She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 11

E. g., Chapter 10, Halachah 3, and in the subsequent halachot in this chapter.

It can, however, impart impurity to foods that are terumah or consecrated.

The carcass of a crawling animal.

An earthenware container’s.

The ovens of that era were earthenware vessels.

I.e., a primary derivative causes terumah to become a secondary derivative. The secondary derivative can impart impurity to other terumah or consecrated food. If terumah contracts impurity from a secondary derivative, it can impart impurity to liquids.

See Hilchot Terumah 12:11 which mentions practical applications of this concept.

Our text is based on the Shabbetai Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text has a slightly different — and confusing — version.

Here the term “consecrated food” refers to terumah.
As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 10, Halachah 9, although the Rambam is supporting the concept with a Biblical verse, he considers this a Rabbinic safeguard and the verse is merely an asmachta (an allusion cited by the Sages).

I.e., sacrificial meat.

See Halachah 2.

As is required according to that prooftext when sacrificial meat becomes impure. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:1.

A kal vachomer (a fortiori reasoning), the first of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis (Sifra, recited in our morning prayers). In this instance as well, in Chapter 10, Halachah 9, the Rambam states that this measure is merely a Rabbinic safeguard. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which states that according to Scriptural Law, no food imparts impurity to other foods.

I.e., a zav or the like, who must bring sacrifices before being permitted to partake of sacrificial food.

The term the Rambam uses, lit. “meat of desire,” has its source in Deuteronomy 12:20; Chulin 16b, et al.

I.e., sacrificial meat, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The commentaries note that the Rambam’s ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:17) which states that priests who are ritually pure may partake of the sacrificial meat that became mixed with ordinary meat. The Radbaz (responsum 2223) explains that, chronologically, that Mishnah was taught before this ruling which is based on the Tosefta (Nidah 9:11). In his Mishneh Torah, the Rambam followed the Tosefta.
The Radbaz explains that the two sources can be integrated and the Mishnah can be interpreted as referring only to the ordinary meat, teaching that it can be eaten by those who are ritually pure. The sacrificial meat, by contrast remains forbidden. That interpretation is reflected in the Rambam’s ruling Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:13: “When meat from the sacrifices of the most sacred order or sacrifices of lesser sanctity is cooked together with ordinary meat, the ordinary meat is forbidden to those who are ritually impure and permitted to those who are ritually pure.”

This phrase connotes a conclusion that the Rambam reached through the process of deduction that has no explicit source in prior Rabbinic works.

E. g., two pieces of meat lying in a broth.

I.e., if a source of impurity touches one of them, the other is considered as impure.

I.e., even though the source of impurity did not touch the second piece of food, it is considered as having the same status as the first.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that Zevachim 105b discusses the question raised by the Rambam and does not leave the matter unresolved. Instead, it was decided that the two pieces of meat do not have the same status. The Kessef Mishneh cites another source, Menachot 24a from which it appears that the question is indeed left unresolved.

The liquids become primary derivatives of impurity.

Because a tertiary derivative does not impart impurity to terumah.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling based on Taharot 2:7. The Kessef Mishneh explains that although the Mishnah appears to follow the Ra’avad’s understanding, it could be interpreted according to the Rambam’s view.

There were individuals, primarily priests, who would frequently partake of terumah (or consecrated foods). Hence, they were stringent and even when preparing and partaking of ordinary foods would follow the stringencies that apply to terumah (or consecrated foods; see Rashi, Chulin 34a).
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 2:2), the Rambam writes that these practices were followed by “pious, God fearing men who wished to seclude themselves from the masses of unlearned people.”

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:6), the Rambam explains that more lenient laws apply to ordinary food that was prepared with the stringencies of terumah than to terumah itself. Moreover, even if only the initial entity that became impure was ordinary food that was prepared with the stringencies of terumah and the secondary and tertiary derivatives were terumah or consecrated food, these leniencies apply.

Thus the laws that apply to ordinary food prepared with the stringencies applying to consecrated food are more lenient than those that apply when it is prepared with the stringencies that apply to terumah. Rashi (Chulin 33b) explains the rationale for this anomaly. There were many people who adopted the stringencies applying to terumah when preparing their food. Hence our Sages established special rulings for such food. Few, however, adopted the more stringent laws that apply to consecrated foods. Hence, the Sages did not establish special laws for them and their food was governed by the same laws as ordinary food.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, citing sources (Chulin 34a-35a, Nidah 6b, Chagigah 18b, 19b) that indicate that the laws applying to ordinary food that was prepared with the stringencies of consecrated food are the same as those applying to consecrated food itself. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.; Chagigah 2:7), the Rambam rebuts such a position, explaining that this was the initial position taken by the redactors of the Mishnah. Nevertheless, later they reversed their view, adopting the position he cites in this halachah.

Until he immerses in a mikveh. Although touching such impure food does not impart impurity, our Sages (Chulin 34a) decreed that a person who partakes of it should have the same status of impurity as the food that he eats. Since the person becomes impure, he is prohibited against partaking of consecrated foods. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 2:2, 5); see also Chapter 8, Halachah 10.

For, as stated above, his status is the same as the food from which he partakes.

I.e., one cooked ordinary food or terumah together with consecrated food, producing a dish that is a mixture of them both.

A half of a loaf is considered as the size of three eggs, i.e., six olive-sized portions. Since the amount of consecrated food is such a small proportion of the mixture, the person is not considered to have partaken of consecrated food (compare to Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:3), merely to have touched it. Nevertheless, due to the stringency associated with consecrated food, even this is prohibited.

In Halachah 4.

Terumah may only be eaten by a person who is ritually pure. Although touching terumah that is a third degree derivative of impurity does not impart impurity, partaking of it does.

He may partake of it directly after immersion; he need not wait until nightfall.

In this respect, terumah is judged more leniently than consecrated foods, as can be seen by comparison to the previous halachah, for the laws governing consecrated food are more stringent. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

See Chapter 12, Halachah 4; Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

Such a person is permitted to partake of consecrated food. Although consecrated food that is a tertiary derivative of impurity creates a fourth degree derivative, as the Rambam states, this applies only to consecrated food itself and not to ordinary food prepared with the stringencies of consecrated food. As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 9, greater stringency was shown with regard to ordinary food prepared with the stringencies of terumah than ordinary food prepared with the stringencies of consecrated food.

The Rambam’s wording is borrowed from Chulin 35a.

Kodesh in the original.

I.e., sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, and communal peace-offerings.

Thanksgiving offerings, peace-offerings, tithe offerings, and firstborn offerings.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:17.

See ibid.:23.

For, until the sacrifices are offered, the consecration of the bread is not complete.

For, until the meal offerings are placed in a consecrated vessel, their consecration is not complete.

A portion of dough that had to be separated and given to a priest when making a large dough.

I.e., when a non-priest partakes of terumah unknowingly, he is required to make restitution for it and add a fifth of its value (Hilchot Terumot 10:1). The additional fifth is considered as the principal in all contexts (ibid.:15).

Produce from which terumah and/or the tithes were not separated.

Whose laws are mentioned in Halachah 2.

The same laws that apply to terumah apply to challah.

As pure challah would be, because perhaps it is impure and thus forbidden to be eaten.

As is the law regarding impure challah, because perhaps it is pure, in which instance, it would be forbidden to burn it.