Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See Chapter 1, Halachah 2. The seven liquids are water, dew, oil, wine, milk, blood, and honey.

The following halachot describe these derivatives.

Based on the commentary of Meiri to Chulin 37a, this is speaking about the last revi’it of blood that flows out, causing the animal to die.

Based on the following clause, the Rambam’s statements here have attracted the attention of the commentaries, because they seem to be in conflict with the following clause. Seemingly, if, as stated in that clause, there is a question concerning the blood that sputters between the slitting of the organs necessary to be slit for ritual slaughter to be effective, on the surface, at least that same ruling should apply to the blood that flows after the slaughter. See Shoham VeYashpeh.

For kosher slaughter to be effective the animal’s windpipe and esophagus must be slit. These two organs are referred to as simanim, “signs.” In this instance, the blood was cleaned between the slitting of one of these organs. Thus it could be said that it was not “the blood of the slaughter,” because the animal was not killed at that time. On the other hand, the process of slaughter had started, so that term could be considered as correctly applying to this blood.

Chulin 36a states that this ruling is dependent on the principle (Hilchot Shechitah 4:13): “Ritual slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end.” Hence even the blood that emerged in the beginning of the slaughter is considered as “the blood of the slaughter.” Although the Rambam accepts that principle in Hilchot Shechitah and in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:18, since other Talmudic principles feature in this ruling and when all of them are factored together, there is no clear decision, the Rambam considers this instance an unresolved matter (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

This is speaking about food that is terumah or consecrated. It is forbidden to partake of these foods if they are impure. Hence, it is necessary to refrain from doing so because of the doubt.

Consecrated food and terumah that contract impurity must be burnt. Nevertheless, if these foods are pure, they are forbidden to be destroyed. In the situation described above, because of the doubt, terumah is left until it definitely contracts impurity (Hilchot Terumah 12:3) or until it rots. Consecrated foods are left until one of the above occurs or they are disqualified because of the passage of time.

I.e., by an animal or by a person who transgresses [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:5)].

I.e., blood that does not flow out when an animal is slaughtered, but remains within its flesh.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 4:7.

All other liquids that impart impurity also make foods susceptible to impurity.

The watery liquid that separates from the solid part of milk when it turns sour or when a piece of an animal's stomach is added in cheese-making [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:5)].

There is a lengthy process of a fortiori reasoning presented by Rabbi Akiva at the conclusion of the tractate of Machshirin to prove that an animal’s milk should impart impurity whether it was released with human intent or not. Nevertheless, the halachah does not follow his opinion.

A person was touching the animal’s teats without the intent of milking it.

This term loosely translates the Hebrew s’tama. If the person explicitly states that he does not desire the milk, it is not given the halachic status of a liquid.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:6), the Rambam. states that the semen of a healthy person imparts impurity. Certainly, this applies with regard to the semen of a zav. And he quotes Nidah 55b which explains how the impurity of a zav ‘s urine is derived through techniques of Biblical exegesis. In Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:13-16, the Rambam. states that these laws also apply to a zav’s saliva and other liquids he releases.

I.e., a zavah, a nidah, and a woman after childbirth.

Even if the food had not been made susceptible to ritual impurity previously.

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, usually liquids do not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity unless the owner desired that the foods come into contact with the liquids. With regard to these impure liquids, different principles apply and the food contracts impurity even if the owner did not desire that it come into contact with these liquids. See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:11), the Rambam states that this applies to all impure women. See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 10:4

Ibid.:6.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

Our translation is taken from [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:7)].

According to Talmudic tradition, a child born after only eight months of pregnancy will not survive. Hence, even while he is alive, he is considered as already dead. Accordingly, even though had such liquids been released by a healthy person, they would have made foods susceptible to impurity, in this instance, they are considered as liquids that were released by a corpse and they do not make foods susceptible to impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:7)].
(It must be emphasized that today, efforts are made to save all infants, even those born in the eighth month and in many instances, the doctors have been successful in enabling such infants to live.)

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

Sometimes the water merely passes through the body and emerges clear (ibid.).

The Ra’avad had an erroneous version of this halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains the validity of the version used here.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:8), the Rambam explains that water is the only liquid that regains impurity when immersed in a mikveh. Even if it is within a person’s body, the immersion is effective.

For once they become loathsome, they are no longer placed in the halachic category of liquids.

Although their appearance remains as water.

Halachah 7.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:1), the Rambam gives the rationale for this ruling: the sweat is not the same liquid that he drank. Moreover, he explains that this law applies even if a person drank a revi’it of the impure liquids and thus contracted impurity. Nevertheless, his sweat remains pure.

As explained in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 9:1, a person who bathes in drawn water, i.e., water that has been drawn with a container, contracts impurity according to Rabbinic Law.

Because his sweat is mixed with the water which contracted impurity from the person to which it imparted impurity.

Because it contained a human corpse or because a person afflicted with tzara’at entered it.

Because it is obvious that this moisture collected from the water of the bathhouse [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:2)].

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

Contact with liquid does not make food susceptible to impurity unless the owner intentionally exposed the food to liquid. Nevertheless, since it is obvious that water will collect on produce brought into a bathhouse, it is considered as if the person intentionally had the water collect there [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:2)].

Unless liquid is drawn from its source intentionally, it does not make foods susceptible to impurity (Chapter 12, Halachah 3). Nevertheless, the rationale mentioned in the previous note applies here as well (Kessef Mishneh).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 6:5).

Since the person does not collect these liquids and allows them to be lost, they are not placed in the halachic category of liquids.

This shows that he considers the liquid as important.

He is not intending to crush the grapes and have the wine flow out, but merely to collect as many grapes as possible in the container.

Generally, when hands are not specifically guarded to be ritually pure, the Rabbis considered them as secondary derivatives of impurity (Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:2).

Since he is not crushing the grapes with the intent of producing wine, the wine that is produced is not considered as significant.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:13-14 which explains that there was an area in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard that had poles on which animals were skinned and tables on which they were cut up. It was called the butchering area.

If, however, they were slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard, they are disqualified as sacrifices. Hence, the blood of their slaughter does make them susceptible to impurity.

As is true with regard to other animals that are slaughtered, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

In the Temple Courtyard.

See Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:4 which states that implements found outside of Jerusalem are considered as impure. Since the cow’s mouth was sealed outside of Jerusalem, it can be assured that the pin entered its body before it entered the holy city.

I.e., when the animal was cut up, the pin was found in the wastes in its stomach.

Because the pin did not touch the meat of the animal.

Ibid. 8:6.

That the meat of sacrificial animals does not become susceptible to impurity from the blood of its slaughter.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the cherished nature of consecrated foods makes the meat susceptible to impurity even according to Scriptural Law. The Kessef Mishneh states that Chulin 36a appears to support the Ra’avad’s position. Nevertheless, he explains that the continuation of that passage (op. cit.b) can be interpreted in a manner that supports the Rambam’s view.

Ibid. 12:13.

So that they will become raisins.

I.e., although they become moist from the juice that oozes from the grapes, they do not become susceptible to impurity, for, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 1, that change in status comes about only when the owner desires that the foods come in contact with the liquids.

Shabbat 15a states that this is the opinion of Shammai. Hillel, however, originally did not accept this stringency. Nevertheless, after Shammai forcefully presented his arguments, Hillel remained silent, leading to the conclusion that he accepted Shammai’s position. This is one of the 18 stringencies decreed on the day the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered the students of the School of Hillel.

Thus the owner will have intentionally exposed them to contact with liquids.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s interpretation and offers a different rationale. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s understanding.

I.e., because this is a common occurrence when harvesting grapes for the sake of their juice.

And crush them for their juice.

Then, however, they become susceptible to impurity whether they are known to have come in contact with liquids or not.

The commentaries have raised questions regarding the Rambam’s intent. In Halachah 12, he states that olives may be brought to an olive-press by a person who is ritually impure. However, that halachah can be interpreted as meaning that the impure person may bring the olives to the press, but not into the press. See Halachah 13.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:4).

The leaves collect the juice and afterwards, he casts the grapes and the leaves together into the wine press.

And will collect the juice.

To dry and become raisins [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:4)].

As evident from the fact that he allows it to go to waste.

Even if they were made susceptible to ritual impurity previously.

Since the person desired to partake of the grapes rather than use them for wine, the juice dripping from them is not significant. It is considered like other fruit juices and does not contract or impart impurity (see Chapter 10, Halachah 1).

A Talmudic measure, approximately, 8-9 liter according to Shiurei Torah.

Since this juice was originally not considered significant and therefore considered as fruit juice, its status does not change when the grapes are cast into the wine press.
The Ra’avad challenges the Rambam’s ruling, noting—as the Rambam himself states in Halachah 1—that when grapes are cast into a winepress, they immediately become susceptible to ritual impurity. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that Halachah 1 is speaking about an instance where the grapes were harvested for the purpose of being pressed for wine. In such a situation, our Sages decreed that they be considered susceptible to ritual impurity. In this instance, by contrast, they were harvested to be eaten. When the person finished eating, as an afterthought, as it were, he cast them into the wine press. Hence, until they actually enter the wine press, they are considered as food and their juice, insignificant. Our Sages saw no need to institute a decree regarding such an instance.

Such a situation is included in the decree mentioned in Halachah 1, for the person changed his mind and consciously desired that the grapes be used to produce wine.

A field which contained a grave and was plowed over, possibly strewing pieces of bone throughout the field. Such a field is impure by Rabbinic decree lest the person unknowingly come in contact with a bone from the corpse (Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:16; see also ibid., ch. 10).

As stated in Halachah 1.

At which point, however, they are considered susceptible to impurity.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that grapes growing in a beit hapras can never be considered as ritually pure. Instead, they are always considered as impure because of the doubt concerning their status; perhaps one of the workers had contracted impurity. Although the advice the Rambam gives has its source in the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:10), the Ra’avad maintains that the mishnah did not intend that the grapes and the wine should be considered as pure. Instead, the purification of the workers and the utensils was so that produce growing in Eretz Yisrael would not be made impure intentionally (see Chapter 16, Halachah 9). The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam had a different — and equally valid — understanding of the mishnah. Hence, his ruling should not be rejected.

Lest they had contracted the impurity associated with a human corpse.

When that purification process will have been completed.

Since it is not known with certainty that the workers in that field will come in contact with a corpse, our Sages granted a leniency and allowed the produce in such a field to be harvested. Lest that leniency be extended undesirably, they had the workers immerse themselves beforehand to impress them and others with the concept of the field’s impurity.

The workers themselves are not allowed to take the grapes further, for carrying them will impart impurity to them, since both Rabbinic decrees are in effect outside the beit hapras. The leniency granted previously was granted only inside the beit hapras, because there was no alternative.

Therefore, it is permitted to harvest olives even though one’s hands are impure, as stated in Shabbat 15a, Pesachim 3b.

In Halachah 8, the Rambam explains when the work to harvest olives is considered to be completed.

This does not refer to the oil, but a thin, black liquid that flows out from the olives when they are under slight pressure from each other [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:1)].

I.e., the owner seeks to add more olives to be pressed.

If the olives soften this early, they will be damaged by the time they are ready to be pressed.

I.e., as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 13, when impure liquids fall on foods, the foods’ susceptibility to impurity and their contraction of impurity take place simultaneously. Nevertheless, we do not say that the fluid that oozed from the olives connects them all, causing them to be considered a single entity, as stated in the following clause.

As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 13.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 4:6).

By making a hole to enable the fluid to flow out, he indicates that he is not interested in it. Therefore, even though the olives come in contact with it, the contact is considered to be against his will. Hence it does not make them susceptible to ritual impurity.

The fact that he did not make such a hole when he knew that liquid would flow from the olives indicates that he desired the olives to come in contact with that liquid. As Eduyot 4:6 relates, this is one of the few instances where the School of Shammai rule leniently and the School of Hillel rule stringently. Nevertheless, even when they are more stringent, the halachah follows the School of Hillel.

I.e., it collected in the jug because the drainage hole was plugged.

The commentaries have noted a slight contradiction in the Rambam’s statements, for in Halachah 6 [and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:1], he states that the olives are given this status, because of the fluid which flows from them, while here, he implies that the Sages ordained that the change in their status comes as a result of the decision the person made.

A relatively small measure, 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

For he has not completed gathering all the olives he desires to press.

In truth, he had completed harvesting his olives. Nevertheless, he desired to delay pressing them and did not want them to be susceptible to impurity in the interim. Therefore he states an intent to purchase more olives, solely to prevent this change in halachic status from taking place. Since his intent is not sincere, even if in fact he purchases the other olives, his olives become susceptible to ritual impurity from the time he completed his original harvest.

I.e., individuals who are primary sources of ritual impurity.

Which he intended to press separately.

And does not want to add any more olives to it.

Because the work involved in their preparation has been completed.

And places them in a storage vat, as explained in Halachah 8.

The Galilee refers to the northern portion of Eretz Yisrael. It is divided into a lower portion — the area between the cities of Haifa and Tiberias — and an upper portion — the mountainous region north of those cities. Both of these areas are very fertile and were used for growing olives.

As stated in Halachah 6.

Covering them with leaves protects them from sand and/or rain. Though the owner completed storing the olives, one might think that they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity since he intends to perform another task. Nevertheless, since the work involving the olives themselves is completed once they are collected and stored, they become susceptible to impurity from that point onward.

This bracketed addition is. made on the basis of the gloss of Rabbenu Shimshon to Taharot 9:2.

We do not say that the presence of the olives indicates that the gentile had not completed filling his storage vat with olives (and hence they did not contract impurity, as stated in Halachah 8). Instead, we assume that he intended to fill another vat with the remaining olives. Needless to say, this law applies if he has no other olives to harvest.

Gentiles are considered as ritually impure according to Rabbinic decree. Hence, since the gentile completed storing his olives in the vat, they are considered to have become susceptible to ritual impurity and to have contracted ritual impurity. Accordingly, there is no longer any purpose in keeping any of the strictures involving ritual purity in the preparation of oil from them.

This statement is very significant. An unlearned person is assumed to be impure. Nevertheless, as long as the olives are not susceptible to ritual impurity, his status is of no consequence. Now, as long as the harvest and storing of the olives is not completed, the olives do not become susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence, by saying that he did not complete the storing of the olives, he is in actuality saying that they are still ritually pure. Otherwise, they would be considered as impure. Although the unlearned person stands to benefit from such a statement — for olives that are ritually pure are more valuable than those that are not — his word is accepted.

But not inside the olive press. Once they are brought into the olive press, they become susceptible to impurity, as stated in Halachah 2.

As stated in Halachah 8.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:5).

Hence, they do not become susceptible to impurity because the owner does not desire the liquid that flows from them.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s version of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). The intent is to soften them somewhat. Since ultimately, the person desires their oil, he is also happy with the liquid that flows from them. Hence, they become susceptible to impurity and contract impurity from the person’s hands.

This represents the Rambam’s addition to the mishnah (ibid.). Were the olives to be ordinary food, hands that are a second derivative of impurity would not make them impure. Others interpret the mishnah differently.

I.e., he is ritually, pure, but his hands are impure by Rabbinic decree, because he diverted his attention from them. They are considered as a second derivative of impurity, as stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTuma’ah 8:2.

Since his hands are a secondary derivative, food that he touches becomes a tertiary derivative, which -with regard to terumah — contracts impurity itself, but does not impart it to other substances.

When the olives are broken open, the fluid inside of them enables the salt to cling to them more thoroughly. The Rambam is emphasizing that although there is a certain amount of fluid inside the olives, it does not make them susceptible to ritual impurity.

For he is not interested in the liquid that oozes from them.

Since there are so many olives there, the bottom ones will certainly not dry out. Nevertheless, since his intent is that they dry out, they do not become susceptible to impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:6)].

They are being dried out to be eaten, as is customary in certain places. As such, the owner does not desire the moisture that oozes from them. Hence, it does not make them susceptible to impurity. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s interpretation of the above mishnah. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s interpretation.

So they will soften.

Since he desired that they become soft, even though ultimately he will dry them, he desires that their liquids ooze out and soften them. Hence the liquids make them susceptible to impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:6)].

Generally, produce left in the domain of an unlearned person is considered impure by Rabbinic decree. Even if the unlearned person does not know that he came in contact with impurity, we fear that he did and imparted that impurity to the produce. In this instance, however, since the owner locked and sealed the door, they do not contract impurity, because they are not accessible to the unlearned person.

We do not suspect that the unlearned person broke the lock and entered. Instead, we assume that thieves broke the seal, but then changed their minds and did not enter. See Hilchot Metam’ei Mishkav UMoshav 12:4, 15. Needless to say, if it is obvious that someone has tampered with the olives, they are impure.

I.e., placed in a manner that if the door was opened they would be moved and the person’s entrance detected.

Unless the windows are closed and sealed, the olives are considered to be in the domain of the unlearned person and therefore impure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:8), the Rambam explains that there are borders—apparently of wood or stone—that are placed around olives when they are pressed to keep them collected in one place, instead of spreading out because of the pressure.
Although the Rambam’s source speaks about olives and an olive press, similar laws apply with regard to grapes and a winepress. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 11:24.

That is sufficient to purge any impure liquids.

Our translation reflects the version found in authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and is supported by Avodah Zarah 75a. The standard printed text has a different version that is slightly problematic.

This refers to a type of reed with a resinous substance that was used somewhat like rubber. Keilim made from this type of reeds do not dry easily [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:8)].

During which they will dry from exposure to the air (ibid.).

For the hot water will purge them of the impure liquids that they absorbed (ibid.).

See Rashi, Avodah Zarah, op. cit.

This will purge them of any traces of impure liquid. The mishnah (op. cit.) mentions this option in the name of Rabbi Yossi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Yossi’s view. Here, the Rambam obviously retracted that ruling. Or, as could be inferred from the Rambam’s wording there, Rabbi Yossi was speaking about immersing the keilim briefly and here, the Rambam is speaking about exposure for a prolonged period.

The previous measures were not intended to purify the keilim, merely to remove traces of impure liquids that might be on the keilim. To purify the keilim, immersion is required.

This excludes flat wooden keilim and stone keilim that are not susceptible to ritual impurity.

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 brought 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.)].