Tum'at Okhalin - Chapter 12

Chapter l, Halachah 2.

As the Sifra and Rashi explain: The term 111’ is written with three letters so that it could be read: ki yitain, “When [the owner] will place,” in which instance, the laws would apply only if the owner purposefully poured liquids over the crops. Nevertheless, it is pronounced as ki yutan, “When [water is] placed,” which would imply even if the crops were exposed to the liquids against the owner’s will. Since it is written as ki yitain, but pronounced as ki yutan, the middle ground between the two is taken. Even when the crops were exposed to liquids by natural forces, they become susceptible to impurity if the owner is happy with that fact. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 1:1).

The owner’s will is what is significant. The fact that another person intentionally poured water over a neighbor’s crops is of no consequence.

While they were growing, rain or other water certainly fell upon them.

I.e., liquids flowing on the ground do not make foods susceptible to impurity, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 8.

I.e., he willfully placed them in water, but did not do so out of the desire that they become wet, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

He submerged them in water so that thieves would not detect them. This is considered “because of danger.”

He was walking along the river bank and rather than carry the produce on his back, he put it in a sack tied with a rope and placed the sack in the river while holding the rope. In this manner, the river’s current would carry the produce along with him without him having to do anything. This is considered “out of necessity.”

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam stating that even though originally they were uprooted against the person’s will, since he desired that they come in contact with the produce, they make it susceptible to ritual impurity. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

Since he desired that the water enter the bowl, the produce in the bowl is considered to have been brousht into contact with water that was up rooted willfully.

Because he did not really desire that the water enter the bowl, he merely desired that it not descend on the wall.

In this clause, the bowl contained water and by overturning it, the person poured water over the wall.

I.e., the walls of the house that were originally independent building materials and then were connected to the ground.

Different laws apply in other contexts. See Hilchot Mikveot 6:6; Hilchot Shechitah 1:19.

Which is considered to be uprooted intentionally.

Our translation follows the authentic manuscripts and original printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text follows a slightly different version.

For it is not absolutely necessary that these parts of a person’s body become wet when he bends down to drink.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 4:1).

This is determined individually for each jug, depending on its size and weight (ibid.).

Since a jug cannot be filled without its outside and its rope becoming wet, by lowering it to be filled, the owner implicitly indicated that he desired the outside and the rope to become moist.

Since there was no necessity that this portion of the rope become wet, it cannot be said that this was the owner’s intent.

Since he placed the jug under the drainpipe, it was obvious that his intent was that the jug be filled. Thus it was not desired that any water spill on its outer side or on the rope (ibid.).

Since he did not intentionally become wet, the water does not contract impurity from his clothes or body.

Since it descends on its own, without the person’s effort, it is not considered as if was moved willingly,

Since the water did not descend upon him intentionally and he removed it immediately, with all his strength, it is as if it did not touch his impure garments. See Rashi, Keritot 15b.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling and offers a different rationale: While the water is on the person’s body, it is insignificant. It is not considered as a significant entity until after he casts it off himself.

Since the water was on his body for a time and he desired to remove it, its movement is considered intentional and thus it contracts impurity because of contact with his impure garments.

I.e., if the person and his garments are pure so that the water does not contract impurity.

Or drips off them (Kessel Mishneh).

And the water makes foods susceptible to impurity.

Since he intended that the water flow over him. Hence, any foods that come into contact with the water become susceptible to impurity.

Since he did not desire that the water enter the barrel, the fact that it remained there does not cause his pouring it off to be considered as intentionally exposing the produce to water. This follows the opinion of the School of Hillel, rather than that of the School of Shammai (Machshirin 4:4). See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Chapter 14, Halachah 10.

Without the desire or intent of the owner.

This halachah is the subject of a difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel (Machshirin 4:5). With regard to this clause, however, even the School of Shammai agree that the water does not make foods subject to impurity, because there is no human activity involved whatsoever.

This is the opinion of the School of Hillel. The School of Shammai maintains that since the person did not overturn the kneading trough in its place, but instead carried it, pouring out the water is considered as willful. The School of Hillel differs, maintaining that since the only reason he picked it up was to pour out the water, pouring out the water should not be considered as a desired act, but something that he was compelled to do, as it were (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah).

Thus it was filled with water intentionally.

In contrast to the School of Shammai, the School of Hillel does not consider that this water makes food susceptible to impurity, because there was no human activity involved in having it sputter or overflow.

For this reason, even the School of Hillel accepts this ruling.

I.e., a place where there is a natural reservoir of water. Needless to say, this law applies wherever one launders his clothes.

Since there is no way that one can immerse or wash articles without getting his hands wet, by performing those activities, he is willfully wetting his hands.

Because it is not necessary that the water spill on his feet to perform these activities.

For the owner did not intend that they fall into the water and become wet.

I.e., that was transmitted to the produce from his hands.

Since he intended to wash his hands and pick up the produce at the same time, it is considered as if he intentionally exposed the produce to the water on his hands.

Because as stated in Halachah 1, water does not make food susceptible to impurity unless the water was uprooted from the ground even though the food was willfully exposed to water. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 4:7).

And is thus a primary source of impurity.

Because it did not become susceptible to impurity yet.

For the mikveh is considered as water connected to the ground.

In contrast to the previous halachah where the person desired to rinse his produce.

The beans contracted impurity from the container which contracted impurity from the person lifting it up.

That were not touching the container directly.

These beans are from ordinary produce. Hence since they were touched by other beans that were secondary derivatives of impurity, they do not become impure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].