Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Based on Tosafot, Bava Batra 55b, the Kessef Mishneh explains the rationale for this ruling: The concept of impurity in the private domain is derived from the laws of a sotah. In that instance, the woman has a chazakah, an established status, of purity, and yet she is deemed impure because of the doubt. Hence, even if there are multiple doubts, the doubt will override the chazakah.

Which do not impart ritual impurity.

Which impart impurity when touched or when carried (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:9).

Which do not impart impurity (Chapter 1, Halachah 7).

A field in which there was a grave that had been plowed over.

Earth from either of these impart impurity according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:16).

If one holds a portion of his body over a human corpse, he contracts impurity due to the convention of ohel. This does not apply if he holds his body over an animal carcass.

See Chapter 19, Halachot 1-2, for more particulars concerning this situation.

Different laws apply with regard to the Paschal sacrifice (Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:11) and a nazirite (Hilchot Nizirut 9:18-19).

I.e., after he passed over the corpse, he became aware of its presence. The Rambam does not write that the person definitely touched the corpse, because it is possible that he swerved off the road and avoided it (Rav Yosef Corcus). For this reason, leniency is granted with regard to the situations mentioned in the previous note. Nevertheless, since this is unlikely, we are stringent with regard to terumah.

Even though the corpse it contained was dismembered (see Hilchot Tum’at Meit 4:7).

Even though he passed over a place in the grave in which there was no portion of the corpse.

Where we rule leniently in the public domain.

Similarly, he is impure if his body passed over the grave without touching it, because of tum’at ohel (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For we assume that they touched it.

Since an alley is a private domain, when a question of impurity arises there, we rule stringently [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nidah 7:2)].

We do not say that sweeping the alley would have removed the carcass.

That indicates that it had been dead- and presumably in the alley- for a long time.

I.e., the carcass had not dried out, indicating it had died only recently.

Significantly, this ruling represents a reversal of the position taken by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

I.e., saliva whose status was unknown, but was deemed impure, because it is possible that it was the saliva of a zav. See Chapter 13, Halachot 4 and 8.

Touching or moving the saliva of a zav would impart impurity.

I.e., it is neither burnt, as impure terumah would be, nor eaten, as pure terumah would be. Instead, its status is held in abeyance until it spoils or definitely contracts impurity.

Therefore the terumah is not consigned to fire as it would be were it to have certainly contracted impurity. Nevertheless, we also do not partake of it, lest it have contracted impurity.

I.e., not entirely dry, for in such an instance, the saliva would not impart impurity (Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:1). Instead, we are speaking about saliva that is not moist enough to attach itself to a person who touches it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 4:6)].

Chapter 13, Halachah 13.

I.e., whether in the public domain or a private domain.

As stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 13.

I.e., impure because of zav impurity. If they are impure due to other factors, it is not significant in this context. As Rambam LeAm writes, it is highly unlikely for the majority of the members of a town to have contracted zav impurity.

For this is considered as a doubt that arose in a private domain. This applies even if he found the article on the day he lost it.
The Ra’avad [in his gloss to Halachah 10] differs and maintains that if it is found on the same day, it is pure, even in a private domain. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

As in other instances when a doubt arises in a public domain.

For at night, a person is more likely to step on something without realizing it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 8:3)]. Hence, there is a higher probability that an impure person touched the article.
There, the Rambam writes that if the article was lost in the public domain and left overnight, it is considered to have contracted midras impurity, but not the impurity associated with a human corpse. If it was lost in a private domain, it is considered to have contracted both forms of impurity. The Ra’avad mentions these concepts here.

Note a parallel in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 10:4.

I.e., a chavair, one who is careful about the laws of ritual purity and impurity. It is obvious that this is the intent, for everything in the home of an unlearned person is impure.
The article lost in the home of a chavair is pure, because it is unlikely that someone who is ritually impure will enter and touch articles there (Kessef Mishneh).

As is the rule regarding questions of impurity that arise in the public domain [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

As is the rule regarding questions of impurity that arise in a private domain.
The Rambam does not mention treading on them, because it is assumed that since they were spread out, they would be noticed and would not have been trodden upon. A lost article, by contrast, is not obvious and may be trodden upon (Kessef Mishneh).

See Halachah 7.

Who will not know to restrain herself and is likely to spit anyway, even during the times she is in the nidah state. The Rambam and his source (Taharot 5:8) do not mention a man who is intellectually or emotionally compromised, because it is rare for a man to suffer from a zav condition. If, however, such a male is so affected, all of the saliva of unknown origin in a town would be considered impure.

Who was deemed as a zavah by Rabbinic Law. She is not likely to be concerned about where she spits and will do so carelessly. These laws also apply to a gentile male. The Rambam (and his source), however, do not mention a man so that the gender of the two subjects mentioned will be the same.

Even in the public domain. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 5:8), the Rambam emphasizes that the intent is not that such saliva is considered impure because of the doubt- for if so, there would be no difference between this law and the law stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 4. Instead, we assume that the saliva is definitely impure. The rationale is that there is certainly one impure spot of saliva in the city. That saliva is considered as kevua, in a fixed place and we follow the principle, whenever there is an entity that is kevua, any entity that is found is considered to have the same status as it does.

The rationale is that it is suspected that she touched his clothes when the boat tipped (see Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 9:4).

For we assume that if she was in an impure state, she would have taken care not to have imparted impurity to him.

Whether she is pure or impure. If she is impure, his garments are considered to have contracted impurity from her.

We do not suspect that an impure person touched his garments, as is the law regarding any doubt that arises in the public domain [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 5:7)].

See Chapter 15, Halachot 6 and 10.

I.e., the person whom he touched at night.

Persons or utensils who touched him or were in the same building as he was.

This ruling applies even if he was taken to a public domain after he had been in a private domain and thus others would be deemed pure despite their contact with him.

This ruling applies even if he was taken to a public domain after he had been in a private domain and thus there were people already deemed impure because of contact with him [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 6:1)].

Following the principle stated above: The status of all questions of ritual impurity depends on the situation at the time the matter is discovered.

And imparted impurity to it.

Even though the cistern has a border, as in the following clause, we assume that the oil made the border slippery and the saliva slid into the cistern from it.

I.e., even in a private domain.

In the public domain. If such a situation occurred in a private domain, the person would be deemed impure in all instances.

I.e., there was a grave in the middle of the path.

I.e., it could not be determined whether the path he walked down was pure or impure. He was, however, aware which of the two paths he walked down.

I.e., since the doubt arose in the public domain, the status of the pure foods does not change and it is permitted to partake of them.

I.e., because of the doubt, he purified himself as a safeguard, as is desirable (see Chapter 15, Halachah 9).

Since the foods that he originally touched no longer exist, the question focuses only on the foods touched afterwards. The question is thus one concerning a doubt that arose in the public domain and they are considered as pure.

These foods are not burnt, as is produce that is considered as impure, nor may they be used. Instead, they are left until they definitely contract impurity or they are disqualified because they were kept beyond the time in which they should be eaten.

Because one of them was touched after he walked down the impure path. Since we do not know which one is impure and the ruling concerning them both must be given at the same time, neither can be considered as pure, nor deemed as impure. This ruling applies even if the person does not inquire about the status of both sets of food at the same time. Moreover, even if the ruling concerning the first set had already been given, if it still exists when the second set is brought, it is rescinded and the set is deemed impure.

It is not considered pure (as it would be were its status judged alone), because the determination of its status is being made at the same time as the determination of the second set.

Thus regaining a state of purity.

As would be the case with regard to all questions of impurity that arise in the public domain.

Although in such a situation that involves one person, the status of the pure foods is held in abeyance, as stated in the previous halachah, when two people are involved, greater stringency is shown. The reason for this greater stringency is, apparently, that the judge will have to render a ruling about both individuals at the same time. Since there is no way he can consider one impure and the other pure, they are both considered as impure.

Which would render him impure due to a Rabbinic decree, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 10.

Chapter 15, Halachah 1. The Mishneh LeMelech explains that the Rambam's wording requires interpretation, for the same leniency is applied with regard to questions of Scriptural Law. He explains that with regard to questions of Rabbinic Law, leniency would be granted even in a private domain.

Since we do not know which one, they are both considered impure.

I.e., the impure loaf was certainly among the loaves at the time they partook of them.

I.e., they can maintain that the impure loaf was eaten by the first group and no longer existed at the time they partook of the loaves.

Since he is already deemed impure or at least questionably so, we assume that he was the one who contracted impurity.

See Hilchot Shabbat 14:1.

And questions arising there are judged more leniently.

As explained in Chapter 16, Halachah 2, with regard to impurity, the concept of privacy is important in defining a place as a public or private domain. Since the four cubits next to the public domain is not private, in this context, it is considered as a public domain.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:1), the Rambam explains the derivation of this term: armalit is the Aramaic for “widow” and the prefix ki means “like.” Thus, the term means “like a widow”—i.e., neither an unmarried, nor a married woman. Similarly, since a karmelit is not a place in which many people walk (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 345:14), it is not classified as a public domain. Nevertheless, it is not set off from the public sufficiently to be considered a private domain. Among the examples of a karmelit given by the Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 14:4) are: a mound in the public domain, a groove in the public domain, and a passageway that is not enclosed. All this applies with regard to the Sabbath laws. With regard to ritual impurity, since they are not private places, they are considered as public domains.

Our translation is taken from Shulchan Aruch HaRav 345:21. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohelot 18:8), the Rambam describes this term as referring to a place, open on its sides, set off from the public domain as a whole, where merchants peddle their wares.

We are speaking about an alley enclosed by a wall on either side, but open at its entrance and leading to—and ending at—one of the storage places mentioned by the Rambam. Since people can enter only from one side, it is considered as a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws. Nevertheless, since there is a certain amount of human traffic to and from the storage area, it is considered as a public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

In the summer, a valley will not be a place through which many people pass. Nevertheless, there will be harvesters and workers there and thus it could not be considered a private place [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 6:7)]. With regard to its status in the winter, see Halachah 6.

Basilius is a Greek word meaning “king.” A basilica is thus a king’s building. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:8), the Rambam describes it as an ample-sized, roofed building. Afterwards, the term took on other meanings.

See the accompanying drawing taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:9).

None of these are private places;

For even though it is a closed-in area, it is frequented by many people. This ruling also pertains to the chambers in the Temple Courtyard [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediyot 8:5)]. Even though they are enclosed areas, they are not private.

In the Talmudic era, cities were built on many levels. Often, the lower level of a city would be used for a market place or dwellings and the upper level to transport goods.

For then, many people will not enter.

Its gates would be opened during the day and closed at night.

I.e., but not with regard to the Sabbath.

With regard to its status in the summer, see Halachah 3.

Since it is not enclosed, it cannot be deemed a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws. Nevertheless, with regard to the laws of impurity, different principles apply. In the winter, many people will not walk through a valley of fields, because this will spoil the seeds and, also, there is no purpose in entering it, because it has already been sown and all that is necessary is to wait for the grain to grow.

Once it has been classified as a private domain with regard to impurity, it never leaves that category (Rashbam, Bava Batra 153b).

Literally, “the days of the rain.”

I.e., from Rosh Chodesh Kislev (Hilchot Nedarim 6:11; Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 1:11). This date is significant in several other halachic contexts. For example, see Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval 7:17; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 5:4, et al.

Where grapes are stored before they are brought to the wine press where they are crushed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:8)].

After the grapes were crushed to remove their juice, the pulpy mass that remained was placed in a pile (ibid.).

For the workers at the wine press.

I.e., what they have not yet harvested.

People refrain from entering there lest it be thought that they were intending to steal the grapes.

I.e., which has already been harvested.

For there is no reason that one would refrain from entering the area. Indeed, the poor come to collect the leftover grapes.

Thus even though they are not enclosed areas, since they are not places through which the public passes, they are considered as private domains.

The minimum size of a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws.

And it did not fit the criteria of height or width to be considered as a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws.

As is the law regarding a question concerning impurity that arises in a private domain.

Which is considered as a private domain [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 6:3)].

I.e., there was a human corpse or a person afflicted with tzara'at inside of it and thus anyone who enters the store would contract impurity.

I.e., since it is not known whether the person entered the store or not, the question is considered as a doubt that arose in the public domain and not as a doubt that arose in a private domain, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

I.e., the public domain encompasses both the person and the store. Hence, the situation is considered as a doubt that arose in the public domain.

Since he definitely entered the private domain, it is considered as a doubt that arose in a private domain.

When a valley is considered a private domain (Halachah 6).

There is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Taharot 6:5) whether a doubt whether one entered an impure place is considered the same as a doubt whether one touched impurity. The halachah follows the opinion that the two situations are analogous.

In his gloss to Taharot 6:1, Tifferet Yisrael explains this refers to a building that was private property, was then sold to the public, and then sold back to a private individual. In that way, he differentiates between this instance and the instance described in Halachah 6.

This law is stated in the same mishnah as the law stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 15. There the person’s status changed depending on the domain in which he was located. Similarly, the status of the articles contained in the domain changes according to that change in the ownership of that domain.

I.e., inserted his hand within the inner space of the container.

Since the container is in the public domain, the question is considered as a doubt that arose in the public domain.

Since the container is more than ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, it itself is a private domain and we follow the principle: When a doubt arises in a private domain, the person is impure.

Which does not contract impurity [Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:2; see also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 4:2)].

Which are not utensils; hence, they do not contract impurity. Hence, since the loaf was wrapped in these substances, it was unlikely to have contracted impurity.

Who was not known to be pure with regard to terumah.

Since it is being carried by a person, it is as if it was in a private domain. Hence, even though it is likely to be pure, it is considered impure because of the doubt (Kessef Mishneh). Rav Yosef Corcus explains that this is referring to an instance where a person was certain that he inserted his hand into the container, but was uncertain whether or not he touched the impurity. Thus this situation is analogous to the one described in the previous clause and those described in the following halachah.

Thus it could be considered as a private domain.

In both clauses of this halachah, the Rambam follows the same logic as in the first clause of the previous halachah. If the question is whether or not he touched the place where the impurity was located, he is pure, because he is located in the public domain. If it is certain that he inserted his hand into that place and the question is whether or not he touched the impurity, he is impure.