Tum'at Okhalin - Chapter 6

I.e., there are cracks in them, but they are still connected to the fruit [the Ram. bam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:6)].

And classified as a shomer and included when calculating whether the food is as large as an olive-sized portion.

Once the shell is shattered, even if it is again placed over the fruit, it is not considered as a shomer (ibid.). The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that once a shell has been cracked, even if it has not been shattered, it is not considered a shomer. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s understanding, stating that as long as the shell is not shattered entirely, it is somewhat useful as a protective agent.

I.e., roasted to the degree that the egg itself has been cooked some, but has not coagulated entirely. See Uktzin 2:7.

And is no longer considered as a shomer.

And can no longer be sucked through a hole.

A cooking technique is to apply spices to the shell of an egg. Since the shell is porous, the spices will be absorbed and will flavor the egg.

Even though the shattered shell will no longer be effective in protecting the egg, it is desired, because it will flavor it (Kessef Mishneh).

The marrow is considered as food and the bone, as its shomer. Hence, the bone is included together with the marrow in the measure of an egg-sized portion [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin, loc. cit.)].

Although this action indicates that the person intends to remove the scales and the wings, as long as they remained attached to the fish or the locust, they are included in its measure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that when the shell of a pomegranate has dried out and the pomegranate seeds can be heard shaking within the shell, the shell is still considered as connected to them until one strikes the shell with a reed or a stick to cause the seeds to fall.

Which hold the dates themselves.

Although several stalks grow from the same branch, the stalks are not combined with each other, but instead are considered as independent entities.

I.e., he cut it into portions, but did not divide the portions entirely from each other.

The Rambam’s text is based on the Tosefta (Uktzin 2:5). Rav Yosef Corcus explains the Rambam’s understanding as follows: When cucumbers were served in the Talmudic era, they would be cut into four quarters. Nevertheless, the different pieces were not separated from each other entirely and remained connected to each other on their underside. When a person desired to partake of a given piece, he would separate it entirely.

It was customary to cut this portion off by itself. Hence it is considered as a distinct entity even when it was not yet cut off.

This teaching is a continuation of the above Tosefta. Although the standard version follows the Rambam’s understanding, others follow a different rendering of that text that presents fewer conceptual difficulties.
As the Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus state, the Rambam’s version is difficult to understand, for seemingly, the opposite is true: The portion that he separated to eat has already become distinct, while the remainder remains connected and is considered a single entity.

For they will be separated through the cooking process [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:5)].

For he desires that the pieces remain together so that when he takes one, he will take all the others (ibid.).

The piece that is separated is considered as a distinct entity, but the remainder of the vegetable is still considered as joined (ibid.).

And they are not viewed as a single entity. From the different opinions mentioned in T’vul Yom 3:1, it would appear that, according to the Rambam, the fact that the converse is true — that if one would pick up the portion that is pure, the impure portion would ascend with it — is insignificant. The ruling depends on what would happen when the impure portion is picked up.

I.e., without falling off [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 3:1)].

And if an impure person touched the leaves or the stalk, it is considered as if he touched the food itself.

And thus can still impart impurity in certain situations.

And the determination of whether or not the portion is connected determined accordingly.

The Kessef Mishneh understands this as implying that if it would ascend with either one, a stringent ruling is delivered and it is considered as part of the food.

I.e., tied the stems of the nuts together to produce a long chain with nuts hanging from it. This is possible only when the stems are soft [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:6)]. In his gloss to the following halachah, the Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of this mishnah, but the Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s view.

That were still joined to each other.

Since they were joined together by human activity, as soon as the person indicates that he no longer desires to keep them joined forever, they are considered as separate.

I.e., has been made susceptible to impurity, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 1-2.

The Ra’avad questions why this chain of garlic heads is considered as different from the chain of onions mentioned in the previous halachah. The Kessef Mishneh writes that, indeed, according to the Rambam, there is not necessarily a difference. The difference is between actually contracting impurity and becoming susceptible to impurity.

Since the garlic heads are not expected to be left joined for an extended time, to become susceptible to impurity, each one must come in contact with liquids individually.

Even though they are held together by the needle or the wood.

Mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachot 2.

Even though amassing such foods in this manner is a common practice, they are considered as separate in this context.

For the cooking process has caused them to become a single entity, not just a conglomeration of separate units.

Before they were pressed, olives were stored in a pit so that they would soften. The pressure of the many olives would compress them into a single mass.

The flow of their fluid from one olive to another enables more oil to be expressed when they are placed under the press.

Because turning them over will separate them. Once the person has begun to separate them, we assume that he will continue until they are all separate.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 3:2), the Rambam gives as examples, nuts or pistachios.

Halachah 14.

As explained, Chapter 4, Halachah 1, when there is less than an egg-sized portion of food, it can contract ritual impurity, but it does not impart impurity to other substances. When foods are lumped together in this manner, if they all contract impurity, they are considered as a single mass with regard to imparting impurity to other substances.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 2:5), this term refers to cooked grains, porridge, or the like.

Since it is touching an impure food, it also contracts impurity, but its impurity is lesser than that of the food it touched.

That was dough or only partially baked.

For they are considered as a single entity.

As it was initially.

After their separation, they regain their initial identity and, hence, are considered as food which touched impure food, i.e., a secondary derivative.

This is speaking about a loaf that is terumah, for there is no concept of tertiary derivatives with regard to ordinary food.

This is also speaking about a loaf that is terumah. Since there is no concept of derivatives of the fourth degree with regard to terumah even when the other loaves are attached to the first, its impurity is not considered as powerful enough to change their status.

Because at the time the loaf contracted impurity, they are all considered as a single entity.

Impure liquids are always considered as primary derivatives of impurity (Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:5). Hence food that they touch is considered as a secondary derivative. Since the loaves were attached at the time the first contracted impurity, they all share the same status.

Our Sages decreed (ibid. 8:2) that hands which one was not watching at all times would be considered as a secondary derivative of impurity.

With this sentence, the Rambam is explaining the difference between this law and the previous one. In this halachah, the loaves were a single entity when they contracted impurity. In contrast, in the previous halachot, one loaf became impure and then it was joined with the others. Hence there is greater room for leniency.