Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Water that was drawn using a container and then used by humans to fill a pool.

A log is 344 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

See also Hilchot Mikveot 10:6-8.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zavim 8:12), the Rambam speaks about this decree as a safeguard for terumah. It does not appear to apply to ordinary foods.

Our text is based on the Shabbatei Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version whose meaning is problematic.

Note the parallels to Chapter 8, Halachah 10.

I.e., an acceptable mikveh had to contain water that was not drawn by humans. In the eras before advances in plumbing revolutionized the construction of mikvaot, the water in kosher mikvaot would often stand for lengthy periods of time and become stagnant and foul. This was particularly true in the summer in lands like Eretz Yisrael where for at least six months of the year, there is no rainfall.
Today, these problems are usually avoided by constructing mikveot with two pools: one in which rainwater is collected, which is set off from the pool in which people immerse, and one in which the immersion is made which is repeatedly drained and refilled to keep the water fresh. The two pools are then connected through the halachic convention known as hashakah. See Hilchot Mikveot, ch. 8.

I.e., unlearned people who observed Jewish Law without knowing its underlying halachic rationales.

Thus it was possible that the immersion would not be acceptable.

Since he is pure, the immediate rationale for which this safeguard was ordained does not apply.

On the basis of the wording of Zavim 5:12, Tosafot (Shabbat 13b) maintains that three lugim of drawn water impart impurity to a pure person only directly after immersion. Here, and in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam makes no mention of this qualification.

As is necessary after immersion to purify oneself from Scriptural impurity. See, however, Chapter 10, Halachah 2, and notes.

See parallel rulings in Hilchot Mikveot 5:1. There the Rambam emphasizes that the ruling applies to water that falls unintentionally. If the water is added intentionally, it disqualifies the mikveh even if it was added from many different containers. He does not qualify his ruling in that manner here.

Similar concepts apply with regard to the second and the third.

Gittin 16a discusses this question and leaves it unresolved. Since a point of Rabbinic Law is involved, the Rambam rules leniently (Kessef Mishneh).

And like all liquids that become impure, is considered a primary derivative of impurity, as stated in Halachah 1 (Chasdei David).

From Shabbat 14a, the Rambam’s source, it is clear that this stringency applies only to scrolls of the Written Law. In later generations when it was already customary to write down teachings of the Oral Law, this decree was not extended to include them.

That sought to eat the terumah.

I.e., as a safeguard against the sacred texts being destroyed.

Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yadayim 3:3), the Rambam writes that this decree was enacted to reinforce the decree that the Scriptures impart impurity to terumah.

These straps and the margins of the scrolls are not holy in and of themselves. Nevertheless, while attached to the tefillin or the Torah scroll, they are given that status.

See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:2 which prescribes standard measures for margins to be left for Torah scrolls.

I.e., and not after they have been cut off. Compare to Hilchot Shabbat 23:7.

As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yadayim 3:5, see also Rashi’s Commentary to the verse in Numbers), the two verses cited are sometimes considered as an entire book of the Torah. [For this reason, they are set off by reversed nunnim in a Torah scroll.] According to this reckoning, there are seven — not five books — of the Torah; Numbers is counted as three. Since this amount of letters is considered as a scroll, if a parchment has these many letters, it is also given the status of holiness. Note a parallel in Hilchot Shabbat 23:28.

Even though these books appear as words of wisdom, they were inspired by the Divine Spirit of Prophecy and have the same status as the other books of the Bible. See Megilah 7a.

From Chapter 4, verse 7 to Chapter 6, verse 19.

Chs. 2-7.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yadayim 4:5), the Rambam writes that Ivri “is a script that the Samaritans use to write their Torah scrolls. The script that we use to write our Torahs is the Ashuri script. It is the script with which God wrote the Torah. The name ashuri implies greatness and glory.”

I.e., they do not possess the holiness of sacred texts.

See Hilchot Tefillin 1:19 where the Rambam describes the ink required.

For, as stated in Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:14, it is forbidden to write passages from Scripture on scrolls. Instead, an entire book must be written on one scroll.

Psalms 113-118.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9.

For they contain more than 85 letters.

For a Torah scroll must be sewn together with threads made from animal sinews (Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:13).

Because they are connected to a Torah scroll.

Texts similar to our siddurim (Rashi, Shabbat 115b; see Hilchot Shabbat 23:27).

Since these are not scrolls, they are outside the scope of our Sages' decree.

For they do not have the holiness of a Torah scroll. Indeed, they must be burned, as stated in Hilchot Tefillin 1:13.

A woman suspected of infidelity. She was taken by her husband to the Temple where a scroll on which the biblical passage describing the test she undergoes was written and then placed in water. After the letters were erased in the water, she was given the water to drink. If she was indeed guilty, she would die (see Numbers, ch. 5).

And thus it is not a permanent document.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit, Chapter 5, Halachah 8.

In the Introduction to Seder Taharot in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam emphasizes that such a person is “considered like a secondary derivative,” i.e., his status is not actually that of a secondary derivative, for he has already purified himself. This is the basis for the leniencies regarding liquids mentioned later.

In Hilchot Terumah 7:2, the Rambam explains a similar concept, quoting Leviticus 22:7: “And the sun will set and he will become pure.” As mentioned in that halachah, the intent is not sunset, but the time when there is no trace of the sun’s light in the sky.

Thus the impurity is of Scriptural origin (Shabbat 14b).

The Rambam’s words here have attracted the attention of the Kessef Mishneh and others, based on the Rambam’s statements in Chapter 9, Halachah 1: “[after a person who contracted impurity in such a manner] immerses himself, he need not wait until nightfall [to regain purity], for the impurity contracted by this person is fundamentally a Rabbinic decree.”
Rambam LeAm suggests that the difficulty can be resolved on the basis of the distinction made by the Kessef Mishneh (in his gloss to Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:5; Hilchot Ishut 1:1, et al) that the Rambam is depending on his thesis (see Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) that any concept that is not explicitly stated in the Torah is considered as “from the Oral Tradition” even though it was also conveyed to Moses at Sinai and derived from accepted rules of Biblical exegesis.
Thus there are two types of Rabbinic laws: those communicated by the Oral Tradition and safeguards instituted by Rabbinic decree that were not part of the Sinai revelation. In this halachah, the Rambam is referring to the first category, while in Chapter 9, he is referring to the second.
There is, however, some difficulty with that explanation, because among the Rabbinic types of impurity is that of false divinities and it has no source in Scriptural Law. Instead, it is possible to explain that whenever there is an av tum’ah; a primary source of impurity, whether Scriptural or Rabbinic, it is necessary to wait until nightfall to regain purity. Whenever there is a decree of Rabbinic impurity that does not involve an av tum’ah, like in Chapter 9, one regains purity directly after immersion.

Thus such a person can impart impurity to terumah or consecrated articles. He does not, however, impart impurity to ordinary foods (Kessef Mishneh; see the following halachah).

The term posail, translated as “disqualify,” implies that the entity itself becomes impure, but it does not impart impurity to other entities (Chapter 11, Halachah 1).

See Chapter 11, Halachah 3, for clarification regarding the status of a tertiary derivative of impurity with regard to terumah.

As stated in the conclusion of the halachah, this runs contrary to the principles that generally govern liquids that contract impurity.

Seemingly, since the person is a secondary derivative of impurity, the consecrated foods he touches should be considered tertiary derivatives and thus, not only should they themselves contract impurity, they should impart impurity to other entities (see Chapter 11, Halachah 4). Nevertheless, our Sages considered the impurity of this person as being weak. Hence, it does not have sufficient power to cause an entity that it renders impure to make other entities impure (Meilah 8b).

For there is no concept of a tertiary derivative of impurity with regard to ordinary foods.

I.e., a zav, a zavah, a person who contracted tzara'at, and a woman after childbirth. These four individuals are given this title, because even after the condition which caused the impurity passes, they immerse themselves, and the day of their immersion passes, they are not pure until they bring the sacrificial offerings required of them. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1.
As evident from Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:4, this is referring to one of the above individuals who immersed himself and waited the appropriate time; all that is lacking is for him to bring his sacrifice. If he has not waited the appropriate time, he is considered as a primary derivative of impurity.

But not to foods that are terumah.

See Halachah 2.

Chapter 7, Halachah 5.

A nidah, a woman after childbirth and a zavah (see ibid. 1:15).

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:14.

Who are impure by virtue of Rabbinic decree; see Chapter 8, Halachah 10.

They may, however, disqualify them as the Rambam proceeds to explain (Kessef Mishneh).

The Rambam’s wording requires some clarification. Here he is speaking about terumah, for as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, these derivatives of impurity do impart impurity to consecrated liquids.

Nor do the liquids impart impurity to the pot, as implied by the first clause of the halachah.

As described in Chapter 8, Halachah 10.

Here, also, the pot does not become impure. According to the Rambam's understanding, liquids that contracted impurity from impure hands do not impart that impurity to keilim (ibid.).

I.e., there was a question whether a person contracted impurity or not. He immersed himself so that he would definitely be pure.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 9.

See Chapter 14, Halachot 1 and 11.

Chapter 8, Halachah 10.

Halachah 4.

E. g., he is a zav, contracted tzara’at, or contracted impurity through contact with a human corpse.

E. g., if he touched one of the above or touched the carcass of an animal or a crawling animal.

See the following halachah.

When coming in contact with a human corpse (see Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:9).

When they touch a primary source of impurity (ibid.:8).

Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:6. Even if an earthenware container touches a human corpse, it does not become a primary source of impurity.

If it came into contact with a primary source of impurity.

In contrast to foods and liquids which can contract impurity to such a degree.

See Chapter 7, Halachot 1 and 5.

If touched by a person or implement that is a primary source of impurity.

The Rambam’s words have attracted the attention of the commentaries, who note that in Halachot 3 and 4 of the following chapter, he cites verses from the Torah from which the concepts are derived. The Radbaz (responsum 1557) resolves this difficulty, stating that the verses are merely asmachtaot (supports cited by the Rabbis) and the laws are Rabbinical in origin. Others have explained the issue based on the Rambam’s conception (see note 5), that concepts derived by our Sages through the principles of Biblical exegesis are considered as being “the words of the Sages.”

This applies only to terumah or sacrificial foods, as explained in the following chapter.

This applies only to sacrificial foods, as explained in the following chapter.

See Chapter 7, Halachot 1 and 5.

See Halachah 4.

See Halachot 3 and 4.

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.