Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 4:10). There the Rambam states that we are speaking about a wooden or earthenware cylinder.

Because it was filled through a person’s conscious effort.

The fact that he left the water there for such an extended time indicates that he had no desire for it and intended to let the water to dry up (Machshirin 4:10).
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that once the water has been considered as having been uprooted willingly, it cannot be taken out of that category. Instead, he interprets Machshirin, op. cit. (the Rambam’s source) as referring to water on the outside of the cylinder.

I.e., one of the seven liquids that make food susceptible to impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 4:11)].

Even though he did not pour the rainwater over the wood, the fact that he intended for the rain to descend upon it is sufficient for the exposure to the rainwater to be considered as willful.

Since he was happy that his feet (or his animal’s feet) were washed, it is as if he intentionally poured water over them.

Because to make food susceptible to ritual impurity, the person must have uprooted the water intentionally or, at least, been happy that it was uprooted. This entire chapter revolves around determining which activities are considered as willfully uprooting water and which are not.
As explained in Kiddushin 59b, when stating how produce becomes susceptible to ritual impurity, Leviticus 11:38 uses the wording ki yutan mayim..., “When water was placed on seeds,” employing a passive form. Although the pronunciation implies that a person’s intent is not significant, the way the term is written in the Torah allows for the reading ki yitain, “when a person will place water,” Our Sages explain, when ki yutan resembles ki yitain, i.e., when a person is satisfied that his produce was exposed to water even if he did not perform an activity to do so, it becomes susceptible to impurity.

A plow or the like [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 3:8)].

Which is hot and dry.

I.e., the water will cause the wood to swell and thus cause its cracks to close.

Because it is obvious that if one would submerge these implements in water, water would ascend with them when they are pulled out.

Since there is no way an animal can drink without getting its mouth wet, desiring that it drink is equivalent to desiring that water become uprooted with its mouth.

Because it is possible for an animal to drink without getting its feet wet. Therefore, desiring that it drink is not equivalent to desiring that its feet to get wet.

As in Halachah 2.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 3:8) which explained that the mishnah is referring to a sickness that affects the feet of an animal that is required to walk too much. This translation follows the version in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.

At that time, the long hours of threshing can also cause the animal’s feet to be injured (ibid.).

Because at such times, it is obvious that soaking the animal’s feet in water will be beneficial for it and, hence, desired by its owners. They need not have a specific intent that this take place.

Since they are not intellectually developed, their intent is not halachically significant.

This is a principle applying not only within the context of the laws of ritual impurity, but in many other areas of Torah law.

For his immersion to be effective, the water must touch his body. Hence, his intent is that the water be uprooted.

He crosses a river or stream and enters the water only because he desires to reach the other side.

Even though he willfully entered the river, since he did not desire to get wet, it is not considered as if he intentionally uprooted the water.

As obvious from the previous halachah, although the initial water would be considered as having been uprooted willfully, the second water is not. It is considered as if the second water washed away all of the initial water.

The translation of this term is taken from the context. Some texts use the term (Hebrew) whose root means “dam” and thus the meaning could be a pool resulting from a dam. Alternatively it can be interpreted as meaning “when he was drunk,” i.e., and not aware of his actions. The authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, however, use the term (Hebrew) which can be interpreted as meaning “to break him,” i.e., to harm the person or his animal.

This is speaking about an instance where the second person pushed the first person or his animal into the water with a malicious intent, against the will of the first. The second water is considered to have washed away the first water. And the second water is not considered to have been uprooted willfully, because the person did not desire to be pushed into the water.

I.e., the two were willfully cavorting near the water.

Since they were willfully playing together, the person who was pushed into the water should have considered that possibility. Hence it is considered as if he desired that this take place and his being pushed into the water is not considered against his will [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:1)].

Rainwater that descends upon a person’s body is not considered to have been uprooted willfully.

For he does not intentionally uproot that water.

For he did desire to swim and thus his body would certainly become wet.

The literal meaning of the term used by the Rambam (quoted from Machshirin 5:2) is "a bird." In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that youths would frequently make such spouts out of reeds.

For the person's intent is to squirt the water out and not to squirt it on any particular individual or object. Similarly, the water remaining in the spout is not considered as uprooted willfully, because the person does not desire that it remain there (ibid.). Rav Yosef Corcus emphasizes that this is speaking about an instance where the spout remains in the water. Were it to be taken out of the water, the water it contains and which squirts forth would have been considered removed willfully.

For undoubtedly his hand or the measuring stick will come in contact with water in this activity.

It is possible for him to measure the width of the opening of the cistern without getting his hand or the measure stick wet. Hence, even if they do become wet, this is not considered as a willful act.

Since he has no desire for the water per se and it is not inevitable that he will come in contact with it, the water is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

For in this instance, he is certain that his hand will become wet.

For he has no intent or purpose in uprooting that water, nor is he certain that there is water there.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:5), the Rambam states that this is speaking about a stone that is resting in the water, but projecting above it.

Since the stone is resting on the ground in the cistern, even the water on its upper surface is not considered to have been uprooted from the ground. As the Ra’avad notes, the Rambam altered the wording of the mishnah to fit the context.

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

Indeed, that is the reason for his act (ibid.

On the contrary, then his intent is to wash the hide. Obviously, it will remain wet.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:7), the Rambam explains that this refers to a place in the middle of a ship where the water that leaks in from the sides of the ship is left to collect and from there, it is removed from the ship.

For the person is not interested in collecting this water at all.

Which are used to catch fish or other animals (ibid.).

Even though he purposely placed them in the water, he has no desire for the water that ascends upon them.

Because then the person is intentionally casting the water off.

I.e., coverings placed on a table after it was set with food (ibid.:8). The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of the term used by the Rambam (and his Mishnaic source), but there is no conceptual difference between his view and that of the Rambam.

A covering placed on bricks before they were hardened by being fired in a kiln. The covering prevents the rain for damaging them (ibid.).

Because he did not desire that water collect on them.

When a ship is left on dry land for an extended period of time, it dries out and cracks appear in its walls. Therefore, from time to time, it is desirable to take it out to the water so that its walls will absorb water, swell, and close those cracks (ibid.:7).

When metal that has been exposed to fire is suddenly placed in water, it contracts and hardens (ibid.).

Instead of letting it bum out entirely and turn to ash.

For one’s intent is to expose the substances themselves to the water.

In this instance, the person has no desire that there be water on the substances themselves, merely, that it quench the fire. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s ruling follows the Tosefta (Machshirin 2:6), but appears to run contrary to the ruling of the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:7), although generally, the Mishnah is favored over the Tosefta. The Kessef Mishneh explains, however, that it is not necessary to see the sources as having divergent views. Instead, the Tosefta can be interpreted as an explanation of the mishnah: When is one liable for taking out a firebrand to quench its flame? When one intends to make it into a coal.

The intent is to lift the implement or the chicken out of the cistern.

For he has no desire that the hook or the basket become wet.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 1:5), the Rambam interprets this as referring to an instance where the cress were still connected to the ground or water fell upon them against the owner’s will.

Because he willfully desired to remove the liquid from the vegetable or his hair.

And later drips onto food.

Hence, it cannot be said that the fact that they moved from one portion of the vegetable or his hair to another causes them to be considered as having been uprooted willfully, as mentioned in the following halachah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam emphasizes that although the mishnah states this ruling in the name of Rabbi Yossi, it is not a minority view, but rather it follows the opinion of the School of Hillel.

If detached from the ground.

Since he desires to have the water move off the vegetable, with regard to the vegetable itself, the movement of the water from one portion of the vegetable to the other is considered as a willful action and thus makes the vegetable susceptible to ritual impurity.

Since he acted to remove the water with all his power, he indicated that he did not desire the water on it at all.

In his gloss to Machshirin 1:2, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura explains that this refers to an instance where a raven had brought the carcass of a crawling animal or a portion of the carcass of an animal into the tree.

Because his intent is not for the liquids to be removed from the tree.

Hence if the liquids fall on food in the tree or fall off later onto food, they do not make it susceptible to impurity.

Since that intent was not satisfied, the fact that they moved from place to place in the tree is of no significance.

If the liquids later fall on other produce that was detached, they do not cause that produce to become susceptible to impurity.

For the fact that they were uprooted intentionally the first time is not significant. Since they fell on produce that was attached to the ground, it is how they are uprooted the second time that determines their status.
The Ra’avad states that the Rambam should have mentioned that if the produce was detached from the ground while the water was still on it, it does become susceptible to impurity. The Kessef Mishneh cites rulings that support the Ra’avad’s understanding.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 1:3). As stated there, the ruling that follows applies even if one shook the tree with the intent to remove the water from the tree.

Since they came to rest on a plant or a portion of a plant that was still connected to the ground, the fact that initially they were uprooted willfully is of no consequence. The Ra’avad offers a different understanding of the mishnah, while the Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s conception. The Kessef Mishneh asks, however: Why is it necessary that the water had to fall from one tree or one branch to another? Since the produce on which the water fell was still attached to the ground, seemingly, the same ruling would apply even if the water fell directly from the first tree or branch to it.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is possible to say that the Rambam’s point is that since the water fell from one tree or branch to another, even if it ultimately falls on the produce below the tree, it is not considered as if it fell there willfully. Hence, even if that produce was detached from the ground while wet, it does not become susceptible to ritual impurity.
[It must be emphasized that this explanation follows the revised version of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (see Rav Kapach’s translation). The original version (preserved in the standard published text) follows a different understanding.]

Hilchot Terumot 11:13.

I.e., the amount of grape juice present is substantial enough for the mixture to be considered like grape juice and therefore permitted only to priests. From the third batch on, however, the amount of grape juice is not that substantial. Hence, even if the mixture has the flavor of wine, it may be drunk by a non-priest.

I.e., to be sold and the money used for improvements for the Temple.

This is an extra stringency due to the importance attached to consecrated substances. See Hilchot Meilah 5:12.

I.e., for wine libations to be produced from them.

Even a fifth or sixth batch.

If, however, the fruit was taken from an unlearned person, different laws apply. Generally, the second tithe is taken from such fruit as a safeguard, because not all unlearned people separate the second tithe. In such an instance, however, a mixture made with the dregs of such grapes is permitted entirely.

Which must be eaten in a state of purity in Jerusalem.

I.e., forbidden to be eaten like ordinary produce. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:12.

I.e., ordinarily if water became mixed with wine dregs without man's intent, after the first mixture, it would no longer be considered desirable as water, and hence would not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity. If, however, the dregs came from grapes that were from terumah, the second tithe, or which were consecrated, the later mixtures of water can also make foods susceptible to impurity. The rationale is that since the mixture is considered significant with regard to the Torah's prohibitions, it is also significant in this context.

I.e., without human effort.

If, however, a human drank the mixture, it would be considered as water, regardless of how many mixtures there were.

The water that is ultimately left by the animal is subject to the ground rules mentioned above.

I.e., by having the water scatter among all the fruits, it would dry faster [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:3)].

Because the owner did not want the produce to become wet.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:1)].

For his intent was not that it become moist. Even though the dew will descend upon them at night, it is not considered as if. by bringing the produce to the roof, he intentionally had the produce exposed to moisture, as stated in the following halachah.

All of these three are not held responsible for their actions.

Thus if they poured water on the produce, it would become susceptible to impurity (ibid.).

The commentaries emphasize that the Rambam mentions only a minor in this clause. Implied is that even when the intent of a deafmute or an intellectually or emotionally compromised person is discernible, his actions are not significant.

For the reason the produce is being turned over is so that the other side also be exposed to the dew.

This is a general principle in Torah Law (Chulin 13a, et al).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:2). Nevertheless, in Chapter 11, Halachah 13, this term is interpreted differently.

As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 3:5), when wheat is soaked in water, the flour it produces is whiter.

For, as explained in the notes to Chapter 13, Halachah 2, it is not necessary for a person to pour water over produce for it to become susceptible to impurity. It is sufficient that he be happy that the produce was exposed to liquids.

For this will wash the olives and prepare them for pressing.

And will impart impurity to other produce with which it comes into contact.

As seeds and particularly grain placed near water is wont to do [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 3:1)].

Since the owner is happy that the seeds will absorb the liquids and appear fuller, it is considered as if this was an intentional action (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., grains as stated in the previous halachah.

For an earthenware container is porous and the liquid can be absorbed through its walls.

The other four of the seven liquids mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, are heavier and do not pass through the walls of utensils [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:2)].

Ordinarily, a loaf of bread becomes susceptible to impurity, because the dough is made with water. This is referring to an instance were the dough was made with fruit juice [Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 3:1)].

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this is referring to an instance where the loaf was not seen until afterwards. If drops of liquid were visible on it at the time it was placed on the jug, the loaf becomes susceptible to impurity.

The absorption of the wine makes it susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity to it simultaneously.

To prevent dust from rising.

I.e., the moisture from the floor of the house itself.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:4), the Rambam states that this refers to an earthenware kneading trough that has liquid absorbed in its walls. The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of that source.

There is always a certain amount of moisture in sand. Since the person’s intent was that the produce become moist, it becomes susceptible to impurity.

If, however, he intended that they come in contact with water, they do become susceptible to impurity.

Even though the owner would be happy initially, nevertheless, ultimately, the presence of water in a grainheap is undesirable. Hence, the kernels are not considered susceptible to impurity.

For their susceptibility to impurity and their contraction of impurity occur simultaneously.

And not susceptible to impurity.

For his intent was to shake the water off the vegetables entirely.
This ruling follows the thinking of the School of Hillel, who differentiate between a bunch of vegetables and one vegetable (see Chapter 13, Halachah 14). With regard to one vegetable, the fact that water moved from one portion to another is considered a willful action, but with regard to several vegetables, the fact that water moved from one to the other is not considered as willful.

I.e., sacks of produce that fell into the water against the will of their owner (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Machshirin 1:4).

Since he knew that the water from the upper sacks would drip onto the lower ones, it is considered as if he intentionally poured the water over the lower sacks.
Rav Kappach maintains that this ruling parallels the version of the manuscripts of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 1:4). This, however, runs contrary to the version in the standard printed text. See the gloss of the Tosafot Yom Tov to Machshirin, loc. cit., which attempts to reconcile the version in the standard text with the ruling here.

In bis Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 1:6), the Rambam explains that before lentils or other legumes are cooked, it is common practice to blow on them. If they collect moisture, it is known that they are porous and will cook quickly.

For they were willfully exposed to that moisture.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 2.

As Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura explains, when a person eats sesame seeds, he generally places them in the palm of one hand, licks a finger of the second hand, places the moist finger in the seeds and eats them. Thus he will have intentionally exposed the sesame seeds to moisture.

Since the person will not appreciate having the bread wet, it is not considered as if it willfully became wet.

Whose moisture already began to flow.

For the pit cannot be sucked without becoming moist.

Since he did not desire that the pit come into contact with liquids at all.

Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 1:2).

For they were generally considered as animal fodder.

I.e., willfully exposing them to water.

Because of the water on them at that time.

As stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

A se’ah is 8.3 liter in modern measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according to Chazon Ish. When calculating the 40 se’ah that comprise a kosher mikveh, it is customary to follow a more stringent view.
The Rambam mentions less than 40 se’ah of water, because if the pit contains 40 se’ah of water, it is considered as an acceptable mikveh and does not contract impurity, nor, needless to say, impart impurity.
The Mishnah (Mikvaot 1:1) considers such bodies of water as the lowest of six categories to which the laws of ritual purity apply.

I.e., a greater measure of leniency applies.

Water that was drawn using a container and then used by humans to fill a pool. Such water is unacceptable for use in a kosher mikveh. Nevertheless, even though it was once in a container, in this context, it is given advantages over water that is presently in a container.

Even though the impure person intended to enter the water, since he did not desire to get wet, it is considered that he came in contact with the water against his will. See Chapter 13, Halachah 5. This rationale resolves the question raised by the Ra’avad.

For these are all willful actions.

For, as stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTuma’ah 8:10-11, a person who drinks impure liquids contracts impurity.

Our translation follows the version in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. A slight printing error appears to have crept into the standard published text.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s statements, maintaining that since the water was uprooted from its original place, it does not matter whether it was uprooted willfully or not. As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 3, the Rambam does not follow that understanding and maintains that unless liquids were uprooted from their original place willfully, they do not make food susceptible to impurity.

For the original water is considered as batel, negligible, in comparison to the new water that collected.

We assume that a majority of the water there at this time is rainwater. Moreover, we do not suspect that the rainwater itself contracted impurity, for during the rainy season, it is not likely that passersby will drink from water collected on the ground.

Since these bodies of water contain less than 40 se’ah, they are susceptible to impurity and become impure because of contact with an impure person or implement.

Because until the roads dry out, it was unlikely that people would undertake longer journeys. However, from the time the roads dry out until the next rainy season, these collections of water are impure.

For we assume that people would choose more accessible sources of water.

E. g., a horse or a donkey on which a person could have ridden (Kessef Mishneh).

For that would indicate that a person did in fact descend to the pit.

A goat or a lamb.

Without being led there or accompanied by a human.

Because the majority of the water is likely to be rain water.

Which is assumed to be impure (Chapter 2, Halachah 26).

I.e., even during the rainy season, it is possible that the majority of the water in the marketplace comes from human use.

As mentioned in the following halachah, the laws applying to other liquids are more stringent than those applying to water. Hence it is important to determine whether the mixture is categorized as water or not.

In contrast to water that contracts and imparts impurity only through willful actions.

When the oil congeals, one might think that it is a distinct entity in its own right, separate from the water.

They can contract impurity and then impart that impurity to the water.

I.e., whether they are collected on the earth or in containers, the laws stated in Halachah 1 with regard to water in a container apply to them.

For these reasons, Mikveot 1:6 places them in a second category, distinct from the collected water mentioned previously. See Hilchot Mikveot 9:2 for more details regarding the laws that apply to them.

I.e., his hands alone are impure, as stated in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:8. Were the person himself to be impure, he would be forbidden to partake of the terumah.

It is forbidden to impart impurity to terumah. Nevertheless, since the figs after being harvested had not come in contact with liquids, they did not yet become susceptible to impurity.

A pebble became mixed with the figs he was eating and he accidentally inserted it into his mouth.

This addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:10).

For saliva is a derivative of water and equivalent to it.

By turning over his finger, he will have moved the saliva and thus uprooted it from its place. The saliva would then impart impurity to the fig because, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 5, when a food comes in contact with impure liquids, it makes the food susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity at the same time.

For like the water, this saliva is in its natural place.

Halachah 1 above.

And not to move the saliva. Hence, even though he did move it, it is not considered as if he did so willfully.

A Roman copper coin used in the Talmudic era, of relatively low value, worth one sixth of a dinar (Hilchot Arachin 4:3).

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:10), putting the coin in his mouth will cause the person to salivate and thus quench his thirst somewhat.

As a result of an intentional act.

According to the Rambam’s understanding, this law applies even if the woman is ritually pure. The Ra’avad has a different understanding of Keilim 8:11, the Rambam’s source.

In truth, this law would apply to ordinary food as well. The Rambam mentions terumah only because of the parallel to the previous halachah.

I.e., an oven that was impure because of contact with a human corpse.

This is speaking about an instance where she held her finger inside the oven after it began to bleed or after she sucked it. The blood on her finger and her hand itself contracted impurity from being inside the oven's inner space and then imparted that impurity to the saliva and the food in her mouth [in a way parallel to that explained in the previous halachah; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:11)]. The person himself does not become impure, because earthenware containers and impure liquids do not impart impurity to humans.