Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:3 which explains that to impart impurity, the source of impurity must enter the receptacle’s inner space.

Holy Scriptures (Parah 10:3).

Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version.

The situation described by the Rambam invites consideration of an oft discussed Rabbinic question: Can the prohibition of an object by Rabbinic decree affect its status vis-á-vis Scriptural Law? To explain: The simple way of interpreting this law is that implicit in the Sages’ decree that such an object would become impure according to Rabbinic Law is that the ashes of the red heifer should not be placed upon it.
There is, however, an alternative. It could be said that since the Sages deemed such an object as impure, the ashes may not be placed there according to Scriptural Law, for in the context of their present halachic status, they cannot be considered as “a pure place.”

E. g., a house containing a corpse or the like or one where there is a blemish of tzara'at.

Since it is within the inner space of the house, it contracts impurity.

For then the impurity rises through the aperture, as stated in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 16:1.

Which never contracts ritual impurity (ibid. 6:2). Since the container is not susceptible to ritual impurity, it intervenes in the face of it.

The Kessef Mishneh cites Rav Yosef Corcus who clarifies that this is speaking about an instance in which the container is not hanging within the house. In such a case, the fact that the ashes are in a pure container protects them. When, however, the container is hanging into the house, even if it is made of stone, the ashes contract impurity, because they are not in “a pure place.”

Generally, objects in a container that is sealed close remain pure even though they are placed in a shelter where a corpse is located (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 21:1). In this instance, an exception is made, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

The water may later be sanctified and the container later used for the ashes of the red heifer even though they were once in an impure house. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:5), the Rambam explains that the rationale is that the Torah required “a pure place” only for the ashes of the red heifer — or sanctified water, because it came in contact with those ashes. Other substances — even when they will be used in this purification process - are not bound by this stringency.

As evident from Chapter 13, Halachah 10, standing on the oven does not render the person impure.

Even if it would be considered as pure in other contexts, since it was not purified for the sake of this purification process, it is not considered as a pure place in that context. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:4).

In all the instances mentioned by the Rambam, though in actual fact, the ashes were not above the oven, since it was necessary for their support, they are considered as in its space.

Because of the rationale mentioned in the notes to the first clause of the previous halachah.

Passing over an impure entity does not cause it to be considered as being in an impure place.

More particularly, something placed in the categories of mishkav or moshav.

The impurity contracted by the other receptacle is not conveyed back to the one containing the sacrificial food.

Even though it was pure and containing sacrificial food.

Chapter 13, Halachot 6, 10.

Since the receptacles are placed on the ground and the person did not carry the sanctified water directly, the receptacle containing the sacrificial food does not become impure [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:6)].

A person who purified himself for this process.

For carrying sanctified water causes anyone who is not pure with regard to this purification process to become impure (ibid.; Chapter 15, Halachah 1). By touching the receptacle containing the sacrificial food, the person entered the above category and that caused him to contract impurity. He then conveyed this impurity to the sacrificial food. The Ra’avad offers a slightly different interpretation.

Hence he does not become impure due to carrying that water.

He is then deemed impure with regard to this purification process.

Because once he is deemed impure, carrying that receptacle is sufficient to impart impurity to the water, even if he did not touch it.

Chapter 13, Halachah 7.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTwn’ah 14:1.

I.e., the food is not considered as pure, nor is it considered as impure. Instead, it is left until it contracts definite impurity. See Ibid. 13:13.

The rationale is that, because of the doubt that arose, the status of the article in question has been downgraded and it will never be considered as acceptable again. With regard to terwnah, since it is food and it is forbidden to destroy it unnecessarily, it cannot be disposed of or destroyed unless it is known that it is definitely impure. Hence, we wait for such a situation to occur. There is, however, no such restriction regarding the water or the ashes for this process. Hence, once their status is downgraded, they are discarded.

Ordinary food and utensils that were kept in a state of ritual purity.

I.e., they are not considered as impure, nor as pure, but left until they incur definite impurity. They are not disposed of immediately like the ashes or the water used for the purification process, because they are articles of value and should not be destroyed without cause [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 11:2)].

The concept of impurity is not relevant to them at all (ibid.).

Although the Rambam appears to be referring to an instance where the fig fell unintentionally, without the owner desiring this, this same law would apply if he was happy with it having fallen.

The minimum measure for foods to impart impurity (Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 4:1).

At the hand of heaven.

I.e., the person contracted impurity because he touched the sanctified water (that was on the fig) for a purpose other than sprinkling (as will be stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1). He is then liable for death at the hand of heaven for partaking of terumah while impure, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 7:1.
Our translation follows the version of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh
Torah and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 11 :3). The standard printed texts states “because he partook of impure terumah.” We favor our version, because, as stated in Hilchot Terumah, op. cit., an impure person who partakes of impure terumah is not liable for death.
The commentaries have noted that, based on that ruling, the person eating the fig should not be liable, because the fig contracts impurity. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the impurity the fig contracts is merely a Rabbinic stringency and the designation of something as impure due to a Rabbinic stringency does not have the power to free the person from liability according to Scriptural Law.

The person partaking of the terumah is still liable for death, because he becomes impure and then partakes of terumah while impure.

If, however, he touches it for the purpose of sprinkling the water, his status does not change (Tosefta, Parah 8:6).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:2), the Rambam. explains that the expression: “he shall launder his garments” to mean that he conveys impurity to any garment he touches, whether he is wearing it or not.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 108) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 399) include the concept that the sanctified water imparts impurity and restores purity as one commandment in the reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. In his gloss to the reckoning of the mitzvot at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah, the Ra’avad questions this conclusion, asking why they are not considered as two mitzvot. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since. it is the same entity, the sanctified water, that conveys both purity and impurity, it is proper to consider the two as one mitzvah, since it is the same entity that brings about both purity and impurity. Significantly, the Ram. ban does not include this in his reckoning of the 613 mitzvot.

Since a human being contracts ritual impurity only from a primary source of impurity, the fact that the sanctified water imparts impurity to humans indicates that it is given that status.

I.e., even if it is carried indirectly and the person carrying it does not touch it.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Keilim 1:2 (particularly as interpreted by the Rambam) appears to imply that a person who merely touches sanctified water does not contract impurity, only one who carries it. He cites Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 6:13 which states: “[A measure of] sanctified water sufficient to sprinkle resembles an animal corpse... which imparts impurity to garments only when one carries it [and not when one touches it]. Nevertheless, one who touches [this water] imparts impurity to his garments... because it is as if he carries it. For it is impossible to touch water without moving it and we have already explained that moving is equivalent to carrying.”

Once he separates himself from the source of impurity, however, he does not impart impurity to garments he touches afterwards, for garments and other keilim contract impurity only from a primary source of impurity.

I.e., immerse them in a mikveh, because they contracted impurity.

I.e., the purification of a person who contracted impurity due to contact with a human corpse.

I.e., the person or k’li that was impure and now is in the process of being purified.

E. g., on an animal or on a stone k’li.

Chapter 10, Halachah 9.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 8.

See ibid.:12.

See the above mentioned chapter for other examples.

According to Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, since the water was disqualified and is no longer considered as sanctified water, the person remains pure. For that reason, this stringency was imposed only with regard to terumah. Ha person who was considered pure with regard to ordinary food touches such water, his status does not change (Kessef Mishneh).

The rationale for the leniency is that since the sanctified water does not impart impurity to such a person when it is acceptable, our Sages did not impose any stringency on it when disqualified [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:8)].

His entire body contracts impurity. This is a stringency that applies because of the severity with which this sanctified water is treated.

Generally, when a person touches impure water, only his hands become impure. In this instance, because of the severity of the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer, the impurity spreads throughout his entire body. See Chapter 13, Halachah 10.

This does not contradict the conclusion of the Kessel Mishneh in his gloss to that halachah. He maintains that when a person who purified himself for this purification process touches impure water, his entire body contracts impurity. In this instance, however, the sanctified water did not actually become impure. Instead, our Sages considered them impure as a stringency. They did not enforce that stringency to the extent that they considered the entire body of a person who touched that water as having contracted impurity.

The addition of the other liquids disqualifies the water for use in the purification process (Chapter 9, Halachah 8). Nevertheless, since the basis is water that has been sanctified, it still can impart ritual impurity.

As sanctified water does. There are commentaries who maintain that only a person who is pure for terumah contracts impurity from such a mixture. By contrast, such a mixture does not impart impurity to a person who has purified himself for this purification process, as may be inferred from Halachah 2.

As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, since it is impossible to touch water without moving it, it can be assumed that touching the mixture also imparts impurity.
Rav Yosef Corcus questions why this water is different from the situation described in Halachah 2 which speaks of impurity imparted when ordinary water is mixed with sanctified water. He explains that it is possible to make a distinction between touching, as mentioned there, and carrying, as mentioned here. Here one is definitely carrying sanctified water, even though it is mixed with other water. He concludes, however, that he is not satisfied with this resolution.

Because it is impossible to determine that there is not a majority of acceptable water.

The Rambam mentions sanctifying water, because in and of itself, the ashes do not impart ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 4.

As stated in Parah 9:7, such a mixture should not be used to sanctify water.

I.e., both when touched and when carried, as stated in Halachah 1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 9:9), the Rambam writes that such water conveys ritual impurity only to one who is pure to terumah, for were the water acceptable, it would impart impurity to him according to Scriptural Law. Therefore, the Rabbis established such a safeguard.

These are the same laws that apply to sanctified water that was disqualified (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., it is no longer considered a significant entity and therefore it does not impart impurity.

Here the term chataat, translated as “sin-offering,” refers to the red-heifer. The implication of the verse is that everything connected with the red heifer retains its distinction at all times.

And thus it has not necessarily been digested and/or excreted (see Hilchot Tum’at Meit 20:4).

On this verse, the Sifri comments: “This question was raised before 39 elders in the vineyard in Yavneh and they ruled that its meat was pure.”

Which is forbidden to a person who is impure.

I.e., he is not required to bring an adjustable guilt-offering for inadvertently entering the Temple while impure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:5), the Rambam explains that since the window is used by the public, the situation resembles a doubt concerning impurity that arises in the public domain concerning which we rule leniently, as stated in Taharot 4:5.

An offering that varies depending on the financial capacity of the person seeking atonement. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4, 10:1, 5.

Since the water is being sprinkled from a private source, there is no accepted assumption regarding its status and the person should have investigated the matter more thoroughly. This situation resembles a doubt concerning impurity that arises in a private domain concerning which we rule stringently [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

I.e., it was taken for the sake of eating (see Chapter 1 1, Halachah 7). Such a hyssop is pure with regard to other contexts. Were the impurity of the hyssop to be more than a Rabbinic stringency, the water would be impure, not merely disqualified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:7)].

Since the hyssop is of the size sufficient to impart impurity (see Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 4:1), dipping it into the water imparts impurity to it.

For the hyssop is not of the size sufficient to impart impurity.

For the hyssop was not fit to be used for this process. This is derived from Numbers 19:19 which states: “And one who is pure shall sprinkle.” Implied is that this refers not only to the person who performs the sprinkling, but also to the hyssop with which he sprinkles.

I.e., as explained in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, with regard to other contexts, e.g., partaking of terumah and/or sacrificial foods, there is a difference regarding whether a person or an object is a primary, secondary, and tertiary derivative of impurity. With regard to this purification process, no such gradation exists and even the 100th person or article touched contracts impurity.

Since he is lifting up the k’li that is being purified upon which there is sanctified water, one might think that he contracted ritual impurity, because he carried the water. Nevertheless, since the water had already been used for its mitzvah, the person remains pure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 12:6)].

In Halachah 1.

An affliction whose external symptoms bear some resemblance to leprosy and hence, it is often mistranslated as such. Nevertheless, as the Rambam writes in Chapter 16, Halachah 10, unlike leprosy, the afflictions of tzara'at are not the result of a physical condition, but are the manifestation of spiritual blemishes.

I.e., the thin membrane surrounding the egg-white. It does not have to be as white as the egg-white itself or its shell.

With regard to the translation of the term bohak, R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (Leviticus 13:39) writes: “The meaning of this term was known to our Sages; there is no similar term found in Scripture.”

See Numbers 12:1 which speaks of Miriam being “afflicted with tzara’at like snow.”

The root of the term is the word bahir which means “clear” or “radiant.”

I.e., not the natural state of the wool, but after it has been washed [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 1:1)].

I.e., when it has not yet been dirtied (ibid.).

The Ra’avad in his gloss to Halachah 6 and R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (commentary to Leviticus 13:2) state that the term si’ait relates to the concept of burning. Ramban cites Sh’vuot 6b which states that the term refers to something upraised.

As the Rambam mentions in the conclusion of this halachah, the term sapachat means an “addition” or “subsidiary.” Sh’vuot 6b mentions a similar use of the root in I Samuel 2:36 and Ibn Ezra cites a parallel in Isaiah 14:1.

I.e., the term sapachat implies a subsidiary category and can refer to a subsidiary of baheret or of si’ait.

Nega’im 1:1; Sh’vuot 1:1.

I.e., if a baheret blemish and a si’ait blemish are contiguous, they are not considered as two separate blemishes, but as a single entity, regardless of whether this leads to a more lenient ruling or a more stringent one.
The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, citing Sh’vuot 6a which states: “Should [a blemish that resembles] the lime of the Temple be combined with one that is si’aif? They are not of the same type.” Apparently, the Ra’avad concludes, only a primary category and its derivative can be combined.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that although Nega’im 1 :3 appears to imply that all four types of blemishes can be combined, Rabbenu Shimshon interprets that mishnah according to the Ra’avad’s conception: that only a primary category and its derivative can be combined. Nevertheless, he cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh’vuot 1:1) which understands the mishnah as the Rambam does. He does, however, cite a difficulty in the Rambam’s understanding, for the Babylonian Talmud (Sh’vuot, loc. cit.) speaks of a difference of a difference of opinion between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages and the Rambam appears to incorporate elements of both perspectives.

If the person’s entire body is covered with tzara’at—in which instance, he is considered pure (Chapter 7, Halachah 2)—that ruling is given even when the blemish is made up of several different hues of white.

To be combined to produce the minimum measure of a blemish.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 2, which states that the determination of the status of a tzara'at blemish is dependent on a priest. While it's true that a priest can depend on a sage for the determination and merely make the pronouncement himself, if he desires to rely on his own determination, he must study until he can recognize the different shades. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 1, and notes.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 101) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 169) include the commandment to rule regarding the different shades of tzara’at as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Sifra explains that although this statement is made only with regard to baheret, since the prooftext states “It is tzara’at,” we can conclude that it applies to all other shades of tzara’at [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 1:2)].

The term means “mixed,” in Aramaic; see the Targum of Yonason ben Uziel to Job 25:2.

The Ra’avad follows a different understanding of Sh’vuot 6b in which the levels of petuch are mentioned in the reverse order with the petuch of baheret having only two drops of blood. The Kessef Mishneh mentions the rationale for the Rambam’s view: Since baheret is the brightest white, the redness will not be apparent unless it is significant.

See the parallel in Chapter 14, Halachah 3.

This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of Kiryat Sefer who maintains that certainly a blemish that can be felt physically imparts impurity. The Rambam is emphasizing that even when that is not so, as long as the blemish appears to penetrate beneath the surface of the skin, it imparts impurity. For according to the Rambam, it makes no difference at all whether a blemish can be felt physically or not. There are others, however, who cite Bechorot 41a as indicating that if the blemish can be felt physically, it does not impart impurity.

I.e., when one looks at light and a shadow, the light appears to be further removed than the shadow (Siftei Chachamim to Leviticus 13:3).

The Rit’avad notes that the term si’ait has the connotation “upraised.” Hence, he maintains that although the qualification stated by the Rambam is mentioned in Leviticus 13:3, it is referring only to a baheret. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s position.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

A gris is half a bean. Cilik is a place where beans grow very large [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1 7:1 12)]. Most contemporary experts consider this to be the size of an American dime.

Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambarn’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 5:8) states that the natural pattern of growth for these beans tends to squareness.

Note the following halachah which emphasizes that the intent is not the total area. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 6:1), the Rambam emphasizes that the intent is not that blemish must be square, but that it must be large enough to encompass a square of this size.

I.e., part of the Oral Tradition, without any explicit source in the Written Law.

Leviticus 13:3-12. These signs are discussed in detail in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 respectively.

More specifically 13 days, as stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 9. The Torah does not mention a longer process of examination than this.

I.e., it is not considered as a new baheret which requires examination again.

I.e., the intensity of its whiteness was reduced.

I.e., the shade of whiteness of the blemish increased or decreased, but not its size.

Which appears to imply that the darkening of the blemish is sufficient to have the person declared as pure. The Rambam felt it necessary to emphasize this point, because others (see Rashi’s commentary to the verse) understood the verse differently.