צובע ב׳ - הקדמה לצובע

(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.

(13) Whenever the Torah uses the word sheish or bad, it is referring to flax, i.e., linen. Whenever the term techeilet is used, it refers to wool which is dyed sky-blue, i.e., lighter35See Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 1:4 where the Rambam defines patuch as a color mixed with white. See also Hilchot Tzitzit 2:1. than dark blue. The term argaman refers to wool that is dyed red.36There are some who interpret the term as referring to a purplish dye. Others explain that it is mixture of several dyes of thread. See Ra'avad and Kessef Mishneh. And tola'at sheni refers to wool dyed with a gnat.37See Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2 where the Rambam writes that this dye is produced from a seed that has a small gnat in it that produces a scarlet color.

(3) A person who breaks open an egg over a warm cloth, over sand, or over the dust of the roads that are heated by the sun is not liable11Even if the food cooks thoroughly, one is not liable, because this is not the ordinary way food is cooked. even though it becomes roasted, for the derivatives of the heat of the sun are [governed by] different [laws than those governing] the derivatives of fire. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted a decree forbidding cooking with [the derivatives of the heat of the sun], lest [one cook with] the derivatives of fire.12Were one to be allowed to cook by using substances warmed by the sun, one might err and cook using substances warmed by fire. It is, however, permitted to leave food to be cooked by the sun itself (Shabbat 39a; Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 22, Halachah 9). Similarly, a person who cooks using the [hot] springs of Tiberias and the like is not held liable.13Although one of the Sages states that a person who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias is liable, the Talmud immediately clarifies that the intent is "liable for 'stripes for rebelliousness,' the punishment given for violating a Rabbinic ordinance (Shabbat 40b).
A person who cooks food that has been completely cooked, on a fire,14This statement implies that until the food is completely cooked, one is liable for cooking. This relates one of the points of difference between the Rambam and the Ashkenazic halachic authorities who were cited in our commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 4. The latter maintain that since food that is one-third or one-half cooked is fit to be eaten, there are leniencies with regard to the laws governing leaving food to warm on the Sabbath and returning food to a fire on the Sabbath. The Rashba (as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh) develops this view further and maintains that once food has reached this stage of being cooked, one is not liable for cooking it further.
The Rambam (Chapter 22, Halachah 8), however, maintains that if food has been completely cooked one may place it in hot water on the Sabbath to warm. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:4), however, follows the view of the Ashkenazic authorities who accept this leniency only when the food is dry. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:5) also questions if this leniency also applies with regard to food that was baked or roasted. or who cooks food that does not need to be cooked15Shabbat 40b mentions this principle with regard to oil. Other examples are fresh fruits and vegetables that are usually eaten raw (Rabbi Akiva Eiger). at all is not liable.16As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the term "not liable," פטור in Hebrew, also implies that this activity is forbidden according to Rabbinic decree. Thus, recooking food or cooking fresh produce on the Sabbath is definitely forbidden.

(13) A person who dyes a thread that is four handbreadths long or fabric from which a thread of this length can be spun is liable.
A person is not liable unless the dye he uses will make a permanent [change in the article's color]. When the application of color will not have a permanent effect - e.g., one who applies red clay or vermilion to iron or brass and colors it is not liable, for it can be removed immediately without dyeing it at all. Whenever a person performs a labor that does not have a permanent effect on the Sabbath,51We have translated the Rambam's wording literally, although it appears somewhat clumsy, because of a concept that can be derived from it. Permanence is a relative concept in our world. Hence, when a person performs an activity that appears permanent on the Sabbath itself, he can be held liable for it although later there is a possibility for change (Rav Kapach). he is not liable.52Shabbat 12:1 states, "Anyone who performs a labor - and that labor has an enduring effect on the Sabbath - is liable."

(9) A person who writes37This is one of the 39 categories of forbidden labor. two38One is liable for writing two letters because this resembles the activity necessary for the construction of the Sanctuary. A mark was made on each of the sides of the walls, so that it would be used to match the same walls to each other every time the Sanctuary was erected (Shabbat 12:3, Rashi, Shabbat 75b). letters39The same also applies to a person who writes two numerals (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 340:8). See the notes on the following halachah and on Halachah 17, which discuss the use of marks or symbols. is liable. A person who erases writing so that he can write40One's intent need not be to write on the Sabbath itself. As long as one erases with the intent of writing, one is liable regardless of when one actually writes (Mishnah Berurah 340:13). two letters is liable.41This is also one of the 39 categories of forbidden labor. If a mark was made in error on one of the walls, it was erased so that the correct mark could be made.
A person who writes one large letter the size of two [ordinary] letters is not liable.42For he has only written one letter. One is not liable until one writes two letters, regardless of their size. Nevertheless, writing even a single letter is considered as חצי שיעור (the performance of half the forbidden measure of a prohibition) and forbidden according to the Torah itself (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 340:4, Mishnah Berurah 340:12). In contrast, a person who erases one large letter in a place where two letters can be written is liable.43For his erasure is sufficient to enable two letters to be written.
A person who wrote one letter that concluded a scroll is liable.44In this instance, although only one letter was written, the act is significant, because it completed an entire scroll. There are commentaries on Shabbat 104b, the source for this halachah, who maintain that, in this instance, one is liable for performing the labor מכה בפטיש, completing an article. From the Rambam's wording, however, it appears that he holds him liable for writing.
We see a similar decision with regard to the forbidden labor of weaving. In Chapter 9, Halachah 18, the Rambam writes that one is liable for weaving one thread if by doing so, one completes a garment (Rav Kapach). A person who writes for the sake of ruining the parchment is liable,45I.e., one writes an ordinary letter on parchment fit to write a Torah scroll (Rav Kapach). for one is liable for the writing itself46Although one has ruined the parchment and thus there is a destructive aspect to one's activity, since the words one wrote are significant, one is liable. and the surface on which [the letters] are written is not significant. If one rubs out writing with the intent of ruining [the writing surface], one is not liable.47For the entire purpose of the labor of erasing is to prepare a writing surface for use.
Should one rub out ink that fell on a scroll or rub out wax that fell on a writing tablet,48In Talmudic times, the word פנקס referred to a book of tablets coated with wax upon which merchants would write with a stylus (Rashi, Shabbat 104b). one is liable49For erasing. With this act, one prepares a writing surface. Note the Sh'vut Ya'akov and others who explain that one is liable for smearing the wax (see Halachah 6). Most authorities, however, accept the Rambam's ruling that one is liable for erasing. if [the rubbed out] portion is large enough for two letters to be written upon it.