל Rabbi Shimshon Nadel
59 views
Facebook1mo
46:35
Chelek 16, Parah- Rabbi Ari Shishler
164 views
Vimeo1mo
3:14
Hagaon Rav Dovid Feinstein Visiting Possible Parah Adumah near Lakewood
25K views
YouTube6yr
2:43
Possible Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) Found in Upstate New York
3.8K views
YouTube7yr
6:30
Possible Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) On Outskirts of Lakewood, New Jersey
145K views
YouTube7yr
6:29
Possible Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) On Outskirts of Lakewood, New Jersey
992 views
Vimeo7yr
46:35
Chelek 16, Parah- Rabbi Ari Shishler
44 views
YouTube1mo
46:41
The Red Heifer And It's Application Today
1 view
YouTube1mo
57:24
Chelek 18, Chukas 01- Rabbi Ari Shishler
532 views
Vimeo10mo
4:47
RED HEIFER in Israel
53K views
YouTube11yr
More Videos
Are these links helpful?YesNo
Search domain chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1517264/jewish/Parah-Adumah-Chapter-6.htmhttps://www.chabad.org › library › article_cdo › aid › 1517264 › jewish › Parah-Adumah-Chapter-6.htm
Parah Adumah - Chapter 6 - Texts & Writings
Parah Adumah - Chapter 6. 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.
Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_heiferhttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Red_heifer
Red heifer - Wikipedia
the red heifer ( hebrew: פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה; para adumma ), a female bovine which has never been pregnant or milked or yoked, also known as the red cow, was a cow brought to the priests as a sacrifice according to the torah, and its ashes were used for the ritual purification of tum'at hamet ("the impurity of the dead"), that is, an israelite who …
Search domain yated.com/parah-adumah-the-power-of-jewish-continuity/https://yated.com › parah-adumah-the-power-of-jewish-continuity
Parah Adumah: The Power of Jewish Continuity - Yated.com
The Parah Adumah overcomes the tumah defilement of death by "connecting to Elokim Chaim through the Toras Chaim ." We might add at this point that the Torah of all generations, also, combines into the edifice that we call Torah itself (see Yerushalmi, Peah 2:3). That, too, is the legacy of the Parah Adumah.
Search domain messianic-torah-truth-seeker.org/Torah-Midrash/Parah-Adumah/Parah-Adumah.htmlhttps://www.messianic-torah-truth-seeker.org › Torah-Midrash › Parah-Adumah › Parah-Adumah.html
The Purification by the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer)
The Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) is a type of Yeshua. This is why it remains to this day a mystery to the Yehudim, because they are blinded for a time to the things concerning Moshiach. The Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) symbolizes a rare find. In order for a cow to qualify, it must be perfect, without blemish, and must be totally red.
Search domain reclaimingjudaism.org/teachings/parah-adumah-finding-meaning-red-heifer-practicewww.reclaimingjudaism.org › teachings › parah-adumah-finding-meaning-red-heifer-practice
Parah Adumah: Finding Meaning in the Red Heifer Practice …
This week's Torah portion reflects an ancient understanding that it is possible to honor the impact of corpse contamination and to help ease a person's way with it. So our ancestors used a paste of ground red heifer ashes to help someone marked by this experience to feel better; this works in that sancta-based rituals can create an exponential …
Search domain betemunah.org/heifer.htmlwww.betemunah.org › heifer.html
The Red Heifer - Parah Adumah - פרה אדומה
The ritual of the Parah Adumah, the red heifer, is part of one of the most mysterious rituals described in the Torah. The purpose of this ritual is to purify people from the defilement caused by contact with the dead. The ritual is discussed in Bamidbar ( Numbers) chapter 19.
Search domain myjewishlearning.com/article/the-red-heifer/https://www.myjewishlearning.com › article › the-red-heifer
The Red Heifer - My Jewish Learning
The Red Heifer (parah adumah in Hebrew), was the cow whose ashes were used in the purification rites for one who had been contaminated through having come into contact with a corpse.The Red Heifer is discussed in Numbers 19:1-22, which is in the Torah portion Chukat.These verses are also read as the final Torah reading on Shabbat Parah, the Sabbath of the Red Heifer, which occurs on the last …
Searches related to "parah adumah"
red heifer bible
jewish red heifer
what is the red heifer
red cow jewish
red heifer jew
red heifer meaning
red cow bible
cow red
Introduction to Hilchos Parah Adummah
Included in this text are two positive commandments. They comprise the following:
1) the laws of the red heifer;
2) the laws of the impurity and purity brought about by the water used for the sprinkling of its ashes.
These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.
הלכות פרה אדומה - הקדמה הלכות פרה אדומה יש בכללן שתי מצות עשה וזהו פרטן:
(א) דין פרה אדומה
(ב) דין טומאת מי נדה וטהרתן וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:
1
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.
א
מִצְוַת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אוֹ בַּת אַרְבַּע. וְאִם הָיְתָה זְקֵנָה כְּשֵׁרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא תַּשְׁחִיר וְתִפָּסֵל. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין עֶגְלָה וּמְגַדְּלִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ב) "וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה" וְלֹא עֶגְלָה. לֹא מָצְאוּ אֶלָּא עֶגְלָה פּוֹסְקִין עָלֶיהָ דָּמִים וְתִהְיֶה אֵצֶל בְּעָלֶיהָ עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִּיל וְתֵעָשֶׂה פָּרָה. וְלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה:
2
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.
ב
זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (במדבר יט ב) "תְּמִימָה" תְּמִימַת אַדְמִימוּת לֹא תְּמִימַת קוֹמָה אֶלָּא אִם הָיְתָה נַנָּסָה כְּשֵׁרָה כִּשְׁאָר הַקָּדָשִׁים. הָיוּ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְבָנוֹת אוֹ שְׁחוֹרוֹת בְּתוֹךְ גֻּמָּא אַחַת אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת וְהֵן מֻנָּחוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ פְּסוּלָה:
3
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.
ג
הָיוּ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עִקָּרָן מַאֲדִים וְרֹאשָׁן מַשְׁחִיר עִקָּרָן מַשְׁחִיר וְרֹאשָׁן מַאֲדִים הַכּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הָעִקָּר. וְגוֹזֵז בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם אֶת רֹאשָׁן הַמַּשְׁחִיר וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם גִּזָּה בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ לָגֹז:
4
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.
ד
וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר מִן הַמַּאֲדִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל בְּזוּג שֶׁכָּל שְׂעָרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִטֶּלֶת בְּזוּג הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאִלּוּ אֵינָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיוּ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְבָנוֹת אוֹ שְׁחוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן נִלְקָטִין בְּזוּג הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה:
SHOW CONTENT IN:
English Both Hebrew
« Previous
Parah Adumah - Chapter 1
Next »
Parah Adumah - Chapter 3
1
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.
א
מַעֲלוֹת יְתֵרוֹת עָשׂוּ בְּטָהֳרַת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה וְהַרְחָקוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת הִרְחִיקוּ מִטֻּמְאַת הַמֵּת בְּכָל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה בִּטְבוּלֵי יוֹם חָשׁוּ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ לְזַלְזֵל בָּהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה כְּשֶׁמַּפְרִישִׁין הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לְלִשְׁכָּה מוּכֶנֶת בָּעֲזָרָה. וּבֵית אֶבֶן הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּל כֵּלֶיהָ כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה. וּבִכְלֵי הָאֶבֶן הָיָה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ כָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַהַפְרָשָׁה. וְלֹא הָיוּ נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים כְּדֵי לְהַרְבּוֹת בְּטָהֳרָתוֹ:
2
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.
ב
שִׁבְעַת יָמִים קדֶם שְׂרֵפַת הַפָּרָה מַפְרִישִׁין כֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּפְרִישִׁין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לַעֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְדָבָר זֶה קַבָּלָה מִמּשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ. וְכֵן מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ מֵאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁמָּא תִּמָּצֵא נִדָּה וְיִהְיֶה טָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
3
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.
ג
הַלִּשְׁכָּה שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בָּהּ כָּל שִׁבְעָה צְפוֹנִית מִזְרָחִית הָיְתָה. כְּדֵי לְהַזְכִּירוֹ שֶׁהִיא כְּחַטָּאת הַנִּשְׁחֶטֶת בַּצָּפוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא נִשְׁחֶטֶת בַּחוּץ:
4
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.
ד
כָּל יוֹם וְיוֹם מִשִּׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַהַפְרָשָׁה מַזִּין עָלָיו מֵי חַטָּאת. שֶׁמָּא נִטְמָא לְמֵת וְהוּא לֹא יָדַע. חוּץ מִיּוֹם רְבִיעִי לְהַפְרָשָׁה שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ הַזָּאָה לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לֹא שְׁלִישִׁי לְטֻמְאָתוֹ וְלֹא שְׁבִיעִי. שֶׁאֵין הַזָּאָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי עוֹלָה מִשּׁוּם הַזָּאַת שְׁבִיעִי עַד שֶׁיַּזֶּה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי מִלְּפָנֶיהָ. וּמִן הַדִּין הָיָה שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ הַזָּאָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי לְהַפְרָשָׁה בִּלְבַד וְזֶה שֶׁמַּזִּין יוֹם אַחַר יוֹם מַעֲלָה יְתֵרָה עָשׂוּ בְּפָרָה:
5
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.
ה
בִּרְבִיעִי בְּשַׁבָּת הָיוּ מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּחוּל רְבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת. שֶׁהַהַזָּיָה אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת וְהָרְבִיעִי אֵין צָרִיךְ הַזָּיָה:
Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
6
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.
ו
בְּכָל יוֹם וְיוֹם מִימֵי הַהַפְרָשָׁה שֶׁמַּזִּין עָלָיו בָּהֶם. מַזִּין מֵאֵפֶר פָּרָה מִן הַפָּרוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפוּ כְּבָר. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה שָׁם אֶלָּא אֵפֶר פָּרָה אַחַת בִּלְבַד מַזִּין מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו כָּל הַשִּׁשָּׁה:
7
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.
ז
כְּשֶׁמַּזִּין עָלָיו בִּימֵי הַהַפְרָשָׁה אֵין מַזֶּה עָלָיו אֶלָּא אָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמָא בְּמֵת מֵעוֹלָם שֶׁהַמַּזֶה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה טָהוֹר. וְאִם תֹּאמַר יַזֶּה עָלָיו אִישׁ שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְהֻזָּה עָלָיו. שֶׁמָּא זֶה שֶׁהִזָּה עָלָיו לֹא הָיָה טָהוֹר מִטֻּמְאַת מֵת. וְכֵן הַכֵּלִים שֶׁמְּמַלְּאִין בָּהֶן וּמְקַדְּשִׁין לְהַזּוֹת עַל הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף כֻּלָּם כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים הָיוּ שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים מַעֲלוֹת יְתֵרוֹת הֵן שֶׁעָשׂוּ בָּהּ. וְכֵיצַד יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמָא בְּמֵת מֵעוֹלָם. חֲצֵרוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּנוּיוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי הַסֶּלַע וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן חָלוּל מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּמְבִיאִין הָיוּ נָשִׁים עֻבָּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת שָׁם וּמְגַדְּלוֹת שָׁם אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם. וּכְשֶׁיִּרְצוּ לְהַזּוֹת עַל הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף מְבִיאִין שְׁוָרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְּרֵסֵיהֶן נְפוּחוֹת וּמַנִּיחִים עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דְּלָתוֹת וְיוֹשְׁבִין הַתִּינוֹקוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי הַדְּלָתוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאֹהֶל מַבְדִּיל בֵּינָם לְבֵין הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וְכוֹסוֹת שֶׁל אֶבֶן בְּיָדָם וְהוֹלְכִין לַשִּׁילוֹחַ. הִגִּיעוּ לַשִּׁילוֹחַ יוֹרְדִין שָׁם וּמְמַלְּאִין שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ שָׁם מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִקְבֹּר בַּנְּהָרוֹת. וְעוֹלִין וְיוֹשְׁבִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַדְּלָתוֹת וְהוֹלְכִין עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעִין לְהַר הַבַּיִת. הִגִּיעוּ לְהַר הַבַּיִת יוֹרְדִין וּמְהַלְּכִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּל הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן הָיָה חָלוּל מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּמְהַלְּכִין עַד פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה. וּבְפֶתַח הָעֲזָרָה הָיָה קָלָל שֶׁל אֵפֶר נוֹטְלִין הָאֵפֶר וְנוֹתְנִין בַּמַּיִם שֶׁבַּכּוֹסוֹת וּמַזִּין עַל הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף. וּמַטְבִּילִין הָיוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁמְּמַלְּאִין וּמְקַדְּשִׁין וּמַזִּין עַל הַשּׂוֹרֵף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן טְהוֹרִין מִטֻּמְאַת הַמֵּת שֶׁמָּא נִטְמְאוּ בְּטֻמְאָה אַחֶרֶת:
8
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.
ח
תִּינוֹק שֶׁטָּבַל לְמַלְּאוֹת וּלְהַזּוֹת לֹא יְמַלֵּא בְּכֵלָיו תִּינוֹק אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּבַל. וְתִינוֹק שֶׁטָּבַל לְהַזּוֹת עַל כֹּהֵן זֶה אֵינוֹ מַזֶּה עַל כֹּהֵן אַחֵר עַד שֶׁיִּטְבּל לְשֵׁם מַעֲשֶׂה זֶה הַכֹּהֵן. וְכֵן כֵּלִים שֶׁטִּהֲרוּם לְחַטָּאת זוֹ וּבְנֵי אָדָם שֶׁטִּהֲרוּם לְחַטָּאת זוֹ לֹא יִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶם בְּפָרָה אַחֶרֶת עַד שֶׁיִּטְבְּלוּ לִשְׁמָהּ. וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ מַעֲלוֹת יְתֵרוֹת בְּפָרָה:
1
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.
א
אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַפָּרָה אֶלָּא חוּץ לְהַר הַבַּיִת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ג) "וְהוֹצִיא אֹתָהּ" אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה. וּבְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה הָיוּ שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ. וְכֶבֶשׁ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין מֵהַר הַבַּיִת לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה וְתַחְתָּיו בָּנוּי כִּפִּין כִּפִּין וְכִפָּה עַל כָּל שְׁנֵי כִּפִּין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵי רַגְלֵי הַכִּפָּה עַל גַּג שְׁנֵי כִּפִּין שֶׁתַּחְתֶּיהָ. כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תַּחַת הַכּל חָלוּל מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. אַף מְקוֹם שְׂרֵפָתָהּ וּמְקוֹם הַטְּבִילָה שֶׁהָיוּ בְּהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן חָלוּל מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וְהַפָּרָה וְהַשּׂוֹרֵף וְכָל הַמְסַעֲדִין בִּשְׂרֵפָתָהּ יוֹצְאִין מֵהַר הַבַּיִת לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה עַל גַּבֵּי כֶּבֶשׁ זֶה:
2
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.
ב
כֵּיצַד שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ. זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ מַקְדִּימִין בְּרַגְלֵיהֶן לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה וּבֵית טְבִילָה הָיָה שָׁם. וְכֹהֵן וְהַמְסַעֲדִין בִּשְׂרֵפָתָהּ וְהַפָּרָה יוֹצְאִין עַל הַכֶּבֶשׁ וּבָאִין לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה. וּמְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְסוֹמְכִין הַזְּקֵנִים אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל הַכֹּהֵן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ טְבל אַחַת. וְאִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אִישִׁי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טְבל אַחַת. יָרַד וְטָבַל וְעָלָה וְנִסְתַּפֵּג. וְעֵצִים מְסֻדָּרִים הָיוּ שָׁם אֲרָזִים אַלּוֹנִים וּבְרוֹשִׁים וַעֲצֵי תְּאֵנָה חֲלָקָה. וְעוֹשִׂין מַעֲרָכָה כְּמִין מִגְדָּל וּמְפַתְּחִין בָּהּ חַלּוֹנוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הָאוּר מְלַבֶּבֶת בָּהֶן. וּמַרְאֵה הַמַּעֲרָכָה בְּמַעֲרָב. וְכוֹפְתִין אֶת הַפָּרָה בְּחֶבֶל שֶׁל מֶגֶג וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּעֲרָכָה רֹאשָׁהּ לְדָרוֹם וּפָנֶיהָ לְמַעֲרָב. הַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב. שׁוֹחֵט בִּימִינוֹ וּמְקַבֵּל הַדָּם בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. וּמַזֶּה בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ הַיְמָנִית מִן הַדָּם שֶׁבְּכַפּוֹ הַשְּׂמָאלִית שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קָדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים. עַל כָּל הַזָּאָה טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע בְּדָם. וּשְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁבָּאֶצְבַּע פְּסוּלִים לְהַזָּיָה לְפִיכָךְ עַל כָּל הַזָּאָה מְקַנֵּחַ אֶצְבָּעוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה. גָּמַר מִלְּהַזּוֹת מְקַנֵּחַ אֶת יָדָיו בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה וְיוֹרֵד מִן הַמַּעֲרָכָה וְהִצִּית אֶת הָאֵשׁ בְּעֵצִים קְטַנִּים וְהִכְנִיסָן תַּחַת עֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה וְהִתְחִיל הָאֵשׁ בָּהּ וְהַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בְּרָחוֹק וּמְשַׁמֵּר לָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּצַּת אֶת הָאוּר בְּרֻבָּהּ וְתִקָּרַע בִּטְנָהּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטֵל עֵץ אֶרֶז וְאֵזוֹב אֵין פָּחוֹת מִטֶּפַח וְצֶמֶר צָבוּעַ בְּתוֹלַעַת מִשְׁקַל חֲמִשָּׁה סְלָעִים וְאוֹמֵר לָעוֹמְדִים שָׁם. עֵץ אֶרֶז זֶה עֵץ אֶרֶז זֶה עֵץ אֶרֶז זֶה. אֵזוֹב זֶה אֵזוֹב זֶה אֵזוֹב זֶה. שְׁנִי תּוֹלַעַת זֶה שְׁנִי תּוֹלַעַת זֶה שְׁנִי תּוֹלַעַת זֶה. שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְהֵן אוֹמְרִין לוֹ הֵין הֵין הֵין שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה לְפִי שֶׁמִּינֵי אֲרָזִים שִׁבְעָה הֵן וּמִינֵי אֵזוֹב אַרְבָּעָה וְהַצָּבוּעַ אָדֹם יֵשׁ שֶׁצּוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ בְּפוּאָה וְיֵשׁ שֶׁצּוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ בְּלַכָּא וְיֵשׁ שֶׁצּוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ בְּתוֹלַעַת וְהַתּוֹלַעַת הִיא הַגַּרְגְּרִים הָאֲדֻמִּים בְּיוֹתֵר הַדּוֹמִים לְגַרְעִינֵי הֶחָרוּבִים וְהֵן כְּמוֹ הָאוֹג וְתוֹלַעַת כְּמוֹ יַתּוּשׁ יֵשׁ בְּכָל גַּרְגִּיר מֵהֶן וּלְפִיכָךְ מוֹדִיעַ לַכּל וּמְגַלֶּה לָהֶן שֶׁאֵלּוּ הֵן הַמִּינִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּתּוֹרָה. וְהָאֵזוֹב הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא הָאֵזוֹב שֶׁאוֹכְלִין אוֹתוֹ בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים וּמְתַבְּלִין בּוֹ הַקְּדֵרוֹת. הָאֵזוֹב וְהָאֶרֶז וְהַתּוֹלַעַת שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וְכוֹרֵךְ הָאֵזוֹב עִם הָאֶרֶז בְּלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל שָׁנִי וּמַשְׁלִיךְ אֶל תּוֹךְ בִּטְנָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ו) "וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֶל תּוֹךְ שְׂרֵפַת הַפָּרָה". וְאֵינוֹ מַשְׁלִיךְ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּצִּית הָאוּר בְּרֻבָּהּ וְלֹא אַחַר שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר וְאִם הִשְׁלִיךְ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶל תּוֹךְ שְׂרֵפַת לֹא קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּצַּת הָאוּר בְּרֻבָּהּ וְלֹא אַחַר שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר. בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁלִיךְ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן כְּאַחַת בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁלִיךְ זֶה אַחַר זֶה בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁלִיךְ לְתוֹךְ גּוּפָהּ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ שְׂרֵפָתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁנִּקְרְעָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִשְׁלִיךְ בֵּין שֶׁקְּרָעָהּ בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ בִּכְלִי כְּשֵׁרָה:
3
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.
ג
נִגְמְרָה שְׂרֵפָתָהּ חוֹבְטִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַקְלוֹת הִיא וְכָל עֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה בָּהֶן וְכוֹבְרִין אֶת הַכּל בִּכְבָרוֹת וְכָל שָׁחֹר שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּכָּתֵשׁ וְיִהְיֶה אֵפֶר בֵּין מִבְּשָׂרָהּ בֵּין מִן הָעֵצִים כּוֹתְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֵפֶר מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ וְכָל עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מֵעֲצָמֶיהָ בְּלֹא שְׂרֵפָה בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ הָיָה נִכְתַּשׁ:
4
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.
ד
אֵין מַכְנִיסִין כְּלוּם מֵאֶפְרָהּ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בָּעֲזָרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ט) "וְהִנִּיחַ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה". וּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים הָיוּ חוֹלְקִין אֶת כָּל אֶפְרָהּ אֶחָד נִתַּן בַּחֵיל וְאֶחָד בְּהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶחָד מִתְחַלֵּק לְכָל הַמִּשְׁמָרוֹת. זֶה שֶׁמִּתְחַלֵּק לְכָל הַמִּשְׁמָרוֹת הָיוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים מְקַדְּשִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ. וְזֶה שֶׁנִּתַּן בְּהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַזִּין מִמֶּנּוּ. וְזֶה שֶׁנִּתַּן בַּחֵיל הָיָה מוּכָן וּמֻצְנָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ט) "וְהָיְתָה לַעֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת" מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּצְנִיעִין מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן הָיוּ מַצְנִיעִין מֵאֵפֶר כָּל פָּרָה וּפָרָה שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין בַּחֵיל. וְתֵשַׁע פָּרוֹת אֲדֻמּוֹת נַעֲשׂוּ מִשֶּׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּמִצְוָה זוֹ עַד שֶׁחָרַב הַבַּיִת בַּשְּׁנִיָּה. רִאשׁוֹנָה עָשָׂה משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ. שְׁנִיָּה עָשָׂה עֶזְרָא. וְשֶׁבַע מֵעֶזְרָא עַד חֻרְבַּן הַבַּיִת. וְהָעֲשִׂירִית יַעֲשֶׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ מְהֵרָה יִגָּלֶה אָמֵן כֵּן יְהִי רָצוֹן:
« Previous
Parah Adumah - Chapter 3
Next »
Parah Adumah - Chapter 5
1
Two red heifers should not be slaughtered at the same time, as Numbers 19:3 states: "And you shall slaughter it."
א
אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת אֲדֻמּוֹת כְּאַחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ג) "וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ":
2
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."
ב
לֹא רָצְתָה פָּרָה לָצֵאת אֵין מוֹצִיאִין עִמָּהּ שְׁחוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ שְׁחוֹרָה שָׁחֲטוּ וְלֹא אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ שְׁתַּיִם שָׁחֲטוּ:
3
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.
ג
פָּרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ אוֹ שֶׁקִּבֵּל אוֹ שֶׁהִזָּה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ אוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ וְלִשְׁמָהּ אוֹ שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית שֶׁלֹּא בְּכֹהֵן אוֹ בִּמְחֻסַּר בְּגָדִים אוֹ שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ בְּבִגְדֵי זָהָב אוֹ בְּבִגְדֵי חֹל פְּסוּלָה. שְׁחָטָהּ עַל מְנָת לֶאֱכל מִבְּשָׂרָהּ אוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת מִדָּמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בָּהּ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ:
4
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.
ד
קִבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּכְלִי פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ד) "וְלָקַח אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן מִדָּמָהּ בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ" מִצְוָתָהּ מִצְוַת יָד וְלֹא מִצְוַת כְּלִי:
5
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."
ה
הִזָּה בִּכְלִי אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת מֵהֶן הַזָּאָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הִזָּה אַחַת מֵהֶן בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הִזּוּ שִׁבְעָה כֹּהֲנִים הַזָּיָתָן כְּאֶחָד הַזָּיָתָן פְּסוּלָה. זֶה אַחַר זֶה כְּשֵׁרָה. הִזָּה וְלֹא כִּוֵּן כְּנֶגֶד הַהֵיכָל פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ד) "אֶל נֹכַח פְּנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" עַד שֶׁיְּכַוֵּן כְּנֶגֶד הַהֵיכָל וְיִהְיֶה רוֹאֵהוּ. וְכֵן אִם שְׁחָטָהּ אוֹ שְׂרָפָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַהֵיכָל פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ג) "וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו":
6
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.
ו
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהִזָּה אוֹ שָׂרַף אוֹ שָׁחַט כְּנֶגֶד הַדָּרוֹם אוֹ כְּנֶגֶד צָפוֹן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֲחוֹרָיו לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֲבָל אִם עָמַד בֵּין מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב וּפָנָיו כְּנֶגֶד הַהֵיכָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כִּוֵּן כְּנֶגֶד [הַהֵיכָל] בְּדִקְדּוּק כְּשֵׁרָה:
7
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.
ז
חִסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת פְּסוּלָה. טָבַל שְׁתַּיִם וְהִזָּה אַחַת הַזָּאָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. טָבַל אַחַת וְהִזָּה שְׁתַּיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָשַׁב הַזָּאָה שְׁנִיָּה אֶלָּא טָבַל וְהִזָּה אַחֶרֶת הַזָּיָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. כֵּיצַד. טָבַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ טְבִילָה שִׁשִּׁית וְהִזָּה שֵׁשׁ וְשֶׁבַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וְטָבַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע הַזָּיָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הִזָּה מִטְּבִילָה שְׁבִיעִית [שְׁבִיעִית] וּשְׁמִינִית אֲפִלּוּ חָזַר וְטָבַל טְבִילָה שְׁמִינִית וְהִזָּה שְׁמִינִית כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁכָּל שֶׁמּוֹסִיף עַל הַשֶּׁבַע אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זֶה שֶׁהוֹסִיף כֹּהֵן אַחֵר אֲבָל הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ אִם הוֹסִיף פְּסוּלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתְעַסֵּק בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בִּשְׁעַת שְׂרֵפָתָהּ:
8
If one removed the blood from its arrangement and then sprinkled it, it is invalid.
ח
הוֹצִיא אֶת הַדָּם חוּץ מִמַּעֲרַכְתָּהּ וְהִזָּה פְּסוּלָה:
9
If one sprinkled its blood at night - even if one performed seven sprinklings during the day and one at night - it is unacceptable.
ט
הִזָּה מִדָּמָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה אֲפִלּוּ הִזָּה שֵׁשׁ הַזָּיוֹת בַּיּוֹם וְאַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה פְּסוּלָה:
10
If one slaughtered it outside the place where it is burnt, even if one slaughtered it within the walls of Jerusalem, it is unacceptable.
י
שְׁחָטָהּ חוּץ מִמְּקוֹם שְׂרֵפָתָהּ אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטָהּ לְפָנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה פְּסוּלָה:
11
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.
יא
שְׂרָפָהּ חוּץ מִמַּעֲרָכָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה עָלֶיהָ. אוֹ שֶׁחִלְּקָהּ לִשְׁנַיִם וּשְׂרָפָהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי מַעֲרָכוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂרַף שְׁתַּיִם בְּמַעֲרָכָה אַחַת פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית אֵפֶר מֵבִיא אַחֶרֶת שׂוֹרֵף עַל גַּבָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ:
12
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.
יב
הִפְשִׁיטָהּ וּנְתָחָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׂרַף כֻּלָּהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם חִסֵּר מִמֶּנָּה כְּלוּם אֲפִלּוּ מִפִּרְשָׁהּ פְּסוּלָה. פָּקַע מֵעוֹרָהּ אוֹ מִבְּשָׂרָהּ אֲפִלּוּ מִשְּׂעָרָהּ כְּזַיִת יַחְזִיר וְאִם לֹא הֶחְזִיר פְּסוּלָה. פָּקַע חוּץ לְמַעֲרַכְתָּהּ מַרְבֶּה עָלָיו וְשׂוֹרְפוֹ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. פָּקַע מִקַּרְנֶיהָ מִטְּלָפֶיהָ אוֹ מִפִּרְשָׁהּ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַחְזִיר:
13
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.
יג
הַפָּרָה אֵינָהּ נִפְסֶלֶת בְּלִינָה לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה הַיּוֹם וְהִזָּה דָּמָהּ כְּהִלְכָתוֹ וְנִשְׂרְפָה לְמָחָר כְּשֵׁרָה:
14
If the priest who burns it is in the acute state of onein mourning or is lacking atonement, it is acceptable.
יד
שְׂרָפָהּ אוֹנֵן אוֹ מְחֻסַּר כַּפָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה:
15
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.
טו
שְׂרָפָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּקִדּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם פְּסוּלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ כְּעֵין עֲבוֹדָה. וְהֵיכָן מְקַדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים וְאִם קִדֵּשׁ בַּחוּץ וּמִכְּלִי חֹל אֲפִלּוּ בִּמְקֵדָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס כָּשֵׁר הוֹאִיל וְכָל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּחוּץ. וְכֵן כְּשֶׁמַּטְבִּילִין אֶת הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אַחַר שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַחְזֹר וּלְקַדֵּשׁ הוֹאִיל וְכָל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ בִּטְבוּלֵי יוֹם:
16
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.
טז
שְׂרָפָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵצִים אוֹ בְּכָל עֵצִים אֲפִלּוּ בְּקַשׁ אוֹ בִּגְבָבָא כְּשֵׁרָה. וּמִצְוָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא יְמַעֵט לָהּ עֵצִים מִן הָרָאוּי לָהּ אֲבָל מַרְבֶּה הוּא לָהּ חֲבִילֵי אֵזוֹב וְאֵזוֹב יוֹן בִּזְמַן שְׂרֵפָה כְּדֵי לְהַרְבּוֹת אֶת הָאֵפֶר. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַרְבּוֹת עֵצִים בִּשְׂרֵפָתָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר אֲבָל מִשֶּׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר אִם הוֹסִיף בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ עֵץ אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה כִּמְעָרֵב אֵפֶר מַקְלֶה בְּאֵפֶר הַפָּרָה:
17
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.
יז
כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה הַפָּרָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם. וּבְזִכְרֵי כְּהֻנָּה. וְהַמְּלָאכָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר אִם כָּנַס אֶפְרָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁכְּנָסַתּוּ אִשָּׁה אוֹ שֶׁעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת בִּשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲסִיפַת הָאֵפֶר בְּכָל אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ט) "וְאָסַף אִישׁ טָהוֹר" מִכְּלַל שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה כֹּהֵן וּכְאִלּוּ אָמַר אָדָם טָהוֹר בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהַמְּלָאכָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט ג) "וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִם נִתְעַסֵּק בְּדָבָר אַחֵר בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָתָהּ פְּסָלָהּ וְנֶאֱמַר (במדבר יט ה) "וְשָׂרַף אֶת הַפָּרָה לְעֵינָיו" שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֵינָיו בָּהּ לְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמְּלָאכָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ מִשְּׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר. וְכָל הָעוֹסֵק בִּשְׂרֵפָתָהּ וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת פְּסָלָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר:
18
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.
יח
שָׁחַט אֶת הַפָּרָה וְנִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת עִמָּהּ אוֹ נֶחְתְכָה דְּלַעַת עִמָּהּ כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לִמְלָאכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה עִמָּהּ כְּשֵׁרָה לַאֲכִילָה שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטַת הַחֻלִּין צְרִיכָה כַּוָּנָה. אֲבָל אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לַחְתֹּךְ הַדְּלַעַת וְנֶחְתְכָה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה עִמָּהּ מְלָאכָה:
>>>>better ingredients
>>>>better pizza
bill barr was raised for the pizzagate experience