Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

When a person draws water with a cylinder, the water remaining in the cylinder is considered as having been willfully uprooted for three days. After being left for three days, however, it is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. Instead, if liquid remains there, it does not make foods subject to impurity.

When wood was exposed to liquids willfully, but rain fell upon it against the person's will, if there was more rain than liquid, all of the liquid on the wood is considered to have come against the person's will. If he brought wood out so that the rain would fall upon it, even though there is a majority of rainwater, all of the liquid is considered as having been poured on the wood willfully.

When a person's feet or the feet of his animal were filled with mud and he crossed a river and rinsed them, if he was happy, the water on his or their feet is considered to have been uprooted willfully. If he was not happy, they are not considered as uprooted willfully.

When a person brings wooden wheels and implements used for oxen into water during the summer when the east wind blows so that the cracks in the wood will seal, the water that ascends with them is considered as having been uprooted willfully.

When a person leads an animal down to a stream to drink, the water that ascends with its mouth is considered as having been uprooted willfully. The water that ascends on its feet are not considered as having been uprooted willfully, unless he had the intent that its feet be rinsed. When the animal's feet are diseased, and in the threshing season, even the water on its feet is considered as having been uprooted willfully.

If a deafmute, a mentally or emotionally compromised person, or a minor brought the animal to drink, even if he intended that its feet be washed, the water that ascends on its feet is not considered to have been uprooted willfully, because the deeds of such individuals are halachically significant, but their intent is not.

When a person immerses himself in water, the water on his body is considered to have been uprooted willfully. If, however, one passes through water, all of the water on his body is not considered to have been willfully uprooted.

When a person immerses himself in a river and there was another river before him and he crossed it, the second water nullifies the presence of the first water and the water on his body is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

Similarly, if a person's friend pushed him or his animal into a pool, the presence of the first water is nullified. If, however, he pushed him in jest, the second water does not nullify the first and the water that is on his body is considered as having been uprooted willfully.

If a person immerses himself in a river and ascended and then, rain fell upon him, should there be more rainwater than river water on his body, the rainwater nullifies the presence of the first water and the water on his body is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

When a person is swimming on the surface of water, the water he splashes is not considered as having been uprooted willfully. The water on his body, however, is considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he intended to splash water on a friend, the water he splashes is considered as uprooted willfully.

When a person makes a squirting spout in the water, the water squirted from it and within it are not considered as uprooted willfully.

When a person measures a cistern to find out how deep it is, the water that ascends on his hand and on the article with which he measures is considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he measures its width, the water that ascends on his hand and on the article with which he measures is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

If a person extends his hand or foot into a cistern to see whether it contains water, the water that ascends on his hand or foot is not considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he extends them to see how much water is there, the water that ascends on his hand or foot is considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he casts a stone into a cistern to see if it contains water, the water that is splashed is not considered as uprooted willfully. Similarly, the water on the stone is not considered as uprooted willfully.

If a person beats a hide from which the wool has not been separated while it is outside the water, the water that is expelled from it is considered as having been uprooted willfully, for his desire is that the water be expelled. If, however, he beats it while it is in the water, the water is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

The water that ascends on a ship, its reservoir, and its oars is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. Similarly, the water on the snares, nets, and meshes is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. If one shakes them out, it is considered to have been uprooted willfully.

Similarly, the water on the table-coverings or coverings for bricks is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. If one shakes them out, it is considered to have been uprooted willfully.

When a person takes a ship out to the Mediterranean Sea to strengthen it, takes a peg out to the rain to harden it, or takes a firebrand out to the rain to make it a coal, the water on them is considered to have been uprooted willfully. If, however, one takes a glowing peg or a firebrand out to the rain to quench their fire, the water on them is not considered to have been uprooted willfully.

When one lowers a chain with a hook into a cistern to lift up a container or a pitcher or one lowered a basket into a cistern so that a chicken would sit on it, the water on these objects is not considered to have been uprooted willfully.

When one smoothes out cress to remove the water on it or one squeezes the water on his hair into his garments, the water that emerges is considered to have been uprooted willfully. The water that remains is not considered to have been uprooted willfully, because he desired that all of the water be purged originally.

The cress itself becomes susceptible to impurity, because the water makes it susceptible to impurity when it departs. If he removed the water from it with all his power, it does not become susceptible to impurity.

When a person shakes a tree to cause food that had been placed there or an impure object to descend, the water which sputters from it is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. If he shook it to remove the liquids, the liquids that fall are considered to have been uprooted willfully. The liquids that remain inside it are not considered to have been uprooted willfully even though they moved from place to place, because his intent was that they be removed entirely. Similarly, if the liquids sputter on produce that is connected to the ground, they are not considered to have been uprooted willfully.

When a person shakes a tree and water from it falls on another tree or a branch and then the water fell on other branches under which there were plants and vegetables attached to the ground, the water on the plants or the vegetables are not considered to have been uprooted willfully.

As explained in Hilchot Terumot , when one poured water over wine dregs that were terumah, the first and second batches produced are forbidden to non-priests. If the dregs had come from grapes consecrated for improvements for the Temple, even the third batch is forbidden. And if the grapes were consecrated for use for the Altar, all mixtures are forbidden. If the grapes are definitely from the second tithe, only the first batch is forbidden.

Just as these ground rules were established with regard to prohibitions, so too, they are applied with regard to the mixture making foods susceptible to ritual impurity. For example, water became mixed with dregs on its own accord and an animal drank one mixture after another. An animal is mentioned, because if, by contrast, a person would remove the first water, even though the water fell on its own accord, since a person gave thought to it and objected to its presence, it is considered significant and imparts impurity.

When water from a drainpipe descends into produce and the owner mixed the produce so that it would dry, the produce does not become susceptible to impurity.

When a person brings his produce to the roof so that it does not become worm-infested and dew descends upon it, it does not become susceptible to impurity. If he intended that the dew descend upon it, it becomes susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if a deafmute, an intellectually or emotionally compromised individual, or a minor brought the produce up to the roof, even if they had the intent that dew descend upon it, it does not become susceptible to impurity. The rationale is that their deeds are significant according to Scriptural Law, but their intent is not significant, even according to Rabbinic Law.

If minors turned the produce over on the roof, it becomes susceptible to impurity. For if the intent of a minor is obvious from his actions, his intent has an effect according to Rabbinic Law.

When a person brings bundles of vegetables, dried figs, or garlic to a roof so that they will be preserved and dew descended upon them, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity. We do not say that since everyone knows that dew will descend, it is as if he willfully exposed them to water. The rationale is that he brought them up to the roof solely so that they should be preserved.

When a person brings wheat to be ground into flour and rain falls upon it, if he was happy, it becomes susceptible to impurity. When his olives had been placed on the roof and rain descended, if he was happy, they were made susceptible to impurity. When donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks fell into the water, and they lifted them up, if they were happy that the produce became wet, the produce was made susceptible to impurity. The water that is on the sacks is considered as having been uprooted willfully, for they were happy that the sacks became wet.

When a sack was filled with seeds and was placed on the edge of a river, at the opening to a cistern, or on the steps leading to a storage cavern of water, if they absorbed water, they become susceptible to impurity.

When an earthenware jug containing produce was placed in liquids or a jug containing liquids was placed among produce and the produce absorbed the liquids, it becomes susceptible to impurity.

With regard to which liquids was the above said: With regard to water, wine, and vinegar. Other liquids are not absorbed through the walls of earthenware containers causing produce to be made susceptible to ritual impurity.

The following rules apply when a person removes a hot loaf of bread from an oven and places it on the opening of a jug of wine: If the loaf was from wheat flour, it does not become susceptible to impurity. If it was from barley flour, it does become susceptible to impurity, because barley is absorbent. Similarly, if the wine was impure, if the loaf was from wheat, it is pure. If it was from barley, it becomes impure, because it absorbed impure liquids.

When a person sprinkles water on the floor of his house and then placed wheat upon it and it became moist, if it became moist because of the water, it becomes susceptible to impurity. If it became moist because of the stone, it does not become susceptible to impurity.

When a person washes his garment in a kneading trough and afterwards he placed wheat in it and it became moist, if it became moist because of the water, it becomes susceptible to impurity. If it became moist because of the kneading trough, it does not become susceptible to impurity.

When a person buries his produce in sand so that it will become moist, it becomes subject to impurity. When he buries it in dry mud, if the mud is moist enough that a hand that touches it will become wet, the produce becomes subject to impurity. If not, it does not.

When a person sprinkles water on his threshing floor, he need not worry that his wheat became susceptible to impurity if the kernels came in contact with water even though he is satisfied that this happened.

When a person gathers grasses upon which dew had descended to use for covering wheat, the wheat does not become susceptible to impurity. If this was his intent, it does become susceptible.

When a person sprinkles impure water on the floor of his house and then placed stalks of grain there and they become moist, they become impure if there is enough moisture upon them that the hand of one who touches them also becomes moist. If not, they are pure.

When a person shakes a bunch of vegetables that had liquid on them and the liquid descended from the upper ones to the lower ones, they do not become susceptible to impurity.

When a person lifts sacks full of produce from the river and places them one on top of the other, the lower one becomes susceptible to impurity because of the water descending from the upper one, for he willfully placed one on top of the other.

When a person blows on lentils to see if they are good for the purpose of cooking, if water collects on them, they become susceptible to impurity because of the moisture in his breath which is a derivative of water. Similarly, when a person eats sesame seeds with his finger, they become susceptible to impurity because of the moisture in his breath and on his finger.

When a person bites food and then it falls from his hand, the liquid on the food is not considered as having been placed there willfully. If a person was eating olives that had been broken open, moist dates, or any other produce whose pit he desired to suck, but it fell from his mouth, the liquid on it is considered as having been placed there willfully. If he was eating dry olives, dried dates, any other produce whose pit he does not desire to suck, and it fell from his mouth, the liquid on it is not considered as having been placed there willfully.

We have already explained that when a person gathered endives for an animal and washed them, but changed his mind afterwards and thought to use them for human consumption, they need to be exposed to water a second time to make foods susceptible to impurity. If, however, there was tangible moisture on them when he thought to use them for human consumption, they are susceptible to impurity.

Water that is in a container contracts impurity, whether it entered the container willfully or against one's desires. It imparts impurity to foods and keilim whether it came in contact with them willfully or against one's will. Water collected on the earth, by contrast, e.g., water in a cistern, storage trench, or storage cavern or water in a pit that does not contain 40 se'ah, does not contract impurity unless it comes in contact with the source of impurity willfully, nor does it impart impurity unless it comes in contact with the food willfully.

What is implied? When there was less than 40 se'ah of water collected on the ground, whether it was drawn or it was not drawn, and a human corpse fell into this water or an impure person walked through it, it is pure. If, however, an impure person drank from this water, one filled an impure container with it, or impure liquids willfully fell into it, the water becomes impure even though it is still collected on the ground. If a pure person drank from this water after it became impure on the ground or one filled a pure container with it, the person who drank and the container with which the water was drawn becomes impure, because he drank or the container was filled intentionally.

If a loaf that was terumah fell into such water, it is pure as it was originally, because the water imparts impurity only when foods come in contact with it willfully. Therefore, if one washed his hand and removed a loaf, the loaf contracts impurity from the water on the person's hand, because it was removed willfully.

The following laws apply to water that is collected in a pit and other types of water collected on the ground, e.g., water in a cistern, storage trench, or storage cavern, rainwater that stopped flowing and collected in one place or mikveot that do not contain 40 se'ah that became impure. If rain then descended, causing there to be more rainwater than the water originally collected, even if the original water did not flow out, those bodies of water become pure. Therefore, during the rainy season, all water collected on the ground, e.g., water collected in a pit or the like, is assumed to be pure.

Different laws apply when the rains cease. When such bodies of water are close to a town or a thoroughfare, they are impure, because it can be assumed that an impure person drank from them and/or water was drawn from them in impure containers. Those that are distant are pure until the majority of people begin walking. Once they do, they are all assumed to be impure, because those who journey on caravans drink from them.

When does the above apply? With regard to water in a pit from which it is possible to drink. If, however, there is water in a pit that it is impossible to drink from except through great effort, it is assumed to be pure unless the footprints of a person or large animal were evident. If, however, the footprints of a small animal were found, the water is pure, because it is possible that the animal descended on its own accord.

In the rainy season, it can be assumed that the mud and the water in the hollows at the entrance of stores in the public domain are pure. When the rains cease, they are considered as drainage water. The ruling concerning water in the marketplace depends on the majority.

When wine, milk, or honey fall into a pit filled with water, the ruling depends on the majority. When oil falls into it, the mixture can contract and impart impurity without the owner's desire even when it congeals. The rationale is that it is impossible that droplets will not remain mixed with the water.

Oil and other liquids aside from water are governed by the same laws whether they are collected in the earth or in containers.

Streams of rainwater that are still flowing - even if they do not contain 40 se'ah, since they are on the earth and their water is flowing - do not contract ritual impurity. Even if an impure person drank from them, drew water from them with an impure container, or poured impure water into them, they are still pure with regard to all matters.

When a person was eating terumah with impure hands, e.g., a dried fig that had not come into contact with water, if he inserted his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, were he to turn over his finger while doing so, the fig would become impure because of his saliva. For the saliva would become impure because of the person's hand, because he uprooted the saliva from its place. If, however, he did not turn over his finger, it is pure. The rationale is that, before he turns over his finger or sucks it, the liquid in his mouth is comparable to water on the earth that was not uprooted from its place, but instead, is on the ground. As explained, such water only contracts and imparts impurity due to willful actions. This person desired only to remove the pebble.

The following rules apply when, in addition to the dried fig, there was a pundiyon in his mouth and he extended his hand to remove it and the fig from his mouth. If he had placed the coin in his mouth because he was thirsty, the saliva on it is considered as removed from its place and the fig contracts impurity from the moisture in his mouth that contracted impurity because of his hand.

The following rules apply when a woman was partaking of food that is terumah which had not been made susceptible to impurity while she was removing the coals from an impure oven. If she was poked by a splinter that caused her to bleed and she was sucking her finger because of the blood or she burnt her finger and inserted it into her mouth, the terumah in her mouth contracted impurity, because she desired to remove the liquid from her mouth, taking it [from its place] by sucking her finger.